New Zealanders have an often-contradictory view about what they expect in their politicians.

At one level, they are frequently dismissive of those they regard as "career" politicians with no real life-experience. They barely tolerate the way they do things because they are just the "games politicians play." They deride all politicians for their perceived caution and tendency to see most situations through their own particular political prisms.

They say they yearn for leaders who will simply get on with the job, and deal with the things that matter to people, rather than keep pursuing their own political agendas. So, when Christopher Luxon came along, with no real political experience, but a solid business background and no apparent desire to morph into a political figure the way his mentor Sir John Key did, he was seen as a breath of fresh air, precisely because he was avowedly "not a politician".

However, despite the superficial appeal of a non-politician experienced business leader running the country, people still expected Luxon to quickly get to grips with the political game and how to play to it, in just the same way they expect players bursting into the All Blacks to immediately know how to play international rugby. Much of the criticism Luxon has faced as Prime Minister is because he has not adapted to his changed circumstances and continues to look, often curiously defiantly, like a political fish out of water.

Yet there remains a public view, despite the Luxon experience, that it takes no special skills to be a successful politician, and that virtually anyone can do the job, regardless of their background. It is the same sort of thinking that lies behind the ACT Party's recruitment of high-profile broadcaster Paul Henry as a candidate.

Without deriding Henry's broadcasting capabilities, it is worth noting that few people with impressive external backgrounds have made the transition to become successful politicians. Key and Steven Joyce would be the obvious examples of recent years, but others are few and far between. 

Henry's selection invites comparison with that of another high-profile broadcaster, Pam Corkery, who was elected to Parliament in 1996 as an Alliance MP. She quit after just one term, saying she found Parliamentary life frustrating and less rewarding than she had expected. Within minutes of his announcement as a candidate Henry was dismissing Parliament as "full of twats", suggesting that he too will quickly feel the same frustrations as Corkery did.

The point external stars recruited to Parliamentary parties often fail to grasp is that Parliament, and by extension government, is an environment unlike any other. It is unforgiving and constant, and its essentially collaborative processes leave little room or tolerance for excessive displays of individualism. That is because Parliament is basically a forum for the expression of diverse opinions, often to the point of tedium, but nevertheless critical to a functioning democracy. The real work of government occurs elsewhere – in Cabinet, its committees and select committees – where once again collaboration and compromise, sometimes accompanied by long and thankless hours of debate, are the order of the day, rather than flashy displays of self-proclaimed individual brilliance.

It could be argued that Winston Peters is the counter-factual to that point. After all, he has successfully carried off flashiness and shameless self-promotion like no other since the 1970s. However, that been less the explanation of his success than his deep understanding and application of how politics works.

And here is where New Zealanders’ contradictory views of politicians come together. They may not like Peters or what he stands for, but they acknowledge him as a skilled political operator. By contrast, in Luxon’s case, while his business background is known, he is not seen as a skilled politician, hence the criticism of him as Prime Minister. Unlike Peters, he is not behaving the way they think a politician should behave.

Corkery and Luxon expected Parliament to bend to their wills because of their backgrounds. Key, on the other hand, quickly worked out that while his impressive background was a significant asset, it had to be tailored to fit the Parliamentary environment, if he was to be successful.

Paul Henry may well to be an attractive vote-catcher for the ACT Party, at least in the run-up to the election, which is presumably why he has been selected. However, experience suggests that of itself is no automatic guarantor that a successful or substantial political career is about to follow.

The rock and the hard place that has defined New Zealand’s foreign policy for the last decade or so is getting ever sharper and more uncomfortable.

Since the thaw in relations with the United States after the 1980s nuclear row, New Zealand has been a reluctant friend. Consistent with what it holds to be an independent foreign policy, New Zealand has supported the United States on some issues and opposed it on others. For example, it provided significant military and operational support to the United States-led Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan in the early 2000s but opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 because it had not had the approval of the United Nations.

