Christopher Luxon Shrugs Off Polls Showing Tight Electoral Race
The Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll on Monday showed Labour overtaking National as the most popular party and no clear path to power for either side.
TVNZ's 1News-Verian poll was more forgiving to the coalition parties, returning them to government. But it also saw Luxon sink to just 20 percent as preferred prime minister, a two-year low.
On his way into a morning caucus meeting on Tuesday, Luxon told reporters the polls would not be a topic of conversation in the meeting, nor should they be.
"No, no, not at all," he said. "I'm not focused on polls or talking about myself. What I'm focused on is New Zealanders and making sure we've got the right long term economic plan in place."
Luxon said his MPs continued to be provided internal polling through "a regular process" and discussed them "from time to time" in line with "normal practice".
Asked whether he was meeting his own high standards, Luxon said the government was dealing with a challenging international environment.
"We've inherited a really difficult recession," he said. "It's a very difficult time, but we are very, very clear minded and very, very focused on fixing the economy."
Luxon said global confidence had been knocked by the United States' tariff regime but New Zealand had to "power through that".
The faltering economy and cost-of-living crisis featured in both polls as key concerns for voters.
Recently, the Auckland Chamber of Commerce has advocated a cut to the corporate tax rate, while the Taxpayers' Union is calling for an emergency mid-year Budget.
Luxon previously dismissed such calls, and on Tuesday, he maintained the coalition's current focus on manufacturing and construction was the right approach.
"We are doing everything we can. If you think about $6 billion worth of infrastructure projects starting before Christmas, that is a lot of jobs, it's a lot of tradies."
He also pointed to relief on the horizon with the Reserve Bank expected to deliver further interest rate cuts this year.
What's the alternative?
Speaking on Tuesday morning, Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the polls demonstrated New Zealanders were losing faith in National's ability to deliver on its promises.
He accepted, however, that Labour had more work to do, given neither poll had returned the party to the Beehive.
Asked whether the party's support was helped or hindered by Labour's lack of policy, Hipkins said the government "would desperately love more things to attack".
"We'll put further policy out there, but my focus right at the moment is holding the government accountable for their promises."
Any comprehensive fiscal plan would have to wait till after next year's Budget, he said, but Labour's tax policy would be released this year.
Hipkins said a final decision on tax had yet to be resolved but: "consensus is emerging."
He repeatedly refused to give any details, including whether the proposal would be revenue neutral or possible parameters.
"I've always said that I don't think the family home should be taxed, but I'm not announcing a policy that we haven't announced."
National's campaign chairperson Chris Bishop said it was very easy for Labour to insist life should better when they had no policy solutions to offer themselves.
"Life's easy when you're able to throw rocks from the side. Actually, we're the ones... in the arena, making the tough decisions across planning, across education, across infrastructure, across red tape, across fiscal policy to get this economy back on track."
Bishop said the poll numbers reflected a "tough winter" but stressed that the election was not until next year: "People want the economy to be fixed. And I get that. But there is no silver bullet."
He said any talk of replacing Luxon as leader was "just silly".
Luxon: Palestine question is "not a race"
Luxon declined to say whether the caucus would discuss the question of Palestinian statehood on Tuesday, but acknowledged there would be "nuances and differences" within the team.
Foreign Minister Winston Peters on Monday confirmed Cabinet would come to a formal decision in September over whether to recognise a state of Palestine at an upcoming United Nations summit.
All three opposition parties have castigated the government for failing to make a decision, pointing out that New Zealand is now out-of-step with its like-minded partners: Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and France.
But Luxon said the complex question needed careful consideration.
"It's not a race," Luxon said. "It deserves a serious weighing up of our position, and that's exactly what we're going to do."
Luxon declined to say whether he would be comfortable with either coalition partner opting to "agree-to-disagree" on the decision.
"I'm not going to get into hypotheticals... It's all very easy to jump to a bumper-sticker outcome or decision and not think through the consequences."
