National tries for message discipline, ACT not so much

This week in Parliament the Government's coalition partner antics upended National's plans and illustrated how not to create message discipline.

They say that learning is easier when watching the mistakes of others. If that is true, Parliament provided plenty of learning opportunities this week.

Something that failed repeatedly was something called 'message discipline', and that failure was often caused by ACT's repeated distractions.

National's leader Christopher Luxon and his partners at the signing of their coalition deal. Message discipline was not in the fine print.

Listen to the Radio version of this story with excerpts from Parliament.

Message discipline and setting the agenda

Message discipline is a tool of political communication. It happens all the time but if it is done well you may not notice. It is a technique for managing the news agenda by trying to ensure that your chosen message is either the strongest, or only one available to the media.

By making your message the only thing you talk about you limit choice. It is reinforced with strong soundbytes, appealing visuals, emotional angles, and stirring rhetoric.

The media picking up your message may also force your opposition to respond to your topic, rather than focus on their own. This is often referred to as 'setting the agenda'.

Crucially, every member of the party or government must stick to the agreed 'talking points' and not get distracted. This is one reason why, when MPs or journalists ask a question on topic A, they get answers on topic B - the chosen talking point.

The planned message

The message the government was most focused on this week was the promised adjustment in tax brackets. Some MPs described this as 'tax cuts' but it appears the preferred descriptor was 'tax relief'.

Politically speaking, tax relief is a well-chosen phrase. Political word choices are often heavily freighted. They are chosen to carry secondary meanings, emotional weight or negate their opposition. For example, National MPs say 'restore law and order' (rather than 'reduce crime'). The word 'restore' presupposes a country out of police control and also prompts a nostalgic desire to return to an imagined idyllic past. Such phrases are harder to argue against than cold language. A politician can hardly say 'we are against tax relief'.

Suffice it to say, the National party had obviously put some thought and work into the message and they devoted time and effort to it in parliament's debating chamber. There were patsy questions in Question Time, and then afterwards; when National had five slots in the General Debate, every National MP gave speeches on tax relief…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details