Danyl McLauchlan: National party’s centrist policies a stark departure from John Key era
Former PM Sir John Key talks with PM Christopher Luxon at the 2024 National Party conference. Photo / supplied
This might sound familiar: a chaotic and unpopular government is voted out of office but the public seems underwhelmed by the replacement, denying it a post-election honeymoon. The new finance minister claims to have discovered a vast hole in the Budget and orders the public sector to make significant cuts and stop wasting money on consultants, simultaneously cancelling infrastructure projects that have seen massive cost blowouts.
It’s the messaging employed by the UK’s new Labour Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, and his Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, whose statements are frequently interchangeable with those of our own PM Christopher Luxon and Finance Minister Nicola Willis.
Both governments have also made the traditional pledges about improving waiting times in the health system, fixing education, getting houses built, cracking down on crime: centrism 101.
It reminds us that much of the radicalism and divisiveness from our government comes from the coalition partners: the Treaty Principles Bill and the removal of Te Tiriti obligations from the Oranga Tamariki Act are Act Party pet projects; the proposed fast-track regime is the stunted brainchild of NZ First’s Shane Jones, and the sequence of wildly generous policies favouring the tobacco industry flow from his fellow minister Casey Costello.
The comparative normality of National was the subtext of its recent conference. Luxon and Willis celebrated “the National government” rather than their coalition, and announced or signalled policies that could have been introduced by a Labour administration.
Labour-led
Their centrepiece was the acceleration of the new maths curriculum for Year 0-8 students, policy that was developed under the last Labour government, alongside a handful of measures subsequently announced by Education Minister Erica Stanford: overhauling the Education Review Office to focus on achievement, and personal development for teachers so they actually understand the maths they’re supposed to be teaching.
National’s campaign manager, Chris Bishop, sternly warned the conference that “declining rates of home ownership is the greatest threat to the centre-right worldwide”, pointing to one of the significant factors in Starmer’s victory: 37% of mortgage-free homeowners voted Conservative but only 12% of private renters.
Willis asserted that National was the party of workers and suggested her government could raise additional capital to scale up Kiwibank, disrupting the “cosy oligopoly” of the Australian banks.
Sir John Key – until recently the chair of ANZ, the largest member of said oligopoly – quickly came out against the idea.
Key differences
Taken together, these policies and arguments hint at something substantive – even ideological – beneath National’s centrist normality; the subtext to the subtext: a heretical, still-whispered critique of the Key government. Yes, it was popular; it rebuilt Christchurch after the earthquake, delivered some roads of national significance and the ultra-fast broadband network. But the National Party is supposed to believe in equality of opportunity, which requires a high-performing educational system and competitive enterprise, which requires, y’know, competition, especially in a key sector like banking.