This weeks’s unsurprising but welcome poll result reinforces the opinions expressed in this column in more ways than one. And I expect the dramatic increase in support for the Coalition’s minor parties at the expense of Labour’s creaky alliance to continue until election day.
Last election I voted strategically wanting to ensure a National led Government - I gave my Electorate vote to National and my Party vote to Act.
As things turned out, people like me - concerned about the radical Green’s and racist TePati Maori parties support for the depleted ranks of Labour - I shouldn’t have bothered.
Since time immemorial, free elections have been won or lost based on trust.
If governments deliver on the promises made on the campaign trail, the chances are that they will be rewarded with at least another term, maybe more - the exception being the hapless Albanese Government in Australia that promised to reduce household energy bills by $275.00 when they actually increased by more than double that amount.
The reason why Labor managed to survive and increase its majority was because the Opposition Liberals were hopeless at campaigning on the fertile ground of broken promises and so, voters chose the devil they knew.
Getting back to New Zealand politics.
I have watched the political careers of Winston Peters and senior members of his NZ First Party with interest since the inception of MMP but, until now, have felt unable to put at least one of my votes their way.
Again, until now, it has always been a matter of trust! Although the NZ First policies have often appealed, Winston’s last minute jostling for position in either a Labour led or National led coalition when he had the opportunity to be “King maker” demonstrated, at least to me, that he couldn’t be trusted with my vote.
However, I now consider most of that is past history and, as a result of the performances of Winston and Shane Jones in their respective positions holding senior cabinet ministerial roles, I may well change my aversion to supporting them at the next election.
This about face is a result of outstanding performances by Winston as our Foreign Minister and Shane Jones in his role as Economic Development Minister.
Who would have thought that these two seemingly political “hasbeens” would become the Government’s greatest assets.
Winston has gained a justifiable reputation amongst Foreign leaders for being a reliable, honest, independent broker who can be trusted to represent our nation on the World stage competing with other less able politicians representing far larger countries.
He punches above his weight- a national characteristic that has done us proud throughout the years.
Shane Jones has shown a similar ability to stare down the racially motivated members of the Maori elite. Having witnessed the same sort of destructive antics these people use when negotiating deals that should benefit their people, l know what it takes to prevail in hostile environments.
We should be greatful to these two politicians who deserve our votes so that they can continue contributing to a better world for us all.
I should not finish this column without reference to the other great performer amongst the senior cabinet ranks - none other than the Hon.David Seymour (Deputy PM).
My guess is that these “Three Amigos” have at least one thing in common - they are fearless when confronted by opposition who address them as modern day “Genghis Khan“ or worse.
I have yet to see another politician outsmart any one on the trio in parliamentary debate or in heated exchanges on Marae.
The fact that all three are proud of their Maori heritage goes a long way towards instilling the confidence needed when we entrust the fate of the nation into their capable hands - they deserve our support at the ballot box in return.
Let’s do it.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
19 comments:
Well said Clive, we have ticked the same boxes. I originally opposed MMP and voted FPP however on this occasion, I suspect traditional National voters are becoming less impressed with Luxon’s performance and more supportive of NZ First and Act’s leadership.
Well said.
It is interesting you promote 2 political parties without mentioning one achievement between them.
You forget to mention... Brown is fixing the huge very poorly performing health system whilst reducing wait tines and increasing vaccinations, Stanford is revolutionizing the education sector, Bishop has fixed our roads (pot holes no longer in the news) whilst rewriting the huge RMA handbrake.
And most significantly of all Luxon is expertly managing the coalition, has set objectives, plans, and published regular progress reports for Kiwis to review.
Luxon has also been out in the world with McLay forging new trade deals and international relationships in a hugely challenging international arena.
The success of our country relies heavily on accurate unbiased reporting.
Perhaps you could reflect and change to set an example!
I am proud of my heritage too but I am a kiwi first.
If Winston could get over his aversion to altering superannuation and Foreign investment he would be worth a vote
As a NZF voter I am not entirely satisfied that the coalition agreement is being implemented.
Remove co-governance. This is not fully happening. Government departments are not complying.
Stating UNDRIP has no legal or binding affect on New Zealand. Needs to be loudly proclaimed.
Repeal Marine and Coastal Act clauses which underlines the Acts original intent. Not happening.
Conduct a comprehensive review of references to Treaty in legislation. Looks like that has been hijacked by National.
The next election will soon be upon us.
Let's not settle for second best.
In response to balanced above. I have no problem with Browne and Bishop - they’re both competent and handling their portfolios well. However, I can’t say the same of Luxon or Stanford - former has done virtually nothing to honour his electoral promise to roll back the tribal takeover of this country, NEW ZEALAND, while the latter is cementing the indoctrination of Maori wonderfulness into the education of our children.
With respect:
Achievements - yes. But this is why they stood for office, promised results and were elected. *Stanford - yet to be proved for the overall system.
