Christopher Luxon used the National Party conference to hammer home his government’s economic message – and fight back against criticism that the ‘year of growth’ is falling flat, asks Catherine McGregor in today’s extract from The Bulletin.
To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.
PM makes his pitch to the party faithful
Christopher Luxon’s speech at the National Party conference in Christchurch on Saturday was framed as a rallying cry, but the reception from the faithful was subdued. Speaking for close to half an hour, the prime minister was relentlessly upbeat, praising his team’s performance and reiterating his government’s economic ambitions. He unveiled a plan to make concessions on conservation land easier to obtain, as well as a new charge for overseas visitors to four of the country’s top natural wonders. But the address itself landed with less impact. As The Spinoff’s Shanti Mathias notes this morning, Luxon “drew just one lukewarm laugh” with a dig at Labour’s bridge-building preferences. In contrast, finance minister Nicola Willis “managed to get the crowd enthusiastically laughing thrice in five minutes”. The conference was heavy on blue lights and branding, but struggled to generate any standout moments.
Columnists pile on
The conference came after a bruising week of commentary from right-leaning pundits. In the NZ Herald (Premium paywalled), Matthew Hooton was especially scathing, describing Luxon as a leader “incapable of engaging seriously… or of talking in more than banalities”. The recent flurry of government announcements was no accident of timing, Hooton claimed. National’s policy blitz was in fact a rush job, designed to catch a period while polling companies were in the field – aka “pumping the polls”. The timing “underlines the emptiness of [Luxon’s] plan and his approach to politics generally”, Hooton wrote.
Janet Wilson in The Post (paywalled) was similarly cutting. She called out National for saddling small businesses with card payment surcharges while Crown board members got pay rises of up to 80%. “Hypocritical? Of course, but your shrinking voter base are the elites, so, no worries, they’ll brazen it out… [Meanwhile] the coalition’s arrogant take-it-or-leave-it approach only marginalises the moderates, as the polls will attest.”
Tying their fortunes to the economy
The substance of the conference was focused on National’s core pitch: that economic conditions are improving, and the government deserves the credit. Luxon and Willis hammered this theme, insisting that despite the rocky economic environment – including Donald Trump’s new 15% tariff demand – they were steering the country in the right direction.
The problem, as Ben Thomas noted in The Weekend Post (paywalled), is that National has “lashed themselves to the mast” of economic recovery. If voters don’t feel a tangible improvement in their finances by next year, the party could face a painful reckoning. “The plan at the beginning of the year was simple: keep repeating the word growth and make the National Party inextricably linked to economic performance, then when the economy’s long predicted recovery began, jump on for the ride,” wrote Thomas. “The first part, at least, went without a hitch.”
Now, however, “the failure [of the economy] to kick into gear bedevils Luxon, and mocks his branding of this year as the year of growth.”
Waiting for Labour to make their move
Amid National’s struggles, Labour’s internal deliberations are moving toward a potentially risky decision: to campaign on a capital gains tax. In the Sunday Star Times (paywalled), Vernon Small revealed that the party’s policy council has narrowly voted to back a CGT over a wealth tax, with the policy now awaiting final sign-off from the party’s ruling council. It’s a big call, and one that could backfire spectacularly, says Small. A CGT is “easy to attack, easily portrayed as threatening and easy to repeal,” making it fertile ground for National strategists “lying in wait” for Labour to commit to the policy. While plumping for a CGT over a wealth tax avoids the risk of capital flight, it would offer National a familiar, emotive line of attack – and perhaps a much-needed opportunity to regain the initiative on the economy.
