The National Party has been creeping closer towards a coalition agreement with its support partners, the Act and New Zealand First parties, with a resolution possible from next week.
Winston Peters, leader of NZ First, told the National Business Review a deal could be struck in the next two weeks, but also that he would walk away if talks didn’t go well.
The party had a caucus meeting to discuss priorities on Tuesday, prior to which deputy leader Shane Jones went on Radio Waatea and criticised National’s foreign buyers tax proposal.
David Seymour, leader of the Act Party, told Radio New Zealand on Monday he was close to getting a draft agreement done with National, but also that he hadn’t spoken with Peters.
The pair have previously been fierce competitors and will have to learn to work together under the leadership of Prime Minister-designate Christopher Luxon.
Luxon has tried to keep a tight lid on any talk about the talks, but even he has dropped a couple of hints about what is on the table.
For example, when asked whether he had any appetite for a referendum on the Treaty of Waitangi, he reiterated National opposed the idea during the election campaign.
The referendum was pitched as being a “bottom line” for the Act Party, but Luxon has little desire to burn political capital on a contentious vote that could threaten his re-election.
Another Act policy that has been all but ruled out is abolishing the Zero Carbon Act. Luxon put delivering net zero by 2050 on his personal pledge card, which outlined his eight priorities.
Getting priorities straight
Speaking to reporters after the announcement of the final election results, the National Party leader said he was working through “the big rocks” of the various parties’ policies.
‘Big rocks’ is corporate jargon for ‘priorities’ and was popularised by author Stephen R. Covey, in his book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.
Covey suggests not getting bogged down with small tasks and instead focus on the ‘big rocks’ while letting the small stuff settle into place around them.
National’s tax cut proposal may be the biggest rock of all. Nicola Willis, who would be the party’s finance minister, even promised she would resign if she failed to reduce taxes.
But the policy may need some tweaking to secure support from its coalition partners.
NZ First doesn’t like the policy's key revenue stream, selling homes to overseas buyers, and Act doesn’t think it is fiscally responsible enough.
The end result could be that the overseas buyers' part gets dropped and the public spending cuts get bigger, for example. That could placate both parties’ concerns.
It's harder to see the compromise on climate action. Either the country hits its net zero targets, and Luxon fulfils his pledge, or it doesn’t.
The emissions reductions need to come from electrifying NZ’s transport and heavy industries, as well as emissions from dairy farms and permanent carbon forests.
Both NZ First and Act oppose agricultural emissions pricing in any form, unless adopted by trading partners. National wants to start charging farmers in 2030.
Perhaps the party might decide this isn’t such a big rock? Killing or diluting the policy would give both its coalition partners a win and please key supporters in rural communities.
National could push the rest of the economy to shed even more emissions, or rely on methane reduction technology, to make up the shortfall.
Forest for the trees
Planting permanent carbon forests could be one path to net zero, but the Climate Change Commission thinks it is risky and NZ First wants to protect productive farmland, anyway.
Some ‘big rocks’ are shared between the parties: cut government spending and regulations, crackdown on crime, ditch co-governance, and improve health and education outcomes.
Both support parties will be wanting to get a signature policy across the line. For Act it might be a Ministry of Regulations, which would have oversight of regulations in all portfolios.
For NZ First, it may demand an independent inquiry into the Covid-19 response.
This was a key promise the party made to win voters from fringe parties and could be crucial to keeping those supporters onside. But would National want to fuel conspiracy theories?
A much easier policy win would be convincing National to drop its plan to lift the retirement age from 65 to 70 after 2044. Any promises made in 2023 will be forgotten by 2044, anyway.
However, the Act Party will be pushing in the other direction and asking National to start the transition to 70-years-old as soon as possible. It’ll be a support party showdown.
Small rocks
While unlikely to be considered ‘a big rock’, it will be interesting to see where KiwiSaver policy ends up.
The Act Party wants to target the up to $521.43 subsidy to just low income earners and leave the scheme otherwise unchanged.
National has proposed a raft of tweaks, often to the dismay of the funds management industry.
Their ideas include letting under 30-year-olds borrow from their fund to pay rent bonds, letting savers split their funds between providers, and allowing withdrawal to buy a first farm.
Agriculture spokesperson Todd McClay expressed support for the latter policy the day before the election; it is not official party policy.
NZ First’s manifesto proposed allowing savers to use the funds to pay down their mortgages.
It suggested something similar to a Singaporean model which allows savers to withdraw any funds over and above a ‘basic retirement’ level to pay off bank loans.
Most KiwiSaver providers and experts oppose making the scheme more complicated and want it to be laser-focused on retirement savings without any bells or whistles.
