Pages

Wednesday, July 29, 2026

Peter Williams: My vote needs a home


Fifteen weeks out it's struggling to find one

The great irony of Christopher Luxon ruling out a coalition with those redistributive Marxists of Opportunity is that the longer Luxon leads National it’s becoming the kind of left leaning social democratic party I’ve spent my life avoiding.

Consider some of their recent announcements and claims:

They gifted $60 million to Fletcher Building subsidiary Golden Bay Cement to keep the country’s only cement manufacturing plant as a going concern. It couldn’t balance its books because of charges levied under the Emissions Trading Scheme. Golden Bay won’t be the only manufacturer going cap in hand to stay afloat.

A sensible government would have ditched the scheme and reduced costs, not just for the cement maker but for all New Zealand manufacturing. Like we reported here last week this country, like almost every nation on the planet, is not going to make good on its commitments under the Paris Agreement.

So why even bother subsidizing a carbon emitter to buy offshore credits? Wouldn’t it just be more sensible to ditch the ETS?

Which is closely related to other Luxon statements on the same issue. He told an audience at the National Fieldays that his government’s core commitment remains delivering on Net Zero 2050 without purchasing billions of dollars in offshore assets. Then when a Climate Commission report came out last week saying this country wasn’t on track to meet the target, he insisted we were and could in fact reach the target earlier than 2050.

He’s clutching at straws because the numbers say we won’t. The most recent GHG emissions count for New Zealand was just under 78 Mt CO2 -e.

The 2050 target is about 20 Mt CO2 -e which is then offset by pine trees, hence Net Zero. New Zealand’s lowest ever recorded total was around 65 Mt CO2 -e in 1990.

The rest of the world is waking up to the physical impossibility of meeting these targets. Luxon should just get real, save our manufacturing industries billions and give the country an economic kick start.

Net Zero is a crock and should be abandoned. Luxon won’t because he’s too scared of the backlash from his fellow travelers on the left.

Then there’s the unbelievable announcement from Nicolas Willis today (July 27) that this government is subsidizing child care for families earning up to $229,000 a year!

When I read that I thought it was a typo. Surely there’s an extra 2 in that number.

But no, it’s on the official Beehive Press Release.

This is a piece of government welfare that I reckon even Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson at their most reckless would struggle to match. If a family is making over $4000 a week before tax then they can bloody well afford to pay for all of their child’s day care.

The country is in need of more babies but is increasing paid parental leave up to 30 weeks really the answer?

It’s remarkable how we’ve become less productive at work in the last 8 years. Ardern’s government invented another public holiday and increased sick leave from 5 days to 10. This National led coalition hasn’t rolled back either of those drains on business and has now added another cost on the taxpayer with the extended parental leave.

And then the craziest warning sign of all that this National Party is a bunch of socialists in disguise – the Finance Minister warning she may interfere in the grocery market.

As the revered economist Michael Reddell has pointed out, official figures from the Commerce Commission show that Woolworths supermarkets in New Zealand have earnings before interest and tax (EBIT) of less than 5 percent of revenue. Across the entire Woolworths group in Australia and New Zealand, the reported EBIT was about twice the net profit after tax, the NPAT.

So it seems for every dollar over the checkout, Woolworths makes about 2.5 cents profit.

If that percentage is conflated across the entire supermarket sector there’s about $700 million in after tax profits on the $28 billion turnover. Divide that by 398 supermarkets across the country and they’re making on average about $1.76 million a store.

Which sounds great until you compare the supermarket industry with what many regard as New Zealand’s best company Fisher and Paykel Healthcare. They have operating revenue of $2.31 billion and make $470 million profit, an NPAT ratio to revenue of around 20 percent.

I haven’t heard anybody say that FPH makes too much money or has excess profits.

Yes, the supermarket business is lucrative for those who have worked their way into ownership but they’ve reached that stage in life through hard work and have taken considerable risk to get there.

It’s what a government that really backs business should be applauding.

