logo
Why are we allergic to working together?

Why are we allergic to working together?

At the NZ Hi-Tech Awards, from left, Sarah Ramsay, Careerwise founder Marian Johnson, Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Space minister Judith Collins. Photo: supplied
"The world is a vampire." That line's been looping in my head for weeks.
Not because I've got a '90s playlist on repeat, but because it sums up how I've been feeling about politics lately: drained, cynical, and stuck in a loop.
The truth is, I've been in a bit of a rut. Writer's block, political burnout, and a nagging sense of pointlessness. It's political nihilism — that feeling of "what's the point?''. Politics feels less like a forum for ideas and more like a never-ending shouting match. And that's exhausting.
But here's the thing: I still care. Underneath the frustration, I believe good people exist across the political spectrum — even if the system they work in is broken.
I appreciate National's focus on social investment and focus on productivity growth. I share the Greens' view that we need a serious conversation about wealth tax and capital gains. I'm concerned about losing our strong co-governance and representation of tangata whenua that Labour and Te Pāti Māori led.
I can't say I agree with much at all from Act New Zealand, and I find David Seymour's approach particularly offputting. Winston and New Zealand First? He does a good job representing regional New Zealand, even if I disagree with their mining stance.
And I wrestle with my own political identity. I'm a capitalist who cares deeply about social justice. I believe in business, innovation and growth — but I also believe in fairness, equality, and community. It shouldn't be a contradiction. Yet our system forces us to pick sides.
Which brings me to this: our two-party system is outdated. We inherited it from the UK — a model based on old class divisions, workers v landowners. Over time, it's hardened into tribal warfare.
But what if there's another way? Switzerland and Denmark show us how democracy can work differently, and better.
Denmark uses proportional representation, meaning no one party rules alone. It forces coalition-building, compromise, and broader representation.
Switzerland goes even further with its concordance democracy. All major parties share governance. There is no official opposition. Policy isn't about point-scoring — it's about consensus. Imagine that.
These systems aren't perfect, but they work. They're stable. They deliver. Denmark and Switzerland consistently rank among the world's best for GDP per capita, trust in government, education, and social equity.
They are capitalist at their core, just like us, but pair market economies with strong public services and a deep commitment to democratic participation.
And yet, here in New Zealand, we treat it like a trade-off: you can have strong business, or you can have social support. As if it's either-or.
But it's not. If you build trust in the system, spend wisely, and treat people like adults, you can absolutely have both.
Both Labour and National have name-dropped Denmark and Switzerland over the years to justify their policies. They also both refer to Singapore a lot, but you can't just cherry-pick tax ideas or social programmes and ignore the structure that makes them possible. These countries succeed because of their systems — collaborative, representative, and built for the long term.
If we want what they have, we need more than a few policy tweaks. We need transformation.
And they are big on productivity. Switzerland supports startups and small businesses with smart incentives, low red tape, and targeted tax breaks. They've strategically focused on producing high-tech, high-quality and high-value goods, which makes them globally competitive beyond their scale.
They apply this to government too: public spending is lean, just over 30% of GDP versus New Zealand's 42.75% in 2024.
They recognise that to be globally competitive and fund the social services they care about, everyone needs to work smarter — and work harder too. A recent Reuters article coined it as Swiss Exceptionalism.
And speaking of work — politics is work. Hard work.
I recently got a photo with Judith Collins, Nicola Willis and Marian Johnson at the NZ Hi-Tech Awards – a celebration of the companies leading New Zealand's productivity battle and generating huge value economically, socially and environmentally.
I was proud but I hesitated to share it publicly — not because I was embarrassed, but because I knew it would invite hate.
That's how bad things have become. We can't even be seen with politicians without triggering a backlash.
When did we get so allergic to respectful disagreement? That moment of hesitation is the inspiration for this piece.
For the record, both Judith and Nicola are impressive women. I've spent time with both and really enjoy their company, they're actually human and have great banter.
I've also spent time with people in Labour — Jacinda, Rachel Brooking, Grant Robertson, Stuart Nash. All good people. I hope to meet Chloe Swarbrick and Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke sometime too.
We have got smart, thoughtful leaders across the board. What if we stopped dividing them into teams and asked them to work together — like an actual team New Zealand?
Instead, we've turned politics into a nasty sport. One where politicians are constantly on edge, scared to say the wrong thing. Imagine running a business like that — where your team openly undermines each other and the focus is on tearing people down. You'd go bankrupt.
We also need to talk about how politicians behave. We expect our kids to be respectful, empathetic, and composed. Yet we tolerate tantrums and bullying from our elected leaders.
Leadership is supposed to mean something. It's not about who can shout the loudest — it's about who can listen, build, and lead by example.
I've worked with both Labour and National governments, and I've seen the difference in how they operate. Labour has big ideas — but they often struggle to execute. National is more decisive — but they can seem cold and too commercially focused.
Neither is perfect. Both have good people. So why do we keep pretending one side has all the answers?
Politics shouldn't be about winning. It should be about solving.
We've got problems — big ones. Climate. Healthcare. Housing. Inequality. We won't fix them by yelling. We'll fix them by working together.
We need to stop picking sides and start picking values. We need leadership that blends bold ideas with practical action. That builds, not just blames.
Are we ready to grow up politically and try something different — or are we just going to keep hitting play on the same old broken record, hoping the next verse sounds better?
• Sarah Ramsay is chief executive of United Machinists.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Last-minute change puts oil and gas cleanup decisions in ministers' hands
Last-minute change puts oil and gas cleanup decisions in ministers' hands

