The Waiting; Whinging and Negotiating

With the votes cast, New Zealand faces a period of waiting, political finger-pointing and coalition negotiations. Andy Loader examines National's criticism of MMP, Chris Bishop's electoral defeat and the strategic vote-splitting campaign that may have saved the centre-right coalition. With 67 seats provisionally secured, the focus now shifts to special votes and the negotiations that will determine who governs, what policies survive and how much influence smaller parties will wield. But are politicians listening to voters, or simply protecting their own positions?

Opinion by Andy Loader

The voting is done and now we wait for the final result to be announced after all votes have been counted and deemed to be legal.

In the meantime we will see many different reactions to the initial voting results from political parties, candidates (both winners & losers), media and the general public.

Bishop and the MMP Blame Game

One reaction that surprised me in some ways was that from Chris Bishop who, on Saturday night, lost his Hutt South electorate vote to the Labour candidate.

It seems that given the benefit of hindsight, losing the seat and his lack of understanding of the MMP system of voting, he now considers that MMP is bad for democracy.

I shouldn’t really be surprised at this given the examples of just how poorly the leadership (both present & past) of the National Party have misunderstood the basic principles behind the MMP system of voting.

Bishop stated on RNZ's Morning Report that he believed the country must review the electoral system. He said that the vote-splitting campaign was "horribly" confusing, and the resulting 11-seat overhang in parliament was not what MMP's founders had in mind.

I’m sorry but I honestly thought that Chris Bishop of all the losing candidates would have a good understanding of the MMP system, but no once again I have been proved to be wrong.

His statements regards MMP again show how badly members of the National Party understood the system.

He was reported as making the following statement; "I think the Māori Party's got a lot to answer for with their campaign, and I think Harry [Mowbray] and his crew have got a lot to answer for as well. I think it's bad for democracy for a number of reasons."

I find it difficult to understand why he, or anybody else, would think there was some special answer required in relation to the MMP voting results. Firstly this was the result from the system that is currently in place to conduct elections for government and secondly the voters just filled in their ballot papers, as the law and the MMP system allows with nobody being seen to be deliberately ignoring the rules to gain an electoral advantage.

Whilst Mr Bishop may not like the results or agree with them, that is just democracy at work. All eligible voters are given two votes and they have the right to choose which way they want to apply those votes. MMP is just the current system of rules that control how the voting system works.

I cannot understand how someone in a position such as him (being a long term, high level minister in government) could be so stupid as to suggest that the voting system of MMP is bad for democracy.

It is just a set of rules which control the voting (the same as those that used to apply under the First Past the Post system) and after all is said and done, the winning party (or coalition of parties) still have to achieve a majority to allow them to form a government.

The election result is what the eligible voters of New Zealand have decided and that is what the parties must deal with; unless there is a hung parliament which could result in another election.

The National Party's Lost Safety Net

So far on the provisional results from election night the National led coalition are still in government with a total of 67 of an expected 131 seats in parliament.

Mr Bishop’s Hutt South electorate voted for change as they have done in each election for the past four terms and the Labour candidate leads him by 889 on the preliminary count. His electorate looks set to again change hands in this election and that is not wrong, it is just the wish of the voters as the system of MMP allows.

Mr Bishop was number three on National's list and in any other year that would have been as safe as houses given that the National Party would have easily gained enough party votes to ensure he was elected on the list vote if his electorate bid failed.

Unfortunately for him and others, this year the list was worth nothing, because National's low party vote did not provide any type of safety net.

Bishop told Morning Report it was "unusual" how low National's party vote was, and that he was "gutted" for himself and his colleagues who missed out on gaining a seat in parliament.

But in fact there was nothing unusual about the result. It came about because the voters were fed up with National’s record over their three years in charge and so they voted for change.

The safety net of the list vote under MMP did not come into action because in the eyes of the voters the coalition government had not done enough and therefore they voted for change. The campaigns to split the votes were used to get people to register their disapproval of National’s record but also to allow the coalition on the centre right to stay in power.

