Claire Trevett: PM-elect Christopher Luxon and the cracking cone of silence approach to talks with Act leader David Seymour and NZ First leader Winston Peters

Incoming Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s attempts to put a cone of silence over his negotiations with Act and NZ First have had some contrary results, not least of which was the hard-to-get game playing out between NZ First leader Winston Peters and Act leader David Seymour.

Peters took Luxon’s order so seriously he clearly thought it extended to Seymour.

As of Sunday, Peters was diligently resisting replying to text messages from Seymour, but had promised at some point to have a face-to-face meeting. He didn’t say whether he would say anything at that meeting.

Clearly grumpy that news of his rebuff had made it out, he gave an explanation: He had not been certain the text he got was from the real David Seymour and thought it might be a prank. It turned out Peters did not have Seymour’s number in his phone. He had to check with somebody else to make sure it was legit. Which explains his initial reluctance to respond, but not the ongoing silence since then.

The effect of all of this was to make Seymour look quite sensible.

Winston Peters has said little more than "naff off" to the media over the past few weeks. Photo / Dean Purcell

Seymour clearly thinks the voters deserve a bit more than total silence during such a period, so he has been giving fairly regular media interviews. Thus far, he has shown that can be managed without breaching the confidentiality of discussions.

Luxon began the process by saying he wanted to do things differently. What “differently” apparently means is secret assignations in secret locations by secret groups of people. Only Act has set out exactly who is in its negotiating team. National has listed some – but not all. NZ First, who knows?

That is possibly taking it too far.

The confidentiality of negotiations is a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless. Coalition talks are a matter of public interest.

Yes, Luxon and the others need quiet to sort out the tangle of demands and requests without the media and public seeing every squabble and surrender: To have it otherwise would start things off on a very shaky basis in terms of the public perception.

That would risk running counter to Luxon’s oft-repeated desire for a “strong, stable” Government.

However, a total blackout is ridiculous, especially when it’s being ignored.

Act leader David Seymour on the campaign trail at Rangiora Airfield in Canterbury. Photo / George Heard

Like justice, democracy has to be seen to be done. Where is the harm in letting people know what they can know?

In the past, the parties involved have at least tried to give the talks a cosmetic transparency to try to mitigate the secrecy, even if only in the form of watching the negotiating parties go in for the talks and reporting afterwards that there is not much they can say.

There might be some merit in Luxon doing that too.

Luxon needs voters to see that he and his two potential coalition bedfellows can at least tolerate each other, let bygones be bygones and have a professional relationship.

The early exchange of Peters ignoring Seymour’s olive branch was not the best sign of that: Although given their history, Peters could be justified in wondering if it was a poisoned branch.

Peters’ approach to the cone of silence has largely been his usual schtick of huffing and puffing, interspersed with cryptic comments. He has said little more than “naff off” to the media. However, he clearly thought that his speech at the Port Waikato byelection launch was exempt from the cone of silence: He took a jab at Seymour for continuing to speak in the media and also told his audience he wanted to get rid of the Therapeutic Products Act in his negotiations.

Luxon is starting off with an advantage with Peters. Peters wants to ensure the relationship is constructive enough to survive more than one term, and try to avoid the fate of being booted out of Parliament again in three years’ time.

Peters is also motivated to move fast: He is almost certainly hoping to be Foreign Minister again and will want his first outing to be Apec at the end of next week.

Seymour has been speaking about what little he can say. Thus far, he has not breached the confidentiality on the terms of an agreement. He has given occasional indications of how far along Act’s talks are, and how quickly he thinks it could be sorted from their end.

Otherwise, it has amounted to repeating pretty much what he’d been saying throughout the campaign: The areas Act was interested in and what its priorities might be without giving any hints as to what he would actually get.

That is partly a negotiating tactic: If negotiations end up taking a long time or running into trouble, he doesn’t want to carry the can for it. He wants people to know he was all good – he’d prefer Peters to take the blame for unseemly delays.

It is also a chance to keep talking about stuff he might not get, to show he at least put up a fight for it. Given there is already a draft agreement for Act, he presumably knows by now whether he has got the referendum on the Treaty that he wanted, but he is still pushing for it in public.

He probably has not got it: Luxon has once again said it was “divisive and unhelpful”.

What Luxon means is it would result in a massively distracting debate that would drown out all else, just as he was trying to deliver a stable Government that would last beyond one term.

Given that is also Act’s goal – and Act’s main priority is economic – it is possible Seymour was pushing it as one of his priorities as a negotiating tool: something he can give up in order to get another win.

Luxon will also have his no-touch areas. One will be National’s tax cuts. It would be quite unconscionable for the smaller parties to demand those be significantly altered. It was the main campaign plank for National, the one policy it gave cast-iron promises on, and the one that helped it get the 38 per cent it ended up with.

As all this goes on, Christopher Luxon should learn from Labour’s big mistake as he goes about his negotiations.

The crucial part of the agreements will not be what is specifically agreed on, but how the parties handle things that are not specifically agreed on.

Labour’s mistake was assuming there was an implicit agreement that NZ First would support all of its policy programme, barring the things NZ First had negotiated away in coalition talks.

Big mistake. It learned very quickly that was not the case when the repeal of the three strikes law popped up. Little announced it would be repealed. NZ First announced it would not.

NZ First’s view was if an initiative was not specifically referenced in the agreement, then it had to be negotiated on separately. It meant three years of ongoing negotiations for Labour, watching its plans being scotched or watered down.

It would also pay for all three parties to remember the old “tail wagging the dog” metaphor for MMP: When small parties make demands or have an influence that goes well beyond the strength of their public support.

Claire Trevett is the Herald’s political editor, based at Parliament in Wellington. She started at the Herald in 2003 and joined the press gallery team in 2007. She is a life member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.