RNZ News

timean hour ago

  • RNZ News

Last-minute change puts oil and gas cleanup decisions in ministers' hands

Resources Minister Shane Jones has vowed to restart the oil and gas industry. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii The government is set to repeal the oil and gas ban this week, after a significant 11th-hour change handing discretionary powers to two ministers. A 25-page amendment was published at 5pm on Monday, leaving opposition MPs less than 23 hours to prepare for the debate. The change largely deals with the rules for decommissioning oil and gas fields, and who is responsible for paying for the cleanup. Taranaki's Tui oil field was abandoned in 2019 after its Malaysian owner Tamarind Taranaki went bust, costing taxpayers a total $293 million to clean up, with work concluding just last month. The government initially set aside up to $343.4m for the project. The Labour government in 2021 introduced a law to prevent the government being lumped with such costs again in future. Resources Minister Shane Jones has vowed to restart the oil and gas industry . He said the aim of the amendment was to close a loophole in that 2021 law. "It did not seem correct or moral that the Crown should be left with that liability and the people [at fault] - with some very shrewd manoeuverings of script - would escape liability. We have solved that problem," he told the House. Taranaki's Tui oil field was abandoned in 2019 after its Malaysian owner Tamarind Taranaki went bust. Photo: MBIE / Supplied The changes replace the process of going through the list of previous permit-holders to figure out who pays for decommissioning, instead putting that decision in the hands of the Resources Minister and the Finance Minister. The amendment also removes several clauses from a previous amendment the minister made to the bill, which itself amends the Crown Minerals Act. Labour's Energy and Resources spokesperson Megan Woods led the 2021 law change in response to the Tui Oil Field debacle, and told the Parliament the changes showed the government capitulating to the industry's wishes. "They have bowed to the suggestions of the oil and gas companies and done what they wanted. They have further bowed to the interests of the oil and gas companies in taking eight months to sit with them, find out what they wanted and then bring a bill back to the House. This is not a government that is putting New Zealand first." Labour's Deborah Russell pointed out the Regulatory Impact Statement referred to consultation with affected stakeholders. "Those consulted preferred ministerial discretion to the current act and approach in the bill. In other words, these shadowy participants in the oil and gas industry - a dying industry - who we don't know who they are, much prefer to be able to lobby a minister." Labour MP Deborah Russell. Photo: RNZ / REECE BAKER Jones was unapologetic about those he consulted with. "Why would you not engage with the stakeholders, the risk-takers, the providers of what precious little gas we have, ruined by the cancel culture." He was unapologetic about a lack of consultation with others, including iwi. "So in the future the engagement will happen. This highly technical matter was not the subject of consultation in a detailed way, it was dealt with with a great deal of confidentiality. And in terms of providing a Māori dimension, I interviewed myself." The amendment passed with the coalition parties in support, with the opposition parties opposed. The third reading, which would see the oil and gas ban repealed, is expected on Thursday. A gas company warned investors would be cautious about coming back to New Zealand without broad political consensus - and with the opposition parties currently staunchly opposed that consensus seems vanishingly unlikely. The government also has a $200m fund set aside in this year's Budget to allow the government to co-invest in new gas fields. It last month pulled out of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance , an international coalition for phasing out fossil fuels, in a move the local World Wildlife Fund called an "international embarrassment". That was despite the Climate Minister, Simon Watts, previously saying New Zealand would not need to exit the group. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

Cabinet Ministers Defend Hiking Board Fees For Crown Bodies
Cabinet Ministers Defend Hiking Board Fees For Crown Bodies

