Hipkins’ belated efforts mean that’s now highly unlikely in 2023.
Even less likely is any Labour-led government after October 14.
Yet, with National and Act hitting a polling wall just below what would be required to govern with no one else, all trends are towards a three-way monster of NZ First, National and Act.
In fact, this is what National apparently prefers, rather than being able to maintain the confidence of Parliament and pass legislation and a budget with just Act.
David Seymour’s and Brooke van Velden’s party, National worries, would be too demanding of real fiscal rectitude and reform.
Much better to be able to tack port and starboard as the wind blows – hence Luxon’s unmistakable message to soft National and Labour voters that it’s okay to vote for NZ First.
In Wednesday’s debate, Luxon shocked true believers when he indicated more clearly than ever that he plans yet another incrementalist, steady-as-she-goes government, by declaring Keith Holyoake, who lost office when Luxon was aged 1, to be the former Prime Minister he most admires.
If Luxon’s leadership model really is the pompous and unambitious Holyoake, rather than Sid Holland, Robert Muldoon, Jim Bolger or even John Key, it is clear his objective is mere time in office, idly presiding over Labour’s wreckage rather than preparing for a changing world.
There won’t be any crackdown on the unions, a modern-day Think Big, bold economic reform or even a few government IPOs [initial public offerings].
Luxon, who believes abortion is murder yet strangely doesn’t want to do anything to stop those so-called “murders”, seems to hold any economic beliefs he may have just as lightly as his religious convictions.
The next 12 months are set to be a year of working groups, safely rebranded with another name and consisting of National luminaries rather than Labour ones.
Even Luxon’s more ambitious deputy, Nicola Willis, now talks about change needing to be managed “carefully”.
The fiscal crisis will not be addressed as aggressively as needed to stop debt-servicing costs ballooning. Instead, Willis promises to chart a “steady path” towards balanced books, getting there sometime later this decade. This is the same timeframe as Grant Robertson promises, albeit implausibly.
For many in and around National, the embarrassment of delivering no substantive policy change will be a small price to pay for the chance to get their hands back on the corporate-welfare machine and provide selected companies with regulatory relief. There is no political ideology involved.
Thus, the Greens had better get ready.
While some in the business community have found Winston Peters and NZ First a pleasure to deal with, others detest his rhetoric and style of policymaking.
Those who recognise the need for fiscal rectitude and eventually lower taxes, but also believe New Zealand must do more on climate-change mitigation for marketing and economic-sustainability reasons, have previously fantasised about a National-Green arrangement.
On the face of it, this is absurd. Green ideology is not primarily about the environment or even social justice. Its core belief is anti-capitalism since it believes the existing economic system is what has caused everything from climate change to inequality, poverty and violence.
Green ideology holds that fixing today’s symptoms, like climate change, without cutting out capitalism, the cancerous cause, will just create even worse problems in the future.
The last time Auckland business figures, including some National Party doyens, flirted with a teal deal was in 2017.
That was never going to happen, not least because of the deep splits among Green activists following Metiria Turei’s infamous welfare speech, plus Green voters’ dose of Jacindamania.
This won’t deter some business and National Party figures from trying again in 2023.
The portents are marginally more favourable than six years ago.
After their failed attempt to roll James Shaw as co-leader in 2022, the most extreme leftists have abandoned the Greens, while the punctilious Shaw got the message and has worked hard to reconnect with his more radical wing.
Meanwhile, Labour’s dismal failure on social justice, refusal to consider Robin Hood taxes and almost indistinguishable performance on climate change compared with National, despite Shaw’s efforts, mean Green activists understand more clearly than in 2017 that Labour is merely the slightly redder part of one big purple blob.
Green strategists – and the wider party membership – would therefore be wise to plan their response when Luxon or his intermediaries approach them after the election.
The outlines of a plausibly attractive offer from National are clear. National would need to agree to no changes to the Zero Carbon Act, which it voted for less than four years ago anyway. David Parker’s replacement of the Resource Management Act would need to proceed. The Ministry for the Environment, the Department of Conservation and the so-called “demographic” ministries would need to remain and be immune from Willis’ planned cuts.
In return, the Greens would have to accept that National has mandates for Willis’ controversial tax package, giving some form of boot camps another go, requiring primary schools to use phonics to teach reading, building some more expressways and hiring more police.
Consistent with green ideology, National already plans to reverse Labour’s recent tilt away from China towards Australia and the US and to take a more neutral stance on great-power rivalry.
National’s indication that it will increase defence spending – while not saying how – could then be acceptable to the Greens, repositioned as a response to climate change rather than as support for Australia and Nato.
In 2017, the brief flirtation between National and the Greens was mostly kept secret from the public and quickly fizzled.
Make no mistake, there will again be blue-green chats after October 14.
This time, though, both the fact of the discussions and the outline of what is on offer are likely to become public.
The Greens and their members who make such decisions will face an inescapable choice. Will they allow a National-Act-NZ First government to take office? Or will they prevent that, either through a formal National-Green coalition or, more likely, some other arrangement to secure a deal like the one outlined above?
It’s no use the Greens pretending that it won’t be their choice.
- Matthew Hooton has over 30 years’ experience in political and corporate communications and strategy for clients in Australasia, Asia, Europe and North America, including the National and Act parties and the Mayor of Auckland.
