Editorial: Get ready for the return of the kingmaker

National leader Christopher Luxon, Act leader David Seymour and New Zealand First leader Winston Peters. Photos / NZME

Editorial

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters is the great survivor of the country’s politics, a man who has managed to regularly be in the thick of it and carry on, while prime ministers come and go.

He has been part of National and Labour-led governments, is a former acting and deputy prime minister and foreign minister, and has played a role in forming three governments.

After the 2017 election he was pivotal to Jacinda Ardern becoming prime minister.

Now he’s likely to be the kingmaker if National and Act can’t quite muster enough seats to govern together.

The likelihood of Labour, the Green Party and Te Pāti Māori forming a government appears remote on current polling, even if NZ First was added in. Labour leader Chris Hipkins and Peters have ruled out working together in a future government.

The most recent Herald poll of polls on Thursday found that the chances of National and Act needing support from another party have risen.

After weeks of refusing to confirm whether National would rule NZ First in or not, leader Christopher Luxon finally said that a coalition with Act was his preference, but he would work with Peters if necessary.

This may be aimed at presenting National and Act as a stable couple and arguing against tactical voting on the right - but there’s the distinct possibility of that accelerating.

Voters who might prefer a conservative coalition with Peters in it as a handbrake, probably see the chance to give him leverage. It looks likely, according to polls, that NZ First will get over the 5 per cent threshold.

Peters was a shadow in the room at the second main leaders’ debate on Wednesday when the issue of NZ First’s involvement in a future government came up.

Hipkins read a quote from a NZ First candidate, asked Luxon if he thought it was racist, and added: “Christopher, you’re willing to work with these people - why?”

Luxon said it was racist and unacceptable and labelled NZ First a “last resort” option. The political sensitivity of the issue was highlighted when Luxon was asked whether Peters was good or bad for the country and answered: “I don’t know him”.

That’s not a serious answer when the person referred to has already been identified as someone Luxon has said he would work with, even if reluctantly. If taken at face value, wouldn’t Luxon make it his business to get to know Peters?

Although Luxon earlier in the campaign painted Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori as a coalition of chaos, Hipkins has been successful in throwing that back.

Labour and the Greens have been able to work together for six years, whereas Act and NZ First are openly opposed. Luxon would have an unenviable job of dealing with Act leader David Seymour and Peters under a governing arrangement.

For his part, Peters has called National’s tax plan “voodoo economics” and said he would want to see the party’s detailed tax costings ahead of any governing deal. “To the best of my efforts, I can’t work out how the fiscals work, and nor can any economist,” he said.

He also has different ideas on tax relief and superannuation to National and Act.

From Hipkins’ point of view, the more he can make each part of the National, Act and NZ First triangle seem alarming, the more chance of a shift in Labour’s direction.

If Peters is involved in the election and post-election drama it at least won’t be boring.