With the party votes counted and the final balance of power known, National leader Christopher Luxon can crack on with coalition negotiations and getting into government.
But he won’t commit to a deadline — the leaders of Act and New Zealand First have both said it would be possible to finalise an agreement in the coming week, while Luxon is not so sure.
He has decided not to travel to the Pacific Islands Forum on Tuesday and wouldn’t commit to flying to the Asia Pacific Leaders Forum on Wednesday next week.
“At the end of the day, I’ll take as long as it takes to get a strong, stable government in place for New Zealand. If that means I don’t make APEC, then so be it,” he said.
“I’ve only got one job at the moment, and that is to build a strong and stable government”.
He said the final vote tally was roughly as expected and that good progress had been made in coalition negotiations while the special votes were counted.
National won 38.06% of party votes and picked up 43 electorates, although it wants to see a recount in Nelson and Mount Albert which Labour won by just 20 and 29 votes, respectively.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins said he would support a recount in Tamaki Makaurau, where a Te Pāti Māori candidate appears to have overtaken the incumbent Peeni Henare by four votes.
Deputy party leader, Kelvin Davis could also seek a recount in his electorate in which he trails the Te Pāti Māori candidate by 500 votes. He has previously said he would resign if he lost.
Banks Peninsula and Te Atatu are the only other electorates with small enough margins to consider a recount, but none of these will have any effect on which parties are in power.
The Act Party ended up with 8.6% of the party votes and 11 seats, while NZ First won 6.1% of votes and 8 seats. National will need support from both parties to form a Government.
David Seymour, leader of the Act Party, explicitly ruled out sitting around the Cabinet table with Winston Peters prior to the election. He walked back that statement after the final results were announced, revealing it would be possible after all.
"I said that at a time when it appeared unlikely that we'd get to this particular point and now we're here we've got to respect the will of the voters,” he told reporters at a press conference.
It might be tempting to interpret that as a sign National has been pursuing a full coalition agreement with both parties, but Luxon wouldn’t be drawn on the question when asked.
He did say there were questions to be asked of the Electoral Commission, citing a number of issues with the process and counting of the special votes.
The easy vote cards were slow to arrive at households, there were problems at voting booths on election day, and some have called for special votes to be reported as they are counted.
Losing Māori & Auckland
Hipkins said the Labour Party would have to spend some time reflecting on why it performed so poorly in both Auckland and Māori electorates.
These are traditionally key areas of support for the party and will need to be won back in the future.
“We do need to spend some time reflecting on Auckland, in particular. The Labour Party has lost a lot of support there over the past two years,” he told reporters.
Labour’s internal poll numbers dropped “significantly” in late 2021 and early 2022, at the end of the long lockdown, and it wasn’t able to regain that support over the past 18-months.
He would reflect on the result and make sure the party did re-engage with Auckland and rebuild its support in the city.
However, Māori were still supporting Labour with their party vote and appeared to have been splitting their votes strategically, he said.
“It could well have been that Māori voters were trying to strengthen the overall number of Māori in Parliament”.
Labour ended up with 26.9% of party votes and won 17 electorates, for a total of 34 seats.
Te Pāti Māori picked up 3.1% of votes and six electorates, while the Greens won 11.6% for a record 15 seats — including three electorate wins.
Hipkins said the Labour Party, and its allies, would be “formidable opposition” but it is still an open question as to whether he will be its leader.
The caucus will meet in the next few weeks and likely hold a leadership vote before the end of the year, which Hipkins is expected to contest.
“I’ve still got a bit of fight left in me, I think there is an important job to do. The Labour Party has always been very good to me and I am still absolutely committed to the Labour Party”.
There are not many candidates to take his place. David Parker has reportedly been weighing up a challenge, but few others have the public profile or appetite to make a bid.
45 Comments
Just think what might eventuate if the Gnats extended an invitation to TPM. Could snooker Winston, and the baubles on offer could include a Minister, who (if Maori Affairs or whatever it's called this week) would then wear all the blame for the inevitable fusterclucks.
Oh to be a fly on the wall.....
