OPINION:
It was an encouraging start to proceedings: National leader Christopher Luxon, Act leader David Seymour and NZ First leader Winston Peters managed to make it through a 49-minute press conference without a single eye-roll or bicker at each other.
Now it just has to last for another three years.
Luxon had insisted that he had built up a solid chemistry with his two governing partners over the weeks of negotiations. He genuinely seems to enjoy Peters’ company and he has known Seymour for years.
The sight of the three at their press conference delighted Labour’s leader Chris Hipkins, who noted it was lucky Luxon’s new office was circular because Peters and Seymour would be running rings around him.
But Luxon was in control at the press conference and handled the more random moments well.
He ceded the microphone to the others to an appropriate extent and apparently enjoyed being a spectator as the other two performed at the long-awaited unveiling of their coalition agreements.
Gloriously, Peters did not always treat it with the gravitas the other two did. He was there to have a bit of fun. At one point, he rested his head in his hand for a prolonged period, as if he was having a chat at the pub.
Half of his speech involved litigating whether the talks had gone on for 40 days or only since the final count about 20 days ago, as the media pointed out that even his own MP, Shane Jones, had used the 40 days count. He called the media “mathematical morons” and sniped about stupid questions.
That all seemed to entertain Luxon greatly, as did Peters’ description of the negotiations as being long, hard and arduous.
Peters cracked a wry grin when Luxon announced Gerry Brownlee would be National’s nominee to be Parliament’s Speaker: a response to an initial suggestion that perhaps Peters might want that job. Peters did not want that job, thank you very much indeed.
The job Peters did want was deputy Prime Minister, but Seymour also wanted that. So they split it. Half a term each.
It was a promising start to a triangle of relationships that will almost inevitably have some very rough moments.
Of course, it’s all good fun until someone loses an eye.
While policy gains can be written down in black and white, personalities cannot be so easily controlled.
Trust is a key issue in such matters. In some coalitions, the promises are fairly vague, relying on good faith and relationships to work.
The fragile trust between the three is why the agreements are so detailed and specific.
That effectively builds in a mutually assured destruction mechanism.
Each has given his word to support the measures listed in each other’s agreements. If any of them go back on that word and pull their support, they can expect retaliation.
Trust will last as long as everybody does what they said they would do.
Luxon set out the processes to deal with conflicts and differences of opinion, a mechanism he is clearly hoping will prevent his bedfellows from simply wigging out publicly in anger at each other – and at him.
There will be a coalition committee to talk through any sticking points. Leaders and their chiefs of staff will meet to try to negotiate their way out of serious disagreements.
There are agree-to-disagree provisions, allowing the parties to specify when they strongly object to a course of action without bringing down the Government. There will be a stringent “no surprises” policy, requiring a heads-up before differences of opinion are aired.
It is a safe bet that there will nonetheless be surprises.
There always are, even when parties have a less antagonistic history than Seymour and Peters.
When they happen, it will be Luxon who ends up being the mediator – and sometimes he will inevitably also find himself the target of their joint wrath.
Back in 2017, Jacinda Ardern described her Government as the first true MMP government – on the basis it was the first time the large party with the smaller share of the vote ended up in government.
But the 2023 Government can lay a stronger claim to that title. It is the first time three parties have formed a full coalition, rather than one sitting outside Cabinet.
The relationship management will be key to making that work but that starts from the fairly solid basis that no party is on the outside.
As for the deal that puts that into place, one of the first questions was what price National ended up paying to get there.
The answer is, not as much as many expected.
It did have to fold on its policy to start raising the age of superannuation but that is a meaningless backdown, given it was not due to kick in for years to come. The biggest concession was over its plans to repeal the foreign buyers’ ban and impose a tax on it to pay for its tax cuts programme.
But it did not have to fold in many significant ways. Peters did not get Attorney-General, that went to Judith Collins. National also kept agriculture for itself, despite both Act and NZ First eyeing it up – clearly refusing to cede its traditional name as the farmers’ party too easily. National kept the key finance and economic portfolios: finance, infrastructure and transport. So too the big education and health portfolios.
The agreements make it look like the smaller parties got a lot. NZ First’s in particular is a very long list of itch-scratches and nods at the party’s hopes and dreams – from Marsden Point to getting rid of public service department names in Te Reo Māori, and a Covid Inquiry.
At one point in negotiations, Luxon had said that the agreements would allow Act and NZ First to at least start down the road toward most of their key policies.
In some cases that start is set to lead to a very quick end – not necessarily the end that the party concerned might desire.
One example is the response to Act’s request for a referendum on the Treaty of Waitangi principles. The agreement allows Act to draw up legislation setting out those principles – the first step toward Act’s desired referendum – without tying National into supporting it to become a reality. Yes, it does leave the door open to the referendum happening. But it also leaves National in control of whether it slams that door shut: and it is pretty clear that it has no intention of letting it happen.
It has agreed to support it at first reading only. That allows Act to have the “debate” they so desire within the controlled confines of a select committee. There seems little chance it will get beyond that, unless Act holds a lot more sway after the next election.
The agreements also specify that the smaller parties will get their due credit for their own measures, rather than have National stealing their thunder. In some cases there will be squabbling over that – all parties, for instance, will want the credit for the tough-on-law-and-order stuff.
However, the advantage to National in that is that it doesn’t necessarily want all the thunder.
Some of the measures will prove controversial, and it will be happy for the smaller parties to cop the blame as well as try to get the credit.