OPINION: Michael Swanson/The Periodical/Substack
Absolutely dreaming…but that is no reason to not collaborate
“Imagine how many of those most egregious things … the Greens could have stopped if they were willing to work with National.” Those were the words of Qiulae Wong during Tuesday (13 October) night’s “kingmaker” debate towards Greens co-Leader Chlöe Swarbrick on the subject of doing deals with parties from across the spectrum. Bit cheeky from Wong, but a pretty well-timed dig all the same.
Wong, by all accounts, had a pretty good night on Tuesday, but this comment got me thinking – if National, Opportunity and the Greens all enter Parliament after 7 November, could they actually work together on a few issues? In some areas, there is actually some ground they could cover together that could be really beneficial for the country. In some other spaces, they are so far apart you’d think they were from different planets.
Last month I wrote a piece looking at why Opportunity should sit on the cross-benches should the be successful in November, and one reason to do this is to have more freedom to collaborate far and wide to get things done. So what I thought I’d do today is just lay out some areas they could do business, and some they clearly can’t. This isn’t a deep dive into the technicalities, the divergent views on economics, or whether their supporters would riot or not if a deal of any kind was done, but a chance to show politics doesn’t always have to be about trying to battle each other.
Where there might actually be room for collaboration…
Just because National, the Greens, and Opportunity have had major differences, doesn’t mean there aren’t areas where, at least at a high level, there is a chance for agreement. I plucked out five areas where they could, if the conditions were right, find some agreement was possible (details be damned, for now):
Supermarkets and Competition – this goes much wider than just the three parties I’m covering here, but it is an area where I think agreement can be found. The Greens want to establish “KiwiMart”, a state-owned supermarket aimed at creating competition in the market and giving new options to local producers – all very admirable. None of the other parties (apart from possible Te Pāti Māori) have shown any interest at all in doing this. What they might be able to agree on is that some mechanism to break up the duopoly and make space for greater competition is better than no change at all, so don’t be surprised in the Greens say yes to supporting change even if it is nowhere close to what they are proposing – and if this works, don’t be surprised to see similar action in areas such as banking and power.
Lobbying and donations – this one might surprise a few people, but I think if the right conditions were met, you could actually see movement in this space. The Greens and Opportunity have extremely similar policy in this space – both want donations capped at $30,000, no donations from companies, and a public lobbying register. These are all things a fair chunk of the population could probably get behind, but the question is how far National can go in this space. They are also changes that probably wouldn’t cost mass votes, and areas that might actually win a few people back if National did actually come to the party here. The might not agree to all the proposals, but a little give and take might be on the table.
Oceans & Fisheries – this for me is almost a no-brainer. Much of the push-back in this space has really come from the likes of Shane Jones, so if there was an opportunity for National, the Greens and Opportunity to put there heads together and expand ocean conservation, and tighten up rules in the fishing industry it might be an areas they feel is quite a straight-forward discussion to have as a “testing the waters” kind of chat.
Retirement Savings – most agree that we need to do better as a country when it comes to saving for the future. Putting the “is it too expensive” bit to the side, we just need to do better at saving money for our retirements. Opportunity and National aren’t actually too far apart on this to begin with, as both have policies around Kiwisaver and making it more impactful for people. This is probably an area the Greens can come part way on, though they would likely argue that creating a fairer economy that saw wealth more equitably distributed is the real way forward. Still, wouldn’t rule out some discussion here.
Health – Yes, surprising I know, but much like some of the spaces above I have a feeling that if you were able to push either ACT or NZ First out of the picture, you might be able to find some common ground. ACT in particular have been real proponents of a more Americanised health system (so, a more shit system) with more user-pays approaches, increased reliance on private healthcare (not against it, but shouldn’t be so engrained in our system), and a reliance on philanthropy to get things done. Hopefully, if National was to come around to the idea that our health system needs to be far more healthy, then they could open the door to conversations here.
