Political Roundup: Can David Parker push Labour back onto a more progressive path?
Cabinet Minister David Parker recently told the Spinoff he’s reading “The Triumph of Injustice – how the wealthy avoid paying tax and how to fix it”, by Berkeley economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez. The book complains that leftwing politicians throughout the world have forsaken their historic duty to innovate on taxation and force wealthy vested interests to pay their fair share. The authors say governments of both left and right have capitulated unnecessarily to the interests of the wealthy in setting policies on tax and spending.
Parker shares this ethos and it’s undoubtedly a big part of his decision to revolt against his leader. First, Parker ignored constitutional conventions and spoke out against the Prime Minister’s decision last month to rule out implementing any capital gains or wealth taxes. And this week he resigned as Minister of Revenue, saying it was “untenable” for him to continue in the role given Hipkins’ stance on tax.
Clearly, Parker is highly aggrieved at Hipkins’ decision to rule out a substantially more progressive taxation regime, especially when there is such strong public openness to it. In May, a Newshub survey showed 53 per cent of voters wanted a wealth tax implemented. And last week, a 1News poll showed 52 per cent supported a capital gains tax on rental property.
David Parker has become the progressive voice of Labour
Parker has thrown a real spanner in the works for Chris Hipkins at a crucial time in Labour’s re-election campaign. Such dissent from a Cabinet Minister is highly unusual. It’s also refreshing that it’s over a matter of principle and policy, rather than personality, performance, or ambition.
There will be some Labour MPs and supporters annoyed with Parker for adding to Labour’s woes, especially when the Government is already looking chaotic. He’s essentially declared a “vote of no confidence” in his own party’s tax policy. This is not the staunch loyalty and unity that Labour has come to expect over the last decade, whereby policy differences are suppressed or kept in-house.
But even though Parker is being criticised this week by commentators for throwing a “tantrum” in resigning his Revenue portfolio, this charge won’t really stick, as he just doesn’t have that reputation. His protest is one of principle, not wounded pride or vanity, and it’s one that will be shared within the wider party.
In taking such a strong stance on progressive taxation, and so openly opposing Hipkins as being too cautious and conservative, Parker has become something of a beacon for those in Labour and the wider political left who are discontented over this Government’s failure to deliver on traditional Labour concerns.
Is there a future for Parker in Labour?
Parker’s outspokenness may be a sign that he’s had enough, and is looking to leave politics before long. Being on the party list means he can opt out of Parliament at any time. After the election, he may decide it’s time to retire, especially if Labour loses power. In fact, Parker has long been rumoured to be considering his retirement from politics, so it might just be that the time has finally come.
A private decision to leave might explain why Parker has decided to put up and not just shut up, and publicly distance himself from Labour’s decisions on tax for the sake of his reputation.
It’s also possible that Parker has chosen to try to pressure Labour towards a more progressive position on taxation, and this is the start of a bigger campaign. If so, he would be playing the long game. Parker is now established as the most progressive voice in Labour, which could see him move up the caucus ladder when Hipkins eventually moves on – especially if Labour is defeated at the election in October.
And Hipkins might have inadvertently invited opponents to want to replace him with a more progressive politician when he made his “captain’s call” to rule out any sort of real tax reform for as long as he holds the role. Given that they had an absolute majority in the last three years they can’t blame anyone else. And should they lose the election, the analysis from within Labour will certainly be that they were too centrist and didn’t do enough.
Parker would be a strong contender for the leadership sometime in the next term of Parliament. That is if he wants it and hasn’t simply had enough. There are signs that he would be keen – he ran for the top job in 2014, with Nanaia Mahuta as a running mate, but lost out to David Cunliffe.
This week he reiterated that he’s up for a fight, explaining his decision to stand down as Minister for Revenue, saying, “I’m an agent for change – for progressive change. I’ve been that way all of my political life and I’ve still got lots of energy as shown by the scraps that I’ve got into in the last couple of weeks on transport.”
