Showing posts with label ACT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ACT. Show all posts

02 November 2026

How to vote New Zealand election 2026: Electorate guide

As I usually do, I have painstakingly gone through every electorate and done a rather random set of selections for who I think is worth voting for.

No it isn't strategic, it isn't designed to create an overhang, or maximise support for any party, it is rather a bit of a test as to who I might pick based on what they have said or done to increase individual freedom, reduce the size of the state and turn back past attempts at bigger government, more regulation and more tax. Sometimes it is personal, supporting people who seem like they are good sort, or opposing those who are sociopaths or stupid.  It do actively encourage voting against MPs or candidates from the Greens and Te Pati Maori, because of their antagonism to individual freedom, private property rights and their incessant cosplaying on the side of Hamas and Jew hating Palestinian activism. For Te Pati Maori it is also their indifference to the war in Ukraine and fundamental belief that people who don't embrace their ethno-nationalist ideology are outsiders to be treated as lesser citizens. 

A lot of what I suggest is, on balance, giving support to those who show a bit of determination to wind things back and reduce power, even a little. However, I also support rejecting the complacency and the utterly milquetoast banality of so many candidates (and MPs), whose statements indicate they stand for no philosophy, no principles, and are unafraid of upsetting anyone. I don't have any time for those people or the parties that put them forward. 

You'll see that in most cases I am choosing between National and ACT, and when I pick ACT candidates in most cases, it is because the National candidate is either uninterested in freedom or uninterested in anything beyond slogans and apple pie. Occasionally I pick others, such as for the ALCP, who are at least interested in one piece of liberalisation. Sometimes I pick Labour candidates, usually to defeat the Greens or Te Pati Maori, but not exclusively. I don't pick Opportunity candidates, because nobody needs to. Occasionally I suggest an independent.

Anyway, it's partly a bit of a laugh, but also an exercise is thinking a bit more about this vote. The party vote decides most of the makeup of Parliament, but not all of it. Electorate votes are about endorsing individuals, and you don't need to endorse any if the choices are poor, and a lot of the time they are.

That's why I have rated my choices as high, medium or low. High priority is because the candidate is very good, or the candidate he or she can defeat is particularly bad. Medium indicates the candidate is ok, or the opponent isn't. Low indicates you can not bother at all, and it wont really matter.

So here we go...

Auckland Central

Chloe Swarbrick needs to be defeated here, because her disgraceful appeasement of and touting of Hamas propaganda deserves to be rejected. The best chance to do this is Nationals’ Candace Kinser. There isn’t much the latter has said that indicates a wholehearted commitment to National Party principles. I’d be lukewarm about her if it weren’t about weakening the Greens.  Labour candidate Naisi Chen seems far too enamoured with the Chinese Communist Party and appeasing it to deserve your vote, she is arguably worse than Swarbrick.

Candace Kinser, National. High priority.

Banks Peninsula

National’s Vanessa Weenink holds this seat on a slender majority.  Labour’s previous MP Tracey McLennan is standing again, and we really don’t need a union organiser back in Parliament. Conventionally, I’d support Weenink, but she was a Labour Party campaigner recently. So she’s not really going to be focused on National Party principles.  Vote instead for Zac Wellman of ACT.

Zac Wellman, ACT. Moderate priority.

Botany

You don’t want to vote for Chris Luxon do you now? He’ll almost certainly win, but if you want to give him a bloody nose then vote Ali Dahche of ACT.

Ali Dahche, ACT. High priority.

Christchurch Central

Old anti-Israeli activist Duncan Webb is thankfully retiring, so it is a more open contest, although it seems unlikely National’s Dale Stephens (you might remember him from TV) can win. George Hampton, a diplomat, is the Labour candidate, and seems inoffensive at best. You could try Stephens to knock Labour out, but otherwise you can’t go wrong with Blair Anderson of ALCP.

Blair Anderson, ALCP. Low priority.

Christchurch East

Labour’s Reuben Davidson will likely win, although it isn’t a sure thing, but National’s Alexandra Davids is an experience local body politician, which seems unlikely to be that favourable towards reducing the scale of government.  Toni Severin of ACT has a long record of being in favour of less government, so give her your vote.

Toni Severin, ACT. Moderate priority.

Coromandel

National’s Scott Simpson is almost certainly going to win here, he’s a social liberal and was a leader of the Bluegreens, although his maiden speech said good things about not being reliant on the state.  Given he is a sure thing, you can think about voting elsewhere. Ignore independent Steven Hart, he’s a nutcase. Mike McCormick of ACT is a better bet to send a message.

Mike McCormick, ACT. Low priority

Dunedin

Rachel Brooking of Labour will win, but she’s hardly in favour of private property rights having worked on Labour’s reform of the RMA. Presidents of university student unions are also not known for their belief in individual freedoms. So you’d be well placed to vote against her. Philippines born Kristine Asuncion is the National candidate and is a business owner. I wont hold her working for HR against her, but if you would rather a surer thing about freedom, then Adrian McDermott from ALCP is another choice. 

Kristine Asuncion, National. Low priority.

East Cape

Dana Kirkpatrick took this seat back for National in 2023, but it is far from safe. Kirkpatrick seems alright, but given it is a seat Labour could readily take it is worth seeing who she is up against. Jo Luxton is a Labour list MP, although she did grow up in Gisborne (so is not a total carpetbagger). She set up an early childhood education centre before being an MP.  Given she lists Maryan Street as a mentor, I don’t think she’s an improvement on Kirkpatrick, so give Kirkpatrick another go.

Dana Kirkpatrick, National. Medium priority.

East Coast Bays

Erica Stanford will win this by a landslide, so she doesn’t need your vote. She’s also a wet. She thinks the Greens could work with National and once supported students going on the School Strike for Climate, so she is hardly an asset in advancing education towards more choice and freedom. So send her a message, vote Sam Mills, ACT.

Sam Mills, ACT. Medium priority

Epsom

Curious choice here. People thinking strategically might think Seymour is getting in anyway, you might generate a National overhang with Paul Goldsmith being elected. You might, but why would you vote for Goldsmith at all? Seymour is fairly safe here, and he is perhaps the MP who most consistently, some of the time, talks about free markets and individual freedom, although he largely leads a party that panders to populism nowadays, not fundamental reform. Goldsmith has been good on some law reform, such as on stopping hate speech legislation, abolishing the Broadcasting Standards Authority and reducing the legislation that refers to Te Tiriti. So he wouldn’t be a bad choice from a freedom point of view and is one of the better National MPs on that front. He ought to have earned a winnable electorate by now, and given National’s party vote position, he may well be out, so flip a coin. I’d probably pick Seymour myself, but Goldsmith is a reasonable choice in this election as well.

David Seymour, ACT. Medium priority.

Glendene

Carmel Sepuloni is the MP here, for Labour, and is likely to win, so you wont want to endorse her, but are the alternatives any better? Sunil Kumar for National is a business owner with extensive community links, so he would be a better bet.  

Sunil Kumar, National. Medium priority

Hamilton East

Ryan Hamilton is the MP here for National, and it is typically a marginal seat.  Is he any better than Georgie Dansey for Labour? Probably. On the downside he was a city councillor, but he did say in his maiden speech “I believe in less government, personal choice, and responsibility—a Government that sets up the right macro policy settings that enables success, and then gets out of the way”. That’s a start. Georgie Dansey is a list MP of barely a few months, but drearily she is a teacher and a unionist. We don’t need more of those, so keep Hamilton there.

Ryan Hamilton, National. Medium priority.

Hamilton West

Tama Potaka is probably fairly safe here as the National MP, but it is a swing seat historically.  He is up against Dr Myra Williamson for Labour, a law lecturer. She wrote a piece for The Conversation called “Compulsory voting has boosted turnout in Australia – is it time NZ tried it?”. She supports it. She wants to criminalise you for not voting. She also believes Israel has committed genocide in Gaza and the NZ Superannuation fund should divest from Israel. She’s be a highly malign influence on freedom in any Labour government so deserves to be actively opposed. Vote for Potaka to keep her out of Parliament.

Tama Potaka, National. High priority.

Hauraki-Waikato

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke has been a bit of a star for TPM, and has wisely kept out of the internal fracas about the party’s governance and policies. She seems to be good at hyperbole, having described being “ram raided” before the previous election, before saying her “privacy” was “ram raided”. The BBC and Time Magazine have lauded her, because, of course, nothing is more exciting to them than a leftwing activist. She cosplays as a communist because, well, it’s cool yeah? Much better would be to vote for Kingi Kiriona of Labour, because he has substance to back him up with experience, and it helps thwart TPM’s undemocratic overhang strategy. Brief mention for Neil Denby, standing as an independent, for nothing apparently.

Kingi Kiriona, Labour, High priority.

Henderson

Another new electorate where Phil Twyford is trying to have a shot at keeping. I recall Twyford being booed when he dared to suggest that Hamas be condemned after 7th October, so he gets a little credit for that, but he really ought to retire. He is also behind the controversy about claiming too many people with “Chinese sounding names” were buying houses in Auckland. It’s time he should go, Angee Nicholas for National seems ok, but that’s about it.

Angee Nicholas, National, Low priority

Hutt South

On paper this is probably a loss for Chris Bishop, and if it isn’t it’s because he has done a lot of work to meet people in this traditionally Labour electorate. You’ll want to avoid perennially ultracrepidarian Ginny Andersen (who will get in on the list probably), and he’s one of the few National Cabinet Ministers who show some passion for reform. Advancing congestion pricing and replacing fuel tax with RUC are enormous steps forward, as is wanting a long term approach to infrastructure funding (and for housing prices to be lower in the long run). He deserves to win in this usually Labour seat, as a National MP who actually wants change, rather than tinkering with Labour's policies, but he does have a lot more to do.

Chris Bishop, National, High priority

Ikaroa-Rāwhiti

This is already a Labour seat with Cushla Tangaere-Manuel, so the strategy is to keep it this way to stop TPM from taking it. The Greens have a shot here, but the safest move is to keep it Labour to reduce the TPM overhang.

Cushla Tangaere-Manual, Labour. Medium priority.

Ilam

Hamish Campbell for National holds this seat and amply beat Raf Manji from “Opportunities” in 2023. So this time he’s probably safe. He has a Ph.D in viruses and cancer, and perhaps the most interesting statement he made in his maiden speech was “It has become very easy take offence at someone who may believe something different to ourselves, whether it be on climate change, vaccine science, race, or culture. We have come to think it’s our right to take offence, and if you disagree, you’re not just wrong but amoral. We should not place a high value on our outrage.” He has not said anything else about philosophy at all. A reasonable alternative is Ken Harpur of ACT.

