I read this article quoting Christopher Luxon as follows: “We’ve been to many places where marginal seats are and we’re getting good movement.” (Luxon talks to media amid election result limbo fears, NZ Herald, 7 Oct 2023).

He has this misplaced narrative around marginal seats. I have also heard talk in mainstream media circles that appears to give emphasis to ‘marginal seats’. And I heard one explainer on RNZ claiming MMP as a system in which sixty percent of seats in Parliament are elected in electorates, with the remaining ‘list seats’ being determined in proportion to the party vote. The system described in the previous sentence is not MMP (‘Mixed Member Proportional‘); it’s SM (‘Supplementary Member‘). SM was one of the rejected voting methods in the 1992 referendum. Christopher Luxon was just 22 years old at the time of that referendum. I hope he voted; though the low turnout suggests he might not have.

MMP: Mixed Member Proportional

General elections do two things: elect parties to the sovereign Parliament, from which governments are formed; and choose people as local representatives in that Parliament.

The principal purpose of a general election is to determine how many MPs will represent each party; the secondary ‘fine-tuning’ purpose is for the people, rather than the party leaders, to have popular local influence over which people will represent each party in Parliament.

Under MMP – and noting the principal purpose, to elect parties to Parliament in proportion to their popular support nationwide – the concept of ‘marginal electorate’ is entirely meaningless. Wasted votes for very small parties aside (and many people want to increase the number of wasted votes by removing one of the present qualification rules underpinning MMP in New Zealand), parties are elected to Parliament on the basis of the nationwide support for each party. End of story.

Electorates are irrelevant to this nationwide component of the election process. Thus (and assuming no wasted votes) if National gets forty percent of the nationwide party vote, they get forty percent of the seats (ie 48 out of 120) in Parliament. It doesn’t matter whether votes come from Whanganui or Whangamomona; each vote for National counts the same. Parties need to focus on marginal voters, not marginal electorates. (I suspect that there are more marginal voters in West Auckland and in West Christchurch than in Whanganui.)

Under MMP, electorates are an administrative reality in terms of the organisation of the election, facilitating the gathering of votes for the nationwide count. The secondary purpose of the election, people deciding who their local representatives will be, does require electorates; hence the secondary vote – the local vote – is called the electorate vote. The primary vote – the party vote – is a national vote in a national election. The ancillary electorate vote is a local vote in a local election; very much like a vote for a Mayor.

(There is one exception to this situation in New Zealand in 2023. Voters in the Waiariki electorate will cast an electorate vote which could affect nationwide party representation. This adjustment would occur if the sitting Te Pāti Māori representative is defeated by the Labour Party representative.)

In MMP, a large proportion of the list MPs are ‘minor party’ representatives, because the point of MMP is to compensate for the disproportionate way FPP voting discriminates against smaller parties.

SM: Supplementary Member

Under SM, often confused with MMP, most list MPs would be from the ‘major parties’ – usually two major parties – and a top position on the party list would be a political sinecure (much as a safe electorate would also be a sinecure).

‘Supplementary Member’ is a non-proportional electorate-based system. Its core is the old misnamed first-past-the-post system (‘FPP’). (Misnamed because, in each electorate, there is no winning post. Rather, candidates who are ahead when ‘the whistle blows’ or ‘the music stops’ are declared winners whether or not they have reached some metaphorical ‘post’.) SM differs from FPP though, in that a separate minority group (eg forty percent) of MPs are added to the electorate MPs; and this smaller separate group is determined by a second party proportional vote. Under SM, smaller parties are guaranteed token but not proportional representation.

Under the SM system, the primary vote is the electorate vote; and the supplementary vote is the party vote.

Informed and Misinformed Voting Strategies

Under MMP (or at least under ‘informed MMP’), voters first decide on their preferred party. Then they reflect on who they prefer to be their local MP, knowing that the local MP decision does not influence the total number of MPs their preferred party will get. They will know that, in for example Mt Roskill, if Carlos Cheung wins the electorate vote, then some other National Party candidate will miss out on becoming a ‘list MP’.

All elections involve strategic voting. (Under the old ‘FPP’ system, people in ‘safe seats’ voted for the candidate of their preferred party, knowing in advance who the electorate winner would be.) In marginal electorates, people would vote against the candidate representing the party they did not want to win the nationwide election. The actual election only took place in these ‘marginal seats’; indeed, there is still a marginal-seat mindset among people, such as Christopher Luxon it would seem, who should know better. So, in most marginal electorates, anti-National voters would vote for their Labour candidates; even voters who really preferred their Green (or Values Party as the Greens were then) candidate.

With MMP, informed voters normally vote for their preferred party. But they are cognisant of the coalition options. So they might vote for a less-preferred party that has a chance of participating in government if their actual preferred party is unlikely to be in government; that is, they may choose the ‘lesser evil’ option, making a likely government they don’t really want ‘less bad’. In 2020, some people who preferred National over Labour nevertheless voted Labour in order to minimise the influence of the Green Party in government. For those voters, the Green Party was the ‘greater evil’ and the Labour Party was the ‘lesser evil’.

Another form of strategic party voting is to ‘take out insurance’; to vote for a moderating ‘centre’ party. In 2002 that insurance took the form of United Future. In 1996, 2005 and 2017 that ‘hand-brake’ insurance took the form of a vote for New Zealand First.

Under an informed MMP-mindset, electorate votes would generally be for the candidates who would best represent local interests in the national Parliament; regardless of political party. Because there is no cost to voters’ preferred parties. We note that cities over the country have had long-running ‘centre-right’ Mayors despite having mainly ‘centre-left’ MPs. And vice versa. This is also how it should be in MMP electorates.

There is another form of strategic voting in electorates. In particular an electorate-candidate with a low party-list ranking (or not even on the list) can, if elected, displace a candidate who would otherwise become a list MP. Voters may vote for electorate-candidates with this intention in mind. An example might be a National party voter in Ohariu choosing to vote for Labour’s Greg O’Connor as a means to displace someone like David Parker, Andrew Little, Willow Jean Prime, or Ayesha Verrall. Or a Labour Party voter in Ohariu voting for National’s Nicola Willis as a means of helping Parker, Little, Prime and Verrall stay in Parliament.

Misinformed voters are likely to vote as if 2023 is going to be an SM election. They will firstly consider their electorate vote as if it was a Party Vote. They will vote for candidates representing their preferred parties; or against the candidates representing their detested parties, by voting for the party candidate most likely to defeat the candidate for the party they want to lose.

Then they will turn their attention to the party vote, which they understand to being a separate poll to choose list MPs. If such voters want a single-party government they will vote ‘two ticks’, for the party as well as the candidate of that party. Or they may want insurance, voting for a minor-party coalition partner. Or they may vote for the minor party which they really prefer, given the FPP belief that voting for the electorate candidate of a minor party is a wasted vote.

The SM/FPP mindset mainly affects the electorate vote, treating it as a party vote rather than a personal vote. In addition, SM might exaggerate minor-party support in the party-vote; some voters might use the supplementary vote to compensate for the disproportionality of an FPP-type electorate vote.

Predictions

The table below gives my stylised – meaning possibly exaggerated, to make a point – predictions for certain electorates for the 14 October election. I focus on the Labour Party, given that it is the present governing party and that it will lose sitting MP candidates. I make predictions based on the presence or absence of MMP awareness; with MMP awareness favouring popular local candidates regardless of party affiliations, especially sitting MPs. MMP thinking minimises changes in electorate MPs, meaning that there can be big swings among major-party list MPs instead.

And I make predictions for SM/FPP thinking. FPP-style voting yields big electorate MP swings, leaving relatively stable major-party list representation. (In practice, some voters will probably make informed MMP electorate choices, and others will make misinformed electorate choices. So the actual election result is likely to be an average of the two scenarios shown.) And I go on to make a prediction of the result if the voting system actually was SM.

In the Table below, I am basing my predictions on what the recent polls are saying about the parties; namely that Labour will get 26 percent of the vote and 33 seats in the new Parliament. (To keep the table as short as possible, I have excluded any electorates for which I think the Labour candidate will not win.)

Under MMP-informed voting I am predicting 27 electorate MPs for Labour and 6 list MPs. Under SM/FPP-informed electorate voting, I am predicting 16 electorate MPs for Labour and 17 list MPs. Some people – eg Kieran McAnulty – would be an electorate MP under the first scenario and a list MP under the second scenario.

Table of Stylised Predictions for ‘Labour electorates’:

From the table above, these six electorate candidates would get through under MMP-informed electorate voting, but not under SM/FPP-informed electorate voting: Utikere, Leavasa, Boyack, Wood, Twyford, Leary.

And these six would get elected under misinformed electorate voting (ie SM/FPP-informed) but not under MMP-informed electorate voting: Little (List 12), Parker (L13), Radhakrishnan (L15), Andersen (L17), Luxton (L19), Salesa (E).

So I am saying that, if voters vote in the electorates as they would have done under FPP, then Little, Parker, Radhakrishnan, Andersen, Luxton and Salesa would be in instead of Utikere, Leavasa, Boyack, Wood, Twyford, Leary. No prizes for working out which of those sixsomes the Labour leadership would prefer.

I would also mention that under SM-informed voting in an MMP election, the party vote for Labour (and National) would probably be a percentage-point or two lower than under MMP-informed party voting. In my table, that would cost Brooking and Russell their seats.

I would also note that if Labour’s support falls to 22% (about that of National in 2002) and New Zealand First mops up the populist vote, then Labour would be down to zero list MPs in an MMP-informed election and 11 list MPs in an election in which the electorate adopts SM/FPP voting strategies. In an MMP-informed election with the Labour vote at 22%, then Robertson, Tinetti, Verrall, Jackson, Prime and Rurawhe would also be gone.

If it really was an SM election

If SM was actually the voting system, and on present polling – I would predict: 28 MPs for Labour (16 electorate, 12 list); 11 MPs for Green (3 electorate, 8 list); 4 list MPs for NZ First, 2 MPs for Te Pāti Māori (1 electorate, 1 list); 5 MPs for Act (all list); 70 MPs for National (52 electorate, 18 list). National would win outright with less than 40% of the party vote. Christopher Luxon would like that. Many MPs – both electorate and list – would consider themselves to be safe; many more than under MMP.

Green Party, Act, TOP and Māori

My prediction this time is for the Green Party to win three electorate seats in an MMP-informed election (Auckland Central, Wellington Central, Panmure-Otahuhu) and two electorates in a misinformed MMP election (Auckland Central, Wellington Central). The incumbent MP, Chloe Swarbrick, should win Auckland Central either way. Further, I believe that circumstances conspire in Wellington Central, where the overseas vote may play a vital role. And Ofiso Collins, standing for the Greens in Panmure-Otahuhu, could win through a personal vote, given his prominence as a popular Auckland mayoral candidate.

Under MMP-savvy voting, TOP should win Ilam. The TOP leader there – Raf Manji – is a popular Christchurch city councillor; though a vote for Manji could reduce the total number of National or Labour MPs, given that TOP party votes would no longer be wasted. And, under MMP-informed voting, ACT should win Tamaki as well as Epsom. In this case, a vote for the Act candidate (Brooke Van Velden) could have no impact on the number of national or Labour MPs.

Under my MMP-informed predictions, which do not include any seats for TOP, Labour retains most of its Māori caucus, and gains new MPs in the Māori electorates. So, given the likely presence in Parliament of 4 or 5 Te Pāti Māori MPs, and Green Māori MPs as well, the Parliament will have probably its largest Māori representation ever. We note that the first three on the New Zealand First list are all Māori, as is the leader of Act. National will be conspicuously the least-Māori party.

Back to Christopher Luxon.

If Mr Luxon is campaigning too much for the electorate vote in ‘marginal electorates’, then he is potentially missing out on party votes in the parts of the country he is barely seen in. That might not bother me, but should bother him. West Auckland comes to mind here.

Postscript: Trifecta Voting

One way to distance ourselves from SM/FPP thinking would be to introduce trifecta voting in all elections; national and local, electorate and party.

Under trifecta voting, in each ballot voters choose up to three candidates or parties, numbering them as first, second and third preference.

