No amount of book sales can dispel Jacinda Ardern's 'odd passivity' that defines her fear-driven time at the top
Jacinda Ardern is back in the headlines, promoting her new memoir 'A Different Kind of Power' - a reflective account of leadership in turbulent times.
But the warm glow of international admiration and her trademark poise can't obscure the enduring truth: her government, despite commanding a once-in-a-generation majority, will be remembered less for bold reform than for missed opportunities, and a puzzling reluctance to wield real power.
Ms Ardern's personal brand was global and managerial: she was popular for her empathy and calm in crisis, not for bold leftist policy.
In fact, many on the left viewed Labour's second term as a wasted mandate.
Ms Ardern's second-term Labour government had enormous political capital - but a mix of centrist instincts, bureaucratic drag, Covid-era caution, and fear of losing swing voters led to a remarkably status quo style of governance.
There was no structural tax reform, no wealth redistribution of scale, no transformative housing policy and little movement on climate beyond setting targets.
Instead, Labour's second term was defined by incremental, technocratic reforms and a constant fear of middle-class backlash.
The once-in-a-generation opportunity for sweeping reform was there - but not taken.
In fact, it is hard to think of any modern Western government that made so little of its mandate - that is the enduring, even puzzling legacy of Jacinda Ardern.
Ms Ardern won a second term with an outright majority.
No longer hamstrung by coalition partners, her Labour government was free to enact any legislation it envisaged.
Before her first victory in 2017, the left had languished in the wilderness for nine years, and now, after twelve years, and a legislative agenda stymied by the centrist New Zealand First, there was a once in a generation opportunity to enact an egalitarian vision of New Zealand society.
But even before then, there were tensions, a sense of misfiring political machinery, something unaccountably underwhelming about Ms Ardern and her government.
Unlike Australia, where, post Howard, governments frequently come and go, New Zealand governments tend to endure.
Kiwis are so lackadaisical about politics that a government basically gets its first term as a kind of freebie - the last time New Zealand had a one-term government was 1975.
And yet, the prevailing wisdom - largely forgotten or memory-holed now, is that were it not for Covid, Ms Ardern was, at best, a 50-50 proposition to win re-election in 2020.
Why did her ambitious housing agenda of setting out to build 100,000 new homes fail so badly in the first term, and why didn't she attempt to renew the policy drive with an outright majority in the second?
Why didn't she substantively alter tax and tackle wealth distribution when she controlled fiscal policy or do anything substantive or defining when a historic opportunity for sweeping change was at hand?Despite having the mandate, Ms Ardern was ideologically centrist in practice.
Her style of leadership emphasised consensus, kindness, and incrementalism, not confrontation or radical reform.
While rhetorically progressive, in execution her government often governed with caution.
The issue here was that she was talking in progressive terms and with a progressive spirit, without actually dealing anything substantive, or any signature legislative achievements that would enthral progressives.
Housing was the area where expectations were highest - and results most disappointing.
Kiwibuild promised 100,000 homes but failed almost from the start, derailed by unrealistic targets, developer resistance, and planning bottlenecks.
Labour could have used its majority to overhaul zoning, expand state housing, or confront inflated land values - but was spooked by the political risks of reducing house prices, which would hurt middle-class voters and existing homeowners and opted instead for modest bipartisan tweaks, leaving the Reserve Bank's stimulus to do the heavy lifting.
House prices soared, inequality deepened, and the government stood still.
Labour also had to contend with bureaucratic and implementation limits.
New Zealand's state capacity is small.
Even when the political will was there, implementation proved sluggish.
The public service is highly risk-averse, and major reforms take years of consultation, design, and rollout.
Labour's ministers often lacked deep experience or vision in their portfolios – Ms Ardern had a strong front-facing brand, but policy delivery was patchy.
Why not soak the rich?
Ms Ardern ruled out capital gains and wealth taxes early, even before the second term, and reaffirmed that stance despite Labour's majority.
A Tax Working Group (2019) recommended a CGT, but Ms Ardern shut it down, saying she didn't believe in it and would never propose one "as long as I'm leader".
Labour introduced a modest new top tax bracket, but that was about it.
This stemmed from a fear of political backlash from swing voters, and an apparent lack of internal party consensus.
