Claire Trevett is the NZ Herald’s political editor. She started at the NZ Herald in 2003 and joined the Parliamentary Press Gallery team in 2007.
OPINION
It might have taken a while, but finally Labour and its leader Chris Hipkins appear to have rediscovered howto be in Opposition and how to deliver up some pretty snappy attack politics.
When Hipkins was first hurled from the PM’s office and back into the Opposition last year he sat back and bided his time, declaring there was no use sprinting out and barking at every car that came along.
He was right at the time — all eyes were on the new coalition Government.
But, finally, some cars have started to come along worth barking at.
Labour’s response to those has been increasingly strategic. It has been seen in its social media, with some punchy attack ads. It is also apparent in its approach in Parliament, especially in Question Time.
The attack theme centre-stage this week was based around the ordinary worker.
This consists of Labour trying to depict the Government — especially the National Party part of it — as out of touch and uncaring about the plight of the average worker.
It has had many legs. Attack ads that target rival politicians directly are relatively rare in New Zealand, but Labour has been pumping out social media targeting Luxon for being wealthy and out of touch.
Just when the juice was running out of that lemon, along came Andrew Bayly — and a whole new lemon to squeeze.
For two weeks, Luxon and Government MPs have had a fairly easy counter to this attack line. It has consisted of a two-line script, aimed at reminding voters that they are now better off than they were when Labour was in charge just a short year ago.
The script: “inflation is down, interest rates are down.”
The trick for an Opposition is to make a mild and short-lived mini-scandal into a rolling maul — and to try to ensure as much mud as possible also lands on the Prime Minister.
This is commonly achieved by trying to catch out inconsistencies in stories and hoping to flush out more details.
Hipkins’ aim this week was not Bayly specifically, a low-ranked minister with a fairly low public profile.
The slightly forensic interrogation of Bayly was left to MPs Arena Williams and Megan Woods, while Hipkins aimed for the Prime Minister.
Hipkins was trying to pin Luxon to the wall for not holding his ministers to high standards.
His other aim was to fertilise the perception National was cavalier about workers.
In that regard, it doesn’t get much better than a minister admitting to repeatedly calling a worker a loser, complete with an L sign on his forehead.
It was fortuitous for Hipkins this coincided with a large unions protest march on Parliament, protesting public sector cuts and changes to workplace rules such as the reinstatement of 90-day trials.
As the unionists stood outside, some chanting “take some wine and f*** off,” Bayly was about to face the fire inside.
MPs have done much worse things in the past than Bayly had, but National clearly knew the wider perception problems Bayly had caused them.
Its best hope was to hope the public saw it as a situation of one bad apple, rather than a reflection on the wider Government. Hipkins’ hope was to take that one apple and try to make it look like a rot in the whole barrel.
While Luxon has not stripped Bayly of his jobs, nor has he tried to defend Bayly for the behaviour. His priority is not protecting Bayly. It is protecting his Government.
He would be furious about Bayly’s behaviour because it gave Labour a weapon to bludgeon National with in its attempts to drive home the message National does not care about workers and was arrogant.
So it is not often you see a figure as isolated as Bayly has been this week.
He has, admirably, fronted to the media every day to take questions on it. In doing so, he has always been left to front alone.
That is not common. Usually, when a politician gets into a spot of bother, they are sent out to face the media with some support from either the party whips or a friend or two standing at their shoulder to give moral support.
Small Business Minister Andrew Bayly during Question Time in Parliament on Wednesday. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Other National MPs have not savaged Bayly, but nor have they defended him — most sticking to the line it was for Bayly and the Prime Minister to speak to the issue. The exception was Judith Collins, who did not defend his behaviour but did defend him as being a good person. The loyalty he showed her when she was leader was returned.
Nor was there any help for Bayly when confronted with extended questioning about the incident in Parliament.
It was NZ First leader Winston Peters who chipped in (perhaps less than helpfully as far as National was concerned) to try to blunt Labour’s question lines. The National ministers simply sat silently watching Bayly take his medicine.
The week also highlighted Luxon’s inexperience at countering such attacks.
So it was also left to Peters to try to turn the tables on Labour. Peters is the warhorse of Opposition style politics and duly mounted his counter-attack on Thursday.
Peters’ aim was primarily in defence of his own under-fire minister, Costello. It turned out more uncomfortable for the relative and the Ministry of Health, who had to apologise for not telling Costello about it.
The second attack theme Labour has been running is based on geography: it has started pushing the message the South Island is “neglected” by a Government that keeps promising delivery.
National’s decision to pull back on the rebuild at Dunedin Hospital because of the cost blowouts has offered up a lot of ammunition for that one and the chance to pull out the “broken promises” line.
Labour added in the news that only two of the much-vaunted Roads of National Significance would be in the South Island.
Luxon appeared to have under-estimated the level of anger about Dunedin Hospital, and how widespread it was. So Hipkins spent Friday in Dunedin to try to capitalise on it.
The Government did try to run a spoiler on that — on Thursday it released project reviews showing warnings in 2021 to the Labour Government that delivery on the promised rebuild was at risk, and that either a lot more money would be needed — or a lot less hospital.
It left a bit of an impression that it was akin to a smelly fish left in the desk for the new Government by the last.
Yes, it may have transpired that Labour, too, would have had to downscale the plan, had it won the 2023 election.
However, whether such a hypothetical will hurt Hipkins is negligible, no matter how much National tries to blame Labour for it.
It was National that did it in the end and so National will have to wear the blame.
