Chaos? Not so far for coalition govt

In its last sitting days, Parliament ushered through a wholesale repeal of former government legislation which made former Prime Minister Chris Hipkins’ policy bonfire look like the striking of a single match.

Out have gone Fair Pay Agreements, RMA reform, and the so-called "ute tax", and in have come 90-day trials and a single mandate for the Reserve Bank.

As the coalition government enjoys barbecue season it can look at its 100-day plan and rest easy knowing that several of the things that it pledged to do have already been achieved.

Labour, on the other hand, will be gnawing on a burnt snag, the ashes of electoral defeat still bitter in its mouth.

Of the three governing parties, National is riding high — although recent polling has to be taken with a pinch of salt given the election-winning major partner is still well within its honeymoon period.

The status of the other two governing parties is more interesting, given the unfortunate history of MMP swallowing up and spitting out governmental help mates.

New Zealand First has not been a major feature in the legislative process as yet but it has had quite a presence around the House, thanks in no small part to its leader Winston Peters having often filled in for Prime Minister Christopher Luxon.

Mr Peters did well in the coalition talks: he got the jobs he wanted personally, and the portfolios allotted to New Zealand First ministers fit both the party’s policy agenda and their individual abilities well.

He has been his usual abrasive self — especially with the media — but he also gives the impression that he is having a rollicking good time, especially when needling the Opposition. His vitality belies his venerable years.

This plays well to his base, which at this point will have few regrets for their party vote. New Zealand First’s big tests loom next year though, when it will need to rack up a few Bills through the House to demonstrate that it is an integral part of the government.

Act New Zealand, by contrast, has had a lower profile, its effervescent leader David Seymour necessarily commanding less of the House’s time, given his new responsibilities.

Act has, however, been on the repeal ramparts, most notably Seymour’s deputy Brooke van Velden, who has sat through some long committee of the whole sessions.

Whether you agree with her or not — and many will not — there is a certain refreshing quality to Ms van Velden’s "there’s a new sheriff in town" attitude, such as telling the House that she did indeed see advice on reinstating 90-dy trial periods but rejected it because she did not agree with it.

Act was, arguably, the party which had the most to lose as the coalition formed, its dwindling support in the pre-election period weakening its hand.

But it too emerged with most of the portfolios it wanted, and it is Act’s manifesto commitments which have most clearly been met so far in the early days of the new government.

It has also had an early chance to legislate, introducing the aforementioned 90-day trial periods.

That said, Act has an ambitious reform programme and is faced with the prospect of having to convince the "handbrake" — Mr Peters — to go along with it. It too, has sterner challenges ahead.

Among the policies likely to be advanced by the new government early in the new year are creating a new national infrastructure agency, introducing its own version of RMA reform, changing housing policy, rewriting the Arms Act, scrapping Te Pukenga, and somehow navigating its way through the myriad of Bill of Rights issues raised by its plans to crack down on gangs.

But that is for later. For now, the so-called "coalition of chaos" can reflect on a relatively orderly first few weeks in power and will most likely consider 2023 a job well done.