Party of three: NZ First's Winston Peters, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Green Party co-leader James Shaw put on a united face. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Party of three: NZ First's Winston Peters, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Green Party co-leader James Shaw put on a united face. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Opinion by Claire Trevett
Claire Trevett is the New Zealand Herald’s Political Editor, based at Parliament in Wellington.
In Parliament's Bowen House on Wednesday night a rare feast was held: a "coalition dinner" of MPs from Labour, NZ First and the Green Party.
It was held, a tad late, to celebrate the second year of the Government.
There have been few organised displays of tri-partite solidarity.
Theother occasion was a stage-managed affair back in September 2018, attended by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, NZ First's Winston Peters and Green Party co-leader James Shaw.
That Kumbaya Council was aimed at proving the governing arrangement was solid and functional as a flurry of stories spread about areas of disagreement.
The dinner also marked less than a year before the next election.
On the 1 News Colmar Brunton poll released just two days before that dinner, those three parties would not be back in Government in a year's time. In fact, one of them would not be back at all.
Instead National and Act would be toasting a new Government and Ardern's consigned to the slim ranks of one-term governments.
Only a fool would think it would be that easy for National, or clear-cut, but the poll did at least have the effect of raising the suspense level for the next election.
Ardern was at pains to point out that Labour's internal polling and a Stuff YouGov poll showed a different picture. Ardern also claimed the 1 News poll had a history of under-rating Labour compared to the real picture.
That was promptly rejected by National's pollster, David Farrar, who pointed out that for the past five elections, Colmar Brunton's polls were either bang on or slightly over-rated Labour compared to the election day results.
National Party leader Simon Bridges turned a blind eye to his 10 per cent personal support and focused only on his party's 46 per cent, Labour's 39 per cent and NZ First's four per cent.
He claimed Ardern's statement that nobody should underestimate NZ First showed Labour and NZ First were joined at the hip.
He also claimed the poll was a verdict on the PM's failure to deliver in the Year of Delivery.
Ardern's response to this was to go on Q+A and reel off a dizzying stream of statistics.
Ardern's next line of defence was that while the polls were one way of gauging support, she was more inclined to listen to what the people who wrote to her or spoke to her in the streets told her.
All of those people apparently loved everything the Government was doing.
It brought to mind former PM John Key's claim that he listened to people "from all walks of life" in the Koru lounge.
It also brought to mind something former MP Hone Harawira once said: that only a fool believes what the people on the street say to a politician's face. People on the street are often simply polite, but not necessarily truthful.
The next day Labour moved on to Plan B. It deployed its Minister of Doing Things to drown out the poll with juicy announcements.
Like a magician with a rabbit hutch in a hat, Andrew Little produced in quick succession the wording and draft bill for a referendum on legalising cannabis, a "ban" on foreign donations, the next steps in re-entering the drift at Pike River Mine and a new attempt to get Ngapuhi into Treaty settlement talks.
Greens co-leader James Shaw and Justice Minister Andrew Little set out information for the cannabis referendum. Photo / Mark Mitchell
He sent these announcements out and the onlookers hurtled around like a pack of Jack Russell terriers released to flush out the rats from a haystack. The poll slipped under a nearby fence.
The foreign donations ban proved particularly effective at distracting attention from the polls.
The "ban" was actually simply a tightening of the existing ban to lower the allowable limit from $1500 to $50.
It did little to address the primary concerns about donations – bigger donations from foreign-owned companies registered in New Zealand and powerful vested interests in New Zealand.
Its main impact will be the administrative nightmare for poor party secretaries who will now have to double-check donations of more than $50 to make sure they are not from foreigners.
Politically, its effectiveness for Labour was that it looked like the Government was taking action, and it set the other parties to taking pot shots at each other.
There were accusations of "laundering" donations by treating them as party donations instead of candidate donations.
There were the implications of hypocrisy from both the parties whose donations are under scrutiny – National's by the Serious Fraud Office, and NZ First's by the Electoral Commission.
National took aim at NZ First for its NZ First Foundation, which NZ First claimed was based on the National Party Foundation, while NZ First took aim at National for its donations practices despite deciding some were worth emulating.
All Labour had to do was sit there with the popcorn and plan the menu for that dinner.
