Winston haunted by ghosts of coalitions past

Opinion: I think I have been far more optimistic than I should have been that negotiations to form a new government would have been over sooner.

Christopher Luxon repeating his experience in mergers and acquisitions was never going to sit well in the political environment: parties neither merge nor acquire each other. The main party looks for what it can hold onto in terms of the promises made during the election campaign, and the others look for what each can get. Due diligence in the political sphere necessitates compromise.

I have spent enough time in politics to know that a willingness to compromise is essential to achieve an outcome that is ‘good enough’ across the board. But my experience in that regard was largely around the council table where I had just one vote. That is not a great negotiating position, and it meant the outcome wasn’t always what I wanted.

And of course, it is nothing like the negotiating environment the parties are now in, one that sees a government set to fall on the loss of a vote of confidence or supply.

I suspect that’s the real challenge here. We’ve heard threats of sitting on the cross benches with a negotiation required for each and every issue beyond the Budget vote that is required to satisfy the Governor-General. That sounds to me like a nightmare.

But is it realistic? The cross benches are nothing like the Cabinet table and I am sure that is playing out in the minds of Act and New Zealand First MPs who imagine themselves in ministerial roles.

To be fair I have no experience of negotiating a coalition government – one that must offer stability from start to finish. Nor for that matter does the Prime Minister-elect.

There is only one negotiator for whom this is not his first rodeo, as we have heard several times.

What’s the hold-up?

Well, it won’t be the Local Government portfolio, that’s for sure. As I said in my last column, that is a shame. It is vital this government seizes the opportunity to address the funding issues that lie at the heart of so many of the infrastructure challenges faced by local government, and a senior minister is needed to achieve that.

What’s the deal?

I suspect New Zealand First doesn’t want to repeat the coalitions of the past, when it jeopardised all its seats in Parliament at the following election.

I still haven’t worked out whether there is any succession planning for when Winston Peters retires. It doesn’t feel as if there is anyone waiting in the wings – including Shane Jones, who doesn’t seem to connect with so many New Zealanders the way Peters does. If the American elections are anything to go by, Peters is not too old to run again, but there is an end to this and that doesn’t feel like the legacy he would like to leave.

I only worked with Winston Peters in one term in government, and I have to say he was an excellent Minister of Foreign Affairs. The ministry was well-served, as were New Zealand’s interests on the world stage. He is an extremely experienced minister, and a new government would be wise to use this to their advantage.

Of course, the focus on NZ First means there hasn’t been much scrutiny of Act – the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers. What a depressing title. It feels like we, the people, are relegated to a status that denies our citizenship and any sense of agency we might have over decisions that affect our lives. Consumers – good grief!

We have heard the government in waiting referring to the principles of localism. Well, that cannot mean we are mere consumers of government services. We need to be actively engaged in joint learning and public decision-making.

Also Act’s position on a referendum on the Treaty of Waitangi is a blatant call for division at a time when we can see worldwide where that takes us.

Let us build unity, understanding and empathy based on knowledge of a history that people my age were never taught at school. There is too much at stake.

But who knows if it is even still on the table? I hope not.

The coalition announcement may be made by the time this is published. It will be so good not to have any more media coverage of what is not being announced.

I have even got to the point where I am more critical of uncorrected errors – it should be ‘fewer than’ not ‘less than three issues’ left to deal with, as Luxon said.

I’m over it!