Opportunity Party rules need further ‘rethink’, says Qiulae Wong

As it stands, the board could have the leader ‘removed’. 

At the fourth time of trying, the Opportunity Party stands on the brink of achieving something unprecedented. Not just for itself, but for every new party under MMP: breaking into parliament without having previously elected MPs on the ballot. 

It is not yet a done deal, but with nine of the last 10 polls putting the party above the 5% threshold, Qiulae Wong – not yet a year into the role of leader – says the party’s rules need further updating to fit the purpose of a parliamentary party, and that includes the way a leader can be replaced. 

“As we grow as a party and actually become one inside parliament,” Wong told the Spinoff for an episode of At Large with Toby Manhire, “we will have to rethink the way that our processes work, and our membership as well.”

It was an unconventional accession. Wong applied to become leader in response to an email to supporters – it was also advertised in the situations vacant – and was appointed by the party board. The influence of that board, markedly greater than traditional parties, has come in for criticism in recent months. Chlöe Swarbrick, co-leader of the Greens, said, for example, “We definitely don’t have a corporate board that is making decisions on our behalf.” 

In August, following questions on Q+A about a constitution that empowered a 75% majority of the board to “overrule” caucus decisions, the party announced it had scrapped that provision. 

It had been a relic, Wong told the Spinoff, of a party yet to achieve a parliamentary presence. “That clause was there, I think, largely as it reflected the type of party that we have been in the past, which is largely a leader-led party without a caucus, and so that board veto I think was designed to be a check and balance on the leader – so they couldn't essentially do whatever they wanted with nobody questioning it."

Were a caucus to be formed, it would no longer be “a realistic or practical way for the party to operate, and so we updated that accordingly”. 

Still there in the constitution, however, is another board power – to remove the leader. Under the rules, should a 75% majority – in practice, four of the five members – want Wong out, she’d be gone, irrespective of the views of the caucus. Is that clause, and the hierarchy of influence it implies, going to remain?

“I think that will be one of the things we'll look at next year,” said Wong. “There's a range of things that we need to look at at next year's AGM – we couldn't do it all before the election. But we've said to members that we'll do a full review of the constitution next year.”

To her mind, however, “I think that the caucus needs to have a significant say in there. There could still be consultation with members and the board. But I think it's also important to note that the board are elected by members, and the members are the ones that designed and signed off on the constitution in the first place. So it's not like this has been a kind of dictatorship by a group of people. This has been a designed structure from our membership that might need to be updated, and we will continue evolving as we grow as a party.”

Opportunity has come in for increasing scrutiny since the run of strong poll results. The Herald this week reported claims of “toxic” dynamics since the last election, with one former board member alleging “shady behaviour, hypocrisy and tribalism”.

They are not the first party to confront such headlines. (“Wait, Opportunity has toxic factionalised internal politics?” posted X user Ben Thomas. “I guess they are a real party now.”) But was it true? “I think there's always people with different perspectives in the party,” said Wong. 

“A lot of what was in that article was stuff that happened before I joined, so it's really hard for me to comment on that specifically. I know that we've got a really good culture now. We don't always agree on everything. I am constantly challenged by members and supporters around our policy, around our strategy, and I think that's that's healthy. We need to create an environment where we can talk about those things and disagree agreeably, with respect, and I do think that that's the culture we've built.”

While former Labour and National leaders have made cameo appearances in this campaign selling their parties’ praises, no such luck for Opportunity. Gareth Morgan, who founded what was then the Opportunities Party in 2016, called the party’s land value tax “a major step backwards in terms of the enlightenment of New Zealand’s tax regime”. He wrote this month that the party risked getting “swept up into a left-leaning coalition where it quite quickly gets branded as a lookalike Green Party, so is nothing special”.

Morgan’s “big kahuna” tax policy had been “very well thought through”, Wong accepts, “but it was very hard for people to understand … Even our tax policy [which centres on a new land value tax] is difficult to communicate and to get the key points across. So there is always a balance here in politics, and that's something that I've learned as well, around having purity of policy that might be 100% accurate versus something that you can actually communicate to the public, and that is workable and practical to be implemented. So I think that we've struck a good balance.” 

As for Morgan as a presence, “he's not heavily involved, or he's not involved at all in the situation”. Has Wong ever spoken to him? “I haven't. I've never met him. I would really like to meet him after the election. I think at the moment time is not on our side, and we've got to focus on speaking to voters. But, obviously, as he’s founder of the party, I would be really keen to chat with him.”

If the Opportunity Party does make it across the line, the party’s position is that it would undertake talks with the largest party. Though Christopher Luxon has ruled out working with them dozens of times now, the National leader's position is taken by most commentators with a boat load of salt. For what it’s worth, however, could Wong work with, say, Erica Stanford? “I think there's some good things she's done in education,” straight-batted Wong. “There's some improvements and things that we would suggest around how to make that work better. But I think that she's a strong female leader, which is fantastic.”

As for that “largest party” – are we talking most votes or most seats? “We've had to look at that because normally those would be the same thing.” In this case, however, “there is no guarantee. So we have said it's the largest number of seats, because that is how you form a majority.”

And what does “talk first” mean? Does it literally mean exchange words, or something more substantial? “It's engaging in good faith discussions about forming a government … to the point where we feel either yes that this is feasible that we can get to an agreement, or if we feel like those conversations are stalling, we're not getting anywhere. If it doesn't look like we're going to be able to agree on that future for New Zealand, then we'll go and speak to the other side.”

Any deal would need a 75% board signoff. As for the team likely to be negotiating: “I think it'll be a relatively small team. Myself and Daniel [Eb], our deputy leader, and then probably representatives from our policy and communications team.”

Other subjects covered in the At Large episode:

• What changed in Wong’s approach from the first to the second multi-party debate.
• The party’s five bottom lines, and the sixth on the Waitangi Tribunal. 
• Whether this is a “change election”.
• The political movements around the world she looks to for inspiration.
• Ministries she’d be keen to take on.
• The case for sitting on the cross-benches.