When Chris & Christopher face off, the choice is clear
Three recent events illustrate the big differences between Hipkins and Luxon
Politicians broadly fall into one of two categories: officeseekers who do not care what policy they promote, providing it’s a vote-winner, and conviction politicians who want to make a difference.
Recent events have revealed that Chris Hipkins is an office-seeker and Christopher Luxon a conviction politician. Who knew?
First event: Luxon’s captain’s call to rule out any coalition with Te Pā ti Mā ori. He made his call knowing many in his caucus would do any deal.
It was a principled decision — polls said Te Pā ti Mā ori was in the kingmaker position.
National was formed to oppose the country being divided by class. National aimed to represent every New Zealander regardless of class, race, religion or nation of birth. Luxon is correct. Te Pā ti Mā ori’s separatist programme is incompatible with what National stands for.
Under Hipkins, Labour and Te Pā ti Mā ori have held talks. Hipkins will not rule out a coalition.
Major-party voters have not been able to express a view on cogovernment. John Key had an agreement with Te Pā ti Mā ori and implemented co-governance agreements. It was the Key Government’s actions that enabled Labour, without an electoral mandate, to take co-governance into the heart of government.
Luxon’s stand has set the campaign agenda. Labour must now seek a mandate for its policy of cogovernment.
Second event: this was Hipkins’ Budget. Grant Robertson would have got the Prime Minister’s agreement on all the key decisions.
The Budget revealed that Hipkins’ priority is not the cost of living, but staying in office. He knows it is impossible for a borrow-and-spend Budget to reduce inflation.
The Budget announcements were poll-driven. Parents with young children are notorious swing voters. It is hard raising young children. Labour would have poll-tested its 20 hours of free childcare for 2-year-olds.
If the policy had been to improve the provision of childcare, the sector would have been consulted. The sector says the policy as announced would force many centres to close. Free childcare is worthless if there are not enough childcare centres.
It’s a similar situation with making prescriptions free. No doubt it polltested well with the base. But if the Government had consulted the sector, they would not have been saying that if you can’t see a doctor, it is irrelevant what the prescription charge is.
Previous National leaders may well have gone along with both populist policies. Luxon appears to realise what Hipkins does not, that economic credibility is more important. The 1News-Kantar postBudget poll asked: “Do you think the 2023 Budget will be effective in addressing recent increases in the cost of living?”
Of the respondents, 60 per cent said “no”. Just 26 per cent said “yes”. The rest did not know. It would appear that even Labour/Green/Te Pā ti Mā ori voters know borrow-andspend is not a way to tackle the costof-living crisis.
Economic credibility is very hard to gain and very easy to lose.
In every election, a vital question is who is best able to manage the
Economic credibility is very hard to gain and very easy to lose
economy. The Budget was Hipkins’ opportunity to demonstrate economic credibility. He blew it. He could not resist trying to bribe swing voters.
The third event: Hipkins is determined to shred his economic credibility. As an MP in Phil Goff’s caucus, he was part of a party which campaigned to lift the age of National Super to 67. Labour said projections showed that at 65 the scheme is unaffordable.
Perhaps Hipkins is influenced by the riots in France when it was proposed to lift the age. The PM should note the rioters were always a minority. President Emmanuel Macron campaigned on a platform of raising the age and he won the election.
The facts are on Luxon’s side. The Treasury has warned of an “unsustainable level of debt” because of the rapidly increasing numbers of superannuitants. The Super Fund, despite ministers’ claims, does not come close to covering the cost. Asking the Government to save is like asking your alcoholic uncle to look after the wine cellar. You know he will drink it.
Here is a suggestion. There are people who by age 65 are physically unable to work. The original old-age pension scheme recognised this. You could elect to take the old-age
pension at a younger age, but be income-tested, or take the universal pension at an older age, not subject to any income test. It worked well for decades until the unaffordable Muldoon super scheme.
Reintroduce an old-age pension at 65 years that is income-tested. Then the age of the universal pension, income test-free, can be gradually raised. Labour would be left campaigning for super for millionaires who are turning 65.
The picture of the Prime Minister handing out Mr Whippy icecreams symbolised his approach to government. These three events have defined the two Christophers and given the country a clear choice.