Under trifecta party voting, there would be almost no wasted party votes, because almost all voters would include a successful party as one of their three preferences. Unsuccessful first preference votes would be discarded in favour of voters’ second preferences. And, if still not electing a party, the second preference would yield to the third preference. Same thing for candidate voting. Votes for eliminated candidates would transfer until at least one candidate had sufficient of the vote to be elected.

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

How determined are Labour to take the necessary steps to fix inequality and poverty? Will electoral calculations triumph over their principles and stated ambitions? These are some of the questions being asked on the political left, as the Government looks determined to stand by while social problems continue to get worse under their watch.

During their last term in Government, Ardern and colleagues failed to be transformational on their key promise of fixing inequality and poverty. And now they are choosing policies that massively increase inequality, while ignoring the plight of those at the bottom. That’s why this week over 60 charities and NGOs made an open plea to the Government to increase welfare benefits before Christmas.

Despite the extraordinary conditions at the moment, Ardern response was a firm “no”. Poverty advocates say Labour should be “ashamed”, with many suggesting that the PM’s own advocacy of kindness and compassion is directly contradicted by her actual decisions.

Writing in the Herald today, Matthew Hooton argues that the poverty advocates “have a point” in their dissatisfaction, as “Ardern’s response to these issues is unsatisfactory” – see: The left’s message to Jacinda Ardern: It’s time to fix child poverty (paywalled). He argues that this week’s rejection of benefit increases “has prompted the first mini-rebellion on her left”.

Hooton is particularly dismissive of Ardern’s plea for more time to consider benefit levels: “she says more ‘work’ is needed but it is not clear what ‘work’ is required to make a basic decision on benefit levels. Ruth Richardson, after all, took just 53 days after the October 27 1990 election to announce her benefit cuts. It is not obvious why any more ‘work’ is needed to make the opposite decision. In any case, the ‘work’ was presumably already done in Ardern’s now eight and a half years in the children’s portfolio and by her [Welfare Expert Advisory Group].”

So should the left be rebelling? And is Labour putting hanging on to power above tackling poverty? Hooton seems to believe so: “the Prime Minister just emotes her usual concern. This is not economically or socially sustainable — and surely not politically sustainable either. There must come a time when Ardern’s own political base demands something more on such issues than her frowny-concerned face. It will be another 100 years before Labour again wins a mandate like the one Ardern secured last month. If she won’t act now on the issues she says concern her, left-wing activists will be entitled to ask whether hungry children and young couples struggling to buy a house really mean anything to her beyond being useful walk-on parts during election campaigns.”

Similarly, writing in the NBR yesterday, Brent Edwards says the debate “is a pointed rejoinder to Ardern from those who do not believe she is as committed to reducing child poverty as her rhetoric suggests”, and he argues that the decision to keep benefits down is unsurprising, given that Ardern’s decisions are guided by electoral considerations – see: Benefit increase dismissal a sign of Ardern’s political conservatism (paywalled).

Brent Edwards contrasts the benefit decision with the first policy announcement of the Finance Minister: “Grant Robertson announced the Cabinet had decided to extend the small business cashflow loan scheme, which was due to end next month, for another three years and extend the interest-free period from one to two years. It is also looking at other changes to make the scheme more accessible for small businesses. It was the new government’s first decision of this term and is part of its attempt to woo the business community”.

So, just how long will beneficiaries and others in poverty have to wait until Labour delivers? Today’s Stuff newspaper editorial asks: “It takes more than one term to solve it, but will it take more than two?” – see: No Christmas present from the Govt for New Zealand’s poor. They argue that poverty advocates have already made a “persuasive argument” for benefit increases.

The editorial says Ardern is risking damage to her own brand by talking about kindness but doing the opposite: “Poverty advocates are used to hearing governments say one thing about poverty, especially the emotionally powerful issue of child poverty, but do another.” They also ask: “What is the political cost of kindness? Or conversely, what is the political cost of doing nothing?”

Poverty advocates are understandably upset by Ardern’s rejection of action on poverty, and some are starting to speak out strongly against her and the Government. Auckland Action Against Poverty’s coordinator Brooke Stanley Pao has said that Ardern is “choosing to keep people and families in poverty” – see Vita Molyneux’s Jacinda Ardern blasted as ‘disconnected’, ‘reeking of privilege’ by Auckland anti-poverty group. According to this article, Pao “challenged the Prime Minister and other politicians to try and live on the current benefit for a month and ‘see how they find themselves’.”

Brooke Stanley Pao also wrote about this just prior to the election, saying, You can’t eat kindness. Responding to Ardern’s mantra, she says “We want more than kindness. We want the political bravery necessary to lift people out of poverty. Anything else is lip service.”

Other leftwing bloggers are losing their faith that Labour and Ardern really believe in progressive politics. For example, No Right Turn says: “The message is clear: their ‘kindness’ extends only to rich people, who will be exempted from paying their fair share of the costs of the pandemic (or society in general). As for poor kids, they can keep on starving. Which once again invites the question: what is Labour for, exactly, if they’re not going to ever deliver anything?” – see: Labour’s “kindness” extends only to the rich.

The Child Poverty Action Group reports “the dismayed, disappointed and, in some cases, furious response to its dismissal” of benefit increases by Ardern and asks of the Government, “What, exactly, are they waiting for?” – see Janet McAllister’s Ardern tells us to be patient on benefit levels. But we’ve been patient long enough. She argues that increased payments would have an immediate impact on alleviating poverty.

McAllister also draws attention to the Government making decisions in the Covid environment that are likely to worsen inequality while ignoring the needs of those at the bottom: “Using children as economic shock absorbers – that’s unreasonable. Covid-response policies that stretch inequity even further – that’s unreasonable. Child Poverty Action Group research this year has shown that core entitlements for those receiving benefits are mostly far below key poverty lines, and in some cases will be tipping people into severest poverty. We modelled a scenario that shows 70,000 additional children are at risk of poverty due to Covid-19 on current policy settings.”

For more on what Janet McAllister thinks is wrong with the current Government policies, see: Why Labour’s tinkering of our welfare system just isn’t enough. Looking back at what Labour have implemented over the last term, she concludes: “by themselves, these policies are disappointing. It’s still just tinkering around the edges and far from big, bold moves to cut the mustard. They’re of no use to many of our poorest families.”

Another poverty advocate, Max Rashbrooke of Victoria University of Wellington, has written in the Guardian about how disappointed he is with progress on child poverty under the Government, and how things look set to get worse unless policies are implemented that live up to the lofty targets set by Ardern – see: Jacinda Ardern must use her mandate to tackle child poverty in New Zealand.

The problem according to Rashbrooke is that Ardern “has relied largely on the ‘third way’ policies of her Labour predecessor, Helen Clark, in her fight against child poverty.” And so although there has been some “modest progress” on some poverty measures, these are essentially the result of picking the low-hanging fruit. He points to Treasury modelling showing that “the number of families in ‘material hardship’ – those reporting they are unable to afford basic items – will ‘rise sharply’.”

Is it true that the Government can’t afford to increase benefits? Not according to business journalist Bernard Hickey, whose must-read column this week argues that Ardern and Robertson seem determined to massively increase inequality by following outdated economic philosophies – see: Government should use printed money to increase benefits, which will be spent in the economy. He asks: “Is it more important that homeowners are $100b richer? Or that hundreds of thousands of children are left unnecessarily in poverty?”

Here’s Hickey’s main point: “It is bizarre that a Labour Government and a Reserve Bank that talk a big game on their social responsibilities and sustainability are choosing to pump up to $150b into increasing housing market valuations for the richest half of New Zealanders who own homes, but don’t think they can afford increasing benefits at a cost of $5.2b for the hundreds of thousands of kids and their parents living in poverty.” He points out that “economists as conservative as those at the OECD, the IMF and the World Bank are now begging Governments to do things differently by spending money on the poor and on infrastructure, rather than just pumping up asset prices to make the rich even richer.”

Hickey also refers to a report out this week with findings from the Growing Up in New Zealand longitudinal study. You can read the report here: Now we are eight: Life in middle childhood. Hickey sums up the inequality findings: “Nearly 40 per cent are living in cold, mouldy and damp homes. About a third are obese. About 20 per cent of the families surveyed did not have enough money to eat properly. Nearly 15 per cent of the eight-year-olds had already moved school twice, largely because of having to move from one rental property to the next.”

Not everyone is criticising Labour’s rejection of benefit increases. Newstalk ZB’s Mike Hosking says that giving into such a demand would take the government down a “slippery slope”, and be too expensive for little real gain – see: Government can’t fall into benefit rabbit hole.

There is no doubt there is urgent need for relief for those at the bottom. And this week the Auckland City Mission launched a campaign to replenish their run-down stocks of food, noting that prior to Covid they estimated “10 per cent of Kiwis experienced food insecurity on a regular basis. Due to Covid-19, it believes the figure is now closer to 20 per cent – or one million people – who do not have enough good food to eat on a weekly basis” – see 1News: Auckland City Mission bracing for toughest Christmas in 100 years.

And today it’s being reported that the Government’s two-tier welfare payments have come to an end – see Sarah Robson’s Covid-19 income relief payment comes to end, thousands may be left without support.

Finally, what’s to be done about poverty and inequality, given this Government has no great interest in being transformational on this issue? According to veteran leftwing commentator Chris Trotter, It’s time for some “Earnest Struggle”. He argues that Labour will only ever carry out leftwing reforms if they are forced to. He wants to see less reliance on appeals to Ardern and Robertson to “be kind”, and more mass marches down Auckland’s Queen St.

• How voting counting continues in the United States with it being so very close but nudging favourably for Democrat candidate, Joe Biden.
• But incumbent, US President Donald Trump, has already claimed victory; that the reason why he trails in the electoral college vote is due to voter fraud; that he will ‘not allow them to steal this election’; that he will take this to the US Supreme Court.
• Overnight, Trump has filed a law suit to stop vote counting in Michigan.
• Meanwhile, the vote counting of votes continues. The totals in key tipping states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania should be more clear by Friday, US time (that’s Saturday here in New Zealand).

INTERACTION: Remember, if you are joining us LIVE via social media (SEE LINKS BELOW), you can make comments and include questions. We will be able to see your interaction, and include this in the LIVE show.

You can interact with the LIVE programme by joining these social media channels. Here are the links:

• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube

And, you can see video-on-demand of this show, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz

So let’s cross to Paul who is waiting online, and unpick the complexity of this election outcome….

Our House of Representatives has just become more diverse, and yet narrower at the same time. A record 40 new MPs have flooded into Parliament – with especially big intakes from the Labour and Act parties.

You can see some short profiles of the new MPs in Simon Collins’ article, Forty newcomers include our first African, Latin American and Sri Lankan MPs. Clearly, the intake has transformed the make-up of the Parliament, especially in terms of the varied identities and backgrounds of the new MPs. When looking at the overall makeup in terms of categories such as gender, ethnicity, age, and sexuality, the new Parliament is highly diverse.

Heightened concerns about the historic under-representation of certain groups has led to political parties and the public to elect some fresher faces. And yet, in some important ways the Parliament continues to become narrower – especially in terms of ideological views and socio-economics. It seems that the Parliament has become, on the one hand, more female, browner, and less straight; and on the other hand, more middle class and politically centrist.

Celebrating a modernised and diverse Parliament

For the best breakdown of the demographics of the new Parliament see David Farrar’s How does Parliament compare to the adult population. Farrar celebrates the fact that this parliament “is the most diverse one in history”, and emphasises that it’s “a good thing when Parliament looks like the people it represents.”

He compares the new Parliament with the overall adult population in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, and sexuality, and comes up with some very interesting results. He challenges the conventional notion that minorities are still routinely under-represented: “People often assume that minority groups are automatically under-represented in Parliament. But in fact in New Zealand it is often the other way around.”

With regard to gender, he points out that women have gone from 41% of the Parliament to 48%, and this figure “is a higher proportion than any other country in the OECD. Sweden is at 47%.

