OPINION
Anybody watching Labour leader Chris Hipkins’ press conference this week would not have thought the man had been just turfed out of government and sent the wilds of the Opposition benches.
He was positively beaming as he set out his realigned shadow Cabinet. Usually after such announcements, the media rush to compile lists of winners and losers. This time there was little of that, given they were all losers. Being top of the pops in a shadow Cabinet is not as good as being bottom of the heap in the actual Cabinet.
Nonetheless, Hipkins at least was in a good mood. Asked at the end why he seemed so cheerful, he said “I’m always cheerful and sunny”.
There are some benefits of Opposition – and one is being able to say whatever you like (within the limits of the law of course), without having to deliver on much.
Hipkins has always had a bit of the Opposition politician about him. His first nine years as an MP were spent on those benches. He knows where to hit.
And there had been plenty of free hits on offer as Prime Minister Christopher Luxon went through his first week in the job with his former rivals and newfound mates, Act leader David Seymour and NZ First leader Winston Peters. The Three Enemigos, so to speak.
Not that Luxon seemed to notice – or care – whether Hipkins was enjoying himself. He had bigger things to worry about, not least the same thing Hipkins had worried about for so long: inflation. His first week coincided with Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr holding the official cash rate - but warning he might have to lift it again.
However, Luxon too spent much of the week beaming as the endorphins from becoming Prime Minister flowed.
He overhauled his 100-day plan to make way for Act and NZ First and released 49 action points. Not many of those related to inflation or the cost of living. Those have to wait.
Instead it was a shopping list of things that can be done quickly: repeals and cancellations of laws, taxes and programmes, pledges to “begin work” on things, and moves on pet peeves of NZ First and Act. It is partly a show to National’s voters that he intends to deliver on what he promised.
That plan is, however, a precursor for significant change. It sets the battle themes of the next three years. The retreat from the smoke-free reforms were just the entree in that regard. Workplace reforms, race relations and spending cuts will all be dominant topics ahead. Even when people vote for change - as they did - it can take people by surprise when it actually happens.
Luxon claimed his new coalition Government would do more in those 100 days than Labour had in six years. For all that Luxon criticises the former Labour Government for doing nothing, one of the problems for Labour was that it tried to do too much.
If Labour truly had done nothing, Luxon would now not be spending his first 100 days repealing a vast tranche of the things Labour did.
Nobody can argue the Government doesn’t have a mandate for its great repeal: the three parties had campaigned heavily on most of them.
Luxon himself is pretty happy with how his first week went. He tried to ignore the brouhaha around the various utterances of Winston Peters and focus on what he was doing instead.
There were the first meetings with senior public servants.
No government department head should have gone into those meetings without something to offer that catered for National’s policies and aims. It had long been predictable that National would end up in government – and then there was the 40 days of coalition negotiations during which briefings could be refined to suit.
Yet some ministers reported receiving briefings that would have better served the outgoing Labour Government and barely acknowledged a change in approach.
Luxon and Willis seemed satisfied with their talks with Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr in that regard. After all, they all have a common enemy: inflation.
They are yet to be convinced Treasury is as ready to turn its ship for the new Government. Caralee McLiesh’s own background and experience in Australia in the social investment area should prove a good fit for National’s own push on its social investment model.
However, she was appointed when the former Labour Government was running hot on the “wellbeing Budget.” That was impacted by the need to deliver Covid-19 budgets and cyclone budgets, but Labour used it as a form of criteria ministers had to use to justify their Budget bids and a way of assessing the effectiveness of government policies.
There is quite a shift in approach from the “wellbeing” model to the new Government’s Bang for the Buck model. It’s not one Treasury can say caught it unawares.
It is not a bad thing if key government department heads don’t rush to drink the new flavour of Kool-Aid – although it would be if they got obstructive about it.
Free and frank advice from public servants is a core tenet of democracy and that is particularly the case with those holding the purse strings. There is a long history of finance ministers disagreeing with the views and advice of Treasury - and ignoring it to go on to do what they said they’d do. That is their prerogative.
Treasury isn’t elected – they are.
Luxon’s first week has also been instructive in showing how he would go about managing his coalition relationships – in particular what he considered to be the boundaries in dealing with Act and NZ First.
Despite Labour – and some media – demanding Luxon “haul Peters into line” following his criticism of the media who took the Public Interest Journalism Fund, Luxon refused to do so. It was wise. Luxon doesn’t want to get into the position of having to justify or excuse things that Peters or Seymour might say and nor should he have to.
They certainly would not appreciate it. It would undermine them as party leaders. He will find it harder to avoid having to answer questions about any controversies around the policy gains in the agreements – because National will have to support them.
Otherwise, it might warrant Luxon’s intervention if an issue related to the coalition agreements – for example, one party suddenly decides to reverse its position on something in the agreements. It could also be warranted if there was a serious breach of the Cabinet Manual. But thus far “thou shalt not bag the media” is not in the Cabinet Manual.
It follows concerns about use-of-force powers being given to staff.