Let Luxon Be Luxon

To Thine Own Self Be True

Matthew Hooton’s critique of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon pulls no punches. In fact, I’d expect nothing less from Matthew, who—whatever you might think of his opinions—always argues his case with gusto.

But I feel compelled to respectfully dissent from his portrayal of Luxon as a weak and ineffective leader.

Last week I was part of a group of Rangitīkei businesspeople who went to Wellington to meet with a couple of MPs. The Prime Minister himself made time for us—20 minutes sandwiched between discussions with foreign leaders. Matthew might say this was just the country mouse being naïve, but I was pretty satisfied with how Luxon handled himself.

Our questions were mostly on things like barriers to foreign investment and RMA reform. I asked about Treaty Principles Bill. Luxon’s answers carried a consistent message: New Zealand needs to stop playing small ball. We need to hit more boundaries and secure big wins for the economy.

On RMA reform, Luxon pointed to the fast-track legislation used to expedite projects. While some in our group questioned whether this was just a one-off more geared towards the big end of town, he made the case that these measures are testing grounds for more systemic reforms. He didn’t waffle on foreign investment, arguing the deals the current environment offers right now are simply too small to attract the sovereign wealth fund level investment we need to finance transformative infrastructure projects.

This sparked some pushback from our group. In the regional economy, investments in the $25–$50 million range are nothing to sneeze at. And add enough of them up, and they make a big difference. So we pressed Luxon on this.

At no point did he seem flustered or dismissive. He acknowledged their value but maintained that raising productivity means addressing New Zealand’s infrastructure deficit at scale. His point wasn’t that smaller projects don’t matter—it was that they’re not enough on their own.

When it came to hikoi, Luxon simply spread his hands. He acknowledged the strength of the protest and made it clear that National felt it was a distraction and that he was more interested in partnering with iwi to accelerate iwi economic development. He spoke with confidence about the opportunities for growth here and how this could lead to meaningful progress for Māori and the wider economy.

Matthew might argue that letting the Treaty Principles Bill pass its first reading was weak leadership. But it’s not unprecedented. Labour MPs did the same thing in 2006 as part of their deal with New Zealand First. There’s no functional difference here, with Labour at the time making clear that the bill would not advance beyond that stage

I haven’t heard anyone say that this made Helen Clark a weak leader Maybe I am wrong about that I doubt it someone

For my part, I’m strongly opposed to the Treaty Principles Bill. I think it’s misguided at best and dishonest at worst. That’s my view based on my personal philosophy of government and desire for social cohesion

But any critique of National’s handling of this issue needs to reckon with the broader reality: if a referendum on the Treaty Principles were held tomorrow, it would probably pass. Representative democracy exists precisely to moderate these impulses, and it’s proper for a responsible government to consider the social chaos such a move would unleash.

But people expecting electoral damage to National as a result of the goings on could probably do with a remedial course in the views of the New Zealand electorate and now they diverge from those of the chattering classes

it would also be a mistake to overlook the difficulty of navigating coalition right now. ACT and New Zealand First are learning from history. The pattern has long been that minor parties lose support in coalition by trading their populist edge for the responsibilities of government.

In 2020, Matthew himself observed New Zealand First’s efforts to regain its populist edge after two years of “playing nice” in coalition with Labour. By the time the party regained its defiance, however, the damage had already been done. That lesson hasn’t been lost on Winston Peters or David Seymour.

Both ACT and New Zealand First have embraced a “permanent opposition” mindset, determined to maintain their populist appeal even while sitting at the Cabinet table.

It’s worked for them—ACT’s polling is steady, and Winston Peters is as defiant as ever—but it hasn’t made governing any easier for National.

Labour’s implosion in 2023 left National at a disadvantage. National took office without the commanding lead it would be assured of in 2026 and so had to put together a coalition from a position of pressure. The result was the first truly tripartite coalition government of the MMP era.

This government isn’t perfect, and Luxon has had his share of missteps. But what I took away from my meeting with the Prime Minister was a pretty fixed sense of direction. For the Prime Minister, it’s all about fixing our capital and productivity deficits and anything outside of that is a bit of a distraction

This may not be to the liking of former prime ministers, few of whom made meaningful progress on this front. Luxon isn’t John Key, Jim Bolger, or Helen Clark. And I’m not convinced that’s a bad thing

And maybe it’s time we let Luxon be Luxon.