Neither a wealth tax nor Winston Peters would have saved Labour's campaign, Dan Brunskill argues

My favourite line of the entire election campaign, delivered by the Green Party’s James Shaw in an adjournment debate in Parliament, never got much airtime. 

“Whilst the saying goes that the only two certainties in life are death and taxes, Mr Peters is doing his level best to try and disprove the first of those. Chris Hipkins, of course, is trying to disprove the second,” he quipped.

It captured a lot of what the election ended up being about: Winston Peters’ rise from the ashes and constant debate about the plausibility of various tax proposals.

Shaw, and lots of political commentators, have argued that if only Labour had implemented a wealth tax they could’ve won the election. 

This seems like a long bow to draw, but it contains a seed of truth in that Labour did not have much to say for itself this election. 

Any gratitude for the initial Covid response had been overshadowed by the costs, and elections aren’t supposed to be about saying ‘thank you’ for the past, anyway. 

It is supposed to be about securing a mandate for the future and it’s a true cliche that voters wanted something different. Despite its best efforts at reinvention, Labour didn’t offer that. 

And so, it lost votes on three different fronts. Progressives switched to the Greens, Māori opted for generational change, and centrists crossed over to National.

The opposition's message that the government should back off and give the economy some room to breathe was an easy sell after a few years of hefty interventions. 

Only Labour’s base was left, but they had plenty to be thankful for: A higher minimum wage, boosts to benefits, fair pay agreements, more parental leave, and a new public holiday.

There were a couple of polls which suggested a majority of voters were supportive of a wealth tax. But this type of polling isn’t particularly resilient in the face of a political campaign. 

Public opinion can and does shift in response to public debate on an issue. A positive poll may reveal fertile ground but you have to factor in opponents’ efforts to salt that same soil. 

A wealth tax would not have been a panacea, but it could’ve given Labour a narrative to run on at least. There Shaw might not be right on the need for a wealth tax, but his general point about the inevitably of taxes remains true. There is no such thing as free lunch, and things cost money. 

Lowering one set of taxes generally just shifts a household cost elsewhere. It could be higher local rates, water charges, road tolls, or carbon prices — but someone, somewhere pays.

Winning Winston 

The first half of Shaw’s scene setting quip, also proved prescient. New Zealand First was already on the rise and flirting with the 5% threshold when Parliament adjourned in August.

By election night the party had scooped up 6.5% of the vote and secured eight seats. While National and Act could likely scrape together a government without them, it would be tight. 

Word on the street is that National and NZ First have already begun informal discussions about how to form some sort of partnership. 

The final shape of this won’t be known until after the special votes are all counted on November 3, but it's fair to say Peters has defied reports of his political death.

Politik reported that he’d declined an offer to be Speaker of the House and was already pushing for the independent Covid inquiry he’d promised to his voters. 

Other possible roles for the party could include a Regional Economic Development portfolio for Shane Jones and reinstalling Peters as Foreign Minister — both outside of Cabinet. 

However, the Minister of Foreign Affairs could be crucial in the current geopolitical context and outsourcing the role to a politician who was not in Cabinet could be a controversial call.

When Helen Clark had this arrangement under a Labour government, she took an active role managing NZ’s interests overseas with Phil Goff Minister of Trade. It's unclear if Christopher Luxon would want to do that.