No amount of book sales can dispel Jacinda Ardern's 'odd passivity' that defines her fear-driven time at the top

Sky News AU

17-06-2025

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