The essence of politics is often described as about the contest of ideas. But really the political process is primarily about the pursuit and retention of power. Without power, it is very difficult to promote, let alone implement, ideas, no matter how worthy they might be.

A good example of this occurred in Wellington last week when a high-level meeting was convened to consider the future of “Let’s Get Wellington Moving” (LGWM), a “vibrant plan” conceived in 2014 to “transform” Wellington’s transport future. It has been projected to cost around $4 billion over the next 30 years, with central government expected to provide around $2.5 billion of that amount. LGWM has been bogged down in controversy over some of its proposals for some time, and little progress has occurred. The National Party has expressed misgivings about LGWM and has confirmed since the election that as the incoming government it will not be supporting significant aspects of the proposal.

Against that background, the pathos of last week’s high-level meeting was obvious. It was called by the city’s Green Mayor and involved Wellington’s two new Green MPs, and one Labour MP, to work out a way to save LGWM. Given the changed national political environment, it was no more than a symbolic waste of time. LGWM’s future will be determined by the new government, not the Mayor and three local MPs opposed to the government. LGWM looks set to be the first of many issues over the next few years when the impotent pleadings of Wellington’s local leaders will run a distant second to the priorities of the National-led government.

In that regard, it is worth noting that that for the first time in almost 30 years, there is not a government Minister holding a Wellington city electorate, making it even harder for the city’s voice to be heard at the highest level. Over the years, Wellington has benefited from having local MPs as Ministers. Major projects like the development of the iconic national Museum, Te Papa Tongarewa, the upgrading of the city’s urban rail services, and the construction, after a century of delays, of the Transmission Gully highway north of the city would not have occurred without it.

Now, with the city facing even greater infrastructural challenges such as upgrading its aging water reticulation system and improving its seismic resilience, the city will probably need to rely on gaining the ear of incoming Finance Minister Nicola Willis, a list MP based in Wellington. Yet she was not part of the Mayor’s recent round-table discussion, a telling example of a lack of political nous, especially since she will have a larger say than the Mayor or any of the local MPs in determining the future of the LGWM project.

Along with the pursuit and retention of power, the essence of politics is also about the art of the possible, that is, recognising current reality and adapting to it. The awkward truth for Wellington is that while it shifted left at the recent election, the rest of the country shifted right. Wellington is now a political outlier and no amount of virtuous clinging to previously held positions is going to change that. Wellington’s leaders need to quickly come to grips with the new political realities and develop the pragmatism required to achieve at least some of what they want. Simply shouting from the sidelines about what “should” be rather than acknowledging what now “will” be, will leave them looking impotent and irrelevant.

Of course, our local leaders should be advocating for the city’s interests, but they ought to be focusing on what is achievable, rather than what they consider is desirable. As LGWM’s lack of progress over the years shows, there is a time when stalled idealism needs to give way to incremental movement on points of common agreement.

Although the winds of political change have rendered Wellington’s three electorate MPs irrelevant for the immediate future, they have created an opportunity for the Wellington City Council. The Mayor and Council should be well placed to become the dominant advocates for the city’s future, with the potential to be taken more seriously by the government than the sidelined local MPs. However, the chronic dysfunction that has plagued the Wellington City Council for about two decades now makes it unlikely that it could ever arrive at an agreed and coherent local position, let alone one that central government could address practically. A classic case of opportunity lost.

The latest revelations that there is a potential $1 billion blow-out in the Council’s long-term budget heighten the sense of financial crisis now surrounding it, which deals a further massive blow to the credibility of the Labour/Greens majority which has controlled the Wellington City Council for some time. So long as that perception remains, the new government, with its clear regard for fiscal rectitude, is even less likely to place much reliance on the Wellington City Council’s future spending plans.

Wellington will only get moving once it has a coherent and financially robust plan to put before central government. This will require much more realistic leadership than holding cosy little meetings between the Mayor and the city’s local non-government MPs to mourn the loss of LGWM as they want it.

It is the reality of who holds political power and who does not, and Wellington now looks set to learn that the hard way.  

