Time for Labour to show why it deserves the public’s trust

Saturday, 13 June 2026

Josie Pagani is a commentator on current affairs and a regular opinion contributor. She works in geopolitics, aid and development, and governance.

OPINION: Now that Labour has released its candidate list and a policy, a new subsidy for public transport fares, it is time to pose questions about its plans, should it return to government this year.

If you seek power, you deserve to be pressed on why the public should trust you and what you intend to do.

Labour has enjoyed an unusually benign period in opposition. Previous first-term oppositions were routinely hammered. Phil Goff after 2008 and Simon Bridges after 2017 could not oppose a government policy without being skewered about their own plans. Chris Hipkins has not suffered similar scrutiny.

One reason is the political dullness of the National-led Government at putting the opposition under pressure. Another is that Labour has avoided an ideological wrestle.

Both National and Labour have largely given up the hard work of translating values into a meaningful programme for change. The world leader who has taken a party by the scruff, and inspired his country, is Canada’s Mark Carney.

Populist leaders like Donald Trump succeed because they promise to smash through the bureaucracy, etiquette and rules be damned. Mark Carney shows that a steely focus on delivering better change more quickly is how you win.

He has shifted his party from identity and virtue-signals to shoring up the economy, pushing major infrastructure and lifting defence spending to Cold War levels.

He has shown global leadership when rallying smaller countries like us to stand up to the bullies.

Here, Labour has not been a party of policy courage, or meaningful redistribution in favour of working people, for a decade. Nor has it much to say about restraining corporate monopolies in favour of families, and raising incomes with pro-competition rules, regulatory innovation or more public control.

Instead, identity and climate still seem higher priorities. If Labour has done any hard thinking about what it got wrong in government, it’s not obvious.

For example, it has not been able to explain why it got its KiwiBuild pledge to build 100,000 new homes so wrong, nor what changes need to be made to the public sector to improve its ability to deliver government priorities.

Labour has opposed every state sector job loss but got away with murkiness about whether it would reinstate the old positions.

The public sector that prioritised consultation was unable to deliver Labour’s priorities. “Object to everything” was normal. Is Labour planning to just muddle through, or change that?

Will it go back to co-governance? It has made an enormous promise on pay equity but gone silent about how to pay for it and when.

Labour has put health at the centre of its tag line (“Jobs.Health.Homes”, more a list of things we like than a hint on how to get them). But what will change in a portfolio where costs for staff and equipment and population changes keep rising faster than inflation? Without unannounced tax increases, either billions will be cut from someone to pay for increased health costs, or nothing changes.

Our health system needs a complete rethink. Perhaps a system like the French, where an ACC-type levy pays for health insurance, the rest topped up by government.

Where are Labour’s big ideas?

Will it go back to prioritising climate over energy security and affordability? Capping public transport fares is fine, but lately you have the impression that Labour hates cars and roads. Which roads will it cut? Will it go back to subsidising electric cars?

Labour’s real priorities were revealed in its party list, which has clearly been drawn up to balance its perception of identity rather than contribution. Having recruited a senior police officer, Chris Hipkins did not highlight Superintendent Naidoo’s contribution to public safety, or rethinking policing. He emphasised the officer’s ethnicity.

The party list is a name-call of protesters and activists, mixed with sitting MPs so anonymous they might as well have been on a witness protection programme the last three years.

You won’t find the equivalent of Labour giants like David Lange and Geoffrey Palmer in the 1980s, or Helen Clark, Michael Cullen and Steve Maharey in the 1990s, with the exception of the likes of Barbara Edmonds. She brings credibility, tax expertise, deep connections into her community, and big ideas like the Singapore-inspired Future Fund for infrastructure.

Craig Renney, The Council of Trade Unions’ chief economist, would have brought instant policy weight. But at 51 on the list his only chance is to win a tough electorate contest against sitting Green MP Julie Anne Genter.

What were you thinking, Labour?

Governments that succeed start with a big idea, a purpose, an analysis of what is wrong and a plan to fix it. They level with the public about the need for effort, even sacrifice, and time to get great things done.

Populists win because anything is better than the exasperation of incremental change that never seems to bring real change.

Labour needs to show it can do more than manage the headlines with a few good retail announcements.