Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is questioned on recent poll results.
Video / Mark Mitchell
Opinion by Thomas Coughlan
Thomas Coughlan is Deputy Political Editor and covers politics from Parliament. He has worked for the Herald since 2021 and has worked in the press gallery since 2018.
The Government has promised to bring order to the rescoped lunch programme, which is meant to save $130 million a year.
Is the change of seasons and the days drawing shorter causing the colour to drain from National MPs’ faces – or is it the series of grim polls showing that were an election held today, they would go down in history as the first one-termNational Government?
Luxon was lacklustre facing off against Labour leader Chris Hipkins in the House on Tuesday. His caucus, wearied by a poll showing the party’s support has slid five points since November, was in no mood to bail him out.
Sometimes, a government under pressure will talk itself into positivity: a few interjections of “that’s right” – or “tax and spend, borrow and hope” (a favourite of National MPs) to buoy a leader in a sticky spot.
There was none of that for Luxon on Tuesday. MPs, nervous or bored, scrolled their phones or stared at their notes.
It didn’t help that the line of Hipkins' questioning, the school lunch debacle, is the responsibility of David Seymour, an Act MP, rather than a National one.
A Prime Minister in trouble might hope to be bailed out by the minister responsible for the particular portfolio in question. If that Prime Minister is particularly lucky, they might be bailed out by a chorus of calls for supplementary questions from a number of MPs (Jacinda Ardern could often count on the responsible minister and allies like Grant Robertson, Chris Hipkins and even, from time to time, Winston Peters, to put a helpful supplementary question her way).
Indeed, as Hipkins' questions moved on from lunches to housing, Housing Minister Chris Bishop did just that, popping up with a supplementary question designed to protect the Prime Minister and give Labour a flick for its less than stellar record on housing.
Luxon was less lucky with lunches, Education Minister Erica Stanford simply staring despondently into her desk. Sitting as they do with Seymour, the lunches aren’t strictly her problem and it’s clear to anyone watching that she thinks the rescoped scheme is a disaster.
Seymour was not sluggish in popping up to defend Luxon, taking the call after three supplementary questions. He popped up asking Luxon to “confirm” that Monday’s lunches had a 99.74% on-time delivery rate (the “confirm” question is an easy way to insert positive PR into the debate – all a minister needs to do is to say something positive about their portfolio and get the Prime Minister to confirm it).
The main problem with the lunches, however, isn’t that they’re late (although they sometimes are), it’s the fact they’re, well, not that great – and, in the worst cases, injurious to children’s health. In the very worst cases, they explode when improperly heated, causing children second-degree burns.
It’s obvious Luxon and the National Party (who campaigned on funding the lunches at the level Labour had and only agreed to the funding cuts after forming a government with Act) are sick of defending the catastrophe.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was under fire in the House yesterday. Photo / Mark Mitchell
On Monday at his post-Cabinet press conference, an ashen-faced Luxon offered this to the parents of the child injured by the “exploding lunch”:“That was a terrible incident, a really unfortunate one, something that, you know … [I’ve] got huge heart for a parent whose child has been burnt through an exploding lunch like that.”
The Beehive lectern is not unfamiliar with strange pronouncements (think “spread your legs”), but did anyone ever think they’d see a Prime Minister try to explain his way out of an “exploding lunch” scandal?
It’s the stuff of sitcoms, The Thick of It, Veep, Utopia, maybe even The Simpsons, not serious politics.
In fairness to the Government, the amount of money saved by the lunch programme change is not trivial – $130 million a year. Whether the savings should come from school lunches or somewhere else is for politicians to debate, but where was Luxon’s team heckling from the back bench making their case? At this point in the cycle, every backbench MP worth their salt should be telling Labour that if there are cuts to government spending, it’s because Labour spent too much to begin with.
There’s good reason for the caucus to get jumpy. On current polling, some MPs will lose their seats. That’s always a good reason to get jumpy, promising your vote to a challenger in return for a safe list spot.
But no, it’s not likely that Luxon will get rolled over these polls.
As the Herald has argued previously, the transaction cost of rolling him is simply too high. Removing a sitting Prime Minister is effectively an admission of defeat, an acknowledgment that MPs chose the wrong leader back in 2021.
Some MPs think Luxon might lose. Some MPs even think he might not retain the leadership, but as long as a majority in caucus think the disruption of switching leader is a greater drag on their polling than any gain from installing a new, better leader, Luxon is safe.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis, often thought of as a logical replacement to Luxon, had further bad news for the Government in Question Time today.
The Government’s re-election hinges on the country being “back on track” in some form by 2026. That means low inflation, low interest rates, low taxation, a growing economy and rising house prices.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon answering questions yesterday. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Recent forecasts from the Reserve Bank have suggested things are heading in this direction and that the economy in 2026 will slightly favour the incumbent.
But Willis used a patsy question to warn that things are beginning to look less rosy. While some indicators are improving, others are worsening, Willis said.
An example she cited was the Crown’s debt servicing costs.
“[The] outlook for global bond yields means that finance costs are likely to be greater than they were at the half-year update [Hyefu]. That is to say, the costs of servicing New Zealand’s debt will be higher,” Willis said.
That is concerning, with debt servicing costs already greater as a share of the economy than at any point since 1999.
Higher international bond yields ultimately mean higher funding costs for banks, which means higher mortgage rates for New Zealand borrowers, who are already frustrated at the fact today’s rates are about as good as the monetary easing cycle can deliver.
Things could get worse. Willis told the Herald on Tuesday she had yet to be briefed on the turmoil unleashed on international bond markets by the incoming German Government’s decision to loosen its constitutional debt break and borrow more money, a decision that has sent bond yields soaring.
Now, while all of this is bad news for the Government, it’s not necessarily good news for the Opposition. A squeeze on borrowing is bad for any incumbent, but it is also bad news for a Labour Party that still faces questions about its legacy of borrowing and whose leader has expressed comfort with continued borrowing (for infrastructure – a logical thing to borrow for, in fairness).
Luxon in Question Time. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Luxon and National are beginning to make that case.
National made the rare choice his week to begin posting attack ads on its social media platforms, accusing Labour of plotting tax rises (Labour admits it will run on tax reform - likely a capital gains or a wealth tax). It’s quite rare in government to spend much time attacking the Opposition mid-term. Ardern rarely commented on National’s turmoil, suggesting she was too focused on the business of government to care (not strictly true – Labour was as interested as everyone else).
It’s probably wise for National to remind voters that the alternative government has its own problems – but it is telling that instead of telling voters positive stories about the Government, it has decided to talk about the Opposition.
