The Post: Country’s populist shift manifests itself most clearly in Mr Jones

Read the original article in the Post

Half of New Zealanders think that to fix the country, we need “a strong leader willing to break the rules”. Bracing stuff, isn’t it? The finding comes from this week’s Ipsos survey, in which 55-65% of the country apparently agreed that the economy is “rigged to advantage the rich and powerful”, and that experts and political parties neither care about nor understand them.

There’s clearly something in this populist shift. I’m on a Statistics New Zealand advisory board, and our briefings show anti-government beliefs are causing more people to refuse to fill out surveys. Then there’s the general sense of alienation and Covid-related anger, seen most obviously in the 2022 Parliament grounds occupation.

The 2023 OECD Trust Survey, meanwhile, found just 44% of us are confident that government institutions “listen to people”. Only 37% believed that if they took part in a public consultation, “the government would adopt the opinions expressed”. And that belief is even weaker among poor New Zealanders.

The country has long had a pronounced anti-establishment streak. I’ve met older Kiwi blokes whose conversations with strangers consist largely of anecdotes about how they “got one over” the authorities and the so-called experts. “That woman from the council came out to have a look at our project and, well, she didn’t know a thing! We soon showed her what’s what.” And so on.

This doesn’t mean, though, that we should unquestioningly accept the Ipsos survey. If half the country really hates the establishment that much, the fringe parties in last year’s election would surely have recorded something larger than a vote share you’d need a microscope to locate. Even Winston only got 6%.

Bear in mind, too, that in the Ipsos survey, 60% said we shouldn’t raise taxes to increase general public spending – but 70-80% argued for increased funds for specific areas like education and health! People can be incoherent; how one asks the question matters enormously.

So too with populism: if one polled people on specific scenarios where politicians could “break the rules” – appointing their son to a public-sector board, for instance – I suspect most would respond unfavourably.

Recall, too, that although the number of “hard” refusals to fill out the Census has doubled, it still stands at just 10,000 people. The vast majority of us completed the forms last year. The country doesn’t feel like it’s about to fall apart at the seams.

But nor can we ignore entirely the Ipsos results. Even if people are just venting, their answers suggest a broad frustration with elite decision-making, failing public services, and social and economic inequalities.

There is, of course, a significant difference between perceived left-wing elites (academics, some media, and progressive politicians) and right-wing ones (big business and conservative politicians). Probably the anger is aimed at both: people don’t seem to like our supermarket duopoly very much, but nor do they particularly like university professors.

The man most obviously channelling the latter sentiment, and currently dominating the news, is New Zealand First’s Shane Jones. He is overt in his dislike of people who want to protect endangered native species – clearly a middle-class indulgence, in his view – and is attacking the integrity of parts of the judiciary, notably the Waitangi Tribunal.

The Fast-track Approvals Bill, which would give him and two colleagues unprecedented power to unilaterally approve what may be environmentally damaging projects, is the clearest expression of his credo. Careful processes and judicial oversight are for weak-minded pen-pushers; the strongman gets things done.

Such an approach invites criticism – but then a large problem looms. Jones is a little like one of those cartoon villains who feed off their opponents’ energy: each time they are punched, they somehow grow stronger. Criticism from the likes of myself can just boost his standing among his supporters.

The solution? Take great care with the material and tone of any critique. Less wailing about Trumpian tendencies and the violation of abstract principles; more concrete, grounded examples of harm.

If Jones, as he has previously done, attempts to influence judicial processes involving a relative, we should say to voters: what if you don’t have these connections? Should your success – in, say, winning contracts or influencing government decisions – be influenced by having friends in high places?

We should also be better at showing exactly what happens to ecosystems – and thus our lives – when endangered species die out. And we need, finally, to recognise that although some of the current distrust of government is exaggerated, much is well-founded.

Our politicians have created or enabled a situation in which just 1% of the country holds one-quarter of the wealth, most New Zealanders don’t have enough savings to deal with major life shocks, and many of our schools and health services are inadequate, especially for poorer families. It is not – or not just that – the people are wrong; the system must also change.