Claire Trevett: Election 2023 - Robertson and Willis as crucial as Hipkins and Luxon

OPINION

Finance Minister Grant Robertson may as well have just announced Labour’s policy was indeed to remove GST from fruit and veg in Question Time on Tuesday.

It saw him start the exercise of trying to extricate himself from his previous comments about such a step being a “boondoggle” - an unworkable unnecessary or wasteful project.

Robertson put almost as much time into his extrication strategy as into developing the tax policy.

It was delivered in his attempt to claim things once considered boondoggles could end up being wonderful – Robertson said both the Sydney Opera House and the Hubble Space Telescope were once decried as boondoggles.

By trying to reverse out of his position, he had pretty much given up the game.

However, it was a sign of a return of joie de vivre – or joie de politique – in Robertson, something missing since Dame Jacinda Ardern left and he made his own decision not to take up the leadership.

His return to form is just in time, ahead of the campaign in which he will be a key figure and Labour will need all the fire power it can muster.

In this election, the finance head-to-head between Robertson and National’s Nicola Willis could prove as critical as the leaders’ head-to-head.

Law and order has been one of the early battlefronts, but the main topics for the campaign proper will be very firmly in the money space: the cost of living, infrastructure and how to pay for it all.

The two finance spokespeople are also both effective and strong performers.

In Parliament, the showdowns between Robertson and Willis have become more compelling than those between Hipkins and Luxon and that will flow through to the election campaign proper.

The sounds of that election campaign have begun in earnest: those familiar claims of fiscal holes, secret taxes, and unfunded promises. There is the positioning around who will rule out NZ First and Winston Peters – something Act leader David Seymour took to new levels this week, setting out a rule-out process so complicated it would require the full-time attention of his proposed Minister of Regulations and risks being a boondoggle.

There are offers of shiny strips of asphalt and more money in the pocket. There are policies to entice the voters and the equally critical job of trying to discredit the opponents’ policies.

When it comes to policies, it is not enough for people to think the policy is a good idea.

They also have to be convinced that it can be delivered on – and affordable. There is the idea, and then there is the credibility of the idea.

The latter is why Labour moved quickly to try to puncture National’s roading policy on Monday by casting doubt over the costings of it.

Transport Minister David Parker proved very effective at it. He came out of the blocks with a bang and some numbers: claiming National’s costings were at least $2.8 billion short, and “breathtakingly misleading” and “laughable at best”.

The calculator punching began – the result was that National had likely under-cooked its costings by up to $4.8 billion. It defended itself by saying it had used the government’s own costings and added a bit. Alas, Parker had more recent costings.

Former PM Helen Clark also chipped in. Upon hearing National’s leader Christopher Luxon was open to using money from China to pay for his roads, she tweeted “risky”.

People will probably still quite like the roads National has promised, but Labour managed to get an early blood nose and made it very clear it does intend to fight back this election.

Then came NZ First leader Winston Peters with his claim of a $20 billion “hole” in the government’s revenue, which Robertson was trying to fill by making government department heads slash their spending.

Robertson said it was incorrect. Willis abandoned her usual Winston-scepticism and happily leapt on the $20 billion figure, interrogating Robertson on it in Parliament. It was still incorrect.

Act saw Peters’ $20 billion and raised it: to $30 billion. That too was incorrect.

Again, the calculators came out. It ended with a wide discrediting of the $20 billion figure by those who knew how to operate the calculator.

Everybody is still waiting for Treasury’s pre-election opening of the books (Prefu) on September 12 to find out whether there is a hole, and whether it will be big or small.

There is a lot at stake in the Prefu’s answers for both National and Labour.

There is pressure on National to reveal the costings of their tax cut package – and how it will be paid for. Luxon and Willis have now said they will do so ahead of Prefu on September 12.

Hence Nicola Willis putting pressure on Robertson to reveal if the government books have deteriorated significantly since the Budget in May.

It would be a very mixed blessing for National if the numbers have turned to custard. That would help them seal the deal in the election – governments get punished if the books are shabby.

However, it would also leave National with a conundrum in how to pay for its tax cuts (a similar conundrum to 2008, when the combination of red ink and the Global Financial Crisis forced it to use an unheralded increase in GST to be able to pay for its tax cuts.)

As for Labour, Grant Robertson knows the risks of red ink.

It was why he came up with his code of fiscal responsibility ahead of the 2017 election, including pledges about debt levels and surpluses. The rules were abandoned after Covid-19 made them impossible and unrealistic.

However, the spirit of that code lives on – Robertson pegs a lot of stock in his own economic credibility and Labour’s chances are also tied to it.

The decision by the Moody’s rating agency to hold New Zealand’s credit rating at AAA will have been soothing news for him.

However, he will be very keen not to see the forecast return to surplus slip out further in Prefu.

That is reflected in his unofficial “tough decisions” barometer: the number of times Robertson utters a warning that the economic environment will lead to some “tough decisions”. “Tough decisions” is Robertson’s preferred nickname for cuts.

The tough decisions peak was in 2020 at the tail end of Covid-19. Then it waned, with a few re-appearances and in the last week, it has been back on higher repeat.

He won’t mind his meetings with public sector bosses to tell them to trim their spending has come out: one of National’s attacks on Labour has been around its inability to cut government spending.

With all of that comes increased pressure on the leaders to be campaign-fit as well.

Luxon’s prolonged affliction of the ums and ahs, when asked for a key figure from his own transport policy by ZB’s Mike Hosking, will have made a few people in National nervous about the campaign ahead and the election debates in particular.

Flailing on your own figures has proven detrimental to a string of Opposition leaders over the years.

If Luxon was flailing in an interview on one topic, Labour will be hoping it will be worse in a campaign on which leaders must be across all things.

It will have given Labour a wee thrill of hope. The most recent Newshub Reid Research poll delivered a blow to Labour and a big slap for appearing to be immersed in its own problems rather than the business at hand. The one bright spot was Hipkins’ ratings were holding fairly firm while Luxon’s were still jelly.

Leaders have to exude at least one of two qualities: competence or likeability. At the moment, Luxon needs to rely more on the former. The ums and ahs won’t help.

Claire Trevett is the NZ Herald’s political editor, based at Parliament in Wellington. She started at the NZ Herald in 2003 and joined the Press Gallery team in 2007. She is a life member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.