Tail-wagging jibe may have Labour worried
The most telling line out of the Green Party's AGM held over the weekend was not its claim to be leading the opposition, nor its ambitions on leading the next government.
Such lofty goals are to be expected as all parties try to motivate members at their annual conferences.
More interesting was an observation from co-leader Marama Davidson, dropped almost as an afterthought near the end of Sunday's media conference.
"Setting the agenda isn't just about numbers," she said. "We've got a government right now whose tail is being wagged by two smaller parties."
The subtext is clear: if Act New Zealand and New Zealand First can have a disproportionate influence — as David Seymour likes to put it — then why not the Greens, alongside perhaps, Te Pāti Māori?
That framing is politically dangerous for Labour.
National will seize on it, warning of a Labour government beholden to its minor partners. Remember previous attempts to tie Labour to the Greens' wealth tax.
Those attacks might be undermined somewhat by its own coalition tensions, but they will be aided by Labour's current policy paucity.
If Labour's manifesto remains light on detail for too long, the Greens could end up setting the agenda and the terms of debate by default.
That is where the Greens' claim of opposition dominance has some merit.
They have pumped out a suite of detailed policies on tax, climate and industrial strategy this term, while Labour has deliberately kept its powder dry.
Co-leader Chloe Swarbrick pointed to this year's Budget day, claiming ministers spent most of their time talking about the Green Budget.
But that also proves the problem for Labour: Chris Hipkins and finance spokeswoman Barbara Edmonds spent weeks after the Budget being questioned about the Greens' plan, to their obvious frustration.
Labour will look to correct that imbalance as the election gets closer. But in the meantime, it risks losing support to the Greens' big talk.
Monday's Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll suggests that has not happened yet.
The poll records Labour on 33.6% — the most popular party in Parliament — with the Greens just under 10%, more than 20% behind.
That severely undercuts the Greens' self-styled role as the main force on the centre-left.
However, look deeper and the polling shows voters are lukewarm on all party leaders. Christopher Luxon and Chris Hipkins are level-pegging as preferred prime minister, but on numbers that would have been considered dire in previous cycles.
In that environment, a smaller party talking up its ability to call the shots could help mobilise its supporters — or it could alienate swing voters wary of instability.
Both would be a concern for Labour, although again, a similar tension will play out on the centre-right as well.
Ms Swarbrick's push for the Greens to reach beyond its comfort zone — to miners, mill workers, even farmers — recognises the need to expand its base.
The question is whether those voters can realistically be convinced to back a party long associated with a different set of priorities and values.
For now, the Greens remain what they have been for years: a minor party with a loyal base and a clear agenda.
Their claims on leading the opposition are more marketing than reality. Still, in a race this tight, marketing might make the difference.
• Craig McCulloch is RNZ's acting political editor.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
17 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Spine and Punishment: A review of Swarbrick v Brownlee
Analysis by Phil Smith of RNZ Parliament's Speaker, Gerry Brownlee, had a rough week. He made a series of novel, escalating rulings, with later rulings to justify the earlier ones, all after, arguably, digging himself into a procedural hole. Any discussion of it should probably start at the beginning. First though, it is plainly not easy being Parliament's Speaker. Speakers are often a lightning rod for opprobrium and discontent - and that is when they're doing well. The role walks a tightrope, caught between two sides, trying to avoid one's own natural bias; attempting to maintain order in a chaotic House that has more attention-seeking rascals than haunt a teacher's worst nightmares. The inciting debate On Tuesday, the Speaker allowed an urgent debate on the issue of New Zealand recognising Palestinian statehood. The situation in Gaza is desperate and horrific, so understandably the debate was impassioned. It probably didn't help that National Party MPs declined to contribute any speeches to the debate. Very strong language was frequent. Labour's Peeni Henare asked "how many more people will die because of the government dragging its heels?" and accused the government of "walking blissfully into the sunset of ignorance". ACT's Simon Court accused MPs of bandying around "Hamas propaganda", described Chlöe Swarbrick's description of the situation in Gaza as "hallucinating outrage", and intimated that the UN agency UNRWA was "enabling terrorism". Labour's Vanushi Walters accused the government of waiting "until the very last possible moment to make the morally correct decision". Te Pāti Māori's Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said "this is ethnic cleansing. This is genocide and apartheid, and I have never been more ashamed to be in the House than I am today." What irked the Speaker, though, was some rhetoric from Green Co-Leader Chlöe Swarbrick who said, "I will reiterate my call for the government to pick up our Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill and to sanction Israel for its war crimes. If we find six of 68 government MPs with a spine, we can stand on the right side of history". Gerry Brownlee interjected, saying: "that is completely unacceptable to make that statement. Withdraw it and apologise". Swarbrick declined to do so, and the Speaker ruled "then leave the House for the rest of the week". Hansard, which describes Parliament with Georgian nicety, records that "Chlöe Swarbrick withdrew from the Chamber." 