How I would fix New Zealand

Over the past few days I’ve written a couple of articles about the recent election. In the first, I argued that the centre-right coalition will probably find itself back in government after the official results on 27 November, despite the precarious position National finds itself in after just one term. In the second, I wrote an open letter to Christopher Luxon asking him to resign in the interests of his party and the country.

A few commenters flippantly suggested that, if I’m so smart, perhaps I should take the job myself. I certainly wouldn’t wish that on the country – but I do have some strong ideas about what I’d do if I were making the decisions about the coalitions second term – so, in answer to those challenges, here’s my prescription.

First, and immediately, I would invite Opportunity to formally join the coalition, even if National, ACT and New Zealand First already had the numbers to govern. I wasn’t a fan of Opportunity and I campaigned strongly against it – but the campaign is now over and it’s time to look ahead. This is the same approach that John Key took to the Māori Party in 2008 – an arrangement that lasted for almost 9 years and forged an unlikely alliance into one of the smartest moves in modern coalition building.

Next, I would lay out a framework for my four key priorities:

🔷🔷 Putting the country’s finances back in order

🔷🔷 Following through on the promises and expectations of 2023

🔷🔷 Bringing New Zealanders together

🔷🔷 Restoring the values that help a free society work

Let’s have a look at each of those:

Putting the country’s finances back in order

The level of debt we’re currently carrying is eye-watering and we need to get it back under control. The first Budget of the re-elected coalition should signal an end to debt increases, tell us when we’ll return to an operating surplus, and outline when debt will start falling in dollar terms. I’d also publish milestones for bringing it down as a share of the economy, through this term and beyond.

To achieve that I’d put Simeon Brown in as Finance Minister and invite ACT, New Zealand First and, if it joined the coalition, Opportunity, to each nominate an associate minister. Obviously, my preferences would be David Seymour for ACT and Craig Stobo for New Zealand First – establishing a powerful and credible brains trust in the finance portfolios.

Delivering on the expectations of 2023

A lot of people voted for change in 2023 and are still asking what happened to it. ACT and New Zealand First deserve credit for action on some of those things – but one of National’s biggest failures has been leaving some reforms unfinished, doing a poor job of explaining others that it actually delivered, and even doubling down on Ardern era policies that it had campaigned to end. I’d go back to the issues that still mattered, tell voters plainly what’s been done and get on with the rest.

These initiatives would include:

🔷 Public services based on need and a politically neutral Public Service: ACT and New Zealand First secured the 2024 Cabinet direction that public services should be prioritised according to need. I’d require agencies to show how they’re applying that directive and correcting practices that depart from it. The Public Service Act was also amended in June 2026 to reinforce political neutrality and merit. I’d ask the Public Service Commissioner to report publicly on appointments, on how agencies maintain neutrality in their official communications and on what happens when they fall short.

🔷 Political neutrality in state-owned media: I’d move quickly to hold Radio New Zealand and TVNZ to a clear standard of political neutrality in their news and current affairs. While private media should be free to take an editorial line within the law and the standards that apply to them – State-owned broadcasters have a different responsibility. New Zealanders should be able to rely on RNZ and TVNZ for politically impartial reporting and expect significant competing views on contested issues to be presented fairly and in context.

🔷 Free speech and religious expression: The coalition has already acted on free speech at universities. I’d build on that with a free-speech charter for government and a Freedom of Religious Expression Bill. The Judeo-Christian tradition helped shape this country and we’ve lost something by treating that inheritance as incidental. I’d recognise its importance in law and strengthen the freedom of people of every faith (and none) to hold and express their convictions. I’d review existing laws and public-sector rules and change those that unjustifiably restrict that freedom. Where a government rule undermines a sincere belief, the agency should have to consider reasonable accommodation and explain any refusal. This would avoid the kind coercion that we saw during COVID and would ensure that those with a sincere objection had a meaningful way to seek an exemption from measures that offended their beliefs.

🔷 Biological sex and freedom of conscience: I’d make biological sex the basis for law and public policy wherever sex matters while recognising the right of adults to live as they choose, so long as they harm no one else. If an adult individual wants to describe him or herself in ways contrary to nature, that should be his or her right – provided that imaginary pretext isn’t forced on others through legislation. A person can ask you to use their preferred pronouns – but the decision to do so is yours, and that distinction would be strongly protected in law.

🔷 Education, health and law and order: I’d continue the focus on literacy, maths and attendance, and maintain ACT’s charter schools. I’d keep the existing health targets and work with Opportunity on their proposed ten-year health plan, with access to primary care an early priority and ACT’s proposals on GP and pharmacist care among the options. I’d carry on with the law-and-order programme and judge it by what happens to violent offending, repeat offending and the number of people who become victims of crime. And I’d reintroduce Bill English’s social investment approach so that we could see what the money we spend achieves for the people it’s intended to help.

🔷 Housing, competition and energy: I’d continue David Seymour’s regulatory work and implement the planning laws already passed. The housing job is to remove barriers, enable more lower-cost homes and get the roads and water infrastructure in place so that builders can respond to demand. I’d also adopt ACT’s proposal to publish the lowest-cost safe option alongside the preferred option for major infrastructure projects. New Zealand First has put the structure of the supermarket and electricity markets on the agenda. I’d embrace that, build on the competition work already underway, make it easier for new firms to enter those markets and examine whether the stronger powers Opportunity proposes would be justified. I’d also make energy security an immediate job for ministers. Work on LNG procurement and winter reliability is already underway. I’d compare domestic supply, imported backup, renewables, storage and grid investment on cost, delivery time and whether they’ll keep the lights on in a dry winter. That matters as much to a factory deciding whether to invest here as it does to a household paying the power bill.

