Labour's List is defensive

The rankings reward loyalists, sideline potential rivals, and suggest Hipkins is more concerned about managing his caucus than rebuilding Labour.

Labour has released its 2026 election list and, for all the talk about fresh voices and renewal, it is pretty obvious that this is not by any means a new Labour Party. This is the 2020-2023 Labour Government in a slightly different jacket and Chris Hipkins carefully rearranging the furniture so nobody too threatening gets too close to his chair.

Yes, experience matters, but if the country biffed your team out it is probably wise to make substantial changes before asking for their vote again. The top of the Labour list is very familiar. Chris Hipkins, Carmel Sepuloni, Barbara Edmonds, Willie Jackson, Megan Woods, Ayesha Verrall, Willow-Jean Prime. The only real newbies to the top are Vanushi Walters and Cushla Tangaere-Manuel.

This is clearly not a party that has reckoned with its time in government. Chris Hipkins made that clear when he dismissed the feelings of Aucklanders about the immense lockdowns and again in his refusal to provide any detail on the scant number of policies they have proffered. Labour is not a party that has looked at 2023 and thought, “perhaps New Zealanders rejected us for a reason.” It is almost exactly the same people who were around the Cabinet table when Labour lost the country’s trust, with the same instincts, and the same ideological hang-ups. Labour can call it experience, but there is a chance others will see it as an unwelcome reunion tour.

Apologies, I got silly with AI.

However, as interesting as the front bench always is, the most interesting thing about this list is not who is at the top, but who has been kept just far enough away from it. Kieran McAnulty, regarded as one of the few Labour MPs with cut-through outside the Wellington bubble, has been dropped to number 10. He is Shadow Leader of the House, a strong performer for Labour, and (most importantly) he is the most often referred to potential replacement for Hipkins. He is more relatable, more provincial, and less weighed down by the Ardern-Robertson-Hipkins years. So naturally, Hipkins has parked him where he is useful, but not too useful.

Meanwhile, Hipkins loyalists have been rewarded. Ginny Andersen sits at 12, Jan Tinetti remains at 15, Rachel Brooking shoots up to 11, and Jo Luxton stays safely inside the top 20. These are rankings that reflect internal discipline, not expertise or competence. Hipkins does not appear to have many male friends, but these women know to be loyal, don’t make trouble, and don’t look like a leadership threat. Do all that and they know there will be room for them near the front.

Willie Jackson is the only other bloke in the top ten aside from McAnulty. Jackson was rewarded with a one place jump to number 4 which again reflects his unwavering loyalty even when fractures were showing in the Māori caucus with the exit of Peeni Henare. Jackson has piled his eggs into Hipkins’ basket and is banking on controlling Māori policy. The problem for Hipkins is that this all looks a lot like the parable of The Scorpion and the Frog.

Willie Jackson is the scorpion in this arrangement. Froggy Hipkins may think he is carrying him safely across the river because Jackson is appearing useful for now. He is loyal, combative, and able to help manage Māori policy. But Jackson’s nature is Jackson’s nature and he is not a quiet passenger. He is a power broker, and if Hipkins thinks that loyalty will last beyond its usefulness, he may find out the hard way that scorpions sting because that is what scorpions do.

Then there is Willow-Jean Prime at number 7. To be frank, her ability to underperform and retain a top spot is impressive. Prime was stripped of the education portfolio after a series of gaffes, and yet somehow defies gravity and remains in Labour’s top tier. This is the most obvious example of a list-wide problem for Labour. Performance seems optional and accountability negotiable. Internal usefulness to the leader appears to matter much more than whether someone has actually excelled.

The person with perhaps the most reason to feel aggrieved is Arena Williams. Hipkins’ treatment of her is the starkest example of defensive list management. Arena has been talked about as a rising star for more than a decade. More recently, her name has been attached to potential leadership combinations; perhaps as McAnulty’s deputy. She is smart, ambitious, and although I do not know her personally, I suspect she is a lot more interesting, competent, and electable than half the people ranked above her.

