Independent director Fraser Whineray has a take on his former business colleague Christopher Luxon.
“Luxon went into Parliament with the biggest Rolodex of any PM,” says Whineray. “All of whom were ready to help support getting things done and provide real-world advice across multiple sectors.
“He hasn’t used it at all.”
The then Mercury CEO succeeded Luxon as chair of Dame Jacinda Ardern’s Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council and, at that stage, CEO of Air New Zealand.
He resigned to pursue a National Party nomination.
The business council died with the Ardern Government — although 69% of respondents to this year’s survey believe a successor organisation should be established to provide real-world advice to the current Prime Minister.
Building confidence with the business community is integral to Luxon’s future success.
Frequent comments are he is “not a good listener”, “doesn’t take feedback well even if delivered constructively” and “needs a stronger Prime Minister’s Office behind him”.
Others take a rounded view.
“PM Luxon’s performance advocating for New Zealand business in international forums has been valuable,” says Local Government Funding Agency chairman Craig Stobo.
“His skills at managing his Cabinet team and the Coalition should not be underestimated.”
Said a logistics CEO, “People underestimated the complexity of a three-party coalition and just how stuffed New Zealand was under the other guy. Turnarounds take time, focus and courage. Luxon is putting the work in to sort this country out.”
Not surprisingly, 29% of CEOs find the way Luxon leads efforts to build New Zealand’s international business success to be “very impressive”.
A close second is how he keeps Cabinet colleagues focused on delivery, with 22% rating that “very impressive”.
Less so, his political performance as Prime Minister where just 3% rate that as “very impressive”. “He needs to paint a stronger long-term vision for the country and a set of values and roadmap to get us there,” says Freightways CEO Mark Troughear.
Luxon does have an obvious communications issue. Prone to running on at the mouth, he often lapses into his stump mantra instead of stopping sharp after making his points.
“He struggles to get cut-through in messages at times, in a manner that the general public understands,” was a frequent observation.
Others noted it could be a challenge in any event to get mainstream media cuthrough these days.
There were warnings that global risks could impact New Zealand negatively, which makes the development of a clear positive national narrative critical, facing into unpredictable geopolitical events.
Other respondents observed that there are no silver bullets — a context that was worsened by the latest policy settings.
“The test will be next year, noting that for a majority of voters, decisions will be made around perceptions that will be clouded or informed via sound-bites,” said Deloitte chairman Thomas Pippos. “While sub-optimal, this defines the Western political processes.”
An energy boss was unequivocal: “The Government is ineffective. There is no compelling leadership and strategic plan evident that will turn New Zealand around. The prime minister doesn’t resonate, and bold decisions are required. Our leaders need to build optimism back into the population through strong intelligent leadership. Their communications must tell everyone at every level that we can achieve.”
There were other detractors.
“Luxon has been a disappointment,” said a chairperson.
“The public don’t like him. It’s too late for him. He needs to stand aside or be removed by his colleagues. Otherwise we will end up with the completely looney tune of Labour with the very left Greens and radical Māori party.
“God help New Zealand.”
One of Luxon’s biggest foreign policy tests is balancing China’s economic importance with rising security risks. The boardroom sees a balanced, pragmatic approach, but some argue he has yet to set clear principles or deliver tangible results.
When asked to rate Luxon’s approach to balancing New Zealand’s security partnerships with economic interests in the China relationship, business leaders give him an average score of 3.59/5. Almost 40% rate his performance as “good” and a further 14% say it is “excellent”.
The consensus is that Luxon knows the terrain. “Christopher knows this area well — good reviews on China trip,” says an agribusiness chairperson. Another adds: “He has a good way of talking to those leaders and one-on-one he is very powerful.
“Many don’t appreciate what he does.”
CEOs generally favour his balanced approach. “Don’t lurch too hard to the US. Run that middle line,” remarks a public sector CEO.
Others highlight his instinct to build Indo-Pacific links while still recognising China’s economic weight.
But patience is not limitless. “Good strategy but has not produced results yet.” Others want guardrails: “Luxon should spell out clearly where New Zealand’s place in the world is and who our allies are. At the moment, he is just hedging his bets, without showing any set of principles.”
The critique intersects with another survey finding: business concern over security risks involving China. After incidents such as Chinese naval live-fire exercises in the Tasman Sea, 75% of respondents say they are at least moderately concerned about Beijing’s behaviour. Just 5% are not concerned at all.
Cybersecurity and trade are seen as sharper risks than military posturing. “Cybersecurity and trade are the frontline risks; more immediate and constant than ships in the Tasman,” notes Institute of Directors CEO Kirsten (KP) Patterson. Others point to supply chains or the spillover effect in the Pacific. “More concerned about the impact on South Pacific countries in the short term and therefore the long-term impacts this will have in our area,” says a manufacturing boss.
Geopolitical flashpoints are never far from mind. A professional services managing director warns of the risk of rising nationalism if the Chinese economy slumps: “Taiwan could be a target to shore up domestic political support and could be enabled by any benign view on Taiwan from the USA and allies.”
At the same time, the tone is not uniformly hawkish. Simplicity CEO Sam Stubbs argues against overstating the risks: “China is about influence, not control. Is that such a big issue?” Another executive urges balance: “Yes, concerned, but don’t catastrophise.”
Business pragmatism dominates. “We need to trade with China whether we like it or not.” Alongside that realism sits a push for diversification: “We need to support industries that help broaden our export markets away from China,” says an investor.
That said, an executive director stresses that even diversification must be handled carefully.
“While I support the Government’s investment in the India relationship, some of the handling of how that was promoted needed to be managed more deftly so as not to cause offence to China.”
— Additional reporting, Tim McCready