A fly off the wall more likely. It is extraordinary beyond measure that the nation should be virtually paralysed by a system that is able to void governing for week after week. In this day and age of advanced technology what the heck has been achieved in our electoral system.
Hardly. The media has been raring to go. And now they can. For example, this evening Stuff “The finish line to government keeps moving further away’ followed by “ Winston Peters has been ignoring David Seymour and now has a far stronger position…..” Aim would seem to be to report the downfall of any coalition before there actually is one. But as you say - keep calm and carry on.
NAT ACT NZF = 67seats
LAB GRN TPM NZF = 63 seats
Winston is in the ultimate position. Don't think for a second that he wouldn't turn left if he doesn't get what he wants. He's done it before remember? It is now entirely possible that Chippy could be our next PM. Seriously, who knows now?
I agree. Both Winston and Hipkins ruled out working with each other in the lead up to the election, but that could've just been posturing.
Winston ruled it out while Cindy was in charge, and Hipkins now has the benefit of hindsight. It's a completely different landscape now. Don't underestimate how much "give" someone has when they lose something but are then given a second chance, and Winston may know this.
True overall. But within that Labour are now the holder of the most defeated NZ government since 1928. The previous election it was the other way round in that National lost virtually half their seats. That volatility, in the space of six years, in that support is hardly a sign of the electorate having much confidence in the ability of NZ’s main political parties of the last 75 years or so. Certainly MMP has altered the playing field but more worryingly, if the electorate has become so changeable, there has to be a big question mark over what exactly our parliament is now delivering.
New Zealand being one of only 3 countries in the WORLD that lets permanent residents vote (instead of just citizens like most normal countries) will have an adverse effect on our politicial representation. The lack of politicial history and understanding of MMP and little knowledge of the failures of particularly National to do much good for New Zealand, disproportionately affects the outcome. Over 1 million permanent residents have the right to vote. That is not smart.
The left block received a shade over 41% of the vote, and the right block a shade under 47% of the vote. It's only that TPM won a few electorate seats that it appears closer when the seats are added up.
In any case, Winston is more centre-right than many would care to admit. In which case, the right block received a shade under 53% of the vote, which is a whopping 12% more than the left, and what would be referred to as a landslide victory against the left.
Now that Winnie holds a big stick I think I’ll write to him and plead with him to apply a handbrake to Nat’s blatant efforts to pump the ponzi and the selling off land to wealthy foreigners.
I suggest that anyone who is literate do the same.
This unaffordable housing market insanity must stop for the sake of future generations.
Good idea. Given they weren't in government last term, I'll have to send them my Select Committee materials on the rent maximum formula approach :-). $2+ billion per annum in savings - although I suspect it would have to be introduced incrementally over the 3-year term.
Would be quite a legacy for Winston and NZF if they got it through - regulating the rental market is the best thing anyone could do for future generations IMO. Interestingly enough, it was the ACT MP on the SC that took the most interest in it. I looked her up on the pecuniary register, and she has no real estate assets, so likely knows what it's like to pay someone else's mortgage.
Same question asked by the Labour MP in Select Committee. Just as the government has the power to regulate the rental market, it has the power to regulate the building materials market and consenting through changes to the Building Act and RMA. The problem with legislators in many ways is one of mindset - a 'hands off' approach to market (price) regulation but an overly 'hands on' approach to business (conduct) regulation.
Fitting that the first comments I read here back after a long hiatus, I see this rubbish rear its ugly head again.
I, and others, have explained in great detail the fundamental flaw with your elementary rental formula approach and why no economist would ever endorse it. It makes renters pay for the future option value of the asset which is as crazy as the solution is naive.
I generally have a low opinion of select commitees, but it seems they can sometimes demonstrate hints of competency when they rightly ignore stuff that would categorically make outcomes much crappier for renters.
I'm like an annoying Energizer Bunny - and proud of it :-).
When I get a chance I might write another article summarising the SC's points made in its decision-making.
Thing is - no economist worth his/her salt would support a market subsidy either - but that's where we are.
I admire persistence. It is a trait of a principle and success.
However.. Probably no need - they summarised their response quite well..
"The ministries noted that the reasoning behind this formula was unclear and might require further consideration."
