Do you know what you're voting for?
National has a panic attack...
Opinion polls are pointing towards a post-electoral situation that would force some awkward compromises – and one can’t predict what exactly they’ll be.
Christopher Luxon has said the National Party can work with NZ First – if necessary – and so Winston Peters is busy making himself indispensable. Panicking over this prospect, National wheeled out former PM John Key to beg swing voters to be sensible and party-vote National for stability – implying ‘don’t vote for NZ First’. Many of those swing voters, however, will do whatever Key doesn’t want.
Key also said something about a sojourn in a country called ‘Limboland’ – which sounds like a cool place to visit.
National then set off alarm bells about a ‘stalled’ economy and even a second election. But the country doesn’t hit pause while the parties negotiate coalition agreements, and there are strong political motives for settling the matter.
All the same, there is some uncertainty. What might happen to National’s policy pledges, for example ‘tax relief’, if Luxon has to negotiate with Peters?
In a full-page ad in Saturday’s Herald, Peters highlighted three reasons to vote for his party: repeal the Therapeutic Products Act, hold an independent inquiry into the pandemic, and put an end to conscience votes. The latter requires changing parliament’s standing orders and is highly unlikely to happen – ever. The other two don’t cut across a National–ACT agreement, and, knowing Peters, might not even make it to the negotiating table.
Raising the age of entitlement for NZ Super from 65 to 67 (as National and ACT want to do) would be a sticking-point for NZ First. But there’s a lot of common ground too, not least on law and order.
NZ First’s manifesto doesn’t present big obstacles to an agreement with National. So what’s the fuss about? It’s because many people, including David Seymour, just don’t like Mr Peters and his talent for grabbing attention.
A more important concern is that voters don’t know if any party’s ‘promises’ will be kept, even if it gains office. Which of their pledges and policies will be swept aside in post-election negotiations?
Political parties aren’t monolithic, so their members and internal factions have already gone through debates and compromises to develop their manifestos. But, once the manifesto is published, the party’s parliamentary caucus should fight for it. Concessions made in coalition negotiations will mean, however, that some policies get abandoned. For example, if Winston supports a government led by Luxon, will that Therapeutic Products Act get repealed or not?
As Tova O’Brien put it: ‘We can’t expect full-blown negotiations before election day, but voters do have a right to know if the thing they might be voting for has any chance of happening.’
There’s no such ‘right’ in the legal sense; there is a trust that politicians will do what they said they’d do, if the people grant them lawful powers. But if the election result makes policy compromises necessary for the formation of a government, then the people’s ‘trust’ is little more than a hope that the trade-offs politicians make (behind closed doors) will serve the common good of the country.
What, then, will serve the common good? It depends on whom you ask. The libertarian individualism of the ACT Party and the nostalgic nationalism of NZ First would be difficult to reconcile. But the whole point of MMP is to create an ideologically mixed government that reaches across social divisions, rather than let one party (or, worse still, one leader) rule.
The parties have to make concessions. So rather than see their manifestos as collections of promises, we could read them instead as proposals for voters’ consideration. And yet, in post-election negotiations, which party can you trust to serve the common good? Whichever way the election goes, neither Labour nor National – both fiscal conservatives – would do much to improve economic security for a large section of society. (More on that point below.)
A few thoughts as we hurtle towards 14 October…
NZ First may be the spanner in the works of a right-wing government – but some will vote for them precisely because of that.
Although Labour will lose its majority, Hipkins needn’t concede defeat on election night if Luxon can’t immediately muster an alternative. Peters will play hard to get. In that case, Hipkins and his cabinet carry on in office for the time being as a caretaker government. Both leaders could initiate talks with other parties – in theory, with any other parties.
Will the Greens be brave enough to exercise their options this time? Most reporters have been ignoring that possibility.
A second election is unlikely. If coalition talks did fail on all sides, the parties that got the blame for causing a return to the polls would be punished for it by voters – so party leaders will find ways to avoid that fate and, while they’re at it, take the baubles of office. Wouldn’t you?
The newly elected parliament must assemble no later than 21 December whether a new government has been sworn in or not. If there’s no new government to replace the caretaker, then things get interesting, but a return to the polls isn’t necessary – yet. The matter can be decided in the House.
Treaty debates.
After watching an ill-tempered segment of a leaders’ debate about the Treaty of Waitangi last week, I came up with a thought experiment:
We put David Seymour and Rawiri Waititi in a windowless room together, with only a bottle of water and a pen each, and tell them they’re not allowed out until they’ve co-drafted at least 50 words on at least one principle of the Treaty. They don’t have to agree on everything right away.
I reckon it wouldn’t take them long. Treaty settlement bills get unanimous support in parliament, signifying a cross-party understanding about at least some fundamental principles of the Treaty. That shows how far the people of Aotearoa have come since the Waitangi Tribunal was created in 1975. But, in an election campaign, political parties would rather exaggerate their present differences than acknowledge the country’s long-term achievements.
David and Rawiri would differ over the interpretation of Article 2, but it’s a good idea to begin by setting out the things that we can agree on.
It’s never easy to find a balance between the principles of kawanatanga, tino rangatiratanga and tika – or government as vested in the Crown, indigenous self-determination and equality of fundamental rights.
Democracy could become a tyranny of the majority if the rights and needs of the same minorities are always getting ignored or over-ruled. But there’s no perfect arrangement that settles such matters once and for all, and the balance needs to be openly renegotiated as times change. There’ll always be tensions between treating one another as equals with the same basic rights and duties, and yet respecting one another’s different needs and customs.
If we’re serious about the Treaty having a historical constitutional significance (which no political party in parliament denies), then we should also be serious about openly seeking a consensus about its significance today. Debates about these matters have been degraded, however, by intemperate rhetoric from all sides, insufficient effort to understand differing standpoints and mutual accusations of racism.
No matter how bad this argument gets, we can’t have a divorce, divide the assets and go our separate ways. Neither can we silence one another, although some do try. The job of government is to work through our differences and come up with workable compromises.
And you can pre-order, at a discount, the paperback version of my forthcoming book, Government and Political Trust: The Quest for Positive Public Administration, for NZD $67.99. I’m currently reading the page-proofs.
Note for readers: Unless something dramatic happens during the week, my next newsletter will be Sunday morning the 15th. I also plan to do a YouTube video and you’ll get a link to that.
A note on the cost of living.
The proportion of gross domestic product that gets distributed as workers’ wages (the labour income share) has declined since the 1970s – which is a global trend. And, according to Stats NZ, in mid-2022 the proportion of households spending more than 40 percent of their income on housing costs was 15.2 percent, which breaks down to: 25.9 percent of households that pay rent, 18.7 percent of those that pay mortgage, and 3.1 percent of those that own outright. A rule of thumb is that rent or mortgage should be no more than 30 percent of income.
Those with mortgages are in debt peonage for a good deal of their lives. Many others will be renters for the rest of their lives, unable to accumulate wealth through home ownership. And food banks have never been busier.
Many (though not all) workers don’t get a fair share of what they produce, and, out of what they do earn, too much of it goes to landlords and banks. A Labour government didn’t do an awful lot to rectify this. Yet it looks like this election could tilt the playing-field further in favour of shareholders, creditors and landlords, if the rightward shift in opinion polls is correct. And ‘tax relief’ (up to $250 per fortnight) won’t make up for it.