Christopher Luxon’s Clare Curran moment, can he recover? – Audrey Young
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon at his post-Cabinet press conference yesterday.
Christopher Luxon’s stumbling through answers about New Zealand’s position on the attack on Iran was reminiscent of Clare Curran’s politically fatal stumbling in Parliament when answering questions as a minister, only worse.
It was worse because he is the Prime Minister and she was just a junior minister outside Cabinet.
It was worse because he was explaining New Zealand’s position on the most important global issue of our time and she was talking about her use of Gmail for ministerial business.
It was worse than Luxon’s previous low performance, his painfully bad interview just over a year ago when he would not answer repeated questions from NewstalkZB’s Mike Hosking about whether he would have sacked Andrew Bayly as a minister had Bayly not resigned.
Luxon was flummoxed at his post-Cabinet press conference yesterday after a verbal flourish which, on the face of it, appeared to switch New Zealand’s position from fence-sitting for the US-led bombing campaign to unconditional support.
“We’ve had a long-standing commitment under successive Governments that any actions [my emphasis] that stops Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is a good thing. Any actions … to stop them from sponsoring terrorism is a good thing. Any actions to stop them from killing their own people is a good thing.”
To test the proposition of Luxon’s switch from fence-sitting to unequivocal and unconditional support, one reporter asked him if he would support, say, carpet bombing.
That is when Luxon’s brain and mouth became disconnected. He gabbled and resorted to one of his go-to phrases, usually reserved for the times he has sown confusion: “I don’t know how to be any clearer, guys.”
To Luxon’s credit, he acknowledged earlier today that he “misspoke” when he referred to “any action”. He didn’t mean “any”. But his discombobulation at his own press conference will be an enduring memory.
The consequences of the two sets of dismal performances will be different.
Two days after Curran’s performance, she resigned as Minister of Broadcasting and Associate Minister of ACC, saying she could “no longer endure the relentless pressure I’ve been under”.
She was already under pressure and the previous month had been demoted from inside Cabinet to outside by then Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern, for failing to disclose a ministerial meeting that had been arranged via Gmail.
Luxon won’t be demoting himself and dreadful as it was, it won’t precipitate a leadership challenge.
But it will serve to reinforce his greatest weakness throughout the year, his inability to give direct answers to direct questions.
What is New Zealand’s position? After three days, the answer appears to be that it doesn’t have one.
His inability to provide clarity generally on the subject and specifically when he was caught in the headlights is likely to diminish confidence in him.
It is also a reminder that sitting on the fence on an issue can sometimes be more painful than leaning one way or the other.
In neither supporting nor opposing the United States’ and Israel’s bombing campaign against Iran, he has ended up annoying everyone – the left because it takes no cognisance of international law and the right because it resembles blancmange.
It may have been more credible for Luxon to acknowledge that on the face of it, it appeared to be a breach of international law or even that it might be a breach of international law.
The fact that the New Zealand Government could not even manage to say that much is an indication of how far it has moved towards the United States.