New Zealand Labour Party Conference 2024

The celebration of democracy

Many journalists already reported about the annual conference of the New Zealand Labour Party that took place in Christchurch between 29 November and 1 December. As a member of the Labour Party, I could participate and experience the party's internal procedures. Those who expect juicy insider information about the party do not hold your breath. In this piece, I outline an overall philosophical view of the Labour Party and my pinnacle moment of the three-day jamboree.

First, it is relevant to explain why I am a member. Progressive ideas have their best homes with social democratic parties. And Labour is as such. The only one in New Zealand, which is in addition open to various views, so they tolerate my ideas as well 😊

Second, this blog is ‘Fair Policy Commentary’ which implies that the author should have unbiased views. Yes, being a member and claiming unbiased views may look contradictory. Nevertheless, I do not agree with all the policies Labour has, and I cannot decide if I am going to vote for the party next time. In 2023, I could not yet vote, I was not a New Zealand resident for more than a year in October last year. However, I would not have voted for Labour then. This might change, but there was not yet enough time for the Party to convincingly change some of their problematic policies, which stopped me from voting for them.

Finally, I note that the most important policy idea I attempt to promote, radical employment reform, is also best hosted by Labour. The party's name says that all. However, the rubber did not yet meet the road, we did not yet have decisive discussions about it, and, unfortunately, Labour implemented the neoliberal employment regulations after 1984, so the party's track record is not the best in this regard.

Democracy at its best

Some people believe that democracy is a natural environment. In Anglo-Saxon countries it may be natural for the natives, however, for someone who comes from Hungary, it is a huge welcome. In my origin country, the authoritarian leader, Viktor Orbán now has a promising challenger who can replace him in 2026, at the next election. However, the challenger, Péter Magyar, also has authoritarian tendencies. Therefore, the whole situation is depressing.

Meanwhile, the Labour conference showed me a fundamentally different environment. There was one vote that had to be taken three times. Neither the vocal voting nor the hand raises did not show a clear majority for any side. Then, we used our voting cards and the organisers counted them. The result was 264 in favour and 259 against the proposal. So, we might say, that the membership is divided on the issue, still, after the voting, nobody wanted to challenge, and everyone accepted the outcome. This was a moment to celebrate!

Besides, there are shadow aspects of the democratic process too. The time that was allowed to express opinions is limited to 90 seconds, and this is short. Especially when someone attempts to express abstract principles. Moreover, it was obvious when the leaders weighed in on the debate, that they did have a decisive influence over the topics. And, having democratic processes, even when the debating time is limited, has its flaws. The process is enduring, and the amendments make the relatively minor proposals also difficult to understand. For example, there was one voting about how to vote next about a given topic. The motion was lost eventually, but, the mere possibility of such a voting can be frustrating.

The funny part

On Saturday morning, the Taxpayers Union attempted to organise a protest against the conference by claiming that Labour would increase taxes, new taxes would target the rich, and the party in government would introduce family home tax, wealth tax, and capital gains tax. Oddly enough, I was curious to see their darts table that has “Labour” in the bull’s eye. To my surprise, Alex of the Taxpayers Union, who attempted to make an interview with me, started asking questions about the new taxes. He was provocative and superficial. Alex attempted to guide the line of thought so that we would conclude that New Zealand needs capital investors to increase productivity, and Labour in government would do the opposite because the party will introduce taxes that will deter investments.

This is where I did not answer, and because Alex was asking the wrong questions, I started asking him instead, to make him realize the problems of his views. Also, I mentioned that since 1960, when New Zealand had the third highest GDP/capita in the world, the country slipped to 18th position even though there was no comprehensive capital gains tax. This was already opening up Alex’s eyes. Then, we discussed that innovation capacity is needed to manufacture goods that are popular on a global stage. But this can happen only slowly. Finally, I just said that the party’s tax policy was still the topic of discussion and if that was up to me, I would rule out the wealth tax. However, when it came to capital gains tax, we clarified that Alex has bank deposits that yield interest. After the interests, he does pay income tax, as a form of capital gains tax. But, the capital gains tax is not comprehensive, after trading with stocks, people do not have to pay tax if they realize profits.

Alex gave me his number and wished me good luck with my ideas at the conference. The funny question: to what extent can we regard Alex’s wishes as an endorsement by the Taxpayers’ Union for the capital gains tax?

Strange reactions

The reactions to the conference by the press and analysts were rather mixed. Radio New Zealand valued Chris Hipkins’ final speech as bold promises but lacking the details of how to pay for them. Bryce Edwards of the Democracy Project titled his piece about the conference “Chris Hipkins’ lackadaisical strategy for Labour.” Unfortunately, none of these assessments are accurate.

Inside the membership, there has been a long and enduring process to develop policy ideas. Then, the conference decided what could be accepted and what should be dropped. Hipkins chose the strategy to allow the democratic policy development to form the policies and he is willing to promote them further. He learnt the lesson after many criticised him for the “captain’s call” last year about the rejection of the capital gains tax and the wealth tax. By doing this consensual policy development, he is forging unity inside the party.

Also, he is smartly balancing between the Māori caucus and the pragmatic members of the party. In his opening statement he also said that in government, Labour did things that the party believed were important for the people, instead of listening to the people and understanding what is important for them. Last year has been about listening to people. Next year will be about policy development, and then, the home stretch, the campaign for the election.

Therefore, it would be unrealistic for the media or analysts to expect radically new ideas already. The only lackadaisical person can be the author of this piece. I admit that I approached more MPs with my ideas about which I wrote in this blog (reform of the employment regulations, taxation, the mandate of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand etc.). However, I did not compose my ideas into a policy proposal format (remit) for the membership. This is my owing to the Labour Party. The to-do list is quite long … 😊