ACT vs NZ First

Stuff reports:

After iteratively nudging the door shut to any potential coalition deal involving New Zealand First, ACT Leader David Seymour has finally slammed the door shut, turned the key, fastened the deadbolt and latched the door chain. 

There’s no room for Winston Peters in any Cabinet shared with David Seymour. 

When asked by Stuff if he categorically rules out working with Peters after the election, Seymour replied, “Yeah, look, it’s impossible to see us sitting around the Cabinet table.”

And Seymour left no room for doubt – no twerky wriggle room.

This is not surprising from ACT. It is worth looking at what this means in terms of potential Governments.

Let’s look at first what happens if NZ First don’t make 5%.

If they don’t make 5%, then whichever bloc of National/ACT or Labour/Green/Maori has 61 or more seats gets to form Government. There are basically just two options.

Four of the five most recent polls have shown that National/ACT would get a clear majority in an election. One showed a hung Parliament.

So if you want a National/ACT Government, it is more likely to occur if NZ First does not make 5%. If they make 5%, then basically each “bloc” would lose three seats to them making a majority harder.

But what if NZ First does make 5%. Here are the scenarios:

1. National/ACT have a majority without NZ First. NZ First would sit on the cross-benches. They might have a confidence and supply agreement with National in exchange for some policy gains.
2. National/ACT make up the Cabinet. NZ First gets seats outside Cabinet as part of a confidence and supply agreement.
3. National/ACT make up the Cabinet. NZ First sits on the cross-benches with a confidence and supply agreement with National in exchange for some policy gains.
4. National solely makes up the Cabinet. Both ACT and NZ First have ministers outside Cabinet as part of a confidence and supply agreement
5. National solely makes up the Ministry. They have confidence and supply agreements with ACT and NZ First, or NZ First abstain on supply and confidence.

The 1st scenario would be my preferred one if NZ First do make 5%. If National/ACT still manage a majority they can have a cohesive reforming Government.

Scenario 2 is unlikely. While Seymour only ruled out NZ First in Cabinet, I’m not sure whether he would be happy with them in the Ministry at all. Also more likely is Peters would not back a Cabinet with ACT in it, if he is not.

Scenario 3 is also unlikely. Will Peters want Seymour as Deputy PM? Also worth understanding that a confidence and supply agreement only applies to around two votes a year. Every other Government policy would be subject to the approval of NZ First, or getting an opposition party on side.

Scenario 4 is perhaps the least worst scenario of scenarios 2 to 5. Both parties having Ministers would give some incentive to try and make the Government cohesive. But again every law would need the support of both parties.

Scenario 5 is the most likely outcome. ACT and NZ First mutually veto each other and National governs alone. However this is a fairly weak Government that again needs both parties to agree to everything.

There is a sixth scenario where Winston gets pissed off with what he sees as a lack of respect from National and ACT, and does a deal with Labour. Now this is very unlikely. Winston has been far more explicit than normal in ruling Labour out, and his supporters would be outraged if he them put them back in. But you can’t be 100% certain unless you get it in writing as a sworn affidavit!

As readers will know I’m not a fan of many NZ First policies. They are economically to the left of me. I would much rather have a clean National/ACT Government.

But if they are in Government, there is one area they could do some good in, and that is the area of co-governance and the insistence that the Treaty is about equal partnership and equity (as opposed to equality and property rights).

The “blob” tends to throw the racist label at anyone who opposes what has been a revolution in the last five years in our constitutional arrangements. In theory Winston Peters, Shane Jones and Casey Costello could be the most effective politicians to fight back against this interpretation of the Treaty. Yell “racist” at them all you like, and it won’t get far.

But I did say “in theory”. I like a lot of the speeches that Peters and Jones have made in the last year in this area. But I also recall he made similar speeches in 2017 when he promised a referendum on the Maori seats. And according to numerous sources, this promise wasn’t even raised in the coalition negotiations.

It’s one thing to make speeches, but another to have the willpower to actually drive change. I do rate Casey Costello. She will want to actually change things, but even if elected she will be just one MP.

I think the best way forward is ACT’s referendum policy. I’m somewhat hesitant as a referendum can be a blunt tool, and the debate could be challenging. But it is a debate that has to happen. We need certainty on whether or not NZ continues with equality of suffrage or not.

No tag for this post.

The post ACT vs NZ First first appeared on Kiwiblog.