The Labour caucus itself was ideologically diverse, with a significant bloc of MPs wary of alienating middle-class homeowners, farmers, or the business sector.
The pandemic radically changed the fiscal landscape.
The Covid recovery required tens of billions in emergency spending - business support, wage subsidies and health infrastructure.
While Ms Ardern had public backing to spend during the emergency, longer-term structural reforms (like universal free dental, income support overhaul, or big housing expansion) were seen as fiscally risky once debt rose.
Finance Minister Grant Robertson was fiscally conservative - he emphasised 'responsible' budgeting, even as bond markets remained accommodating.
Again: Labour feared that sustained higher spending would spook centrist voters
The outcome? A strange sense of hollowness and lack of propulsion of Ms Ardern's government.
Compare this to politics across the Tasman - to the extent such a comparison can be made.
Whether a supporter or critic of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, most would accept he has been productive and assertive legislatively.
Ms Ardern won an outright majority for her second term under MMP - a historic anomaly - and could legislate without coalition partners for the first time under MMP.
Mr Albanese won a first term with a modest majority in the House, but not in the Senate.
But while Ardern had more raw legislative power, Mr Albanese arguably had a more structurally progressive parliament because of Greens and Teals pressure.Ms Ardern sought to lead with moral clarity and an empathetic tone, but governed incrementally.
In fact, she often governed as if she still needed former coalition partners NZ First or the Greens to pass laws - even when she didn't.
Mr Albanese has done more with less, moving the needle on long-standing progressive goals, while Ms Ardern largely avoided using her majority to push structural reform.
In terms of housing policy, Kiwibuild was a high-profile failure for Ms Ardern.
She refused to tackle house prices directly, largely leaving the state out of direct housebuilding at sufficient scale.
Mr Albanese introduced the Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) in an attempt to fund social and affordable housing.
He faced Senate pressure but ultimately compromised toward progressive ends.
Ms Ardern had no such constraint - but chose the path of least resistance.
On climate and energy, Ms Ardern passed a Zero Carbon Act (with National's support) and created a Climate Commission, but follow-through was slow, and emissions reductions largely failed to materialise in agriculture or transport.
Mr Albanese enshrined an emissions reduction target into law and expanded renewables investment and grid modernisation.
Ms Ardern won praise for symbolism, while Mr Albanese delivered more substantive policy shifts, especially given Australia's political environment on climate has traditionally been more wary than New Zealand's.
As a demonstration of contrast, and bearing variances in politics in mind, the current Australian government, the closest proxy in terms of politics and society, and separated by only a year or two in terms of tenure, reinforces the odd passivity and diffidence that ultimately defined Ms Ardern's time at the top.
No amount of book sales, or easing tensions with the passage of time, or retrospective fondness will ever really dispel that.
Nicholas Sheppard is an accomplished journalist whose work has been featured in The Spectator, The NZ Herald and Politico. He is also a published literary author and public relations consultant
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
17 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Israel and Iran trade fire as Europe's diplomacy stalls
Israel and Iran have traded further strikes a week into their war, as Donald Trump weighed US military involvement and key European ministers met with Iran's top diplomat in Geneva in a scramble to de-escalate the conflict. But the first face-to-face meeting between Western and Iranian officials in the weeklong war concluded after four hours with no sign of an immediate breakthrough. To give diplomacy a chance, Trump said he would put off deciding for up to two weeks whether to join Israel's air campaign against Iran. Whether or not the US joins, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel's military operation in Iran would continue "for as long as it takes" to eliminate what he called the existential threat of Iran's nuclear program and arsenal of ballistic missiles. As negotiations ended in Switzerland, European officials expressed hope for future negotiations and Iran's top diplomat said he was open to further dialogue. But Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasised that Tehran had no interest in negotiating with the US while Israel continued attacking. "Iran is ready to consider diplomacy if aggression ceases and the aggressor is held accountable for its committed crimes," he told reporters. Trump was dismissive of the Geneva talks saying Iran didn't want to speak to Europe. "They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this," Trump said. Those comments - however blunt - were not refuted by the Europeans. "Above all, it is of great importance that the United States of America be involved in these negotiations and in finding a solution," German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said after the meeting. After Israeli warplanes hit dozens of military targets across Iran, including missile-manufacturing facilities, an Iranian missile crashed into Israel's northern city of Haifa, sending plumes of smoke billowing over the Mediterranean port