In the wake of last week's election some have asked why no consideration has been given to a grand coalition between National and Labour to limit the influence of ACT and New Zealand First. After all, they say, grand coalitions have worked in other countries, so why not in New Zealand, given that the differences between the two major parties often appear so wafer thin?

 

The best current example of a grand coalition is in Ireland where the two main parties, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, came together in 2020. But this is Ireland's first grand coalition and the reasons behind it are specific to Ireland’s history and circumstances which are not readily applicable to New Zealand.

 

Fianna Fail (the Soldiers of Destiny) and Fine Gael (Sons of Ireland) were formed in the early 1930s following Ireland's 1919-1921 civil war, and the country’s partition in 1922. Fianna Fail was formed by Eamon de Valera after he broke with Sinn Fein (the political wing of the outlawed Irish Republican Army). It favoured a united Irish state, whereas Fine Gael supported the Treaty with Britain that Michael Collins negotiated, and which had led to the establishment of the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland.

 

Since 1932 Fianna Fail has been the dominant party of government. Whenever Fine Gael has been in power it has usually been in coalition with Labour, or more recently, the Greens. Between them, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael have followed a remarkably consistent policy approach. For example, both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael-led governments oversaw Ireland's rise as the economic Celtic Tiger in the 1980s, and then its recovery from the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. The differences between them are far less ideological than existential, and are still primarily based on the events of 1922. Their common enemy throughout has been Sinn Fein.

 

But Sinn Fein has been on the rise in recent years, winning 36 of 160 seats in the Irish Parliament at the last election and becoming the largest party in this year's local Northern Ireland elections. The 2020 election left neither Fianna Fail nor Fine Gael able to form a government without including Sinn Fein, a step, given their history, that was too extreme for either to consider. It was therefore easier for them both to set aside a century's division over what happened in 1922 to form the grand coalition, than to contemplate letting Sinn Fein anywhere near power.

 

The history of National and Labour in New Zealand has been quite different, based on ideology, despite the wafer thin differences between them both today. National was formed in 1936 as an amalgamation of the conservative, rural Reform Party and the more liberal United Party to oppose what both then regarded as the socialist Labour government.

 

But over the years, a more comfortable pattern has developed, whereby Labour governments propose, National Oppositions oppose, and then modify once in government. Christopher Luxon's incoming government is likely to be no different in that regard. That pattern, despite reasonably frequent changes of government (there have been more changes of government here in the last 40 years than in Britain, Australia, or Canada) has left us in a generally stable situation.

 

That means there has so far been no reason for National and Labour to seriously consider working together, and every reason for them to keep on pretending their ideological differences are too great for them to ever think about doing so. (A War Cabinet formed between the two in 1940 to deal solely with war issues had lasted barely two years before National walked out in 1942.) While the move to MMP in 1996 introduced more diversity into New Zealand politics – over 100 parties have been formed under MMP but only 6 have made it to Parliament – the dominance of National and Labour has remained. Although their combined vote share at last week’s election was the lowest for over 20 years, none of the other parties in Parliament currently poses a numerical, let alone existential, threat to their duopoly. So there is no reason for National and Labour to consider working together in a grand coalition.

 

A grand coalition only became an issue in Ireland when a small party with a policy agenda neither of the major parties could accept won nearly a quarter of the seats in Parliament, and it seemed impossible to form a government without them. It would take a similar turn of events in New Zealand to make a grand coalition a possibility. But it is hard to see that happening any time soon. Although they are both parties on the rise, neither the Greens (10.6% of the party vote) nor Te Pati Maori (2.5% of the party vote) look likely to be winning around a quarter of the seats in Parliament in the foreseeable future. So long as they, or ACT and New Zealand First, continue to secure vote shares at around their current levels, there will be no shortage of potential coalition partners for National or Labour.

 

Therefore, like the Tweeedledum and Tweedledee of New Zealand politics they have become, National and Labour will happily carry on their own separate ways as they have done for nearly 80 years. Their staunch belief the differences between them are insurmountable and the lack of any real threat to the system they have established over the years give neither of them the incentive to ever consider a grand coalition.

