Lining up the numbers

by Grant Duncan

Although it’s impossible to predict the exact numbers at the election this Saturday, we can at least see some overall trends in opinion polls – and we can speculate about options for forming a government after the votes are counted. Keep in mind that a government rules only so long as it can defeat motions of no confidence in the House of Representatives and pass supply bills that authorise expenditure.

For the past three years, John Key’s National-led minority government has been supported by agreements about confidence and supply votes with three minor parties – ACT, Mäori and United Future. This gave his government some flexibility for getting its overall legislative programme through.

So, given that it’s all about numbers of seats in the House, what are some of the possible combinations after Saturday?

Mr Key’s preferred outcome would be for National to command a majority in the House on its own. If that happens, it’s likely to be a slim majority, and he may choose to include one or more minor parties (especially ACT) in that arrangement anyway. But, under such circumstances, those agreements would be looser than in the previous government. Trade-offs around ministerial posts and policy positions could be made, but it’s unlikely that a National Party in such a commanding position would make any significant compromises.

A National–ACT duet (either a coalition or a supply-and-confidence agreement) was looking likely, but the polls are suggesting that Epsom voters will block that. Mr Dunne’s majority in Ohariu looks risky too, so there is no guarantee that he will be around next time.

If ACT and United Future get no seats and National lacks a one-party majority in the House, then the options get more interesting. There’s no reason why arrangements with the Maori Party could not be renewed, even though the latter has expressed opposition to state asset-sales, a critical policy for National.

There has been speculation about an arrangement with the Greens. This may sound odd, especially if we are talking about Green leaders taking up ministerial portfolios alongside National; but the Greens have been known to support a government (the Clark government) by simply agreeing to abstain from confidence and supply votes.

It’s looking likely that the Greens will finish up with sufficient numbers of seats to make an abstention agreement a back-up position for National – but again, there’d be a quid-pro-quo requirement for the government to adopt some of the Greens’ policies. National and the Greens already had, in the last term, a memorandum of understanding that included some policy actions that the Green Party had been wanting, so a more substantial supporting relationship is a possibility after this election – and that needn’t mean the Greens ‘going into government’ with National.

Much has been made lately about the NZ First Party, including dire warnings from the PM about the destabilizing effect of the leader of that party. These warnings should be taken with a grain of salt. NZ First provided a stable partner for the Labour-led government. Mr Key is really hoping that NZ First will fall short of the 5 per cent threshold and so boost the number of seats allocated to National.

Key and Peters have both made it clear that they are reluctant to work together, and luckily that will probably be unnecessary. Assuming the opinion polls are not completely out of line, it looks like National will have sufficient options to form a credible government after the election. But, if Key and Peters have to negotiate, then surely they will; and an abstention agreement could be a satisfactory arrangement for both parties. That way Mr Peters could tell us he’s being responsible, and preserve his political independence, while Mr Key would get to be PM again.

So, don’t rule anything out. We should not omit to consider the possibility of a Labour-led minority government, too. If there is a strong left-wing voter turn-out and a disappointing result for National and ACT – pushing the numbers leftwards – and if NZ First passes the 5 per cent threshold, then Mr Goff could think about a governance arrangement spanning Labour, the Greens, the Maori Party and NZ First – and possibly the Mana Party.

We should not jump to the conclusion that such an arrangement would be unstable, as stable governments have been formed with unlikely combinations before under MMP. The prospect of power does shape behavior into self-disciplined patterns. But one could predict some difficult negotiations among those parties when it came to sorting out cabinet posts and policy priorities. And many voters would feel cheated that a governing party with the largest number of party votes had been kicked out of the Beehive.

Then again, under the old first-past-post system, there were elections where the party that got the most votes ended up with fewer seats in the House, and couldn’t form a government. No system is perfect.

What New Zealanders often don’t get is that tense and complex negotiations go on within parties just as much as they go on between parties. We don’t notice the internal party wrangling because it happens behind closed doors. Political parties do have rival factions and personality conflicts, however. MMP has made some of the political conflicts and horse-trading more public – like the cuppa-tea fiasco.

No doubt there are post-election governance possibilities that I have not considered here. And the opinion polls could turn out to be inaccurate, making all predictions irrelevant. But, if you think that the results are too messy, blaming the voting system is like blaming the messenger: the politicians have to play with whatever cards that we (the voters) deal, no matter which electoral system we have.

Election Day is the people’s day, after all.

Dr Grant Duncan is an Associate Professor, Politics and Public Policy, at Massey University’s Albany campus.