The final week of the campaign has seen the National Party panic as its prospects of a strong and stable coalition with Act evaporate, further missteps as it attempts to position itself for coalition negotiations, a foreign policy blunder from the foreign minister, and a death and subsequent by-election in Port Waikato complicating an already complex post-election environment.
Sunday
The Israel-Palestine conflict has declined in geo-political importance over the past 10 years. One of the Trump administration’s foreign policy accomplishments was the normalisation of Israel’s relationships with the Gulf states, an arrangement that left the Palestinians politically isolated. But today Hamas launched a very sophisticated, totally unexpected invasion of south Israel. The operation involved the mass execution of civilians, beheadings, and large-scale kidnappings. The attacks were widely condemned, but New Zealand’s foreign minister Nania Mahuta merely tweeted that “Aotearoa New Zealand is deeply concerned at the outbreak of conflict between Israel and Gaza”. Her equivocation drew widespread criticism, and Prime Minister Chris Hipkins quickly made a much stronger statement.
People on the right generally support Israel (“the only democracy in the Middle East”), whereas the left inclines towards Palestine (“victims of apartheid oppression”). But the nature of the Hamas attacks has quickly opened up a rift in left-wing parties and institutions around the world, with many on the radical left endorsing and even celebrating the atrocities, and centrists and liberals observing that Hamas looks more like Isis than any kind of national liberation movement.
Israel has begun air strikes on Gaza, likely to be followed by a ground invasion. New Zealand usually sees pro-Palestinian peace marches in response to Israeli military action – but given the nature of the Hamas attacks and the response they’ve provoked, peace marches are unlikely to be very peaceful.
Monday
The early stages of this election campaign were about policy, focusing on the incoherence of the main parties’ major tax plans. The second stage has focused on coalitions and the increasingly volatile yet inevitable National-Act-New Zealand First alliance. Last week, Christopher Luxon reluctantly ruled Winston Peters in, conceding that he’d pick up the phone to Peters if he had no choice. This seems to have been a tactical blunder: Peters’s support has quickly risen and National has been in a state of open panic. This morning, its campaign chair, Chris Bishop, raised the “very real possibility” of a second election if National can’t form a government with Act.
There are a few things happening here. One is that post-election negotiations are taking place prior to the election. National is afraid that Peters will make unreasonable demands, then block the formation of a government until National and Act concede to him. So, it’s trying to take a delaying tactic off the table by threatening a second election if he doesn’t come to terms.
But National is also desperate not to work with Peters. And in its defence, he is very difficult to work with. Labour ministers in the Jacinda Ardern-Winston Peters government repeatedly went through long, drawn-out negotiations over their legislation – months, sometimes years of work – only to have Peters kill their bills at the last minute for no fathomable reason. He is also a very expensive coalition partner, routinely demanding gigantic budget increases for whatever departments his MPs control – and National will already struggle to deliver on its tax and fiscal policies. Being in coalition with New Zealand First would mean three years of intense frustration and pointless inertia.
But if that’s what the election delivers, that’s the result National would have to work with. It’s not the place for political leaders to refuse an election outcome and make us go back and choose a more palatable option. All of this directly damages National’s brand – it’s supposed to be offering a strong, stable government as opposed to the dreaded “coalition of chaos”, which is how Luxon describes the possible Labour-Greens-Te Pāti Māori coalition. Even if some kind of deal is hammered out between the three right-wing parties, it will be very hard for the nation to see much stability in the arrangement.
Tuesday
Act Party candidate Neil Christensen, the candidate for Port Waikato, has died. The timing of his death and the oddity of New Zealand’s electoral law mean there will now be a by-election, set down for November 25. This is a hold-over from the first-past-the-post electoral system in which the death of a candidate mid-campaign was very consequential, and it has odd repercussions for MMP. Instead of a parliament being made up of 72 electorate MPs and 48 list MPs, there will be 71 electorate MPs and 49 list MPs. Then, after the by-election, the winner becomes an additional electorate MP, increasing the total number of MPs in the House to 121.
This means there can’t be a hung parliament, and the seat will almost certainly be won by National, giving it an additional seat in the House for free. So, this might be very consequential for the formation of the government.
Act believes the larger and more complex the government becomes, the more nonsensical its outcomes, so this messy, unintended consequence from our hybrid MMP-FPP electoral law is a very appropriate way to mark the death of an Act politician.
Wednesday
So close to polling day, mid-week was quiet. Survey company Ipsos released their latest issues monitor today which reports the top issues concerning New Zealanders. They aren’t surprising: Inflation, crime, healthcare and housing are the top four, followed by the economy and petrol prices equal at fifth place. Voters trust National more on these issues. It’s a testament to the shambolic nature of National’s campaign that they’re not ten points ahead of their current position.
Thursday
Two polls last night from TVNZ and Newshub show a moderate surge for the left – the Greens are set to win a record number of seats. And they both confirm Peters will be the kingmaker.
There’s this theory – heavily promoted by National – that even though Labour has ruled Peters out, it would go back on its word after the election and do a deal with him. And when Labour talks about Peters, it seems to have left a door open to do exactly this. On RNZ National this morning, Labour’s deputy leader, Carmel Sepuloni, ruled out a “partnership” with Peters, and the party’s campaign chair, Megan Woods, ruled out a “coalition arrangement”. But those aren’t the only ways to form a government under MMP. Could Labour negotiate a confidence and supply deal in which Peters and his senior MPs are ministers outside Cabinet, then claim it has kept its word because this isn’t technically a coalition?
It’s not impossible. If National can’t come to any arrangement, then that’s preferable to a second election. But there would be considerable public outrage: voters would not care about the legal differences between coalitions and confidence arrangements. They would feel lied to and the government would lack democratic legitimacy. Labour would be horribly punished in 2026 – if it even lasted three years. And – given current numbers – Peters would have to prop up a Labour-Greens-Te Pāti Māori arrangement in which the Greens wielded considerable power: an even messier and unlikely accommodation than his options on the right.