In terms of ethnicity, Farrar says “Most over-represented are Pasifika who have 10% of MPs for 6% of adult pop and Maori who have 20% of MPs for 12% of adult population.” In contrast, “Asians are most under-represented with 5% of MPs for 15% of the adult population. Next are Europeans who are 65% of MPs and 67% of adults.”

In terms of sexual orientation, “11% of Parliament are ‘rainbow’ for 3.5% of the adult population”, while straight people are under-represented.

Parliament is no longer the province of the aged either, with those in their mid-40s being the most represented: “those in their 40’s have 38% of MPs for 18% of adult population”, while only 8% of the Parliament is in their 60s (compared to 22% of the population).

Sociologist Paul Spoonley has also looked at the figures, and draws attention to the fact that Māori representation has actually gone down, especially with the departure New Zealand First – see: Does the new Parliament look like us?. Similarly, he points to the departures of a number of Asian MPs, and says Chinese and Indian communities are now under-represented.

Spoonley suggests discrimination is still part of the democratic system, wondering “whether there is an ethnic penalty in operation. If minority ethnic and immigrant candidates are selected for electorate seats, do members of other ethnic groups (as voters) not see them as strong candidates?”

Of course, different political parties have contributed varying levels of diversity, and Spoonley has also been interviewed by the Herald’s Bernard Orsman who looks at these numbers, and concludes: Labour looks like contemporary New Zealand, National still male and pale.

The political left has contributed to greater diversity: “More than half of Labour’s 64 MPs are women, it has 15 Maori MPs, one in six MPs is Pasifika and it has a good mix of other ethnicities. The Greens’ caucus of 10 includes three Maori MPs, seven women, Iranian refugee Golriz Ghahraman and Latin American Ricardo Menendez.”

The political right has lost much of its diversity – especially due to National’s plummeting party vote: “National has just two Maori MPs – Simon Bridges and Shane Reti – in a caucus of 35, one Asian MP in Melissa Lee and 11 women. Otherwise, it is mostly made up of European males…. Act’s 10-strong caucus has three Maori MPs – David Seymour, Nicole McKee and Karen Chhour – and four women – Brooke van Velden, McKee, Chhour and Toni Severin.”

The increased number of “rainbow” MPs has been the most celebrated aspect of the diverse new Parliament, going from 7 to 11 “openly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender members of the 120 members” – see Nikki Preston’s New Zealand overtakes the UK’s title for the gayest Parliament. At 9% of the Parliament, this is a world record, “bypassing the UK which holds the current title of the gayest Parliament with a 7 per cent representation.” But again, this demographic is skewed between parties: “About 40 per cent of the Green Party MPs are from the rainbow community”, while “Neither Act or National Party currently have any openly gay MPs in their parties.”

Highlighting a shortcoming in the new diverse Parliament, Henrietta Bollinger has written on the Spinoff website: “While I celebrate one element of my identity – my queer identity – so openly represented at the highest level of politics, that achievement draws my attention to the glaring absences in our supposedly representative democracy. Most obviously, it is my lack of representation as a disabled person” – see: All these new queer MPs are fantastic news. But where are their disabled peers?.

The new Parliament is also distinguished by a large number of immigrant MPs. The five new politicians are covered in Justin Latif’s Arrival of parliament’s new migrant MPs sparks rejoicing, and backlash. In this, there’s a particular focus on Green MP Ricardo Menendez-March, who had tweeted about his opposition to swearing allegiance to the Queen, and responded to hostile criticisms saying “I guess it is a sign that we have systemic racism and systemic homophobia that when someone like myself, who’s a queer Latino, tries to have a nuanced conversation [about constitutional reform], people immediately to shut me down.”

The Pacifica caucus in Parliament is now a record 11, which involves ten from Labour and one from the Greens (National lost two Pacifica MPs). This is leading to very high expectations that these MPs and the Labour Government will deliver real reforms for those suffering at the bottom of the heap – see Torika Tokalau’s Expectations high after record number of Pasifika MPs elected into Parliament.

In this article, Pacific health expert Dr Collin Tukuitonga points to what areas need to be addressed for these voters: “inequalities in health, education, affordable housing, safe and warm homes and employment.” AUT lecturer Richard Pamatatau seems pessimistic about their abilities to achieve this, saying “I’d argue it’s going to be harder for them to have a voice when there are others with more voice.”

Pacifica journalist Teuila Fuatai has argued “For Pasifika, Labour’s willingness to embrace bold change in the next three years is particularly critical” and in this regard, looking back “it’s been a pretty disappointing three years” – see: After a disappointing 3 years, it’s delivery time (paywalled). She points for the need for change in benefit rates, tax, and housing affordability.

Writer Emmaline Pickering-Martin says she is “cautiously optimistic” that the Pacifica MPs will be able to help deliver such things, but strong pressure has to be applied so that the new MPs don’t cop out with lines like “I’m new, it’s not my place yet” – see: No time to be humble. More generally, she asks “How do we ensure this increased representation will translate to real and meaningful change for our Pacific communities?”

Less social class and occupational diversity

As usual there has been little focus on the overall socio-economic, class or occupational backgrounds of the new Parliament.

Although the research is not out yet, the professionalisation of politics appears to have continued, with more MPs coming out of professional occupational backgrounds and reduced representation from lower socio-economic or working class backgrounds.

There appears to have been a significant increase in politicians from law backgrounds. This is best discussed by RNZ’s Craig Stephen, who has found that “The Labour Party has the most legal professionals in its new caucus, 14, followed by National (four), and the Greens (two)” – see: Parliament still packed with lawyers – but is that a bad thing?. He says “No other profession comes close to supplying so many politicians.”

There is a good discussion of the merits of lawyers as politicians, with University of Auckland legal academic Tim Kuhner noting “that sometimes lawyers-turned-MPs can fail to grasp the historical, sociological, psychological, and other dimensions of policy issues, and instead focus purely on legal means to problem-solve.”

The rise of professionals and more middle class politicians in 2020 is possibly not very surprising given the absence of working class politics during the election campaign. Leftwing commentator Josie Pagani wrote about this at the time, saying “Working class voices are missing in our election. This is an election contested between an educated class more willing to compromise on tax than 100 per cent renewables, against the property-owning classes not willing to redistribute at all – ‘The haves versus the have yachts'” – see: Contest is between the haves and the have-yachts (paywalled).

Another leftwing commentator, blogger Steven Cowan has also decried the fact that the more liberal diversity of the new Parliament isn’t so much to celebrate when politicians themselves are increasingly more middle of the road – see: Centrist central. He argues, “Despite the political establishment’s celebration of Parliament’s dizzying diversity, the politics remains much the same. Despite its increase in numbers you can still not point to a single Labour MP who could be described as a socialist or even left wing.”

And in reaction to other leftwing commentators who have celebrated the increased gender equality at the top of society, Cowan says: “So if Carmel Sepuloni remains as Minister of Social Development beneficiaries will be able to celebrate that they are being denied an increase in their tiny benefits by a woman. Won’t that be great?”

Arguably, the ideological space in the new Parliament has also narrowed considerably. This is partly related to a moribund party system. Former MP Peter Dunne argues today that the incumbent parties are essentially increasing the barriers in a myriad of ways to prevent new political parties from forming and having any chance of breaking into Parliament – see: The steep and narrow path to Parliament.

This is his conclusion: “It ties the system up very neatly in favour of the parties currently in Parliament, and means that, even for a party like New Zealand First, the prospects for newcomers seeking to join the club or old hands trying to return are grim. Overall, it is very difficult to see how any of these developments accords with the Royal Commission’s ambitions to provide for good government, wider representation of minority and special groups, viable political parties and the effective representation of constituents.”

Dunne also argued yesterday that Parliament is missing a key ideological voice – that of traditional liberals. He says all the existing political parties cherry-pick some liberal values but can’t be relied upon to consistently project a principled liberal stance on any issue – see: Where have the liberals gone?.

Finally, Ibrahim Omer is a new MP with a totally different background to most MPs – he worked as an interpreter in United Nations-run refugee camps, then came to New Zealand, where he has worked as a cleaner and then a union organiser for low-paid workers – see a profile on him by Mandy Te: Incoming Labour list MP Ibrahim Omer says it’s a privilege to be first the African MP.

The Greens are at a crossroads. The direction they take in the next few days may have significant consequences, not just for the country and the shape of the Government, but also for the future of the Greens themselves.

Currently, the Labour and Green negotiating teams are behind closed doors coming up with a deal, which will then be taken to Green Party delegates on Friday night to endorse or reject. This requires 75% of Green delegates to agree.

It’s high stakes, because any deal taken to members is non-negotiable and likely to put the Greens either into government (with ministers outside of Cabinet) or afford them a looser arrangement with less responsibility. Rejecting Labour’s offer would put the Greens outside of government power. Whatever option is chosen will come with both costs and rewards, and will likely open up divides within the party membership.

Why Labour wants the Greens

There is an assumption that Labour doesn’t need or want the Greens as part of the Government because Jacinda Ardern already has a majority of votes in Parliament. Any inclination to include the Greens in a Labour-led government is being viewed by some as magnanimous or kind. For the best explanation for why this couldn’t be further from the truth, see John Armstrong’s latest column, Don’t mistake Ardern’s talks with Green Party for kindness.

According to Armstrong there are two reasons that Labour strategically wants the Greens within the government: “First, [Ardern] wants to keep the Greens in the position she has reserved for them – namely, firmly under her thumb. Second, as much as it is the desire of any Prime Minister to be freed to run a single-party Government unencumbered by minor party partners and the constant compromises that entails, opinion polls have revealed that up to half of the electorate are averse to all power residing in just one party. It is therefore in her interests to convey the impression she is sharing power.”

Armstrong points out that Jacinda Ardern is generally ruthless when it comes to the electoral interests of her party, and this was often in evidence during the election campaign. And ultimately any offers from Labour to the Greens will be underpinned by Labour having all the leverage, with Ardern saying “take it or leave it. It is important to Ardern’s self-styled image as a consensus-building politician that she be seen to make an offer. If the Greens don’t accept it, then too bad. She won’t be losing any sleep.”

What is likely to be offered to the Greens

Essentially the possible offers boil down to either ministerial positions outside of Cabinet, or some looser arrangement that involves less governing power for the Greens but also with more independence for the minor party.

The latest speculation is that Labour will only offer two ministerial positions: for co-leaders James Shaw and Marama Davidson. Having Davidson with ministerial power would be very useful for selling the deal to party activists, who generally want to see Davidson have greater influence, especially because they trust her more to keep to the more radical traditions and principles of the party. So, it would be an apt move by Ardern to offer a promotion to her.

Such an offer would be less than what the Greens got after the last election, and would mean current ministers Eugenie Sage and Julie Anne Genter would be demoted. David Williams writes about this today, saying a demotion for Sage, while retaining Shaw, would suggest that Labour wanted to shift more towards the centre in this new term: “Showing Sage the door, however, would speak volumes about our next Government’s potential embrace of pragmatism and incrementalism” – see: A tale of two Green ministers.

Williams’ argument is that Sage, as Minister of Conservation and of Land Information, has been prepared to “rock the boat”, while Shaw has been more centrist: “Where they differ, perhaps, is Shaw’s willingness to cut a deal – seemingly against Green ideals. This time last year, Shaw backed an agreement with farm leaders for the agriculture sector to self-manage its methane emissions. As political website Politik put it, Shaw staked his political reputation on it, as he defied his own party’s election manifesto and a recommendation from the Interim Climate Change Commission.”

In another article, Williams also reports the view of Kevin Hague (former Green MP, now head of Forest & Bird), who says this about the dangers of Sage being dropped: “Whoever they put in would have 10 percent of the experience, knowledge, and skill that Eugenie Sage has in that portfolio area. So imagine that minister’s next three years if Eugenie Sage is not in the government and is instead critiquing what the government’s doing. If you start thinking through the practicalities, it’s strongly in Labour’s interest to actually do a deal that works.”

One option supposedly being considered by the Labour-Green negotiators is what Ardern has called a “consultation agreement”, which is what the Greens signed up to with Helen Clark in 2005. This “saw the Greens not committed to supporting Labour on confidence and supply but consequently without any Ministerial positions” – see Richard Harman’s Greens’ high stakes game carries a big risk. In this arrangement, “The Government promised to consult with the Green Party on a range of issues”.