'Spineless' There were a few different elements to that ruling, and its immediate aftermath. Let's take them in order. A wag might point out that, on paper, the ruling from the Speaker was that hoping to find six governing-party MPs with a spine was "unacceptable". Of course it was the implication rather than the literal phrase that he found problematic. The Speaker later remembered the offending phrase as that governing MPs were "spineless", which is easier to say - so let's go with that. There are many examples of MPs using similar language in Parliament to describe an MP's opponents: "get a spine", "have the guts", "spineless", "gutless", etcetera. They have been made on both sides of the House, including a few times this Parliament. Sometimes MPs are told off, sometimes no one notices. One previous Speaker, when an MP complained about the use of "spineless", ruled that the term was not disallowed at all. Upon request, the Parliamentary Library collated 17 pages of recent examples, and it wasn't exhaustive. Other claims are much more assured of getting an MP in trouble. Particularly implying dishonesty, lying, or corruption. I found no reference to insults relating to bravery in the collected Speakers' Rulings that, akin to common law, guides interpretation of Parliament's rules. Swarbrick was definitely taking a swipe, but she was also calling on governing-party MPs to break ranks and vote for a Green bill. It's an old and ineffectual political tactic - insulting your opponent into joining you. On the other hand, doing what Swarbrick suggested would take an unusually strong spine. Disobeying your own party to vote with the opposition is very rare. Tariana Turia and Marilyn Waring had spines of steel. Ejection, overreach and justification Gerry Brownlee's typical approach is to gently reprove MPs, telling them not to repeat poor behaviour - sometimes repeatedly, and with repeated final warnings. Occasionally an MP is asked to "withdraw and apologise" which is genteel parliamentary language for taking back a remark. Refusing to withdraw a remark is considered highly disorderly, whatever was said. When that happens MPs are usually asked to leave the House. But the Speaker overreacted. Speakers are only empowered to eject an MP for a single day. Gerry Brownlee jumping straight into a week's absence brought to mind the speech that former Speaker Adrian Rurawhe gave in June, when arguing against the Privileges Committee's majority recommendation to impose unprecedented punishments on three Te Pāti Māori MPs. "The Privileges Committee of the future will have a new precedent, without a doubt-a new range of penalties against members who err in the future. You can guarantee that. You can also guarantee that governments of the day, in the future, will feel very free to use those penalties to punish their opponents." A little while after Swarbrick had departed the Green's musterer Ricardo Menéndez March pointed out the punishment itself was against the rules. The Speaker returned to the Chamber, not to retract, but to justify his mistake with a brand new rule (emphasis added). "The comment that I made was that it could be for the rest of the week. That was because, while it is true the member can only be removed from the House for the sitting day, the requirement for an apology does not lapse. And so if the member comes back in tomorrow and, at the start of proceedings after the prayer, takes a Point of Order and withdraws and apologises for the offensive remark, then that will be fine. If she doesn't, then she'll be leaving the House again. "I'm not going to sit in this Chair and tolerate a member standing on her feet or his feet or their feet and saying that other members in the House are spineless. That is completely unacceptable. I made it very clear at the start of the special debate that I expected it to be conducted in a manner that was respectful of the various views that are held across the House. So I've come back in here to make it absolutely clear that there is still an expectation that there will be a withdrawal and apology; and until there is one, then the status quo will continue." Arguably, that explanation dug the procedural hole deeper. Brownlee was now demanding an apology before Swarbrick would be allowed to return. That could turn a day-long suspension into a permanent one if the MP in question decided it was an issue on which they wouldn't back down. Searching back more than 22 years and at least 585 MPs ejected from the chamber, Parliament's Library couldn't find any example of a Speaker demanding an apology before an MP could return. There's a reason for that - Brownlee's demand directly contradicts a current Speaker's Ruling (ruling 21/1, from Speaker Hunt in 2001), which concludes "where a member refused to apologise and was ordered to leave the Chamber