So why on earth is the deputy leader of the National Party threatening to interfere? Would forcing New World and Pak’nSave to be different companies make any difference to the household shopper?

It is one of the National Party’s sillier ideas, right up there with handouts to families making $229,000 a year.

I haven’t voted National since 2017. On current form I won’t be touching them with a barge pole this time round either. I’m really struggling with New Zealand First and its crazy ideas like buying a bank, although the mercifully brief suggestion to buy a Super Rugby team was arguably crazier. I’ve been an Act voter before but I really battle with them on moral issues involving the beginning and end of life.

It’s like turning on the TV to find there’s 100 channels and nothing worth watching. We have six parties in Parliament and 15 weeks from an election I’m struggling to commit to any of them.

Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack where this article was sourced.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree: where should my vote go? All seem to be bad choices. Will voter apathy mean fewer votes cast in 2026? Who would that benefit?

Anonymous said...

'... and have taken considerable risk to get there."
Risky owning a supermarket? Sure it is.

Anonymous said...

I am having similar thoughts. It's tempting just to say sod the lot of them and spoil my vote, but then that would remove my right to moan and groan about them for the next 3 years! I'll probably pick the least-worst - it's just not clear who they are at the moment.

Rob Beechey said...

Nationals term in office was an opportunity lost. NZ voters showed their total distain for the last diabolical Labour Green govt on election night handing Luxon an opportunity to lead us out of the quagmire. Unfortunately Luxon will be remembered for choosing to preserve the very same policies that got us to here in the first place. 

Anonymous said...

I am in the same boat. I will never vote National again. NZF is not getting my vote. A bit disappointed with ACT supporting the India FTA.

Janine said...

Pretty much my sentiments as well. ACT for the "one person, one vote" issues. NZF for the moral issues. National floundering in the wilderness...even Chris Bishop and Nicola Willis might be gone by Christmas. Potaka seems to have too much say in a far from conservative National Party. Labour and the Greens, an absolute lost cause.

Anonymous said...

Sums up my assessment of the current crop.

Anonymous said...

Yes both my significant other and myself seriously considering not voting for the first time. We are in our 70's. BUT that only gifts another cushy seat in the house for a parasite.

Anonymous said...

I'm an ex National voter, deeply disappointed with Luxon - can't be trusted or believed.
He lost me the moment that he said he would not support the the Treaty Principles Bill.

Anonymous said...

There is no prospect that any political party on offer will meet any rational, reasonable, voter’s idea of sound govt for the country as a whole. Just tick the box that says NONE OF THE ABOVE.

Anonymous said...

You have to ask "Why did Erika Stanford say how much of a pleasure it has been to work with Labour party candidates on the banning of social media for under 16s. and how successful that has been". ?????????????

Why is she emphasising so much, the fact that they could work so well together?????????

Anonymous said...

Get a grip guys. Yes, there is plenty of fault with the coalition.

But let me present the alternative!

The left. And the FAR LEFT.

We had a taste under Ardern. Do you really want the left coalition?

Soooo - pick one of the 3. Vote for them. Just do it for the sake of the nation. Save the left idiots from themselves. The Ardern train wreck is being mopped up, things are starting to look a little better from the dark Ardern days.

Vote Act, Nat or NZF.

I DONT CARE WHICH ONE, BUT YOU HAVE TO VOTE FOR ONE OF THEM.

mudbayripper said...

I don't see your problem with the Act party Peter.
I would have thought that you understood, that Act stand's for the individual having control over there own life, which includes sometimes the ending of it.
Act will be getting my vote.
All the other parties, bar none voted down the Treaty principals bill, which encapsulated the very essence of equal citizenship and democracy.
Tell me how is it possible to trust any of the others?

Chuck Bird said...

mudbayripper, how about very late term abortions? Do you support those? Do you think Act should ignore Christian voters?

Ellen said...

I'm for ACT too - seem pretty thinking and well-doing to me.

mudbayripper said...