and wounding at least 31 people. Israel's air attacks since its campaign began on June 13 have killed 639 people in Iran, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency, a US-based human rights organisation. The dead include the military's top echelon and nuclear scientists. In Israel, 24 civilians have been killed in Iranian missile attacks, according to authorities. Addressing an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency warned Israel against attacks on Iran's nuclear reactors, particularly its only commercial nuclear power plant in the southern city of Bushehr. "I want to make it absolutely and completely clear...a direct hit would result in a very high release of radioactivity to the environment," said Rafael Grossi, chief of the UN nuclear watchdog. Israel has instead focused its strikes on the main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, centrifuge workshops near Tehran, laboratories in Isfahan and the country's Arak heavy water reactor southwest of the capital. Grossi has warned repeatedly that such sites should not be military targets. Iranian state media reported explosions from Israeli strikes in an industrial area of Rasht, along the coast of the Caspian Sea. Israel's military had warned the public to evacuate the area, but with Iran's internet shut off — now for more than 48 hours — it's unclear just how many people could see the message. Iran has insisted on its right to enrich uranium — albeit at lower levels — in recent talks over its nuclear program. But Trump, like Israel, has demanded Iran end its enrichment program altogether. Iran had previously agreed to limit its uranium enrichment and allow international inspectors access to its nuclear sites under a 2015 deal with the US, France, China, Russia, Britain and Germany in exchange for sanctions relief. But after Trump pulled the US unilaterally out of the deal during his first term, Iran began enriching uranium up to 60 per cent — a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90 per cent — and restricting access to its nuclear facilities. with DPA Israel and Iran have traded further strikes a week into their war, as Donald Trump weighed US military involvement and key European ministers met with Iran's top diplomat in Geneva in a scramble to de-escalate the conflict. But the first face-to-face meeting between Western and Iranian officials in the weeklong war concluded after four hours with no sign of an immediate breakthrough. To give diplomacy a chance, Trump said he would put off deciding for up to two weeks whether to join Israel's air campaign against Iran. Whether or not the US joins, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel's military operation in Iran would continue "for as long as it takes" to eliminate what he called the existential threat of Iran's nuclear program and arsenal of ballistic missiles. As negotiations ended in Switzerland, European officials expressed hope for future negotiations and Iran's top diplomat said he was open to further dialogue. But Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasised that Tehran had no interest in negotiating with the US while Israel continued attacking. "Iran is ready to consider diplomacy if aggression ceases and the aggressor is held accountable for its committed crimes," he told reporters. Trump was dismissive of the Geneva talks saying Iran didn't want to speak to Europe. "They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this," Trump said. Those comments - however blunt - were not refuted by the Europeans. "Above all, it is of great importance that the United States of America be involved in these negotiations and in finding a solution," German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said after the meeting. After Israeli warplanes hit dozens of military targets across Iran, including missile-manufacturing facilities, an Iranian missile crashed into Israel's northern city of Haifa, sending plumes of smoke billowing over the Mediterranean port and wounding at least 31 people. Israel's air attacks since its campaign began on June 13 have killed 639 people in Iran, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency, a US-based human rights organisation. The dead include the military's top echelon and nuclear scientists. In Israel, 24 civilians have been killed in Iranian missile attacks, according to authorities. Addressing an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency warned Israel against attacks on Iran's nuclear reactors, particularly its only commercial nuclear power plant in the southern city of Bushehr. "I want to make it absolutely and completely clear...a direct hit would result in a very high release of radioactivity to the environment," said Rafael Grossi, chief of the UN nuclear watchdog. Israel has instead focused its strikes on the main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, centrifuge workshops near Tehran, laboratories in Isfahan and the country's Arak heavy water reactor southwest of the capital. Grossi has warned repeatedly that such sites should not be military targets. Iranian state media reported explosions from Israeli strikes in an industrial area of Rasht, along the coast of the Caspian Sea. Israel's military had warned the public to evacuate the area, but with Iran's internet shut off — now for more than 48 hours — it's unclear just how many people could see the message. Iran has insisted on its right to enrich uranium — albeit at lower levels — in recent talks over its nuclear program. But Trump, like Israel, has demanded Iran end its enrichment program altogether. Iran had previously agreed to limit its uranium enrichment and allow international