The $180 million venue, with its persistent losses that are underwritten by the council, is indeed a gift to column writers. It\u2019s a vast, muddy-coloured edifice with an undulating, glassy facade that bears an unfortunate resemblance to a cresting tsunami of wastewater \u2013 an easy metaphor for critics of councils\u2019 often questionable investment choices.<\/p>\n
Former National Party MP Jami-Lee Ross drove to Wellington from Auckland in one night. Photo \/ Jason Oxenham<\/p>\n
But convention centres, particularly ones with a controversial back story, are actually t\u016brangawaewae for the National Party, who have historically championed their construction. In fact, there was something vaguely National-esque (with apologies to the party\u2019s 2014 campaign) about Labour\u2019s congress: slick presentation, tight audio-visual game and exceedingly strong message discipline.<\/p>\n
In fact, on the discipline side, Labour continues to lock down its conferences to the media more than National; the latter allows media to witness some of the back-and-forth debate between members and the wider party<\/a>. Labour locks media out for all of that, allowing the press in to see set-piece speeches delivered to adoring members, and moving them on for more sensitive speeches.<\/p>\n Labour pulled out all the stops to get the media to scram from the more sensitive parts of the congress. <\/p>\n Emcee Ayesha Verrall, after asking media to leave the convention centre, looked at her notes and remarked, \u201cit says here I can conduct a musical interlude\u201d while media packed up their things and cleared off \u2013 an unexpectedly threatening remark that had its desired effect and got the press gallery to scamper off faster than a herd of duck-sized horses.<\/a> <\/p>\n Labour tends to spend a lot of its conferences talking up its illustrious past: the creation of the welfare state, the Waitangi Tribunal, KiwiSaver and whatever happened in the 1980s (of which rather less tends to be said).<\/p>\n Not so much this congress. Although new candidate Sophie Handford talked about her Jobs for Nature programme, Dame Jacinda Ardern\u2019s name wasn\u2019t mentioned much, being name-checked about as much as Michael Cullen and the Mother of all Budgets. <\/p>\n Members, understandably, feel differently. The party\u2019s Napier committee was raffling off a signed copy of Ardern\u2019s book and the Whanganui committee was raising funds with an impressive quilt commemorating Labour\u2019s history made by Barbara, a local member.<\/p>\n But at the leadership level and on the congress stage, this is very much the small-target party of Chris Hipkins.<\/p>\n Party president Jill Day opened the congress reminding members of what she thought was the party\u2019s core value, \u201cto use the power of government to improve the lives of ordinary New Zealanders\u201d. It was a statement of such modesty that it wouldn\u2019t have been entirely out of place in a modern National Party do as the Nats pivot to embrace KiwiSaver, promise a Labour-esque loan scheme for solar, and lean into threatening intervention against big businesses like banks and supermarkets.<\/p>\n As Labour moderates away from Ardernist \u201ctransformation\u201d and National gets comfortable wielding the levers of the state, what\u2019s remarkable isn\u2019t how different the parties look, but how similar.<\/p>\n It wasn\u2019t just history that was left on the cutting room floor \u2013 Labour didn\u2019t spend much time talking about its own policies: the capital gains tax, free GP visits, free prescriptions and cheaper public transport didn\u2019t get much of an airing at all. <\/p>\n Is it perhaps because the party faithful wanted something a bit more ambitious? Commentary around Labour\u2019s policy tends to remark on its unthreatening, non-transformational modesty; the stuff that\u2019s designed to go down well with Labour-National marginal voters but not so much paid-up members. <\/p>\n If that satisfies the members \u2013 if winning the next election really is more important than all of that \u2013 then we really will be dealing with a party that looks a lot more like National.<\/p>\n The National influence was explicit in the speech from finance spokeswoman Barbara Edmonds.<\/p>\n After running through all the standard stuff a finance spokesperson has to say about what they\u2019ll do, Edmonds flipped the switch and said that soon, she would show \u201chow I\u2019ll make it all add up\u201d, implicitly addressing Finance Minister Nicola Willis\u2019 attack for National a fortnight ago.<\/p>\n Edmonds said the fact the numbers didn\u2019t add up was \u201cwhat we hear from National all day long\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cAnd you know what, they\u2019re right \u2026 \u201d she added, \u201ctheir numbers don\u2019t add up\u201d.<\/p>\n Edmonds flipped Willis\u2019 script, arguing that under the coalition\u2019s economic management, \u201cthe numbers\u201d weren\u2019t adding up for many households around the country, beset by high inflation and grim employment prospects. <\/p>\n Edmonds argued the coalition was so obsessed with making its own numbers add up, they\u2019d resorted to pinching the economic security of households to bolster the public finances \u2013 robbing Tim to pay Treasury.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019ll make the numbers add up, I can assure you of that. Not just on a spreadsheet, but in every home in this country,\u201d Edmonds finished.<\/p>\n It was one of Edmonds\u2019 stronger speeches, admittedly delivered to a friendly crowd. <\/p>\n It borrowed a tactic from National itself. National\u2019s argument has for decades been that should Labour\u2019s ambitious spending plans not add up, the party is more likely to ask you for more tax than look to itself for cuts to make its spending more affordable. <\/p>\n The last Labour Government didn\u2019t help itself, implementing or trying to implement a handful of sweeping tax changes like interest deductibility, a second bright-line tax extension, a trust tax hike and KiwiSaver tax reform, without first getting an explicit electoral mandate.<\/p>\n One thing Edmonds didn\u2019t do, for all the talk of making the numbers \u201cadd up\u201d, was actually answer that question about her own plans. And if deputy leader Carmel Sepuloni\u2019s pay equity-focused speech was anything to go by, the party has no appetite to water down the policy that is at the centre of allegations that the party has a problem with its finances.<\/p>\n A few policy issues for an incoming Labour Government reared their heads.<\/p>\n Former party general secretary Chris Flatt made a plea to restore the Just Transition policy of the last Labour Government, which spent money to help sectors pivot away from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n He said New Zealand needed to ensure \u201c workers are not thrown under the bus\u201d as the economy decarbonised, a transformation that could, if poorly managed, result in widespread unemployment.<\/p>\n This is a big issue for Labour\u2019s sister parties in the UK and Australia, but it hasn\u2019t reared its head in New Zealand much \u2013 yet. The UK Labour Party has been tearing itself to shreds over an offshore oil and gas exploration policy that consciously replicates aspects of our own Ardern-era ban<\/a>.<\/p>\nRed, a Labour delegate from Mt Albert. Photo \/ Thomas Coughlan<\/p>\n
A quilt sold to raise money for Labour. Photo \/ Thomas Coughlan<\/p>\n