89 Comments
NZ First doesn’t like the policy's key revenue stream, selling homes to overseas buyers, and Act doesn’t think it is fiscally responsible enough.
if National is smart enough, they should know it's time not to let overseas buyers in, but instead to push a CGT.
a push of CGT will kill the possibility of Labour returning in 3 years time, and reduce any justification of a 'Wealth Tax', and give National the revenue it needs.
a CGT can also be used to replace the bright-line test and interest deductibility crap.
despite all short-comings of a CGT, the underlying logic of fair payment in tax is valid.
the current income from labour work are taxed, but the income from capital is not. it's unfair to hard working part of the society, and will make rich richer unfairly.
also, a CGT will mean some of the 'Capital Gain' taxed in a separate rates, instead of the default 33%(as mostly likely taxed in this bracket for people).
There is undoubtedly prospects for common ground on policy which will need to be farsighted sufficiently to hold up for three years. The trickier question though is the compatibility of the personalities involved here, their respective history and accompanying egos. Succeeding in holding that together likewise, will be a much more complicated prospect.
This backward-looking rabble are going to weather the screws coming on harder - and harder. They will apply yesterday's prescriptions, the media will consult yesterdays apothecaries, there will be much promising of a sunny upland, just ahead.
I rate very few brains in Parliament, with being able to change gears in the way we will need very soon. Willis (N) and Reti are the only ones from the merging 3. 2 Greens and one Labour (all female, as it happens) and that's the lot. The rest will be out of their depth.
Interesting times. I'm picking a one-term Government, Luxon not being PM at the next election, and chaos in between.
There is a strong mandate for a referendum on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Simply asking the people of NZ whether the principles should be in accordance with what the Treaty says as written. Australia recently voted strongly against race separatism, time for NZ to do the same.
I can understand why a Treaty referendum might be unsatiable for Maori. The treaty is a nice little document to fall back on. As long as Maori have their minds stuck in the 1800's, they'll never move forward and improve, and the Treaty will remain a tether constantly dragging the country back 200 years.
Easy way to fix that. Sort out the transgressions by the crown in full. Treaty sorted.
Living in the eastern bop and working on farms I can tell you I have to deal with the results of some of those transgressions from 140 years ago on a daily basis, in the form of boundaries of blocks surveyed by the crown by force without consent of the owners. A simple but obvious way the owners are forced to live in the 2000s with a 1800s legacy anchor.
Agree. Let's set up a tribunal, we could call it the Waitangi Tribunal or something along those lines. If people like Te Kooti have genuine claims, they can register with the tribunal and put their energy into fighting them in that arena.
Set a cut off date for claims submissions, from then hold a referendum on the Treaty with a proviso that any existing Waitangi claims are grandfathered under the Treaty until settled.
This is the issue, you cannot quantify generational harm or lack of opportunity, therefore any offer made will always seem inadequate based on the compounded issues when comparing to those who were on the other side of the matter. Herein lies the true flaw in the system, where nothing will ever be enough to settle generational issues, and will always end in a stalemate using time and resources along the way with no solution acceptable.
And at what point does this "trauma" just morph into this belief that they're owed something because there's a Treaty document that gives them a perceived victim status?
My Irish ancestors went through the potato famine not long after the Treaty was signed. The English bought up all the food and 1m people died. Another 250k people were evicted from their homes. It was all quite traumatic, often I wish I had a Treaty document to fall back on.
You know, Australia was settled by hundreds of thousands of people sent there for committing minor crimes like stealing bread. How funny that you don't see Australians clamouring for reparations from the UK Govt for the trauma inflicted on them and their families. Second only to those taken as slaves, people being sentenced to a lifetime of indentured servitude in a foreign country is reprehensible. Still, they made the best of a bad situation and just got on with it, instead of sitting around moaning about how they are all still victims and still suffering generational trauma.
Maori living today have every opportunity to better themselves. They need to stop blaming colonisation for all their ills. If NZ had not been colonised, it would resemble something like Papua New Guinea today. I'm pretty sure even Maori would prefer to be living in modern NZ than in PNG. Focus on why they are still beating their kids to death, or roaming around in gangs shooting each other. That would be far more productive.
you don't see Australians clamouring for reparations from the UK Govt for the trauma inflicted on them and their families.
Australia has minerals the world wants, hence their level of wealth is sustained by this and they need not seek reparation. If you want to look at reparation claims from the UK have a loom at Belize who have been fighting for decades just to get documents released by the UK govt which are consistently blocked as they know full well they would be ousted for their human rights violations. Ever wonder where the wood came from for all the lovely ‘british’ mahogany furniture?
No it's not just the land. We have the Waitangi Tribunal for all treaty breach claims. Was established in 1975, so been around nearly 50 years.
Not denying the "generational trauma" by any means, but what does holding a referendum on the principles of the Treaty have to do with fixing this? If there's a clause in the Treaty that benefits the repairing of this "trauma", then again we have the Waitangi Tribunal to make this claim.
It’s the gravy train for Elite Maori and stomping ground for those with chip on shoulders… too hard to make their way in life without an excuse.
The path Labour we’re on and their partners (the racist rabble that is Greens and Maori party) is one that will lead NZ further into apartheid and violence… no where in history has this pathway survived
Ya gotta get the basis of the discussion right. So repeat after me.
