Like clockwork, Peters has started distancing NZ First from its coalition partners while doubling down on identity politics and anti-immigration, writes Catherine McGregor in today’s extract from The Bulletin.
To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.
Putting distance between Peters and his partners
Foreign diplomats joke about the “two Winston Peters”, Andrea Vance writes – the polished foreign minister they see overseas, and “the domestic fire-starter” who reappears between trips to attack his coalition partners. Over the past month, it’s the second Winston who’s been visible as he dismissed National’s talk of asset sales as “tawdry and silly”, criticised the government for failing to revive growth, and reprimanded his prime minister over the wording of a tweet. Peters has continued to show disloyalty to his own coalition in recent days, denouncing the Regulatory Standards Bill straight after voting it through.
In the Sunday Star-Times (paywalled), Vance calls this “the start of a familiar manoeuvre”: Peters stepping back from areas where the government is exposed, then pivoting to the issues he has relied on for decades – immigration, identity and cultural grievance.
Will anti-immigration rhetoric work again?
Like clockwork, Peters is dusting off the immigration playbook that has defined his career. He is again talking about “Kiwi values” tests for new migrants and in July told the Herald that “careless immigration policies” are “transforming cities” and “changing centuries of development and social life”. If we were in Europe, Peters would fit alongside hard-right politicians Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders, argues Vance. “Here, he’s indulged as a roguish throwback. People are fooled because his economic nationalism softens the edges. He insists NZ First are patriots, not xenophobes.”
What makes Peters’ anti-immigration pitch so striking is how far it diverges from current reality: rather than an influx, New Zealand is “bleeding people overseas” and suffering a labour shortage. Still, Peters isn’t backing down, especially over Indian immigration. “This puts National and Act in a bind,” Vance writes. “Both rely heavily on Indian and Chinese voters, communities that turned up for National in 2023, and which Act continues to court with evangelical zeal. Both also need immigration to keep the economy from stalling completely.”
Leaving the Labour door ajar
Although Peters and Labour continue to snipe at each other, there’s significant ideological overlap between the two parties on a number of issues, writes Jamie Ensor in the Weekend Herald (paywalled). Both want the Regulatory Standards Act gone. Both oppose asset sales. Both have floated versions of a Future Fund. When David Seymour said it “sounds like he’s getting ready to go with Labour again”, Peters laughed it off. But while Peters has ruled out working with Chris Hipkins “permanently”, a Labour party led by someone else could still be a potential suitor – though Ensor admits a Labour leadership change looks unlikely.
More plausibly, Ensor suggests NZ First is positioning itself to appeal to Labour’s old working-class vote in the regions. The appearance of former Labour minister Stuart Nash at NZ First’s conference – though later disowned by Peters – underscored the kind of voter Peters is courting.
NZ First-Act tensions burst back into view
Seymour’s dig about NZ First heading back to Labour should be seen in light of recent polling, writes RNZ’s Craig McCulloch. The rivalry between the two is intensifying as polls show NZ First climbing while Act loses ground; both leaders know there’s only so many disaffected, anti-establishment voters to go around. As McCulloch puts it: “It does Seymour no harm to remind those voters that Peters has gone with Labour before, and could do so again. Just the seed of doubt could be enough to win some over to the Act camp.”
The squabble suggests a tense year ahead for the coalition, and Peters and Seymour need to take care not to detonate the relationship entirely, McCulloch says. “All signs are that all three coalition parties will need each other again if they are to hold on to power next year.”
