Or he could have ruled him in, reluctantly, which is what he did, with a preference to working in coalition with Act.
If he was to have ruled out NZ First, that should have been done a long time ago as a move to supress any comeback, not in the last three weeks when it looks clear the party will be back.
While questions remain over which option and why, the one certainty is that by having said he was open to working with Winston Peters and NZ First, if required, he has increased the likelihood NZ First will be back in Parliament and will have enough leverage to be part of the next government.
The conditionality on Luxon’s position towards NZ First – effectively only if absolutely necessary - will be lost on a lot of people who absorb the news in headlines.
Some will see it as a de facto endorsement of NZ First – which may be why Luxon avoided for so long making such a statement.
So why did Luxon change tack?
Peters himself made it clear in November last year that he would rule out going with one major party, Labour, during an interview with the Herald – “nobody gets to lie to me twice” – and then used “Tory blue” billboards.
In August, Labour leader Chris Hipkins ruled out NZ First, which by that stage was purely for political effect.
That put some pressure on Luxon to articulate an unequivocal position on coalition partners.
It has always been obvious that a failure by Luxon to rule out NZ First implied a possibility of a future working relationship in government.
But sometimes the media demand that the obvious be spelled out.
Luxon has been repeatedly questioned about it by travelling media. He kept saying he didn’t need to answer the question because NZ First had not reached the threshold. Once it reached the threshold, as it has in several polls, he was cornered. That excuse could no longer be used.
The coalitions question has sometimes been a distraction.
That was reinforced by the Newshub Powerbrokers’ debate last week, in which Act’s David Seymour and Peters sparred continuously, to the point where host Rebecca Wright expressed sympathy for Luxon in any future dealings with them.
Despite Luxon’s unwillingness to previously discuss potential coalitions with NZ First, others have been doing so without him. He has been entirely reactive. He has not been in control of the narrative on it.
It appears Luxon has decided the risks in inflating NZ First’s vote by articulating the obvious coalition position are less than the risks of him continuing to sideline himself from one of the big issues this campaign: coalitions.
And in saying today he would work with NZ First, he has been very clear that he would prefer not to, that Act is a preferred partner, and that voters who want to change the government should vote National.
The coalition issue has been one area of the campaign in which Labour has been effective. It turned the tables of the so-called “coalition of chaos” that National initially applied to the three parties of the Left to the three parties of the Right: National, Act and New Zealand First.
A slightly light-hearted Taxpayers Union Curia poll two weeks ago decided to ask voters about the “coalition of chaos” phrase ubiquitously used to describe any prospective coalition by the other side.
It found that 40 per cent thought National-Act-NZ First would be the most chaotic, 35 per cent thought Labour-Greens-Te Pāti Māori would be more chaotic, and 14 per cent thought both would be equally chaotic.
Luxon will be hoping he has brought more clarity to voters than confusion and that he hasn’t given soft National and Labour voters the “nod” to go to NZ First.
