As the government begins its second year in office there has been much comment about the leadership style and tone of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon.
By his own admission he is a not a career politician. There
have been occasions when that lack of political experience has shown. Much has
been made of his corporate background, and his penchant for still speaking like
a business leader (for example, referring to voters as customers in a recent
interview, before correcting himself), and his personal wealth.
Most of this criticism is unfair, because in other ways,
Luxon has proved himself to be a quick political learner. He defied most
expectations at the time he became National’s leader in 2021 by transforming
what was a disorganised rabble then into a viable government in waiting by
2023.
After Labour’s chaotic last three years in office after 2020,
Luxon’s election commitment to get New Zealand “back on track” resonated with
enough voters to make him Prime Minster after the shortest Parliamentary
apprenticeship ever.
Nevertheless, commentators questioned whether he could
make the transition from corporate chief executive to Prime Minister,
especially when he launched a series of chief executive-style quarterly action
plans.
In the first few months, it did not seem to matter. The
government was getting on doing things, principally dismantling much of
Labour’s legacy. They seemed to be working to a plan and to know what they were
doing.
But then came the Budget and the apparent broken promise
over funding new cancer drugs. Luxon had committed to funding these in the
election campaign. There was surprise that Luxon had not seemed to appreciate
the anger of those who felt betrayed by the lack of funding in the Budget.
Luxon moved quickly to correct the omission and
eventually delivered a funding package which went well beyond National’s
original promise. But to those who were affected it looked more like a hurried
backtrack.
However, that was nothing compared to the furore over
ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill. While Luxon is correct that such compromises are
an inevitable part of MMP coalition government, he is under fire from all sides
of the debate for his approach. To some he has been too weak, appearing
mealy-mouthed by supporting the Bill’s introduction, but pledging to vote
against it later. To others, he has been deliberately insensitive to the damage
the Bill is causing to racial harmony in New Zealand. Recent disparaging comments
about his leadership from both his coalition partners have not helped either.
The debate on the Treaty Principles Bill goes to the
heart of Luxon’s leadership style and tone.
Despite his critics, he is content with the stand he has taken, resolute
in his commitment that the government will vote the Bill down when it returns
from the select committee next year. He does not appear too worried about what
may happen in the meantime, because of his confidence in the ultimate outcome.
In many senses, the tension around the Treaty Principles
Bill could have been managed better, or possibly defused slightly, had Luxon at
any point given a considered speech about his view of the future direction of
Crown/Māori relations, including the role and place of the Treaty. But that is
not his style leading some to conclude he is not all that interested in the
issue.
From the outset Luxon has been more focused on policy
outcomes than reciting lofty policy intents so beloved by his immediate
predecessors. That has served him well so far, but as the year has progressed,
and the economy has not responded as positively as expected with rising
unemployment and more people on benefits, it could be argued that the
government needs to start painting a clearer picture about the country’s
medium-term prospects and how these will be achieved.
At no stage since he became Prime Minister has Luxon
delivered a major speech setting out the sort of country he wants to see New
Zealand become over the next twenty years or so, and the various policy
choices, over a range of issues, that we need to be taking to get there. It is
hardly surprising therefore, given this lack of overall context, that as the
tough times continue, more and more New Zealanders are feeling the country is
heading in the wrong direction. Now is the time for the Prime Minister to set
out a clear sense of direction for voters feeling uncertain about their
futures.
Luxon’s mentor, Sir John Key, like Helen Clark before
him, always portrayed a clear sense of purpose about what they wanted for New
Zealand, which, whether one agreed with them or not, sustained their
governments in the tough times, as well as the good ones. That cannot be said
at present, which is why the current government is increasingly in danger of
being regarded as directionless.
A narrative is beginning to emerge that the government
is flinty faced and uncaring. If that view takes firm hold over the next few
months, it may prove very difficult to dispel before the next election, no
matter how the economy performs.
Luxon and his senior Ministers are clearly convinced
they are on the right path to getting the country “back on track” and will
likely stick to their task. But, as 2025 unfolds, it will be important to keep
doubting New Zealanders onside.
That will be a critical test for Luxon's still
developing – but quickly improving – political communication skills.