So far that has been the outcome and if the count of special votes does not alter the provisional results then we will see the centre right coalition government back in power for another term.

For the safety net of the list vote to save Mr. Bishop and the other senior MP’s on the list, National needed to get more party votes than they qualified for under the number of electorate seats which they won and in line with the polling results throughout this term, they failed to do so by a very significant margin.

Given the number of electorate seats which National won (42), they would have needed to have a party vote above approximately 35% for the list safety net to start working, but they have been consistently polling at the lowest levels seen for many years at around 29%.

Split Voting Proves National Wrong

The Prime Minister called vote splitting "an insanely stupid idea". Sir John Key (past Prime Minister) called it "the opposite of clever". In the final week Mr Luxon was still at it: "Do not do any of this split voting or strategic voting malarkey."

But surely somebody in their party should have read the polling results and suggested that they could go a long way towards ensuring they remain in power by actually advising the opposite. Split the votes and ensure a centre right government as on the current polling results at the time they had absolutely no chance of gaining enough party votes to enact the list safety net.

National kept preaching the advice about how other people should vote. The party even complained to the Electoral Commission about Mr Mowbray's webpage. They should have concentrated on campaigning about the issues, instead of lecturing voters on how to vote and giving two ticks to National.

The voters weren't confused. They split their votes and got the centre-right government they wanted. The only people confused were those who thought voters would do as they were told.

Splitting the vote didn't cost the centre-right it has provisionally won them the election. The National party leadership told voters that splitting their votes was stupid and they were proved wrong. Harry Mowbray and Reality Check Radio's pamphlets, ads and websites told voters to split their vote, and they were right.

At National's campaign launch on September 27, Key warned supporters against voting for National while backing ACT or NZ First with their party vote.

“That is the opposite of clever,” Key declared, warning the strategy could cost National some of its most talented ministers.

Waikato businessman and entrepreneur Harry Mowbray, former National leader Don Brash and Reality Check Radio argued the opposite. Their strategy sought to give National more electorate seats than its party vote would normally entitle it to, creating additional parliamentary seats known as an overhang.

Preliminary election results suggest the arithmetic worked, National won 42 electorate seats despite receiving just 29.21% of the party vote, enough for approximately 35 seats under MMP. The difference creates seven overhang seats.

Te Pāti Māori's five electorate victories add another four overhang seats, expanding Parliament to 131 seats.

The result gives National, ACT and NZ First a provisional 67 seats, against 64 for Labour, the Greens, Te Pāti Māori and Opportunity.

Speaking to the NZ Herald on November 8, Mowbray said there was “no question” his “Split Your Vote” campaign had helped the coalition survive.

He criticised National's leadership for opposing the strategy, arguing that its focus on protecting individual MPs had come at the expense of the coalition's overall position.

Senior National Party MP’s Nicola Willis, Chris Bishop, Gerry Brownlee and Paul Goldsmith are provisionally out of Parliament as Key had warned about, but reason for this happening was the very low level of support for National. Their polling results throughout this term have been so low that, realistically, that outcome seems to have been nearly inevitable.

Now Comes the Negotiating

So inevitably, even though the final confirmed result of the election is still yet to be known, the various parties in the coalition and others will start to negotiate their own party’s positions in relation to coalition agreements.

Once the final election result is announced and coalition negotiations begin in earnest, the formation of the government may still take some time to develop and we get to see what the new government will consist of in terms of its membership.

New Zealand’s experience under MMP shows that coalition negotiations can take anywhere from about a week to two months, with particularly long negotiations following the 1996 and 2023 elections.

How Long Will It Take?

Based on the elections for which formal coalition agreements were concluded between 1996 and 2023, the average was approximately 30 days — just over four weeks.

A broader measure is the number of days from Election Day until ministers are formally appointed. This includes negotiations and other steps in the formation process.

Average, all MMP elections, 1996–2023: 27.3 days.

