ANALYSIS
Christopher Luxon might have seen National’s support a few percentage points higher if he had ruled out Winston Peters a few months ago.
At the time, New Zealand First wasn’t registering anywhere near the 5 per cent threshold it needs to return to Parliament without winning an electorate seat.
Peters was always going to start resonating with more voters closer to the election, but a clear signal from Luxon might have swayed anyone with leanings towards both parties to tick blue.
Such a message would have told voters that a tick for Peters wasn’t going to change the Government. Back then voting for NZ First also looked far more likely to be a wasted vote, so if you wanted change, better to tick blue over black.
How much potentially is this cohort of voters worth?
According to the 2017 election survey, 45 per cent of those who voted New Zealand First wanted the party to choose National. That translates to somewhere between 2 and 3 per cent, given NZ First is currently floating in the vicinity of 5 per cent. This is not an insignificant amount.
It’s also clear why Luxon didn’t do this. It was risky, given the very real possibility that National and Act wouldn’t have enough support to change the Government without Peters. It’s hardly the best look if your first move is to go back on your word.
Nor could he really rule him out now, either. Doing so might see some voters even more determined to vote NZ First and help push the party over the threshold.
Instead, Luxon came out yesterday with what everyone already knew but he had yet to articulate. He wants a National-Act coalition but will ring Peters if he needs him for the numbers to change the Government.
He still wants National-leaning New Zealand First supporters to tick blue, though.
So he tried to distance himself from Peters as much as possible - “Peters hasn’t gone with National in 27 years” - but not so far away that he couldn’t paint a picture of working with him if necessary.
This is a fine line to walk. In one breath he essentially said Peters couldn’t be trusted and might still go with Labour, as he did in 2017, even though Peters has emphatically and repeatedly ruled this out.
The next breath, Luxon said he had a good enough relationship with Peters - even though they haven’t spoken in months - to be able to find enough common ground for some kind of stable governing mix, along with Act.
Luxon kept calling a Labour-Greens-Maori Party a chaotic arrangement, but wouldn’t offer any description on an arrangement with him, Act leader David Seymour, whose antipathy towards Peters is no secret, and the man Luxon had just depicted as not all that trustworthy.
In ruling Peters in, Luxon also risks voters who lean towards both of them to tick New Zealand First, knowing they can be confident that this is a vote for change.
Such voters probably already knew that, but they were given a very prominent reminder as Luxon’s message turbo-boosted Peters’ profile. The NZ First leader spent most of the day covering all media bases, blustering away about the state of the country and refusing to entertain any thoughts about what he and National might agree on in any potential future arrangement.
Nor would Luxon entertain that.
But if a three-way with NZ First transpired, it’s hardly confidence-boosting for Luxon’s tax package which Peters has attacked as not credible and nothing more than “voodoo economics”.
(Seymour has also side-stepped questions about whether National’s tax package is credible, saying he hasn’t seen National’s modelling - which National has repeatedly refused to release.)
Peters is also out on a limb over climate change, saying New Zealand shouldn’t have to account for its emissions as per international climate change agreements. Luxon has promised to meet Paris obligations, though there remain legitimate questions about how National (as well as Labour) would do this, even without Peters in the picture.
Peters has been a critic of high immigration because of the pressure it puts on infrastructure - housing, in particular - while National wants to turbo-boost certain visas and open up $2 million dollar-plus housing market to foreign buyers.
And then there’s National’s plan to progressively raise the age for superannuation eligibility, something Peters is staunchly against.
Asked about this, Luxon said he didn’t want to talk about how post-election talks might go, but then said he wasn’t going to budge on plans for lifting the superannuation age.
So what happens if Peters won’t back National’s key election promises? Another election?
“We will work with what we’ve got to work with on election night,” Luxon said. “There’s lots of detail that would need to be constructively worked through.”
He wouldn’t rule out any positions for Peters except for Prime Minister and Finance Minister.
“I can’t guarantee [an] outcome will be achieved because NZ First has not gone with the National in 27 years. We all remember 2017.”
Current polls suggest National and Act may have enough support to form a two-party coalition. But last night’s Newshub Reid Research Poll, with NZ First on 5.2 per cent, had Peters in the kingmaker position.
Of course it’s very possible that Luxon could manage Peters and Seymour in some kind of stable arrangement.
He’s clearly done well in corporate roles in the past, and with the National Party since taking over, but whether any of those experiences are comparable to the Seymour-Peters challenge is unclear.
There is also a tendency to forget that Peters isn’t necessarily volatile to the point of implosion. He was part of a governing arrangement with the Greens and Labour from 2017 to 2020 without it collapsing on itself.
So why come out and say Peters is on Luxon’s radar now?
Maybe Luxon saw the poll results last week where an overwhelming majority said they wanted to know which party would work with which.
Maybe he thinks it will tip the blue/black voter towards blue over black.
He also said voters had told him the election was in the bag. Voter complacency could see some National voters not bothering to show up at the polls.
It could also see traditional Labour supporters voting for Labour again even though they’re frustrated at the cost of living. Change will happen anyway, they may think, so they can still vote Labour even though they’re somewhat supportive of change.
Luxon’s message is aimed at shaking them out of complacency and into voting for change, if that’s what they want.
“I just want New Zealanders to understand - three days out from overseas voting kicking off and seven days out from early voting kicking off - the gravity, and what’s at risk,” Luxon said.
“You may think that National is going to win this election. I’m telling you, it’s not a done deal ... every election is close.”
Luxon will be pleased to hear that Peters wasn’t much of an issue among voters as he made various stops around Waikato yesterday.
At his meeting in Matamata, farmers wanted to know about reduced regulation. Former Labour voter Gerard O’Neill was mostly concerned about crime and was convinced by Luxon’s law and order spiel. No one asked him about Peters.
Clive Kosoof, who owns a clothing shop in Huntly, wouldn’t say who he was voting for but he told the Herald Luxon should be able to manage Peters as the National leader “seems to be pretty astute”.
Retired local Fred Rix said he was “not really” a fan of Peters and Luxon would “probably” be able to work with him, even though he predicted Peters would want a far greater proportion of control than the 5 per cent or so of the party vote he might win.
Fruit King owner Armit Singh simply said that Luxon “was a good fellow”.
“I’m disappointed [Peters] went with Labour in 2017. It depends on Peters. But if he decided to support Labour, I’m out of this country.”
Derek Cheng is a senior journalist who started at the Herald in 2004. He has worked several stints in the press gallery and is a former deputy political editor.
OPINION: Measuring influence of protest at ballot box would be to miss the point.