Natalia Albert says making sure NZ is a stable liberal democracy is more important for the PM than ruling potential coalition partners out before the election

By Natalia Albert*

Christopher Luxon has formally ruled out working with the Opportunity Party. "We're a party of low tax," he said, "we don't think we want to do business with them."

That's not the point, Prime Minister. God, please!

You can negotiate with them over which policies actually make it through. The point is the political principle of it. As Prime Minster, making sure this is a stable liberal democracy is one of your main responsibilities. And MMP allows you and us to do that.

To create a coalition that helps built consensus so we can start to loosen the grip of the far right and the far left before they erode our social cohesion further, to a point where we cannot come back from it. Because let me promise you this PM, our social cohesion is earned and once it's lost, once it cracks enough, the results are dire for everyone. Prime Minister, you can impact this today. Now! 

Chris Hipkins wasn't any better. Labour won't touch The Opportunity Party tax policy, and on their own thinking he was blunt: "We've got one simple tax policy which is a simple targeted capital gains tax, that's as far as we're going to go."

These two political leaders are the most irresponsible politicians I have experienced in the 15 years that I have been following politics in NZ. And I don't much care whether they are being cynical, incompetent or careless,  the damage is exactly the same either way and its infuriating!

I said something similar in 2024 …

I wrote it in the 2023 election book Back on Track, where I closed my chapter like this:

"I believe Christopher Luxon had an historic opportunity to endorse a small centrist party, in Ilam, building a coalition that could have bridged the political spectrum more effectively. A different coalition from the one that he assembled was possible. As John Key had endorsed David Seymour in Epsom, giving ACT a place in Parliament, so too Christopher Luxon could have encouraged National voters in Ilam to vote for Raf Manji, potentially giving TOP several seats in Parliament. This could have led to a more coherent, less chaotic coalition, one committed to competent, centrist government. By failing to seize this opportunity, I think that National's leader, now prime minister, highlighted a limited understanding of the mechanisms available to stabilise and balance our political landscape, and missed an opportunity to demonstrate a new vision, innovative thinking, and political courage, all in the interest of the greater good of the country. A quick clarification: I am not posing this scenario because I am part of TOP; I am part of TOP because this is the type of scenario that I believe could help bring distinct groups with opposing views together. It is really difficult to have conversations about big issues today – climate, housing, the economy – however, if we don't get on top of these hard conversations, it will further erode our capacity to solve these important challenges. My ongoing commitment is to serve our democratic process by providing high-quality information and advice through appropriate channels to any and all political actors participating in our democracy."

And to reiterate what I said above. Again. I ran for TOP in 2023 because I thought they were the only party that could disrupt our polarised status quo. Not the other way around. That distinction matters. I backed them because of what I believe, I did not come to believe it because I backed them.

I am not a member now. I donate across parties, I follow all of them, and my electorate vote swings. So, when I defend the Opportunity Party's right to be in this race, it is someone who wants to disrupt the political status quo in order to mature and strengthen the centre which has been hollowed out.

Coalition-building is the job

What Luxon proved with his comment earlier this week was that he has decided to show zero understanding for how an MMP government should and could work. How he, as Prime Minster and leader of one of the two biggest parties in this country influence the current status quo. Which is about the one skill MMP actually asks of a leader, and neither Luxon nor Hipkins have shown they have it.

We chose MMP to force our politicians to build more diverse governments across difference: to negotiate, to bring people who do not agree into the same room, and to make something workable out of it. In that system, the mark of a serious leader is not wanting all the votes for their party. That's narrow minded at best and irresponsible at worst. 

The last leader who got it

The last time a New Zealand leader got close to what MMP is meant to do was John Key, in 2008. National did not need the Māori Party. Key had the numbers with ACT, and United Future on top. He brought the Māori Party in anyway, gave Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples ministerial roles, and governed with a partner he could have ignored. Say what you like about that government, that was a leader who understood that a broader coalition is a stronger, calmer, more legitimate one. 

I understand that in Key's case, the Māori Party was already in Parliament in 2008, five electorate seats, a mandate voters had handed them. The Opportunity Party is not there yet. That is a real difference, and I am not going to pretend it away. But it cuts the other way. The Opportunity Party is sitting right on the line, and the honest thing to do with a party on the line is to let voters decide, not to stand up and call the result for them before a single vote is cast just because you don’t understand what your role is. 

Also, when I said in 2023 that National should have backed Raf Manji in Ilam, it was because TOP ran an electorate campaign, and the coattail was the only lever the rules left them. I would happily see that lever gone, the 2012 review of MMP recommended exactly that. This year The Opportunity Party is running for the party vote, so there is no deal to do in that same way. I am not asking Luxon to game an electorate. I am asking him to think more strategically, to think about what is politically responsible not just politically convenient. 

What we have instead

Now look at what we have. Both Hipkins and Luxon have ruled out a legitimate party that is legitimately close before the campaign has even warmed up. Both have mistaken risk management for leadership, and both are quietly telling New Zealanders that the hard, generous, creative work of coalition-building is beneath them. F**k that!

That is the cost. Every pre-emptive rule-out shrinks our politics back to the same status quo, hollows out the centre, and leaves the far left and the far right to do what they do best, pull us apart. A leader who cannot build across difference, in a system designed for exactly that, is not being principled. And that is politically and morally irresponsible. The role of a liberal democracy is to provide an environment that is stable for as many folk as possible. Its not hoarding all the votes for an election gain. 

*Natalia Albert is a political scientist living in Wellington exploring how to govern divided societies in diverse, liberal democracies, with a focus on New Zealand politics. She writes weekly on her Substack, Less Certain. Albert stood as a TOP candidate in the 2023 election.