🔷 Defence and foreign policy: We now live in a more dangerous strategic environment so I’d keep the commitment to lift defence spending and rebuild our capabilities – putting the Pacific at the centre of our defence policy and strengthening ties with Australia, the United States and other Pacific partners where we have common interests. I’d also move quickly to make New Zealand a firm friend of Israel, defend its legitimacy and security at the United Nations and elsewhere, and base our views on Israel on our own observation rather than the edicts of international institutions which have repeatedly proven themselves to be antisemitic.

Building national unity

New Zealand has become extraordinarily divided on questions that matter to all of us. We talk past each other about our history, the role of parents, how to respond to climate change and what makes the tax system fair. Too often, by the time the public is asked what it thinks, the people making the decision have already settled on the answer.

I’d move to fix that by giving us a chance to do something Kiwis do well. Get around a table, hear what matters to the people sitting across from us, share ideas and see how much we can agree on.

I’d call it The New Zealand Conversation. It would be a nationwide campaign led by an overarching commission, with several independent commissions, inquiries and reviews working under it. Each would have its own remit and make its own recommendations. The overarching commission would take the conversation around the country, promote it widely and make sure people could take part in their own communities, online, by phone or in writing. The purpose would be to ask New Zealanders what we value, what’s driving us apart and where we want to go as a country.

In addition to my coalition partners I’d invite Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori to put their own proposals on the table, to be assessed on the same terms. If an opposition party came up with a better answer, I’d want the government to use it and give that party the credit.

I’d ask each of the inquiries within the Conversation to report back as quickly as possible and to publish what it was hearing, what the evidence from here and overseas showed, and what options were taking shape on an ongoing basis – allowing the government to act quickly on easy wins while waiting for the more substantive final reports.

The parts of the Conversation would be:

🔷 The Cultural Reconciliation Commission (founded on the principle of one person, one vote, with solutions involving the legal enforcement of co-governance explicitly outside its remit) would listen to New Zealanders ideas about how to restore respect for Māori and European cultures as the two founding strands of our national heritage, recognise the contributions of other communities, and find common ground on how we honour that heritage and move forward together. The Commissions role would be to find ways to unite our peoples without subverting democracy.

🔷 The Tax Reform Project would investigate the question of ‘fairness’ within tax policy. The project would have a broadly revenue-neutral remit meaning its task would be to determine how to more fairly assess what should be taxed – not look for new ways to increase it. It could compare different mixes of tax on earnings, spending, land, capital gains, savings and business income, and examine what changes to thresholds, rates or concessions could achieve. It would assess each package as a whole. Who would pay more or less? What would it do to work, saving and investment? How would we get from here to there? Every party would be welcome to put a package forward.

🔷 The Parents First Commission would be established on the principle that ‘parental consent’ should be the basis for almost all decisions about how children are raised, with few and clearly defined exceptions. This would cut across education, the health system and other agencies as well as the rights of minors within commercial law. It would identify where laws or agency practices override parents without sufficient reason and recommend specific changes to legislation based on the principle that the consent belongs to each family, with explicit safeguards for abuse, urgent care and the limited circumstances in which young people can make their own decisions.

🔷 The Climate Conversation. No one should pretend that the strongly opposing views on climate change can be easily reconciled – but we should have a conversation to attempt to find some common ground. Obviously any decisions settled in coalition talks should be clear from the outset – but the inquiry should go further and talk about the available options and whether there is long term compromise that we can all sign up to.

🔷 The Futures Commission would be responsible for looking beyond the next Budget or election. It would gauge public attitudes toward coming changes that will affect NZ such as the impact of AI, the concept of a universal basic income, the age of eligibility for superannuation, the impact of immigration and what can be learned from other nations, Republicanism, and the design of the flag. It would also consider MMP 30 years on.

Where warranted, the findings of these Commissions would be put to referendum so that kiwis could decide what they wanted for their country, going forward.

The restoration of values

A free society depends on what people expect of themselves and how they treat each other. I’d put legislative emphasis on personal responsibility, respect for others and the duties that come with freedom – starting with embedding these ideals within the education system. Young New Zealanders should leave school knowing how Parliament, elections and the courts work, how our democracy developed, how our freedoms were won and why they’re worth protecting. They should know how to challenge a decision, make a case in public and listen to someone who takes a different view. I’d make civics and the history of our democracy explicit in the curriculum and give teachers the resources to teach them well.

I’d also apply those same principles to the way we make law. I’d expect ministers to explain how significant legislation affects individual freedom, what responsibilities it places on people and why any limits are justified. A government asking New Zealanders to take responsibility for their choices should be prepared to explain its own.

What would underpin all of this

There’s also one more thing that I’d bring to leadership that matters more to me than any of the policies I’ve outlined here – and it’s something that has been missing from our national leadership for much of the past 50 years. I would bring prayer back to the heart of how I govern.

As a Christian I believe in the power of prayer, in divine providence and in God’s guidance – and that means asking God for wisdom in the decisions I had to make, the humility to listen when someone challenged me, and the courage to do what I believed was right. I’d also be open about where I sought that guidance and who I ultimately answered to: Jesus Christ.

That’s my recipe. Which parts would you back? Which do you strongly disagree with? And if it were up to you, what would you do differently? Let me know in the comments.