Of course, when the time comes to replace Hipkins, the party will face the temptation to look for a younger and “fresher” leader. Until very recently, the likes of Kiri Allan and Michael Wood were seen as the future, but those options have disappeared. And the party might do well looking to someone with more proven experience.
Parker could fit that bill – he’s been in Parliament for 21 years and served in the Helen Clark administration as Attorney-General and Minister of Transport. He’s seen as an incredibly solid, reliable politician, with a very deep-thinking policy mind.
By contrast, the rest of the Cabinet often seems anti-intellectual and bereft of any ideas or deep thinking, which means that are too often captured by whatever new agendas the government departments have pushed on them. Arguably that’s why the blunt approaches of centralisation and co-governance have so easily become the dominant parts of Labour’s two terms in power.
Labour needs Parker’s progressive intellectual politics
Regardless of whether Parker ever gets near the leadership again, it’s clear he has much to offer in pushing the party in a more progressive direction. Certainly, Labour could benefit from a proper policy reset and revival – which Hipkins hasn’t been able to achieve.
The new leader managed to throw lots of old policy on the bonfire, and he successfully re-branded Labour as being more about sausages and “bread and butter” issues, but Hipkins hasn’t yet been able to reinject any substantial positive new policies or ethos. Parker’s dissent this week indicates that frustration from progressives in Labour is growing, and there are some very significant policy differences going on in the ruling party of government.
For the health of the party, and for the good of the wider political left, hopefully Parker will continue to be a maverick, positioning himself as an advocate of boldness and progressive change.
Parker recently selected Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” as the book “Everyone should read”. He explained that “As a politician who believes in social mobility and egalitarian outcomes, this book inspired me to seek the revenue portfolio”.
That Parker has now had to give away that portfolio says something unfortunate about the party and Government he is part of. And if the last week also signals that Parker is on his way out of politics, that too would be a shame. After all, in a time when parliamentary politics is about scandal, and the Government has lost so many ministers over issues of personal behaviour, it would be sad to lose a Minister who is passionate about delivering policies to fix the problems of wealthy vested interests and inequality.
He ain’t bad, we don’t need to shake up an already shaky apple cart at this stage however.
“David Parker has become the progressive voice of Labour”
I never would have thought I would read that sentence 10 years ago.
What does it say about him, that Millsy is a supporter of David Parker!
I didnt say I supported Parker. Im just saying I thought he would be on the Right of the party.
Parker seems a capable man who has streaks (although not frequent enough) of actual moral fiber – his speaking up over Rotorua council racial policy of denying one person one vote as against the bill of rights (but not when ecan did same) for example.
This tax stance is principled and he is likely the guy Labour will try and build back around when they lose the upcoming election, if they choose to go more back to their roots.
I still recall during the height of Jacinda fandom, Ms Ardern told one magazine that she had a Thomas Piketty book on the shelf but had not quite got around to finishing it. And that is the problem for NZ Labour, they are intellectually shallow, and since Rog’ and Preb’s purge in the 80s, basically bereft of genuine leftists. They have been neo Blairists since.
Monetarism is so contradictory and counterproductive for the party to continue to support in 2023 as Climate Disaster intensifies. Hello…“Trickle Down” never worked as capitalist entities such as the IMF and World Bank finally admitted. The other point of course is NZ Labour always allowed the “Parliamentary Wing” i.e. Caucus, to lord it over the rank and file party membership. Another reason why the likes of Mr Chipkins feel quite confident in undemocratic “Captains calls”.
As the Batman movie line went…“this towns so bent–who ya gonna rat to?…
To be honest, Jacinda’s govermment was still to the left of Helen Clark’s government.
Well it hurts to say it, but yes millsy, they made hundreds of incremental reforms that few would know or care about. Including the NZ First driven Provincial Growth Fund that had genuine positive effects in small communities few in the rest of the country would know about up here in the Far North.
Have not forgotten Helen Clark’s “Jobs Jolt” which was virtually a stay in place order to beneficiaries–if they moved to a provincial area from a town or city they would be cut off the unemployment benefit.
David Parker is a symbol of why we shouldn’t have list MP’s. They get into power without anybody in the public voting for them and their fringe ideologies.
