Government reshuffle: two overlooked aspects
Luxon’s impatience and the systemic failure of representative candidate selection
Before ANZAC Day, Christopher Luxon announced that he would reshuffle his government. Melissa Lee is losing the broadcasting portfolio that was given to Paul Goldsmith. Penny Simmonds is losing the disability portfolio, and incumbent Social Development Minister Louise Upston will get the disability area of responsibility. Many commentators welcomed the reshuffle as a good sign of strong leadership that does not tolerate incompetence. However, the reshuffle also reflects Luxon’s character flow and a systemic problem in Western democracies.
Both ministers who were demoted in the reshuffle were criticised for being incompetent. Nevertheless, in the case of Melissa Lee, this criticism might not be true. She has been one of the most senior members of the National Caucus, and after her sacking from the broadcasting role, she received support from an unexpected place. Willie Jackson, former Broadcasting Minister, expressed that Melissa Lee was indeed prepared and skilled for the job. Jackson, however, acknowledged that the sector is facing a complex challenge that is difficult for the government to navigate.
It is more difficult to see that Penny Simmonds did not look as incompetent either. She made a controversial decision and announced that some entitlements for disabled people would be cancelled. After an intense backlash from the disability community, even Simmonds herself apologised. This showed that the government withdrew from its original position. The situation did not look like anything as incompetence.
It is possible to entertain two scenarios. First, the ministers were not sacked due to incompetence. In this case, we need to find other explanations. Second, the sackings were indeed due to incompetence. In this case, it is instructive to draw some more general consequences, too.
First scenario: not incompetence, just Luxon’s impatience
If it were up to betting, I give 80% relevance to this scenario. In a former post, I wrote about the psychological problem that both Luxon and Jacinda Ardern have: escapism. When the mind faces a complex problem, it starts to distract itself. Allegedly, Melissa Lee prepared a proposal to sort out the issues of the broadcasting sector, but Luxon did not like the solution. Here, it is relevant to note that the broadcasting sector faces difficulties in New Zealand and worldwide. What is still known as television is gradually moving to YouTube and other streaming platforms. It is an open debate on how governments should react to the challenge imposed by Internet media. The Minister should likely have needed more time to understand this complexity.
In the case of the disability sector, as I was reading Penny Simmonds’ announcement, she seemed to believe the anecdotal evidence about the use of various disability allowances. For her, the rationale appeared to stop the possibly fraudulent behaviour. Nevertheless, when the sector raised their concerns over the announcement, cutting the entitlements of disabled people became a bad look for the government. After the minister apologised, the issue could have been settled. Why would the issue be a cause for dismissal anymore?
For Luxon, who is used to quick success, with his escapist tendencies, the tedious analyses about the issues did not seem a way forward. In my former analysis of his escapism, I also attributed even his quick walking pace to this psychological problem. He wants to rush things through, which is already apparent in the frequent use of urgent legislation procedures. Sorting out the complexities of the media industry and finding solutions so social benefits cannot be used in fraudulent ways are indeed difficult challenges. Luxon is simply incapable of commissioning these works. Instead, he rolls people and, at the same time, kicks the can down the road. His comments, “This is how I roll,” have more substance than he thinks.
Second scenario: incompetence, then what?
This scenario needs to be explored as well. Ben Thomas, a right-wing political advisor, suggested that sacking two ministers after five months in their roles would say quite a bit about the selection process. Although it is appealing to analyse whether Luxon was incompetent in choosing ministers carefully, I would highlight a broader problem here: the representative method for candidate selection in Western democracies.
The problem with this method is that it does not necessarily bring the best, most talented people into party lists. The most problematic “representation” of this issue is the German Minister for Foreign Affairs, Annalena Baerbock. She is widely known for her silly comments. Once, she said that Vladimir Putin should make a 360-degree turn to become a different person – LOL. In another case, she used a mistakenly translated phrase, the bacon of hope, that, of course, missed the “e” from the word “beacon.” Despite all her incompetent actions, the German Government keeps her in the role for representative purposes.
In New Zealand, the aim to have diverse and representative caucuses in parliament has already shown the problems of not securing enough talented people for Government positions. For example, in 2020, Labour achieved that the party had 65 MPs in Parliament, of which 54% were females. The party leadership was proud to have such a diverse and representative caucus. However, we should also remember the final days of the former parliament. After Michael Wood and Kiri Allan resigned, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins could not bring in new people for ministerial roles in the middle of 2023. The Labour caucus ran out of talent. Some of the existing ministers were already out of their depth. Many people were questioning the talent of Ginny Andersen as Police and Justice Minister or Jen Tinetti as Minister for Education.
The same problem might catch up with the current National-led coalition government, too. When the National Party composed its party list, diversity was again the key driver in appointing candidates for the party list. We can remember the controversial case of Michael Woodhouse, who asked for his removal from the list after he realised that the leadership did not intend to give him ministerial roles despite his experience. (Luckily, Michael Woodhouse is well now; he has started a new role as CEO of a hospital in Christchurch in April.)
Watch the space, especially because the fast-track consenting bill will likely create situations when influential ministers have to exit government …