Ken Harpur, ACT. Low priority

Invercargill

National’s Penny Simmonds is pretty much a sure thing here. She’s ok, she’s been dismantling the centralised Polytech Te Pukenga, and is moderately social conservative.  Labour’s Janice Lee talks of food sovereignty, which is a red flag for leftie nonsense. Simmonds has been pushing for academic freedom and freedom of speech at universities, so she is a fair choice.

Penny Simmonds, National. Medium priority. 

Kaikōura

This is another safe National seat, held by Stuart Smith. He is a social liberal within National. One of his Bills was to liberalise cellar door wine tasting, which is unsurprising given he was chair of the Winegrowers Association. However, he is now advocating more direct local political control of local authorities, which seems odd, and he is a member of the Bluegreens (although he isn’t a fan of Luxon apparently). Now there is another choice worth considering, although he’s far from perfect. Oliver-John Hill-Hughes is an independent candidate who touts himself as a Maori conservative independent, who supports lower taxes, eliminating welfare dependency and leaving the Paris agreement. I’m not with him on redirecting some defence spending to a new Ministry of Works and forcing oil companies to set prices well in advance, but he’s different. I’m not going to say you should vote for him, but he deserves an honourable mention. Tom Spooner is more conventional, with ACT, but really you don’t need to bother.

Tom Spooner, ACT. Low priority

Kaipara ki Mahurangi

Chris Penk had this seat, so National is trying to hold onto it with Jessica Rowe, a former journalist who then became a diplomat. However, I’m not so sure National deserves to hang onto this safe seat and she’s ok if uninspiring. Nine people are standing here including fat Nazi Kim Dotcom’s wife. Simon Court of ACT is a better bet here, just to send the Nats a message.

Simon Court, ACT. Medium priority.

Kapiti

With the Otaki electorate broken up, National MP Tim Costley is trying to win this seat and has a fair chance, although it is no sure thing. Costley is an ex. RNZAF wing commander, and I gather he’s a good sort. He did say in his maiden speech that he believes in limited government and that we (as individuals) hold solutions to the problems we face.  His main opponent is a scold called Sophie Handford for Labour. She founded the “School Strike 4 Climate” movement, so of course thinks she knows best for everyone else. Few people are as ill-suited to be legislators than young loud finger-wagging scolds. A shout out to Richard Goode from Not a Party. He’s actually a libertarian and deserves your vote most of all, 

Richard Goode, Not a Party. Low priority (he’d appreciate that)

Kenepuru

Mana MP Barbara Edmonds of Labour is standing in this redrawn electorate, which includes some of Mana and some of Ohariu (which has been eliminated). It is likely to be safe for her. Matthew Evetts of National is her biggest challenge, but he wont win. Choose Bob Wessex of Not a Party.

Bob Wessex, Not a Party. Low priority.

Māngere

One of Labour’s safest seats, Lemauga Lydia Sosene is the Labour MP, and yes many wont have even heard of her. She is standing again and was a Samoan church minister. A nice enough person, but you may want to put your vote elsewhere.  National’s candidate is Rosemary Bourke, trying for a second time, which must be difficult. This seat, oddly, has a lot of candidates, including the notorious Kelvyn Alp. Manu Singh from ACT has the clearest indication of support for getting government out of the way of people.

Manu Singh, ACT. Low priority.

Manurewa

Manurewa is a safe Labour seat, held by Arena Williams, and has few candidates with only National, NZ First and Animal Justice offering alternatives. Williams was President of AUSA (of course), and has been part of Labour’s campaign to structurally separate the supermarkets, which is, of course, insane. It would be good to oppose Williams here, so Ghouse Majeed of National is your best bet. Not that I have much of an idea of what he believes in.

Ghouse Majeed, National. Low priority

Maungakiekie

National’s Greg Fleming won this seat from Labour, which is fairly marginal, as it tends to be won by whatever party is in government.  The Labour MP he defeated, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, became a list MP and she is trying to win it back. Fleming is solidly conservative, having co-founded the conservative thinktank, the Maxim Institute. Having said that Fleming co-sponsored a members bill with Labour MP Camila Belich to fine companies for not reporting modern day slavery in their supply chains, which is quite the exercise in increasing compliance costs primarily for virtue signalling (and the National Party is promoting this on its webpage). So he’s socially conservative but economically moderate. Radhakrishnan has a Masters in “development studies” and was a policy analyst at the Ministry of Womens Affairs so she’s hardly going to want to keep a lid on the state. Given the seat is marginal you may be tempted to vote for Fleming, but I’m not. Pick Juan Alvarez de Lugo of ACT instead as he talks of balancing the books without increasing taxes, and one law for all.

Juan Alvarez de Lugo, ACT. Medium priority. 

Mt Albert

Labour’s most marginal seat is held by Helen White, and of course was Jacinda Ardern’s seat.  Helen White was a union lawyer who infamously mocked Chloe Swarbrick as “not being serious” in 2020 as a candidate for Auckland Central, then lost. Failing upwards, she thinks employment is a “right” even though she’s never generated a job in her life. National is running Melissa Lee, who has been a list MP for six terms and proved to be useless as Minister for Media and Communications. As odious as White is, Lee isn’t much better and it’s disgraceful that National couldn’t be bothered replacing her as a candidate here. Anyone else might have a better chance, but if you believe in the best and brightest succeeding you need to purge the mediocre. Adding to the mix is Qiulae Wong, the Opportunity Party leader, but you don’t want to vote for someone who doesn’t think businesses have a purpose, unless she and her ilk help with the latest version of “Triple Bottom Line” reporting. So you’re left with Alex Price of ACT, who talks about keeping taxes low and reducing government waste. Tick him to send National a message.

Alex Price, ACT. High priority

Mt Maunganui

This is a new electorate, with Bay of Plenty MP Tom Rutherford standing here. He is likely to win, having had one term in Parliament, and previously having been a communications executive (uh oh). He seems a nice enough chap, his maiden speech includes “At 18, on my first day as a new student here at Victoria University, I was punched and knocked out by an intoxicated stranger when I stood up for an older gentleman who was just trying to get his groceries home safely”. So you could do worse, such as Helen White or Melissa Lee. Labour is punting up Rhieve Grey who is a “Rhodes Scholar with postgraduate degrees from the University of Oxford in Public Policy and Evidence-Based Policy” which begs the question as to why he is in an unwinnable seat, although I’m not sure he’s in the right party. Cameron Luxton is the ACT candidate (and list MP), and far better qualified than either of them, so given Rutherford will win anyway, give Luxton the tick. After all he did say in his maiden speech “My trust in the sanctity of the individual, the rule of law, free speech, property rights, these are what I am here to defend, they are not physical items, they cannot be hoarded away in a quiet place and taken out just to be displayed and looked at. These treasures must be put in the world, defended and lived up to”

Cameron Luxton, ACT. Medium priority

Mt Roskill

This is usually a Labour seat, and Carlos Cheung from National took it from little Michael Wood, the former Transport Minister who presided over Auckland Light Rail and vast inflation in construction costs. He’s a former union organiser who really shouldn’t be placed near power again. Cheung is from Hong Kong and has a Ph.D in biological science. He was less government waste, more housing, toughness on crime and education to teach children resilience.  He deserves another term, and it is good to keep Wood out.

Carlos Cheung, National. Medium priority.

Napier

Napier tends to go the way of the government of the day. Stuart Nash was deselected by Labour in 2023 and has joined NZ First, but has been deselected again. Katie Nimon is the National MP now, she having heritage from one of Hawke’s Bay longest running bus companies which was bought out a few years ago. A Bachelor of Design and Executive MBA from Massey might not impress, but she did run the family bus business successfully.  She did say in her maiden speech: 

Instead of playing political whack-a-mole, I strongly believe in Adam Smith’s theory of the invisible hand. The argument for limited Government is a strong one, which is one of the many reasons why I stand here on this side of the House. I don’t claim to have all the answers, but you can’t spend your way out of every problem, nor can you regulate your way out of it. All you get is debt and dependency.

That’s worth having in the National caucus. Labour is putting up a doctor, an actual doctor, as well as a unionist, who is campaigning on, wait for it, how hard it is to get a GP in Napier. So he should be one, not be an MP.  Typical socialists think other people should do the work they want the state to make happen.  Vote for Nimon.

Katie Nimon, National. Medium priority.

Nelson

Nelson was unusual as one of the regional cities that didn’t go National in 2023. It shouldn’t surprise, as it was held by leftie Nick Smith under the National brand for so long, although Rachel Boyack held onto it by a tiny margin in 2023, so it arguably up for grabs. Boyack is a unionist whose maiden speech includes the gem that Sonja Davies was right to try to stop closure of the isolated little railway line to Glenhope and believing that the system is “purposely designed” against workers. She also complained about ACT MP Todd Stevenson opposing taxpayer funding of the arts. National’s candidate is Blair Cameron, trying a second time to win the seat. He has worked for the IMF and World Bank. As close as this race is, on balance Cameron is probably better than Boyack, but he isn’t that interesting as there is nothing about his own philosophy or beliefs in any of his material. Former ACT MP Chris Baillie is an alternative, but you could vote for Cameron if you’re doing nothing else.

Blair Cameron, National. Medium priority.

New Plymouth

This seat usually switches with governments, so David Macleod of National won this off Labour in 2023. Macleod was an electrician and an entrepreneur, which wins him points. Again it’s hard to know what his philosophical beliefs are. There are only three other candidates here (Labour, Opportunity and independent). The Labour candidate is Amanda Clinton-Gohdes, who sees climate action as a key local priority. There isn’t much to choose from here. Maybe Macleod’s background is superior to the local councillor, but he’s likely to win anyway, so don’t be too fussed.

David Macleod, National. Low priority.

North Shore

Simon Watts is a shoo-in in this safe National seat. He’s better on climate change than the previous government, but by forcing amalgamations he is taking an overly simplistic view of local government that bigger is better. He is no intellectual heavyweight. You’d be better giving Karen Chhour your vote. She opposed the ban on tobacco sales to adults and memorably got flack from Kelvin Davis because she is Maori and she was accused of looking at the world through “vanilla lens”. Give Watts a shock.

Karen Chhour, ACT. Medium priority.

