The (not so) little leagues turn heads while majors sit by
The Act Party kicked off AGM season yesterday with its so-called Free & Equal Rally. National and the Greens will both hold their AGMs next month, followed by NZ First in September and rounded out by Labour in November.
Heading into the next election, every vote will count. Polling is consistently showing tight margins, so each party is looking to define itself; to stand out.
On Sunday, Act attempted to do just that – walking the line between showing how it's different from its other right-wing coalition partners, without undermining the three-way union that still has more than a year to run.
With Act and NZ First going head-to-head on the anti-woke vote, David Seymour called in the big guns in the form of the American author and free speech advocate James Lindsay.
The controversial commentator, who's drawn attention for referring to the Pride flag as the 'flag of the hostile enemy', decried mātauranga Māori as a weapon used by the left to drive a wedge into NZ society, drew lines between policies used in Stalin's Soviet Union and modern day Aotearoa, and spoke about the importance of private property rights. He also received spontaneous applause for reminding the audience that 'communists are not good people'.
Seymour hasn't defended Lindsay's comments on rainbow communities, but has defended his right to express such views.
And with Lindsay addressing the anti-woke agenda, the Act leader was able to focus his speech on the party's track record in Government, his view of economic and health policy, and the path ahead.
Seymour also announced party policy to fast track approval for overseas supermarket chains looking to set up in New Zealand. He believes this fast tracking (along with a guaranteed liquor licence) is the best way to ramp up competition in the market.
The Act leader also used his speech to defend the coalition's policy of interest deductibility for landlords, saying this group had been scapegoated under Labour. Seymour told the crowd he knows it's a political risk to defend big business. 'The good thing is, I'm impervious to political risk.' So far, it seems to be true.
Though Seymour didn't get his Treaty Principles Bill passed, he is getting a lot of what he wants from this coalition arrangement – just look at the Regulatory Standards Bill.
But so has NZ First. And after shedding the title of Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters has openly declared he's shifted into campaign mode for the second half of the term.
Seymour says the best form of campaigning is delivering for Kiwis. This may be a response befitting the Deputy Prime Minister, but that doesn't mean he's going to be a wallflower for the next 12-plus months.
All four minor parties know it'll come down to the wire next year and whether they say it or not, they're all in campaign mode – it shows markedly in their finessing of social media staffing and strategies.
The recent, shocking, death of Te Pāti Māori MP Takutai Tarsh Kemp also shows there is fresh talent lining up on the left, ready to step up to the plate. Well-known broadcaster Oriini Kaipara will stand for Te Pāti Māori in the Tāmaki Makaurau by-election, and the party's lawyer Tania Waikato says she will be throwing her hat in the ring next year – though she's yet to confirm her party of choice.
But while the smaller parties go head to head, National and Labour are grappling to come to terms with this changing game. The legacy parties appear to be standing a step back from the fray, biding their time to see what happens next – both with their opposition and their allies.
The risk is they wait too long and lose the ability to set the narrative in the way they've always done. The major parties are still major, but the growing might of the small four means they can't take their platform or influence for granted.
At some point – perhaps during AGM season, which conveniently falls more or less a year out from the election – National and Labour will need to throw themselves onto centre field. That includes unveiling policy that can help turn heads back to the centre.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Government Agency Warns Controversial Bill Could Delay Disaster Response
As the cleanup begins in flood-hit Tasman, fresh documents reveal a stark warning from Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) that the Regulatory Standards Bill could hinder the country's ability to respond to climate-related disasters. In a briefing obtained by Greenpeace under the Official Information Act, LINZ - the agency responsible for managing Crown land - warned that the Bill may "limit the ability to respond quickly to emerging issues (for example, climate-related or natural disaster issues)." Greenpeace has called the advice "yet another nail in the coffin for the doomed Bill". "As families, businesses and farmers in Tasman begin the difficult cleanup after yet another devastating flood, it's shocking to learn that officials are warning this Bill could make it harder to respond to exactly these kinds of disasters," says Greenpeace spokesperson Gen Toop. LINZ also flagged concerns about the Bill's impact on critical infrastructure and public works, warning "an overly rigid emphasis on property interests may conflict with broader regulatory objectives, including the Government's ability to acquire land for infrastructure or public good projects." This was a concern echoed by the Treasury in its advice on the Bill. "The Regulatory Standards Bill is dangerous. It would tie the Government up in new red tape at the very moment when urgent climate action and disaster preparation are needed most," says Toop "The advice is clear. This Bill would make it harder to build the infrastructure we urgently need to decarbonise the economy and prepare for climate disasters - things like flood protection, improved communication links, and renewable energy." LINZ further flagged that the legislation could create new legal barriers to returning land to iwi under the Treaty settlement process, citing concerns raised by the Waitangi Tribunal. "These new warnings are yet another nail in the coffin for this doomed Bill. It has attracted blistering criticism from the United Nations, legal experts, health professionals, Māori leaders, environmental groups, and the public service itself." "The Labour and Green parties have committed to repealing the Bill. It simply has no future. The Prime Minister should withdraw National's support immediately before further time and money is wasted on yet another one of David Seymour's disastrously unpopular policy ideas." This latest revelation comes as news broke this morning that MBIE had warned the Bill could be much more expensive than previously expected and have a negative impact on economic growth, and just days after news broke that the United Nations has issued a letter to the Government criticising the Bill.