by the Speaker, the matter is at an end at that point". Brownlee's insisting on an apology before an MP can return is both new and, in this case, retrospective and retroactive. Parliament, as an institution generally frowns on retrospective law. Gerry Brownlee has, in the past, described laws that may have effect prior to their passing as "dopey" and "the worst kind of legislation we could possibly have". Ejection redux: Naming On Wednesday, the House began with the Speaker inviting Swarbrick again to "withdraw and apologise for an offensive comment made in the House yesterday". She declined again. Therefore, he again required her to leave the chamber. At this point Chris Hipkins tried to raise a Point of Order, but the Speaker declined to hear it. A very brief standoff ensued when Swarbrick stayed put, which only escalated things further. The Speaker asked "Is the member refusing to leave the House?" No response was recorded in the video or Hansard. Brownlee continued, "I therefore name Chlöe Swarbrick". Naming is more serious than just being kicked out. It includes a loss of both a day's wages and the ability to vote or participate in committees or the House. Only the House can name a member, so a vote was required. The vote was contested and a party vote showed the governing parties in favour and opposition parties against. Swarbrick departed to a call of "Free Palestine" and some applause. Brownlee is a former classroom teacher, and - nodding back to the metaphor we began with - it's not a great sign when a teacher ejects a student from class and the departing student is applauded on their way. Once Swarbrick had departed Chris Hipkins rose again with a Point of Order. Parliament's rules (The Standing Orders) include a specific wording for the vote to name a member. Brownlee had evidently been flustered and bumbled it. "So I wonder," asked Hipkins, "whether you could indicate to us what the motion that the House just voted on actually was, because if it was the one that you spoke, it doesn't have the effect that you think it does". This brings to mind Inigo Montoya in the Princess Bride telling Vizzini "I do not think it means what you think it means". Inconceivable! Brownlee had a second crack at it, and there was another vote, with the same result. Reflections on the Speaker Chris Hipkins rose again with a second Point of Order, which began a broader discussion about the correctness and appropriateness of the Speaker's ruling. This itself was unusual. When an issue has been raised in the House it is not unusual for there to be a few contesting Points of Order before the Speaker makes a ruling. But after a Speaker makes a ruling such challenges are only allowed formally, by a later motion with notice (Speakers' Ruling 25/1). By contrast, on Wednesday there was an extended debate on the appropriateness and the correctness of the Speaker's fractions and rulings. That debate only drew out more contestable rulings. The core of Hipkins' Point of Order was whether the Speaker, in demanding an apology the following day, was acting in contravention of the rules. "I've been in the House quite a long time and there have been plenty of instances where members have been ejected from the Chamber for the rest of the day for doing exactly what Chlöe Swarbrick did. There is not a single instance where a member has been asked to withdraw and apologise the following sitting day, and then named for not doing that. "There has only been one instance that I can recall where a member was subsequently asked to withdraw a comment, and that was the Rt Hon John Key when he said that members of the Opposition supported rapists and murderers. At the time, he received a standing ovation from the National Party. That was a very controversial matter, and it was at least a week later that the Speaker asked him to withdraw and apologise in order to restore order in the House, which had been lost. "I think the naming of a member for something they had done the day before is not something that has ever happened in the House before. I wonder whether you can reflect on what precedent or Standing Order you're relying on in asking Chlöe Swarbrick to apologise for something [done] the day before, because I did check the Speakers' Rulings, and Jonathan Hunt back in 2001 specifically ruled that 'where a member refused to apologise and was ordered to leave the Chamber by the Speaker, the matter is at an end at that point' [Speakers Ruling 21/1]. So that has been the established practice of the House since 2001, and I wonder if you could indicate why that has changed." Speakers' Rulings referenced in this article are quoted in full at the bottom. Brownlee responded "because the Standing Orders Committee met in July of 2017 and brought down a new Speaker's ruling, Speaker's Ruling 23/1. I refer the member to that." A new Speaker's Ruling (23/1) was added in 2017, but it has two problems. Firstly, it plainly did not supersede the 21/1 ruling (that being sent out is the end of the matter), because 21/1 is still extant in the Speaker's Rulings. Kieran McAnulty also pointed out the contradiction. Brownlee disagreed. Furthermore, 23/1 doesn't seem at all relevant. It reflects the John Key situation that Hipkins referred to. It allows a Speaker to deal with a situation retrospectively but assumes it hasn't already been dealt with. And it has conditions. It is to be used only in serious cases, and only where not