There may be trouble ahead for Christopher Luxon after stable first year

Winston Peters, Christopher Luxon and David Seymour have run an unexpectedly stable government.

One year into office, New Zealand’s coalition government has defied sceptics by delivering orderly governance, due in large part to unexpectedly harmonious relations within its leadership group.

But storm clouds are on the horizon and could rock the ship of state for the remainder of the term.

Few New Zealand governments have been denied the benefit of the doubt as much as that of Christopher Luxon. Even before the centre-right coalition formally assumed responsibility for the country on November 27, 2023 – after the general election the previous month – critics were already labelling it “the coalition of chaos”.

Championed by the defeated centre-left Labour Party, ejected from power at the election after two terms, these prophets of doom foretold that the new three-party governing arrangement – led by Luxon’s National Party – would be characterised by leadership competition and dysfunction at the top, and internecine tension throughout.

It was nonsense, they charged, to believe that Luxon and his two junior coalition party leaders – Winston Peters, who heads the populist NZ First Party and David Seymour of the libertarian ACT Party – could work in unison and good faith.

Critics cited the open personal animus harboured by Seymour and Peters, and a new and untested prime minister having to wrestle the wily and assertive Peters – the nation’s biggest political beast – while attempting to bridle the ambitious and energetic Seymour.

They predicted NZ First and ACT party policies would have a disproportionate share of the government agenda; that it would be a National-led government in name only, and a messy one at that.

During the new administration’s first year in power, the passions and personalities of the junior partner leaders were certainly prominent, creating a perception they were the chief agents of the new government, setting its tone and direction. But the government’s core policy agenda to date – tax relief, public sector cuts, tougher new crime laws and moves to boost regional and foreign investment – were all central tenets of the National’s campaign playbook.

ACT leader David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill was one of the most controversial of the new government. Picture: Getty Images.

There have been moments where the three leaders’ differences in style and political outlooks have spilled into view. Any friction to date, however, appears to have been relatively negligible and accepted by all parties as the cost of doing business in coalition government. It is an attitude underwritten by three leaders’ large instinct for power and sustained by the understanding that access to power requires nurturing it against differences of opinion.

The most public – and recent – display of division centred on Seymour’s so-called Treaty Principles Bill, which seeks to change the way the Treaty of Waitangi – New Zealand’s founding document, which upholds certain indigenous Maori rights – is interpreted.

Seymour’s bill asks parliament to redefine the Treaty’s principles to provide equality for all before the law.

The bill ignited furore across Maoridom, which saw it as an affront to their inherent rights and unique place in New Zealand, and quickly sparked a ‘hikoi’ – a large protest march – on parliament.

Both National and NZ First had agreed only to support Seymour’s bill in the initial legislative stages, consigning it to an early death but allowing its contents a solid airing.

Luxon and Peters’ conditional support is a political calculation on their part; likely sympathetic to the bill’s bedrock issue, they each would have been highly sensitive of its toxicity with many voters.

National’s support, in particular, is also a way to appease Seymour, who made the bill a key pillar of ACT’s coalition agreement.

The bill passed its first reading last month and will now undergo a six month consultation process before returning to parliament for its second reading.

The bill will almost certainly not pass that reading, but Seymour is firmly established as an avatar for Maori displeasure, with many believing this government to be profoundly anti-Maori.

Winston Peters has confirmed that his party’s re-election campaign will commence the moment he is formally released as the country’s No. 2. Picture: Getty Images.

Problematic race relations loom large over the remaining two years of the coalition’s term, with even the Prime Minister conceding Crown-Maori relations are at a low ebb.

A different and new kind of turmoil also threatens the government, and Luxon in particular: turmoil at the polls.

While a December 2 Post/Freshwater political survey showed National remains the preferred party of government, it also found that for the first time since the 2023 general election Luxon coming second as the nation’s preferred leader to Chris Hipkins, former prime minister and Labour Party leader, albeit with a one percentage advantage. Making it more uncomfortable for Luxon is that Hipkins was widely seen as damaged goods after steering his party to a big election defeat last year.

In the backwash of an angry hikoi and with an economic recovery that is slow burning with no growth plan in plain sight, New Zealanders are appearing to become more restive about their Prime Minister’s leadership qualities.

Another challenge ahead for Luxon could come from close quarters, with Peters possibly setting the stage to knock the coalition off its axis by placing his own political interests over government.

Despite habitual flashes of impatience and sharpness of tone, Peters has been a government loyalist to date. This, however, is quite likely to change when he relinquishes the deputy prime minister role on May 31, 2025 and passes the baton to Seymour for the remainder of the term.

Peters recently confirmed that his party’s re-election campaign will commence the moment he’s formally released as the country’s Number Two.

Already prone to general meddling and wayward tendencies, Peters will almost certainly chart a more independent course to show voters he and his party are not beholden to anyone. He has done this before in past coalitions, with the political maverick identity essential to his brand and campaign strategy since he formed NZ First in 1993.

If the Luxon-led government’s opening act is written as portrait of unity and stability, it may be that its second and third acts could deteriorate to the kind of disorder and strain predicted by its opponents.