Will all our votes end up being wasted? (Image: Archi Banal)
Will all our votes end up being wasted? (Image: Archi Banal)

PoliticsOctober 9, 2023

Could NZ really be forced into a second election?

Will all our votes end up being wasted? (Image: Archi Banal)
Will all our votes end up being wasted? (Image: Archi Banal)

It could absolutely happen – but a lot would have to go wrong first, explains Andrew Geddis.

As we move into the final week of the 2023 election campaign, there’s a near-unanimous consensus among those contesting it that the return of New Zealand First to parliament would be A Very Bad Thing. It’s not a total consensus, of course, because one Winston Peters and – if the polls are to be believed – some 5-6% of the population strongly disagree with the suggestion.

However, Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori are very happy to repurpose the “coalition of chaos” line used against them ad infinitum and invite Christopher Luxon to try it on for size, as contrast to their own recent mutually admiring high-fives. National and Act can see their apparently secure march to ministerial office threatening to turn into a victory of the Pyrrhic variety, as the spectre of meshing their policy platforms with that of a fundamentally conservative nationalist party rises from the crypt. And the scattered minor protest parties must resent every percent of support that New Zealand First hauls in as eating the lunch they spent the Covid-years so busily preparing.

The unwelcome guest: NZ First leader Winston Peters (Image: Gabi Lardies)

Yes, New Zealand First really is the dinner guest that no-one wanted to be invited to the table, much less get sat alongside. Except, and this really is very, very crucial, the 5-6% of the population telling pollsters they plan to support the party where it matters most – in the privacy of the polling place.

Which means, under our MMP electoral system rules, New Zealand First looks odds-on to be in the next parliament with anywhere from 6-9 MPs (depending on its final share of the party vote and the total size of the “wasted” vote). And, on current polling at least, there’s no clear avenue for anyone to gain the backing of a parliamentary majority without including those 6-9 MPs.

Which has National’s campaign chair, Chris Bishop, really ramping up the alarm bells about potential consequences. There is, he says, “a very real and growing possibility” that New Zealand First’s presence in parliament “would necessitate, essentially, a second election”.

While we might discount this claim a bit due to its political expediency – “Avoid chaos! Secure your future now!! Vote National (or, at least, Act)!!!” – there nevertheless is a foundation of possibility to it. How, then, might we end up having to revisit the polling places soon after already doing so?

Well, the first scenario Bishop points to is where the “left” bloc (Labour/Greens/Te Pāti Māori) and the “right” bloc (National/Act/New Zealand First) end up in a 60-60 tie. That scenario is the result of our (in hindsight, a bit silly) decision to have a parliament with an even number of seats. And it’s been discussed already, noting that the existence of our “party hopping” laws mean no individual MP could switch sides to create a majority for someone to govern.

If the 2023 election did produce this outcome, would Chris Hipkins and Winston Peters suddenly find that they could work together in government after all? Maybe they could – politics is, after all, the art of the possible. But if not, then literally no-one could form a governing majority and without this, another election is the only circuit breaker available.

Of course, the polls would have to move quite a bit before the end of this week to produce such a result. More likely, at the moment anyway, is a result that sees National and Act with more seats than the left bloc, but not enough to form a parliamentary majority. Meaning, any governing arrangements would have to include New Zealand First in some way, shape or form.

Bishop’s warning is that such arrangements might prove impossible to negotiate: “We are concerned there would be an inability to strike a deal in the interests of the country.” How realistic is this concern, in light of the nine successful post-election governing deals that we’ve seen in our MMP era?

Well, the heat and drama of the election campaign probably isn’t the best time to assess it. So let’s just remind ourselves of how that post-election government deal making takes place.

First of all, any governing arrangements are in the hands of the political parties themselves – there’s only very minimal formal rules about what they have to look like. And there’s a host of possible forms such arrangements can take: coalitions; enhanced agreements on confidence and supply; agreements on confidence and supply; co-operation agreements; etc, etc. Parties can be in government for some purposes, not in it for others, and so on.

The only non-negotiable is that when a vote of no confidence is called in the House, there must be more votes against that motion than are cast for it. And when the government goes asking for money from the House to run the country, there must be more votes in favour of giving that money than are against it. Whatever it takes to get this outcome is up to the various parties to work out.

