New Zealand First are polling better in government than they ever have.
No longer encumbered by the optics of being too close to the baubles of office, its leader Winston Peters is free to control the script at a time when his coalition partners are looking tired.
One can expect that the (grand)father of the House will spend the next 18 months oscillating between the seriousness of his job as Foreign Minister and the less serious but equally important job of trolling his political opponents. So far, he’s winning.
A million or more voters would have seen Mr Peters gleefully wave an A4 print of the Soviet flag while describing the Green Party’s alternative budget; a tiny fraction would have read the 43-page manifesto.
The modern Greens are not communists or socialists; some are barely even social democrats, but that’s all beside the point. Mr Peters’ best sales pitch is that his party is neither of the main parties (who he suggests can’t be trusted) nor any of the others (who he suggests are bonkers).
They are enormous claims for the man who appears to have successfully courted the Freedom movement on his way back to Parliament.
The departure of Tanya Unkovich from the NZ First caucus comes at an opportune time for Mr Peters, who will be thinking about how to sensibly pivot his party back to the so-called political centre and by doing so claim an even bigger share of the electoral pie.
Party insiders have suggested that new list MP David Wilson will help smooth the ride. A reliable member of the party faithful who shares Mr Peters’ liberal underpinnings but frank distaste for the excess of market forces.
How might Mr Peters use his clear air to grow support for his party further?
The most obvious play is to double down on a position that his party is the only independent voice in town, with each of the major parties being dragged either left or right by the demands of smaller parties.
The coalition agreement between National and Act commits to passing a Regulatory Standards Bill as soon as is practicable.
Well, it won’t be practicable if Mr Peters decides it isn’t.
It could be his next chance to show his credentials as the voice of the people by pulling up the legislative handbrake.
For that to happen, Mr Peters needs someone from across the aisle to explain to the public, in a few sentences or less, why the Regulatory Standards Bill is not in their best interests.
Most opposition MPs have been fixated on how the Bill enhances property rights by embedding quasi-libertarian ideology into various pieces of legislation. The obvious rejoinder is that we have been doing that already for the past 40-odd years, starting with the Fourth Labour Government.
Submissions on the Bill have been notable for two reasons: how many there are and how many are vehemently opposed. Limiting the number of submitters allowed to give oral presentations and having others dismissed as bots, is neither respecting parliamentary processes, nor the people.
Questions of fairness and responsible stewardship give New Zealand First further cause to adapt their position on the Bill. Indeed, it is reverence for our political institutions that differentiates Mr Peters from the less effective theatrical populists in other parts of the liberal world.
Usually, legislation that risks upending constitutional norms would be something tested via a referendum, or at the very least, receive a clearer mandate on election night e.g. a National-Act New Zealand majority coalition.
How might the coalition partners respond if Mr Peters says that the Regulatory Standards Bill must stay on the order paper until after the next election?
In 2018, Prime Minister Ardern dismissed the failure to repeal the three strikes as "simply democracy and MMP". Prime Minister Luxon might be compelled to say something similar.
For Act leader David Seymour? Probably just the first strike.
— Dr Luke Oldfield is a lecturer of political science at Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington.
