We asked a handwriting expert to analyse the scrawls of our elected officials. Here’s what they said.
Recently I received a press release from the trio of ministers – Simeon Brown, Shane Jones and Chris Bishop – tasked with overseeing the government’s controversial fast-track consenting bill. The press release itself was about as interesting as a statement about consenting could be, but it was the final detail that really piqued my interest: the signatures of the three ministers. Much like the ministers themselves, they couldn’t be more different. It made me think about what a signature means, beyond its literal purpose in signing important documents. What can it tell us about a person?
Every signature is different: the choice of style, whether to write your full name or just your initials, whether you include your middle name even if you wouldn’t normally sign off with that. I remember toying with many different signatures well before I would ever need to sign a document, and have maintained the same dramatic sign off since I was a teenager without thinking much about it.
Mike Maran is an Auckland-based handwriting analyst and a member of the Scientific Association of Forensic Examiners. He has experience examining the signatures of powerful people, once telling Newshub that former/future president Donald Trump’s “angular” autograph showed he was “quick-tempered, highly critical and tense” while “the ascending strokes” of Kim Jong Un’s showed he was “optimistic and… an intuitive thinker”.
I sent him examples of signatures from several high-profile New Zealand MPs across the political spectrum. I didn’t include the names of the MPs, though some signatures are more instantly identifiable than others. For a more comprehensive analysis, Maran said the signatures would need to be compared with the handwriting. “With a graphology analysis, the traits are indicative only as human being are much too complicated creatures to get 100% accuracy,” he added. As an outsider, it’s also hard not to think that it’s a little bit like reading a star sign: you’re never going to be too wrong if you keep nice and broad. Nevertheless, it’s a fun exercise.
Chlöe Swarbrick (Green Party co-leader)
Swarbrick’s signature, says Maran, shows she is “self assertive”, confident, but impatient and with a need “to be recognised”.
“[She] may start a job or task with initial enthusiasm which then declines through lack of interest or energy,” suggests Maran, adding that it shows “persistence and tenacity”.
Shane Jones (NZ First, regional development minister)
Shane Jones’ powerful, swooping signature will adorn many fast-track documents through his role as regional development minister. According to Maran, it shows a “reasonable sense of humour” and that, at times, he “may avoid appointments and commitments”.
Hitting a surprising accurate nail on the head considering he was analysing an anonymous and unidentifiable signature, Maran adds that Jones may “[get] involved or entangled in complex situations or problems which may be difficult to resolve”, though caveats this by saying he is “generally cooperative”.
Nicola Willis (National, finance minister)
Of all the signatures on this list, it is Nicola Willis’s that intrigues me the most. It is, in my opinion, impossible to see any of the letters of her full name and if I had to guess the writer it would be someone with the name Dean. Maran agrees the signature is “illegible” and suggests the writer “thinks his/her time is more important than the person with whom they are dealing”. They can “at times be rude” and like “being the centre of attention”, he claims.
Chris Hipkins (Labour leader)
This, in my humble and uninformed opinion, is a real doctors signature. You can lightly see the shape of “C Hipkins” but in a way that suggests (probably accurately) that the opposition leader has to sign things every single day. From this, Maran deduces that Hipkins is “extroverted” and “enjoys meeting and discussion with others”. He can be “friendly and generous”, though “at times… suspicious”.
Perhaps unsurprisingly for the leader of the opposition, Maran adds that “the author considers him/herself worthy of attention” and “could portray an air of authority when making an entrance”. To be fair: this exact signature was taken from a press release issued while Hipkins was the minister of education, so perhaps he did have more authority at the time it was put to paper.
Christopher Luxon (National, prime minister)
Such clean lines, such precise choice of a middle initial. It could only be Mr C. M Luxon, prime minister. Maran says this signature shows the PM to be “friendly and assertive” and reveals a sense of enthusiasm, ambition and optimism. He does – again, unsurprisingly – consider himself “with high self-importance” but is also “reliable” and “genuine in thought and action”. He can be “occasionally argumentative and quarrelsome if in disagreement,” adds Maran.
Simeon Brown (National, transport minister)
Another classic of the signature artform: big, clear letters that trail off into oblivion. The line after B shows absolute no consideration for the following R, O, W or N. According to Maran, this indicates the transport minister to be “distrustful” and “impatient”, adding that he may avoid or evade commitments. He keeps his public and private life confidential, and is secretive with a tendency not to reveal his “true personality”. In other words, much like his signature, there may be a lot more to “S—B—” than meets the eye.
Mark Mitchell (National, police minister)
I’m really into Mark Mitchel’s signature. That perfectly straight stroke through the last name is a work of art. Maran agrees, arguing that the signature shows the police minister to be energetic and enthusiastic, with “good capacity to get the job or task completed quickly”. He’s also extroverted and “looks forward to the future”, Maran claims.
Winston Peters (NZ First, deputy prime minister)
Instantly identifiable, New Zealand First minister Winston Peters is one of the few people on this list who has chosen to write out his full name. According to Maran, the signature shows Peters to be “reliable and sincere”, yet also “irritable” and with “little need to show off”. He is “consistent in work and personal habits” and, perhaps of no surprise, “argumentative if in dispute with his point of view”.
Some comments been edited for clarity.