Comment: National, Act and New Zealand First may well form the next government but will they have taken any message from voters who narrowed their parliamentary margin to a hairbreadth?
National leader Christopher Luxon is continuing to argue he can form a government with the same duo, not needing Opportunity, the newest party to go over MMP’s five percent threshold.
“Let’s let the country calm down for three weeks,” he said on Sunday, referring to the time needed for the counting of special and overseas votes, before coalition negotiations begin.
While he thinks he had a good election night result, the preliminary totals judge National, in particular, poorly after a contentious first three years. It proved to be one of the least popular first-term governments in the modern era.
The people have in effect fired some of the Luxon administration’s best-known and most forceful policy figures: Finance Minister Nicola Willis, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, Speaker Gerry Brownlee and probably RMA and Transport Minister Chris Bishop. They have cut National’s party vote from 38 percent to 29 percent, but remained largely loyal in electorate votes.
Luxon called the loss of the four heavyweights as “gutting” for them, and a “huge loss to our team” but said National had other talent. “I feel it keenly. These are my friends… With many of these people we rebuilt this party into an incredibly capable, fearsome machine.”
He reiterated on Sunday that a replacement finance minister would come from within his new caucus, not a partner party and said no negotiations would kick-off until after the final votes were registered on November 27, other than informal talks.
“At the end of the day we’ve got a pathway to government and that’s the main thing.
“New Zealanders gave us the most seats in Parliament and a pathway to government… and I think it’s a good result for us.”
So, going purely off the preliminary result and Luxon’s confidence he can form a government again with his existing two partners, what might the country see them do differently?
Act and New Zealand First raised their own party votes – from 8.6 percent to 11.2 percent, and 6.0 percent to 9.78 percent respectively – so might claim vindication and validation from the public after term one. Will either or both temper their Treaty and culture war policies and legal measures? On the issue of ‘woke’, would leaders David Seymour and Winston Peters want to remain like old generals fighting the last war?
During the campaign Act, for one, adopted a theme of fiscal rectitude rather than populist box-ticks. However, it wants to take the government ‘further, faster’ so might not be for ‘turning’, as Margaret Thatcher once said.
NZ First hadn’t shown hints of a new approach until Sunday when deputy leader Shane Jones told journalists his main takeaway from the election was that “politicians need to be able to demonstrate to New Zealanders an ability to work together for the common good”.
National, squeezed down under 30 percent and losing key figures, will need to be seen to heed the message sent by voters.
There was an interesting moment in the final TVNZ campaign debate just last Thursday when Willis spoke openly of her wish that National had been able to get through to the public the great initiatives it proposed on parental leave and KiwiSaver enrolments for all children.
Its negative campaign, attacking the supposed Nine New Taxes and Chlöe Swarbrick, contributed to drowning out progressive policies in its own manifesto.
Willis appeared exasperated when Opportunity leader Qiulae Wong criticised the coalition’s level of spending on research and development, responding by asking her to nominate what healthcare funding ought to have been stopped to fund the science.
The Government seemed to realise late on that the hard issues, the left brain or A-type personality solutions, aren’t always what the public wants to hear about.
Already on Sunday Luxon was making noises of conciliation and cross-party cooperation in the years ahead.
“I do want to work in a more cross-party strategic way on issues that are important for New Zealand…” he said more than once.
One of his more partisan, take-no-prisoners ideologues in Cabinet, Simeon Brown, is still around after chairing a campaign that looks to have moved the party vote sideways or down, not up.
But the three Cabinet ministers heading for the exit were also policy hardliners: Willis on public service cuts and the pay equity system scrapping; Bishop on resource management law and fast-track law changes; Goldsmith on Treaty clause revisions, the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act restrictions, and crime and punishment.
Their absence will give Luxon an opportunity to reshape the face of his coalition 2.0.
Who might he turn to, to fill the (presumably slightly smaller number of) Cabinet seats to be negotiated for National ministers?
Having ruled out Act leader and current associate finance minister David Seymour from the role of finance minister, a clear option from the National side would be Brown.
It would be a promotion unconnected to his management of the sensitive health portfolio. For all the internal National talk about Brown having tamed that beast, it was a big and ugly negative issue for the Government through the campaign, growing in intensity in the Ipsos Issues Monitor published a week out from polling day.
Brown the administrative workhorse did not show the heart or empathy needed for health. But those qualities are not traditionally required when working with the Treasury on improving the country’s books and guarding the purse strings against ministerial bids for more cash.
If Brown goes to finance, who might take health? How about Erica Stanford? She’s acclaimed by Luxon and her party for fixing education and has a relatability with the public that would be foreign to Brown.
She is also probably the last serious alternative in National to be able to replace Luxon in the short-term if his own electoral performance is judged deficient. A stint in a job up to her eyes in health concerns might be seen as a way of leaving her with no time to dream.
Bishop was, belatedly, Attorney-General since April. Goldsmith’s absence from justice will open roles for lawyers, and these could well be filled from other parties. For example Act’s James Christmas is a lawyer and former Beehive adviser who worked with an ex A-G, Chris Finlayson.
Might his leader David Seymour be happy to assume Stanford’s full education portfolio after a term as an associate, boosting school attendance and cutting the cost of school lunches? Seymour would presumably want to keep his role as regulation minister and as an associate in finance.
Most of the big moves in RMA reform are in place, so a less substantial figure than Bishop might take his RMA role. Current local government minister Simon Watts, perhaps? Or even the Act MP Simon Court, who has been an RMA understudy in the first term.
Given they played the role in 2023-26, it would seem obvious Seymour and Winston Peters could once again timeshare the Deputy Prime Minister mantle.
Peters, 81, is said to be contemplating relinquishing his foreign affairs portfolio, with all assumptions being that current Trade Minister Todd McClay of National would move to that role. Peters could take on economic development (a hat held by Willis) and retain his railways job.
Act would relish getting one of its people’s hands on the public service portfolio, given its desire to rationalise severely the number of government agencies and executive ministerial roles. NZ First has eyed the immigration job in the past.
Something needs to be found for broadcaster Paul Henry. With Goldsmith gone, the broadcasting portfolio is vacant but might be both too easy and too close for Henry, fresh from his time on the TVNZ board. He could take arts and culture, internal affairs or land information, which oversees some foreign investment close to Act’s heart.
National will need a new deputy leader as well. Stanford would be a sitter if not considered too much to be hovering over Luxon’s shoulder.
Scores of changes are possible in the ministry, with Mark Mitchell being one minister Luxon trusts and would want closer in the kitchen cabinet. If he gives up police or corrections, there would be a queue within Act and NZ First for those roles.
Could Mitchell be given Defence or Justice, or both, from Goldsmith’s overlong list of responsibilities?
This Luxon 2.0 grouping will also need a Speaker. Could they reach out, as happened in the past with Labour MP Sir Peter Tapsell under the Bolger government, to the Labour caucus for Parliament’s presiding officer. And might that person be Damien O’Connor, the former West Coast MP and trade minister, or Megan Woods, a former energy minister? From his own side, Luxon might consider Louise Upston or Matt Doocey.
Changes of faces will be one thing.
With the National Party’s partial humbling at the weekend, and the coalition’s tenuous grip on returning to power after the final vote count is announced, a change of style and to our politics might also be advisable.
Luxon and Jones have made the right noises. But can the leopards of Act, NZ First and National change their spots?