"However, we note that there are significant uncertainties around the potential costs and unintended consequences that could arise from adopting Ms Moody’s proposed model of rent control. For this reason, we do not support Ms Moody’s proposal in its current form."
This is without even noting the fundamental error of ignoring principles of rent and land valuations. So they rejected it on even a thinner basis than what they should have considered.
Yes, I agree with the 'even thinner basis' - in other words, if there are uncertainties to be considered - then consider them!!!! That's the whole point of Parliamentary petitions!
Essentially, I get the feeling the officials aren't capable of reasoned argument from a first principles basis - and the elected members simply don't want to can the market subsidies.
Long story short, we can't regulate to save ourselves, or our children :-).
Always a pleasure conversing with you, nymad as the discussion is civil and thoughtful.
I’ll write to him and plead with him to apply a handbrake to Nat’s blatant efforts to pump the ponzi and the selling off land to wealthy foreigners.
But what was NZF's policy on foreign buyer ban and negative gearing? Can't remember.
Hope someone stops Nats outrageously blatant efforts to make the ponzi going and make an average household more into debt.
I suspect one of the first things NZF will oppose very strongly is the National tax cut and alternate revenue raising 'plan'. Point being, the 'plan' was a sham and every financial specialist knows it.
I just don't see Winston being prepared to back a government that will fail miserably on the debt management/taxation front. And of course, ACT were never in favour of those cuts once the PREFU came out - simply unaffordable, and hence they trimmed back their tax cut plans.
So, somehow I think if Luxon/Willis try to dig their toes in to save face - this negotiation could take a long, long time.
They can't do any worse than Labour with the debt management. And Winston will back the National Party anyway, if given a plum position in government. I see negotiations taking 2 weeks - the main issue will be David and Winston getting on well (or not well) and both wanting to be the favored partner of Christopher.
They can't do any worse than Labour with the debt management.
Indeed they can - that's the whole reason a small group of highly qualified economists spoke out about their concerns with the 'plan' - things could get much worse if their forecasts (regarding alternate revenue) don't materialize.
https://croakingcassandra.com/2023/09/14/how-much-revenue-might-nationa…
I still don't understand why people are so worried about a big ballooned govt debt number.
A sane person should be more worried about our mortgage debt and how unfairly it is leveraged and distributed.
Govt debt is not the one which has to be 'paid back'. That can sit there in spreadsheet for sometime
They think Governments that issue their own sovereign currency toddle down to Instant Finance to take out a loan, with huge interest rates attached. It's a lazy attack vector for someone with strong partisan views.
As you say, it can sit there in the spreadsheet for some time and who knows? You get inflation, wages go up and then suddenly that "debt" is effectively M1.
Most households live within their means and are paying back debt year by year. A government that can’t live within its means is just borrowing from future generations.
I don’t think many people believe the government can borrow as much as they want and it doesn’t matter. If they can continually spend more than they raise in tax, then why not get rid of tax altogether?
It’s actually why I tend to vote left, the left have a much better record on government debt than the right who always prefer tax cuts. The current Labour government are an exception, I certainly wanted them to invest in stuff but instead they invested in handouts. But at least at this election they didn’t campaign on more spending on prisons, tax cuts, roads, etc as much as National did, I don’t buy that there is enough wasted spending to pay for it all.
"..government can borrow as much as they want and it doesn’t matter"
I didn't say that"it doesn't matter". It's all about what they spend on. Direct handouts can be inflationary for sure. They could spend it for free education like the first year free uni. Even if 70% age students did not complete study, it is till 30 percentage gain on SKILLED employment.
So government should not spend more than it needs to serve its people. It's more of a resource constrained than financial.
But I have to say these economists people are not fools. Debt/borrowing terminology is used perhaps to control the irresponsible spending. Afterall politicians are greedy, corrupt and overspenders when it comes to public money.
You may want to check rbnz document on money in New Zealand. The simple diagram shows the borrowing can happen only in New Zealand dollars and only as much as it has spent before.
Also shows that the so called borrowed money reduces the broad money in the system. Same as taxation. They both help the same purpose of reducing money in the system. Also taxes are imposed so that people obliged to earn New Zealand dollars .
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.