Northcote

Dan Bidois won this from Labour in 2023. His story isn’t bad, as he dropped out of school for being a delinquent, did a butchery apprentice, survived bone cancer while he was there and later became an economist. He did work for Deloitte, then the NZ Initiative, so that levels out. He is opposed to voluntary euthanasia, but voted to decriminalise abortion. That’s a life story far superior to most. He’ll probably win again. He defeated Labour’s Shanan Halbert who is standing again, and is a shadow of Bidois. Martin Lundqvist is the ACT candidate, but I think Bidois has promise and could do with your support.

Dan Bidois, National. Medium priority.

Northland

Northland, like East Cape, is an electorate where a fair part of the population is actually enrolled in the Maori roll, so it ends up going National. It’s usually National, although Winston Peters held it for two years, and Labour did from 2020-2023. Shane Jones tries to win it as well, but came third in 2023. National’s MP is Grant McCallum who is a farmer and yet another member of the Bluegreens. In his maiden speech he talked about joining the Bluegreens after Simon Upton and Nick Smith founded it. Two National MPs whose legacy with the RMA and defending it against any useful reform has been so damaging, although it isn’t his fault.  Labour isn’t proposing Willow-Jean Prime again (she’s standing for Te Tai Tokerau), but rather Ashleigh Latimer who is a community health leader. None of this is particularly inspiring. Who else is there? There is Shane Jones, but you wont want him. Mark Cameron is the ACT candidate who has pulled out of the ACT list because he is very unwell, having had kidney failure and a heart attack (following his son’s untimely death two years ago). He isn’t going to win, and almost certainly doesn’t want to, but give him your vote. He is one of the few MPs to actually say openly that want local authorities do about emissions has no impact on climate change. If it weren’t Cameron, I’d tick Jeffery Lye for ALCP.

Mark Cameron, ACT. Low priority.  

Ōtāhuhu

This is a new electorate and is likely to go Labour. Jenny Salesa is the Labour MP for Panmure-Otahuhu who hopes to win this. She shouldn’t. She lost all Ministerial positions after the 2020 election for a reason. To put it politely, she doesn’t work well with others and should be kept well away from power.  Just vote for National’s Lalit Arya to get this emotionally incontinent, entitled, angry person out of Parliament.

Lalit Arya, National. High priority.

Pakuranga

This seat is very much a safe seat for Simeon Brown for National. He’s going to win, and he now has a record as a Minister, which has been a difficult one. He started with transport, turning around the war on motoring from Labour, and then to health which is a thankless portfolio. There are a long list of measures from the Labour government that he has stopped that he deserves some credit for, including Three Waters, Maori wards at local government (without local referenda) and has sought to end the politicisation of the Medical Council of NZ. Labour’s candidate, social worker Campbell Matthews, isn’t going to be better, and Parmjeet Parmar from ACT, notwithstanding constant racism she experiences from opponents, isn’t either.

Simeon Brown, National. Medium priority.

Palmerston North 

This is a fairly safe Labour seat, with Tangi Utikere as the MP. He’s a nice enough guy qualified to be a teacher and was a local councillor, but there’s little reason to vote for him. His most likely challenger is National’s Ankit Bansal, who has a surprisingly short biography. He stood last time as well, which suggests National isn’t trying hard enough. There’s little reason to vote for him either. Flip a coin really.

Ankit Bansal, National. Low priority.

Papakura

Judith Collins has retired, so National’s Emma Chatterton is standing. It is a fairly safe National seat, so she has a good chance of winning. She is a senior advisor to Erica Stanford which isn’t exactly a background of understanding private enterprise or even a wider range of perspectives. Before then she worked for ImpactLab and for social investment under Bill English. Her press release indicates she has been a teacher as well, but it’s not that clear. Given it is a safe seat, it is quite something for National to pick her as candidate and nothing in her profile is inspiring around what she believes in. You might prefer ACT candidate Malkiat Singh, who is a robotics engineer and founder of Kings Eat Organics, a BioGro-certified organic farm and food business. At least he is more qualified and has taken some risks.

Malkiat Singh, ACT. Low priority

Port Waikato

This safe National seat sees Andrew Bayly retire, and National is proposing Matthew Paul. He’s another Bluegreen and is a “Managing Director of an environmental and landscape consultancy working across residential, infrastructure and local government projects”. All very well, but what does he believe in? Casey Costello is the high profile NZ First candidate, but Sarah Lochead-MacMillan from ACT is a better bet. At least her profile talks about a freer and more prosperous NZ. Matthew Paul doesn’t say that.

Sarah Lochead-MacMillan, ACT. Low priority.

Rangitata

This seat went to Labour in 2020, but appears safe for National now. James Meager is the MP. He’s a lawyer, but his career also includes the incestuous world of working in the offices of four National MPs (which I know impresses other MPs, but doesn’t impress the public). He gets points for his statement in his maiden speech that “Members opposite do not own Māori. Members opposite do not own the poor. Members opposite do not own the workers. No party and no ideology has a right to claim ownership over anything or anyone”. Labour is proposing Sange Malama, a School Attendance Officer, which is an honourable job, but Meager deserves another go.

James Meager, National, Medium priority 

Rangitikei

This safe National seat is held by Suze Redmayne, a farmer who describes herself as fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. I gather she is a good sort. Labour’s Karl Severinsen is a social worker and former army officer who recalls Ruth Richardson as a reason he joined Labour. He has no chance of winning anyway. Former Federated Farmers President Andrew Hoggard of ACT came a strong third last time and is a list MP.  At least he explicitly believes in free markets. So Redmayne or Hoggard would be ok, although I’d probably back Redmayne rather than split the vote here.

Suze Redmayne, National. Low priority.

Remutaka

Chris Hipkins really should be out of Parliament given what a mediocrity he was as a Minister, and how he desperately tried to copy National in his brief period as PM. This is a pretty safe seat for Labour, but you should try to frighten Hipkins by voting for National candidate Dr Zabeen Lateef. Yes I know she is working in the Strategy, Analytics and Reporting Office of Otago University, and she has a Ph.D in clinical virology and immunology, which seems like a waste, but please put Hipkins and his family out of their misery. Don’t bother with failed former Wellington Mayor Andy Foster for NZ First, or ACT’s Nigel Elder.

Zabeen Lateef, National. Medium priority.

Rotorua

Todd McClay is the National MP in this fairly safe seat. He’s uninspiring and he’s been there since 2008. He gets a little credit for voting against the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022, against the tide, but otherwise there’s no great reason to be enthused about voting for him. Fisher Wang for Labour looks like a schoolkid, and is on the District Council which counts against him. People who want to get into local government are rarely fit to be there. There is no ACT candidate here. Billy Brown is standing for NZ First and believes in the great replacement theory, which is unfortunate, as it would have been nice to give McClay a fright (and Brown has some sound views otherwise).

Todd McClay, National. Low priority.

Selwyn

Nicola Grigg is the (National) MP for this safe seat. She is Minister for Women and as such launched a “Gender Pay Gap toolkit” which is, of course, a monumental waste of money and is a fundamentally collectivist piece of nonsense. You could tick Iain Murray of ACT to send her a message, but so would Zoran Rakovic – an independent who bothered to create a website stating his position, which is practical, but not ideological. Murray would 

Iain Murray, ACT. High priority

Southland

Joseph Mooney is the MP, for National and this is a very safe seat. He’s not going anywhere. Nor should he. His story about being 11 years old and the family going without food, and him travelling to Wellington from Hawke’s Bay with his younger brother, to try to reach Central Otago to pan for gold for money is quite something.  Todd Stevenson of ACT gets credit for saying he doesn’t believe in taxpayer funding of the arts (which upset Nelson MP Rachel Boyack). Maybe give him a tick if you don’t think Mooney’s story is enough to show he has grit to be in Parliament.

Todd Stevenson, ACT. Low priority.

Taieri

Taieri was marginal for Labour in 2023, electing Ingrid Leary. To her credit she is a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (which is critical of China), but she also has supported a wealth tax in the past. Matthew French is the National candidate and he has a plausible chance of winning, although he isn’t exactly inspirational either. Still, I’d take a chance to oust Leary so.

Matthew French, National. Medium priority.

Takanini

Rima Nakhle is the incumbent Natuonal MP, but she isn’t a sure thing. She’s tough on drugs, and tough on crime, proposing 10 year prison sentences for drink driving, which just seems over the top. Unfortunately, no other candidates are really worth supporting. The most likely to unseat her is Labour’s Kharag Singh, and while he seems a decent enough chap, I think you could abstain reasonably here.

Don’t bother….

Tāmaki

Brooke van Velden is the outgoing ACT MP, so you have a real choice between National and ACT here. Max Harris is standing for Labour. He’s an odious former staffer for tankie British Labour MP and Corbynite, John McDonnell, who has previously glorified the IRA.  James Christmas is standing for ACT, but he was a previous National list candidate. Mahesh Muralidhar is standing for National. In the Spinoff it was said that: “Christmas is “not a co-governance guy,” but a “treaty settlements guy”. He’s a “very big fan of charter schools”, a “big property rights guy” and reckons there’s unfinished business in proposals made by Seymour’s controversial Treaty principles bill”. Muralidhar was National’s Auckland Central candidate last election, and before I said although he has a MBA, don’t hold it against him. My hunch is Christmas has a battle on his hands, but I’d pick him over Muralidhar.

James Christmas, ACT. Medium priority

Taranaki-King Country

Barbara Kuriger is the National MP, and it’s a safe seat. She’s Deputy Speaker, which is fine, and benign. Ivana Jovivic from ACT is a better bet though.

Ivana Jovivic, ACT. Low priority

Taupō

Louise Upston is the National MP and it’s a safe seat.  Chris Flatt is a unionist standing for Labour, so you can’t vote for him. Upston’s record on individual freedoms is very mixed. She opposed voluntary euthanasia, gay marriage and abortion legalisation, but ended up supporting bans on conversion therapy. Take from that what you will, she’s conservative, to a point. Nobody else here is really worth voting for, so don’t bother.

Don’t bother…

Tauranga

I’m old enough to think of this as the heartland of Winston Peters, but that ended some time ago. Sam Uffindell is the MP, and we all know about what haunts his political career.  Jan Tinetti is the Labour candidate, and has been a list MP for nine years and is just another ex.teacher/unionist. Uffindell is going to win, so you don’t need to taint yourself by endorsing the ex. bully.  Vote for Dr Tim Maltby, independent. He put his late cat on his website as a team member, so he deserves something for that. Bryan Norton for ACT is a fair alternative, given we haven’t a clue what Maltby stands for, other than he seems practically minded. Give the little guy a go.

