Editorial: National should not be ducking the Mt Albert byelection

National says it is not offering a candidate for Mt Albert in February because it is concentrating its resources on the general election later next year. Photo / Marty Melville

Editorial

The National Party's decision not to contest the Mt Albert byelection can be well understood, but that does not make it right. It is wrong from the point of view of public interest, and it is not in the ultimate interest of a party that cares for its public standing.

National and Labour are called major political parties for good reason. It is not so much their size - both keep their numbers a secret but it is clear they are not the mass membership organisations they used to be. They rank as our main parties because they are the established channels for interested and capable people to get into Parliament with a very good chance of participating in the nation's government.

Major parties need elections almost as much as elections need them - both of them. The parties need elections to energise their members and provide opportunities for those interested and capable people to shine if they can, or at least learn the arts of engaging with potential voters. It is not just the chosen candidate who can gain these skills. Activists and aspiring candidates are needed to help with a campaign. A party that sits out a byelection is passing up an opportunity to flex these muscles.

National says it is not offering a candidate for Mt Albert in February because it is focusing its resources on the general election later next year. But that excuse would not apply if the vacancy had occurred in a seat National held. Not that it can welcome any byelection. As Northland showed last year, no Government-held seat is safe at a byelection under MMP, for the reason that it does not threaten the Government's survival. National is on a hiding to nothing in every byelection it faces.

But what does that matter? It lost heavily in Mt Roskill a few weeks ago and, while Labour was gratified so many of its supporters turned out, the result hardly altered the political landscape. National gave one of its list MPs some exposure to voters and made a race of it.

No so in Mt Albert. Unless the Green Party fields a candidate, the byelection will be Labour's by default.

National's absence might make it more likely the Greens will put up a candidate, which they did not do in Mt Roskill for fear a three-sided contest would give National an even chance. The prospect of Labour and the Greens going head to head in Mt Albert is one National would relish. It could strain the co-operative possibilities they are planning to present to the general election. But just as National should have a candidate in Mt Albert, so should the Greens if they want to be treated as a credible distinctive party, not a Labour adjunct.

A Labour-Green pact to stand aside for each other in winnable electorates next year would do neither much good. The Greens consistently poll well above the threshold at general elections and Labour cannot risk giving them too much of a boost.

A major party is never guaranteed that status: it can be displaced by a rival. Who knows? Candidates from Winston Peters' or Gareth Morgan's parties could yet step up in Mt Albert, and National could rue the day it decided not to turn up.