For more speculation on how the negotiations are going, see leftwing blogger Martyn Bradbury’s The latest from the Green-Labour negotiations. He suggests the talks aren’t going so well, with Labour currently offering little, and the Green membership getting ready to reject it.

Why the Greens should stay out of the new Government

It might be in the interests of the Green Party to stay out of Labour’s new government. This point of view is well explained by David Williams in his article, Why standing apart is good for the Greens. He suggests the party will be more able to “keep their distinctive voice, and can raise their voice when they disagree”. And he reports the view of former co-leader Russel Norman (now of Greenpeace) who says “You can influence things from the outside” and he’s highly critical of what the party achieved during the last coalition by being inside the tent: “They were in the Government and achieved very, very little.” He argues that the party also had to “defend the indefensible” such as keeping farmers out of the emissions trading scheme.

Long-time leftwing commentator Gordon Campbell has also put forward the arguments for the Greens retaining their independence: “The Greens barely survived this last term in government. Signing up again could well be suicidal, long term. It might have made sense if the voters had delivered a sufficient number of Green MPs to make them essential for Labour to govern. But that didn’t happen. Instead, the Greens are just an optional extra. That’s a major problem” – see: On why the Greens shouldn’t join the government.

Campbell sees the Greens in Government being swamped and silenced, and getting the blame for the shortcomings of the next three years: “Arguably, the Green Party can (a) better defend their principles, (b) retain their identity and (c) be a more feisty advocate against Labour timidity and Act Party populism alike, from a position outside of the tent.”

He believes the Greens risk becoming a party of insiders, disconnected from their community activism, and that the lessons the Greens should be taking are instead from the significant victory in Auckland Central: “Chloe Swarbrick won Auckland Central by running on the track carved out by the Green Party of old – as an outsider against two machine politicians from two virtually indistinguishable parties of the mainstream. She didn’t run as an insider promising incremental change. If the Greens turn their back on the Auckland Central example and settle for relative impotence inside government they will put themselves right back in the MMP danger zone again in 2023.”

Blogger No Right Turn also says that the last term in Government wasn’t a successful exercise for the party, and by going into government again they risk simply “implementing and overseeing Labour policy” – see: The Greens and Labour.

This all comes at a cost: “Being a good team player means not criticising your political partners, and in particular, not spending the next three years reminding Labour’s supporters and voters generally of what the government could or should be doing. Which is fine, if you’re actually getting real policy out of it. But its not something you give away for nothing, or next-to-nothing (which is what the Greens arguably got last term).”

Former Green MPs are also speaking out publicly to warn the party not to fall into the trap of government. Keith Locke told RNZ that they should “remain critical of Labour while also working constructively with it” – see: Green Party should avoid Cabinet positions and remain an independent, critical voice – former MP. According to Locke, inside government his party “would not have any leverage and there would be an implicit understanding that the Green caucus would soften its criticism of the Labour government.”

Similarly, Catherine Delahunty went on RNZ to say: “I think the greens should go hard for independence right now and not become subsumed into any form of deal with Labour that actually mutes their ability to speak out” – see: Greens better off independent – Former Green MP Catherine Delahunty. The former MP believes the party shouldn’t take any ministerial positions and should instead focus on pressuring the Government to be more transformational: “She said the Greens became too risk-averse in the previous term when the party was part of the government and what she wants to see is some radicalism from the new MPs.”

Party activist Justine Sachs says entering into government would mean “selling out the party’s soul”, and they are better to focus on work outside of Parliament and government: “Let’s focus on building power, not just electorally but in unions and social movements. Labour has a mandate, but its pivot to the right suggests that the mandate will not be spent on the kind of transformative change necessary. It is up to the Greens to push Labour left, and this will be far easier to do from the outside in opposition, where they are allowed an independent and critical voice” – see: The Green party should think twice before accepting a deal with Labour.

The difficulty of the decision was clearly outlined by Matthew Hooton on the day after the election. He suggested the party is in a bind, as it either has to throw its lot in with the “Ardern juggernaut” and potentially neutralise itself, or stay out of government and be powerless – see: Triumphant Greens face difficult choice on Government role (paywalled). The decision is highly fraught: “if the Greens get the decision wrong, in last night’s triumph may well lie the seeds of a disaster in 2023.”

Here’s Hooton’s case for the Greens staying out of government: “The radicals will rightly point out this also involves existential political risk. When push comes to shove, the Greens will still have no real power over Labour, but their ministers will be bound by Cabinet collective responsibility, obliged to publicly support decisions they don’t agree with. Green ministers will be in danger of doing little more than applying a Green stamp to Labour’s agenda, to the extent it turns out to have one.”

Why the Greens need to be part of the new Government

In the above column, Hooton also makes the case for the Greens taking up a role in government: “Outside the Government, they are no more than a taxpayer-funded pressure group with the use of Parliament’s platform. That may be enough for the radical side of the Green coalition but its other supporters want outcomes. For wiser heads, the Greens have no real choice but to opt for a more formal agreement with Labour, assuming Ardern offers one. To have any real power at all, they need to be ministers who operationally control departments and budgets, and attend Cabinet committee meetings as equals with their Labour rivals.”

BusinessDesk’s Pattrick Smellie acknowledges there is a risk for the Greens in entering government by having ministers outside of Cabinet, but says there are also risks with abstaining: “if the Greens sit on the cross-benches without influence and snipe for three years, they risk just as much being blamed for failing to exert maximum constructive influence without being suffocated in the embrace of a formal coalition. After all, if the climate emergency is so urgent, how is it served by three years of tactical and ultimately impotent Opposition? On balance, it is very difficult to see how the Greens can do other than seek ministerial posts under arrangements that will look very similar to the confidence and supply agreement reached after 2017” – see: Labour and the Greens: an inevitable embrace (paywalled).

Journalist Selwyn Manning argues there is a need for the Greens to fulfil the mandate of voters who want them to take up positions in government and carry out their policy promises – see: Of negotiations, opportunities and an obligation to voters to govern.

Manning’s main point is that abstentionism would jeopardise the newfound position of Green power: “to shy away from an opportunity to assert its core environmental and climate policies, to abandon the ability to inject itself into the new Executive Government’s priority policy settings – then it would relegate itself into legislative insignificance and potential political oblivion by 2023. It would also pay-waste to the ministerial experience, gains and momentum that its members of Parliament established during the 2017-20 term.”

Similarly, see Rod Oram’s What the Greens could bring to a two-party government. He argues that the “Greens could play two important roles in a two-party government: more innovative ideas than Labour has offered, and strong ministerial talent”.

Finally, for a detailed constitutional take on the various potential governing options for the Greens, through the lens of dating and relationships, see Andrew Geddis’ What sort of relationship might Labour and the Greens agree on?.

The Green Party has settled on its negotiation team, agreeing to who will represent the party’s members when considering the shape and outcome of talks with the incoming Labour-led Government.

The negotiating team has a similar make up to the group that considered the merits of negotiations with Labour post the 2017 General Election.

The group, called Tatau Pounamu, a Negotiation Consultation Group, has also settled on its terms of reference, giving a guideline for how it will settle on a final decision on what the Green Party’s relationship with Labour in Government will look like.

Tatau Pounamu’s terms of reference proposes a consensus be sought, and, if that fails, then a 75 percent vote of the Tatau Pounamu group in favour will be required “to carry a proposal that alters the status quo”.

The terms of Tatau Pounamu agreement state: “All decisions concerning the negotiations, including what agreement, if any, would be taken to a Special General Meeting (SGM) will be taken by the combined membership of Tatau Pounamu.”

“Decisions will be reached by consensus. When this is not possible it will be by vote, with at least 75% of votes in favour to carry a proposal that alters the status quo.”

“Only members of Tatau Pounamu selected by the three-petal approval processes are involved in decision-making.”

The Green’s negotiating team incudes:

The National Party’s defeat has been so comprehensive that few in the party seem optimistic they will recover anytime soon. Falling from 47% in 2017 to just 27% (which might drop as low as 25% once special votes are counted), is one of the most severe collapses in New Zealand’s electoral history. And there are so many other election statistics that paint a picture of a party in crisis. The fact that National came second in the party vote count in 68 out of 72 electorates, and losing electorates such as Ilam, New Plymouth and Rangitata shows something extremely serious has gone on amongst National’s traditional support base.

For more on National’s electoral collapse on Saturday, see Marc Daalder’s The scale of National’s collapse and Labour’s surge. He points out that “National lost a whopping 15 of its 41 electorate seats”.

Unfortunately for National, the crisis is far from over. Incredibly destabilising infighting and leaking to the media is continuing, according to Newshub’s Tova O’Brien who reports: “They have only been back at Parliament one day after their devastating defeat but already National MPs are leaking, telling Newshub they are predicting a coup” – see: National MPs already leaking, predicting leadership coup after devastating defeat. She reports that “After National’s massacre at the polls MPs are looking for scalps.”

On the subject of party leader Judith Collins, one National MP told O’Brien that it’s “highly, highly unlikely she’ll lead us into 2023”. And some told her that ex-Air New Zealand boss Christopher Luxon will challenge Collins. Newshub then spoke to Luxon, who “didn’t quite rule it out and didn’t quite dampen talk of leadership ambition when asked if he was ignorant of the rumours of his leadership ambitions.”

The blame game within National

There will now be significant soul searching in National over the result, especially in what were thought to be safe National electorates. Of course, some of National’s decline was self-inflicted and some of it beyond their control, and this is well explained in David Farrar’s blog post, Factors in National’s loss.

For Farrar, some of the factors beyond National’s control were: “Covid-19; The Government’s response to Covid-19; Jacinda Ardern”. In contrast, factors that they had some control over included: “Having seven different Leaders and Deputy Leaders in one term; Jami-Lee Ross; Three years of leaks to Newshub; Hamish Walker; Andrew Falloon; A fiscal hole; SFO charging donors to National”.

For some idea of the turmoil in the party – especially during the campaign – see Richard Harman’s article today, Where National’s campaign went wrong. He reports that the party’s campaign “was stopped and started twice and ultimately ended up being pretty much designed and run by Leader Judith Collins” whose “propensity to ‘wing it’ led to the campaign’s disastrous last week”.

According to his sources, National was “hampered by a shortage of funds at party headquarters” and due to Covid the campaign was left “without an over-arching theme or message.”

In another article, Harman reports that there is now a huge mood for change within the wider party, which could also lead next month to the party president Peter Goodfellow being replaced by former MP and Speaker David Carter, who is standing for election to the party’s board. Change in this position might throw Judith Collins a lifeline of sorts: “It would seem highly unlikely that Judith Collins would be dumped in the next few months. Instead, the focus might shift on to Goodfellow, and his head may be the sacrifice” – see: Heads on the block.

Harman has also published an excerpt from an unnamed former National Minister about the state of the party. This calls for a “root-and-branch cleanout of the party organisation, a much more rigorous candidate selection process to avoid the embarrassments of the last few years, a rebalancing of the power and organisational arrangements between the caucus and the Party, a new Board and president, and a widespread policy platform review involving the grassroots of party supporters as well as the caucus MPs.”

This article also says party members have been warming to the public criticisms that former leader Simon Bridges has been making of the campaign. He’s reported as being highly critical of the lack of direction from the leadership, complaining that MPs weren’t given information on campaign messaging.

His former deputy leader, who had been the campaign chair until Bridges was ousted, has also been highly vocal, going on TVNZ Breakfast to say “National was ‘disorganised’ and didn’t ‘articulate an alternative’ Government well enough to voters” – see 1News’ National needs to take a ‘damn good look at itself’, Paula Bennett says following election loss. Bennett says “there wasn’t an absolute clarity of message”.

According to Bennett, under her management of the campaign there had been a strategy built up over 12 months which then “went out the door” when the position was taken off her with the change of leadership. She says this was “was the start of the end” for the party’s chances.