doing so would have a continued impact on the House's ability to conduct its business. In the John Key situation the Opposition were so offended at the Speaker's refusal to demand a retraction that they walked out en masse. The Speaker asked Key to apologise later to restore order. The Swarbrick situation had been dealt with at the time. Unlike Key, Swarbrick had been ejected from the Chamber. Hipkins and Menéndez March both argued against this unusual ruling. Menéndez March immediately and Hipkins later. Hipkins argued that "The [23/1] ruling ... specifically states that the threshold should be very, very high for that type of action. There was no disorder in the House once Chlöe Swarbrick had left yesterday, nor was there any today. The very high threshold that was envisaged by the Standing Orders Committee at the time certainly does not appear to have been met in this instance." Menéndez March, referring to the condition that acting retrospectively was only allowable if not doing so would affect the House's ability to function, asked: "Is it your view that this meets that threshold?" The Speaker's answer to Menéndez March took the debate somewhere new. Unprecedented? The Speaker did not attempt to argue the facts or the rules, he went with a claim that Swarbrick's behaviour was ... newly offensive. "If that's how the member wants to take it, but if you think about the comment that was made, 68 members of this House were accused of being spineless. There has never been a time when personal insults like that delivered inside a speech were accepted by this House, and I'm not about to start accepting it." Setting standards in the Debating Chamber is the Speaker's prerogative, but it was far from the first time that such a comment had been made. Remember the 17 pages of occasions referenced by the library? Gerry Brownlee has himself questioned the courage of his opponents en masse, but couched in slightly politer terms. First on his feet to respond was an unexpected ally for the Opposition - Winston Peters (who typically has no time for the Greens). "Mr Speaker, I've been in this House when a Prime Minister accused the Opposition of [needing to] '[get] some guts' - it was a serious accusation; nothing happened - and then, worse, I've heard the "c" word being accepted as language that can be used in this House. My personal view is that I don't agree with a thing that Chlöe Swarbrick said at all, but this is a robust House where people have a right to express their views as passionately as they may, within certain rules. But I do not think that eviction was warranted. That's my position." As it happens, the "c" word, as Peters referred to it, was used again later in this debate without remark. Winston Peters' confidence may come from the fact that he himself has called governments and government MPs spineless, in both a General Debate and in Question Time - without punishment. On the other hand, confusingly, his party had also just voted that Swarbrick be "named". As a result of that contradiction, Menéndez March inquired whether the vote to name Swarbrick could be taken again. The Speaker did not allow this. Brownlee did not respond to Peters' opinion, other than to introduce some context for the new interpretation of Parliament's rules. The Speaker's context, and a new decency? "There [are] considerable efforts being made at the moment," said Brownlee, "across the Parliamentary Service to deal with what might be described as cyberbullying, and, essentially, what it comes down to is a question of: 'what standard does the House want to set for itself?' I've decided that there are two things that can be looked at. One is that if there are interjections across the House and they are reactionary ... then that is not as egregious as someone taking their speaking time to include a gratuitous insult inside a speech. That is, in my opinion, from this point on-while I'm in the Chair-unacceptable. I take the point the member makes about the House being a robust place-it most certainly is. But if members are going to be disrespectful of one another in such a demonstrable way, then how on earth can we be upset about members of the public taking a similar approach to dealing with MPs?" Within the above quote is another new edict from the Speaker (emphasis added). The Speaker also noted on Wednesday that, in the wake of Tuesday's Palestine Debate and his ejection of Swarbrick, he had raised the issue in the cross-party Business Committee. "There's a point where things change, and I've reached the conclusion that we had so many threats and other stuff being directed at members of Parliament that if we don't change behaviour in here, nothing will change outside. So that is part of my rationale as well, and I made that very clear to the Business Committee yesterday." The Speaker participated in a recent forum with other MPs on the subject of cyberbullying. We reported on it at the time. Apparently, he took to heart the impact of hateful communication on some (particularly female) MPs. It is well-intentioned to posit that if MPs were polite about each other's policies and beliefs, then trolls and lunatics would no longer send them hate mail and death-threats. It seems a little hopeful, but modelling respectful behaviour is a nice start. However, opting to begin a campaign to make female MPs feel safe by coming down like a tonne of bricks on a female MP, (probably one of the female MPs most