Leadership: no. Luxon is behaving in a bizarre manner, Any PM who refuses the NZ people a referendum
( democracy or ethno state) at this critical moment is not worthy of his high office. He totally fails to convince on social cohesion - without which the rest will fail.
NZ is not yet a banana republic but there are very
disgtressing signs of this.
Well said Clive. Your voting strategy was same as mine.
moi aussi....
The coalition government is " unbalanced" by its very nature.
Nationals achievements are uninspiring and only pay lip service to problems that will curtainty not address the huge constitutional issues this country faces. Our country is ruined.
NZF and Act dont have the numbers.
This country is unable to move forward as a democratic, free state untill all of its citizens are considered to be equal under one set of laws.
This my friends is an issue that the National party component of the coalition government will not and for that matter, has no intention of addressing.
Like your article, your comment is long on abusive rhetoric and short on factual references.
Stanford is copying the very successful UK education reforms. You don't have to be a brain surgeon to understand structured learning, where kids are expected to turn up and learn times tables rather than employ "strategies and patterns" will be more successful.
You think it bizarre that Luxon is successfully and seamlessly managing 3 parties with 2 leaders who have a longstanding bitter political rivalry, whilst addressing NZs endearing and difficult long term problems (e.g., the independent infrastructure commission and the long term infrastructure plan are game changers)
Luxon told you he wouldn't support the TOW principles bill before the election and the bill is not necessary whilst he is prime minister. Just ask John Tamahere his opinion on the current state of public money for dubious Maori lead organisations.
The TOW principles bill was introduced and publicized for a reason. My thoughts are it will be a 3rd or 4th term election winner when Luxon
has stepped aside and his successor aims to win an unprecedented election.
Do your disgtressing signs include:
= taming of inflation,
= return of growth,
= selling of nz to our international customers,
= creation of lucrative trade deals,
= quarterly publishing of government goals and progress against those goals,
= the reduction of crime,
= improved education,
which are certainly all hall marks of a banana republic.
Elizabeth Rata's opinion:
The Minister of Education, Erica Stanford is determined to introduce a knowledge rich curriculum for all New Zealand students. What does this mean? First, it is a standardised curriculum which ensures that students across the country receive the same high-quality knowledge. That knowledge consists of academic subjects with content selected for its value and justified for its veracity. Furthermore, the content must be designed so that it is coherently organised and built progressively from the most basic to the more complex.
Second, it is about planning for teaching. It is here that teachers take the designed national curriculum and turn it into effective teaching plans suitable for their school and their students. The latest ideas from cognitive science about secondary mental abilities, time perception, memory load, and feedback are needed at this stage. They help connect the content to students’ thinking processes.
Third, both good curriculum design and planning for teaching set the foundation for the actual teaching. Many teachers know their subjects well and use teaching methods that best connect students to rich content. They will welcome a knowledge-rich curriculum because it is what they have taught for years. We know and respect those teachers. The real benefits will be for those teachers and students who have been disadvantaged by eighteen years of a localised curriculum
Is that you again Clive? more accusations without a single fact or reference to fact.
Balanced- Professor Rata has publicly come out and complained about what Stanford is doing in regard to Maori related clauses in the new education policy. She says it based on zero facts and will not be beneficial to our education system. Quite the opposite in fact.
My comment should read "undermines" not "underlines".
Apropos "Balanced" - is this another case Matua needs to reference?https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2025/07/matua-kahurangi-government-is-quietly.html
As for "They will welcome a knowledge-rich curriculum because it is what they have taught for years. We know and respect those teachers. The real benefits will be for those teachers and students who have been disadvantaged by eighteen years of a localised curriculum."
Bollocks! The decline in our education system over decades is self-evident. And with Stanford's ETAB (2) amendment how is requiring all schools, inter alia, to ensure that their "plans, policies, and teaching and learning programmes reflect local tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori, and te ao Māori..." not again concentrating on "local" 'Balanced'? You are talking nonsense and so is Stanford in her aim to reinforce 'Treaty centricity' in our education system.
And, as for Luxon, if he can't even read the room at home, what faith should we place upon him to read the room overseas - where other motivations and languages are at play?
Regrettably, MMP invariably requires some trade offs. But, placing faith in Winston/NZF is a very risky affair. For NZ to advance, we absolutely need a to have a referendum on what part, if any, the Treaty should or needs to play in our everyday lives, today and into the future. The TPB provided an opportunity for that to be advanced and perhaps sorted, but by Winston/NZF not backing it, and with our apparently 'unable to read the room' gutless PM, we are firmly back on a path to an ethnocracy and the realisation of He Puapua. I think we all need to distrust politicians; challenge them, and vote as wisely as we can.
Hear, hear Peter - agree 100%. The TPB and NZF’s removal of treaty principles from some (but far from all) legislation could have been powerful as complementary policies. NZF’s lack of support for the TPB was a vote against equality for all NZers. Very easy for any revoked TP clauses to be restored by a future govt. The outcome of a referendum is much harder to alter. Placing faith in Winston is indeed “a risky affair”. When push comes to shove he has so often proved elusive.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.