Pressed on what conditions could be attached, Luxon said he would not presuppose a position but made clear Hamas would have to release hostages and disarm: "There is absolutely no role in any future Palestinian state for a terrorist organization like Hamas."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
29 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Chris Hipkins to speak on decision to skip Covid-19 Royal Commission inquiry public hearings
Labour leader and former Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins is to discuss his decision not to attend the second set of public hearings for the Covid-19 Royal Commission. He is set to speak to Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB at 7.07am. You can listen live below. The hearings have been called off after key witnesses, including former Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern, refused to appear. Those witnesses, including Hipkins and former ministers Grant Robertson and Ayesha Verrall, are still co-operating with the inquiry. In June last year, a 'phase two' of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19 Lessons was established by the National-led coalition Government. It was scheduled to take place after the completion of the original inquiry set up under the previous Labour Government, which ministers have already appeared before in private. Chairman Grant Illingworth has the power to summon people to appear before the inquiry, but said he would not use it on Ardern and the other ministers as there weren't any grounds for it. 'On balance, we are of the view that a summons is undesirable, given that the former ministers continue to co-operate with the evidence-gathering of the inquiry. 'It is our opinion that the use of summonses to achieve their participation at a public hearing would be legalistic and adversarial, which our terms of reference prohibit,' Illingworth said. He said he still believed public hearings would enhance public confidence in the inquiry's processes by enabling the public to see former ministers, who have critical insights into the pandemic response, questioned in public. Hipkins, appearing on Herald NOW last month, said he had issues with the way the second phase of the Royal Commission had been set up, particularly the decision to exclude from consideration the years that NZ First was governing with Labour. 'The fact that the [Royal Commission] terms of reference specifically exclude decisions made when NZ First were part of the [Labour-led coalition] Government … I think the terms of reference have been deliberately constructed to achieve a particular outcome, particularly around providing a platform for those who have conspiracy theorist views. 'That seems to have been specifically written into the terms of reference that they get maximum airtime.' Objections of Ardern and the other ministers, published in a minute of the inquiry, included the convention that ministers and former ministers are interviewed by inquiries in private, and departing from that convention would undermine confidence. They were also concerned that the livestreaming and publication of recordings of the hearing creates a risk of those recordings being 'tampered with, manipulated or otherwise misused', a risk the inquiry 'ought to have foreseen and planned for'. Other witnesses raised concerns that providing evidence at public hearings might bring risks of abuse being directed at them and their families. Hipkins is standing firm on the witnesses' decision. 'We have shown up to the inquiry, I have shown up to the inquiry. I have been interviewed by them twice,' he told reporters yesterday. 'I have provided written evidence to the inquiry, I answered every question they had and I attended the interview they scheduled for me. 'They asked for two hours, but they ran out of questions after an hour.' Hipkins said he did not co-ordinate his approach with Ardern and would not speak on behalf of her. 'She is still a very close friend of mine. We have people representing us in common, but any suggestion we colluded with this is wrong.' 'Deserve the basic respect of accountability' National MP Chris Bishop accused Hipkins of running from his record. 'Fresh from fobbing off Treasury's report into Labour's spending, [he] is avoiding accountability by refusing to front up to the Royal Commission,' he said. 'By first dismissing Treasury's report and now refusing to front, Chris Hipkins is telling New Zealanders he does not care about the effects his decisions have had on Kiwis.' Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said Ardern, Verrall and Hipkins' refusal to publicly appear before the commission was a change from 'invading our living rooms daily'. 'Hipkins and co loved the limelight at 1pm every day. They wielded extraordinary powers over citizens' lives, dismissing those who questioned them as uncaring. Now they're refusing to even show up, what a contrast,' he said. 'Tens of thousands of New Zealanders have already engaged with the inquiry, sharing experiences of how their lives were upended. 'They deserve the basic respect of accountability,' Seymour said.
