Welcome to The Spinoff’s live updates for October 31-November 1. All the latest New Zealand news, updated throughout the day. Reach me on aliceneville@thespinoff.co.nz

1.00pm: Two new Covid-19 cases in managed isolation

There are two new cases of Covid-19 today, both detected in managed isolation during routine testing, says the Ministry of Health. On arrived from Amsterdam via Singapore on October 23, and the other from the UK via Dubai and Malaysia on October 19. Both are now in the Auckland quarantine facility.

New Zealand now has 77 active cases and 1,603 confirmed cases.

Yesterday, there were 4,401 tests for Covid-19, bringing the total number of tests completed to date to 1,101,067.

‘Rubbish bin’ cluster closed

The cluster that began with a person who became symptomatic after leaving managed isolation having returned two negative tests has now closed, as it’s been more than 28 days – the length of two infection cycles – since the last case.

A Ministry of Health investigation found the most likely source of infection to be via a rubbish bin with a lid shared with their neighbour who had developed the infection between the two tests in the facility.

Seven cases are linked to the cluster – six announced as cases in the community (on September 19, 20 and 23) and the seventh (September 9) detected while still in managed isolation, but subsequently linked to the other six cases.

Lessons from this cluster have resulted in changes being made, says the Ministry of Health, including “informing our ongoing auditing and strengthening of our managed isolation procedures and processes”.

12.50pm: For Labour, the drive for cannabis reform is over, but the Greens aren’t giving up

Political editor Justin Giovannetti reports from this morning’s cooperation agreement signing at the Beehive:

The cheap pens with black ink scribbled four names on the Labour-Greens cooperation agreement this morning and New Zealand’s next government is set. It’ll be a Labour majority, with the Greens both helping the government from the inside while prodding it to do better from the outside.

Jacinda Ardern used the word “stability” during her prepared remarks to talk about the agreement and what it ensures: three years of Labour rule. She signed along with deputy Kelvin Davis.

Greens co-leader Marama Davidson, along with James Shaw, took a different approach, twice uttering “we are running out of time” as she briefly talked about the agreement and New Zealand’s future. On climate change and biodiversity, the Greens will remind the government that sand is pouring through the hourglass.

There was one area, drug reform, where the two parties have already shown that they’ll push ahead, while also clashing. The new agreement allows the two parties to disagree publicly and keep working together. “We agree to agree to disagree,” Davidson said. New Zealanders should get used to seeing it.

Speaking with reporters in a small conference room outside the prime minister’s office on the ninth floor of the Beehive, Ardern reiterated Labour’s view that the drive to liberalise cannabis use is over. The Greens have interpreted the narrow loss of the cannabis referendum, based on early results, in very different way. “There has been really positive ground gained in the area of mature and sensible drug reform. The referendum showed a huge increase in support for sensible drug reform law, so again, that’s an area that the Green Party will be able to build consensus and keep working,” said Davidson.

The two parties did agree on pill testing at festivals, something that had been blocked by New Zealand First. While it might be too early to promise it this summer, the leaders bobbed their heads that this can now happen, and soon.

11.15am: Greens sign cooperation agreement with Labour

Green Party co-leaders James Shaw and Marama Davidson have signed the cooperation agreement accepted yesterday in the prime minister’s office on the ninth floor.

In a press conference happening now, Davidson and Shaw played down reported dissatisfaction with the deal among Green members, calling the agreement a “win-win”, saying the fact 85% of delegates voted yes to it showed a “really clear mandate”.

Shaw said he and Davidson are “deeply honoured to be named as ministers”, emphasising the expanded caucus of Green MPs that would have a “valuable and significant contribution to play in parliament”.

In response to reporters’ questions, Davidson said the Greens would continue to speak out on areas outside of their ministerial portfolios or areas of cooperation. Responding to a question from Māori TV about Ihumātao, Davidson said “ka taea e au te tūkaha te kaupapa o Ihumātao” – meaning she will be able to keep pushing hard on the issue. Later in the press conference she quipped, “We already agree to agree to disagree.”

8.40am: The day ahead

The Greens and Labour leaders will be signing the cooperation agreement that was announced yesterday at 11am today at the Beehive. There will be a press conference afterwards and we’ll bring you all the details here.

Saturday, October 31

7.45pm: Greens accept Labour deal

Green Party members have voted to accept the proposed “cooperation agreement” with Labour with reportedly close to 85% support.

A press release from Labour’s chief press secretary Andrew Campbell confirmed the agreement had been accepted, quoting Jacinda Ardern as saying: “Labour won a clear mandate to form a majority government on our own to accelerate our recovery from Covid-19. This agreement respects the mandate voters provided Labour while continuing our cooperative work with the Green Party in areas where they add expertise to build as strong a consensus as possible.

