Analysis - It's been all about the fear and loathing in campaign land this week, with every party accusing another of negativity, lies and the inability to run even the Venezuelan economy.
The oft-forgotten subtitle of Hunter S Thompson's famous book, Fear and Loathing in Law Vegas, is "a savage journey to the heart of the American dream", and if you were to believe National's campaign chair Chris Bishop this week, New Zealand had embarked on its own savage journey into democratic chaos.
"The most negative election campaign in New Zealand history," he declared on day three of the official campaign period, after a Council of Trade Union (CTU) ad that claimed National's Christopher Luxon was "out of touch" and "too much risk".
Follow Caucus on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeart or Google Podcasts
The Caucus team calls hyperbole on that in this week's podcast. Most campaigns - if not all - go negative at times, and others have been more negative. Lisa Owen points to the 'Dirty Politics' campaign of 2014, Guyon Espiner and Julian Wilcox plump for 2005 when Helen Clark and Don Brash had a clear dislike of each other, while I throw back to 1975 and National's famous 'dancing Cossacks' ad, claiming that Labour's national superannuation scheme was the start on a slippery slope to communism.
Espiner and Wilcox did warn that the negativity Labour, in particular, is engaging in reeks of desperation, and looks like the tactic of a party that knows it's running a distant second. And does it even work to win over voters? They think not.
The risk of all this talk of fear and negativity is that we convince ourselves that our campaign is toxic, turning off voters, undermining public engagement and debate, and talking ourselves into a political funk. That's bad for democracy on every level. Let's take a breath and remember our political debate is a long way from the violence and polarisation we see in so many countries. If the worst we have to endure is a guy hanging over a fence to interrupt a press conference and some mean photos of a party leader, we're not in too bad a shape. Let's not catastrophise.
What's arguably more important is that we're debating the facts, not misinformation. Labour's Chris Hipkins has told off his MPs for a lack of accuracy this week, with Willie Jackson falsely claiming National and ACT plan to cut the minimum wage and Andrew Little saying they will "sack all the teachers". The line between hyperbole and inaccuracy can be a fine one at times.
But Hipkins himself has to take care. At Labour's campaign launch, he listed a string of Labour policies from the past two terms - including free prescriptions for all and subsidised public transport, alongside free doctors visits for under 14-year-olds and the food in schools programme. He then went on to say these policies "are at great risk if there is a change of government". That's undoubtedly true for prescriptions and subsidised transport, but National says it is "very supportive" of the school lunches and there's no suggestion it will charge for kids' doctors' visits.
National Party leader Christopher Luxon at the party's launch of its 2023 election campaign. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
National hasn't been caught out in this campaign misrepresenting its opponents. Its problem is misrepresenting its own policies. The flaws in its foreign buyers plan were pushed off the frontpage by the CTU's attack ad and National's outraged response. (It's almost as if that's what National wanted). But doubts about the plan remain - whether it can be enforced given New Zealand's tax treaties, compromises the 'simplicity' of New Zealand's tax system that National usually champions, and undermines New Zealand's reputation on the world stage as an honest broker which prefers the rules-based order.
Most of all, there are still doubts it will bring in enough money to ensure the fiscal neutrality National promised. Economists have questioned if enough houses would be sold to foreigners and enough foreign buyers taxed to rake in the promised $740m per year. And here's another wrinkle: At the tax announcement, Luxon said, "Importantly what this is about is saying to that tech entrepreneur that wants to make an investment in New Zealand, actually wants to be able to purchase a house, to be able to set up a business, to make an investment, we want them to be able to do that here in New Zealand. We need to be able to access talent."
The problem with that scenario, according to the tax experts we've spoken to, is that it's incredibly hard to buy property in New Zealand, bring your talent here and NOT become a tax resident. If you come to New Zealand to look for a house and then buy it, you become a tax resident the moment you land, if you end up staying for six months or more in the next year. And going by Luxon's example, the whole point is they're bringing their talent here for more than six months.
So, if National’s foreign buyers tax discriminates on the basis of tax residency (to get around our tax treaties), it’s unlikely any tech entrepreneurs coming to New Zealand and buying houses are going to pay a cent in tax under National’s plan. And that puts their promise of fiscal neutrality in jeopardy.
So while we have to be careful about too much negativity in the campaign alienating voters, perhaps the more important concern is to demand clarity and accuracy from the party leaders.
The Caucus team also discuss party donations, younger voters, dental plans... and Winston Peters on a horse.
In the countdown to Election 2023, the Caucus podcast is out every Thursday afternoon and plays on RNZ National at 6pm each Sunday.
