The political topography of New Zealand has a new shape since the general election in that the fissure dividing the governing group from the opposition group is wider and deeper than it has been for half a century.
Two broad issues characterise this gap: taxation and the role of government, and the Treaty of Waitangi. As disparate as they might appear at a glance, these two overlap in some fundamental respects.
My purpose here is to think just where our various political parties sit in relation to these issues and to each other.
In particular, what does the Labour Party do to address its unfortunate meanderings since the easing of the Covid crisis? That is not to say that Labour government contributions to social welfare, industrial relations, justice, to name only a few, have been negligible.
But they have been planted in thin soil and are easily plucked by a new government desperate to show its conservative credentials.
It is my firm belief that until the two issues I have alluded to are addressed, articulated and the ground prepared in some depth, politics and policy creation will remain superficial and incoherent.
And given the current dispositions of the six parties now in Parliament, it is only Labour that is in a position to do this, if it has the courage and tenacity required.
I hear a snort of derision.
I, too, would have honked in sympathy, but, as the electoral dust settles, it appears all the other parties have locked themselves into postures that prevent the coherent development of policy.
On the first question, the parties of the right have tied themselves to economic and fiscal policies (low taxes and small government) that simply cannot cope with the exigencies of the real world, as the Covid crisis, the global financial crisis (GFC) and the Christchurch earthquakes, et al, confirm.
There are some things you simply cannot leave to the market. The GFC was a creation of the market.
Both the smaller parties on the left have proposed a shift from income to wealth and capital taxes. As writer Max Rashbrooke has noted, this is a genie that will not go back in the bottle as political parties around the world look for ways to repair the damage done by years of austerity.
Labour revenue spokeswoman Deborah Russell has, since the election, suggested a capital gains tax (CGT) might be possible — wealth taxes, however, are "largely unknown" and too complicated to explain. If it’s a light in the darkness, it’s a feeble one.
The desperate need at this point is the articulation of the necessary breadth and depth of government’s role (name one area where even with the political change we’ve had there’s not a demand for more government funding) and the need for broad-based, progressive tax regimes to make it possible.
And beyond funding is the equal necessity to even out the peaks and troughs of wealth bequeathed to us by the invisible hand of the divine market.
The social and economic damage of recent years is plain to see and it is likely that after three years of the new government, given its often comical start to proceedings, the damage will be crystal clear to even the most politically detached citizen.
The first hesitant steps in the direction I am arguing for were rudely kneecapped by both Labour Party leaders (no CGT under my watch), who seemed incapable of seeing past the political and economic habits of the past 40 years and focus groups generally trump principles.
It is evident the current Labour leader’s talents do not embrace policy in any great breadth or depth. Education, for example, especially tertiary education, has been sadly affected by the superficiality of both its Labour ministers.
Proof of this inadequacy comes from the horse’s mouth. Explaining that his caucus is generally in harmony with itself, Christopher Hipkins goes on to say, "There are some issues around tax that we’ll work through but it’s not fundamental — people might have a different view on wealth tax and a capital gains tax, but these aren’t major fundamental philosophical differences in approach" (Newsroom 8.12.23).
This is fundamentally wrong. Tax policies describe not merely funding sources, but the kind of society a government aspires to. You simply cannot have a fair and more or less equal society under tax regimes that funnel wealth into too few pockets and surely nobody can deny that is exactly what has been happening over the past 40 years.
It is therefore incumbent upon the Labour Party to rise to this challenge. There is now the space to do so and at least some of the groundwork has been done.
The key is coherence.
The issues to be addressed are not simple, but that is no reason not to address them and to trust the public to understand and to see where they might lead, if they are appropriately articulated. All that’s been offered so far is the view through a frosted window.
- Harry Love was the chairman of the Castle St branch of the Labour Party in 1987-88, and the New Labour parliamentary candidate for St Kilda in the 1990 election. Part two, on the challenges Labour and others face dealing with Treaty of Waitangi issues, will run next Saturday.