Tim Maltby, Independent. High priority

Tukituki

The seat for Hastings and much of rural Hawke’s Bay is held by Catherine Wedd of National. Her background is typical National, but she’s an idiot. She introduced legislation to ban social media for under 16yos, despite the utter failure of such laws in Australia. The next step would be to require age ID for all internet access, which means personal ID and the end of internet anonymity. So she deserves to lose.  There are few alternatives. The independents are nutters, Rob Douglas of ACT seems ok, and you can’t go wrong with Romana Manning of ALCP on one issue at least. However, I think Wedd needs a clearer message and that comes from losing. Dan Scott of Labour is a meteorologist and 22 years old. Hold your nose, and back him. Labour held this seat before, and can again.

Dan Scott, Labour. Medium priority.

Upper Harbour

National’s Cameron Brewer is the MP here, and he is probably fairly safe. He was a City Councillor for six years, which is not a reason to completely rule him out. He is a Minister for Commerce and Consumer Affairs, and Small Business and Manufacturing (the later roles are unnecessary), and is unremarkable at best. Panos Patros from ACT is a better bet, given Labour has little chance of taking this seat.

Panos Patros, ACT. Low priority

Waikato

Tim van de Molen is the National MP here, and he is a huge majority. He is a farmer, and was notable for allegedly being aggressive to a Labour MP. He’s probably not going to be a Minister, in part because of his personality.  Unfortunately, none of the other candidates are inspirational as an alternative. Maybe give Ash Parmar of ACT your vote in the hope that Tim improves his performance in his next term

Ash Parmar, ACT. Low priority.

Waimakariri

National’s Matt Doocey, is the MP. He’s pretty safe here. As Tourism Minister he increased the International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy, so he’s not exactly a low tax man. His big focus is mental health. His maiden speech gave credit to Gerry Brownlee for the Christchurch recovery, which doesn’t wash. He seems a nice enough guy, but in a safe seat you can look for a better candidate. Labour list MP Dan Rosewarne is standing here, he is ex. Army, and is clearly not antagonistic to Western liberal democracies, which is rare enough in Labour, and honestly he could sit in the National Party without too much effort. He is too far down the list to get elected, so I’d give him the tick (the ACT candidate wont want it).

Dan Rosewarne, Labour. Medium priority.

Wairarapa

Mike Butterick is the MP for National, and while it is usually a National seat, it isn’t a fait accompli, as Kieran McAnulty, Labour list MP, is trying to win it back. Now we all know McAnulty is constantly named as a future Labour leader (as he well knows), so him winning Wairarapa is part of his career move to advance himself. Butterick is, a farmer. Ron Mark is the other high profile candidate, for NZ First, but he has little chance. The worst candidate is probably Lauren Craig for the Greens, who Co-founded “Students for Climate Solutions” and tried to stop new oil and gas exploration. Butterick’s maiden speech suggests he is a good egg:

Less government, not more. Our role is to solve problems, not create them; get the settings right, back up the bus, and leave people to get on with their lives. Personal responsibility: everyone has rights, but they also come with responsibility. Celebrating success, rewarding hard work: this country’s been built on the backs off those that have sold, made, fixed, and grown stuff, and we need to remember that and to encourage ambition and celebrate success. I think about those past and present that have and do contribute, and I’d make the point that we have a responsibility to be extremely focused on outcomes and fiscal discipline, as they have been and are in their own lives. We spend their money—it’s not Government money; it’s theirs, and it needs to be respected. 

Mike Butterick, National. High priority.

Waitākere

Waitakere is a new electorate carved out of three others. Labour’s Vanushi Walters, list MP, is standing and the boundary changes means she may win. She’s an Oxford educated human rights lawyer. National is punting up Agnes Loheni, former list MP, who is a small business owner. They are quite different, being Sri Lankan background vs. Samoan, and Loheni being a social conservative. The worst candidate is Green list MP Steve Abel. The more interesting candidate is Bianca O’Keefe, who is an independent who has bothered to put together a website about herself and her views. That deserves credit in itself, and the detail she has included is admirable, even if some of her ideas are questionable. Her ideas are philosophically inconsistent, but she is thinking. That’s more than most of the other candidates. The issue here is that it’s a highly marginal seat. Walters may get in on the list, and she’s not particularly keen on individual freedom and free markets. Loheni on the other hand does have a good sense of individual responsibility, according to her 2017 maiden speech:

I’m the product of the compassion and gratitude my mother taught me and the resilience and hard work ethic my father instilled in me. I grew up very lucky, in stark contrast to many of my Pasefika community today, because growing up, there was no one telling us that the system was against us because we were Samoan kids. There was no one telling us we were impoverished migrant Samoan families living in destitute conditions. There was no one telling us that we needed to be taught differently from all other kids because of our culture. We were not subject to the soft bigotry of low expectation that exists today—the soft bigotry of low expectation that rips hope from our children, destroys faith in their ability to overcome life’s obstacles, creates jealousy and envy in our kids, and leaves them dependent on the whims of the State that says it knows better than their own families.

While encouraging Bianca O’Keefe is not dishonourable, she does need to have a bit of a peer review of her extensive thinking before she deserves support. Back Agnes Loheni for promoting individual responsibility.

Agnes Loheni, National. Medium priority

Waitaki

This is safe National country, with Miles Anderson the incumbent MP. Standard farming stock is Miles and he just had his first term.  Bizarrely, Damien O’Connor, former West Coast-Tasman MP is standing in Waitaki. He’s been in Parliament since 1993, and most recently disgraced himself by being a patsy for the Chinese Communist Party, when he said Australia should follow NZ and be respectful to China. I wouldn’t be worried about O’Connor, he has no chance. One measure of an MP is his maiden speech and Anderson did say:

The (Clyde) dam was completed 30 years ago, and since then, we have collectively hidden behind a curtain of regulation when opportunity has knocked at our door. We have gone from a nation that undertook projects like the Waitaki hydro scheme to a nation that kowtows to activist pressure groups and gives up.

Finally, I want to talk about free speech and democracy. New Zealand has a proud history of championing free speech and democracy. I believe that tradition has been subverted in recent years. It seems that any opinion that isn’t supported by activists and/or so-called progressives is deemed extremist. Why is it that supposed liberals are so illiberal when it comes to hearing opposing views? As I stated earlier in this speech, a sense of fair play and respect for another’s point of view is the hallmark of democracy in New Zealand. We must not lose this bedrock principle of our democratic society in a rush to either extreme wokeness or due to intolerance. We should all be able to agree to disagree in a mature and tolerant manner, and that includes in this House.

He seems like a good egg. Michael Laws is notable as the NZ First candidate, and he is a loose cannon. Other independents offer nothing better, so vote for Anderson.

Miles Anderson, National. Medium priority

Wellington Bays

Lucky me being in the most leftwing non-Maori seat in the country. Julie-Anne Genter took it from Labour in 2023, as Fleur Fitzsimons was that unappealing. Now it’s time to see if the natural order can be restored. Although Genter isn’t the most ignorant and rabid Green MP, as in Auckland Central, having an electorate seat increases funding and outreach for her narrow views, and she like the rest, have all joined in on platforming extremist pro-Palestinian views and cosplay. She was also responsible for the kneecapping of a 2nd Mt Victoria Tunnel in the first term of the Ardern government, and the morphing of Let’s Get Wellington Moving into an expensive waste of time and money, to push a single tram line instead. More recently she was noted for angrily approaching Matt Doocey, because she thinks she is evidence based in her analysis. Defeating her will help slow down her Parliamentary career, although she will be elected as a list MP. Craig Renney is Labour’s candidate, and as much as I’d never endorse a CTU economist (and he is low on the list), he’s better than Genter. National’s Karuna Muthu doesn’t deserve your support this time. He was the candidate in 2023 and his main achievement in 2026 has been to leave a candidate’s meeting because he didn’t like too many “leftwing questions”. Harden up buttercup, try being a libertarian standing anywhere? National should have picked someone new to go through the baptism of fire of standing in a seat where there is little chance.  If you can’t cope with Renney, you could vote for Nicole McKee of ACT, but she wouldn’t want you to do that either. Oddities include Bruce Welsh, formerly of the New Conservatives, now standing as an independent. Liam Anderson of the Money Free Party, and Don McDonald, who is known for having utterly cryptic policy statements. If you don’t know him, this is his blog https://rgdsm.wordpress.com/

Craig Renney, Labour. Low priority.

Wellington North

Tamatha Paul won the then Wellington Central electorate in a paroxysm of insanity in 2023, and she deserves to be defeated. She’s not very bright, she doesn’t play well with people who disagree with her and she buys into the bien pensant list of far-left views, and probably thinks people who oppose her are racist and sexist. I know two of the other candidates, but I don’t think you should vote for them unless you think you might vote for Paul instead, in which case feel free. Ayesha Verrall has the best chance of ousting Paul, and yes I can think of a long list of reasons why she isn’t a good choice and if it were most other seats, I’d be voting against her. However, there isn’t a better choice. Jonathan Pitts is standing for National, and although the new electorate boundaries are much better for National (as it has shed leftie Brooklyn in favour of more middling Ngaio and Khandallah), he’s not going to win or come second, bless him for trying though. As for the rest, you could always vote Michael Appleby for the ALCP, who has stood for almost every election since 1996, and his stance is pro-freedom, so if you can’t cope with Verrall, he deserves your vote for his indefatigability. Jessica Hammond is standing for the fourth time for Opportunity, and bless her for trying, but it’s getting dangerous now and it’s important to stop the lanyard party’s momentum. A shout out to Josh Harford standing for quasi-Muldoonist socialism, although I’m still unsure that the former candidate for the Silly Hat Party for Mayor isn’t engaging in a grand act of comedy by stringing along a bunch of insane old tankies from the Maritime Union. Hard lefties should give him support for being many times smarter than Tamatha Paul. Yes, I know Tamatha Paul will get in on the list, but not having an electorate reduces funding and outreach for her toxic opinions. Yes, I know Ayeesha Verrell is high on the Labour list, but she isn’t guaranteed to get in on current polling either.

Ayeesha Verrell, Labour. High priority.