inspectors access to its nuclear sites under a 2015 deal with the US, France, China, Russia, Britain and Germany in exchange for sanctions relief. But after Trump pulled the US unilaterally out of the deal during his first term, Iran began enriching uranium up to 60 per cent — a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90 per cent — and restricting access to its nuclear facilities. with DPA Israel and Iran have traded further strikes a week into their war, as Donald Trump weighed US military involvement and key European ministers met with Iran's top diplomat in Geneva in a scramble to de-escalate the conflict. But the first face-to-face meeting between Western and Iranian officials in the weeklong war concluded after four hours with no sign of an immediate breakthrough. To give diplomacy a chance, Trump said he would put off deciding for up to two weeks whether to join Israel's air campaign against Iran. Whether or not the US joins, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel's military operation in Iran would continue "for as long as it takes" to eliminate what he called the existential threat of Iran's nuclear program and arsenal of ballistic missiles. As negotiations ended in Switzerland, European officials expressed hope for future negotiations and Iran's top diplomat said he was open to further dialogue. But Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasised that Tehran had no interest in negotiating with the US while Israel continued attacking. "Iran is ready to consider diplomacy if aggression ceases and the aggressor is held accountable for its committed crimes," he told reporters. Trump was dismissive of the Geneva talks saying Iran didn't want to speak to Europe. "They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this," Trump said. Those comments - however blunt - were not refuted by the Europeans. "Above all, it is of great importance that the United States of America be involved in these negotiations and in finding a solution," German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said after the meeting. After Israeli warplanes hit dozens of military targets across Iran, including missile-manufacturing facilities, an Iranian missile crashed into Israel's northern city of Haifa, sending plumes of smoke billowing over the Mediterranean port and wounding at least 31 people. Israel's air attacks since its campaign began on June 13 have killed 639 people in Iran, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency, a US-based human rights organisation. The dead include the military's top echelon and nuclear scientists. In Israel, 24 civilians have been killed in Iranian missile attacks, according to authorities. Addressing an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency warned Israel against attacks on Iran's nuclear reactors, particularly its only commercial nuclear power plant in the southern city of Bushehr. "I want to make it absolutely and completely clear...a direct hit would result in a very high release of radioactivity to the environment," said Rafael Grossi, chief of the UN nuclear watchdog. Israel has instead focused its strikes on the main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, centrifuge workshops near Tehran, laboratories in Isfahan and the country's Arak heavy water reactor southwest of the capital. Grossi has warned repeatedly that such sites should not be military targets. Iranian state media reported explosions from Israeli strikes in an industrial area of Rasht, along the coast of the Caspian Sea. Israel's military had warned the public to evacuate the area, but with Iran's internet shut off — now for more than 48 hours — it's unclear just how many people could see the message. Iran has insisted on its right to enrich uranium — albeit at lower levels — in recent talks over its nuclear program. But Trump, like Israel, has demanded Iran end its enrichment program altogether. Iran had previously agreed to limit its uranium enrichment and allow international inspectors access to its nuclear sites under a 2015 deal with the US, France, China, Russia, Britain and Germany in exchange for sanctions relief. But after Trump pulled the US unilaterally out of the deal during his first term, Iran began enriching uranium up to 60 per cent — a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90 per cent — and restricting access to its nuclear facilities. with DPA Israel and Iran have traded further strikes a week into their war, as Donald Trump weighed US military involvement and key European ministers met with Iran's top diplomat in Geneva in a scramble to de-escalate the conflict. But the first face-to-face meeting between Western and Iranian officials in the weeklong war concluded after four hours with no sign of an immediate breakthrough. To give diplomacy a chance, Trump said he would put off deciding for up to two weeks whether to join Israel's air campaign against Iran. Whether or not the US joins, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel's military operation in Iran would continue "for as long as it takes" to eliminate what he called the existential threat of Iran's nuclear program and arsenal of ballistic missiles. As negotiations ended in Switzerland, European officials expressed hope for future negotiations and Iran's top diplomat said he was open to further dialogue. But Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasised that Tehran had no interest in negotiating with the US while Israel continued attacking. "Iran is ready to consider diplomacy if aggression ceases and the aggressor is held accountable for its committed crimes," he told reporters. Trump was dismissive of the Geneva