On the eve of its election year conference, National Party campaign chair Chris Bishop says the party is still rolling out its vision for what it would do in government if it triumphs in October, Marc Daalder reports
Analysis: For once, National Party MPs and staff will be descending on Wellington rather than fleeing it at the end of the week.
This weekend, the party's annual conference will take place in the capital, with announcements to be made on the economy and law and order. Leader Christopher Luxon will also make a speech, setting the stage for the final four months of the campaign.
As the election season heats up, campaign chair Chris Bishop says he is feeling positive about the party's chances in October.
"Cautiously optimistic, I think would be the phrase. It does feel like there is a mood for change and now it's just about prosecuting our message and making sure we get as many people to the polls as possible to vote for National and for a change of government," he tells Newsroom.
But are people going to be voting for National or against Labour? The party's key issues – cost of living and crime – are reactive, not proactive. That's natural territory for an opposition of course, but voters need to see not just what National will fix but also what its vision is for New Zealand.
"I think that there's a way to run on that. We've still got three and a half months to go," Bishop says. "Clearly there is hostility to the Government at some level but we've got to capture that and put forward a compelling vision of our own and we're very focused on that."
There's also danger here for National, particularly with someone as politically inexperienced as Luxon at the helm. Running down the Government's performance and the state of the country can easily cross over into running down the country and its people. That's how Luxon ended up in hot water last week, after telling a farmer New Zealand had become a "negative, wet, whiny, inward-looking country".
It's also not the only pitfall on the campaign trail. National's public meetings have garnered headlines, but not always for the right reasons. While they often go off without a hitch, as Newsroom's Jo Moir reported from New Plymouth at the start of the month, they've also landed Luxon and other senior MPs in trouble at times.
Te reo and Treaty issues are dangerous territory for National. It's always tempting for a speaker to say what the crowd wants to hear, but that can put politicians on the back foot when they return to the scrutiny of the media in Wellington and Auckland.
Luxon's complaints at a public meeting in Auckland that it was too hard to tell government departments apart when they use te reo ignited something of a firestorm – not least because he was able to differentiate between them in his example. A couple of days later, Simeon Brown poured petrol on the bonfire when he criticised bilingual road signs at a meeting in Tauranga.
When you're faced with a room demographically unrepresentative of the general public – think about who has the time and ability to go to a political town hall meeting on a weekday afternoon – you have to keep in mind what the broader electorate looks like.
Bishop pushes back on this, saying people accept disagreement as long as you're straight with them.
"People just want straight talk. People might not necessarily agree with what you say as an answer but very few people are single-issue voters. Very few people you'll find will say, 'I'm not voting for you because of your answer to X'," he says.
"I did a public meeting with Shane Reti in the Hutt a couple of weeks ago. A small minority of people there were anti-fluoride and had a go. Shane said, 'I don't agree. It works. I take the public health advice. I appreciate your point of view, but this is my view.'"
Still, National will be keen to keep its answers at public meetings out of the headlines, where it can. That doesn't mean the meetings have no purpose.
"The public meetings, they have been really successful. The whole senior National team have been doing meetings around the country. It's a grand New Zealand tradition of public meetings in which people can go and talk to politicians," Bishop says.
"We don't have these massive, American-style rallies where there's 5000 people. These are typically in town halls and community halls, anywhere from 50 to 200 people and you get a chance to talk to the next prime minister."
It's a tough balance for National to strike, as a broad church party. It needs the support of rural voters – particularly those who went to Labour in 2020. But it also needs to woo some of the growing urban electorate, Bishop concedes. Given the cultural rift between cities and the provinces, appealing to both sides at the same time is no easy feat.
"We want votes from everywhere. The great thing about MMP is every vote's worth the same. A vote in Northland's worth the same as a vote in Invercargill. A vote in Lower Hutt's worth the same as a vote in Ilam," he says.
"Traditionally we've been the party of rural and provincial New Zealand. Many farmers and those involved in agriculture have placed their faith in National and we're proud of that, but we also want votes in that so-called middle ground as well."
National will hope a focus on bread and butter issues – to borrow a term – will win over both constituencies. Those are cost of living and law and order, yes, but Bishop sees education as a key subject as well.
"We see it as an economic story. It's part of our economic agenda," he says. "I talk to a lot of business groups. Interestingly, one of the issues that comes up a lot from them is education. A lot of people are really worried about the state of the education system because business relies on skilled workers.
"So we see education as ... it spans lots of different areas. It's an economic issue, but education is also a fundamental human right. It's also the great equaliser and it's a great driver of social mobility. There's lots of elements as to why education's really important."
Those are winning messages, if National can get the chance to convey them rather than explaining away another off-piste remark.
