Insiders speak: What drives Winston Peters’ coalition negotiations - ‘Jacinda was ready to sell her grandmother - and she did’

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters addresses reporters outside the Duke of Marlborough Hotel in Russell. Photo / Michael Cunningham

Ever wonder what happens inside coalition negotiations with NZ First? David Fisher can reveal behind-the-scenes details of two deals.

Extraordinary insights into NZ First’s post-election internal discussions have been offered by former NZ First MPs, who say the process is more structured and reliant on consultation inside the party than commentators would have the public believe.

Ron Mark was one of those in the room for every coalition negotiation of the 2017 NZ First and Labour government and says National offered more - but it wasn’t portfolios or the “baubles of office” that swung the deal.

Instead, Mark said it was pursuit of stable government and NZ First’s caucus and board fronting up to its manifesto - not the persistent narrative of “Winston First”.

It comes as National and Act look to hold the balance of power, with 570,000 special votes yet to be counted and a potential Te Pāti Māori result that could lead to a larger Parliament than the standard 120 seats, thereby increasing National’s need for a partner.

Peters spoke to media at Russell in the Bay of Islands this morning, saying: “This is a business called democracy. My job is to consult with my colleagues.”

There has always been a degree of scepticism as to how that plays out but Mark says in that post-election period, Peters is determined the party and its board are fully involved in decision-making.

“Sometimes he could be accused of not giving away what he really thinks. Winston would chair in a loose way and let the conversation flow. He wants you to say what you think.”

Former NZ First MP and current Carterton Mayor Ron Mark with NZ First leader Winston Peters on the campaign trail in 2020.

Mark described the conversation taking place in a formal and structured environment, offering examples from coalition talks in 1996 and 2017.

In 1996, our first MMP election, National won 44 seats, Labour 37 and NZ First 17 after a clean sweep of the (then five) Māori seats brought in the so-called “tight five”. It had been expected NZ First would go with Labour, in large part because of Peters’ defection from National and the poor relationship he was seen to have with its leader, then-Prime Minister Jim Bolger.

Mark recalled the protracted coalition discussions with Labour and National - the back-and-forth went on for two months, with MPs and the board briefed throughout.

The final decision took place after a lengthy meeting during which the NZ First manifesto was projected on to a screen showing the portfolios on which discussions with Labour and National were taking place. MPs and board were briefed in detail on what discussions had taken place and how they fulfilled manifesto commitments with debate encouraged.

Mark said two questions became key - whether the finance portfolio was on the table and whether Labour had the Alliance (with 13 seats) on board for a coalition.

The answers were that Labour would not relinquish finance - and neither, said Mark, did it have the Alliance tied up in a deal.

“That created a hell of a dilemma. There was an absolute belief we would go with Labour.”

Former NZ First MP Tau Henare.

Without finance, it created the potential for a coalition partner to “screw the scrum”, he said, and undermine or collapse NZ First policy gains based around manifesto pledges. And there was a stability risk with Labour’s lower share of the vote and the difficult relationship between its leader, Jim Anderton, and key members of the Labour Party, from which he had parted.

Mark said he recalled the Maori electorate MPs leaving the caucus room when it started to become clear NZ First’s greatest chance to secure policy gains was with National. He followed and witnessed Tau Henare rang former Prime Minister Helen Clark to ask if finance was non-negotiable. It was, she said, and when the phone call ended, Tutekawa Wyllie turned to the other MPs and said: “Now we’re f***ed.”

Henare confirms the call and Wyllie’s reaction: “When Tu said that, we all knew that once we publicly came out and said we were going with National, that was the death warrant and we would all lose our seats in the 1999 election.”

In Henare’s view, it was Peters’ fixation on NZ First’s manifesto and the need to stick to it. “He’s old-school. The manifesto was everything.”

Henare said he was among those who had “fallen into the trap” of saying at times NZ First was “Winston First”. But it was more complicated than that. “He’s not as totalitarian as people think.”

Mark also said the finance portfolio was necessary for NZ First to live up to its commitments. “We voted”, said Mark, with the “overwhelming majority” deciding to do a deal with National. Peters was named ‘Treasurer’ in a newly created role

It was a similar process in 2017, said Mark, when he was one of two MPs - the other being Tracey Martin - who accompanied Peters to every meeting.

Mark said it involved examining 980 policies across 67 portfolio areas, with every meeting minuted and every aspect of negotiations documented. Those minutes, he said, were checked with negotiating partners, Labour and National.

Prime Minister Jim Bolger (right) and NZ First leader Winston Peters as they sign the coalition agreement in 1996.

For MPs and the board, the manifesto pledges and policy gains were all documented - “the caucus gets to see everything” - and available to study when it came to deciding who NZ First would go with.

“We negotiated far more out of Labour than you got to see. It was trimmed back for fear people would think we got too much.”

There was a “bloody intense” discussion with a focus on policy detail but body language and personality clashes also played a part. By Mark’s description, that did National no favours because it raised the prospect of a difficult coalition relationship.

“Over the other side, Jacinda was ready to sell her grandmother - and she did.” And she bolstered those concessions by bringing to meetings those who knew Mark and Peters and treated both with respect, he said.

And that element - rather than pandering to ego, as some might have it - was part of building an ongoing and stable relationship, he said.

“If people believe Winston will make the decision based on how many ministerial portfolios [NZ First gets], and media run that line, they’re lying. We were offered more ministerial portfolios by the other side. Considerably more.”

Winston Peters and Jacinda Ardern shaking hands after signing their coalition agreement. Photo / Mark Mitchell

As to motivation, Mark has an easy response. “He puts his country’s interests first.”

In this, says Mark, is guidance for National Party leader Christopher Luxon. The clues were in Peters’ election night speech, in which he said democracy required rigorous opposition - but also that difficult times were coming and NZ First could “help”.

Mark said: “He’s offered to help.” In refusing that, Peters might respond: “I offered you my hand and you spat in it?”

Did Luxon want to secure his majority, and in doing so weaken the opposition, by bringing NZ First into some form of arrangement?