West Coast-Tasman 

What was once a Labour heartland seat is not anymore. The mercurial Maureen Pugh is retiring as the National MP, so this seat is very much up for grabs, given she did great work defeating the odious Damien O’Connor in 2023.  Now National is punting Katie Milne, former Federated Farmers President, as its candidate. Dairy farmer and volunteer firefighter, she seems competent and there is nothing to say she wouldn’t be. Rory Paterson is standing for Labour, although he doesn’t appear to live in the electorate and he is, of course, a teacher. As usual, it’s hard to tell if he would do less harm in Parliament than being a leftie teacher, but I think Milne is a safer bet in a seat that could swing to Labour.  There are eleven candidates here, which indicates a high level of craziness.  Money Free, the Alliance, Sue Grey (yes that one) from Outdoors and Freedom, NZ Loyal and “Progressive Aotearoa New Zealand” all have candidates, so the funny money conspiracists have lots of choices, including of course Opportunity and the Greens.

Katie Milne, National. Medium priority.

Whanganui

Whanganui is held by National’s Carl Bates (who?), and while it is probably safe for him, it does swing to Labour from time to time. He’s been given some grief for property investment, and has a business background. He seems benign enough. Former Labour list MP Angela Roberts is standing. She was a President of the PPTA, one of the most pernicious protectors of poorly performing teachers in the country, so that is a sound reason to stop her getting elected. Out of curiosity is Juan Coffey, a founder of a party called Balance NZ, which is not registered. A lot of effort has been put into its policies, which are actually fairly centrist. No, don’t vote for him, but it’s actually more thorough than say, Opportunity. Harete Hipango-Brownlie, former National MP in Whanganui from 2017-2020 (and then list MP till 2023), is standing for NZ First. Conservatives might vote for her, given her stances on abortion and euthanasia, but she has no chance and reports of how well she works with others are mixed. I’d hold my nose and stick with stopping Angela Robert by voting for Bates.

Carl Bates, National. Medium priority. 

Whangaparāoa

This seat is very safe for Mark Mitchell, hence why there are so few candidates. He has had quite the career with plenty of bravery and heroism, and is sometimes seen as a future leader, but that would be a mistake. I don’t think former cops should lead countries, as their instincts are not likely to be towards protecting freedom and limiting the power of the state. He has most of the views you would think a former cop would have, so I’d be thinking about who else you could vote for with good conscience. It wont be environmental educator Estefania Muller-Pallarès from Labour, as much as I like the idea of her not doing her job. Brenton Faithfull, funeral director standing for NZ Loyal seems a nice guy, but it’s NZ Loyal which is crazy and obsessive. I’d be ticking entrepreneur Helena Roza for ACT, just to send Mitchell a message that his seat shouldn’t be taken for granted.

Helena Roza, ACT. Low priority.

Whangārei

Whangarei is usually a National seat, but this time Shane Reti is retiring, so Lloyd Budd is National’s candidate. On the downside he’s a real estate agent and is bigging up having completed the “a leadership course through Harvard University Executive Education”. His profile is typical National candidate, but there isn’t that much depth there. The awful Dr Gary Payinda is standing for Labour, who has purged his lengthy social media profile of pejorative attacks and agitprop to look like he’s worthy of actually being in power. This statement from him says it all about the standards he has in facts vs. rhetoric “This government has given billions of our tax dollars to oil companies, tobacco companies and property speculators but have made life harder for our teachers, nurses and firefighters”. It’s a tough call, activist GP or real estate agent. On balance it is better for Whangarei to have one fewer real estate agent than one fewer GP, so hold your nose and help reduce housing prices by voting in Lloyd Budd. Payinda can go back to patching up bodies and sounding off ignorantly about public policy on social media. The worst candidate is not clear, as there are a few independent who don’t say much, but I’m going to pick Luke Beharrell of the Money Free NZ Party. The name of the party says it all really.

Lloyd Budd, National. High priority.

Wigram

Megan Woods is the outgoing incumbent here although she remains a list candidate oddly, she is now Labour, but once was with Jim Anderton’s Progressive Party. Although it is probably safe for Labour’s Dominik Yanzick (who rarely for Labour, works in the private sector), National won the party vote here handsomely in 2023 with around 45% to Labour on 31%, so it is far from assured. On the one hand, Yanzick’s experience and background is probably an asset to the Labour Party, but on the other hand National’s Tracy Summerfield is an entrepreneur which is fairly solid (although I mark down most people with an MBA) and a teacher which also makes her rare to not be a rabid lefty.  ACT MP Laura McClure is standing, but she’ll likely be elected on the list anyway.  By far the worst candidate is William Alexander for the Hamas Free Palestine Party, a former thespian who the Socialist Spinoff gave attention for wimping out on finishing his hunger strike for an Islamist theocracy.

Tracy Summerfield, National.  Medium priority

Te Tai Hauāuru

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, who classifies the entire population of the country into Tangata Whenua, Tangata Tiriti and “everyone else” (who don’t matter as they are dying out), and thinks Jews aren’t indigenous to Israel deserves to be sent into electoral oblivion. Labour’s Te Puoho Katene has the best chance of doing so, but Ngarewa-Packer has such a lead, you could pick National’s Coral Raukawa to give her credit for bothering to stand in the first place. 

Te Puoho Katene, Labour. Medium priority.

Te Tai Tokerau

This seat is a mess, because the current MP is ex. TPM Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. She is standing again under her own party banner, which would create an overhang as she is unlikely to get enough party votes to justify the seat. So it’s a four- way race, as TPM has a candidate, the Greens are trying with Huhana Lyndon, and Labour is putting the mediocre Willow-Jean Prime as the candidate. To avoid the overhang either Lyndon or Prime would make sense, but if you are watching the polls, pick the one most likely to defeat Kapa-Kingi that doesn’t include TPM

Willow-Jean Prime, Labour. Low priority.

Te Tai Tonga

Takuta Ferris, who doesn’t like Asian people campaigning for Labour candidates in Maori seats, is an independent having been ex. TPM. He also would be an overhang if he won. TPM is proposing Lisa Marie Murch who should be rejected for her radicalism. Lisa Te Morenga of the Greens is a better candidate as she is smarter than most of them, but Mananui Ramsden for Labour is the obvious choice here.  

Mananui Ramsden, Labour. High priority.

Tāmaki Makaurau

This is now a bit of a mess. Oriini Kaipara is the TPM MP, but Labour’s candidate Kerrin Leoni is no longer the Labour candidate, but she remains on the list. It is better to vote for Kerrin Leoni, as she will take an overhang seat from TPM, and will still be counted from the Labour list, as her withdrawal as a Labour candidate happened after the deadline for submitting candidates.

Kerrin Leoni, “Labour”, High priority.

Waiariki

Rawiri Waititi, who thinks Maori are genetically superior to others and that almost every government policy is racist and fascist, is a buffoon who deserves to be voted out. He is also backing the anti-democratic attempt to create a TPM overhang. Waititi’s most likely to lose against Labour’s Toni Boynton, so you should vote for her. 

Toni Boynton, Labour. High priority.

31 October 2026

A disappointed libertarian votes

Libertarians rarely like the advance auction of stolen goods that are general elections. Politicians mindlessly throw around promises to spend money that isn't theirs, on projects they wont be accountable for (really), to give to people who didn't earn it, or to control people's property, or to tell them what to do, and send some people to prison for not doing what they say. It is a bidding war on borrowed money from future taxpayers by and large, and it is fundamentally banal.

The NZ 2026 election has been particularly woeful. However, there are choices

  • Keep the National-led coalition government in power;
  • Replace it with a left-wing variant led by Labour, but also with the Greens, Opportunity and maybe Te Pati Maori;

  • Opt out of giving any of them your endorsement.

I'm tempted by Peter Cresswell's support of the last, but I think it is ill founded, because there really is a choice between a ragtag mob of people who sometimes do good, and a ragtag mob of people who rarely do good. The right to not vote is important though, Australians don't have it, because it is a much more rules based country than NZ. You don't need to vote, you can curse them all, noting your impact is miniscule although not zero. However, I think you should consider voting for a party at least (electorates are a different matter, which I will follow up on tomorrow).

There are nuances to these three choices of course, some think you can have the first with Opportunity, some think you can have the last without, but for a country with an electoral system now offering seven parties that are highly likely to be elected, it seems fairly binary. It’s not though, it’s a sliding scale as to the degree you want government to have power, control and your money to spend, what you want it to have power, control and to spend money on, and the philosophical underpinnings for doing that.  You can make choices for options 1 and 2 that are variants on what matters to you. You can be moderate with the two main parties, or be more aggressive in various directions. There is only one direction I want to go in, which is a bit less government.

What about ACT?

Despite commentary by some of the shallow of thinking, there is no libertarian option on the ballot, so I should first address that elephant in the commentary. ACT is not a libertarian party. It isn’t even the party of Roger Douglas’s Unfinished Business – which was a manifesto in itself.  ACT is neither radical nor bold, indeed where it lies today is perhaps where the National Party was in the late 1990s, with occasional flashes of inspiration on a handful of matters. 

A libertarian party would be calling for significant cuts in state spending, not simply taking it down to levels proportionate when John Key was in power. 

A libertarian party would be calling for decriminalising adult ingestion of any substances, as long as there is adult responsibility for the resulting behaviour.

A libertarian party would be calling for getting the state progressively out of the supply of most goods and services, fundamental reform of education and healthcare, and individualising national superannuation, ACC and social welfare.

ACT sometimes lights up on parts of these, from time to time, but it is mostly a party of the conscience of the National Party. It’s single greatest achievement is charter schools, even those these are somewhat hogtied by a National Party terrified of the teachers’ unions. Starting a more fundamental debate on the Treaty was useful, at the very least as a way of venting frustration and discussing what could not have been discussed for years – the role of the Treaty and what its application meant. On a side point, it is a disgrace, to the other parties, that ACT is the only party that doesn’t want to wage war on supermarkets.  However, it is also extremely disappointing that Paul Henry will be in Parliament.  Yes I've read his book, it didn't take long.

NZ First?

Beyond ACT, occasionally NZ First will emerge with something that is consistent with individual freedom, free market capitalism and supporting core defence/law and order roles of the state, but it is fundamentally a party of opportunism. NZ First is reverting to a mix of soft-nationalism, casual bigotry towards migrants and conservativism, even if it history in power has been largely to be happy with symbols and spending on baubles (railways seem to be one of the latest ones). It’s conservative-nationalism without the anti-semitism, white supremacy and militarism. While I admire NZ First’s rejection of critical theory, and baiting of the ethno-nationalists on the hard left, a party that calls variously for nationalisation, vast state projects and incoherent regulation on an ad hoc basis is not one I can support. I'm heartened though that it might hoover up lots of votes that might go to smaller loony parties.