Other former National MPs have been highly critical too. Former Attorney General from the John Key Government, Chris Finlayson, said on RNZ that “It’s probably a good thing that there’s been a bit of a clean-out. I think the phone’s been off the hook now for some months” and “any rational observer looking back at the last 18 months would say the National Party has performed very very poorly and they got what they deserved” – you can listen to the interview here: Former National MP Chris Finlayson: ‘a thoroughly deserved kick’.

In another interview, Finlayson said a review of the party and campaign will be helpful: “They’ll look at themselves and look at the litany of cockups since they were bequeathed such a huge legacy by Bill English at the beginning of 2018.”

On Newstalk ZB, Finlayson is reported as calling the “the current party and its politicians arrogant and complacent, infused with a born to rule superiority complex that was unfounded” – see: You can’t blame anyone else – National was basically unelectable.

The writer of that report is broadcaster Andrew Dickens, who says he’s voted for National for the last three elections, but believes “this is a disaster and their only hope is to realise how and why they got it so wrong over the past three years. It is all their own fault and they should not shift the blame.” He elaborates: “National was basically unelectable. A disorganised shambles with a confused message. A party at war with itself as shown by the Denise Lee leaks.”

Attempts to rebuild

National supporter Liam Hehir believes the party has a chance to rebuild, but this won’t happen if they are debilitated by infighting: “I would put it to them that the shenanigans of the past year were utterly demoralising. It would be better for people involved in the party not to compound things by making further rash decisions based on their interests as individuals” – see: The roots of National’s fall.

Similarly, former minister and campaign manager in the last National government, Steven Joyce, has spoken out to say “I think it’s really important that people stop talking out of school” – see the NZ Herald’s National campaign reviewer to leaking MPs – ‘pipe down’. He says it’s time for an end to the factional fighting, which is only based on personal ambition.

Broadcaster Mike Hosking also argues that National has to stop the feuding, complaining, “They seem self-absorbed, the leaking is pathetic, the self-interest is obvious, the factionalism is a problem” – see: National needs to avoid over-reacting to election loss. Hosking also warns against National over-analysing their problems, and over-reacting to the defeat. Instead of carrying out radical changes to the party, they should be realistic about what can and should be altered.

National needs to look at the big picture

There is a risk that National’s attempts to rebuild and evaluate what led to its decline will focus only on personnel or organisational issues. The party actually needs a much bigger and broader lens. It especially needs to think about what sort of ideological role there is for a centre-right party in the Covid-age. This is the main point of a very thoughtful analysis written yesterday by party pollster David Farrar, which is published on his subscriber-only patreon account – see: A strategic challenge for National in a post Covid world (paywalled).

Farrar’s general point is that rightwing parties are currently out of sync with the public’s current desire for a more interventionist state, due to Covid: “we live in a time where many people see the state as having been able to save hundreds or thousands of lives, and are grateful to it. This shows in the election result. We of course also saw the power of the state after the Christchurch earthquakes. A National-led Government spent well over $20 billion rebuilding Christchurch. But people don’t fear an earthquake as much as they do Covid-19. Bill English has spoken well in the past on how the state is very good at some things, but very bad at other things. He is right, but that is a nuanced message which can be hard to convey. It is very possible that for the next decade or so New Zealanders will feel much more positive about a big state than they have in the past.”

It is not clear that National currently has this type of necessary intellectual underpinnings to allow it to stay relevant. This is reiterated by University of Auckland economist Robert MacCulloch, who has written in the NBR about the ten things National got wrong in the campaign in terms of its policies and positioning – see: Where National went wrong: An economist’s perspective (paywalled).

Generally, MacCulloch’s point is National has failed to develop bold and innovative new policies that are distinguishable from Labour. Here’s one of his problems with National at the moment: “National is lacking clear objectives for our economy and country, a set of principles, and a framework to help get there. There are only small differences between its plans and Labour’s. Its guiding philosophy still seems to be some version of a conservative ‘steady as she goes’ mantra, just like the one rolled out under the previous National government. In the presence of the greatest health and economic crisis in a century, that line now sounds faintly ridiculous.”

He argues National appears to have “terrible advisers” and needs to get some serious thinkers involved in devising its policy framework: “Being anti-intellectual has not served the National Party well. By contrast, Labour has sought advice from world heavyweight thinkers, including Nobel Laureates, the attempts of National to portray them as shallow on this front notwithstanding.”

Finally, a big part of National’s problems stem from its decline as a mass membership party. The party organisation is now dominated by a corporate-style board which some say is ineffective and moribund, leading to some poor candidate selections. For a very good examination of what some National insiders are saying about reform of the party organisation, see Thomas Coughlan’s What does it take to bring National back from the dead?.

This week’s first chart shows the average numbers of votes cast – on and before election day – in New Zealand’s different regions.

In principle, all electorates have the same population, with electorate boundaries drawn with reference to population quotas based on census returns. However, each electorate may be up to five percentage points above quota, or down to five percentage points below quota. It is already a known fact that most Auckland electorates are below quota, some well below quota. Thus, the lower numbers of votes cast in Auckland electorates is in large part due to them having fewer people. (See similar analysis from 2017 election.)

Of the general electorates, Māngere [Auckland] had fewest votes cast (19,328) and Banks Peninsula [Southern Districts] had most (42,681). Of the Māori electorates, both Hauraki-Waikato and Tamaki Mākaurau registered even fewer votes in the preliminary count than Māngere.

There are six reasons for an electorate having fewer votes cast than the 33,300 electorate average:

1. having a below quota census population
2. migration within New Zealand after the 2018 census
3. having a relatively high population not eligible to vote
4. having a low turnout of registered voters
5. having a relatively high population eligible to vote but not registered
6. having a relatively high population out of the electorate over the two-week voting period

While the first two of these – taken together – are probably the most important, its worth considering the others. Auckland has fewer people than most people think Auckland has. The third reason is also demographic, and it reflects the numbers of people who are resident (or were resident in March 2018) but not permanent residents; for example high numbers of international students in the population explains why some University electorates (notably Hamilton East and Auckland Central) had lower vote counts.

Voter apathy – or disengagement – may be more pronounced in Auckland, especially in South Auckland (including Botany). Reason 5 may indicate a degree of late engagement; ie late enrolments which will show up as special votes. The final reason can also be expected to be remedied by special votes.

There are three main reasons for people casting special votes, which I understand are still high; ie special votes may be close to 70 percent of election day votes. First, is the people who are late to enrol. These will most likely vote for the parties most attractive to young voters; Green, Labour, and maybe Act, TOP and Māori. Second is people out of the electorate – the main type of special voters in the ‘old days’ when special votes favoured National (as in 1993 when a landslide vote for the left resulted in a National government). Third is the overseas voters who were not residents of their electorates in 2018, but who vote in the last electorate that they registered in. This group also disproportionately vote Green and to a lesser extent Labour.

The three regions of New Zealand with burgeoning voting populations are Northern, Central, and Southern Districts – the provinces. And Wellington, which most likely reflects the tendency towards higher numbers of public servants whenever there is a Labour or Labour-led government. I think we will hear much more about Wellington’s housing crisis this decade.

The second chart – Election Day Voting (1) – shows the election day Party Vote surpluses and deficits vis-à-vis advance votes. Thus, the National Party got 25.53 percent of advance votes and just under 29.85 percent of election day votes. This reflects – indeed accentuates – the pattern established in 2017. The chart plot for National shows the difference, which is 4.32 percentage points.

This chart really emphasises how it is Labour voters who are much more likely to vote early. The difference between National and Labour in this chart would have been quite a bit greater if most people who normally vote National had indeed voted National.

In this chart, the combined surpluses must equal the combined deficits; so the combined election day surpluses for National, Act, Māori, New Zealand First, New Conservative and The Opportunities Party are equal to the combined deficits of Labour and Green. (I have discounted all other parties as statistically insignificant.)

The third chart – Election Day Voting (2) – shows the same results in percentages rather than percentage points. It shows that Green voters are most likely to vote early, and that New Zealand First voters were least likely to vote early.

Voting on election day is traditional, so it is likely that conservative and older voters will have a reduced preference for early voting. Probably, too, smaller party voters are those more likely to be undecided, and to decide late. Also, in rural electorates, it may be less convenient to vote early.

It is my sense that these voting patterns will prove significant on election day 2023, or 2024 if Labour and National together vote for a four-year electoral term, as both party leaders have shown a preference for. An early lead for Labour in 2023 or 2024, from advance votes, may not end up being the final result.

The political left has been euphoric since Saturday’s night historic landslide victory for Labour. But political commentators from across the spectrum are united in warning that the new Government isn’t about to be transformative. Instead, we will see more of a status quo administration grappling with a crisis, with very little in the way of radicalism or progressive politics.

For the very best commentary on this, read Tim Watkin’s Be careful what you wish for: Labour’s difficult triumph. He argues that although “the left feel so triumphalist”, “in many ways this result is a pretty good one for the centre-right”, and that the Labour Party itself have simply replaced NZ First as the handbrake on progressive reforms.

Here’s Watkin’s key point: “This unlikely coalition [of left and conservative voters] puts Labour in a bind for the next three years. It faces some tough choices on which master to serve. Its base or the new voters it has lured across the blue line? Does it listen to its loyalists and assume it is only borrowing some National voters for a few years or does it try to re-imagine itself as the social democratic centrist party of government? Does it want runs on the board for the poor and marginalised or does it want to build a legacy of power and lock in a third term and possibly a fourth term? This is the sort of tension that can tear at a party. Because the expectation from the left is now mammoth.”

He draws attention to David Lange’s lament after the 1987 general election in which Labour nearly won the deep-blue seat of Remuera. Lange believed this showed that the party had drifted dangerously to the right and away from its support base, amounting to “an act of treachery to the people we were born to represent”. Similarly, Labour might now feel captured by their centre-right supporters.

Progressive political commentator Danyl Mclauchlan says Labour doesn’t seem to have a plan beyond building National’s roads, additional skills training, and leaving “the tax system almost untouched”. He says such a minimalist plan is “inadequate to the scale of the problems that the nation faces” – see: Jacinda Ardern and the plan.

Here’s Mclauchlan’s elaboration on Ardern’s lack of a plan that he predicts will lead to disappointment for progresssives: “Her plan was to say as little as possible; promise as little as possible; minimise risk; capture the centre. Small target campaigning has delivered her a huge victory, but it will make her a huge target. The Covid crisis and structure of our economy is already accelerating inequality; we’re seeing job layoffs, a runaway property market, soaring rental prices. But in this time of catastrophic change Ardern has promised to change as little as possible.”

Former Labour and Alliance political activist Josie Pagani has also spoken out, asking this about the party’s promised transformative change: “If not now, when?” Instead they have promised to keep the lid on change: “But I bet they wish they’d been a bit more ambitious. Instead, they have boxed themselves in with water-tight commitments – no wealth tax, no capital gains tax, no increase in the age of eligibility for Super. The only new revenue will come from a small tax increase for top income earners, raising just $500 million a year. All of which will be sucked up into the $4 billion Lake Onslow hydro project (with dubious returns for the climate or the economy). That’s $500 million that won’t go to child poverty, health or schools” – see: Time for Labour to bank Jacinda Ardern’s popularity and take risks (paywalled).

Pagani hopes there will be pressure from the left, pushing Ardern to deliver: “Pressure on the government will increase, with two opposition parties (maybe three, depending on the Greens). Labour could end up getting swiped from the left and the right. The Māori Party’s win on the night in Waiariki is extraordinary in a red wave. They have a beachhead now, and a chance to amplify the voices of working class, predominantly Māori New Zealanders. That could be a major problem for Labour – unless they reset the party’s direction.”

Similarly, Morgan Godfery thinks there is now a need for a “left opposition” – from the Greens and the Māori Party – to pressure Labour to be transformative, otherwise Labour will merely make decisions designed to hold on to soft National voters. He warns if Labour don’t deliver progressive change, they’ll lose votes to more radical parties in 2023 – see: Power secured, now what about the programme?.

