Luxon’s challenge to stamp authority on new government

Opinion: David Seymour says if the new government – New Zealand’s first formal three-way coalition as he describes it – performs well, voters in two to three years will not be too worried about the length of time it took to put it together. To some extent, he is correct, but then, to quote Mandy Rice-Davies, “he would say that, wouldn’t he?”

However, the length of time taken to form the new government, though increasingly frustrating for observers, is arguably secondary to how it was formed. It is the process, not the duration, that will shape perceptions of its performance and tone. In politics, perceptions quickly become realities, at least in the minds of voters.

No matter how well the new government does, and how well the three coalition partners work together while preserving their separate identities, its biggest problem will be that it is not the government voters were led to believe – mainly by Christopher Luxon – they were going to get.

In the run-up to, and immediate aftermath of, the election, Luxon promised to lead a government that would be decisive and clear in its determination to “Get New Zealand Back on Track”. By implication, a Luxon-led government would return New Zealand to the largely successful path National followed during the Key/English governments.

Luxon predicted his business leadership background and experience negotiating mergers and acquisitions would enable him to quickly bring together a new government, which would then get on with implementing National’s agenda. He was going to do post-election negotiations differently and better than previous Prime Ministers Bolger, Clark, Key and Ardern, and he was confident it could all be done within a few days of the declaration of the final election result in early November.  

These bold promises sought to establish ‘brand Luxon’ as decisive, professional, crisp, and competent, able to cut through the hyperbole and get straight to the heart of resolving the issues New Zealanders are concerned about. This would be the hallmark of his new National-led government, in stark contrast to what National saw as the often meandering, tirelessly virtue signalling, out of touch Labour-led government.

The drawn-out nature of the government formation talks put an end to Luxon’s aspirational imagery. Far from things being done differently, as Luxon promised, these talks quickly fell into the same trap of previous post-election negotiations with New Zealand First, focusing on satisfying Winston Peters and paying him the respect he believes he is entitled to. But the talks have also shown that the hitherto unlikely combination of Seymour and Peters has been more effective at using their influence than Luxon may first have expected.

This dynamic forged during the government formation talks will be a key determinant of the way in which the new government operates and is perceived by the public. Contrary to the brand that Luxon may wish for, the likely public perception of the government’s modus operandi will be that of the wily Peters and enthusiastic Seymour collaborating to keep steering the novice Luxon in the direction they choose.

Though the last two years have shown Luxon to be a fast learner, who should grow quickly into the role of Prime Minister, his challenge, given the way his two partners performed during the coalition talks, will be to stamp his authority on the new government.

He will need to quickly recapture the decisive, professional, crisp, and competent style he portrayed during the election campaign, which has been tarnished by the protracted events of the last few weeks. For National’s sake, he must be seen as the undisputed leader, not just one of the triumvirate sitting at the top of government.

However, the nature of day-to-day coalition management will make that difficult, especially when the going gets tough. Having formed this arrangement, Luxon is now the last person who can walk away from it. He must now make the government he has put together work effectively.

This will require ongoing compromise with Act and New Zealand First, as well as keeping National’s caucus satisfied, as unforeseen issues arise. All of which will further test the decisive, no-nonsense leadership approach Luxon promised to provide.

The last thing National wants now is to be seen as unable to achieve key components of its policy agenda because of constraints placed on it by its partners. Yet that is the very nature of coalition government, and Luxon’s challenge will be to ensure the government follows a coherent policy path, broadly in line with the values National espoused at election time. Achieving that rests as much with the co-operation of Seymour and Peters as it does with Luxon’s leadership. And their imperatives will likely change as the government’s term progresses and the next election nears.

In this regard, Luxon will also be acutely aware he needs to grow National’s party vote share to remain competitive at the next election. Only National in 1996 and Labour in 2017 have led with a lower party vote share than National’s 38 percent this year, so just holding the line is unlikely to be enough for National next time round. The Clark government was re-elected in 2002 and 2005 with 41 percent of the party vote, and the Key governments in 2008, 2011, and 2014 secured a consistent 47 percent of the party vote.

That makes the Government’s initiatives before the Christmas break especially important. How the new government performs in that time – including Nicola Willis’ planned mini-Budget – will set the tone and establish the future public perception of the government and Luxon’s leadership. Seymour’s earlier assessment that the government’s performance will quickly outweigh the impact of the drawn-out coalition talks becomes relevant here.

But the bigger question, which may take a little longer to answer definitively, is whether this new government fits what voters thought they were voting for at election time.