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Lockdown Overlords Missing In Action From The Podium Of Truth
'Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins, Grant Robertson, and Ayesha Verrall's refusal to front up to the COVID inquiry is a big change from invading our living rooms daily. What's changed?' asks ACT Leader David Seymour. 'Hipkins and co loved the limelight at 1pm every day. They wielded extraordinary powers over citizens' lives, dismissing those who questioned them as uncaring. Now they're refusing to even show up, what a contrast. 'The then-Government used emergency powers more dramatically than any other in our country's peacetime history. Those powers included: Separating families at the border and in hospitals even at times of birth, death, and severe illness Letting unused Rapid Antigen Tests expire by the million, while locking down Auckland for over 100 days longer than the rest of the country. Locking down Northland down for 11 days on false information that humiliated three women. Officials apologised, but Hipkins refused to. Being were slow to close the border in early 2020, and even slower to adapt when Omicron made their Delta-era rules obsolete. Sticking to outdated restrictions that hurt people but couldn't stop Omicron, keeping MIQ in place long after the virus was widespread in the community. Putting surgeries, screenings, and medical treatments on hold. Damaging the education of a generation, with school attendance still bounding back from the Government's forced closures. Making strange, inconsistent rules that often hurt small businesses to the benefit of large chains– supermarkets could open, but butchers couldn't. Ignoring Treasury warnings to spend $66 billion, driving inflation over 7%, and sparking a cost-of-living crisis and mortgage crunch households are still paying for. Appointing a Royal Commission of Inquiry that would ignore most of the above costs, by focusing on the effectiveness of the COVID response rather than its costs. 'ACT campaigned to expand the Royal Commission inquiry and opened it to the public. If another pandemic arrives, we literally cannot afford to repeat the mistakes made during COVID, the bond ratings agencies will see to that. Facing another pandemic more successfully requires honest reflection from the decisionmakers of that period. 'Tens of thousands of New Zealanders have already engaged with the inquiry, sharing heart-wrenching experiences of how their lives were upended. They deserve the basic respect of accountability. If Chris Hipkins can't front up for a single day of questioning, he is not fit to act as Opposition leader, let alone return to Government. 'Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins, Grant Robertson, and Ayesha Verrall must change course and agree to publicly front the Royal Commission. It is a matter of duty and respect.' Note: A Curia poll suggests 69% of New Zealanders believe Ardern, Hipkins, Bloomfield, and other key decision-makers should testify in person at the Covid Inquiry hearings.
The Spinoff
2 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Why homelessness is worse under this government: a story in 10 graphs
There are more public houses, shorter housing waitlists and fewer people in emergency housing – so why are more people sleeping rough? When the government came into office, it announced a target to reduce the number of households living in emergency housing motels by 75% by 2030. It was a lofty, but important, goal. For any government, getting people out of emergency housing is not just a moral imperative, it's a financial one too. Emergency housing is the lowest rung of the public housing system, a last resort for people with nowhere else to go, while they wait to be placed into transitional housing or public housing. Conditions are often crowded and squalid, with no support systems. It's also really expensive. The government spent $336 million on emergency housing grants in 2023, an average of $273 per night per household, paid directly to motels and commercial accommodation providers. In January 2025, associate housing minister Tama Potaka announced the government had achieved its goal five years early. Between December 2023 and December 2024, the number of households in emergency housing motels fell from 3,141 to 591. Overall use of emergency housing has declined continuously since its peak in November 2021. In isolation, it should have been a massive victory. But the government has found itself dogged by claims that its policies have directly led to increased street homelessness. What really happened? A Ministry of Social Development report credited the fall in emergency housing numbers to 'operational changes' within the ministry and 'increased housing support services to help people out of emergency housing'. This includes the government's Priority One policy, which bumps families with dependent children to the top of the social housing waitlist if they have been in emergency housing for 12 weeks or more. The impact of this policy can be seen in the data. The number of people on the waitlist living in 'temporary accommodation' (emergency housing) has halved between March 2024 and March 2025. Since June 2023, 21,224 applicants have been housed from the social housing waitlist. The trend line shows a general monthly increase, with a particular spike in July 2024, when 1,298 people were placed into homes. New people continue to enter the waitlist every day, but the total size of the list has shrunk roughly a quarter between June 2023 and June 2025, from 24,716 to 19,115. This is mostly explained through an increase in public housing supply, as Kāinga Ora has completed some large-scale new builds. July 2024 set a recent monthly record, with 1,635 new homes coming online. The vast majority of these new homes were funded by the previous Labour government. A Cabinet paper released in February shows the current government does not intend to increase the overall stock of Kāinga Ora homes. National-led governments typically prefer to incentivise community housing providers (CHPs) to provide non-government state houses, rather than investing in Kāinga Ora houses. CHP housing has grown, with 1,677 new houses since June 2023, but still makes up only 16% of overall social housing. There's good news elsewhere, too: the number of individuals receiving Housing First services increased from 2,806 to 3,711 between June 2023 and June 2025. Housing First is generally considered the most effective programme for getting severely homeless people into stable tenancies. There are still 985 people on Housing First waitlists, 37.8% of whom have been homeless for three or more years. So there are more public houses, more people are being