From bed taxes to social media bans to a proposed MMP referendum, National’s coalition partners are increasingly willing to break ranks – and speak out, writes Henry Oliver in today’s excerpt from The Bulletin.
To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.
Perhaps it was always going to happen. As the election approaches, coalition partners naturally begin to differentiate themselves from each other, trying to hold onto their bases and maybe even win some support from their colleagues. But the past week or so has seen an unusually public display of discord within the government, with NZ First leader Winston Peters leading the charge against his own coalition partners.
The most direct confrontation this week came over the bed tax. On Sunday, Christopher Luxon announced there would be “no new taxes” – including a bed tax – if National was re-elected, a reversal that was received poorly by the tourism sector and some local mayors.
And Winston Peters. “A deal is a deal,” he wrote on X. The signed deal with Auckland states that these levies “will be considered by the government in 2027 – nothing has changed,” he wrote, RNZ’s Giles Dexter reported. “The GOVERNMENT has NOT considered it yet. If other parties want to campaign on reneging on the deal to even consider the levy that’s up to them. But in NZ First we believe a deal is a deal.” He accused the Prime Minister of going back on his word. “When he made that statement, he was talking on behalf of the government, and we’re going to make sure the government keeps its word.”
Infrastructure minister Chris Bishop accepted there was “a bit of friction” between what the government signed up to and what National is now saying.
National reliant on Labour and Opportunity to like and subscribe to the social media ban?
The government’s planned under-16s social media ban has also exposed divisions within the coalition. As discussed yesterday, ACT and NZ First both oppose the ban, and within minutes of Monday’s announcement, both leaders had publicly ruled out supporting it, with Peters going so far as to say it would “lead to a Soviet-era outcome”.
National proceeded alone, using the “agree to disagree” provision in its coalition agreement. When asked by RNZ if he would look to negotiate any future agreements to prevent National from going at it alone again, Peters claimed Luxon “doesn’t seem to understand” how MMP works. “In all the other negotiations we’ve had and arrangements we’ve had, this has not happened, so we’re just going to point out the defect and make sure that it happens in the right way.”
Unable to rely on its coalition the move backfired when Labour announced it would support the bill at first reading – only for the government to say there was no time to bring it to a vote before Parliament rises, 1News reported yesterday. The only other party to offer support was Opportunity, another party Luxon has ruled out, with leader Qiulae Wong promising to back the legislation as far as Select Committee, as reported by RNZ.
A ‘gross waste of money’, MMP, numpties and yahoos
Peters has also been critical of the Government’s handling of the Auckland harbour crossing. Stuff reported that he called the Government’s decision a “gross waste of money”, adding to the perception of a prime minister and a party struggling to keep his coalition partners on side.
But maybe the most significant fracture came when Luxon promised a referendum on MMP if re-elected. Peters called it “inexplicable” and a “power grab”, RNZ reported. Posting to Facebook, Peters praised MMP for breaking the “stranglehold of two parties running roughshod over our economy without social licence”.
Seymour similarly was unimpressed at Luxon’s mention on Newstalk ZB of having to work with “some yahoo and numpty”, telling RNZ: “Ultimately, New Zealand is going to need us to work together. It would just be easier if people pointed the finger at what we’re achieving for this country, which is significant, instead of pointing the finger at each other.”
