It confirms Labour\u2019s drift from being a policy-driven movement into a machine designed simply to win office.<\/p>\n
As a tactic, having little policy to be attacked and no bottom lines may be clever politics.<\/p>\n
But it comes at a price, not just for Labour, but for New Zealand.<\/p>\n
National has never pretended to be anything more than a party of managerial competence.<\/p>\n
Labour, by contrast, has historically been a party of ideas and reform.<\/p>\n
The last Labour Government was the exception. It was elected on a wave of Jacinda-mania, an emotion, not a programme. In six years, is there a single reform that has endured?<\/p>\n
This column warned Labour it would come to regret skipping the painful but necessary process of analysing its failure in government.<\/p>\n
A proper review would have revealed that Labour\u2019s failure stemmed from not doing, when in Opposition, the intellectually challenging task of policy development.<\/p>\n
That mistake is now being repeated. Labour is trying to win office without first doing the work of being ready to govern.<\/p>\n
Labour today has no practical solutions for the problems that will define the next decade: superannuation, health, productivity, education and an economy that cannot afford its promises.<\/p>\n
A basic truth of MMP is that forming a government is a two-step process. First there is the election. Then there are the coalition negotiations.<\/p>\n
I used to be Labour\u2019s negotiator, from Treaty claims to doing a deal with Fiji over sugar. In negotiations, the side with a plan sets the agenda.<\/p>\n
Unlike Labour, the Green Party has a plan.<\/p>\n
If the left win post-election, negotiations will centre over the Greens\u2019 programme.<\/p>\n
Policy-light may win Labour office. In Government, it hands the agenda to the Greens.<\/p>\n
What a contrast with former Prime Minister Helen Clark.<\/p>\n
Voters always knew where Clark\u2019s lines were. She never hid her contempt for the Greens, whom she regarded as \u201cquixotic\u201d.<\/p>\n
In 2002 she told this newspaper she would rather govern as a minority than enter a coalition with the Greens. She cited their opposition to growth, trade and superannuation.<\/p>\n
Today\u2019s Greens are far more extreme, not only in tone, but in substance.<\/p>\n
Former Green Party leaders Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald would never have claimed \u201cwhite cis men\u201d are responsible for violence. <\/p>\n
They would never have chanted \u201cfrom the river to the sea\u201d and then claimed they did not know it was a phrase widely understood as calling for the end of Israel.<\/p>\n
But it is the Greens\u2019 policies that are even more concerning than their rhetoric.<\/p>\n
Hipkins asks us to compare Labour\u2019s relationship with the Greens with National\u2019s relationship with New Zealand First over an India free trade agreement (FTA). Let us do that.<\/p>\n
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon campaigned on achieving an Indian FTA. I think Winston Peters\u2019 opposition is populist, but New Zealand First has not promised to tear up the treaty if it is ratified.<\/p>\n
In contrast, the Greens are campaigning to revoke mining licences granted under the fast-track regime, with no pledge to pay compensation.<\/p>\n
To do so would violate investment treaties, trigger international arbitration, and almost certainly invite trade and diplomatic retaliation.<\/p>\n
Peru cancelled mining licences and has been forced by international arbitration to pay tens of millions in compensation.<\/p>\n
Clark ruled out the Greens for their stance on genetic engineering, which she conceded was, in the scheme of things, a minor issue.<\/p>\n
Today Labour boasts about how well it works with a party that advocates policies that will destroy New Zealand\u2019s reputation as a stable country governed by the rule of law.<\/p>\n
Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson says \u201cthe Greens are a Tiriti party\u201d. Among other things, this means constitutionally recognising Papat\u016b\u0101nuku (Earth Mother). Lawyers and judges will have a field day. <\/p>\n
Then there is tax.<\/p>\n
The Greens want to use the tax system to engineer a transfer of wealth. The compounding effect of the proposed 1.5% annual tax on trust assets would devastate small business and the middle class. <\/p>\n
There were over 400,000 trusts registered as of June 30, 2022, most established for reasons other than tax. <\/p>\n
Accountants frequently advise that before starting a business, families should transfer their home into a trust.<\/p>\n
Trusts often last decades. A 1.5% annual tax over 50 years would appropriate more than half the original asset.<\/p>\n
The compounding effect of the proposed additional 2.5% wealth tax would be even greater.<\/p>\n
Migration to Australia, where there is no wealth tax, would become a stampede.<\/p>\n
A way to assess a person also works for a political party.<\/p>\n
As the saying goes: \u201cShow me your friends and I will show you your future.\u201d<\/p>\n