talks saying Iran didn't want to speak to Europe. "They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this," Trump said. Those comments - however blunt - were not refuted by the Europeans. "Above all, it is of great importance that the United States of America be involved in these negotiations and in finding a solution," German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said after the meeting. After Israeli warplanes hit dozens of military targets across Iran, including missile-manufacturing facilities, an Iranian missile crashed into Israel's northern city of Haifa, sending plumes of smoke billowing over the Mediterranean port and wounding at least 31 people. Israel's air attacks since its campaign began on June 13 have killed 639 people in Iran, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency, a US-based human rights organisation. The dead include the military's top echelon and nuclear scientists. In Israel, 24 civilians have been killed in Iranian missile attacks, according to authorities. Addressing an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency warned Israel against attacks on Iran's nuclear reactors, particularly its only commercial nuclear power plant in the southern city of Bushehr. "I want to make it absolutely and completely clear...a direct hit would result in a very high release of radioactivity to the environment," said Rafael Grossi, chief of the UN nuclear watchdog. Israel has instead focused its strikes on the main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, centrifuge workshops near Tehran, laboratories in Isfahan and the country's Arak heavy water reactor southwest of the capital. Grossi has warned repeatedly that such sites should not be military targets. Iranian state media reported explosions from Israeli strikes in an industrial area of Rasht, along the coast of the Caspian Sea. Israel's military had warned the public to evacuate the area, but with Iran's internet shut off — now for more than 48 hours — it's unclear just how many people could see the message. Iran has insisted on its right to enrich uranium — albeit at lower levels — in recent talks over its nuclear program. But Trump, like Israel, has demanded Iran end its enrichment program altogether. Iran had previously agreed to limit its uranium enrichment and allow international inspectors access to its nuclear sites under a 2015 deal with the US, France, China, Russia, Britain and Germany in exchange for sanctions relief. But after Trump pulled the US unilaterally out of the deal during his first term, Iran began enriching uranium up to 60 per cent — a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90 per cent — and restricting access to its nuclear facilities. with DPA
The Age
19 hours ago
- The Age
UK parliament votes for assisted dying, paving way for historic law change
London: Britain's parliament has voted in favour of a bill to legalise assisted dying, paving the way for the country's biggest social change in a generation. The legislation passed by a vote of 314-291, clearing its biggest parliamentary hurdle. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) law would give mentally competent, terminally ill adults in England and Wales with six months or less left to live the right to choose to end their lives with medical help. The bill now proceeds to Britain's upper chamber, the House of Lords, where it will undergo months of scrutiny. While there could be further amendments, the unelected Lords will be reluctant to block legislation that has been passed by elected members of the House of Commons. The vote puts Britain on course to follow Australia, Canada and other countries, as well as some US states, in permitting assisted dying. Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour government was neutral on the legislation, meaning politicians voted according to their conscience rather than along party lines. Starmer voted in favour. Loading Supporters of the bill say it will provide dignity and compassion to people suffering, but opponents worry that vulnerable people could be coerced into ending their lives. Hundreds of people gathered outside parliament to hear news of the vote.
Sydney Morning Herald
19 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
UK parliament votes for assisted dying, paving way for historic law change
London: Britain's parliament has voted in favour of a bill to legalise assisted dying, paving the way for the country's biggest social change in a generation. The legislation passed by a vote of 314-291, clearing its biggest parliamentary hurdle. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) law would give mentally competent, terminally ill adults in England and Wales with six months or less left to live the right to choose to end their lives with medical help. The bill now proceeds to Britain's upper chamber, the House of Lords, where it will undergo months of scrutiny. While there could be further amendments, the unelected Lords will be reluctant to block legislation that has been passed by elected members of the House of Commons. The vote puts Britain on course to follow Australia, Canada and other countries, as well as some US states, in permitting assisted dying. Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour government was neutral on the legislation, meaning politicians voted according to their conscience rather than along party lines. Starmer voted in favour. Loading Supporters of the bill say it will provide dignity and compassion to people suffering, but opponents worry that vulnerable people could be coerced into ending their lives. Hundreds of people gathered outside parliament to hear news of the vote.
