Ministers of the National-led coalition government are now entering a crucial period of their time in office in which their approaches to the portfolios they hold are likely to be a key determinant of how effective they will be.

The period is likely to last about three months. Leaders of various business, social and special interest groups whose activities are the subject of ministerial actions, inaction, decisiveness or judgements will have a clear picture by the end of June of what they might expect over the period of this administration.

It might be thought that three months in a portfolio is long enough to come to grips with various issues and the administrative mechanics that rule ministerial life. But veterans of the parliamentary scene know that the intervention of the Christmas and New Year holiday break soon after elections hampers adjustment from opposition to government.

In early stages they are confronted: With new people they have to work with on a regular, if not daily, basis; a variety of issues, some of which will be familiar and many not; obstacles to easy solutions of problems they had formulated before attaining office; assessments to make of officials from ministries and departments, and the advice or reports they tender; pleasant surprise or unpleasant shock at the state of affairs summarised to them in their portfolio areas through “state of the nation” reports by public servants and sectoral interests; and fresh routines for dealing with the requirements of the cabinet decision making process.

By the end of February or early March, adjustment to these factors and the routines associated with them should be bedded in and the problems associated with decision making identified. These might include impressions that: A department is too inclined to promote solutions favourable to bureaucratic or sectional interests; particular advisers don’t know the right questions to ask when dealing with financial issues or are too inclined to accept push-back from sector groups;  that specific business groups affected by ministerial decisions are overly pushy; and that some ministries tend to promote political responses to issues rather than report facts, context and options.

With judgements or assessments made on these factors, the March to June period tends to be the one in which newly appointed ministers get on with fresh initiatives. At the end of this period close observers of the political scene can start to gain an impression of who among the cabinet ranks is likely to shine, who to prove competent and who might best be shuffled aside.

Across the political divide the situation is much more complex. The collective of former cabinet members faces questions of competency, inability to conduct policy and economic management that are likely to haunt them for years.

A major problem for Labour is that many within its grassroots organisation continue to believe in policies that the electorate rejected last October. Some will argue that it was the incompetency of the government that allowed the coalition members to forge a majority. Others will say the party needs fresh approaches.

Leader Chris Hipkins suffers from his rejection of a capital gains tax. The Greens and Te Pati Maori favour it. Many Labour members support the idea, often with a passion reflective of the class warfare of the 1950s. Hipkins’ and the party’s dilemma is whether to radicalise to the left and compete against the Greens and TPM, or make Labour’s own path for a return to the Treasury benches.

Such is the strength of the incompetency label attached to the former cabinet that it is hard to see many of that team surviving in high office longer term. Even relative newcomers such as Ayesha Verrall and Ginny Andersen might find it hard to win through to a new term in office.

In opposition during the years of regular leadership changes within their party, National MPs used to ponder whether a future prime minister was in their ranks. Christopher Luxon was recruited to fill the perceived vacuum.

A similar question arises within Labour. Is there a future Labour prime minister within their current leadership team? Potential leaders of the opposition, yes; PMs, no. It is for that reason that a good deal of speculation centres on the future of Council of Trade Unions executive Craig Rennie.

The issue seems not whether he will enter Labour’s parliamentary ranks but when? Sooner rather than later? Clarity and a sense of direction of where Labour can stand in the future political landscape of New Zealand is needed.

Rennie worked well with former finance minister Grant Robertson. They shared a good sense of humour, and purpose. Neither seem in strong supply within Labour ranks today.