Skip to main content

In which the Prime Minister Who Fired the Messengers Discovers He Still Needs Someone to Tell Him What the Message Is



In which the Prime Minister Who Fired the Messengers Discovers He Still Needs Someone to Tell Him What the Message Is

Somewhere in the Beehive, a lonely photocopier wheezes out another press release that nobody asked for, while New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, stands before the nation’s cameras once more, performing the political equivalent of trying to parallel-park a Boeing 787 using only the reverse camera and a strong sense of personal entitlement.

The crisis, we are told, is one of “communication gaffes.” A series of them. The kind that arrive not as isolated slips but as a continuous low-level weather system of mangled sentences, accidental policy announcements, and statements that somehow manage to be both carefully prepared and completely unprepared. One week he is explaining three future taxes that were supposed to be hypothetical. Another day he is justifying a Defence Force flight home from a party fundraiser while unemployment numbers arrive like uninvited guests. The media lean forward. His MPs quietly check their phones. Somewhere, a leadership spill is being discussed in the same tone one uses for a leaking roof: not yet catastrophic, but definitely damp.

The delicious irony is that this is the same Christopher Luxon who, not so long ago, looked across the public service and decided the real problem was too many people paid to communicate. Communication advisers, he suggested, were a fine place to start the great downsizing. Ministries had grown fat on the soft tissue of messaging. Why, he asked in tones of pure managerial virtue, did the Ministry of Health need so many of them? If you cannot get the outcome with fewer people telling the story, something has gone horribly wrong.

Something has gone horribly wrong.

It turns out that when you downplay the role of the people whose job is to stop the boss from saying the quiet part loud, or the wrong part at all, the boss is left alone with his own words. And those words, left unsupervised, have a habit of wandering off, starting fights, and then looking around the room as if someone else should explain what just happened. The man who treated communication staff as bureaucratic bloat has discovered that the absence of bloat does not automatically produce clarity. It produces, instead, a series of increasingly public moments in which the Prime Minister appears to be receiving his talking points from a Magic 8-Ball that has been dropped one too many times.

He is, by most accounts, a decent guy. The sort of fellow who genuinely believes in efficiency, in delivery, in the clean lines of a well-run organisation. One can almost picture him in a previous life at Air New Zealand, optimising routes and wondering why the cabin crew needed quite so many announcements about the emergency exits. The impulse is not malicious. It is simply the confident assumption that if the product is good, the sales pitch will take care of itself. Politics, alas, is not an airline. The passengers are also the shareholders, the regulators, and the people writing the reviews in real time. And the emergency exits keep changing.

So here he is, facing the very crisis he once implied could be solved by fewer professionals in the messaging trade. The gaffes accumulate. The caucus grows restless. The opposition practices its concerned faces. And the nation watches a man who once wanted to shrink the communications apparatus discover, too late, that the apparatus was the only thing standing between him and the pure, unfiltered experience of his own sentences.

One wishes, with genuine goodwill, that someone had been allowed to stay on the payroll long enough to lean in and murmur: “Prime Minister, perhaps don’t say that out loud.” Or at least: “Prime Minister, maybe wait until after the unemployment figures.” Or simply: “Prime Minister, the thing you just said about three taxes? Let’s workshop that.”

But the advisers seem to be gone, or reduced, or reassigned to more productive tasks. The messaging, like the leadership question itself, is now being handled in-house. And in-house, it turns out, is a lonely place when the cameras are rolling and the words refuse to behave.

New Zealand has a decent man at the top who once believed communication was the problem. The satire writes itself: the problem was never the advisers. It was the quiet confidence that he could do without them.

 

Popular posts from this blog

The Haka, the Hurt, and the Work We Owe

  The Haka, the Hurt, and the Work We Owe An Indian in Aotearoa reflects on resistance, complicity, and the solidarities we have yet to build Mohan Jyoti Dutta I watched the haka. I watched it several times, in fact. Each time, I tried to sit with what I was feeling before reaching for what I was supposed to think. Let me be honest about who I am in this conversation, because that matters. I am an upper caste, upwardly mobile Indian man. I am a professor at a university in Aotearoa. I carry the accumulated privileges of Brahminical socialisation, of English-medium education, of institutional access that was never designed for the communities I now write about and alongside. I say this not as confession but as orientation — because where you stand shapes what you see, and I have learned, through years of working with communities at the margins, that the refusal to name your own location is itself a colonial habit. The haka directed at Parmjeet Parmar did not offend me. It ...
Read more

The Suit Walks the Corridor

  The Suit Walks the Corridor At ten past nine on a Monday the corridor on the top floor of the administration building fills with the sound of expensive shoes. The carpet up here was laid in the last refurbishment and still gives slightly underfoot, the way a good hotel lobby does, and the doors along it close with the soft, well-engineered thud of a German car. Along this carpet, in the direction of the lift marked Executive, comes the suit. It comes in navy and in charcoal, in the odd daring pinstripe, in the female version too, a tailored jacket over a silk shell, and heels that announce themselves on the tile of the lift lobby a full three seconds before the person arrives. The suit carries a flat white from the good cafe, the one that closed the student cafe to open, and a lanyard that swings with the confidence of a thing that opens doors. The suit passes the framed founding professors, who were photographed in gowns and look, at this distance, like a row of disapproving pe...
Read more

Whiteness, NCA, and Distinguished Scholars

In a post made in response to the changes to how my discipline operates made by the Executive Committee of the largest organization of the discipline, the National Communication Association (NCA), one of the editors of a disciplinary journal Rhetoric and Public Affairs (RPA), Professor Martin J. Medhurst, a Distinguished Scholar of the discipline, calls out what he sees as the threat of identity (see below for his full piece published in the journal that he has edited for 20+ years, with 2019 SJR score of 0.27). In what he notes is a threat to the "scholarly merit" of the discipline, Professor Medhurst sets up a caricature of what he calls "identity." In his rhetorical construction of the struggles the NCA has faced over the years to find Distinguished Scholars of colour, he shares with us the facts. So let's look at the facts presented by this rhetor. It turns out, as a member of the Distinguished Scholar community of the NCA, Mr. Medhurst has problems with w...
Read more