Second, there isn’t a set time frame in which to make these arrangements. It’s likely that discussions won’t even start properly until after the special votes are counted and the official election result is released in early November. That’s because all the parties want to know exactly where the land lies in terms of their seats in parliament. And also, because everyone is pretty exhausted after the campaign.

And, third, the shape and content of the agreement between the parties is up to them to work out. It may be a minimal “we’ll vote confidence for now, but wait to see what next year’s budget will look like before carrying it on” agreement, as Act has mooted (perhaps even seriously). Or, it may be a quite lengthy and detailed coalition arrangement like New Zealand First has preferred in the past.

Whether the parties will come to any arrangement at all then becomes a matter of political calculus. On the one hand, what policy concessions and ministerial positions are going to be required to get each party to sign on? On the other hand, what are the risks of refusing to offer enough (or, refuse to take what is on offer) in terms of the alternative? Because if Bishop is right and a governing deal can’t be struck, then there’ll be no new government able to take over from the existing “caretaker” one that carries on post-election.

And, with no new government able to take over, at some point the party leaders will have to agree that Chris Hipkins (or whichever Labour MP is acting as caretaker PM) can tell the governor general that a new election is necessary. At which point – sometime early in 2024 – we get to do all this over again. A full rerun with candidates put forward, campaigns run, ballots printed, voting places established just like this year, all at the cost of somewhere north of $150 million.

With, of course, the added factor of the voters being able to decide who really is to blame for making them once again have to think about politics and voting accordingly. Because, that’s the ultimate pressure on the parties to find a way to work together – showing that you are unable to do so risks having the electorate judge you to be unfit to govern at all.

Keep going!
Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

OPINIONPoliticsOctober 8, 2023

Even the students are sick of this election

Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

In the Labour stronghold of Dunedin, the Otago campus is usually a hive of political engagement. This year, a mood of frustration and apathy prevails.

I have a vivid memory of ditching high school one sunny September afternoon in 2017. My best friend and I embarked on a great pilgrimage down to the Otago University campus with hopes of catching a glimpse of the newly-appointed Labour leader, Jacinda Ardern. 

It’s safe to say that, at the age of 17, I wasn’t the most politically versed individual. I knew my parents were Labour voters: my mother always talked about the importance of helping those who are in less than favourable circumstances, and dad was our household economist. But apart from that, my mind was more consumed with which party I was attending that weekend, or who was dating who. 

After overhearing on the six o’clock news one fateful evening that the Labour Party had appointed a new leader just weeks out from the election, my ears perked up. Word on the street was that this Jacinda lady seemed pretty cool, and any excuse was a good excuse to ditch school for the afternoon to see her on the campaign trail. 

Running off rule-breaking adrenaline with no clue what to expect, we arrived at Otago’s campus. I remember feeling pure shock and overwhelm about how many people had congregated outside the university union, eager to hear what this supposed new visionary had to say. There must have been hundreds, if not a thousand, people huddled around Union Lawn, all the way up to the balcony which wrapped around the Otago University Students Association, taking in a bird’s-eye view of the spectacle. The attendees ranged from academics, university staff, students, curious samaritans and other high school students who’d knocked off for the afternoon. 

My friend and I found ourselves just two rows from where Jacinda was set to speak. Security guards whispered into ear pieces, with local MP David Clark checking his phone, anxiously waiting for Ardern to appear. Then, there she was, greeted with cheers and shouts from the crowd. Jacinda took the mic, speaking against a backdrop of election posters and red T-shirts. She dripped with charisma and enthusiasm, preaching about the new revolutionary vision she had for Aotearoa, and the transformational policy her government would supposedly deliver if elected. She said the fiscal austerity embraced by the previous National government was good for no one. Announcing policies like free first year fees, increases to weekly student allowances, and reinstating eligibility for postgraduate allowances went down a treat with the largely tertiary-focused crowd. 

Jacinda Ardern at the Labour Party campaign launch in August 2017. (Photo: Dave Rowland/Getty Images)

Witnessing Ardern speak so passionately in Dunedin, a historic Labour stronghold, was a monumental moment for many people’s political awakening, myself included. That afternoon, it was like everyone knew that Ardern, and Aotearoa, was standing on the precipice of a new era of leadership and political transformation.