Between Chippy giving his mum a role to create the new education curriculum that replaces science with Maori mythology and Mahuta with her husbands awarded multiple government contracts, Meng Foon resigning after failing to declare payments of $2 million he took for emergency housing while director of an investment company.
Seems like nepotism and extreme policy seem to be side by side!
Hey save NZ who is Chippys mum? And what is her actual title.
I thought Nania had been cleared of any nepotism and Meng Foons indescretion had nothing to do with the government. It was all down to him.
Come on mate I really want to know who Chippys mum is but I bet you haven’t got the balls to reply.
Rosemary Hipkins, is Chippies Mum, hardly a secret.
https://twitter.com/OpinionistNZ/status/1679592942502281219
Education ministry 3rd biggest spender on consultants in NZ government. https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/public-sector-project/most-govt-depts-spending-more-on-consultants
Not sure if that includes the 3,400+ officials that the ministry of education apparently have. No wonder they can’t afford the teachers!
In this OIA it showed it took 32 tax-paid bureaucrats plus Chippie himself, to deal with one complaint from a parent. And not sure that they even did a good job!
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2021/09/how_many_ministry_of_education_officials_does_it_take_to_bully_an_8_year_old.html
New Zealand students record worst results in maths and science
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/300178702/new-zealand-students-record-worst-results-in-maths-and-science
Performance of New Zealand students in math, science, and reading falls dramatically in last two decades
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/12/27/performance-of-new-zealand-students-in-math-science-and-reading-falls-dramatically-in-last-25-years/
Not looking much better at the caliber of people in vocational education reform and the money and reforms are well spent.
“Toitū te Waiora, jointly chaired by David Waters and Matthew Tukaki, is one of six Workforce Development Councils set up by the Government this term to bolster vocational training and education.
TTW is a small and very new organisation, having existed for less than two years. With only 31 staff listed in its annual report, the figures suggest around 10 per cent of staff have experienced employment grievances requiring financial settlements to be paid out.”
‘Staggering’ cost of public sector CEO departure
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/staggering-cost-of-public-sector-ceo-departure/M4KRHVGMUFD7HG65G6TWYUMHMQ/
SaveNZ is the typical troll and why we shouldn’t have blogs, comment’s like theirs help mushrooms grow.
NZ becomes the new China and bans blogs and freedom of speech if government supporting woke, get their way.
NZ allows KarensNZ freedom to speak mushroom feed.
Only control freaks with an agenda are afraid of debate and seek to stop it.
NZ is now so compromised in everything, including nepotism and egoists who seem to be extremely lazy everywhere that they even have the transparency group appoint lobby groups to advise them!
‘Astonishment’ at lobbyists advising Transparency International on ethics and rules of their own industry
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/494351/astonishment-at-lobbyists-advising-transparency-international-on-ethics-and-rules-of-their-own-industry
“My initial reaction is astonishment that TINZ would rely on a team of 4-5 lobbyists to lead its response on such a crucial issue,” Newman wrote in an email to TINZ on 30 May.
“Consulting them is fine but putting them in charge is altogether different – a bit like the police recruiting gang members to determine new rules on pursuit of fleeing drivers.”
He declined to join the group and told TINZ that, “as an organisation you have been caught in a culture of complacency and captured by the very system you are charged with overseeing.”
Laziness, stupidity and the same government appointed people who have no morals or knowledge in charge of everything, is one of NZ’s biggest problems!
Unfortunately Parties in NZ are picked by the Media and every time a Party tries to implement a fairer tax system the NZ media and Opposition Parties who are funded by the Mega wealthy instill fear and mistrust. You can’t change anything in NZ if you are voted out.
Expect David Parker to be one of many who will eventually leave the Labour Party because of the leader’s stance on taxation. Except that in David’s case it won’t be solely because of that, he is almost due to retire after an incredibly good innings
It must surely be blindingly obvious that this could only occur from the Opposition Benches.