commonly attacked online), may have missed the mark. Regardless, the Speaker's role includes maintaining "order and decorum in the House", so setting standards (within the rules), is fair enough. But again, while the intent is good, it is a post-hoc ruling, and given after the punishment. If that ruling and warning had been made before he sanctioned Swarbrick it may have made a lot more sense to everyone. The debate with the Speaker on this matter continued for quite a while. We can't include it all. But two more moments are worthy of note. First, Kieran McAnulty wondered how a punishment could be escalated when the original punishment was itself outside the rules. Brownlee's response included more new rules. "...The fact that someone is asked to leave the House for a comment that has caused offence, and they do so for that day, does not mean that the offence has gone away. That can be a new thing written into the Speakers' rulings, if that's what it takes ... and there is a huge difference between the sort of commentary that you get by way of interjection-which should be rare and has become far too frequent-and a comment that is inside a speech delivered deliberately to the House." Those are both new ideas, and again, they are retroactive. One more moment worthy of noting was when Labour maverick Willie Jackson offered his own experience. "With respect, I think that this is outrageous. I ask you, with respect, to reconsider this, given that you have kicked me out twice for calling another member a liar, and then I've been out of the House for less than 30 minutes and you gave a direction that I could come back into the House. We need some clarity on this. This is incredibly unfair that I can call another member a liar, rightfully get kicked out of the House, and asked to come back into the House within half an hour, with no apology required. ... I did not apologise and I would never apologise." Possibly at the core of all of this is a confluence of factors. The war in Gaza is a highly emotive issue, and, as Brownlee termed it, a "tragedy of humanity". It's surely an issue where every MP, regardless of their current relative power, probably feels powerless to genuinely effect useful change. That combination of impotence and tragedy is quite a tinderbox to toss provocations into. There were plenty of provocations. In retrospect it seems odd that, of all the statements made in Tuesday's Palestine Debate, the Speaker did not react to Simon Court accusing MPs of repeating "Hamas propaganda"; or Peeni Hemare claiming that people were dying "as a result of" the government's reluctance to act. He did though ask Court to withdraw his claim that Swarbrick was "hallucinating outrage". Instead it was a challenge to not be spineless that sparked the whole affair. As the Speaker admitted, it was a very personal reaction: "That, I think, in the context of that debate, was completely unacceptable, and - I've got to be quite straight up with you - I personally found it deeply offensive." Spare a thought for Parliament's Clerk's who will have the job of untangling all those new rulings and deciding which to include in the official guide to Speaker's Rulings, and which rules they may supersede. Speakers' Rulings referenced above Speakers Rulings are a collection of important decisions made by various past Speakers that are used to guide the current interpretation of the Parliament rules (The Standing Orders). They are akin to the Common Law of previous judicial decisions that can influence future interpretation of legislation in the courts. 21/1 Where a member has been asked to apologise and has left the Chamber rather than comply, the Speaker always insists that the member return to the Chamber and apologise. Members cannot avoid complying with the Speaker's direction by just leaving the Chamber. (But where a member refused to apologise and was ordered to leave the Chamber by the Speaker, the matter is at an end at that point). 2001, Vol. 596, p.13100. Hunt. 23/1 We consider, however, that the Speaker is able to deal retrospectively in the House with matters of order if the Speaker considers it important and in the House's interests to do so. The Speaker's primary task is to preside over the effective conduct of proceedings. Where an incident may have a continued impact on the House's ability to deal with its business, the Speaker can address the matter. Retrospective intervention by the Speaker should be infrequent and used only in serious cases. In such situations, the Speaker could ask the offending member to withdraw and apologise, or could take stronger action if necessary. Members should raise such issues privately with the Speaker, outside the House. This ensures that the prohibition on retrospective points of order remains undisturbed, and members can discuss their concerns with the Speaker away from the charged atmosphere of the Chamber. There is still, of course, a strong presumption that points of order will be raised immediately. Report of the Standing Orders Committee, July 2017 (I.18A), p. 14. 25/1 (1) The Speaker's ruling may be challenged only by a direct motion with notice; (2) such notice cannot be accepted immediately after the ruling has been given. It must be given at the appropriate time. (1) 1891, Vol. 72, p. 7. Steward. 1903, Vol. 125, p. 523. Guinness. 1931, Vol. 228, p. 725. Statham. 2017, Vol. 726, p. 733. Mallard. (2) 1960, Vol. 322, pp. 161-62. Macfarlane.