So where does Labour put their rising star? Number 41. Even worse, somehow she has been ranked behind Phil Twyford, Helen White, Ingrid Leary, and a whole bunch of newbies. Yes, she is likely to hold her electorate of Manurewa, but that does not explain the political message being sent here. She should have been ranked highly knowing she wouldn’t need to rely on the list. This looks like a shot across the bow and it is easy to surmise that she has not toed the line somewhere or not kissed the right rings.

Tangi Utikere and Camilla Belich also appear to have been kept away from the front line. Both are capable and could plausibly form part of a post-Hipkins rebuild. Belich has dropped to 23, despite being one of Labour’s sharper operators. The strange thing about her drop is that she has been a close friend to Hipkins and her husband was previously his Chief of Staff. Regardless, these are two of Labour’s more credible and hardworking people and I argue they should be further up the list.

Former What Now and Fanimals producer Reuben Davidson at 21 is another eyebrow-raiser. Since entering Parliament, he has had a few outings at Question Time in which he made himself look less like a serious opposition MP and more like someone chasing gotchas he cannot quite land. Yet he is sitting in a highly winnable slot ahead of aforementioned employment lawyer Camilla Belich. The mind boggles.

A few of the new candidates warrant a mention. Firstly, the most serious issue is obviously Superintendent Rakesh Naidoo. Labour has placed him at number 13 and has not required him to run in an electorate. He is all but guaranteed to enter Parliament if the party performs reasonably well on election night.

However, what initially looked like a communication failure has become a much bigger problem with Chris Hipkins confirming that Labour had been discussing a potential candidacy with Naidoo for several months before he formally entered the race. That admission completely undermines the argument that this was a last-minute decision.

If Naidoo was engaged in discussions with Labour over several months about becoming an MP, he should have disclosed that fact to his employer (the NZ Police). The issue is not when he signed the final paperwork, it is when he began seriously exploring a political future with a political party. Police officers, particularly senior officers with access to sensitive information and regular contact with ministers, are held to a higher standard than most public servants because public confidence depends on their political neutrality.

That is why both Police Commissioner Richard Chambers and Police Minister Mark Mitchell were blindsided when his candidacy was revealed. On Sunday, Naidoo was at an event with the Police Minister as a trusted official. On Monday it was announced that he will essentially be trying to take his job because lets be real, if they get into Government Hipkins will give him the Police role.

Labour will have put a lot of thought into offering the spot to Naidoo and it is not credible that they suddenly decided to place him at number 13 on the party list through a rushed process completed in a matter of days. Number 13 is a highly coveted, effectively winnable position ahead of many sitting MPs who have spent years building support within the party. Labour did not wake up on Monday morning and spontaneously decide to give a senior police officer one of the safest list spots available. Undoubtedly Naidoo’s candidacy has been planned for some time.

Note: Just as this article was scheduled to go out news broke that Police Commissioner Richard Chambers has launched a review into whether Naidoo passed on any sensitive information he was privy to.

Kingi Kiriona made a splash at his first outing with the party by accidentally calling for “tax relief”. Poor chap may have accidentally signed up to the wrong party! He is ranked 22 and also comes with some conflict-of-interest issues as he is sitting on the Waitangi Tribunal. This is an inherently political institution that has increasingly behaved like taxpayer-funded opposition against the Government this term. Perhaps questions should be asked about him stepping down to campaign too.

Chris Flatt, at 20, is the highest-ranked newcomer behind Rakesh Naidoo and represents a nod to Labour’s roots. As the long-serving head of the NZ Dairy Workers Union, he comes from the traditional labour movement that built the party. Whether that background still resonates in a Labour Party increasingly dominated by public sector professionals, privileged activists, and policy wonks is another question entirely.

Sophie Handford at 26 is perhaps the most stereotypically modern Green candidate imaginable. Her main claims to fame are organising School Strike 4 Climate protests as a teenager and serving on the Kāpiti Coast District Council. She comes across as the embodiment of every Gen Z political cliché; online, relentlessly activist, and keen to save the planet...when it is convenient. The biggest surprise is that she is running for Labour.