More recently, New Zealand opposed the United States’ intervention in Venezuela as not in accordance with international law. And although it had forthrightly condemned the recent actions of the Iranian government, New Zealand stopped short of explicitly supporting the United States-led attacks on Iran earlier this year.

While this nuanced ambivalence has served New Zealand’s interests well in recent years, it is easy to see how the United States, especially the current idiosyncratic Administration, might feel that New Zealand is at best a “fair-weather” friend. In this context, the recent comments by the War Secretary Hegseth that New Zealand was “freeloading” off the United States by not more significantly increasing its defence spending, and the new United States’ Ambassador’s expressed “disappointment” at the continuation of our long-standing anti-nuclear policy are not just idle comments. They clearly reflect a deeper United States’ frustration at New Zealand’s continued broadly friendly, but carefully distanced and wary approach to the bilateral relationship.

There are many reasons for this, beyond the anti-nuclear policy, which although still a sore point for the United States is largely a red herring, given the infrequence of nuclear ship visits here prior to the 1987 ban being enacted. For example, promoting two-way trade has long been an issue – from the time then Finance Minister Walter Nash unsuccessfully proposed a “reciprocal trade treaty” during talks in Washington in 1939, through to the more concerted, but equally unsuccessful, attempts from the early 2000s to secure a free trade agreement. Against that backdrop, President Trump’s imposition of “Liberation Day” tariffs on New Zealand’s exports to the United States was a doubly bitter pill for New Zealand to swallow.

Meanwhile, New Zealand’s relations with China have been slowly expanding since the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1972. Improved political, cultural and economic links over the years led to a free trade agreement – China’s first ever – being concluded between the two countries in 2008 and ever closer political ties. The free trade agreement has been an outstanding success, so much so that China is now New Zealand’s major trading partner.

But at the same time New Zealand seems to have been none too bothered about being drawn ever more closely into China’s expanding political web, to the extent that successive governments have been almost pathologically scared stiff of saying anything that might upset China and threaten our economic security. And consequently, China, while occasionally making warm noises about how much it values its links with New Zealand, largely does as it wishes in this region, and places little value on anything New Zealand has to say. Whenever New Zealand dares pluck up the courage to offer even the mildest criticisms of Chinese policy, it is firmly rebuked by Beijing for interfering in China’s domestic affairs.

This year alone China has conducted unannounced naval exercises in the Tasman Sea, close to Australian territorial waters, and conducted a live missile firing test in the Pacific with only the briefest advance warning to New Zealand. On both occasions all New Zealand could do was stand by meekly and watch.

The sad, unintended outcome of our foreign policy is that at a time of heightened global and regional instability we are not trusted as reliable or committed by the United States and are being walked all over by China. Even our one true ally, Australia, has its frustrations with what it considers New Zealand’s less than full commitment to regional security.

As an independent nation, New Zealand has every right to pursue an independent foreign policy and should not abandon that ambition lightly. But at the same time, it must appreciate that it is not operating in a vacuum, and that there will be consequences, whatever options it chooses. The combination of an increasingly unpredictable and volatile United States, and a more activist China playing out their quest for global supremacy in our part of the world creates new pressures for countries like New Zealand.

That is why the challenges confronting our current foreign policy have become more pronounced. On the one hand, New Zealand cannot afford to become seen as too closely aligned with either of the superpower rivals, despite its economic reliance on China, and likely increasing pressure from the United States to modify its stance. But on the other hand, it cannot allow itself to be seen by either as irrelevant, or unreliable.

As the rock and the hard place become ever more uncomfortable, New Zealand needs to strike a new balance between upholding its independent foreign policy and being taken seriously as a regional player by the superpowers. Achieving that balance and protecting our national integrity will require our politicians and diplomats to exercise even more skilful diplomacy and careful leadership over the next few years than they have already done.

Yet it remains a goal worth striving for.