A couple of weeks ago when I posted, prompted by the Victorian example, on the tactic of a party changing leaders shortly before an election, I made a point of including New Zealand in the analysis. Parties in New Zealand have engaged in late change as often as in a typical Australian state, but with almost complete lack of success. Jacinda Ardern in 2017 is the sole exception.
That record must have been in the minds of many National Party MPs this week when they confronted the question of replacing their leader, prime minister Christopher Luxon. Plots were laid against him (although exactly how many and by whom is not fully clear), and on Tuesday he called an emergency party room meeting for yesterday morning. There, he evidently stared down his rivals since he emerged with the confidence of his party, or at least a majority of it.
Defence minister Chris Penk, who apparently initiated the challenge, was promptly sacked and has now announced his retirement. But others remain in place, including the two most likely replacements for Luxon, attorney-general Chris Bishop and education minister Erica Stanford. It’s thought that the main thing preventing a successful coup was the failure of Bishop and Stanford to agree on which of them would take the top job.
Luxon became party leader in November 2021 and led National to victory two years later, although he relies on the right-liberal ACT and the far-right NZ First for his majority. With less than three months to go to the next election, scheduled for 7 November, deposing him would have been a risky move. The question now is whether the unsuccessful challenge has fatally damaged him.
Prior to this week, National’s position did not look too bad. Opinion polls show it about level with Labour, its main opponent, both tracking close to 30%. That’s a big comedown from 2023, when it beat Labour by more than 11 points, but it’s partly offset by a rise in NZ First’s support (assuming the coalition can be re-formed). There’s also the possibility of winning over the centrist Opportunity Party, if it should clear the 5% threshold for representation.
It’s true that Luxon has seemed a bit unsteady lately. He had already called and won one confidence vote back in April. Last week my friend Damien Grant referred to “his inoffensive bloodless persona that isn’t winning him credibility or popularity,” and argued that “on the macro-stuff this government’s record is poor and swapping the captain isn’t going to matter unless the trajectory is changed.” But to knife a first-term prime minister is a big step, and it’s no great surprise that National’s MPs baulked at taking it.
Also on their minds must have been New Zealand’s remarkable record of rejecting prime ministers who take on the job mid-term. There have been eight of them since the Second World War, and every one of them has gone on to lose the subsequent election – except for Geoffrey Palmer in 1990, who resigned two months before the election when facing certain defeat. By contrast, in the same period in Australia most such prime ministers have been re-elected, with William McMahon and Kevin Rudd being the only casualties.
Given those precedents, ambitious National MPs might be understandably wary about putting their hands up, and you can see why those who are nervous about their seats might decide to stick with the devil they know.
The World is Not Enough 