Then there is Max Harris, who is standing in my electorate of Tāmaki and has been gifted position 29. Harris is undeniably intelligent and has the academic credentials, legal background, and polished progressive vocabulary that Labour’s internal selectors no doubt adore. Yet he seems to inhabit a completely different reality from the voters he hopes to represent. Whether discussing economic reform, constitutional change, or international affairs, Harris has a remarkable ability to arrive at conclusions that are wildly out of step with mainstream New Zealand opinion. He also appears incapable of passing up an opportunity to insert himself into debates involving Israel, Zionism, or Jewish issues, regardless of whether anyone was asking for his contribution.

The strangest selection of all may be Warrick Cleine at number 30. Cleine has an impressive business résumé. He is Chairman and CEO of KPMG Vietnam and Cambodia, sits on KPMG’s Asia-Pacific leadership structures, and holds academic appointments at both RMIT Vietnam and the British University Vietnam. He is accomplished, but the question is why Labour has decided that someone who has spent the past 27 years (Sophie Handford’s whole life) living in Vietnam is the ideal person to help govern New Zealand.

Catching me by surprise was the utter depths of the list one has to plumb in order to find Craig Renney’s name. When Labour began courting the Council of Trade Unions economist, and former Grant Robertson adviser, many assumed he was being lined up for a fast-track into the party’s senior ranks. Renney has spent years acting as one of Labour’s most prominent proxies, defending its economic positions in the media, and building a profile as a centre-left policy voice. Some commentators have even floated him as Labour’s next Finance Minister. Personally, I think it would be terribly unfair to parachute Renney into Parliament and leapfrog him over Edmonds into Finance. It would be a slap in the face to one of Labour’s most capable MPs. But in any case, I thought he might feature at the other end of the list than where he has ended up.

Back up the top end of the list, Carmel Sepuloni is a steady and largely scandal-free deputy leader, if one overlooks the memorable occasion her son interrupted a live interview wielding a distinctly unfortunate-looking carrot. She is no policy or portfolio work horse, but seems to be a solid team player.

As I said, Barbara Edmonds is arguably one of Labour’s strongest performers. She is intelligent, qualified and capable of talking economics in a way few of her colleagues can. The problem is that Hipkins appears determined to keep her on a short leash. Despite being finance spokesperson, she has often been denied profile-building opportunities.

Ayesha Verrall is similarly impressive on paper. A former infectious diseases specialist and one of the more technically competent MPs in Parliament, she has retained her high ranking. Being one of Hipkins’ closest personal and political allies certainly does not hurt. Yet she is probably less threatening to his leadership than the likes of Edmonds because, fairly or unfairly, she struggles to connect with voters through television appearances and parliamentary debate.

Vanushi Walters too has an undeniably impressive CV, including degrees in law and international human rights law from Oxford, but remains largely unknown to much of the electorate. Cushla Tangaere-Manuel is one of the more senior members of Labour’s Māori caucus and deserves credit for holding the only non-Te Pāti Māori Māori electorate. By contrast, Shanan Halbert’s continued rise to number 19 is harder to explain given the controversies that have surrounded him.

Further down the list, Damien O’Connor remains as the last survivor of the old white fellas guard, hanging on while Greg O’Connor has finally been pushed out altogether. Priyanca Radhakrishnan is in the mix at 18, but despite serving as a junior minister in the last government she barely merits a mention.

Labour’s defenders will say the list is diverse, experienced, and balanced. Maybe? But it is without question a list constructed to reward rather than to reflect merit. It is protective of Hipkins, rewards insiders, and keeps anyone with leadership ambitions safely away from the front row.

Correction: I referred to Labour MP Reuben Davidson as being former Labour Minister Lianne Dalziel’s step son. That was incorrect. It is Green MP Mike Davidson who is Dalziel’s step son.