Where they clearly can’t collaborate
There are probably quite a few areas that, unfortunately, fall into this space, but I thought I’d zero in on four:
Tax – this, to me, is the single biggest barrier. National have been laser focused on railing against even the smell of a new tax. Opportunity have ruffled all sorts of feathers with their Land Value Tax (LVT)…you know, the tax that will apparently for Grandma and Grandad to be homeless. Meanwhile the Greens have been unapologetically clear that the whole tax system needs a massive revamp to include a Wealth tax, along with potential capital-gains taxes and taxes on excessive profits. Some of the Greens ideas actually have a bit of traction, just not with National. Between the LVT and a Wealth Tax, there is almost zero chance of National sitting down and discussing major tax reform that heads in this direction
Climate and Farming – there may actually be some climate spaces they can work on together (I mentioned oceans above), but when it comes to farming and the climate National are pretty adamant they don’t want to go very far at all in that space. Both Opportunity and the Greens have plenty of ideas around farmers and climate change, but National have a real fear of driving voters to NZ First and ACT, so have shown very little interest in touching this space with anything more than a gentle hand.
Welfare & Housing – this should actually be a space where there could be agreement, particularly around housing (and there is agreement that we need more of it), but the big disagreement comes down to philosophy. National has little interest in building large numbers of state houses, while they have also made it clear they want to increase sanctions on beneficiaries and make rules much stricter in that space. This is almost the antithesis of what the Greens believe, and scuppers any hop at all of collaboration. Meanwhile Opportunity want to reduce then eliminate job-seeker benefits and student allowances (National… “you have my attention”) with these being replaced by a Citizens Income or Universal Basic Income (National… “and you lost me) – neither are immediate winners for National or the Greens, for different reasons.
Te Tiriti – this is an area I actually struggled with, because like some of the areas in the “can work” space, if you were to work around ACT or NZ First I think National might be able to be far more collaborative around Te Tiriti and Māori development issues. However, the big fear here for National (much like on climate/farming) is that it could push too many of their voter base to ACT or NZ First. I actually think that, although they haven’t campaigned on it, National will fold to ACT and NZ First after the election and agree to wind-down the Waitangi Tribunal as part of a deal with those parties, meaning no real way to work with the Greens in particular on this issue.
The Point of Proportional Representation
The thing that has really peeved me the most during this campaign, and probably the whole last term, is the sheer lack of flexibility from parties to work outside of their bloc’s that have formed. The left versus right factionalism that has evolved has essentially seen much of our politics revert back to a sort of first-past-the-post (FPP) dynamic – there are only two options, and and collaboration between the two is disappointingly rare. If anything, the (albeit ground-breaking) three-way coalition between National, ACT, and NZ First made any collaboration between one of those parties, and parties across the isle, really bloody difficult.
One of the big drawcards of proportional representation (and where, as I wrote in my thesis, I align with Giovanni Sartori over Maurice Duverger) is that it allows for a real diversity of opinion, and less rigid political arrangements – Duverger believed that ultimately opinions fall into two camps, for and against, and maybe he’s somewhere right now watching what is happening here in New Zealand thinking “See, told you so”, but I believe (like Sartori) that the two-camps idea is a fake construction that masks and tries to simplify conversations that shouldn’t be seen as black and white.
My observation is that we’ve also seen a hardening of opinions of supporters of each of these blocs to the point where it feels like they’d launch a rebellion if their “team” collaborated with others on the other side. Social media shows this the worst – there are Facebook groups that I lurk in which show some pretty vile and disgusting commentary by ACT/NZ First supporters towards those on the left, while Reddit seems to be home to those who want to try the Opportunity Party as traitors if they did any sort of deal with National (whatever that may be).
What we need are parties (and their supporter base) that are open and willing to collaborate, issue by issue, with whoever is willing to get to as close to a consensus as possible of a wide range of issues. This is where I think Christopher Luxon has made a terrible cock-up – I’m sitting at about 85% sure Opportunity will enter Parliament (you can never be 100% until the votes are counted), and if they do get in, he will have no choice but to negotiate if he wants to remain Prime Minister. But, I hope Opportunity don’t try and do a formal coalition arrangement – for their longevity, and as a way to force greater collaboration, I personally hope they decide to sit and the middle and work with whoever holds the keys to the 9th floor of the Beehive in a confidence and supply arrangement (at most).
Whatever happens, this FPP dynamic of us versus them, left versus right, goodies versus baddies, is incredibly lame. It undermines our entire system, and I for one hope certain parties can get over themselves and be much more collaborative in the next Parliament.
