The common thread: what Luxon's media strategy and Toi Māori have to do with each other
The past two weeks have been busy. Following my last column here, I wrote a 23 April piece for The Guardian about what Christopher Luxon’s media strategy reveals about his leadership: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/23/christopher-luxon-nz-pm-media-questions
It got a lot of attention, including that of former NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark who reposted both my earlier column and the Guardian article on her X.com page where the latter got 447 likes and 148 reposts, which is generous. Thanks Helen Clark!
I was interviewed on RNZ's Midday Report on 28 April about Christopher Luxon pulling out of his regular Breakfast slot: https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/middayreport/audio/2019032725/pm-defends-decision-to-pull-out-of-weekly-breakfast-interview
I also published a Proxemic Leadership Model (PXL) on LinkedIn. It’s a model I have been developing over many years to show how observed mediated images at different social distances impact political leadership judgments, helping to explain why political leaders like Christopher Luxon need to be observed at all four proxemic distances for maximum impression. I also showed how this can be adapted to corporate comms: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dr-claire-robinson-241aa3a_pxl-proxemic-leadership-model-activity-7454999992387399680-fQlw?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAHw15EB6rypM74t0znOzm9gtv-EDo6srCY
Last Sunday I gave a keynote talk to the Altrusa International (NZ branch) annual convention on the topic of “You'll never know until you try. The mindset required to develop the confidence to try new activities and realise your potential.” In the talk I offered four hacks for people to get into this mindset:
· Curiosity over permission
· Gutsy over good
· Discomfort over homeostasis
· Critical thinking over criticism
And then on Monday The Post published an opinion piece in which I argued that Toi Māori in civic buildings is not a cultural indulgence but a democratic necessity: https://www.thepost.co.nz/culture/360996579/why-toi-maori-civic-buildings-essential-not-indulgent
All the channels and topics above are connected by a central theme: that a healthy democracy depends on politicians and public institutions being visibly accountable to the people they serve.
When politicians stop submitting to rigorous questioning outside of parliament, voters lose one of the few mechanisms by which they can assess whether their leaders are telling the truth; and when voters lose trust in a leader they are less likely to vote for that leader’s political party. Like all democratic institutions, the press is imperfect, but it performs an important function carrying public concern upward to power and bringing power's answers back down. If the circuit is removed something important breaks.
The Post piece about Toi Māori/Māori art in Wellington’s new civic offices, and elected councillors’ signal that such spending is a luxury Wellington cannot afford makes a similar point. What do we owe each other in built public spaces? Whose voice is heard by those in power, and how is that voice communicated?
Civic buildings are not just places where local government business happens. They are physical expressions of what a community values and who it considers part of the story. When city councillors advocate for having no Māori art in their public spaces, they may pretend to be doing so on fiscal grounds. In reality, they are making a political statement about whose culture counts as belonging in the commons – the shared inheritance of a society, including the spaces, institutions, and resources that belong to no one in particular and therefore to everyone. Telling a people that their culture doesn't belong in the shared spaces of modern civic life is not a new feature of New Zealand’s political history. But there’s no place for it in the Wellington today. That capital city councillors are repeating the trope in 2026 is an indictment on them, not a fiscal saving.