Differing views among senior ministers on tax policy amount to collegial disagreement, the PM tells The Spinoff. 

In the lead-up to Labour revealing its campaign tax manifesto – likely this weekend – Chris Hipkins has laughed off any suggestion that divergences in opinion with senior ministers on the policy amount to division in the ranks.

In a “captain’s call” revealed by Hipkins while in Europe attending a Nato summit, the prime minister squashed the budget proposal for a “tax switch” – designed by finance minister Grant Robertson and revenue minister David Parker – which would have seen a new 1.5% tax on net individual wealth over $5 million pay for an income tax-free threshold of $10,000. Though it “might be something that I would have liked to have had to happen”, said Robertson, “it’s not happening. I’m a team player.” Parker declared himself “disappointed” and subsequently quit the revenue portfolio. 

Two weeks ago, Labour’s tax plans made headlines again when Nicola Willis, finance spokesperson for the National Party, told media she had seen her rivals’ policy and its headline feature was a GST exemption for fresh fruit and vegetables. That claim, which Hipkins noticeably did not attempt to refute, left Robertson attempting a Houdini act in parliament: yes, he had previously called such a policy a “boondoggle”, but plenty of successful things had been called boondoggles in the past, such as the Hubble telescope, the Sydney Opera House, and the moon landings. 

Follow Gone By Lunchtime on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Despite cabinet disagreement spilling on to the surface, that didn’t point to any fracture, Hipkins said. “No, none at all,” he said, when asked if there were tensions in the relationship with Robertson. “We get on exceptionally well. And, of course, we don’t agree on everything … The idea that any kind of disagreement somehow means dissent or disunity, it’s just rubbish.” 

Hipkins bemoaned New Zealand politics becoming increasingly intolerant of different views within a parliamentary party. “I love UK politics, and [there] it’s not unusual for members of the same party to be having quite heated debates in the chamber of parliament. Whereas in New Zealand, there’s this idea that, you know, we only have six views to be represented in the house and those are the six views of the six different parties. I think we’re doing democracy a bit of a disservice in that regard.”

On the wealth tax, Hipkins said he had been open to the possibility of its introduction. “When I took over the leadership that work was under way,” he said. “I did want to see where that led. I did want to see the pros and cons of what a wealth tax would look like. And so that work continued for a period of time. And then ultimately, I looked at that evidence. I did discuss it with my colleagues, with Grant, with David, with cabinet and caucus colleagues, and made the call at that time that I didn’t think a wealth tax should proceed.” 

That decision, he said, “was based on information based on evidence based on advice. It wasn’t just something that I came up with out of thin air. [That] should be incumbent on all political leaders, before you rule something in or out, you actually consider the facts and you consider the evidence and you consider the advice.”

Given that the removal of GST from fruit and vegetables is popular in polling but opposed by most tax experts and was dismissed by successive tax working groups as an inefficient way to support lower-income earners – as a boondoggle, really – could he undertake that the forthcoming tax policy would adhere to facts, evidence, and advice? “Absolutely,” said Hipkins. “But, having said that, public opinion also matters. Ultimately, you have to bring the public with you in any reform programme, whether it’s a reform programme on tax or a reform programme on climate change or education or health, you have to bring the public with you.”

As to timing, Hipkins said: “I know everybody’s waiting. But we’re just putting the final touches on it now. We will be announcing it within the next week or two.”

Ahead of October’s election, the Electoral Commission is preparing for a potential wave of fake news targeting voters. 

A rapid rise in mis- and disinformation over the past few years has officials tasked with overseeing October’s general election readying themselves for a challenging few months.

While the last general election took place in the shadow of Covid-19, and after claims of interference in other elections around the world, such as in the United States,  the lengthy 2021 lockdown and the 2022 parliamentary protest were yet to occur. It was, therefore, before there was proper awareness of just how dangerous the spread of conspiracy theories could be – and the fact New Zealand wasn’t immune to it.

That spread happened in New Zealand relatively quickly. For example, at the start of that 2021 lockdown, disinformation expert Kate Hannah told The Spinoff that while there was some fake news being promulgated on our shores, we were a relatively small country and people tended to look out for each other online. A few months later, her position had changed. “It’s exponentially rising now, day on day,” she said of misinformation. “The amount of data we’re trying to go through now is near impossible.” This was in November 2021, not too long after vaccine mandates had first been implemented. In February of the following year, New Zealand’s parliament was shut down for close to a month by hundreds of “freedom” protesters, some of whom called for the then-prime minister Jacinda Ardern, and other political leaders, to be put on trial and executed.

