It is no secret that I am somewhat less than enthusiastic about NZ First. Scratch that. It is no secret that I am opposed to the party.
So today’s announcement by Christopher Luxon about his willingness to work with Winston Peters and NZ First post-election isn’t exactly a great start to the week.
Personal preferences aside, the situation offers an insight into the contrasting leadership styles of John Key, the last National leader to win a general election, and Christopher Luxon, odds on to be the next. So often their similarities are noted and these do exist. More interesting, however, are the differences.
Key, a former foreign exchange trader, was known for his willingness to take risks. He was confident and possessed a gambler's spirit. This was evident in 2008 when he boldly ruled out Winston Peters, despite the uncertainty that he might need Peters' support to form a government.
This was a gamble. It could have backfired and NZ First came very close to getting back in that year. As history notes, he won that gamble.
However, Key's risk-taking approach did not always pay dividends. His initiative to change the flag was a gamble that didn't pay off. Fortunately it was an issue of smaller significance that ended up as a footnote in his career.
Luxon is not a gambler. Chief Executive Officers are much less likely to be that way. . As leaders of organisations, CEOs are responsible for making strategic decisions that ensure sustainable growth. This requires a level of prudence, foresight, and strategic thinking that is fundamentally different from a high-risk, high-reward mentality. They are tasked with reducing uncertainty and managing risk.
So in that regard, Luxon’s announcement, made on social media where he could control the message, represents a more cautious and measured approach. It reflects a pragmatic mindset, considering all potential paths to power, even if it means collaborating with a party that some of us in the conservative bloc find difficult to endorse.
This cautiousness is not necessarily a negative trait. It reflects a leader who is focused on the bigger picture, willing to make uncomfortable decisions and compromises if it means steering the country in an overall direction that aligns with his vision.
Luxon's approach is far from unprecedented. Bill English was open to negotiations with Winston Peters. That’s probably part of why John Key retired so unexpectedly in 2016. Jacinda Ardern had few qualms either. And as would Chris Hipkins had Winston Peters not so overtly rejected him.
National will hope that Luxon's decision to clarify his position on working with Peters and NZ First eliminates brings an end to the questions. Probably it will raise more. What would a political alliance with Peters look like in practice? Would Peters demand a formal coalition agreement, or would he settle for a confidence-and-supply arrangement? Would he be willing to be subordinate to David Seymour in the pecking order?
Luxon may not possess John Key’s instincts.
But in fairness, that’s why I have supported Luxon. This country faces intricate, systemic problems, particularly public sector reform, that require a leader with a knack for organisational thinking. These challenges do not call for impulsive decision-making; instead, they require a pragmatic, measured approach of a seasoned executive. And that’s what Luxon did today by keeping his options so open.
But for those of us who have reservations about New Zealand First, it is a bitter pill to swallow.