For this election, it is Hipkins who essentially sets the tax policy, and that is the policy Labour has to carry into government in the event the left wins government. Recall also that Hipkins has ruled out capital gains or wealth taxes, so it is not as if they can be imposed by the Greens or Te Pati Māori.
Well it is actually quite possible that Mr Hipkins could be lined up in the event of a potential narrow win in the MMP sense, with a potentially viable Parliament with Labour, Greens and Te Pāti Māori–whatever the formal arrangement. “Captains Calls” are undemocratic and opportunist, but in line with NZ Labour’s long time enforcement of supremacy of the Parliamentary Wing and Caucus over rank and file party members.
More committees, more expenses, more litigation. More taxpayer money wasted on the NZ Gravy Train!
“Toitū te Waiora, jointly chaired by David Waters and Matthew Tukaki, is one of six Workforce Development Councils set up by the Government this term to bolster vocational training and education.”
“Clarke’s publicly-funded card had been used to pay for alcohol and lobster in Sydney, numerous post-midnight taxi trips and that the $72,862 in total spent by Clarke over 11 months was more than twice as much the five other Workforce Development Council chief executives combined.”
“Figures obtained under the Official Information Act (OIA) reveal the employment dispute resulted in Toitū te Waiora incurring $194,647 in “professional services costs” and $128,266 in “discretionary leave” costs.
TTW said $117,950 had been paid out to settle employment disputes with four staff since October 2021, including Clarke, but declined to specify how much of this sum had been paid to its former chief executive.
TTW is a small and very new organisation, having existed for less than two years. With only 31 staff listed in its annual report, the figures suggest around 10 per cent of staff have experienced employment grievances requiring financial settlements to be paid out.”
‘Staggering’ cost of public sector CEO departure
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/staggering-cost-of-public-sector-ceo-departure/M4KRHVGMUFD7HG65G6TWYUMHMQ/
If they have an entitlement tax, appalling recruitment tax or stupidity tax instead of a wealth tax, NZ would be rolling in $$$$$$
Perhaps Parkers policy and Labour preparing to take GST off food was too much. However, given that GST will be removed, and everyone needs food, this is a sure vote winner. Now let’s wait and see what dirty politics policies National will unfold. I’d expect with National’s loss Luxon’s political career will end in October and Willis to continue as leader as she is a career politician with no real life skills.
When the tax comes off and prices hardly fall and supermarkets profit increases it will be a vote loser .
Hipkins will need to explain how Robinson can say taking gst of food is too hard in May but can be done now .What has changed. Labour suggested the policy in 2011 but then dropped it.
National does nort have to look for dirt Labour are digging it up in spades and as one term members get angry with their new leader Labour will be the one unfolding
Also take into account Key LIED about raising GST so at least Chippy can fall back on that when he changes his mind on Parkers tax policy. When in Rome and all that…
The problem which Chris talked about a while ago , is the international agreements that protect the ability of wealthy individuals , or overseas companies to offshore their place of registration to a low tax jurisdiction /tax haven. This means that any alteration in the taxation levels effects the incentive of those on sufficiently high levels of income or wealth to either move their business base location in or out of the country . So the creation of a new tax of the wealthy , whether such a tax exists in other counties or not, or an increase in income tax will simply move a proportion of wealthy taxpayers overseas and result in a nil or negative overall tax take. This is why GST had to be introduced at the same time as the neoliberal globalist agreements on international business arrangements were established. Taxation can only be increased on te poor and middle income earners.
If Parker is going to introduce tax reforms that increase tax on the wealthy he must start by isolating our economy accordingly.
Someone has probably explained this to Chippy.
D J S
‘2-4-6-8 David Parker Is Our Mate!’
TAX
THE
RICH
Protest
2PM SAT 19 AUG
BRITOMART SQUARE
Called by; Unions Auckland, The Green Party, Unite, First Union, AAAP, Renters Union, PPTA, Action Station, Migrant Workers Association
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=687435456763116&set=gm.1376536889740224&type=3
Prime Minister Ardern pledged ‘Kindness’
Prime Minister Hipkins pledged ‘enough of all that’
Nats taxation, can Dave, progress.