Table of Contents
Electioneering on the right of politics has begun. Winston Peters, not shackled by the responsibility of being deputy prime minister, is basically a free agent. He is free to create dissent in the coalition and is laying out the policy differences between NZ First and National, some of which pertain to the economy. There is nothing unusual here; it is the politics of MMP.
The media, in their mischievous way, would have you believe otherwise as we observed recently over Winston’s email leak. ‘The coalition is in crisis: it’s about to end,’ they mindlessly and, no doubt hopefully, shriek. One of those shriekers, the Herald’s Thomas Coughlan, thinks the war and its effects, not to mention Winston, mean Luxon has a very difficult path to victory. That might be but Hipkins’ path resembles a dirt track, while Luxon’s looks a more comfortable walk.
What we are currently witnessing is a contest of ideas between National and NZ First as how best to shield the population from the cost of living crisis, largely caused by events in the Middle East. All parties, even those working together, have different ideas on policy matters and that is all: nothing more, nothing less. On the right, the two main parties involved are NZ First and National, although I see ACT, to a degree, benefitting, as they might get some clear campaigning air.
Between the two parties, I think NZ First has the upper hand. As I have mentioned previously, Winston could plausibly be called the originator of the political ‘nationalist’ movement, as he launched NZ First on July 18, 1993. The idea he had then is coming to the fore now in Britain, Australia and elsewhere. The polls are reflecting this and National is aware of it. The party had to do something: that something comes in the form of party Deputy Leader and Finance Minister Nicola Willis.
This should be fun to watch. It is equivalent to the ‘political daughter’ being given the job of exercising political dominance over the ‘political daddy’. Winston has been in parliament for over 36 years while Nicola has served just eight. She has a formidable task ahead of her but she should not be underestimated and both are good debaters. National obviously view her as their best attack weapon when it comes to stemming NZ First’s rise in the polls.
According to Fran O’Sullivan in the Weekend Herald, Willis knows where market power sits and she knows where consumers are being squeezed. She also knows that New Zealand’s small market is dominated by duopolies and oligopolies and that is a reality.
O’Sullivan says Willis is a credible technocrat well versed in Treasury speak and economic arguments relating to curbs on market power. Intelligent, aware of market confidence and investment signals and wary of overreach, her instinct is to minimise disruption, even while she describes entrenched market power.
On the other side of the coin is Winston, who takes a different and blunter approach. He openly names the villains, starting with the banks and supermarkets.
O'Sullivan describes his policy as applying windfall or excess profit taxes on banks when margins increase; more aggressive inquiries and stronger signals that banks should lend to productive sectors – not just clip the ticket on ever higher mortgages. This poses a dilemma for Willis. She needs the banks’ Australian parents to maintain confidence in her management of the economy. Peters however, is not shackled, and this is where NZ First have a distinct advantage.
On supermarkets, the Herald article says Willis is frank. She admits our grocery sector is less competitive than comparable markets, that margins are comfortably fat and Kiwis are paying more than they should, even factoring in distance and scale. She’s looked at whether Foodstuffs and Woolworths should be disrupted and then points to NZ First policy, which is to come down hard on supermarket margins, threaten price controls, break up powers and force access to wholesale supply if behaviour doesn’t change. All encompassed in swinging political rhetoric about ‘price gouging’.
O'Sullivan makes the obvious point that for consumers (voters) the difference is stark. On the power issue, Willis is not against reform but is fearful of intervening to the point where investment might be affected. NZ First, whose policy has been well articulated by Shane Jones, has no such qualms. They have even proposed the possibility of more public control if it was needed. NZ First simply accuses the power companies of gaming the system.
The contrast is stark on all three of these major issues. Nicola Willis is at a disadvantage in this political scrap for dominance, representing the major party in power, not to mention her role as finance minister. She is bound to take a more measured and cautious approach than Peters. He is free to say what he likes. Technically, he doesn’t even have to worry about what he says being implemented, because he can easily apportion the blame elsewhere if it doesn’t happen.
There is no doubt that what Winston is saying will resonate with the public. Nicola Willis has the unenviable task of convincing the voters to think otherwise. The way Peters talks on these issues has ‘nationalism’ written all over it – the very thing that is proving popular with voters.
Nationalism is a political ideology and sentiment emphasising the unity, interests and loyalty of a country. This is, and always has been, the political gospel according to Winston.
It would appear, if the polls are any guide, that its, and his, time has arrived.
