The speed and strength of the condemnations of Stuart Nash this past week was a big clue. Nash had done what few can – unite all of Parliament’s parties in agreement. Christopher Luxon’s late night escalation was another clue. When the Prime Minister first commented on Nash’s opinion that Napier MP Katie Nimon was “the laziest MP” he’d ever known, Luxon had condemned Nash for “channelling the manosphere” but didn’t rule out him joining a future cabinet. He changed his tune just hours later, posting on social media, “I am making clear he will not serve as a minister in my government”. And if you still needed convincing, National’s promise on Sunday to extend paid parental leave from 26 to 30 week should it win another term confirms it.
How women vote matters immensely to politicians. It will be one of the frontlines in this year’s election campaign and parties will be making every effort to show women how much they care.
Nash, the Napier MP, former cabinet minister, and one of Labour’s key ‘centrist blokes’ under Jacinda Ardern, was trying to resurrect his political career with New Zealand First. He was primed to be a key voice for the party as it tried to lure less liberal, more traditional Labour voters. At the New Zealand First annual conference last weekend Nash said Labour “used to stand up for those that work the hardest, now they stand up for those who complain the loudest”.
On their Cross Party Lines podcast Phil Goff and Chris Finalyson laid into Nash for his comments, and in doing so Finlayson revealed a text from Nash, in which for former Napier MP wrote, “Katie took nine months off on full pay, went back for a week, then took another month off. Laziest MP I’ve ever come across”. But that’s wrong. Nimon took six months away from Parliament after having a baby, but only had 10 weeks off work. Nash tried to ride it out, but within a single 24-hour news cycle he’d resigned. Clearly, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters had made it clear he’d crossed a line.
The reaction tell us a lot about what’s on politicians’ radars four months from an election. Initial commentary pointed out how rich it was for New Zealand First to expel Nash for loose language when its leader and deputy frequently use objectionable language to bait opponents and show their “anti-woke” credentials. Peters just this term has used insults including “retard” and “dickhead” and infamously mocked Labour and National party policies on foreign land sales in 2014, saying “two Wongs don’t make a white”. Deputy leader Shane Jones recently warned New Zealanders against Indian immigration with the phrase “butter chicken tsunami”. So why the upset over Nash’s seemingly similar indiscretion? RNZ Political Editor Jo Moir has explained part of it in this excellent piece. But another calculation is who’s being offended. New Zealand First can afford to offend on issues of race; it’s been playing that card for a generation and is polling as high as it ever has. But women? That’s different maths. They could decide the election.
Hipkins declared Nash “sexist and wrong”. In a clear nod to women, he added Nash was unfit to be a minister and “It is an indictment on both Winston Peters and Christopher Luxon that up until yesterday they thought” he was. National minister Chris Bishop, in a tight race for the Lower Hutt seat, called the comments “disgusting”. ACT leader David Seymour said it showed an “anti-woman bias” while the Greens’ co-leader Marama Davidson went with “vulgar” and “undermining of women”.
Women voters and how they have swung between parties have had a significant impact on recent elections. They turn out and enough are willing to switch parties. Research such as the New Zealand Election Study suggests women have moved left over the past few generations. (Note that James K Baxter’s Ballad of Calvary Street from 1960 speaks of a “National Mum and Labour Dad” and across Western democracies post-World War II women tended to vote more conservatively due to being more religious and less tied to the workforce, and therefore unions.) Helen Clark won in 1999 with a boost from women voters and they played a significant part in her holding off Don Brash by a whisker in 2005. John Key knew that and spoke to issues he knew resonated with them in 2008. While it’s too simplistic to say X or Y are “women’s issues” or “men’s issues”, the research suggests women overall prioritise issues Key focused on – household budgets, mortgage rates, competent leadership, social spending. The prominent promise to fund breast cancer drug Herceptin was a clear plug for women voters in 2008. He de-fanged the more small-government Brash National Party and promised not to repeal the Clark government’s major policies for working mothers – paid parental leave and 20 hours free early childhood education.
Jacinda Ardern’s ride to victory was in part due to regaining a slight lead amongst women voters in 2017. Then she nabbed 54 percent of the total female vote in the 2020 ‘red wave’ election. And when Labour fell so far in 2023, it was in part due to a heavy loss of women voters.
National knows they’re vulnerable on this front. And therefore, the whole coalition is vulnerable. The swings we’re talking about can be quite small, but we all know that under MMP victory margins are almost always tight.
Those issues that surveys keep showing resonate with women – household inflation, pressures on healthcare, strong leadership etc – aren’t exactly what Luxon and co will be wanting to talk about this election. And ACT and New Zealand First have consistently won more support from men than women, so they’re not going to be much help.
Perhaps worst of all, this coalition has to deal with the consequences of the changes it made to the Pay Equity Act. In 2025 the government changed the act to save an estimated $12.8 billion over a four year period; a “trade-off” National says was necessary in tough financial times. But it was money that would have been going into the pockets of working women and that’s the kind of thing voters remember when they’re standing in a booth. It’s an issue every Opposition party will be banging the drum on until November.
All of that is why National, which has given itself very little fiscal wriggle room for election promises, is spending what it has on paid parental leave. “This is about supporting working mums and dads” the press release said. It is also about telling women how much their vote matters to them.
National did well with women in 2023, but history suggests they’re likely to swing back towards the Opposition parties this year. What’s critical is just how much. The political reality is that National – and its allies – cannot win without splitting the women’s vote. The data suggests that if National loses the women’s vote by double digits, it’s toast.
Which is why Stuart Nash is now toast. This coalition government has shown it’s willing to put up with a lot to hang onto voters and power. But a dig taken as an insult to women – and working women in particular – isn’t one he could survive. The margins in 2026 are too tight.