Winston Peters achieved two things with his controversial social media post this week. He threw some meat to a cohort of voters that secured his return to Parliament and backed both National and Act’s leaders into a corner.
Christopher Luxon got a taste of what’s to come when Winston Peters made him look indecisive before he’s even been sworn in as Prime Minister.
When Peters tweeted outrage at not being told about the email and manifesto received by Jacinda Ardern’s office just ahead of the Christchurch mosque attacks, and the subsequent 111 phone call from Parliament, he was looking to reclaim the narrative.
Peters, who was deputy prime minister at the time, should have known about it the following day (possibly even earlier if his staff had passed the information onto him) when Ardern made the information public.
The contents of the 111 call were revealed for the first time this week during the coronial inquest, which was the only new piece of information, and any concerns Peters had about not being told by Ardern sooner should have been raised in 2019 if they were considered that much of a problem.
All of that is beside the point, because Peters wasn’t casting doubt on the timeline of those events in a bid to unearth something that wasn’t previously released, but in a nod to voters who have very different theories, however unproven they might be.
READ MORE: * Winston Peters now on Luxon's speed dial * Luxon: ‘Our children can grow up to live the lives they dream of’ * Bittersweet election night wins for Greens
Those voters with their own interpretations of Ardern’s worldview, Covid-19, and the role of the state, flocked in droves to New Zealand First this year.
Peters took their concerns about vaccine injuries and made promises around inquiries and compensation, which nobody else within a shot of returning to Parliament was willing to do.
Peters almost certainly has no plans to govern for them and their theories, but an easy way to keep them on side is to throw them a bone or two in the form of political rhetoric, knowing full well he has a platform that means his message will be amplified.
His initial tweet and subsequent follow-ups poking (non-existent) holes in the order of events on March 15 have achieved his first goal of keeping happy those who put him back in Parliament.
The other box he’s ticked is sucking up all the media oxygen at a time when Luxon suggested there would be no politics reported.
The past two weeks have been a nothing period while the incoming government waits for special votes.
In just one tweet Peters showed Luxon he can make the narrative about anything he wants it to be, especially when there is no other political news.
For the most part any talks have been between National and Act, with New Zealand First MPs all taking a break this week.
Luxon has been adamant this period would be done differently and there wouldn’t be “blow-by-blow” accounts of the meetings in the media.
He’s achieved that for himself and for the most part Seymour, except for the Act leader's offering some views on National’s tax plan, a climate adaptation special inquiry, and significant changes to the Reserve Bank.
But any suggestion Peters would quietly adhere to Luxon’s radio silence order was naïve from the outset.
This is precisely the period when Peters needs oxygen because that’s what gives him leverage in any negotiation talks.
In just one tweet Peters showed Luxon he can make the narrative about anything he wants it to be, especially when there is no other political news.
But even more telling than the tweet and how wide it went, was the response from Luxon and Seymour.
Radio silence.
Luxon’s office refused to make him available for the two days after Peters’ comments and Seymour turned down media requests as well.
Fearful of how Peters might react if either were to call the tweets incorrect, unhelpful, or misleading, the pair took an oath of silence.
The result was Peters looking dominant, and Luxon and Seymour looking weak for not calling him out.
But this is not new – it’s exactly how things operated last time New Zealand First was in office.
During the Labour-New Zealand First coalition of 2017-2020 there were several occasions where the two parties took very different positions from each other and in one instance the “agree to disagree” provision was invoked.
Collective Cabinet responsibility has rules but more than once they became more like guidelines, such as when Peters repeatedly advocated for the country to move out of level 2 and into level 1 at a faster pace.
That was not the decision Cabinet had made, based on advice from the Director General of Health, but Jacinda Ardern didn’t discipline or reprimand Peters for it.
In 2019 New Zealand First opposed an 11 percent tobacco excise and made its position clear by invoking the “agree to disagree” provision.
Peters and his New Zealand First ministers escaped any repercussions or blowback from Ardern during that term because it was easier for the Prime Minister to say it was a 'party' point of a difference, not division within the government.
She returned on many occasions to her stock standard response of “that’s for the New Zealand First leader to answer” whenever media questioned the actions of her New Zealand First ministers.
Luxon will operate the same policy in his likely three-party government, and Peters knows this, which is why he’s already flexing his muscles.
The only other option for Luxon ahead of a government being formed is publicly calling Peters out, and it doesn’t take three guesses to work out exactly how that would end.