The 1996 election took 65 days to form a government, while the 2023 election took 44 days. By contrast, the 1999 and 2008 elections resulted in governments being formed in 13 and 11 days respectively.

What this tells us: Coalition negotiations under MMP typically take several weeks, but the time required varies considerably depending on the election result, the number of parties involved and the complexity of the agreements.

In New Zealand’s MMP system, coalition negotiations are primarily about three things: what the government will do, who will hold power, and how the parties will work together.

Seven Issues to Settle

1. Confidence and supply — can the government survive?

This is the essential starting point. The parties must establish that the government can command the confidence of a majority of MPs, normally at least 61 of the 120 seats in a full-sized Parliament.

2. Policy priorities — what will the government actually do?

Each party enters negotiations with election promises, but not every promise can necessarily be implemented. The parties decide which policies become government commitments, which are modified, and which are abandoned.

Major areas commonly include:

• Taxation, spending, debt and economic growth.
• Health, education, welfare and housing.
• Crime, policing and justice.
• Immigration, infrastructure and the environment.
• Treaty of Waitangi policy and constitutional questions.

3. Ministerial positions — who gets the power?

Parties negotiate the distribution of ministerial portfolios and influential positions.

• Who becomes Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister?
• Which parties control Finance, Foreign Affairs, Health, Education and other portfolios?
• How many ministers will each party have?
• Which MPs will sit in Cabinet, and which will be ministers outside Cabinet?

4. Decision-making — how will disagreements be resolved?

Parties must agree on how government decisions will be made and how disputes will be handled.

Key questions include:

• Must all coalition partners agree on major decisions?
• Which decisions can the Prime Minister make independently?
• Must partners be consulted before new policies or legislation are introduced?
• Can a party publicly oppose an agreed government position?

5. Parliamentary voting — which laws will the parties support?

Parties need to determine how they will vote on legislation, particularly when their policies conflict.

They may agree to:

• Support specified bills through Parliament.
• Amend or withdraw legislation that conflicts with a coalition partner’s position.
• Allow MPs or parties to disagree on selected issues.
• Seek support from opposition MPs when coalition votes are insufficient.

6. Budget and public spending — what can the government afford?

Parties must reconcile their spending promises with available revenue, taxation plans, borrowing and fiscal objectives.

Typical disagreements concern:

• Tax cuts versus spending on public services.
• Public-sector staffing and departmental budgets.
• Infrastructure investment and priorities.
• Welfare entitlements, superannuation and debt reduction.

7. Stability, accountability and political independence

Each party needs confidence that the arrangement will last, while retaining enough independence to justify its participation to voters.

The parties need to establish:

• How long the agreement is intended to last.
• How progress against commitments will be monitored.
• How breaches of the agreement will be handled.
• Whether a party can publicly distinguish its policies from those of its partners.
• What happens if a partner threatens to leave the government.

Which Issues Matter Most?

The importance of each issue varies, but the following hierarchy captures the practical logic of coalition negotiations.

The first priority is a practical constitutional necessity. The remaining priorities are closely connected and are often negotiated together.

What About Democratic Control?

There is an important distinction between forming a government and agreeing on how the country will be governed.

Voters elect MPs and political parties; they do not directly negotiate the coalition agreement. After the election, party leaders bargain over policy, positions and parliamentary support. The resulting agreement can therefore differ from the manifesto of any individual party.

This creates three important democratic questions:

• Transparency: Can voters see what was agreed and what compromises were made?
• Accountability: Can voters identify which party is responsible for particular decisions?
• Representation: Does the final agreement reasonably reflect the votes cast, including the influence of smaller parties?

In New Zealand, coalition agreements are political agreements rather than legally binding contracts. Their practical force depends on the parties' willingness to honour them and on their continuing need for parliamentary support.

The central issue is therefore not simply which party wins the most votes. It is which combination of parties can assemble sufficient parliamentary support, agree on a workable programme, and maintain that support while remaining accountable to voters.