by Peter Williams

The Political Giants are Looking Increasingly Ordinary

For some reason, both Labour and National saw fit to hold official campaign launches last weekend. I don’t really know why. As far as those that are interested are concerned, the election campaign has been running pretty much all year.

National made a right boo-boo by using the new International Convention Centre and then not being able to fill it. That sounds like some pretty poor organisation by party officials, especially when you hear the story of the lady from Chris Luxon’s Botany electorate who was invited to the campaign launch, accepted her invite but was then advised the place was full, and there was no space for her. That is seriously strange.

Anyway, for what it’s worth, Labour won the battle of the optics for the launch day, but by Monday night the two main parties were back together – both on an embarrassing 28% in the 1 News poll.

Isn’t it extraordinary that the two parties which have dominated New Zealand politics for the last 80 years are now losing support at such a rapid rate that if the trend continues for much longer they wouldn’t even be able to put together the often discussed, but I don’t think really possible, Grand Coalition.

The two together on 56% at the moment could still do it, and the reality is there’s not that much difference in their policies. But any hint of a government together would just be the death knell for both parties because the diehard tribal supporters on both sides would finally give up and go elsewhere.

The big star of the poll was the Greens up to 16%, which resulted in Chloe Swarbrick saying she’d expect important cabinet portfolios if the Greens were in government with Labour. Chris Hipkins jumped very quickly on the idea that Chloe would be Finance Minister in a Labour -Greens coalition, but it’s still enough to send the shivers up one’s spine when the mere possibility of Chloe Swarbrick being in charge of the country’s finances is mentioned.

However, the chances of that 16% in a poll converting to 16% on 7 November are not high if history is anything to go by. In the final week in 2023, they were at 14 in the 1 News poll and 14.9 in the 3 News survey. In the election they delivered 11.61. This time they won’t have the advantage of the unenrolled rocking up on the day, enrolling and voting. If you’re not in the book by 25 October you won’t be able to vote unless you turn 18 in the two weeks before Election Day.

The other big story to emerge from the National campaign launch is that all the party grandees are desperately telling their voters not to split their vote and only support National through the electorate. John Key and Christopher Luxon seem to think that only National Party MPs are really suitable to be cabinet ministers, which is utterly the height of arrogance.

As I’ve mentioned many times, having Nicola Willis out of parliament would  be a good thing for the country because we then might get a Finance Minister with some courage to tackle our debt and ongoing obligations with superannuation.

Just to remind you, this financial year 17.63% of the national tax take went on super. By 2030 that number will be 18.98%, and by 2037, only ten years away, it will be 21.35%.

Which party has the courage to start putting up the age of eligibility? Nicola Willis and Winston Peters don’t, but I reckon Winston could be persuaded to the gentlest of increases as proposed in a fascinating paper put up by retiring National MP Andrew Bayly. The former investment banker and one of his parliamentary staff, Leonard Hong, suggests the age of eligibility increase by one month a year starting in 2029. That means the age that you get super in 2065 will be 68. But here’s the rub. That gentle increase in the age will save billions over the next half century.

Here’re the numbers. If we do nothing and keep the age at 65, by the year 2065 it will cost 29.42% of all tax revenue. Using the one-month- a-year increase, that number would reduce to just over 25%.

Put that gradual increase in age alongside compulsory KiwiSaver, and increasing Super only by the CPI and not the average wage increase, then Andrew Bayly has made a valuable contribution to the superannuation debate.

Sadly, his National Party colleagues don’t want to know about it – and they wonder why they’re at 28% in the polls.

John Key’s call for National voters to not split their vote appears to have massively backfired. Voters aren’t stupid and know that the National Party vote is so low,  the chances of any list MP getting into parliament are exceedingly slim. The idea of National having about 40 electorate MPs along with about 25 from Act and New Zealand First together is very appealing to those of us with a conservative right-wing view of the world, especially if it puts some of the hopelessly woke Nats like Matt Doocey in their place.

The PREFU, the pre -election fiscal update, wasn’t very good news for Labour and its grand plan for a capital gains tax with the money that can then be spent on free doctor’s visits.

House prices aren’t expected to increase significantly for at least four years, so the money that Labour might splash on those doctor’s visits is going to have to be found somewhere else because the collection from a capital gains tax will be well short of the amount required.

And then there’s the absurd promise to bring back pay equity, which is likely to cost the government 13 billion dollars because the government pays money to all those rest homes where the pay equity claims are being made in the aged care industry. Labour’s election promises appear to have some seriously large fiscal holes.

Labour’s promise of the three free doctor’s visits might make a difference to the Hospital Emergency Department issue which has hit the news in the last few days. According to a report from the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine, the number of people going to A&E is up 21% over the last decade compared to a population growth of just 13%.

Staggeringly, there were 1.4 million patients who went to an emergency department in the 2024/25 year. Were 1 in 5 of us really that ill or injured?

My initial question is – How come we are getting so sick? I note that in that same decade Maori presentations at EDs had increased an unbelievable 39%.

Surely much of this drastic increase in illness is a consequence of poor diet and sedentary lifestyle, but diet especially.

That’s why it’s so disappointing that the New Zealand First health policy, developed by the Make New Zealand Healthy trust, is not being taken seriously by the media, other political parties or the community at large.

Surely it’s a no-brainer. If we don’t get so sick, we won’t need to overcrowd the emergency departments. The Make New Zealand Healthy approach, led by veteran health and well-being campaigners like Mr Lypospheric Vitamin C John Appleton and AUT Health professor Grant Schofield, is about teaching us to lead healthy lives in terms of what we eat, the exercise we get and the sleep we should have.

Let’s face it, New Zealand’s Health Budget is already 33 billion dollars a year, and the demands for that number to increase are immense. But what if we all made a conscious effort to not get so sick, to not be so overweight, to lead healthier lives.

It would save a fortune. Not tomorrow, or next year, but over time, if the demand for health services decreases, we’d have more money for other important stuff, like paying off our debt!

NZ First is taking this approach seriously. It’s about time other parties did too.