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Govt Plan For Jobs A Complete Failure
Benefit and jobseeker numbers released today show the Government's plan to grow jobs and address the cost of living is failing miserably. 'The latest June quarter report shows that things are getting worse, not better,' Labour Social Development spokesperson Willie Jackson said. 'Jobseeker numbers are up. Homelessness is up and cost of living is skyrocketing. This is not a time for Louise Upston to celebrate. 'Yet, she pats herself on the back for moving people off the main benefit but completely ignores the fact that more and more people are receiving benefits and are out of work. By any measurement, this is a failure. 'For whānau in Tāmaki Makaurau it's even worse. The latest report shows that there are 2,800 more Māori on Jobseeker since the end of 2023. 'The Government has cut Māori trades training, which helped our whānau into jobs and the economy to thrive. If anyone should be sanctioned, it should be this government,' Willie Jackson said.
Otago Daily Times
3 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Pay talk protection: National backs Labour's transparency bill
Labour MP Dr Deborah Russell. By Giles Dexter of RNZ Members' bills from opposition MPs are more often than not doomed to fail, but there have been exceptions to the rule this term. Tracey McLellan's Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill received unanimous support at its second reading, with all six parties in Parliament voting in favour. Deborah Russell's Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill is being supported by National and ACT, but not by New Zealand First. Others, like Camilla Belich's Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill, have passed thanks to the support of one of the smaller coalition parties (in this case, New Zealand First). But only one opposition bill has had the support of National, and only National this term, and it is another from Belich. On Wednesday night, her Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill passed its second reading, thanks to National voting alongside the three opposition parties. The bill would ensure that pay secrecy clauses, which prevent employees from discussing their salaries with colleagues, would no longer be enforceable, meaning employers could not take legal action if an employee talked about pay. There will be cases where pay differences were justifiable (such as different skill sets or qualifications), but the bill's intention is to shed light on situations where they were unjustifiable. Australia, the UK, the EU, and some US states have either banned pay secrecy clauses or made them unenforceable. Belich said people already talk about their pay with colleagues, but stopping businesses from taking action against them for it would keep New Zealand up with the times. "It takes away the right for them to take action and discipline their employees when they talk about their pay. We know this happens already at the moment. So there's definitely a common sense, pragmatic element to this bill," she said. "It's making sure that usual human behaviour and workplace discussions are not something that people are disciplined for." Six National MPs took calls on the bill at its second reading. Every one of them referenced the gender pay gap and were hopeful the bill would be a mechanism to reduce it. Banks Peninsula MP Vanessa Weenink, who gave National's first contribution to the bill, said the party supported the bill because it had a "proud history" of driving down the gender pay gap. "We know that pay transparency is a key factor for driving down the gender pay gap. International studies have shown that when that legislation has been brought in, that it's measurable in the amount of reduction in the pay gap. So we really want to see that continue to fall down." Belich said it was great to see continued support for the bill. "I was heartened by the comments made in the house, where the National Party members said they would support this right through. I hope that's what they do," she said. "I think given the current context, where we've had significant changes to our pay equity regime, where women have had the ability to take pay equity claims severely curtailed, these types of bills, which make small changes to make a more transparent workforce, are increasingly important." Weenink said the "optics" around pay equity had nothing to do with National's support for the bill, as the party had also supported the bill at its first reading, well before the pay equity changes were announced. "It's just our ongoing commitment to doing what we can to make the workplace fair and improve productivity. How I see it is that if you can see you're being paid less than someone else who's working right beside you, doing the same job, then that's going to massively reduce your motivation, isn't it?" She did not see it as National handing Labour a win, but rather an opportunity to put party politics aside and improve things for New Zealanders. The bill passed its first reading in November. Sometimes, a bill is given cautious support at its first reading, in order to send it to Select Committee to see if the kinks are ironed out. The Education and Workforce Committee received 225 submissions on the bill, the majority in support. Belich said a number of changes were made to the bill through the Select Committee process, including making it clear there would be no requirement to make a disclosure. "It's still something that can be a private matter. It's only if you wish to that you shouldn't be disciplined for the desire to actually discuss that. So that was probably the major change through Select Committee." She said there were some definitional tidy-ups, including making it clear what the definitions of remuneration and detriment were, as well as ensuring the bill would not be retrospective. Some privileged or commercially sensitive information, for example, owner benefits for a business owner who also receives an employee salary, would also be excluded. Despite the changes, ACT and New Zealand First continued to oppose the bill. ACT said it would allow people to breach agreements they had signed up to, for which there should be consequences. "Once you've signed something, you are supposed to oblige to the conditions that you have signed for. If you do not agree to something in the agreement that you have signed, then there is an opportunity for you to go back and renegotiate the terms and conditions that you don't agree to," Parmjeet Parmar told the House. "But you don't just breach the agreement and say that there should be no consequences for that." New Zealand First's Mark Patterson said it "runs smack into the brick wall" of the party's belief in the "sanctity" of contract law. "While this bill doesn't prevent pay secrecy and that's still able to be incorporated within a contract, it does limit an employer's ability to enforce it, and that goes against what a contract should be," he said. Belich said she found the arguments against the bill "interesting," as it was specifically designed so businesses would not need to spend money to change their contracts. "If we'd said you cannot have a pay secrecy clause in your contract, or pay secrecy clauses are now illegal to have even in an employment document, there'd be thousands of employment agreements throughout the country that would need to be changed, that would cost money, that would take legal advice. It would be a burden on business." The bill still needs to go through the Committee of the Whole House stage for any further tidy-ups, and then a third reading, though Weenink did not foresee any major changes. "It took a long time to bash some of these things out, and I think we've got it to a really good place." Acknowledging National is a "broad church" and there had been strong discussions about the bill amongst the caucus, she did not expect any changes to the party's position at the third reading.