While the furore over vaccines has somewhat quietened in the months since, largely due to Covid-19 regulations being all but dropped, that hasn’t stopped concerns growing over how this year’s election could play out. Conspiracy theories may be less visible in the mainstream, but they are continuing to grow and spread in certain corners of the internet – and there are ongoing attempts to have them spill back out into the public. Just yesterday, social media was awash with claims that US investment firm BlackRock had “bought” New Zealand, after the prime minister revealed a $2 billion climate change partnership. And last year, conspiracy theory group Voices for Freedom encouraged members to seek out roles within the election as a means of combatting a perceived “general decline” in our western democracy. “We are encouraging like-minded citizens to become involved, rather than be spectators to such decline. This includes becoming active participants in various associated roles,” the group’s co-founder was quoted as saying.

A larger number of new fringe political parties have also popped up in comparison  with 2020, including the Brian Tamaki-fronted freedoms movement and the Liz Gunn-led Loyal NZ. While none have made a dent in the polls and it seems highly unlikely they’ll make it into parliament, that hasn’t stopped supporters making bold online claims of electoral success.

At a briefing for media in Wellington last week, the Electoral Commission was asked to address concerns about how it might counter a possible wave of fake news circulating on social media in the run-up to October 14. Chief electoral officer Karl Le Quesne said officials were keeping a close watch on what had been happening in other countries, particularly in Australia, when it came to the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories. “It’s something we’ve been following quite closely and it’s informed how we’re approaching some of the issues or questions people might have,” he said. 

In June, Australia’s electoral commissioner Tom Rogers said he was concerned about a rise in abusive content and false information being shared on social media ahead of the nation’s Voice to Parliament referendum on a proposed indigenous advisory body. “It worries me greatly,” Rogers said. “We’re adapting our own social media footprint and the way in which we engage with individuals.” Issues raised in Australia included polling staff being directly targeted or having their images shared online with false or misleading quotes attached. 

Le Quesne was less direct when asked about his worries. “I wouldn’t say we are more concerned [than in prior years] but we are trying to get ahead of it. We have put a bit more effort into providing a broader range of information, more tailored to some of those common misconceptions,” he said. “We’re trying to be more proactive this time around… We’re working with the social media companies in the same way we have for a number of elections. We’ve found them to be pretty cooperative.

“There is a high level of awareness that there may be some risks and issues but we do a lot of training with our staff.”

Asked by The Spinoff about the claims that Voices for Freedom, or other groups, may be seeking to insert themselves into the electoral process rather than simply proliferating their messages online, Le Quesne said he was aware. “I have a lot of confidence that we have some really great people leading this process, we have some really great training and support for how it should run and then we’ve got a lot of eyes on this,” he said. “If people see anything that worries them or concerns them about the behaviour, we’ll be able to address it really quickly.”

Those comments echo how prime minister Chris Hipkins has responded. He told Stuff that people should keep their eyes “wide open” for potential election manipulation, while Labour’s election campaign chair Megan Woods told TVNZ that she trusted the Electoral Commission’s processes. Her National Party counterpart Chris Bishop agreed. “The Electoral Commission does a good job and we trust them to make sure they’re running things fairly,” he said.

Le Quesne told The Spinoff he was confident the commission’s “robust” hiring process would ensure that people hoping to disrupt the election from the inside wouldn’t make it through. Roughly 22,000 people were needed to run the election, and all would go through interviews and police checks and be asked to disclose any and all political links. “We ask them quite directly, ‘Do you have any political party affiliations or do you belong to any groups promoting political issues?’ And then we ask them if they can leave that at the door and deliver the election in a neutral and impartial way,” he said, without referencing Voices for Freedom specifically. 

“We just want to make sure people can follow our processes, they can act impartially and neutrally, so that’s what our focus is.”

And if anyone had concerns, or false information was spotted online, Le Quesne said the commission could act quickly to shut it down. “We just want to reassure people that their vote will be secret, confidential, and we’ll be managing things really tightly,” he said.