 

 

 

The last National Party campaign leaflet received in my letterbox this week urged me to "Please party vote National". Unlike the bold promise of "A Brighter Future" under Sir John Key, or Dame Jacinda Ardern's positive "Let's Do This", National's message looked like more like a plea for help than a call to arms.

 

In a way, it summed up the whole election campaign. None of the parties – perhaps apart from Te Pati Māori, seeking to appeal to a distinct constituency – has offered anything substantially different from what is already happening. The election campaign has been far less a contest of ideas, than one of which grouping of parties dislike each other least but think they can manage the status quo best.

 

Labour’s campaign has focused almost entirely on what a National/ACT government might do. Its own achievements over six years in government have been barely mentioned. In part, this is because its delivery of the transformational approach Ardern promised in 2017 has been so abysmal, and in part, it is because Labour’s prospects of being able to continue in government have been diminishing for months now. Even this week as the polls show a slight improvement in Labour’s position, but still not enough to remain in government, the negative attacks continue.

 

National’s campaign has fluctuated from the quiet confidence of a party being a government-in-waiting two or three weeks ago, and not wanting to do anything to upset a seemingly unstoppable wave to power, to something far more hesitant after the own goal regarding New Zealand First. National now realises opening the door to New Zealand First was a major tactical blunder, hence its current panic. Its previous hopes of a clean National/ACT coalition have all but evaporated, and the prospect of New Zealand First attempting to once more hold the country to ransom looms ever larger. No wonder it is now delivering the plaintive and desperate "Please party vote National" message.

 

Key’s warning about the country waking up to “limboland” this coming Sunday now looks set to come to pass. While a National-led government of some type is still the most likely election outcome, it may take some time to finalise. New Zealand First has always delayed entering negotiations until the final election results have been declared. That will not be until November 3, meaning any talks involving New Zealand First could still be underway when the Port Waikato by-election occurs on November 25. If there is a prospect, depending on results on Saturday, of National and ACT not needing New Zealand First after the by-election, they may prefer to drag discussions with New Zealand First out until that time.

 

Ardern’s last-minute message to Labour supporters to “Vote for what you believe in” is far more ambiguous than Key’s blunt warning. She goes on to spell out in her video message the things that are important to her. But, given the current environment of an overwhelming mood for change, her message could encourage those who voted Labour for the first time in their lives in the 2020 pandemic election to cast their votes elsewhere this time around. While her message is closest to expressing a vision for the future that has been lacking elsewhere throughout the campaign, it is probably too little, too late to have a marked effect on Labour’s chances.

 

Labour’s negativity during the campaign and its indifferent record over the last six years inspires little confidence that a new Labour-led government can get on top of the cost-of-living crisis or restore economic growth. Despite a nearly 70% increase in public spending since Labour came to power there remains little confidence it knows how to improve critical public services in health and education.

 

Doubts about National’s tax policy and overall fiscal plans are detracting from its economic credibility. While polls still show National rates significantly higher than Labour on economic management and other key issues, its responses to criticisms during the campaign have reduced those rankings somewhat. In its favour, though, is its discipline. Unlike Labour, where numerous MPs have either dismissed its chances of victory or disagreed with Hipkins’ call not to introduce wealth and capital gains taxes, National’s MPs and candidates have remained focused and on-message.  

 

So, at the end of the campaign it looks like coming down to this. Labour wants your vote to keep National, ACT and New Zealand First out. The concessions it may have to make to the Greens and Te Pati Māori are secondary considerations. National just wants to be back in power and will do “whatever it takes” to get there. What sacrifices it might make to New Zealand First to do so are also unknown, but National says it will be able to manage them.

 

Both Labour and National have fallen into the trap of assuming voters see the world they way they do. They assume their coded warnings and messages to their presumed supporters about the risks of voting for the other side will be heeded in the polling booths.

 

But in an environment where the common theme seems to be a mood for change – however that is defined and whatever form it may take – and where the election campaign has been so staid, these messages and warnings may not be enough to secure people’s loyalty.

 

In the privacy of the polling booth voters may yet have the last laugh.

It has not been a good week for civil liberties in New Zealand.