“On election night I said Labour would govern for all of New Zealand and continue to build as much consensus as possible – this agreement achieves that objective.

“We showed in the last government we can work well with the Green Party. On environmental and wellbeing issues there is much we agree on that is good for New Zealand and I want to draw on our shared goals and expertise to keep moving forward with that work.

Greens co-leader Marama Davidson is quoted in the press release as saying: “The Green Party is thrilled to enter into this governing arrangement with Labour, after three years of a constructive confidence and supply relationship.

“We entered into this negotiation hoping to achieve the best outcomes for New Zealand and our planet. This was after a strong campaign where we committed to action on the climate crisis, the biodiversity crisis, and the poverty crisis.

“New Zealanders voted us in to be a productive partner to Labour to ensure we go further and faster on the issues that matter. We will make sure that happens this term.”

Davidson’s co-leader James Shaw, meanwhile, is quoted as saying: “We are very happy to have secured areas of cooperation in achieving the goals of the Zero Carbon Act, protecting our nature, and improving child wellbeing.

“We have a larger caucus this term who are ready to play a constructive role achieving bold action in these areas.

“In the areas of climate change, looking after our natural environment and addressing inequality, there’s no time to waste. Marama will do incredible work rapidly addressing the issues of homelessness and family violence.

“We are proud to have achieved a first in New Zealand political history, where a major party with a clear majority under MMP has agreed to ministerial positions for another party, as well as big areas of cooperation.”

The move has angered former Green MP Sue Bradford, however, who has called it “a sad day for the party”.

7.30pm: Green Party members voting on Labour deal now – and it’s close

Green Party delegates are currently voting on whether to accept the proposed “cooperation agreement” with Labour – and sources say it’s close, with many more “no” votes than there were during 2017’s vote on a confidence and supply agreement last election.

Seventy-five percent of the 150 or so delegates who have been on a Zoom call discussing the proposed deal since 4pm must vote yes for it to be accepted by the party.

4.35pm: Both Green co-leaders offered minister roles in deal with Labour

The cooperation agreement signed this morning represents a longer-term strategy for both Labour and the Greens – they could be useful to each other in three years’ time, writes Andrew Geddis.

A few days after polling day, I wrote a thing reviewing the previous governing arrangements that parties have adopted under MMP and speculating on which one Labour and the Greens might choose to enter into for this parliamentary term. In it, I noted that:

The form of agreements between parties in government have changed over time, and pretty much can reflect whatever those involved in the relationship want it to. And there’s no reason to assume that this evolution has ended, so Labour and the Greens are entirely free to think up some sort of new arrangement for the next three years. 

And that is sort of what Labour and the Greens have now agreed to do, having put together what I’m going to call an “enhanced cooperation agreement” (or, if you prefer, negotiated a friends with arranged benefits relationship). For those of you looking for an easy-to-understand account on what is in this and what it means, Justin Giovannetti spent his Saturday evening bashing out just such a piece. 

In a nutshell, however, the Greens have agreed they won’t oppose Labour being in government and will actively support it in certain specified ways when it comes to parliamentary votes. Given Labour’s current three seat majority – likely to be four once special votes are counted – this promise largely seems designed more to reduce friction points in the next parliamentary term than it is to cement its position in government. It removes the risk of future headlines such as “Greens vote against Labour’s budget” or “Greens try to block urgency”. 

In exchange, the Greens get a couple of ministerial roles. James Shaw retains his climate change portfolio and moves to assist with biodiversity. Marama Davidson gets a new ministry to combat family and sexual violence and will assist on housing with a specific focus on homelessness. The Greens also get a commitment to advance joint policy in some specified, albeit relatively narrow areas where the parties have “common goals”.

But make no mistake, this agreement is all about how the Greens will slot in alongside the Labour government, rather than how the Labour government will bend to accommodate the Greens. The agreed upon areas of common policy development “represent areas where the policy and experience of the Green Party provides a positive contribution to the Labour government”. As far as Labour is concerned, the Greens are there to add value to their governing mission for the next three years, and will be allowed to participate only insofar as they do so.

That may seem a bit brutal, and you can see why apparently 15% of the Green Party delegates charged with accepting or rejecting this agreement thought it wasn’t worth the taking. But there’s still some sense to the Greens doing so. 

