New Zealanders so little trust our politicians that National, the major opposition party to Labour in the leadup to the October election, is polling only around 36 per cent, although the incompetent and even arguably corrupt activities of the ruling Labour party have become so obvious that it now polls only between 26 and 30 per cent. The eco-fascist Greens, with whom Labour has a co-operation agreement, rate 10 per cent. The third left-wing parliamentary party, Te Paati Maori, far from being supported by the majority of those of part-Maori descent, is polling at around 2.4 per cent.

Our current account deficit of 8.4 per cent of GDP is the largest of all OECD countries. However, there is no widespread enthusiasm for Christopher Luxon, National party leader, although recognition of the damage that Labour has inflicted on New Zealand should have produced far more support for the major opposition party.

Luxon’s uninspiring poll rating of only 23 per cent as preferred leader, presently equals Labour leader Chris Hipkins’ – plummeting from 34 per cent – an indication Luxon is regarded as out of his depth intellectually, and also wedded to the sheer nonsense of the demonising of CO2 as a major contributor to a climate disaster scenario. Equally unacceptable is his dismissing the concern he encounters at meetings around the country about the Maorification of our national life with government departments, private institutions and major companies now virtue-signalling, using te reo, today’s largely reinvented ‘Maori’ language, to supposedly inform New Zealanders what they stand for. But how helpful, in an emergency situation, is Middlemore Hospital’s calling its Accident and Emergency department ‘Tari Rongoa Ohorere’? Or for drivers, wondering which road or turning to take, to be confused by signposts headed in unintelligible te reo – English in smaller letters underneath?

Formerly CEO of Air New Zealand, Luxon, far from presiding as virtual chairman over a political party composed of MPs with varying points of view, clamps down on dissent as if still running a company.  His performance reminds us that this country is the poorer for political parties having become too rigid, required to speak with one voice, no matter that their more intelligent members may, with good reason and better judgment, disagree with a leader’s decisions. Nor does he seem to realise that his poor polling is also due to his lukewarm reaction to New Zealanders’ very real concerns about the push for tribal, supposed co-governance of this country, but in effect prioritising part-Maori interests, particularly those of the wealthy, activist, quasi-tribal corporations influencing decision-making in our universities and other important areas.

Moreover, at a time when an aggressive, displeased China attempts to punish countries setting up watching briefs on its spying activities,  and trying to limit their economic dependence, Luxon says National would ‘absolutely’ accept Chinese money to fund proposed road works – estimated at $24 billion – while deflecting concerns about Chinese workers having to be allowed in to build the roads. Previous investments in this Pacific region and elsewhere have seen such workers remaining, and high debt levels imposed. Apparently ignorant of how swiftly China has elsewhere taken this opportunity to establish an oversight of countries where it has similarly invested, our possible next prime minister regards such questions as ‘xenophobic’ and ‘simplistic’.

Another arguably ill-judged move by National is using former prime minister, John Key, to solicit financial support. Key mysteriously resigned while still in office, citing the common reason of wanting to spend more time with his family. He was subsequently knighted. Among other activities, with his son, Max, he has joined property developers and one-time strip club and brothel owners – John and Michael Chow – in property development. Popular as National party leader, he nevertheless was responsible for decisions costing the country dearly, with Labour’s Jacinda Ardern coat-tailing on Key’s underhand move to send Minister Pita Sharples to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People without consultation with the country, even the media unaware of his move. This, in spite of the fact that New Zealand has no indigenous people, pre-colonial Maori arrivals passing on the names of the canoes that brought them. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, himself part-Maori, is gaining support by emphasising just this, to the apparent consternation of our left-wing media.

And although Labour’s Helen Clark had passed a Seabed and Foreshore Act to keep most of the coastline in public ownership, National, under Key, with the strong support of Minister Chris Finlayson – a List MP never even voted into parliament – replaced this Act. The whole coastline around New Zealand is now claimed by various Maori groups, with New Zealanders required to fund these. Moreover, it was National that granted undemocratic, special rights to activist Maori groups to various bodies of water, and reneged on its promise to remove the racist, Maori-only seats in parliament, although Maori are well represented in all the political parties in the House,

Undoubtedly, Labour and National both have a chequered past with regard to obeying the wishes of the majority, with ACT’s policies superior to National’s in regard to issues surrounding co-governance. However, leader David Seymour’s strongly pro-euthanasia and pro-abortion stance (shockingly, even voting against legislation requiring aborted, live babies to be given medical help and care) resonates badly with many.

With New Zealand First committed to reinstating English as our primary language, other excellent policies come from the New Conservatives. But there has been concern about what happens to votes given to a minor party that does not achieve a candidate elected to parliament, nor meet the 5 per cent threshold to gain representation. Past practice was apparently for these to simply be discarded. However, both a prominent media commentator and a former MP have stated that unsuccessful minor party votes from the previous, 2020 election were given on a pro rata basis to the successful parties, Labour scoring an extra five seats from those cast for the minor parties, National an extra three.

Repeated enquiries made to the Electoral Commission finally yielded me the answer that these votes will in future simply be discarded. However, if this was not the case in 2020, such a move could well be regarded as unconstitutional, with individuals who had conclusively shown that they did not want to vote for these parties having their votes virtually hijacked to achieve the opposite to what they wished! What price democracy?