Coalition negotiators walking the tightrope
Parties must push for what they want, without overplaying their hand
As the coalition talks wind their way to what is hopefully a successful conclusion, each of the three parties involved is executing a delicate tightrope walk.
Most obviously, none of them wants to look like the patsy for the other two, so all three will have been holding on to “imperatives” and “bottom lines” they don’t wish to sacrifice, right up to the eleventh hour — and indeed, the 59th minute of that hour. Their motivation in this sense is to play hardball and appear resolute.
Less obviously though, but just as important, is that they also all have to be careful not to overplay their respective hands. If any of them is too assertive and obtains wins that the public sees as too far out of proportion to their voting heft, that same public will reserve the right to knock them down to size at the next election.
This is particularly relevant to the smaller parties, and it was clearly the fate of New Zealand First in 2020. Back then, the combination of anointing the second major party as the winner in 2017 and then parading the taxpayer loot they scored off Labour like a three-year-long episode of the Father Christmas movie saw them booted completely out of Parliament. Both Act and New Zealand First will be wary of history repeating.
And if National overplays its hand, the penalty is more immediate. The process of forming a government will continue to drag out until the small parties extract what they believe is the appropriate price (or more likely, the at least slightly inappropriately large price) for their support. Some commentators suggest that has already been the case, but then, selfinterested insiders would tell them that.
It’s worth reminding ourselves of the verdict delivered by the voters at the election. National achieved 38 per cent, Act 8.6 per cent and NZ First 6 per cent, for a total of 52.6 per cent. All things being equal, fair-minded voters would expect National to have nearly three-quarters (72 per cent) of the say, Act 16 per cent, and NZ First 11 per cent. Now it won’t be exactly like that, because the first rule of politics is that you have to be able to assemble a majority, and therefore Act and NZ First give National more than their vote suggests. The question is how much more are they chasing, and how much will the voters tolerate?
So what has been going on behind closed doors over the past fortnight? The time-honoured tactic of small parties is to meet one-on-one-on-one. They do everything they can to give the impression internally that they are equal partners in the coalition. Hence the staged three-way photo at the Pullman, and David Seymour’s willingness to be rent-a-quote during the coalition negotiations in order to lift his profile and perceived importance. Hence also Winston Peters’ aspiration to keep things as publicly quiet as possible, to nullify Christopher Luxon’s natural public pulpit as incoming Prime Minister. National, meanwhile, must not rub its 38 per cent of the vote in the face of its putative partners. That fact must remain almost (but not quite completely) unspoken until the crucial moment. Which is of course, around now.
The big question about all this gamesmanship is where it leads us. The job for this new governing arrangement must be to build a genuine understanding of each others’ positions, and not over-reach in the years ahead, while they execute a programme which, with the best will in the world, cannot all be recorded in advance in a single, or even two coalition documents.
It is clear at the highest level that the public wants change out of this election, and a plurality wants a switch away from where Labour had sought to take the country. The hard part is achieving that, especially with three parties that have quite different worldviews. National, while centreright, is probably the most flexible, while Act is stridently for small government and international connectedness. New Zealand First, on the other hand, is nationalistic, sometimes to the point of outright suspicion of foreigners, and while they talk a good game on public spending, are not averse to a good spend-up.
How those three worldviews mesh will be key to sorting some of the thorny conundrums this Government has inherited. And it is urgent. Just think Three Waters, the RMA, the public service and co-governance. In these areas alone, thousands and thousands of people, from planners, to builders, to engineers, have put down their pens over the past month until they find out what actual changes are going to happen. We can’t afford dysfunction and more delay because our politicians can’t work together.
You don’t have to look too far to see what happens when dysfunction rules. One year into their respective terms, the Auckland and Wellington councils are failing to get any runs on the board in dealing with the issues their citizens asked them to address. While neither city is run like a parliament, there are identifiable blocs and sub-blocs of left and right councillors, and these and their mayors are starting to look ineffectual.
In Auckland, Wayne Brown was elected on a mandate for change but gives the strong impression of not being able to work with anyone. He’s railed against council expenditure, against the staff headcount, fumed about the number of road cones, promised to stop rates rising, and one year on nothing much has changed. He hasn’t even appointed a permanent replacement as Auckland Transport chair after the previous one fell on her sword more than a year ago. His latest idea of congestion charges is obviously not thought through and changes every day. It also faces the small problem that taxpayers across the country built the motorways, not the mayor, so I’m not sure how he thinks his council gets to trouser the dough from tolling them.
Further south, the problems are more lamentable. Wellington councils have for years busied themselves with being the profligate “cultural capital” of the country while failing to replace ageing water pipes. You’d think the new council would read the writing on the wall and start spending more money on pipes and sewerage in lieu of expensive convention centres and gold-plating the old Town Hall. But no. And they want to buy a movie complex as well, while the Mayor calls in the investigators if councillors who disagree dare to publicly air their concerns.
One can’t help thinking that these mayors and councils are on their way to being swept away in two years’ time if they don’t work out how to work together and get some runs on the board.
The same risk applies to this coalition if it can’t work together. Stuff needs doing. They will all need to swallow some pride to get it done. It starts on coalition announcement day.
We can’t afford dysfunction and more delay because our politicians can’t work together.