Parliament is likely to be a solemn affair when Christopher Luxon faces new Prime Minister Chris Hipkins for the first time tomorrow but not necessarily with other adversaries.
The domino effect of Jacinda Ardern’s resignation as Prime Minister has led to a new set of changes in other crucial areas including health and education.
Both portfolios are now being led by women who once served at the frontlines, former primary school principal Jan Tinetti in Education and infectious diseases specialist Dr Ayesha Verrall in Health.
The heat will likely go on those ministers in the House by Opposition MPs once the formalities around the Prime Minister’s statement are over.
Hipkins will table the statement tomorrow setting out the Government’s agenda for the year followed by speeches from other party leaders. The weather disasters of 2023 are expected to bring a less combative tone to the debate, although Act’s David Seymour will be looking to out-do Luxon.
Question Time begins on Wednesday when some of the new head-to-head contests will begin with new ministers or new spokespeople in Opposition roles in Education, Health, Auckland Issues, and Law and Order.
Others will be more low-key such as Andrew Little as new Defence Minister against Tim van de Molen, Little as Public Service Minister against Simeon Brown, and Willow Jean Prime as new Conservation Minister against National’s Barbara Kuriger and Act’s Nicole McKee.
Those ministers and new Commerce Minister Duncan Webb and new Communications Minister Ginny Anderson are more likely to be given patsy questions from their own backbenchers in relation to disaster support.
CHRIS HIPKINS v CHRISTOPHER LUXON
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins will have quite an advantage when he faces National leader Christopher Luxon in Question Time on Wednesday.
The House has been Hipkins’ happy place. It is where Hipkins has shone. He has been an MP for 14 years and a minister for five, and Leader of the House for five years.
That compares with Luxon’s two years in Parliament and just over one as Leader of the Opposition.
Hipkins should be able to anticipate and handle Luxon’s attack lines, not only on the cost of living but on the raft of backdowns in last week’s bonfire of policies, such as money spent on the RNZ-TVNZ merger.
Luxon tends to stick to his pre-scripted questions rather than chance his arm by ad-libbing. He rarely, if ever, got the better of Ardern in the House.
Hipkins, however, is likely to be cautious. He will face pressure as PM like nothing he has faced before.
The more interesting and even clashes are likely to be those between Hipkins and Seymour who is more assured in the House.
JAN TINETTI v ERICA STANFORD
Education
Jan Tinetti has had responsibility for school operations since 2020 as Associate Education Minister so should be on top of her portfolio and now she has taken full responsibility from Hipkins, including early childhood education and tertiary education.
But Erica Stanford has not held her feet to the fire, appearing to concentrate more on her Immigration responsibilities.
With concerns over NZ’s performance in literacy and numeracy, and truancy, there is a huge opportunity for National.
Tinetti will also face National MP Penny Simmonds, the former chief executive of Southern Institute of Technology, who has responsibility for tertiary education and early childhood education.
Pressing Tinetti on the Hipkins’ polytech reforms may be politically profitable.
AYESHA VERRALL v SHANE RETI
Health
The temperature in the Health contest is likely to be lowered with the removal of Andrew Little from the portfolio. As one doctor to another, Ayesha Verrall is likely to show Shane Reti more respect and less contempt than Little did.
As a first term MP, Verrall will be seen as a weak link but Reti is not exactly a star in the House either.
There will be no shortage of material for Reti to test Verrall on, including what gains (and losses) there have been from establishment of a national health service, particularly on waiting times, and variations in waiting times between health regions.
Act’s Brooke van Velden has also proved a worthy spokeswoman on Health in the past year.
MICHAEL WOOD v SIMEON BROWN
Auckland
Already sparring partners over Transport, Michael Wood and Simeon Brown will now be sparring over Auckland and the recovery from the extreme weather events of 2023.
Brown will have to target issues that are properly the domain of Government and not of the Auckland Council.
While Wood’s wife, Julie Fairey, was elected to Auckland Council last year, he is not going to be the fall guy for any of its deficiencies.
Brown will have to take care not to be seen to be exploiting a disaster for political gain.
He is no slouch but he is up against one of the Government’s most efficient operators and clearest communicators.
STUART NASH v MARK MITCHELL
Police
It might feel as though it’s a reunion for Stuart Nash, who has just regained Police, and former police-dog handler Mark Mitchell but in fact Mitchell has never shadowed Nash.
As amiable as Mitchell is, he not to be under-estimated as the hapless former minister Poto Williams found.
The greater visibility around gang violence and the epidemic of ram-raids called for cabinet’s best, Hipkins, to replace Williams.
He has passed to baton back to Nash but the law and order environment is less benign than it was.
One thing has changed – to suggest that Opposition criticism on law and order equates to not supporting the Police is a tired old trope that Nash used to use but it won’t wash now.
Mitchell has also picked up Corrections from Simon O’Connor, giving him a wider brief on law and order, alongside his colleague Paul Goldsmith with Justice.
DAVID PARKER v CHRIS BISHOP
RMA reforms
Environment Minister David Parker should have shuddered when Luxon carved off RMA Reforms from Scott Simpson’s Environment responsibilities and gave it to attack dog Chris Bishop in his reshuffle.
It means only one thing – that the reforms are going to become a political target in election year.
Bishop is already busy as 2023 election campaign manager and has housing and infrastructure.
Bishop has to show that while his party has campaigned endlessly for RMA reforms it has a damned good reason to oppose the opposed reforms which streamline planning and consent processes.
JAMES SHAW v TODD MULLER
Climate change
Climate Change Minister James Shaw is probably more vulnerable from his own impatient Green Party members and activists such as former leader Russel Norman than National’s Todd Muller.
Shaw and Muller are more collaborators than competitors, having worked closely on Zero Carbon legislation.
The weather disasters of 2023 will add pressure to the need for a bipartisan approach to climate adaptation, such as a managed retreat scheme.
Muller regained the climate change portfolio from Simpson in last month’s reshuffle and now combines it with his existing agriculture portfolio, which he picked up when Barbara Kuriger resigned it in October.
Combining agriculture and climate change is a first and has been criticised as incompatible but on the upside, it means that the usual internal tension on policy between two spokespeople within National will not exist.
The more combative opponent for Shaw is likely to be from Act in climate change and environment spokesman Simon Court and agriculture spokesman Mark Cameron.
It follows concerns about use-of-force powers being given to staff.