First was the Police’s confirmation that their Tactical Response model launched earlier this year is built around a multi-million dollar programme known as SearchX. This programme is based on data-driven policing. That has been highly controversial in the United States and Britain, where it has been accused of intensifying police racial biases, compounded by a lack of transparency.

While SearchX has many undoubted advantages in helping the Police track and monitor suspected criminals, gangs and potential terrorists, the Police only disclosed its existence this week in response to an Official Information Act request from Radio New Zealand. SearchX has apparently been in operation for a nearly a year now.

The official papers show that the Police, presumably mindful of the reactions in other countries, were worried there was a “high risk” to the project. The papers note that “If adverse media attention occurs then the project may be delayed or closed." Hence their silence until SearchX was fully operational.

What is most alarming and controversial about this project, which many will see as a vital tool in crime fighting and enhancing domestic security is the lack of scrutiny that has accompanied its development. This is especially so given the controversies of recent years where there has been much public criticism of Police profiling tactics as racially biased. While those claims have been routinely denied, it is strange to say the least that the Police have been so secretive about rolling out SearchX when it has been subject to the same criticisms overseas.

Of further concern has been the complete silence of Police Minister Ginny Andersen. As part of the self-proclaimed “most transparent government ever”, she has either been kept in the dark by the Police because they regard SearchX as an operational matter outside the Minister’s purview or has been happy to go along with their plans. But given the controversy SearchX type systems have attracted in other countries the public is entitled to some assurances about what safeguards are in place to prevent SearchX overreach, and what the overall accountability of the Police is over SearchX’s operations. To date, there have been no such public assurances.

But the Police’s move is not an isolated occurrence. Radio New Zealand has also revealed this week the existence of MI, a 115-person strong intelligence unit established within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, (MBIE) to provide intelligence on all aspects of the Ministry’s responsibilities. While MI works in conjunction with the established intelligence agencies, the SIS and the GCSB, and is headed by a former intelligence agency official, it is not subject to any of the legislation governing the way the intelligence agencies operate. Nor does it come within the scope of the Inspector General of Security and Intelligence to review its operations. Like SearchX, it is literally a law unto itself.

Over the last six years the role of MBIE has expanded greatly to have fingers in virtually every aspect of the machinery of government. During the Covid19 pandemic it became the government’s “go to” department on nearly everything and took over many functions previously exercised in other agencies. Most notable was its supplanting of the government’s specialist medicines buying agency, PHARMAC, as the lead agency in the procurement and supply of Covid19 vaccines, and its operation of the now infamous MIQ scheme. It hardly covered itself in glory in either of these instances.

The notion that this flawed Ministry should now be developing its own intelligence service with no external accountability is of concern and smacks of extreme bureaucratic overreach. While there may be a case for developing more specialist intelligence in areas like immigration fraud, people smuggling or money laundering, that should be done under the purview of the existing intelligence agencies, appropriately resourced, and subject to all their legislative controls and accountabilities. It is unacceptable that a meddling Ministry like MBIE, with a very indifferent record of performance, should be able to develop its own spy network, accountable to no-one.

But once more this “most transparent government ever” has been utterly silent on what is happening. Either it does not know and has been kept in the dark by MBIE – possible but unlikely – or it has been tacitly complicit in what has been happening. The bottom line is that its silence is unacceptable – particularly during an election campaign when voters are deciding which political parties can be trusted to protect their rights and govern fairly in their interests.

There is already mounting concern in New Zealand about the growing influence of AI and the impact that will have on personal privacy and the lives and freedoms of individual citizens. People everywhere are looking to governments to protect them against such unwarranted intrusions on their lifestyles. Both SearchX and MI will be drawing heavily on AI and the information it amasses, but the government has shown no interest in protecting the rights of citizens against what is happening.

While Labour is guilty of allowing, either intentionally or by omission, the development of these appalling intrusions on personal rights and freedoms, they are by no means the only ones to blame. So far, to their collective shame, neither National, ACT, the Greens, New Zealand First, or even Te Pati Māori have spoken out against what is happening.

In the heat of the election campaign they cannot all have forgotten their most basic responsibility is to protect the rights and freedoms of the citizens they seek to represent.