By Amanda Vickers of Waikanae

In 35 hours or so, the 2023 election results will look very similar to the polls, just as they have every election.

What we can be sure of is that we will have a new government.

What we can’t be sure of is exactly what that new government will look like in terms of the National/Act/NZF coalition, Confidence & Supply (C&S) or cross-bench support.  

The few weeks following an election, during negotiations, is the most critical time for securing a party’s key campaign policies. It is during these few short weeks that the strength of a party’s mandate is converted into policy delivery over the following three years. For all intents and purposes, the remainder of the three year term largely just plays out the hand which was determined during negotiations. 

This is particularly the case when a coalition agreement is arranged because both parties officially become “part of government”. With that comes the collective responsibilities and obligations of the cabinet which includes being a united front for “stable government”. 

The gains of being in cabinet are the ministerial positions and all the baubles of office that a coalition entails. But it comes at a big price for a minor party. They may have negotiated away policy in exchange for baubles of office, but the biggest problem is that they need to behave: tow the line and never dissent. 

The above scenario was played out exactly in 2017 with NZ First who, I reckon, conducted their worst negotiations in its history. I had been integrally involved with the party until then, but after 2017 I became a woman scorned. I wasn’t the only one. 

Only recently when I reached out did I glean some context, outlined herein, through renewed contact with those in the party.

2017 negotiations

In 2017, in my political naiveté, I believed NZ First could deliver everything they said they “will” do. 

I learnt the hard way that when a political party says “we will”, what they actually mean is “this is our policy which, if we had a majority, would implement”. The former, I learnt to my chagrin, is better for marketing purposes than the latter during campaigns.

The negotiations arranged were for a coalition. As a minority, NZ First’s negotiating position was not strong against a major party. Voting numbers hugely determine the size of the mandate a minor party has. Winston Peters description of this likens having a microlight to go into battle with. Nevertheless, NZ First could not have done worse in 2017.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership policy concessions and policy gains

During negotiations, neither Labour nor National were willing to concede on the TransPacific Partnership (TPP). It was a non-negotiable item which would have gone through with either a Labour or National-led government, through cross-party support.

However, to meet the responsibilities of being “in government” and to ensure a “stable government” NZ First not just conceded — but agreed to backflip —  on this core policy. They had always opposed the TPP — a treacherous, globalist deal that they had vehemently campaigned against since 2014. After 2017 they supported it, voted in favour of it and justified it by a few minor tweaks.

Not widely known is that 1080 poson was put on the table during negotiations but the Labour party “weren’t having a bar of it”.  In addition, a core policy of having a referendum on Maori seats was conceded away as well as a referendum on the anti-smacking law. 

In exchange, NZ First obtained the baubles of office including no less than ten ministerial positions (with deputy Prime Minister for Winston). Policy wins included budgets for important areas of the economy such as the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF), increasing the minimum wage, free doctors’ visits for kids, Super Gold card improvements and more.

To my mind, the party had compromised important fundamental principles for economic gains. The former was so much more important to me. Because of the obligation to “support a stable government”, no public explanation was ever given. NZ First had negotiated badly, but had also had to suffer the wrath that a coalition arrangement entails: taking away their ability to dissent. In my opinion, losing their ability to speak their truth to power during the term, lost them the election in 2020. I know many in the party reflect similarly.

A coalition with Labour:  

For perspective, the information given to me in 2018 directly from a board member, painted a very grim account of their meetings with the National Party. They were arrogant, difficult and unwilling to budge. My impression was that National were happier to concede government than going into coalition with NZ First. 

Labour on the other hand had promised the earth.

My view is that NZ First had been coerced with both carrots and sticks for a Labour-led government. At the time I was pleased. I’d had a guts full of the National Party selling assets, pushing ahead with the TPP and other globalist agendas, worsening the housing crisis and more. But I had no clue just how poisonous Ardern was about to be and I simply could not have expected NZ First, or anybody, to have been any the wiser about her.

2023

Fast forward to 2023 and the policies that are important to me now are still the ones that are fundamental for New Zealand: human rights, sovereignty and constitutional issues. Among these, the major policy list which I am deeply concerned about is:

• Ending ‘vaccine’ mandates and compensating those injured by it.
• The impending World Health Organisation (WHO) Pandemic Treaty and the International Health Regulations (IHR),
• Repealing the Therapeutic Products Act
• Ending a nation divided by race via race-based legislation and “co-governance”
• Ensuring an independent, well funded, independent public facing Covid inquiry 
• Opposing other supra-national interests such as the World Economic Forum 

Two things are apparent

1. NZ First are conveying all these messages and will reach the 5% threshold and be elected. The party is no longer the Winston Peters party. Many of my sovereignty-loving, nationalist, freedom friends began moving over to NZ First as candidates and supporters. Kirsten Murfitt was accepted as a candidate and placed at number 11. Kirsten has a fire in her belly and the utmost integrity.

2. There was no alternative. Although a fustercluck of minnow parties emerged, all who convey the same messages, none will be elected. Some are late on the political scene, are inexperienced and all are polling less than 1.4%. None have been prepared to work collectively under an umbrella to ensure they achieve the 5% threshold. Frankly, I thought, if they will not take all measures necessary to maximise the chances that my vote won’t be discarded, none of them deserve my vote at all. 

That’s when I decided that hell had frozen over and I would need to spend my vote on NZ First in 2023.  But I will watch post-election negotiations with trepidation.

2023 negotiations

I am publicly calling for NZ First not to make the same mistakes as in 2017. Another coalition will jeopardise their dissenting voice — a cost too high for any policy gain — and permanently destroy the longevity of the party. There is no point shouting dissent from the rooftops pre-election and becoming a lame duck after the election.

If NZ First goes into a coalition arrangement, with all the “collective responsibilities” of the cabinet, they will get blamed for everything bad that’s coming in the next three years. It will appear as if they support everything and they will never, ever recover.

NZ First must negotiate either a C&S agreement or sit on the cross benches.

 A dissenting voice in parliament is important to retain because:

• It maintains a party’s authenticity, dignity and sovereignty
• Allows a party to be true to itself and true to its supporters
• Speaks truth to power
• Ensures the longevity of the party
• Gets leverage of messaging via the media and social media — which is a vital component of democracy not otherwise well achieved

NZ First have already committed to no deal with Labour. That means they will be unable to play National and Labour off against each other. While that puts them in a weaker negotiating position, it has put the voter in a stronger position — knowing what government they’re voting for. Thank God.

But NZ First is only going to be able to negotiate to the extent of its mandate from voters. Ask not whether there will be policy concessions, but ask which ones will they be. The punt is to bet that they’ll do better than 2017 — by prioritising major policies which are deeply concerning to New Zealanders, retain their voice and forfeit the baubles of office.  For myself, there was no choice but to take this punt.

Winston Peters has given two statements about what it will look like post-election. During the TVNZ  leaders debate he reiterated that his first priority is to rule out Labour. The second, he said in an interview with Michael Laws, is to address race-based policies. Given this is one thing that the ACT party agrees with, this seems likely to get across the line.

What else we’ll win, we don’t know.  But we know this is the most important election we’ve ever had. This election is a make or break for New Zealand and it’s a make or break for NZ First. All will be revealed in the next three weeks — not the next three years.