Working group feud re-erupts between Labour and National

National's Chris Bishop and Labour's Chris Hipkins didn't hold back.

• Labour and National are clashing over the number of working groups each started in their first year.
• Labour claims National began more, but duplicates in the list showed similar numbers for both. National also found more Labour started.
• Chris Hipkins accused National of hypocrisy, while Chris Bishop called Labour’s research “half-baked”.

The political feud over working group numbers has re-erupted, with claims of hypocrisy and “half-baked research” flying between Labour and National.

Labour this week provided the Herald with two lists (one for Labour’s first year and one for National’s first year) that the party said showed National had begun more working groups or reviews in its first 12 months than the previous Labour government.

The Herald spotted that several of those listed as having begun under National had been double counted. Taking out the duplicates showed the parties had started a similar number - Labour had started a few more.

That led Labour leader Chris Hipkins to claim in an interview with the Herald that National were “complete hypocrites” as National had repeatedly attacked the previously Labour Government for the number of working groups or reviews it had begun.

“They were saying we were doing all these reviews because we didn’t have a plan and we didn’t know what we were doing,” said Hipkins.

“Well, if that’s the case, then clearly they don’t know what they’re doing either.”

But National fired back, saying Labour had missed a large number that had begun under Jacinda Ardern’s Government.

Senior National MP Chris Bishop said it was “incredibly embarrassing” for Hipkins as some of those left off the list were groups the former Education Minister had himself begun.

“After a week of flipflopping on infrastructure, Labour should spend less time on half-baked research projects and more time on figuring out their own policy,” Bishop said.

The Herald put a number of these additional entries back to Labour, which didn’t dispute them.

Labour supplied lists initially showing National had started more working groups. Photo / Mark Mitchell.

The genesis of the working group saga is in National’s dogged attacks on Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Government in 2018 for the number of working groups and reviews it commissioned in its first year.

National at the time said Labour was appointing groups and holding reviews because it was out of ideas, while Ardern said there were genuine issues that needed to be cleaned up after National had left office.

Labour earlier this month asked the neutral Parliamentary Library for a comparison between the number of reviews commissioned by the last Labour-led Government during its first year and the number commissioned by the current National-led Government in its first year.

The political party also supplied the library with a list of reviews, advisory groups, and inquiries it had identified in the current Government’s first year to help with the comparison.

The library sent back a list it had previously created of Labour’s reviews, based on information found in Beehive press releases or from ministry websites, alongside the list of National’s that Labour had provided.

Labour supplied the Herald with the two lists. They showed Labour started 37 in its first year compared with 40 begun under National.

The Labour list included the Tax Working Group, the Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction, the Royal Commission of Inquiry into abuse in State Care, the review of the health and disability system, and a working group on fair pay agreements.

The National list included the independent review into Kāinga Ora, the ministerial advisory group on ferries, the ministerial advisory group on retail crime, the inquiry into school property, and the fast-track projects advisory group.

But several of the reviews on the National list had been double counted. For example, it included the establishment of the Public Works Act review separately to the appointment of people to the Public Works Act review, even though they’re the same review. When the duplicates are removed, National’s number comes down to 34.

Hipkins said one could argue about whether some things on each list should be included, but overall, “I reckon the numbers are probably about the same”.

“What the list shows is if you’re comparing on an apples-on-apples basis, the current government have done roughly the same number of reviews in their first year as we did in our first year, which shows they’re complete hypocrites,” he said.

He said National had been “happy to bang the drum when they were in Opposition”.

“Now that they’re in government they’re certainly not walking the walk.... they’re sort of being haunted by their own words.”

The Labour leader said he didn’t have any issue with new governments setting up working groups or reviews after taking office as “in a good democracy you actually involve people in the decisions they’re affected by”.

National's Chris Bishop hit back. Photo / Mark Mitchell.

After being approached for comment, National responded by providing what it said was a non-exhaustive list of additional working groups, advisory groups, reviews and investigations that it believed should have been included on the list of those started under Labour. It also doubled-counted a couple.

Among the large number it said Labour missed was Labour’s Small Business Council, the independent expert advisory panel for the review of the Reserve Bank Act, the ministerial advisory group for health, a housing stocktake review, and an inquiry into the Earthquake Commission.

Several of those National identified were started by Hipkins, such as a ministerial youth advisory group, a taskforce to reduce administration in schools, and an education advisory group ensuring New Zealanders input was considered in a work programme.

Bishop said it was “incredibly embarrassing for the Labour leader”.

“He established so many committees and advisory groups in government, he can’t even remember half of them.”

The Labour Party didn’t take issue when the Herald raised these groups, but Hipkins said National was attempting to “deflect from the bad choices they’ve made for New Zealand”. Labour said its list for National wasn’t exhaustive.

There has been some leeway taken by both sides in what reviews they included in their lists.

For example, the list Labour created for National’s first year included a review into a power tower collapsing. National said that Labour’s list should then include their inquiry into a fuel leak.

National in 2018 claimed the Labour Government had started 182 reviews or working groups – far more than the 37 included in the library’s list. It included a review of MPs’ pay and an inquiry into an alleged altercation between then-minister Meka Whaitiri and a staffer.

That number was disputed by Ardern as being false, while Hipkins this week called the list “farcical”.

Ardern at the time acknowledged 38 reviews or working groups that involved external agencies and went beyond the usual business of government.

Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald Press Gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub Press Gallery office.