 Though I will give Winston Peters credit for ending funding of the Hamas infested UNRWA.

National?

National this past term has been more impressive than under the Key-English era, not least because it actually repealed laws passed by Labour. That’s no small achievement, as National usually just continues what Labour did, with a handful of exceptions. Most notable was repealing Labour’s Natural and Built Environments Act and Spatial Planning Act, which would have continued the nationalisation of land, although the replacement is a long way from being what many of us hoped for.  Also notable is:

• Scrapping Three Waters which would have indirectly shared control of water infrastructure with Iwi.

• Scrapping the Maori Health Authority

• Scrapping the creeping ban on (legal) tobacco sales for adults

• Scrapping the virtue signalling ban new offshore oil and gas exploration

• Scrapping the grossly inefficient Lake Onslow Pumped Hydro boondoggle

• Scrapping the Auckland Light Rail project

• Scrapped the compulsory national Social Insurance programme

• Unwinding the centralisation of polytechs

• Scrapping legislation to impose industry-wide collective bargaining

• Scrapping the “ute tax” subsidy for new EV buyers

• Scrapping the Reserve Bank’s dual mandate

• Reintroducing applying the same tax deductibility on interest bills for residential property investment as with other investments

There is plenty of disappointment too. Reform of local government has been mixed, with semi-forced amalgamations, rather than stripping the power of general competence. The rates cap is a significant win, although it is much later than it should have been.

On education, the reinstatement of charter schools is a good step, as have been some reforms of the curriculum, but the fundamentals are still antagonistic to choice and diversity in education, and little has been done to strip out the significant leftwing/critical theory bias in curriculum, teacher training and recruitment. Nothing matters more than getting this right because education profoundly affects the futures of young people, as well as national culture, identity and philosophy. For many years it has been dominated by a philosophy and people whose views on this do not align with the government, let alone a free, open liberal democracy with capitalism, private property rights and individual responsibility.

That wont change while so much power is centralised in Wellington, and while a central focus of the system is preventing industrial action by teaching unions that openly back leftwing parties and oppose performance based pay, and opening up teaching beyond the heavily post-modernist oriented teacher training system.  National has shown little interest in tackling these issues. What a disaster the free school meals policy has been as a distraction, set up by Labour in its endless effort to give people something paid for by future generations. 

On healthcare, it is all tinkering. Beyond some arguments around centralised vs. devolved power, or having a specialist cancer hospital, almost all debates on healthcare are around how much money and where does it go. While the left debates bans and taxes on products that it disapproves of for being unhealthy (tobacco, alcohol, gambling, sugar, fat, salt), the “right” says little beyond enabling more private provision of healthcare. Nobody talks about how the current system, fundamentally, has little link between user demand and supply, nor how the rationing of public healthcare inevitably means people wait for services, and some are delayed, and they suffer and some die as a result. Talk of reform onto a partial insurance model, as seen in Australia, Singapore, Switzerland, France, Germany and others will inevitably see shrieks of unhinged hysteria about “Americanisation”, which nobody advocates. Politicians who don’t advocate more socialism in healthcare (i.e. free dentistry supplied by whom?) are fearful of even starting a debate about how healthcare is structured and funded. So, nothing new is coming there. Don’t expect anything about ACC either, that lumbering state monopoly isn’t being challenged by anyone.

On welfare, it is tinkering as well. Sure, eligibility is somewhat tighter, and there is talk about drug testing (which is somewhat performative), but there is little about stripping back the scale of the middle class welfare state that Helen Clark and Michael Cullen set up to trap the National Party, successfully. Indeed, Nicola Willis has thrown more money at it with her Family Boost package subsidising (heavily regulated) childcare. Nobody has answers about addressing structural welfare dependency, and indeed the Opportunity Party wants everyone on welfare, and the hard-left parties want much more.

On the size of the state and freedom more generally, besides a few surprises (abolition of the Broadcasting Standards Authority), there’s little sign of any progress. Nicola Willis wont cut the public sector to the level to 2017 levels (adjusted for today’s population) because apparently that would be “too tough”. However, she’s and Luxon are keen to consider breaking up the largest NZ franchisee owned supermarket chain, to show off a commitment to lowering grocery prices. It’s only slightly more sensible than Labour’s policy of structural separation, which is economic lunacy and unprecedented anywhere in the world.  Moreover, Luxon is also keen on following Australia’s unsuccessful ban on under 16yos accessing social media, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it led to compulsory ID for internet access because, well, the instincts towards individual freedom are difficult to see.

Finally, on the economy, the age of riding off the back of the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s is well and truly gone. Clark did that, as did Key, but the gains from those reforms have ebbed away as regulation has creeped in, and the role of the state has grown bit by bit. It has become more and more difficult to set up business, hire people, open bank accounts and trade, and the competitiveness of NZ compared to other economies has waned as a result. Again, four of the parties vying for Parliament are keen to make that significantly worse, of course always with the best of intentions. Genuine interest in reforms that improve productivity exist in some. Addressing housing supply, reforming the planning system, even allowing road pricing all make small and useful differences, but none are fundamental. David Seymour’s Ministry of Regulation has surprisingly, made some small differences, but there needs to be a much more direct commitment to making starting and sustaining businesses and hiring people easier.  The leftwing parties don’t believe in that.

Perhaps, by far, the most disappointing element of the Luxon Government is Luxon himself. He is one of the most uselessly uninspiring and awkward Prime Ministers in recent history. He lacks authenticity and seriousness. He is so unconvincing it is painful. He laughs awkwardly at questions or things he said, and nobody really knows what matters to him, beyond his family. To his credit he has largely let Ministers take charge of their portfolios, like CEOs do to sectoral managers, but he is not a CEO. He is expected to provide leadership, gravitas, philosophical and “national” authority as he represents NZ globally and presents a vision that is convincing, not always popular, but grounded in something, anything.

The fact that few opinion polls put National at 30% or above is a testament to his failure. It remains quite the paradox that on the one hand so many in the country think Luxon is a poor Prime Minister (but even more think Hipkins could be worse), but a majority of National’s caucus don’t think so (or merely dislike the alternatives). It’s obvious that, short of a remarkable turnaround in the next week, Luxon will not be Prime Minister at the 2029 election. Even if he can manage to retain power this time, he will have lost authority, especially if he has also lost Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop because the party vote has fled elsewhere out of sheer frustration and fear. 

Overall?

A great government? No. A good government? In snippets. A better one than Hipkins had? Yes, but what a low bar that was.

Could it be better? Of course. It could cut spending, it could liberalise education from the bureaucracy, the unions and the stultifying ideology that cauterises real critical thinking. It could embrace private property rights as so many of them want to. It could focus relentlessly on productivity, and on an outward looking mindset, and a belief that individual freedom and responsibility are to be cherished and encouraged, and for people to be judged not on their background, but on their deeds.  It could believe in retaining internet anonymity and freedom, and promote parental and business responsibility in changing the online culture of bullying and harassment.

A party vote for ACT might inch that a little closer. I doubt one for NZ First will. I’m unsure one for National really would.

What is clear is that the other four parties turn away from this. Their main driver is how to take more money from people and businesses, and to funnel it through Wellington to pay for more public sector employees or more welfare, and more spending. They want to control and regulate more, they want to more judge people based on their background, than on their deeds. They want more state. They talk of freeing people from burdens, but they want to take charge, be our parents, and to divide people into those who must be taken from, and those who should receive.  Moreover, they have become more radical, more militant, more strident. Some want wealth taxes – taxes on what you own, after paying taxes on the income in the first instance, all want to sacrifice your standard of living to reduce emissions for zero measurable gain, all default to more spending, more regulation and more control.

So yes, vote for one of the three coalition parties. I’ll be party voting ACT, with many reservations, but it’s not like 2008, when the choice between Clark and Key was largely one of style, not substance.  This government has many weaknesses, the biggest one is at the head of it, but it’s much less dangerous than the side led by activists, unionists, race supremacists and haters of capitalism, liberal democracy and private property. 

03 October 2026

The two Chris's have failed to inspire most voters

Although it’s always tempting to take a line from the late Jim Bolger and say “bugger the pollsters,” it’s hard to ignore them. They do more than observe what might happen in the upcoming election—they influence it.

Political polls are presented as reflections of voter sentiment, yet they also drive it. Most voters are reluctant to back parties that look unlikely to clear the 5% party-vote threshold or win an electorate seat. When media coverage of polls suggests a party has a realistic chance, it can encourage support.

The contest is shaping up poorly for the two main Chrises—Luxon and Hipkins—both of whom are increasingly toxic to their parties’ hopes of dominating the election. This says a great deal about the men themselves and about the caucuses that selected them.Neither National nor Labour has managed to choose a leader with anything approaching the “X” factors voters want in a prime minister: charisma, connection, conviction and communication.

 Luxon is a busted flush. Claims that rolling a first-term prime minister would be unprecedented miss the larger point: this election itself is unprecedented. Never has mainstream media influence been weaker, support for the two major parties lower, or a sitting prime minister so unpopular after a single term. New Zealand has not defeated a one-term prime minister since Walter Nash in 1960 under first-past-the-post, when Labour still won just over 43% of the vote. The parallels are limited.

Luxon’s failures as a convincing, conviction politician are obvious enough in the polls. National voters are drifting to ACT and NZ First in search of something more authentic—whether small government and free enterprise or conservatism with economic nationalism. Neither minor party is perfectly consistent, but Seymour and Peters at least say what they think with little concern for upsetting the bien pensant commentariat. Luxon and Willis sound and look as if they respond to focus groups. The supermarket policy is a case in point. It's desperate stuff.

On the other side sits former prime minister Chris Hipkins, still carrying the baggage of six years of Ardern government. He is unconvincing as someone who will achieve much when his own record is poor: a housing bubble inflated and then burst, sharply higher public spending with little to show for it, an economy fuelled by similar largesse, and a string of virtue-signalling measures paired with intolerance of accountability. The last time Labour recycled a failed prime minister was Mike Moore in 1993; he lost under first-past-the-post when National’s opponents were split between the Alliance and NZ First. Hipkins offers little beyond recycled handouts and criticism of National for failing to fix everything. Outside Labour’s base, few are buying it.

