Coalitions have become the norm for New Zealand politics under MMP, but coverage of potential arrangements is dominating the coverage at the expense of policy discussions
Opinion: Discussions about coalition permutations feels almost constant. Coverage of who will or won’t work with whom, and what that means for the formation of the next government is almost unavoidable.
To recap – Red Chris said he won’t work with Winston, and Winston is okay with that because he already said he wouldn’t work with Red Chris.
Blue Chris will work with Winston, if he has to, but would rather just work with his friend David.
David doesn’t like Winston, but that’s fine, the feeling is mutual.
James would answer a call from Blue Chris, but he and Marama want to work with Red Chris.
Debbie and Rawiri aren’t fans of David, Blue Chris, or Winston, but they like James and Marama.
Raf just wants to be included and would like to sit in the middle of everyone.
Meanwhile, the other Blue Chris (Bishop) has start throwing rocks at everyone. Except David – he doesn’t mind him.
It’s all a bit of a shambles.
Though elections are often theatrical, this campaign has more closely resembled a group of toddlers arguing over a box of toys.
What are we actually voting for?
Under the MMP system, we elect a Parliament. It is then up to the Members of Parliament we elect to form a government. This seems to be a point of confusion for a few people, not least the people we are actually voting for.
The current election coverage has focused heavily on the potential governing arrangements, rather than providing deep scrutiny of the policy platforms
MMP aimed to create a representative, diverse parliament that more closely resembled the population.
It was also intended to prevent situations where major parties could hold a majority of the seats with less than a majority of the ‘popular’ vote.
MMP requires voters to pick the person they feel would best represent their electorate, and the party they most want to form the government.
Unfortunately, the current election coverage has focused heavily on the potential governing arrangements, rather than providing deep scrutiny of the policy platforms.
Policy hasn’t been ignored, but recently it has played second fiddle to coalition discussions, and the general perception is that this is having a negative impact on people’s interest in the election.
Finding the Common Ground
There have broadly been three types of arrangements – formal governing coalitions (Labour-NZ First 2017); confidence and supply agreements ensuring the Prime Minister-to-be has the confidence of a majority of MPs and has support to pass the Budget (National-Act 2008); and, support/cooperation agreements that create broader government support (Labour-Green 2020).
In theory, coalitions are based on a shared set of priorities and a shared vision. Anticipating potential divisive issues and considering – and negotiating in advance – how to address these is central to any governing arrangement.
What do the parties agree on? Where are their major differences? Politics often results in compromise, and governing arrangements like coalitions embody this. Common ground is essential.
As a country, we have taken a relatively narrow view of how these agreements could work, particularly with parties being less interested in working with those further away from them ideologically.
Common ground doesn’t have to be a wholesale approach. There are various types of arrangements that could be entered into that could focus on specific policy areas.
Questions are regularly raised about the possibility of an arrangement between National and the Greens, or the concept of a grand coalition between National and Labour.
From a pure MMP perspective, both arrangements are perfectly legitimate pathways to follow but are generally scuppered by the likely reaction from their supporters.
As a country, voters and politicians alike still have maturing to do to understand that a party we vote for may be able to work constructively with a party they differ ideologically from without resulting in an existential crisis for the parties.
What happens next?
Though official results aren’t announced until 3 November, parties can start negotiating from 15 October. We won’t know the exact balance of Parliament on election night but will have enough of an idea for parties to get down to business.
Agreements won’t be quick. Even a result that shows National and Act, or Labour and the Greens, having the required 61 seats will take time to find that common ground and establish a clear agreement to govern.
Adding further parties to negotiations further extends timeframes. If three or more parties are required for a majority then it is feasible that negotiations could take months, rather than weeks.
What if they can’t reach an agreement? If an MP (usually a party leader) can’t show the Governor-General that they have the confidence of the House, then we could be destined for a new election. The State Opening of Parliament is due to take place no later than December 22, which is the point where a confidence vote would take place and show whether Blue Chris or Red Chris has the support required to govern.
No parties will want this outcome. Elections are expensive, and with public sentiment already somewhat apathetic there is little public appetite to do this all again before we must.
We should all hope that whatever happens after October 14, our elected politicians can show maturity and form a stable government like they have been elected to do.
