Labour Goes Negative On National-ACT ‘Cuts’
Marc Daalder
Marc Daalder is a senior political reporter based in Wellington who covers climate change, health, energy and violent extremism. Twitter: @marcdaalder.
Politics
Labour kept up its attacks on the Opposition’s proposed tax cuts but fumbled its own number-crunching at a party congress, Marc Daalder reports
Analysis: Going on the attack is a new strategy for a Labour Party with fresh leadership.
Jacinda Ardern promised “relentless positivity” after her election victory in 2020 and broadly held to that even as the polls turned against her. Chris Hipkins is happy to be a brawler, with no “Be Kind” brand to maintain.
The pivot frees up campaign chair Megan Woods and finance minister Grant Robertson to go harder in rebutting and responding to the Opposition’s attacks. While hardly muted before, they’ve been notably stronger under Hipkins than under Ardern.
All this was visible in the way the first day of the Labour Party congress played out on Saturday. Senior Labour ministers doubled down on their argument that a National-ACT government would represent a “Coalition of Cuts”.
The angle is a familiar one, but its prominence in speeches from Robertson, deputy leader Kelvin Davis and Deputy Prime Minister Carmel Sepuloni makes clear it will become even more familiar over the four months until the election.
The cuts line is clearly doing well in focus groups, with the word “cuts” appearing 25 times across the three speeches from ministers on Saturday.
It lines up with a press release from the Council of Trade Unions this week saying National’s tax cuts would cost $1.5 billion more than anticipated – a figure Christopher Luxon conceded was “about right”.
While National has decided this week it will release a costed policy plan “well before” the final weeks of the election – after earning criticism for saying it would wait for the latest numbers – it could continue to bleed until it does so.
The vacuum Luxon has created can be filled with plenty of speculation from Labour about what spending or services National will cut to pay for the tax cuts and other policies. Hipkins, Robertson and Woods will keep trotting out the “Coalition of Cuts” line until clarity arrives.
That said, it’s critical for Labour to keep its own maths above board if it seriously wants to convince voters that it will be a more responsible economic and fiscal manager than National. That’s where the party fell short on Saturday.
Sepuloni’s non-announcement that Labour will keep the superannuation and Winter Energy Payment settings unchanged if elected is hardly a surprise, but it wasn’t meant to be one. Instead, she hoped to push the focus from the spectre of cuts to health and education to the much larger political taboo of cuts to Super and KiwiSaver.
The Opposition would see people lose out on tens of thousands of dollars in pension payments if elected, she argued. But that assumed National adopted all of ACT’s policies and excluded the benefits of the corresponding tax cuts which the parties have pledged to make.
“We can’t base forecasts on National’s hypothetical tax policy,” she told reporters. But she was basing it on the Opposition’s hypothetical Super policy, without taking their hypothetical tax policy into account?
“Yes.”
That’s disingenuous at best. ACT insists that, when its tax cuts are included, Kiwis will be up to tens of thousands of dollars better off over their lifetime even with an extension of the Super age and means-testing of the government KiwiSaver contribution.
And for a party that rankles when made to account for the demands of its own potential minor party partners, it’s hypocritical for Labour to now attack National on the basis of ACT’s policies.
A timely reminder of the occasionally depressing cynicism of politics, particularly in an election year.
The second day of Labour’s congress will be an opportunity for it to turn the spotlight back on itself – and on its new leader, in particular.
The conference was pitched as a chance to get to know more about Chris Hipkins, beyond the tired jokes about sausage rolls and Coke Zero. Despite this, three of the four speeches open to media on the first day referenced both sausage rolls and calorie-free soda.
Hipkins’ every-man image is a potent contrast to Luxon’s polished corporate brand, but there needs to be a bit more meat to him than the scant amount we get from “sausage rolls and Coke”.
The speeches from ministers on Saturday briefly touched on his attributes – “genuine” said Robertson, “a determination to make the world a better place” according to Sepuloni – but shed no true light on who he is. Anecdotes from Davis and Robertson to bolster his down-to-earth persona were simple cliches. Davis once again invoked sausage rolls while Robertson referenced a tinned spaghetti toastie.
When Hipkins himself takes the stage on Sunday, he will have to move his image to something more substantial.
What drives him? What matters to him? These are critical questions to answer, if Labour wants to run a campaign that convinces the electorate to vote for Labour, rather than just against National.
While effective for now, the “Coalition of Cuts” attack may run out of steam in time. A compelling vision of what Hipkins stands for won’t tire as easily.
