After each general election, a group of political scientists conduct a survey of the views, values and voting behaviour of a large sample of voters. It’s known as the New Zealand Election Survey, or NZES. Because their sample group is so large – usually about 3000 people – you can examine subsets of voters with some confidence that the data has statistical significance. So we can look at the supporters of different political parties and ask what they believe and who they are.
Under first past the post, New Zealand had swing electorates: a handful of strategic seats the major parties battled over, and these determined the outcome of the election. Under MMP, we have strategic constituencies: demographic groups that can swing from one party to another. In 2023, the so-called median voter – midway between Labour and National – was a woman with a young family who had voted for Jacinda Ardern in 2017 and 2020 but had since drifted towards National. Many of the major party policies and messages were pitched at this group.
But there’s another powerful voice in New Zealand politics: New Zealand First voters. In 10 MMP elections since 1996, Winston Peters has emerged with the ability to determine the government in three – and, depending on special votes and the Port Waikato by-election result – potentially a fourth. He has been deputy prime minister twice and acting prime minister while Ardern was on maternity leave. He’s been treasurer once, foreign minister twice, and reportedly would like to be treasurer again in Christopher Luxon’s government.
The other enduring parties in our political system are Act and the Greens. They’ve done stints on the periphery of Labour and National governments: the Greens’ James Shaw has been climate change minister for six years; former Act leader Rodney Hide was local government minister under John Key. But they’ve never had a seat at the top table; never helped run the zoo.
Who votes for Peters? In 2020, his party received only 2.6% of the vote: he was down to his core supporters, and according to the NZES, these are mostly who you think they are. They are older than the average voter, more likely to be dependent on superannuation and less likely to live in a major urban centre. They think the level of immigration should be reduced. When asked which political parties and leaders they like, they overwhelmingly like and support NZ First and its leader (although they also liked Ardern).
Peters had a better year in 2017. His party won 7.2% of the vote. This gave it the power to choose the government: he went with Labour and the Greens (the latter pushed into a “confidence and supply” arrangement). Looking at the electoral survey for that election, we can see NZ First’s usual permanent supporters. But we also see a larger group, a little less enthusiastic about Peters and his party, but whose support put him over the 5% threshold.
Think of them as strategic conservatives. They’re a little more urban. They’re less interested in immigration. But crucially, they like one or both of the major parties as much as they like NZ First. Many of them prefer Labour or National. They support Peters because it is strategic for them to do so.
Most Labour voters have a friendly view of the Green Party. They’re a little more ambivalent about Te Pāti Māori. But most of the people who liked Labour but voted for Peters in 2017 strongly dislike both these parties. They disagree with their core policies and values: they’re in favour of lowering welfare benefits and far more likely to agree that references to the Treaty of Waitangi should be removed from law.
We see a similar pattern on the right: National voters generally like Act. But pro-National NZ First voters dislike them. They’re likely to agree with the statement, “Big business in New Zealand has too much power”, and they’re strongly in favour of increased government spending, especially on health and education.
Before an election campaign, political parties often determine their “value proposition”, a marketing term that asks, “What’s the one thing we offer the consumer [ie, the voter] that our competitors don’t?” Our political discourse often treats NZ First supporters as gullible racists tricked into voting for an experienced con man – but if we look at what strategic conservatives believe, this cohort is voting rationally.
Peters’ value proposition is that he’ll prevent the formation of a government of the radical left or radical right. He’s long been seen as a handbrake on the major parties but most of his supporters like the major parties: they abandoned him for Labour in 2020. To many of his voters, his primary function is to act as a spoiler for the other minor parties.
For most of 2023, it looked as if we’d see either a National-Act or Labour-Greens government. NZ First had failed to consistently poll above 5% for more than five years. Its leader was in his late 70s. It felt like the end. But once again it surged during the campaign. Peters is a hard-working politician, appearing at nearly every bowling club and retirement home in the nation, and his voters respond to this.
But they also seem to respond to the polls: the closer we got to an Act- or Green-dependent left-wing or right-wing government, the stronger his support. His role in the as-yet-unformed Luxon administration is still unclear, but it’s likely National will need his vote to pass legislation. He’s unlikely to agree to an Act Party scorched-earth assault on the welfare state – no matter what baubles and perks he negotiates for himself, he’ll have served his purpose and delivered on his value proposition.
Centrist role
The Greens are always being asked why they won’t entertain a coalition with National. It’s a reasonable question. In Germany, the Greens were able to play the centrist, kingmaker role and it made them far more powerful than remaining a fringe left-wing party. Why not adopt the same tactic? The simple answer is that in New Zealand, most Green voters are soft Labour voters. If the Greens gave National the support to form a government, they’d get voted out of Parliament in the next election, possibly forever. Same deal with Act (and the Labour Party).
The premise of both minor parties is that one day the stars will align. They’ll form a coalition with their preferred centrist party and finally have the power to deliver the change they feel the country needs. But if there’s a persistent demographic of conservatives casting strategic votes to explicitly prevent this from happening, it brings the long-term strategy of those minor parties into question. What is the purpose of the radical parties if the conservative centre always holds?
Peters isn’t the only politician to play this role. United Future campaigned on “common sense and family values” and went into government with both Labour and National, helping to prop up the Key government for three terms, keeping the Greens out of power in 2005 and diluting the power of Act in National’s coalition. Its leader, Peter Dunne, finally retired in 2017 and his party vanished. Perhaps NZ First will suffer the same fate if and when Peters finally retires.
But Peters’ absence will create a gap in the political ecosystem that confers enormous power on anyone who can fill it. It’s unlikely to stay empty for long.