No chuck, I do not agree with late term abortion.
I also wasn't aware, as you imply that the Act party was either.
This issue is bonded to the idea of personal autonamy and will for ever be controversial.
I'm sure the Act party don't advercate such actions.

Basil Walker said...

ACT have done the most politically to rid NZ from the Ardern era , NZF next and unfortunately National least , however Electorate vote National (Epsom &Tamaki aside ) is sensible and choose your best party vote from ACT or NZF.

Anonymous said...

ACT? You must be joking. Creating a ministry for ministries? Big government legislation to define the meanings of words for the proletariat? Personality politics when they run out of policy ideas? Links to the Atlas group and when questioned on it, run away (literally)!

No, you should NOT be voting for ACT.

Anonymous said...

I'm with Peter on this, although strangely he didn't mention the only logical option. Vote ACT, everyone. They are the most sensible and intelligent party. They have to swallow a dead rat sometimes to get along with their coalition partners, but generally they stay true to their principles. Don't be put off by the "far-right" diatribe the media pump out. You don't have to tell the pollsters or your mates that you're planning to vote for them. Just give them your party vote on election day. To have enough influence, they need a greater share of the vote than the polls currently suggest they've got.

Anonymous said...

Our current Govt has "missed the boat" when it comes to NZ Industry.
I could [should] list all the NZ based industries that are now closing.
The latest McCains' Hastings, their management not willing to compromise.
They did the same thing in Fielding {former Wattie's Plant}, many years ago.
I wonder if they are also looking at having their product manufactured in China and then imported. That move would certainly be welcomed by Foodstuffs.
Timber Mills, Carter Holt H has become a total failure, along with Ohakune & the now defunct Northland Plant (owned by a Japanese Group) - so where is the Wellington concern re large unemployment.
Wait till Kraft Heinz close Wattie's in Hastings!
Who to vote for.
I start with Australia, the current "love affair" with One Nation - the principle party not well liked by the many and is having issues "finding" suitable people to become potential pollie's, who will end up as targets on social media.
New Zealand -
We have had the "emergence" of TOP, what people need to know, is not who the 'face' on TV is, but who is behind it - many live in Wgtn, are well known from former Pollie days and Wgton associated businesses.
Has very few would be could be MP's and will rely on the Party Vote to gain seat or 2.
Their votes will come from the "mindless morons" that attach themselves to this type of pollie party.
New Parties - well like One Nation, there are not many Kiwi's standing up to become a Pollie - we had a former All Black [Tane Randall] join NZF, and he has been "demeaned" on social media.
Me thinks we will be seeing a change in the who to vote for 3 yearly - more a group of individuals (not Parties) who will represent their Electorate, may get a role in a Ministry or support a Ministry.
And will spend less time in a debating chamber 'wasting the air they breath and not achieving anything', as the current system allows..

Anonymous said...

NZ First - evidence daily that Winston is not the man he was 30 years ago.

Regarding an opposition MP: “He’s only been here for five minutes and can’t even speak the language properly. And he thinks he knows everything. That’s incredible. And he’s notorious around this place for wasting Parliament’s time, with question after question after question of no value to the debate at all, just filling in time. That’s what I think about that,” Peters said.

Xu-Nan was born in Tianjin, China, but has lived in New Zealand since 1994.

Dare we suggest this is a sign of senility? The man is in his 80s. I think it’s time for him to call it a day.

Barend Vlaardingerbroek said...

Chuck Bird asks whether ACT "should ignore Christian voters".
The trouble with bringing religion into politics is that it turns politics into a sectarian battleground. No two "Christian voters" are alike (although some may be very similar) because 'Christian' can mean Catholic, Mormon, JW, SDA, Higher Anglican, Pentecostal.......... any of a number of things most of which are at loggerheads with all the rest.
The reason why governmental secularists as far back as the 18thC pushed governmental secularism was and remains the problem of sectarianism. You don't have to be a non-believer to be a governmental secularist, you just have to realise that Parliament is not the appropriate setting for sectarian strife.

Post a Comment

Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.