For two years and six months the three parties governing New Zealand in coalition have defied most predictions and remained a remarkably stable troika.
Many observers assumed that a clash between New Zealand First leader Winston Peters and Act New Zealand leader David Seymour would sound the coalition’s death knell, the two men having very different political and philosophical bases and clashing personalities.
However, they seem to have been able to agree to disagree with some amount of collegiality, and the unorthodox arrangement whereby the two men have shared the deputy prime ministership has been put into effect without undue disruption.
Instead, as the November 7 election nears the tensions which have risen to the surface have been between National and New Zealand First.
National in general, and Finance Minister Nicola Willis especially, have been vocal in emphasising policy differences in recent days. On Wednesday in particular, during a general debate speech in the House, Ms Willis declaimed that New Zealand First was on the wrong side of history in its opposition to the free trade agreement with India, before doubling down and condemning the party’s deputy leader Shane Jones for his shameful rhetoric on the subject.
While we agree with Ms Willis on both these points, it is one thing for a newspaper to editorialise on a subject and quite another for National’s deputy leader to call out a coalition partner’s behaviour in such a public manner.
Arguably, New Zealand First is only getting what it asked for. Mr Peters did not have to offer Prime Minister Christopher Luxon any helpful advice, as he did via the news media, on how to handle leadership ructions in the National caucus.
Then came revelations yesterday that the two men had had a difference of opinion about how to respond to the attacks by the United States and Israel on Iran. Emails showed that Mr Peters wanted New Zealand to remain non-committed on the issue, while Mr Luxon wanted to consider the possibility of expressing support for the strikes.
That the two men had the discussion, and that there was a difference of opinion, should come as no surprise.
Any prime minister is de facto effectively an associate foreign affairs minister as they regularly represent the country overseas, host visiting dignitaries, speak with foreign leaders, and are regularly asked questions about New Zealand’s diplomatic approach.
And any foreign affairs minister, naturally, is a minister with whom the prime minister will consult before a government position is established.
What makes this situation different is twofold.
Firstly, Mr Peters was overseas when the bombs and missiles started raining down, so the discussion was carried out via email.
Secondly, that ‘‘paper’’ trail has been subsequently released, something that is highly unusual given the Official Information Act’s first reason for the withholding of government communications is that to do so could prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or the international relations of the government of New Zealand.
This type of high level discussion seldom sees the light of day, for obvious reasons. That it did has raised some excitement, and Mr Peters has acknowledged that it probably should not have been released.
The actual discussion itself should not have got some people as exercised as they have been. In any decision-making process consideration should be given to differing approaches and actions and their possible outcomes and ramifications.
While the agreed outcome might not be to everyone’s satisfaction, as this crisis has unfolded non-committal seems an entirely reasonable position to have taken.
The bigger concern is that this posturing between New Zealand First and National as each party gears up to contest the political centre during the election campaign could serve as a distraction from the ongoing economic crisis the war in the Gulf has caused.
Mr Luxon is fond of saying that New Zealanders want their politicians focusing on what matters to them rather than on political distractions.
Much of this week’s politics seems to have been entirely a distraction, with people who should be focused on exigencies instead dealing with ephemera.