The Greens, having put away their keffiyehs and Palestinian flags, are pushing a full-throated socialist vision of a large, all-embracing state and directing anger at “the rich” in a bid to pull Labour voters. They are also attracting young radical Māori voters who hear Te Pāti Māori’s call to create an overhang by prioritising electorate seats over the party vote (a similar right-wing effort is less likely to succeed but may still cost National a couple of points). The result could be an ethnic-socialist alliance that gives the Greens a larger boost than before. Te Pāti Māori is recovering from recent splits and hopes to hold at least three seats; it usually struggles when National is in power because Labour can campaign simply to change the government.Opportunity’s emergence is partly a reaction to Labour’s lack of inspiration and to the distaste some Green supporters feel for that party’s sharp leftward shift, especially its one-sided stance on Palestine. Though it brands itself centrist, Opportunity’s policy positions are close to Labour’s without the union movement’s dominance. It is the centre-left home for bureaucrats and moderate activists. By emphasising economic fairness and tax reform it is attracting voters who think Labour is offering nothing new. Unhappy swing voters may prefer it to Labour, though what they really expect in return remains unclear.

A four-party government is a real possibility—Labour-Greens-Opportunity-Te Pāti Māori or National-ACT-NZ First-Opportunity—with the former looking more likely.It could still change, though that now seems improbable. Labour could have replaced Hipkins, but it is unclear who would have wanted the job. A new leader would almost certainly lift Labour’s vote, mainly at Opportunity’s and National’s expense, making a three-party arrangement (Labour-Greens with Te Pāti Māori confidence and supply) more plausible. 

National could have replaced Luxon and might have fared better against Labour. If either major party had chosen a leader capable of inspiring people as a fresh prime minister who believes in something beyond keeping the other side out, the picture might look different. Instead both National and Labour appear to take their status for granted, as if their role is simply to exclude the other lot rather than offer a vision.

Vision and conviction are more visible in ACT, the Greens, NZ First, Te Pāti Māori and even Opportunity (saccharine though it is). If neither major party reaches 30% of the party vote, it will be because neither has convinced voters that what it offers is worth the effort.

Notable also is the growing divide among younger voters. Roy Morgan’s latest poll showed women aged 18–49 supporting Labour at 36% and the Greens at 20%, with National on 14.5%, NZ First on 10.5% and ACT on 3.5%. Men in the same age group were almost the reverse: National 34.5%, Labour 18%, Greens 14%, ACT 11.5% and NZ First 4.5%. Apart from NZ First (which draws more young women than men), the pattern is a clear left-right split. Younger men lean towards the government; younger women do not, and they are far more open to left-wing radicalism than young men are to the right.Among those over 50, National leads—more strongly among men than women—and support for smaller parties is roughly even between the sexes. What does this imply for a future divided by politics, philosophy and outlook? 



At the very least it should encourage people, especially those with strong views, to speak to opponents with a measure of respect and to listen. The prevailing trend appears to be the opposite.

Meanwhile, the window for National or Labour to change leaders is almost shut—not impossible, merely improbable. National has made its choice and is sticking with it. Labour’s next generation of leaders seems content to wait for defeat so they can contest the subsequent election with a clearer run.

It is not hard to see why neither party is inspiring voters.

04 July 2025

Does Dame Anne Salmond really want to debate the Regulatory Standards Bill?

Dame Anne Salmond is upset at the use of pejoratives to describe some opponents of the Regulatory Standards Bill. I can understand not liking the use of terms that are explicitly or implicitly abusive, as it is hardly helpful. She doesn't like being called "Victim of the Day" by David Seymour, although his piece on her was not personal.   I struggle to see why an article that largely is about rebutting her original piece is initiating "an online campaign of intimidation" as she claims. Indeed the comments responding to Seymour's post have plenty criticising him as well as supporting him.  She may think I am part of a campaign of intimidation, but she claims debate is fine, so let's have that. She has a wide platform as a public figure, so, as with other critics like Metiria Turei and Willie Jackson (past and present MPs), engaging publicly on an issue means people will support and oppose. 

Let’s remember this is an academic that once wrote that unless you can read the original language any text is written in, you are not entitled to have an opinion on it.  She talks of wanting to “silence” critics but is adept at finding reasons to tell those she criticises effectively that they are not entitled to express an opinion on Te Tiriti.  This is someone who claims the Regulatory Standards Bill expresses a “contempt for liberal democracy” who expresses contempt for people commenting on Te Tiriti if they are not sufficiently fluent in Te Reo. 

Her criticism of the Regulatory Standards Bill strongly infers that those advocating it don’t believe in “public goals and values” (she means the public goals and values she supports).  She opposes it because it lacks a strong democratic mandate, on the basis that most voters didn’t vote for ACT.  Has she ever said the same about Bills advanced by the Greens or Te Pati Maori? 

She opposes the principles focusing on individual rights and private property, which at least she’s explicit about. I’d argue that opposing such principles is “dangerous” in itself, and is the source of much of the harm seen today.  What is fundamentally wrong with respecting people’s autonomy over their bodies and property, and having a society based on that? (leaving aside how inconsistent ACT is in defending this - which is fair criticism. ACT is no libertarian party, and never has been).  

She claims that having an ideological oversight over the legislative and regulatory activities of all government agencies is a “naked power grab”. Power for whom? The Regulatory Standards Board has no power to do anything other than to report, as it would be up to the elected government of the day to respond to it, or ignore it.  What is she really afraid of, that the governments she supports would be asked to justify why they are overriding individual rights and property rights to implement policies she supports?  

If individual rights and property rights are so “dangerous” then she should have no fear whatsoever of a government she supports implementing the policies she supports saying “individual rights are secondary to us banning, compelling or taxing people for this “public purpose””. Sunlight showing the very clear trade-offs between individual rights and the politics of collectivists. 

It takes nothing away from the Executive or Parliament, it is not a constitution upholding those rights and being able to veto policies that degrade them (if only!).

However, Salmond’s real view on this is that it is sinister, because she doesn’t think ACT has honest intent (because she opposes the reform of the pay equity legislation applied retrospectively).  That’s not playing the ball, that’s playing the man.  She thinks ACT wants to undermine liberal democracy, which is a serious accusation.  Bear in mind she claims the Government is waging a "war on women". 

Is this the rhetoric of someone who wants fact based debate, or someone happy to jump in, boots and all, into the world of political pejoratives?

She claims on LinkedIn that (the Regulatory Standards Bill) "rhetoric used to support this bill talks about ‘equality,’ ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom, ’trying to force indigenous and other New Zealanders to abide by libertarian understandings of these words – thus stripping them of their rights and freedoms"

Really? How does anyone "force" anyone else to abide by the meaning of any word? How does this even make sense? 

She says there are not enough checks and balances on executive power but claims this Bill will be an example of this, even though it can only come into power by being passed by a majority in Parliament. It can of course be repealed likewise.  This is simply wrong.

The “worst” effect she claims is that the bill “attempts to tie the hands of the state in regulating private activities or initiatives that create public harm”. This isn’t actually what is in the Bill, but an interpretation.  Lot of people claim “public harm” from activities that generate private benefit, ranging from what people consume or do with their bodies through to businesses they engage in with consenting adults.  =Of course, the Bill simply states as a principle that legislation should not take, impair property unless fair compensation is given for that.  =All the Bill requires is that this be reported on, and then Parliament decides whether to do so, or not.  

Then she talks about the "accumulation" of wealth and power by the “few” at the “expense of the many”, which is political agitprop. Of course, globally she is one of the “few” as are most people in New Zealand, who have incomes and wealth exceeding that of the majority of the global population.  She continues with rhetoric of “over-emphasis on private property and individual rights”. She thinks that is what happens in the US, a country with eminent domain over private property to enable private development (an egregious violation of property rights), a country with a long litany of laws against individual freedom ranging from what one can ingest into one’s body, through to the endless need for permits to undertake mundane trading activities.

Salmond appears not to have read the Bill.  If she has, she hasn't understood it.  Maybe she simply imputes sinister intent to ACT, by claiming it is all "doublespeak"?

It's easy to see why David Seymour would get frustrated, with rhetoric of that of Marxist student activists. This Bill does not attack the “fundamental rights of New Zealanders” as Salmond claims and puts up zero evidence for.  What it would do is subject the policies she supports to the scrutiny as to why individual rights and property rights should be reduced to achieve the objectives she may be in supportive of.  Governments could then ignore that or respect it.

Why is that controversial, unless you think it doesn't really matter if individual freedom and private property rights are eroded for "the common good"?

30 December 2023

New Zealand politics in 2024

2023 was a year when New Zealand voters most adamantly said they wanted change. The near personality-cult around Jacinda Ardern had well and truly eroded, as the rhetoric around the government of “kindness” (implemented using the monopoly of legitimised violence of the state) and the budget of “wellbeing” (implemented by taking money from current and future generations) seemed increasingly empty. The government so committed to ending poverty had presided over the fastest increase in personal wealth by homeowners in modern history and its primary response was to tax landlords who didn’t want to rent out their properties for fewer than ten years without selling them.  It presented itself as a victim of external forces, whether it be Covid or inflation which NZ was constantly told was due to the war in Ukraine, even though many of NZ’s trading partners had lower inflation.

Although there was a brief flurry of excitement about Chris Hipkins, appearing to recalibrate Labour on “what matters”, voters were largely unconvinced. Hipkins follows Mike Moore and Bill Rowling in leading Labour to landslide defeats, albeit for different reasons. Jacinda Ardern is nearly invisible in the country that was hailed internationally for keeping Covid out, and she is now hailed internationally by those who never visited NZ, and she is now at Harvard, whose President Claudine Gay is surrounded by scandal around claiming that if a student of Harvard advocated for genocide against Jews, it would “depend on the context” as to whether it breached its policy on harassment and bullying. Claudine Gay is also now facing accusations of plagiarism in her earlier work.

The former Prime Minister of kindness hasn’t been approached for comment on what she thinks about the head of her new gig’s ambivalence about anti-semitism, but then again why would she abandon her career of highly-paid talkfests?

Meanwhile the 2023 election saw a threeway split in positions. While 27% were willing to give Chippy a go, 15% thought Labour had been far too timid and voted for the Greens and Te Pati Maori to advance a much more radical socialist, intersectionist, ethno-nationalist set of reforms including more tax, more spending, much more transfer of power from the state and Parliament to Iwi, and radical central planning around provision of health, education and the economy, let alone expansion of the welfare state to a universal benefit. 