offered places in them, and more people are receiving homelessness services. That would usually correlate with lower levels of street homelessness. But that doesn't appear to be the case. The government doesn't have particularly good data on homelessness. The 2023 census found that 112,496 people were 'severely housing deprived' – but just 333 people were counted as 'roofless/rough sleepers'. Stats NZ admits this is almost certainly an undercount. People living at no fixed abode are inherently hard to track and are often suspicious of authority. The government's homelessness insights report for June 2025 said there was 'insufficient data to draw any conclusions' about whether overall homelessness had increased or decreased since 2023. But the report included data collected by charities working with homeless people across several New Zealand cities, which have tracked considerably higher numbers of rough sleepers, and this on-the-ground data is generally more thorough than high-level census data. In Auckland, six community providers found homelessness had risen 90% since September 2024, from 426 people living without shelter to 809. In Wellington, Downtown Community Ministry recorded a 25% increase in people rough sleeping in 2025 compared to 2024, from 114 to 141. Christchurch City Mission recorded 270 new clients in the six months to March 2025, up from 156 in the previous six months. The homelessness insights report suggested this could be the result of wider social and economic factors, including higher unemployment, rental inflation and higher rates of family violence and methamphetamine use. If that were the case, we'd expect to see other spikes in housing need over the past year. But we haven't. There hasn't been any discernible increase in the number of people entering the social housing waitlist – in fact, the number is slightly down since 2023, as the below graph shows. Possibly the best explanation for the increase in rough sleeping comes from the following graph, which shows a dramatic increase in the decline rate of emergency housing applications since 2024, from 4% to 32%. That's the result of a government policy called 'Tightening the gateway into emergency housing', which came into effect in August 2024. It's a set of new rules that make it harder for people to get into emergency housing and harder to stay. Emergency housing is available to anyone who does not have adequate accommodation and who comes under income and savings limits. It's initially granted for seven days but can be extended indefinitely. There are certain obligations on people in emergency housing: they must contribute 25% of their income towards housing costs, engage with support services, and make active efforts to find somewhere else to stay. However, under the old rules, the Ministry of Social Development would not decline emergency housing grants if it would 'cause serious hardship' or 'increase or create any risk to the life or welfare of the applicant or the applicant's immediate family'. Emergency housing is a last resort for people who generally have nowhere else to go, so declines were extremely rare. Under the new rules, that is no longer the case. According to the homelessness insights report, since the new policy was put in place, emergency housing applicants have been rejected for reasons including: 'The need can be met another way' (34.3%), 'Circumstances could have been reasonably foreseen' (22.5% – this includes where a person is determined to have contributed to their own homelessness), 'not eligible' (16.7%) and 'not an emergency situation' (14.7%). Modelling provided to ministers by the Ministry of Social Development ahead of the changes estimated that 1,000 fewer households would be able to access emergency housing, which would save the government $350 million over five years. This net saving was reapportioned by the government for Budget 2024. The Salvation Army's State of the Nation report said the changes to emergency housing eligibility were 'a key contributor to rising street homelessness and housing insecurity'. It's difficult to say exactly how many of the people whose emergency housing applications were declined ended up living on the street, because the government doesn't have a good record of them. While most people who leave emergency housing enter transitional housing or social housing, 14% were unknown to the government, according to the homelessness insights report. And that's only people who were accepted into emergency housing in the first place – it doesn't include those who were denied up front. (Access to this data is improving – at its peak under the previous government, up to 50% of emergency housing exits were untracked.) In their analysis of the policy, Ministry of Social Development officials warned ministers Louise Upston, Chris Bishop and Tama Potaka that 'the proposed changes are likely to increase the risk of homelessness, rough sleeping, people living in cars, overcrowding, and could increase the number of people living in unsafe situations'. Similar warnings are repeated multiple times through MSD's report: 'without sufficient housing supply, more people may end up homeless as a result of tightening the [emergency housing] gateway. Costs and risks associated with homelessness are likely to accrue over time, especially in the longer term.' Officials highlighted that the changes were 'likely to disproportionately impact population groups over represented in [emergency housing], including low-income single people, sole parents and their children, Māori and Pacific peoples. It will also not account for those with complex needs who may find it hard to meet responsibilities ( e.g. people in a heightened state of stress, and/or those with poor mental health and/or addiction issues).' The report also warned that the changes could breach the Crown's obligations to Māori under article 3 of te Tiriti o Waitangi and to children under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. When questioned by Jack Tame on Q + A earlier this month, Chris Bishop denied assertions that the policy had kicked more people onto the street, but said he was seeking 'urgent advice' on the issue. The biggest question is whether these changes were necessary at all. The number of people in emergency housing was already on a rapid downward trend and had been for three years. Increased public housing supply, combined with the Priority One policy, successfully gets more people into stable homes and reduces the financial burdens of emergency housing. The government likely would have hit its 75% reduction target ahead of schedule, even without making it harder for people to access emergency housing – and would have done so without such a severe human cost.