Inequality researcher Max Rashbrooke also writes with despondency, suggesting things are about to get worse under Labour, given the economic recession and Ardern’s decision to rule out new ways of raising the necessary funds to spend on fixing the long-term problems that supporters want action on – see: Jacinda Ardern has huge majority but that may not be much use to her.

Rashbrooke argues Ardern and Labour mistakenly made the promises not to introduce significant changes “in order to hang onto a final 2-3 percent of swing voters that, as it turns out, she didn’t even need (given the wasted vote, even 47 percent would have been enough for an outright majority).” He does think that the Greens might be successful in pushing for more action in areas where more money isn’t necessarily required, such as conservation and water reforms.

On climate change, however, there is building concern that Ardern’s administration still don’t have the ambitions to make it the “nuclear-free issue” of their generation. Jonathan Milne reports that people like Jim Bolger and Greenpeace’s Russel Norman are calling on the new Government “to deliver rapid progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions” – see: Ardern challenged on climate courage. Norman sounds rather pessimistic about environmental problems being addressed, worrying that the next three years will involve Ardern and co “watching their polling and taking no risks” so that they can be re-elected.

On the right, commentators also see there is no great risk of Labour moving to the left. Matthew Hooton has written about how a transformative leftwing government is in theory possible, especially since Ardern has such an historic high vote: “She has an opportunity to deliver the transformation of New Zealand she has promised – and Clark before her – and lock in Scandinavian-style social democracy for a generation or more. There is an opportunity to implement new taxes, such as on land, to deliver the expectations of her supporters for a more progressive tax system. She could use such distributive policies to do the thing she said she is in politics to achieve (but has so far failed to deliver) – a big reduction in child poverty, at least on the relative measures she prefers. It will be possible for Ardern to genuinely take a lead on climate change, which she described as her generation’s ‘nuclear-free moment’, rather than fall into line with the agriculture lobby’s demands for protection from greenhouse-gas measures all other New Zealand businesses are expected to comply with. David Parker could be given free rein to resolve the vexed issue of the allocation of water rights. If Ardern really wanted to stretch herself, she could look at a universal basic income that would resolve the problem of massive effective marginal tax rates that lock people in welfarism and poverty” – see: Jacinda Ardern joins the pantheon (paywalled).

Yet, Hooton doesn’t fear this happening at all: “the administrative competence to develop and implement the truly transformational agenda that the likes of Savage and Fraser delivered? Second, do they have the will? There is nothing in Ardern and Robertson’s record in politics so far to suggest their true ambitions extend beyond broadly managing the status quo. They have operated as incrementalists in the same way that meant Clark and Key left nothing like the legacy they could have.”

Similarly, libertarian Damien Grant wrote yesterday that “boardrooms and executive offices” have nothing to fear from a government that “have proved themselves to be conservative managers of the status quo” and who “will continue to eschew radical change” despite the wishes of the political left – see: Conservative, cautious, and careful Labour will govern from the centre. He expects to see “a few token policies to prevent too many of their supporters drifting off to the Greens” but otherwise it’s all largely a continuation of the policies of John Key and Bill English.

This might be even more the case now that Labour has promised to govern in a way to keep favour with the soft National voters it has won over. Hence, Richard Harman says “What is driving Labour’s thinking is an understanding that they owe their huge surge in voter support to National voters crossing over and voting for them” – see: Labour has the power; National has problems. He says: “the question will now be how Labour manages to hold on to its new ex-National supporters as it keeps faith with its own base.”

There have been ideological glimpses of the future of this administration: “Ardern’s constant emphasis through the campaign, repeated yesterday, on the need to find consensus over policy and to make that policy sustainable beyond a change of Government points not only to her natural conservatism but also pure political pragmatism. She wants Labour to straddle the centre and become the natural party of Government in the way National was in the 1960s and 70s.”

None of this is to suggest that the next three years will be plain sailing for the Labour Government. Plenty of commentators are emphasising how challenging the times and decisions will be. Sunday Star Times editor Tracy Watkins says Labour will have to deal with ongoing crises, especially in terms of the growing recession: “Our euphoria about beating Covid – not once, but twice – has masked a deepening economic crisis. Productivity and wages lag our nearest neighbour, Australia and the gap is likely to grow. We’ve got a crazy, out of kilter housing market, driving an even deeper wedge between the haves and the have nots. The costs of keeping jobs and businesses afloat during Covid have plunged the nation deep into debt and there is no obvious way of quickly earning it back yet” – see: An extraordinary result made possible by extraordinary leadership.

Watkins argues that “Ardern and her finance minister Grant Robertson have boxed themselves into the center with a campaign that reached across to soft National voters. Cementing that support will be a much harder task, given the scale of problems ahead.” She suggests that hard decisions will need to be made, and “Ardern may have to get used to being unloved.”

This growing economic crisis is also emphasised by Herald business editor Liam Dann who says “If there is one thing that New Zealand’s economists agree on it is that we have not yet felt the real force of the economic downturn.” He argues business knows this Labour government will need to carry out certain pro-worker policies but, by and large, Finance Minister Grant Robertson will be pro-business because “he knows he needs business on side to rebuild this economy” – see: Congratulations Labour, now for the really hard bit (paywalled).

Some commentators are sympathetic to Labour’s need to rule in a moderate and cautious way. Chris Trotter doesn’t expect anything more than “incrementalism” and suggests that this is the right approach given that transformative change can be undone by subsequent governments and create division – see: Ardern claims “mandate to accelerate” – but where to?.

Similarly, today’s Otago Daily Times editorial explores Ardern’s style of politics and her determination to create “changes that stick”, which she believes is more likely to occur if Governments move slowly – see: Queen Jacinda’s road ahead. Here’s the key point: “Although their personalities differ, Ms Ardern will endeavour to drive change in the Helen Clark ‘incremental’ manner. While the occasional jolt will shift the dial left, progressive agendas will be enacted progressively, step by step. Soon, such change accumulates and makes a difference — for better or worse depending on the perspective. And only if such changes ‘stick’, will their legacy last.”

Nonetheless, the newspaper says “Ardern and Labour are vulnerable to accusations of sweet talk and little action” and “Already, even before the Left’s euphoria dampens, rumblings surface that Labour needs to show starch, be decisive and use its political capital to make a real difference.”

Economist Shamubeel Eaqub also says “the timing is not right for dramatic changes” and that we shouldn’t “expect large-scale and bold changes” – see: Five things for Jacinda Ardern’s to-do list. And he explains: “Building genuine consensus on issues is possible, and is the necessary ingredient for enduring large-scale policy changes. This has not happened during this election campaign. Instead, the landslide this term will be hoarded to prepare the ground for future change. Politicians can look to make changes in three ways. By tinkering with existing policies, introduce new policies, or change the goals of what we want to achieve. Expect more of the first two from this term.”

Former finance minister Michael Cullen has spoken out in defence of Ardern’s approach, saying “I was worried they were being too safe. But in the end, that paid off and allowed Jacinda to project that image of competence, combined with kindness” – see Derek Cheng’s Sir Michael Cullen on Labour’s historic victory – no mandate to scare the centre. He says Labour now has a mandate for changes in climate action and transport infrastructure, “But it is not a mandate for a lurch to the left in terms of tax or welfare reform, and any attempt to do so quickly could risk ‘middle-ground voters jumping off a cliff’.”

Herald political editor Audrey Young also examines what sort of government the new administration is going to be, but focuses on what mandate Labour has been given: “Jacinda Ardern has won a huge victory on the barest of promises. The election result is a massive vote of confidence in her judgment over the past three years but particularly through Covid. It is a mandate to continue to exercise that judgment in a sound and cautious way for whatever the pandemic throws up next” – see: Jacinda Ardern wins a clear mandate but for what is still open (paywalled).

Yet it’s still not clear how Labour will deal with the demands for it to make big changes, against the fact that it has promised little: “The decision to under-promise is not without its challenges especially for a Labour Government, whose activists live and die for policy. The mandate Labour has received at this election cannot be a mandate to do nothing. But nor can Labour exceed its mandate by imposing big policies it has not consulted the electorate about. The party leadership needs to spend some time working out the Labour it wants to be or if it is going to spend the rest of the term trying to keep the centrists with them.”

Finally, there are others who don’t accept that Ardern and Labour will be too moderate. Dame Anne Salmond says we should expect some major reform from this Government: “Some pundits describe Jacinda Arden as cautious, but I think they are mistaken. I think we have a leader who is bold and visionary, but understands the need to take as many New Zealanders as possible with her on the wild ride ahead” – see: Navigating by the stars. Salmond says that, under Ardern, the “radical idea of aroha is replacing a neo-liberal mythology of life as a market based on egos pursuing their own interests” and “the star path to Aotearoa has been laid down in this election – to cherish diversity as a source of richness in decision-making and ways of living, rather than conflict”.

There’s a mood circulating among some circles that it would end badly for the Green Party in 2023 should it negotiate a part within a now-powerful Labour-led government.

The argument goes; that should the Greens negotiate roles within the new Government, that their voice and policies would be watered down, rendered irrelevant by the large, expanded, Labour Party. That Labour’s success in being able to govern alone would mean the Green Party’s place and purpose would be seen to be irrelevant.

It boils down to a resistance to govern for fear of being seen as mediocre.

But the counter-argument suggests: should the Green Party bow to the above narrative – to shy away from an opportunity to assert its core environmental and climate policies, to abandon the ability to inject itself into the new Executive Government’s priority policy settings – then it would relegate itself into legislative insignificance and potential political oblivion by 2023. It would also pay-waste to the ministerial experience, gains and momentum that its members of Parliament established during the 2017-20 term.

It can be argued, the Greens have proven that the Red-Green tag-team works. Unlike Winston Peters’ New Zealand First, the Greens have experienced an increased share of electoral and party list support, despite one-spectacular own goal, and despite being in government as a smaller party within the 2017-20 Labour-led Government. That is redefining MMP history.

Let’s examine that phenomenon.

Traditional Green support (that withdrew in large numbers during the 2017 election campaign) returned in part in 2020 perhaps to assist their Green Party to survive. The effect: the Green Party avoided the sub-five percent dry horrors and indeed secured a generational-shift with Chloe Swarbrick’s impressive win in Auckland Central.

As such, the Greens have made history, defining a maturing of New Zealand voter behaviour where, as a third party, have increased voter support after presiding over significant ministerial portfolios in partnership with a large party-led government.

The Greens should avoid the cautious, strategic trap. Should the Greens shy away from negotiating, then they will likely commit themselves to a future of legislative irrelevance. That scenario would see its natural partner party Labour – under Jacinda Ardern, an environmentally and climate change sensitive leader – hoover up good and sound Green Party policy and make it its own.

It appears, Labour does not want to do that.

Labour leader and Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, indicated on election night and over the weekend, her wish to embark on consensus building. Her call on Sunday to Greens co-leader James Shaw set out a pathway ahead toward negotiations. While refusing to get ahead of herself on the elements of discussions between Labour and the Greens, she clearly indicated an intention to develop a consensus around policy, and use common ground as a basis of dialogue. Those are strong negotiation points that the Green leadership, caucus and membership can leverage from.

Also, both Labour and the Greens share a need to cement in a consensus-driven red-green bloc, a movement of significance, that could reshape Aotearoa New Zealand society, policy-sets, and the political and economic environment for the next two Parliamentary terms. This was a bloc of significance in determining the make-up of Government in 2017, it played a significant part in Labour’s connection to environmentalism in 2020, and will prove absolutely necessary once Labour’s main opponent, the National Party, re-invents itself to campaign as match fit and as a centre-right cabinet-in-waiting in future election cycles.

This, one get’s a sense, is what drives the Prime Minister’s pursuit of consensus building at a time of absolute power. That, in turn, offers the Green negotiators a powerful lever beyond what the numbers would suggest – ie; mutual interest.

It’s likely, Labour knows the 2020 election result is the zenith of its political successes.