The Greens and Te Pati Maori saw the changes as being that Labour didn’t do enough to address what it said it was doing about key issues such as climate change, poverty and Tino Rangitiratanga.  He Puapua was seen as a step along a journey of major constitutional change that would see Iwi standing side-by-side with Parliament and the “colonising” Government sharing power. Te Pati Maori successfully sold this vision to voters in almost all of the Maori seats, but Labour couldn’t sell the path of radical change to the general population, especially when questioning or criticising the path of more co-governance was simply labelled as racist and ignored.  

Fortunately around 55% (including some of the minor parties) voted in the other direction, with a mix of centre-right incrementalism (National), classical liberalism (ACT) and a touch of conservatism and nationalism (NZ First), with a couple of bones thrown at traditionalists.  It’s a historic switch in electoral support for Labour to lose 46% of the votes it gained in 2020 as a proportion of votes cast.  

The 2020 election was extraordinary, Labour got an unprecedented majority based almost entirely on having kept Covid 19 out of the country and life being relatively normal (albeit with foreign travel restricted for all but select politicians, officials and others chosen by the Government) compared to countries enduring extended lockdowns. Labour took that as a chance to embark on a series of radical reforms that ultimately saw its undoing. As it borrowed and spent to at first save businesses from collapse during the pandemic and then stimulate the economy, it went on to literally pay people money for nothing, and then blame inflation entirely on outside factors. As it increased benefits in order to address poverty (due in no small part due to a persistent housing shortage that can be blamed on governments of all stripes over the previous 25 years). it was no surprise that as baby boomers reached retirement age, a shortage of staff would emerge, as a generation withdrew from the labour force (bolstered by National Superannuation and inflated housing prices) and a growing number simply opted out of paid work altogether. Since 2017 the statutory minimum wage had been increased by just over 44%, even though prices in that same time had increased 25%. 

Reports of increasingly aggressive crime including ramraids were far too often dismissed or minimised, at least for those who were the victims of it, as it appeared that crime increasingly did pay.  Meanwhile, much needed reforms to the water sector had layered over them a complex governance structure that was to see Iwi, in four groups, deciding half of the members of boards, who would determine the members of another set of board, that would govern fresh, waste and stormwater infrastructure across the country.  This was all apparently because Te Tiriti now meant Iwi would have governance rights over whatever sectors the Government said it should – and infrastructure was now part of that.  It wasn’t enough for territorial authorities that own the infrastructure to consult with Iwi, not enough for there to be Iwi representatives on councils through exclusively Maori wards (which are democratically elected), but that Iwi would have equivalent powers to local government. Although some of the backlash against Three Waters was ill-directed mindless racism, the core issue – why should the future management of ratepayer owned assets be half governed by Iwi (who were already at the table of local government)?

Other completely unnecessary measures also gave the impression of a government less concerned about inflation and crime, than it was on social engineering and seeking to look as if it was addressing what it thought was important, when much of the public were concerned about the cost of living and threats to their families.

The aftermath of the Christchurch Mosque attack generated calls, particularly from parts of the Muslim community, to toughen laws on hate speech, primarily around religion. This raised concern that proposals advanced by the Ardern Government would constrain speech around ridiculing religions as “hate speech”.  Ultimately this was suspended, but it helped fuel a mix of genuine concerns around freedom of speech and conspiratorial concerns about a much more sinister intent.  Jacinda Ardern’s tone-deaf but well-meaning claim during the pandemic that if information “doesn’t come from us, then you can’t believe it” sounded straight out of the playbook of a dictatorship. No liberal democracy can or should claim it has the monopoly of truth, because it simply does not and cannot. 

The Public Interest Journalism Fund came from criticism that it was funding journalism that supported the Government’s policies, which although in some ways unfair, did include funding that specifically indicated a philosophical approach to some issues that was controversial, particularly around Te Tiriti. The lines between government and activism became blurred, including by the “Disinformation Project” which was clearly endorsed by the government, but which itself had its own ideological line.

The Disinformation Project of course has its own blind spots. It’s regular reporting of research by Byron Clark, former supporter of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (a breakaway communist led terrorist faction of the PLO) and the communist Workers Party of New Zealand, who was particularly focused on what he called the “far-right” didn’t ever reflect on the perspective someone clearly from the far-left would have on what is “extremist”. 

The 2021 controversy over the so-called “Listener 7” who claimed Matauranga isn’t science, and the long list of academics who sought to humiliate and denigrate them was also part of this dominant discourse in academia, media and politics. It was seen as an attempt to “cancel” and “close” debate on the topic, which extended to Dr Richard Dawkins in the UK, and responses claiming racism and colonialism emerged.  The debate around transgender rights, and the visit by “Posie Parker” supported by a coalition of womens’ rights activists and social conservatives saw similar discourse emerge, with a vehemence of anger and hatred.  All of this rubbed of on Labour, with a strong indication that there were opinions that brought “consequences” around employment and being accepted by academia, media and even business as having “correct” views on controversial topics. 

It's a side point that many of the same people who wanted “consequences” for challenging trans and Te Tiriti discourse run frightened when supporters of the Jewish community and opponents of Hamas condemn their Hamas-inspired rhetoric and slogans.

The majority of the voting public took in a mix of the narrative around the government, the cost of living crisis and concern about a lack of delivery (and performance personally about a growing list of Ministers who simply failed to meet standards of behaviour that should be expected of them).  ACT voters were dominated by those who had had enough of the growth in spending and taxation, and the politics of intersectionality and identity. National voters were primarily concerned about performance and lack of delivery, including the money wasted on expensive schemes seen as “out of touch” with what voters cared about. NZ First happily hoovered up the Covid 19 vaccine sceptics and opponents, but also returned to opposition to Maori nationalism and separatism and hitching onto other culture wars for convenience (see trans-rights).

There is now a National-led government that appears to clearly want to stem the growth in the state and, at the very least, return its size to that seen in 2017. It has clearly reversed some policies and is winding back reforms such as the centralisation of tertiary vocational training, the separate Maori health authority and Three Waters. Although some of the discourse around the government is catastrophism and projection of deranged phobia around its objectives (claims it wants to “erase” Maori or trans-people are unhinged nonsense), it is promising as a National-led government that actually is changing direction, which seems in part driven by ACT and NZ First both wanting to make their mark on the government. This should not be a surprise, as National did not win 40% of the vote, and is more dependent on both minor parties than it had been in the Key/English era.  There is also a generation of younger National, ACT and NZ First politicians who are fed up with a centre-right government simply pausing the advance towards more government and more compulsory collectivism.  

So far so good with most measures taken. It is obvious that Fair Pay Agreements had to go, along with the labyrinthine replacement to the RMA.  It’s particularly encouraging from an individual freedom perspective to see the removal of the tobacco prohibition measures, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth of neo-puritans on the left some who rightfully campaign to legalise cannabis but can’t see the inconsistency of prohibiting sales of tobacco to a growing number of adults.  We will wait to see what will come to replace the RMA.  

What I really want to see is for charter schools to flourish, to expand in number and for the thumping fist of the bureaucratic and professional union monopolies weakened in the control of the education system. I want the RMA replaced with private property rights. Nicola Willis has promisingly indicated willingness to cut core spending of many departments to 2017 levels, and for tax cuts.  

Of course, it wont be a libertarian government, but it looks like being a government that will turn back at least some of the spending and some of the regulation, and even some of the philosophical culture of the previous government. A government that is more interested in productivity and growth of private enterprise, rather than confiscation and distribution of the proceeds of production, and regulation and control of private individuals and their property. 

I can only hope that the calibre of Ministers will be on a significantly higher level than that of the Ardern/Hipkins era, and to be honest it wont be that hard. Nobody should pretend that it is easy to address crime or healthcare, because the fundamental reasons for both of this are long-standing and difficult to confront, but this government ought to focus on some key issues that it can start to turn around.  Educational choice and performance, and the barriers to enabling more housing.  If only it can adeptly take on the inevitable barrage of criticism from academia, media and the Opposition, who are eager to call it out as racist, misogynist, transphobic, white supremacist, neo-colonialist, neo-imperialist and every other blanket collectivist pejorative that can be lazily thrown around. Hopefully the front bench will have the testicular fortitude to respond intelligently and confidently to critiques, but more importantly give minimal reasons for criticism based on performance.

So in 2024 the National Party appears revitalised, and despite the critics, Christopher Luxon has emerged as Prime Minister, it is too early to tell whether the man as PM can prove to be greater than as Opposition Leader.  However, National might actually look like a government that isn’t conservative (in the sense of not changing) about Labour policies.

Labour is scarred, having few seats outside the main centres (Palmerston North and Nelson hanging on), and about to embark on a battle between the hardliners who think it lost for not being socialist enough (although if that were true, then those voters would have gone to the Greens and Te Pati Maori in sufficient numbers to give Labour a chance at government), and those who wonder how it could moderate its image and gain the confidence of voters again. For now, it looks like Labour will spend some time in the wilderness.

The Greens are buoyant because they have done very well indeed, winning two more electorates in Wellington, demonstrating very clearly the yawning gap between many Wellingtonians (including public servants, students and those working for industries supporting government) and the rest of the country, but maybe also the arrogance of Labour which thought it could parachute whoever it chose into two relatively safe seats, and win.  

ACT has a right to be pleased, because it will now have a more influential role in government than ever before. Hopefully it will be a greater success than Rodney Hide implementing Helen Clark’s vision for a greater Auckland Council, and it should enable ACT to stamp its mark on key issues such as education, gun regulation and freedom of speech.

Nobody rules out Winston anymore, as he pivoted and succeeded in being the voice for those who felt like their views, whether on Covid or Te Tiriti or on trans-issues, NZ First became the new conservatives, and a voice for those who felt unheard. The test for Winston Peters is whether he is seen as putting enough of a mark on this government to keep support for the following election. 

Finally Te Pati Maori will feel vindicated in reviving radical nationalist socialism with its support for the destruction of Israel and indifference to Russian irredentism. At best it showed Labour’s arrogance in assuming it still could own Maori voters, but at worst in indicates the outcome of many years of the promotion of intersectionality and structuralist theories in parts of Maoridom and by the state more directly. Labour funded and supported this philosophy while in government, and those who support it have found an authentic voice in favour of it – but it is not a position a majority of Maori, let alone voters in NZ, share.

Have a Happy 2024.