Fast forward to the 2020 election cycle, and I found myself catapulted back to Otago University’s campus. This time round, I was three years into a Politics degree, in my first year as a staff writer for the student mag, fully immersed in the pandemic-induced political shenanigans happening on campus. Every week, there was a student forum or public panel, where politicians from both ends of the spectrum would come vying for votes from the Otago community. 

Although 2020 was a year of lockdowns, restrictions and online classes, the election was difficult to escape down at Otago University. The news cycle never ended: whether it was another bold Labour policy announcement or a new leader of the opposition, the anticipation, politicking and commentary was hard to keep up with. Vandalised election hoardings were posted up on fences around North Dunedin, with flats hosting leaders debate parties, taking a shot every time Jacinda mentioned the “team of five million” or whenever Crusher Collins dished out a heated comeback. While 2020 was far from a normal year, and one which caused plenty of upheaval in the academic community, the political spirit was still in full swing, and everyone watched in awe as Labour achieved a second term, a slam-dunk victory. 

This time around, things feel remarkably different. Otago University’s campus – once bustling with eager learners, impassioned academics, political fanatics, and students who just wanted to take the piss out of any politician – seems to have become a place of both election fatigue and political outrage, frustration and apathy, division and dismissal. And with good reason. We’re finding ourselves situated in an environment where our politics seems to be lacking the much-needed leadership we had during the Ardern years, paving the way for a bizarre underbelly of hostility and conspiracy to emerge from the cracks. 

Meanwhile, the current election policies reek of unimaginative centrism and a desperation to pander to the swing voter. It’s pretty disheartening looking at the options we have on the table, especially while the academic community is currently facing a $60 million dollar fiscal hole in Otago University’s budget, which is set to be solved with ruthless staff cuts, and the defunding of several departments. No political party has given us a solid answer as to how the tertiary sector will be helped, as it appears attack ads and foreign buyers are more important than higher education. 

As the election creeps closer, Dunedin feels more unsettled. On my morning walks to campus, I notice an old retail building on George Street has turned into an office for “NZ Loyal,” a political party whose policy stances include ending “UN forced climate accords based on faulty science and media driven hysteria” and the “gender ideology” that is supposedly being pushed onto children.

‘Love The Spinoff? Its future depends on your support. Become a member today.’
Madeleine Chapman
— Editor

Once I arrive on campus, I’m greeted by my coworkers who are huddled in the hallway, discussing the anti co-governance pamphlets they found in their mailboxes over the weekend. I check my emails, my inbox flooded with aggressive messages about our “evil communist regime.” After this, I check the news, where it feels like I have to scour the entirety of our media landscape to catch just a glimpse of a comprehensive policy announcement being offered by the election frontrunners. 

Once 5pm hits, I go with other post-graduate students, lecturers and tutors to congregate for the post-work drink at the bar across from campus. After ordering a round of beers, some glasses of pinot gris, and a bowl of fries, I ask my counterparts what they make of the current state of affairs. After a prolonged stare into the pints of beer they’re nursing, the results come flooding in. “Labour doesn’t deserve my vote, so I guess I’ll vote Green” says one of my lecturers. “I can’t believe National is suggesting more tax cuts, this is abysmal,” says another tutor. My friend James, a PhD student, sums things up nicely: “It just seems like two guys from the same party.” 

Chris Hipkins and Christopher Luxon at the first TVNZ leaders’ debate of 2023 (Photo: Andrew Dalton/TVNZ)

After a pilsner-induced rant about “fucking neoliberalism” and burning through a packet of cigarettes, we pack things in for the night and head home to our rentals, trying not to think about climate crisis doomsday, or the mass redundancies and disintegration of the tertiary sector which looms over our heads. 

The lack of leadership, cohesion and vision in this current election has left many of us feeling disillusioned, lethargic and half hearted. But, who can blame us? I’ve yet to see significant engagement with the university community from the candidates hoping to win the Dunedin electorate, let alone witness a public forum or debate, especially during such a tumultuous period of time for the academic community. 

Chris Hipkins has stopped down south a few times, but has drawn nowhere near the amount of attention or engagement as his predecessor, and the presence of the National Party seems to be non-existent. The bottom line is, this political climate seems to be making people feel more isolated and unheard, pushing them to different extremes, or making it hard for even the most involved to care at all.