Labour is not a broad-tent party. In Jacinda Ardern, it has exceptional leadership. In Grant Robertson, it has solid, assuring, strategic financial leadership. It has a deep and deepening pool of political talent in ministers that stretch well beyond the top-five. It has a ministerial line up that now has significant ministerial experience. It has a pool of caucus members ready to express their commitment to Executive Government representations. One gets the strong sense it is the party, with the politicians, with the policy sets… for this time. Interventionism, Keynesian economics shaped for the 2020 decade, and a Government with the energy to get things done. The most enduring criticism of the Ardern-led Government is the pace of incrementalism. And that, is something that the challenges of these times can demand be addressed. It is also an idiosyncrasy of which the Green Party can challenge with considerable honest broker-ship. One gets a sense that the elements of a unified red-green bloc could well sustain voter enthusiasm through this term and potentially 2023-2026.

Labour’s Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern’s post-election media stand-ups demonstrate she knows this.

Jacinda Ardern’s wish to build consensus across the centre-centre-left, acknowledges the success of the Green Party’s election campaign. She also has indicated an interest to have discussions with the Maori Party should special votes shore up its election night win in Waiariki. Her comments appear to signal to Maori that the Ardern-led Labour Party wants to work with, and cooperate with, every Maori MP that the Maori electorate voters send into Parliament.

So is the host of Green Party MPs really reluctant to join their successes with Labour’s landslide?

It appears not.

While significant debate is occurring within the party’s membership – again that should the Greens enter into a coalition, then that will end badly for them in 2023 – the Green leadership has indicated an eagerness to negotiate.

Co-leaders James Shaw and Marama Davidson have been clear, there is much work yet to do beyond what they achieved during the 2017-20 term (despite New Zealand First’s centre-right hand-break) and are keen to have their ministers and caucus talent play their rightful part.

Additionally, Chloe Swarbrick’s impressive performance winning Auckland Central demands recognition of significance. A strong signal of resolve and commitment to the generation Swarbrick represents, would be to promote her to the executive so as to initiate her to the demands of ministerial politics and governance. One get’s the sense Chloe will become a highly significant element of future governments, and now would be the perfect time for her to engage in that journey.

Meanwhile, after specials, with a slightly expanded caucus (potentially including the impressive activist Steve Abel) the Greens can definitely broker relevancy on party-based constituency issues, principles, while rolling their collective sleeves up to develop policy throughout the term. Indeed with a larger slice of a Parliamentary Service research budget, the Green caucus can truly embrace opportunities for fact-based environmental activism, and work with like-minded ministers to get real gains for their voters, members, and Aotearoa New Zealand.

Such opportunity does not call for reticence. In other words, the opportunity is reality, the dangers are, at this time, abstract. With political planning, such perceived dangers can be rendered irrelevant and relegated to very last-century thinking.

After all, voters do vote for a party’s policies on the understanding that should they be able to inject those policies into government then real change will be achieved. To shy away from that democratic mandate would be an abuse of the support that the Green Party has been given.

Political commentators and journalists are searching around for the right term to describe Saturday’s election result. “Seismic” or “tectonic” might be the winner – the shift really was of that magnitude. Labour increased their vote from 37% to 49%, which is likely to rise closer to 50% after special votes are counted.

Meanwhile, National was inflicted with what has been called a “blue bloodbath”, especially in the provincial city seats that they lost. National’s party vote is down to 27%, and once special votes are counted will probably fall nearer to 25%. And they have lost the party vote in 68 of the 72 electorates in the country. Added to this, there have been some big wins for minor parties that are also history-making.

The “tectonic” term was used by political scientist Richard Shaw in this way: “This election is tectonic. Ardern has led Labour to its biggest victory since Norman Kirk, and enters the Labour pantheon with Savage, Lange and Clark. Once special votes are counted, Labour could be the first party since 1951 to win a clear majority of the popular vote” – see The Conversation’s Jacinda Ardern and Labour returned in a landslide — 5 experts on a historic New Zealand election.

The analysis of other political scientists is also conveyed in this article. Jack Vowles comments that the pre-election polls were correct, and Labour has been rewarded for being a traditional Labour government in protecting the vulnerable during a pandemic. Bronwyn Hayward points to the fact that the Greens have defied history by increasing their share of vote despite being a minor party in government, and Jennifer Curtin suggests that in the regions Labour has benefited from NZ First’s Provincial Growth Fund.

The main focus for commentators is on Labour leader Jacinda Ardern’s truly central role in her party’s astonishing victory. Rightwing commentator Matthew Hooton even suggests that Ardern might become “the greatest Prime Minister in New Zealand’s history” given the size of her win and the opportunities that it presents her – see: Jacinda Ardern joins the pantheon (paywalled).

Her accomplishment is not only impressive in terms of recent MMP history, but Hooton argues you have to go much further back to find parallels: “At 50 per cent, Ardern joins a pantheon that, since the 1930s, includes only the father of the welfare state Michael Joseph Savage (56 per cent in 1938), war leader Peter Fraser (51 per cent in 1946) and the scourge of the watersiders Sid Holland (54 per cent in 1951). The only other names that stand alongside that lot are Joseph Ward (59 per cent in 1908), King Dick Seddon (58 per cent in 1893) and John Balance (56 per cent in 1890).”

In comparing Ardern’s achievements to such political giants, other commentators have also described her as joining the “pantheon” of the greats. And Herald journalist Simon Wilson says her victory is deserved: “New Zealanders have said thank you, thank you to Jacinda Ardern and have looked at the rest of the world and seen how lucky we are” – see: A victory for history books (paywalled). He continues: “she has been rewarded for her exceptional management skills. She kept a three-way coalition together for an entire term and has personally overseen the entire Covid response: health, economic, the works.”

It almost raises the prospect of whether New Zealand is ready to have portraits of Jacinda Ardern on our walls. Perhaps Michael Joseph Savage can finally be replaced.

It’s the politics of love according to Steve Braunias writing for the Guardian. He recalls how five years ago in a pub, Ardern as a backbench MP told him that “she wished that Labour’s message was about love”, and that now this is what the nation is showing her – see: New Zealanders have recognised the good luck that Jacinda Ardern is ours. Braunias says that the Government’s successful Covid response meant that this “was the happiness election”.

Many are calling it an historic election, too. Sunday Star Times editor Tracy Watkins says its “history in the making” and “It’s an extraordinary result, made possible only by Jacinda Ardern’s extraordinary leadership during some of the most extraordinary events in New Zealand’s history. A mass terrorism attack. A volcanic eruption. And the mother of all disasters, Covid. Ardern truly has been a leader for the times” – see: An extraordinary result made possible by extraordinary leadership.

According to former politician Bryan Gould, the extent of Labour’s win suggests “that something quite fundamental has changed in New Zealand politics”, and he too credits Ardern’s leadership with the shakeup, but only because the mood of the public has changed – see: Lessons from the election.

Here’s the key part of Gould’s argument: “They looked for leadership – that is, leadership that leads, and doesn’t merely calculate how best to buy support from the greatest number at the least cost. They saw themselves not just as individuals, but as members of a society that worked well together and in which they could feel pride. They wanted to be able to congratulate themselves on their achievements. They wanted to feel an affinity with leaders they liked, trusted and admired. They looked beyond our shores and saw examples and instances of leadership in other countries that they rejected and compared unfavourably with our own”

We shouldn’t however be surprised by the extent of Labour’s win, according to political scientist Grant Duncan, who says that the buzz that surrounded Ardern on the campaign trail was an early indication of the tectonic shift: “You just had to follow the crowds. In shopping malls and on university campuses, they flocked to see Jacinda. Judith Collins was resorting to calling up loyal party activists to back her” – see: The crowds gave a clue for Labour’s extraordinary feat.

Duncan also suggests that the opinion polls simply didn’t factor in some of the shifts caused by the referendum: “Opinion polls leading into the election were indicating Labour in the mid-forties. Pollsters failed to sample young voters who lined up to vote for cannabis legalisation and control, and mostly for Labour or the Greens.”

Labour’s overwhelming victory can be seen in how well the party did in the provinces. James Hall explains: “Labour won the party vote in every single South Island electorate, which is the first time this had happened since the MMP voting system was adopted for the 1996 General Election” – see: Labour wins party vote in every South Island electorate.

Finally, for details of Labour’s new MPs (and those of the other parties), see Simon Collins’ Forty newcomers include our first African, Latin American and Sri Lankan MPs.

Welcome to Evening Report’s A View from Afar

As always, we are joined by political scientist Paul Buchanan and this week we will discuss:

How the ‘probabilities’ of Presidential incumbent Donald Trump being re-elected, look increasingly unlikely. It’s still possible, but more improbable.

If Democrat candidate Joe Biden wins the presidency, what would this mean for the rest of the world?

What would Joe Biden’s foreign policy look like?

And, who would be the likely contenders to join a Biden Administration?

INTERACTION: Remember, if you are joining us LIVE via social media (SEE LINKS BELOW), you can make comments and include questions. We will be able to see your interaction, and include this in the LIVE show.

You can interact with the LIVE programme by joining these social media channels. Here are the links:

• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube

And, you can see video-on-demand of this show, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz

As the public decide who to vote for, the matter of whether wealthy interests have been able to influence Government decisions has arisen once again. This relates to controversy from late last year about whether junior coalition partner New Zealand First is using their fundraising mechanism to illegally hide the influence of wealthy donors.

Looking at these fundraising arrangements, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has concluded that a violation of the Crimes Act has taken place, announcing yesterday they are charging two individuals in connection with the New Zealand First Foundation. This is a significant and unprecedented new chapter in the tussle over vested interests in New Zealand politics – see Derek Cheng’s Findings of Serious Fraud Office probe into NZ First Foundation released.

Party leader Winston Peters made the announcement, claiming the SFO decision meant his party had been fully exonerated. This claim appears to be on the basis that those charged are not involved in the party, or at least no longer are.

The individuals who were charged may well have been involved in the New Zealand First Foundation, but an agreed statement from the party and the SFO stated that those charged do not include any current NZ First MP, Minister, staffer, official or party member. As many have pointed out, the operative word here is “current”, with the suggestion that those charged might well have chosen to resign from the party.

The identities of the two individuals are currently suppressed by a court order. But this is now being challenged by two media organisations, RNZ and Stuff – see Thomas Manch’s Urgent hearing called over name suppression in NZ First Foundation donations case. According to these media outlets, “The voting public of New Zealand has a legitimate interest in knowing the defendants’ connections, if any, to the New Zealand First Party and in particular whether the New Zealand First media release, which is highly critical of the SFO, is fair and accurate.”

The idea that NZ First have been exonerated by the SFO decision has been derided by many commentators and journalists. Newsroom’s Sam Sachdeva summed up the announcement like this: “The news amounted to a validation of an investigation by Stuff journalist Matt Shand published last November, and subsequent reporting from RNZ’s Guyon Espiner, reporting that financial records showed donations to the foundation had been used to fund an array of campaign and political expenses, but with the donors’ identities not disclosed” – see: Winston Peters’ smoke and mirrors fails to hide the truth.

Sachdeva challenges Peters’ argument that the SFO should have held the announcement over until after the next government was formed: “doing so would have been morally reprehensible, depriving voters of information in the public interest at the time when it is most important they be fully informed”. He argues that if the SFO had delayed the news that they were bringing charges, then “Voters would have some justification for feeling hoodwinked, as would New Zealand First’s hypothetical coalition partners – both of whom may have benefited from knowing the party they backed had been at least partly funded by a foundation whose workings appear, in the minds of the SFO, to have breached the law.”

Electoral law expert Andrew Geddis points to attempts by the party to supress the announcement as suggesting they didn’t really regard the SFO decision as an exoneration – see: Nothing to do with the NZ First Party? Seriously laughable.

Geddis also says it would have been a bad look to hold on to the information, asking how the SFO could seriously do this: “And what was the SFO really meant to do once it had done so? Sit on the information even as people go out and vote, then tell them about it after the results are announced? How relaxed do you think the public would be about that happening – especially if NZ First was returned to parliament, much less holding the balance of political power?”

Peters’ attack on the SFO is, according to Geddis, “a classic attack-the-messenger tactic, with offence being the best form of defence and distraction being the name of the game.”