"It is not a referendum on the Treaty. It is a referendum on the principles"
"It is not a referendum on the Treaty. It is a referendum on the principles"
"It is not a referendum on the Treaty. It is a referendum on the principles"
"The referendum was pitched as being a “bottom line” for the Act Party, but Luxon has little desire to burn political capital on a contentious vote that could threaten his re-election."
Handled well, it could guarantee his re-election. That's why he gets the big bucks.
I think you'll find, outside the vested interests in keeping the TOW gravy-train going... many New Zealanders are uncomfortable, to various degrees, in the direction Central and Local governments are taking us re separatist policy and law - 'they are special'.
Those that are better steeped in history and politics will generally see the potential disaster for NZ as a whole and for the 'NZ way of life' - current and future generations.
There is not a strong mandate for a referendum. Too much evidence that referendums produce odd results - I wanted the flag changed but liked none of the offerings; the Australians wanted a republic but couldn't make up their mind what type. Plenty of other examples. A referendum would be high risk disaster.
However I'm totally in agreement with Seymour when he says we have to decide what it means today. That may involve plenty of long academic discussions about what it meant in 1840 and long heated parliamentary debates about what it means now - hopefully no conflicting debate about permitting votes for women and child labour being illegal. What we must avoid is the way three waters evolved - some saying it was required by the treaty and others saying it wasn't. Let's have a public debate and stop lawyers, judges and civil servants producing whatever interpretation suits them. Only this week someone somewhere is trying to change the interpretation of 'sea-shore and sea-bed'.
Three waters should have been debated about finance, ownership, technology, independent monitoring of standards, new investment but these were skimmed over because of debate about Māori semi-control.
There isn't a "strong" mandate for this. One party with 8.64% of the party vote had it as one of their many policies. They might not even be in cabinet. That is not a "strong" mandate.
Also their wording of the possible referendum question is also confusing. I follow politics quite closely and I have no idea what they are referring to in the question. It's vague. A yes or a no result doesnt really give any clear indication of what to do next.
Maybe the better conversation they should be having is - Maybe we need to start work on something to supersede the Treaty of Waitangi, such as a proper constitution. All this arguing over 'principles' is pointless. We cant ask the original signers what they meant. The courts have interpreted in their ways. Therefore maybe we need to create something new and better instead... and then put that document to the people.
Yes when National look at the books in 6 months time they might be very relieved. After negotiations we might see tax cuts delayed, landlords tax removal delayed, and talk of raising the super age completely ruled out, and possibly no foreign buyers of houses or the 2 million mark raised to 2.5 million to be well clear of NZers needs. Will be very interesting.....
It's the audacity of the entitlement, that they should get to have easy, attention-grabbing stories made for them ... or else (with that attitude, perhaps the media took more than just money from Willie Jackson - a lesson or two in how to threaten as well)
I, for one, am pleased the negotiations are taking place behind closed doors. I'd expect to see the coalition agreement made public, but the negotiations themselves shouldn't take place via the media.
You found the magic words there - 'attention grabbing'
For anyone that has seen the film the social dilemma, you will already know that if you get something for free, then you are the product. Attention is todays marketing measure. So in good fashion, go camping this summer, turn off the phone and leave it in the car or at home, have a good time with friends and family and give your attention to those who are most deserving of it.
Yes quite remarkable how moronic the media are being towards him. Winston Peter's is a man where respect gets respect, and getting hassled walking through an airport for soundbites is not respect, similarly asking stupid question's that are intended to be inflammatory or intentionally ambiguous does not work with Mr Peters. Ultimately I agree with how he deals with the media, though not many of his policies.
Tv3 covered this well a few days ago.
Next Sunday the old warrants expire so if no Government exists then the old crew get an extension. Would be very embarrassing for the new crew.
Also Jenna pointed out that Luxon wanted the electoral commission to work 24/7 to count the votes, so presumably he's doing the same now to form a Govt?
The coalition will work it out fine. It's the media who want to promote the conflict.
And yes it's about compromise which means that each will have to give up stuff. Not a problem, not a disaster as it will be portrayed but doing the tasks and parameters we the voters gave them. It's also the way the wider parliament works.
It's like the study of business which is portrayed as all competition. When it's actually 90% cooperation. The only thing that makes things work. If you don't believe in that you, you should never get on a plane.
that is the problem with the two major parties they have not learnt what MMP is and still try to operate as FPP, together they only got 65 % of the 78.2 % of the people that voted so just 50.83 % of voters that could vote
they need to embrace the new system and learn to work across all parties to build consensus on policy and direction rather than bow down to lobby groups and major donners and flip flop on policy or even worse pretend in the public and media they oppose something that they really believe in
If National doesnt like it, then maybe they should try to be more electable then. Having 38% of the vote does not equal 50% of the say. This outcome is a direct reflction of National and Luxon's political mis-management on the campaign.
The fact they couldnt even get close to what John Key could on his worst day despite a large swing against Labour says a lot.
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.