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Ardern and Hipkins are afraid of being honest with us about their Covid decisions - Heather du Plessis-Allan
Former Labour ministers, including Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins, have refused to appear publicly at the Covid inquiry. Photo / Mark Mitchell THE FACTS If the four former Labour ministers thought they would preserve their reputations by refusing to appear publicly before the Covid inquiry, they have misjudged it. It is a refusal, by the way, not a declining. A request to appear before a Royal Commission of Inquiry is not like
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Shane Te Pou: 6 ways Christopher Luxon can save his Prime Ministership
Luxon spent enough time in corporate management to know that a CEO delivering numbers like that is in danger of getting the chop. He also likes to boast of his credentials in doing 'turnaround jobs'. Well, he needs one now. So, how can Luxon get his Prime Ministership 'back on track'? It's the economy, stupid New Zealand's economy isn't just bad – it's one of the worst in the developed world. We had a deep recession last year; other countries did not. And we're looking at round two. Partly, that's due to the Government suddenly cancelling, delaying or scaling back a bunch of infrastructure work, which contributed to the large loss of construction jobs. Partially, it's soaring energy prices killing our manufacturing sector. You can launch all the policies with energetic names like Investment Boost and Going for Growth you like; it doesn't matter if none of them move the needle. You spend your time trying to blame Labour for spending during a pandemic, while borrowing even more yourself for tax cuts; it doesn't create a single job. You can't spin away a crisis. It's time to take this seriously. Increase government investment and fix the energy shortage. Talk to us like adults You can practically hear the groans across the suburbs each Monday morning as Luxon whines 'well, what I would just say to you is' before repeating the same old talking points on his weekly media round. You're not trying to sell us soap, Mr Luxon. Show us you have a brain and treat us like we have brains, too. Give us genuine, considered thoughts and answers on the issues facing New Zealand. Is Christopher Luxon looking likely to be the first National Prime Minister to last only one term? Photo / Mark Mitchell Have a heart Before the National Party conference, party president Sylvia Wood said the problem is voters aren't seeing Luxon's 'humanity'. I agree. It's hard to see the humanity when he labels poor New Zealanders as 'bottom-feeders', scraps the pay equity process for 180,000 low-income workers and restricts access to emergency housing. If he is a humane guy, it's time to show it. As a Christian, Luxon must know Matthew 7:16: 'By their deeds you will know them.' Spend more time at home When Luxon said he was going to be a Prime Minister who didn't spend a lot of time inside the Wellington beltway, I don't think many of us realised just how far away he planned to be. I'm a man who likes to travel, but Luxon is taking it too far. At least one overseas trip a month, often on some pretty thin premises (what was he doing in Papua New Guinea the other week?) and with very little to show for it in diplomatic outcomes. Spend less time in the Koru Club and more time at the desk. Don't be afraid to change direction No one could accuse Luxon and his ministers of lacking self-confidence. They've ripped up ferry contracts, water reforms, light rail plans, the state house building programme, the RMA Act, the NCEA and more – all with the blithe assumption that they'll come up with something better. It's not exactly working out great, eh? Maybe it's time to revisit some of those impulsive decisions. Maybe it wasn't a great idea to borrow $14 billion for tax cuts and increase the Government's debt. Maybe, it's time to have the humility to adopt some of the Opposition's ideas, rather than reflexively scoffing at them. Pull the minor parties into line Luxon failed from the start to exert any authority over Act and New Zealand First's ministers. Casey Costello's dealings with tobacco companies should've seen her sacked. Karen Chhour's bootcamps disgrace would normally see the portfolio taken off her. Luxon's done nothing. Yeah, Winston Peters and David Seymour can threaten to pull down the Government if Luxon disciplines their ministers. But would they? It would cost them more than him. Have some guts – look them in the eye and see who blinks first. All is not lost for Luxon. But he's looking more and more likely to be the first National PM to last only one term, or less, unless he changes his ways.