Scoop

time6 hours ago

  • Scoop

Cabinet Ministers Defend Hiking Board Fees For Crown Bodies

Cabinet ministers are defending a move to hike board fees for Crown bodies by up to 80 percent, insisting those in the roles are overseeing billions of dollars - not just "beer and skittles." Labour says the decision proves the government is out-of-touch with the cost-of-living crisis and has accused it of trying to sneak the news by the public. A Cabinet document, quietly uploaded online on Monday, shows ministers agreed to lift the maximum annual fee for chairs of governance boards from $90,000 to about $162,000. The "Cabinet Fees Framework" is not binding but provides guidance to ministers when deciding compensation for those on a range of bodies, such as royal commissions and ministerial inquiries. Speaking on Tuesday, Luxon said public sector fees had become completely "out of whack" with private sector rates and needed a reset. "We need to make that a little bit more competitive, so that we can actually attract good talent," he said. Luxon said paying more to ensure "really good governance teams" could save billions in the long run. Finance Minister Nicola Willis echoed the point, stressing that New Zealanders deserved value for money. "This isn't beer and skittles. This is billions of dollars of public money. We need the very best people making governance decisions about it." Public Service Minister Judith Collins told reporters that the updated fees still fell short of private sector rates - around 80 percent of the going rate. "A lot of people who are experienced directors don't want to do these jobs in the public sector because they know they're going to lose money," she said. Collins said she did not think the public would be worried by the news. "One of the problems is that we've had an underperforming public service that's taken a hell of a lot of taxpayers' money, and so it is very important that we have the right people in charge of that." Hipkins accuses government of 'twisted priorities' Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the decision revealed the government's "twisted priorities" at a time when households were doing it tough. "They're saying that board members can get up to 80 percent increases in their pay, whilst nurses and teachers are being told to settle for 1 pecent or less," he said. "They've said everyone needs to tighten their belts - apparently except for the people who they hand-picked to put on public sector boards." Hipkins rejected the idea that higher fees were necessary to attract quality candidates, calling it "absolute nonsense." He said many public appointees had altruistic motivations and were already sitting on "very well paid directorships" in the private sector as well. "They're not doing it for the money," Hipkins said. Hipkins accused the government of trying to "slip this [announcement] out quietly" without scrutiny. But Luxon denied any secrecy: "It's normal practice... how it's been communicated." Hipkins does not appear to have issued a media release as Public Service Minister in 2022 when the then-Labour Cabinet agreed to a smaller 10 percent increase in fees. In November, State Owned Enterprises minister Paul Goldsmith did publish a release about a similar but separate move to increase director fees for 22 Crown-owned companies.

Police Minister says record high gang numbers 'highly concerning'
Police Minister says record high gang numbers 'highly concerning'

1News

time6 hours ago

  • 1News

Police Minister says record high gang numbers 'highly concerning'

For the first time, the number of patched gang members and gang prospects has surpassed 10,000 — with Police Minister Mark Mitchell acknowledging the figure is highly concerning. The number of gang members has been steadily growing in recent years. There were 9270 gang members on the National Gang List at the time of the 2023 election. As of July 10, there were 10,009 — an increase of more than 700 gang members and associates. The National Gang List counted patched members and prospects identified by state agencies. Police officer numbers are failing to keep up with the national gang member list, Benedict Collins reports. (Source: 1News) Mitchell told 1News today that the Government's tough on crime policies were working and gang numbers were now growing more slowly. ADVERTISEMENT "We're going after the gangs, we're making their life as difficult as possible," he said. He repeatedly blamed the rising gang numbers on the previous Labour-led government and their policies. "We're not going to reverse what happened under Labour [for] six years, where you saw a massive increase in gang numbers. "We're heading in the right direction." In an answer to a Parliamentary written question, however, Mitchell acknowledged the issue was alarming. "I acknowledge that it is highly concerning to see gang membership grow to this level." ADVERTISEMENT Labour's police spokesperson Ginny Andersen said the Prime Minister and his Government were failing to make New Zealanders safer. "Not only have gang numbers increased but methamphetamine levels have skyrocketed under their watch," she said. However, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon today maintained his Government was "smashing the gangs". "I'm proud of the progress that we've made, I mean putting the gang patches [ban] in place — many people said that couldn't be done." Criminologist Jarrod Gilbert said the gang patch ban may actually be leading to an undercount of gang members now. "We can't identify the gangs anymore because insignia has been banned so, perversely ,we might see numbers come down on this list, it's not reflective of anything that's happening on the street it's just that the gangs are more invisible." When in opposition, the National Party repeatedly attacked the previous Labour government over rising gang numbers. Data from the Police Minister's office shows that when Labour came to power in 2017 there were 5343 individuals on the National Gang List. By the 2023 election, there were 9270 — an increase of nearly 4000 over six years.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store