A Labour/Green/Te Pāti Māori Coalition: what would it do?

An initial take on some points of policy agreement and disagreement for this potential coalition.

With the prospect of a by-election for the seat of Tāmaki Makaurau, it’s timely to think ahead about a possible coalition between Te Pāti Māori, the Labour Party and the Greens following the next general election.

So, imagine it’s election night 2026, and Christopher Luxon has called Chris Hipkins to concede defeat. In the following days, Hipkins would set about forming a government, as Labour, Greens and TPM would have won, in total, a majority of seats.

First, a readers’ poll on this scenario:

Going by recent opinion polls, the above election-night scenario is possible. This isn’t a prediction, however. Election numbers will set the balance of power, but what might a Labour/Green/TPM government do, based on the parties’ policies known to date, if this came to pass?

What could the three parties agree on?

Redistribution and debt

The Green Party have published comprehensive policies, including a fiscal strategy. They’re strong on redistribution and public investment, arguing for “strategic borrowing for productive assets” and against the “imprudently conservative debt management” that’s led to under-investment. They’ve also produced a Green Budget. Two key policies are: tax individual net wealth over $2 million at a rate of 2.5%, and a top marginal tax rate of 45% on income over $180,000. This would go towards pledges such as “a ‘fee-free’ public tertiary education system” and

“universal, free and accessible diagnosis, treatment and management for all illnesses and injuries — including fully-funded public provision of dental care, general practitioner clinics, ambulance and emergency services, aged care, palliative care, and mental health services.”

Labour talk more modestly of “well-funded healthcare”, not “fully-funded”. With the most seats around the cabinet table, Labour would control the crucial finance portfolio. Other than during a pandemic, they have a track-record of fiscal conservatism – of the kind which the Greens now want to abandon.

Both Labour and Greens may agree in principle on “fair” progressive tax, but they’ll struggle over the options (capital-gains or net-wealth tax) and over fiscal settings. The Greens’ budget foresees the debt-to-GDP ratio growing over 50% by the 2027/28 fiscal year and beyond. Labour have generally aimed to keep debt much lower.

TPM want to “shift the tax burden from the poor to the wealthy”, so there’s at least an underlying agreement about that basic aim across the three left-wing parties – although we await Labour’s final policy.

Labour will win the battle in cabinet over fiscal strategy, but their coalition partners will demand – and win – policy concessions elsewhere in return. Free dental care, for instance, was a Labour pledge in 2023, so the Greens might get their way on that. TPM would support it too, although their stated policy targets whānau earning under $60,000, not “universal” as called for by the Greens.

As they fight with National over the centre meanwhile, Labour will have to fend off the usual attack line that they’re a tax-hungry debt-monster, given the Covid-related splurge when they were last in office and the spending promises that they and their coalition partners will make. The old “coalition of chaos” jibe will get recycled.

Te Tiriti and co-governance

All three left-wing parties want to put the nightmare of ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill behind them. But what would they do instead?

Labour’s website (which has yet to be updated) talks of “working in close partnerships with Māori”, and “partnering with iwi” over housing and education. That sounds lame compared with TPM who want “constitutional transformation”, including a Māori parliament, and the return of foreshore and seabed, central and local government land and all conservation land to mana whenua. TPM want ownership, not partnership.

TPM’s mana motuhake policies would get a sympathetic hearing, however, from the Greens who are up for “nationwide dialogue of constitutional reform that is grounded in He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi” and for “fully restoring the harms of the past”. All of the Greens’ policy statements are premised on honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi. And there’s a strong faction within Labour for Tiriti-led constitutional transformation, as revealed in the He Puapua document of 2019.

The political problem would be in building a coalition of public support for (or at least acquiescence to) profound constitutional and legal changes. And none of the three parties will propose putting such reforms to a referendum, given how “divisive” that’s known to be. Labour’s Chris Hipkins is a cautious centrist leader, but there’d be considerable pressure within this three-party coalition to advance co-governance policies, beyond the point where his political judgement might otherwise say “taihoa!”

Environment

In principle, the three parties can join hands over addressing climate change and protecting the environment, especially through indigenous practices and knowledge. In this area, the Greens would claim a portfolio or two.

The Greens’ policy is for “rapidly phasing out fossil fuels, agricultural diversification to plant-based, climate-safe and resilient models, and economic transformation that avoids growth”. That “growth-avoidance” statement wouldn’t sit well with Labour, and it flatly contradicts the Greens’ new deficit-friendly fiscal strategy which, to be sustainable, is premised on economic growth. Well, it wouldn’t be the first time that the Greens were forced to make pragmatic compromises around “budget responsibility”.

TPM would bring “indigenous leadership and knowledge” to climate change policy, and they’d like to “end new onshore oil and gas permits and withdraw existing onshore
and offshore oil and gas permits within five years”. Labour has implemented a similar policy before, so there’s potential here for agreement across the three parties. (Drill teeth, not oil wells!)

Of course, all three are strong on improving public services and raising the living standards of the worst-off. They’re all committed to redistribution and reducing inequality, although they differ over particular policy proposals, to levels that are more than mere detail. Ironing out the creases in this coalition will give off a lot of heat and steam.

If anything could split this coalition apart, it would be about defence spending and/or international conflict. If the Chinese send warships on an exercise into the Tasman Sea again, this coalition would be divided over how to respond. And would Hipkins trust any TPM or Green MP with the defence portfolio? Defence isn’t even a line item in the Greens’ costed fiscal summary. Have they noticed how insecure the world has become lately?

I’ve said little about personalities here, but you have to imagine a cabinet led by Chris Hipkins, with Barbara Edmonds as finance minister, Chloe Swarbrick and Marama Davidson from the Greens, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi from TPM, and others.

Alternatively, TPM could see an advantage in holding portfolios outside of cabinet, just as that party did when they supported the Key government on confidence and supply. That arrangement allows ministers scope to criticise the government on matters not covered by their portfolios.

I’m guessing that the Greens would insist on seats inside cabinet this time around. Who, then, would get key portfolios such as foreign affairs and social development? It’s too early to try naming the whole team, but I’m sure they’ll get along just fine.

At this early stage, this is only a sketch of how this possible coalition might shape up in terms of policy-making. It’s not a prediction.

---

Tamaki Makaurau by-election

With the death of the MP for Tāmaki Makaurau, Takutai Tarsh Kemp, a by-election will be held for her now vacant seat.

Kemp won the seat by a mere 42-vote margin over Labour’s Peeni Henare (who sits as a list MP now), while Labour was well ahead on party votes. Without knowing the candidates yet, it looks like a close contest, and TPM could lose a seat.

Previously Kemp was tumuaki of the Manurewa Marae, and there are still some unanswered questions about uses of public funding at that marae, including its role as a polling place for the 2023 election. Will it be open for voting in the by-election?

There’ll be a push to get more Māori to switch to the Māori electoral roll in time for the by-election. The Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency recently ran an ad encouraging Māori to enrol on the Māori roll – a promotion which has been criticised by NZ First MP Shane Jones. Was that ad, which aimed to shepherd Māori voters away from “mainstream” parties, and hence implicitly towards TPM, a proper use of taxpayers’ money under the Whānau Ora programme?

The by-election may tell us more about how closely Labour and TPM policies could align or not.

Footnote:

Green Party tax policy

Will Hipkins do a Holyoake and come back from defeat to be PM again?