For one thing, the alternative to this agreement was nothing at all (or, rather, a majority governing party that views you as part of the enemy opposition camp to be ignored or repulsed as circumstances dictate). And right now there’s a planet that is burning, while people are living on the streets. For another, there’s a longer-term strategy at play. The 2023 election campaign has already begun. Given it is extremely unlikely that Labour can pull off another majority victory three years hence, voters instead are going to be deciding on whether a Labour-Green governing arrangement is a desirable proposition. It’s much easier to convince people of this claim if you’ve actually been doing some governing together over the past three years.

So, the Greens have taken what they’ve been offered. Does that then mean they’re now a part of the government?

The messaging from Labour very much is that they aren’t. The opening sentence of the agreement’s preamble reads: “The Green Party commits to supporting the Labour government to provide stable government for the term of the 53rd parliament.” But what the parties say is the case ain’t necessarily so.

After all, the Greens will have control of ministries within the overall government, meaning that James Shaw and Marama Davidson will be a part of the executive branch. Those ministerial positions then carry with them certain behavioural expectations, both personal and political. Most importantly, they are bound by “collective cabinet responsibility” in relation to those areas for which they have ministerial responsibility.

It’s also important to note that just because these individuals are ministers in a particular area doesn’t mean they then get to call all the shots in it. Rather, they can propose policies and advocate for action, but whether or not those get adopted depends on if they can get cabinet (i.e. the Labour Party ministers collectively) to agree with them. And if they can’t – if cabinet collectively decides on something in their portfolio area that the Green ministers disagree with – then they still are bound to stand behind and defend that decision.

As such, in relation to issues of climate change, biodiversity, family and sexual violence, and homelessness, the Green ministers will be constrained by whatever collective decisions get made by the other Labour ministers. Just as all those individual Labour ministers will be constrained in what they can say about any collective agreements reached with their Green colleagues.

Furthermore, what Mark Prebble has called “the iron rule of political contest” – that the government is focused on retaining power, while the opposition is focused on displacing it – simply doesn’t apply cleanly to the Labour-Green relationship. The two parties have a symbiotic (if unequal) association. The Greens simply can’t have any role in government without Labour. And while Labour can govern without the Greens this parliamentary term, that seems highly unlikely beyond 2023. They therefore have a vested interest in working constructively together in running the country.

From both a constitutional and political perspective, it therefore makes sense to see the Greens as forming a part of “the governing team”, even if from an optics perspective the Labour Party would like us all to think of them as being in sole charge. How things work matters more than what things get called. 

Nevertheless, there are caveats here. Cabinet collective responsibility only binds the Green ministers in relation to their portfolio areas. Outside of these, the Green ministers remain free to speak as the leaders of the Green Party and to advocate for their own policy preferences. And given that their assigned ministerial portfolios are relatively narrow, particularly excluding any finance or wider social-welfare roles, that leaves them a lot of room to speak out against what cabinet has decided.  

Furthermore, the agreement only commits the two parties to cooperate both privately and publicly while developing policy in quite constrained areas. Outside of these areas, there’s no expectation the parties will even consult with each other, much less agree on what to do. Therefore, don’t be surprised to see Green MPs acting as if they are in opposition to Labour with reasonable frequency this parliamentary term. Even to the extent of saying that they so disapprove of the Labour government’s budget and its priorities that they are unable to vote in support of passing it (even if they won’t then go on to vote in opposition to it).

This is a yet further loosening of the ties that bind those who are running the country. But it is one that is quite consistent with the trajectory of governing arrangements under MMP.

The idea of “support parties” with “confidence and supply agreements” having “ministers outside of cabinet” first was introduced back in 2005 by the Labour Party, New Zealand First, and Peter Dunne. That innovation saw some pretty wild claims made. Gerry Brownlee went so far as to claim the governor-general had been “hoodwinked” into accepting a fundamental undermining of the nation’s constitutional arrangements.

Of course, just three years later this form of governing arrangement was considered so useful that John Key offered it to the Māori Party, Act and Peter Dunne, while the Cabinet Manual was amended to accommodate it. Indeed, it became so much the expected form of government that Winston Peters’ demand for a full, formal coalition government in 2017 felt like a bit of an exercise in nostalgia – let’s govern like it’s 1996, baby!

Now we see a wrinkle on that innovation, with a “cooperating party” providing ministers outside of cabinet to the executive branch, but only promising a passive-aggressive “we won’t say you can’t govern, but we might not say you should” stance in exchange. Opening up the prospect that those ministers may at some point this parliamentary term refuse to cast a positive vote in support of the government of which they are a part. For some purposes anyway, if not for others.

Which is illustrative of a deeper point about government in New Zealand. The “what works?” question usually is considered more important than the “what do our constitutional precedents demand?” And this agreement is what works in a situation where one party has a dominating majority in parliament, but thinks another party might be useful to it in three years’ time.