Geddis also commented on the case on RNZ’s Checkpoint last night, challenging Peters’ continued insistence that the fundraising Foundation is legally separate from the party: “I don’t care what technical legalities you may throw at it, if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck” – see RNZ’s Winston Peters holds ‘important’ media conference as SFO releases NZ First Foundation investigation statement.

Whether the legal principle of sub judice should rule out debate on the issue is dismissed by Geddis: “in terms of discussing the outline of the case, discussing the background facts and so on, those are all on public record. Subjudice is something people throw around when they don’t want to talk about an issue, it doesn’t mean you can’t talk about anything to do with the case.”

Stuff’s political editor Luke Malpass sums up Peters’ representation of the SFO charges as “Bluster, bravado and bulls….” – see: Serious Fraud Office charges may be final blow for NZ First. He says no one thought Peters himself would be charged, and the fact that he hasn’t been shouldn’t be read as exoneration for the party.

Malpass highlights the involvement of Foundation officials the media are seeking further comment from: “The two trustees of the foundation were Peters’ personal lawyer and NZ First’s self-proclaimed ‘dark shadow’ Brian Henry, and former NZ First Party President and MP Doug Woolerton.”

Will the SFO decision be the final nail in NZ First’s coffin? Most commentators believe so. Richard Harman says “This has been a body blow to NZ First’s already stuttering campaign” – see: Campaign derailed.

Of course, the SFO announcement does allow Peters and his party to employ the populist messaging of NZ First being a victim of elite dark forces aligned against them. This is a point well made by Herald political editor Audrey Young: “Peters reached for his old playbook to portray himself as the victim of persecution or conspiracy by the Serious Fraud Office, calling it an ‘intervention in the election’. Coming from the Deputy Prime Minister, that is a stunning accusation. Peters as victim has been done countless times before to woo the support of hundreds and thousands of forgotten New Zealanders over many years” – see: Peters draws on his best defence against SFO, attack (paywalled).

Peters has been on the front foot giving media interviews today, strongly defending his party and attacking his enemies. One of the most interesting was a heated ten-minute interview with John Campbell on TVNZ’s Breakfast – see: Winston Peters claims NZ First unfairly targeted by SFO – ‘Why are we being singled out?’.

In this interview, Peters calls the SFO “a jackboot outfit” and raises the question of why other investigations into political finance aren’t being announced just before the election: “It’s unbelievable they should interpose right before this election this position when they’ve got the outstanding matter of Christchurch and Auckland mayoralties, the outstanding matter of the investigation into the Labour Party which they’ve started.”

Peters also went on RNZ’s Morning Report and argued the SFO is biased against NZ First, and the Foundation is “totally separate” to his party – see: Winston Peters claims Serious Fraud Office biased: ‘It’s just unfair’.

He argues the SFO’s bias is apparent in the fact that the original draft of their press statement didn’t contain any acknowledgement that current party members and so forth haven’t been charged: “We have the draft, please don’t think that we’re going blind here, and I think New Zealanders should know just what level of interference without exoneration the SFO was prepared to ram down the throats of New Zealand voters… When they wanted to bring it out last week they weren’t even saying that the ministers and the members have been exonerated. That was not in their press statement. We had to go to court to squeeze that out of them … we’ve got the draft and none of it had exonerated the party or the MPs or the members at all”

In terms of allegations that the NZ First Foundation helped channel donations for influence, Newsroom’s Jonathan Milne has covered this today, arguing: “Some big New Zealand First donors will be pleased that flagship government conservation measures have been stalled for the past three years” – see: Winston Peters puts his mouth where his money is (paywalled).

Milne asks “did the party’s supporters in the fishing and forestry industries get value for money?” He even rung up one of the fishing industry donors to NZ First, Peter Talley, who “refused to comment and hung up the phone.”

As to whether such donors have directly influenced Government policy, Green Party co-leader James Shaw told Milne that he couldn’t comment, but said this: “When you have a party taking large donations from, say, fisheries companies, and then issuing policy that is entirely aligned with those companies, the case for donations reform is pretty obvious”.

Some are defending NZ First. Gordon Campbell supports the party’s suspicion about the SFO announcement, saying the timing “seems extraordinary. It is difficult to imagine that the SFO would make a similar call with respect to either of the two major parties, at a similarly crucial tipping point in the election campaign” – see: On the SFO’s investigation of New Zealand First.

Campbell also ponders why only alleged misdemeanours involving NZ First create such a storm of debate about money and politics: “the media, political leaders and the general public are not currently engaged in a wide-ranging debate about the flawed nature of the laws governing political donations. We’re talking only about how these rules may or may not have been manipulated by New Zealand First. No wonder NZF leader Winston Peters feels aggrieved.”

Finally, the Government-aligned blogsite The Standard has come out with a strong defence of NZ First, with long-time Labour Party activist Lynn Prentice arguing that the junior coalition partner is a victim of “dirty politics”, especially because the Police and SFO took so long to investigate, and made the announcement just prior to the election. He calls it “political interference” – see: SFO exonerates NZ First. The Labour blogger says he’d like the complainants against NZ First to be charged “for deliberately wasting Electoral Commission, Police and SFO time and resources.”

Over the last three years there have been growing calls for the government to provide dental services under the health system – universal free dental care. This is because at the moment there’s an anomaly in which teeth are regarded as different from the rest of the body which means all adults need to get their treatment from the private health sector. This has led to vast inequities and a crisis in the dental health of New Zealanders.

Nearly two years ago the Labour Party responded to this need by formally adopting a policy to implement free dental visits as part of public health – you can read about this here: Political Roundup: Pulling teeth – the fight for free dental care. I emphasised the importance of Labour’s policy commitment: “This is a big deal. If the Government actually follow through on this decision, it will make a huge difference to New Zealanders’ lives. And it’s a policy whose time has come.”

But in Government little progress has been made on this commitment, and yesterday Minister of Health Chris Hipkins admitted the policy wouldn’t be implemented in Labour’s next term of government – see Dan Satherley’s Labour rules out free dental care for adults, citing ‘current economic environment’.

It’s a policy that would cost 2-3 weeks of the current wage subsidy scheme. But on Newshub’s The Nation Hipkins stated: “In the current economic climate free dental care for everybody would come at a very, very, significant price tag, and I don’t think in the current economic environment that’s a debate we’re in a position to have.”

Interestingly, National’s health spokesperson Shane Reti suggests his party might have a more progressive policy on dental health, promising a “pleasant surprise” on this issue, foreshadowing the upcoming release of his party’s health manifesto. And according to the above article, the Greens want dental health to be free. The Opportunities Party, too, also want to implement subsidised dental care.

Labour’s reneging on their dental funding policy shouldn’t be a surprise, however. Back in August Hipkins also explained why the policy hadn’t been implemented, with Newshub reporting: “Any money the Government might have used to provide free dental care to Kiwi adults has been eaten up by Covid-19 and other health issues. Health Minister Chris Hipkins said on Tuesday dental care has taken a backseat since there are other issues to focus on” – see Zac Fleming’s Funding for free adult dental care used up by Covid-19 response, mental health budget – Chris Hipkins.

This article also reports the Ministry of Health view that dental affordability issues are now causing problems: “Rates of acute admissions to hospital for dental care have also increased recently”. And Otago University professor of epidemiology Murray Thomas is quoted saying “The proportion of the population of adults who are getting regular routine dental care is actually falling”. Furthermore, “Now there’s evidence linking poor oral health to heart disease and cancer, but the Government doesn’t yet have any plans to tackle the problem.”

Last month the Ministry released its briefing to the minister on the issue, which the Government avoided making public – see Zac Fleming’s Revealed: The dental funding proposals the Government wanted to keep secret. This relates to a briefing that the then Minister of Health David Clark requested after Labour made the decision to make dental health free. According to this article, “The Government has sat on a report outlining ways to improve access to adult dental care for almost two years without taking any action.”

Fleming’s article also reports that the Ministry of Health asked Clark whether he wanted them to “undertake further work on developing options for improving access and affordability of adult oral health care”, which the Minister didn’t follow up on. Chris Hipkins, the new Minister, has now confirmed “No specific work [was] commissioned in response to that report.”

The briefing, which outlines the dire state of dental health and what might be done about it now available here: Adult Dental Care and Oral Health Issues.

Some were expecting that the Government’s wide-ranging review of the health and disability sector, delivered this year, would deal with the problems of the dental system and find a way to bring it into the public system, but dentistry wasn’t mentioned.

Public support for public provision of dental care

There is continued strong support for the Government to pump more funding into this area of health. Last week 1News reported that its Vote Compass survey showed the public was highly favourable to the proposal that “the government should cover the cost of dental care for adults with low incomes” – see Andrew MacFarlane’s Majority of Kiwis say government should fund dental care for low-income adults.

According to this, “The majority – 70 per cent of voters – said they somewhat or strongly agreed with the statement, while just 17 per cent were against it.” Those most likely to “strongly agree” were supporters of the Greens (58%) and Labour (42%).

Earlier in the year, 1News also reported a Colmar Brunton poll which showed “Sixty-four per cent of voters want the Government to prioritise free dental care for New Zealanders” – see: Almost two thirds of Kiwis want Government to prioritise free dentistry – poll.

Those polled were asked the following: “Currently, under 18-year-olds get free dentistry. Do you think the Government should prioritise making dentistry free for all New Zealanders?” The results were: Yes – 64%; No – 33%; Don’t Know – 3%.

Advocacy for government dental funding

Last month dentists took the campaign for better funding to the politicians, with the Dental Association “running a clinic on the forecourt of Parliament to highlight the need for better dental care for low-income and vulnerable New Zealanders” – see RNZ’s Dentists push advocacy of oral healthcare for low-income Kiwis.

Association president, Katie Ayers, put the case for reform: “There’s no debate that oral health is an essential component of general health, there’s no debate that we have unacceptable inequalities in access to care in oral health status, but the problem we have is just that funding is not coming through to enable us to help the people who need it the most.” The Association says millions would be saved in hospital costs if more was spent on preventing tooth decay.

However the Association does not go as far as calling for free dental care, with the president pointing out that this would cost “well in excess of $1 billion” – see Anna Whyte’s Free dental care for all ‘absolutely not possible’, NZ Dental Association says. Instead of a universal system, they call for targeted subsidies for the poor.

Some district health boards are advocating for universal provision of dental care. Last year the Waitematā District Health Board formally decided to advocate for a “comprehensive dental service for all New Zealanders” based on the public health system – see Nicholas Jones’ Time for free dental care? Queues at hospital pain clinics as Waitematā DHB backs ‘comprehensive’ dental service.

This article reports the then Health Minister David Clark admitting the “huge unmet need in dental care” and saying “We have people struggling with third world health conditions as a result of bad dental hygiene and inability to access the care and treatment they need”. He lamented that a universal system was unable to be implemented prior to the 2020 election.

Following on from this, the Otago Daily Times called the situation a “crisis” and asked in an editorial if the Government’s avoidance of reform was tenable: “will we soon get to a point where the cost of not addressing our national dental crisis is outweighed by the value of introducing universal care? For this is a crisis. It is a state of decay so bad even the dentists are recoiling in shock” – see: The tooth really hurts.

The newspaper pointed to the last comprehensive survey of oral health in New Zealand, from 2009, which showed “one in three New Zealanders was living with untreated tooth decay, and doubtless that ratio has worsened. The same survey indicated just 40% of New Zealanders regularly went to the dentist. What odds on a fresh survey revealing that number has not just dropped but plummeted? Regrettably, professional dental care is seen as a luxury for many of our citizens”.

If a full universal system is too expensive, surely other reform options are possible. This was the argument last year from Dave Armstrong, who asked: “Could the Government look at partly subsidised dental care, in the same way doctors’ visits for some are partly paid for by the state?” – see: A solution for our phobia about the high cost of dental health.

Here are Armstrong’s other main ideas: “Perhaps something the Government could look at is instigating a cheap, “no frills” level of primary adult dental care. Employing mainly hygienists and a few dentists, with emphasis on education and prevention, it could target low-income people who couldn’t afford private care.”

Finally, cartoonist Toby Morris asks “Why are teeth treated so differently to the rest of our bodies?” see: The Side Eye: Missing Teeth.