The politics of a storm: How did Christopher Luxon, Chris Hipkins handle severe weather tragedies upon return to Parliament? – Jamie Ensor
The return of politicians to Parliament on Tuesday came under the shadow of the devastating weather events that struck coastal North Island centres last week, causing severe damage, including the deadly landslide in Mount Maunganui.
What some may have previously expected to be a boisterous, colourful start to the political year was instead much more sombre. One of the first actions of MPs in the House was to hold a moment of silence for those killed.
New Zealand’s leaders don’t like to play politics with such horrible events. But some Opposition politicians the Herald spoke with today suggested tragedy also shouldn’t limit debate over issues like climate resilience or whether the right support levers are being pulled.
It’s clearly a tricky line to walk, particularly in an election year, when every moment in front of the public can be a valuable opportunity to differentiate one party from another. That means there can be a risk of overreaching.
As is customary after significant events, the House began today with a handful of MPs from different parties giving statements acknowledging the impact of the weather, sending their thoughts to those affected, and thanking emergency services.
There were signs of bipartisanship, as is also normal in these circumstances. Labour’s Chris Hipkins, for example, offered his party’s full support for an inquiry into the events preceding the Mauao landslide. Though he accompanied that offer with a pointed remark, saying it was “the least we should be offering the victims”.
Despite some comments in recent days, including Hipkins reminding New Zealanders that the Government previously wound up a $6 billion weather resilience fund, the Opposition parties didn’t directly challenge the Government’s record.
Instead, Hipkins and the Greens’ Marama Davidson spoke of the responsibility all those in the House had to the communities hit by the weather.
“We know that these are not one-off events,” Davidson said. “We know that we are going to have to be honest with ourselves the more and more that we know this stuff is going to come.”
“Are we planning to the best of our ability? Are we utilising all of the resources that our communities and people deserve us to resource them with to prevent these occurrences, to ensure that communities are getting the help they deserve when we are in crisis?”
Act’s Cameron Luxton, the party’s MP in Bay of Plenty, was possibly the strongest in suggesting some people were politicising the weather and “hijacking it for their own agenda”.
He didn’t name names, but his comments suggest he may have been challenging those who rushed to demand more action to stop climate change. Luxton said the focus should be on “accountability, not ideology”.
“We must understand these events and what has preceded them, but remember that New Zealand has always had extreme weather. We have always had slips – no law, no slogan and no protest can stop rain from falling and hills from moving.
“What can save lives is practical action, sound land management, proper hazard identification, robust safety practices and effective emergency response. Those are the questions that matter if we want fewer families grieving in the future. None of them involved trying to change the weather.”
Winston Peters, the NZ First leader, called for “calm heads, cool analysis and working with the facts”.
“That can be frustrating for some who want to jump to immediate solutions and are quick to apportion blame.”
Peters said it was “appalling that with the bodies of victims still to be recovered, some have rushed to be adjudicators based not on fact, but on emotion and hot reckons”.
Te Pati Māori’s Rawiri Waititi directed his ire towards resilience funds in general, saying their benefits hadn’t been felt in the constituencies he represents. He also stressed responsibility lies in the House.
As for Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, he has followed the usual handbook for leaders in a crisis.
He’s expressed condolences, visited the hurt communities, spoken to the Government’s immediate support and outlined relevant future projects, like the planned release of a national flood map. His speech in Parliament touched on the right notes.
Luxon’s position naturally means he isn’t going to be offering up critique. He has the benefit of being able to act above the fray – or at least attempt to – by focusing his comments on the actions his Government is taking.
Take his response to questions on Tuesday morning about RNZ’s latest political poll, which showed National on the back foot.
“I’m not gonna talk about polls today. I’m gonna focus on some other things that are more important ... I’m just not gonna talk about polls today, I’ll focus actually on the recovery,” the National leader said.
“I don’t comment on polls. I’m not commenting on polls this week while I am dealing with some serious issues with recovery due to the weather events. That’s where my focus is this week.”
Hipkins, who did comment on the poll results, called the Prime Minister’s refusal a “convenient duck for cover, I suspect”.
That isn’t to say Luxon didn’t take a few shots of his own at the Opposition, particularly in response to those whacks from Hipkins over the cancelled $6b resilience fund.
“We’ve seen scenarios where under the previous Administration, lots of funds were created,” Luxon said, citing “the Covid fund, the climate funds, the resilience funds, where often there isn’t really good checks and balances or criteria around how that money was deployed”.
Later at another press conference, unprompted, the Prime Minister told reporters: “We’re not in the business of just creating a $6 billion resilience fund and saying we’ll just borrow that money for the future.”
Hipkins told the Herald there was a “difficult balance” as a political leader in terms of not politicising a weather event.
“Right now, when we’re in an emergency response phase, where are still recovery efforts underway, we need to tread carefully,” the Labour leader said.
“Rushing to any conclusions about what happened in a particular set of circumstances is something we should steer clear of.
“A broader debate around how we adapt and how we prepare and how we mitigate the effects of climate change is of course legitimate political debate. I think, in terms of the current tragedies the country is dealing with, we need to be very careful about not politicising those individual events.”
Hipkins said, in terms of climate resilience, the current Government had “taken the country backwards”.
“I think those are absolutely legitimate debates for us to have in an election year. I think commentary apportioning blame for events for the specific things that we have seen in the last week or so, we should steer clear of that.”
Luxon also gave a flick to Hipkins after being asked whether he believed it was appropriate for the Labour leader to hold a political rally last Thursday, just hours after the Mauao landslide.
The Prime Minister was initially cautious in his response, saying he hadn’t been “focused on Chris Hipkins and his remarks and what he’s done or hasn’t done”, saying instead, “I’ve just been very focused on the response and the recovery”.
But when asked if he would have cancelled a political rally in the aftermath of a severe weather event, Luxon quickly and bluntly responded: “Yes.”
Hipkins said yesterday that had he known the true extent of the impact of the weather last Thursday, as he does now, Labour likely wouldn’t have gone ahead with the rally.
Jamie Ensor is the NZ Herald’s Chief Political Reporter, based in the Press Gallery at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub Press Gallery office. He was a finalist in 2025 for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.