Plain sailing unlikely as parties mull re-election

Opinion: It is just a year since the last election and 10 months since the coalition Government was formed, but already the battle lines are being drawn within the Government for the next election.
Public support for the coalition has remained constant during the year and at this stage favours it being re-elected in two years’ time. However, National’s comparatively low election vote-share (38 percent compared with 47 percent when Sir John Key won office in 2008) leaves little room for slippage. National’s slow but steady decline in poll support during the year means it will have to rely on Act’s and New Zealand First’s support if it is to lead the next government.
Although the coalition has operated cohesively to date, signs are emerging of how the coalition partners will differentiate themselves to maximise support for their brand at the next election.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon set out National’s position clearly last week when he said “Whether we go up or down in the polls … I just don’t care. I’m focused on making sure I deliver for New Zealanders, and we’ve got a plan – our plan is starting to work – and my job is to demonstrate to New Zealanders for 2026 that the country’s in better hands and is in a better place as a result of our government.”
Much of Luxon’s confidence rests on stabilising the cost of living through lower inflation (now projected to be about 2 percent) and falling interest rates. National is gambling that the flow-on effect will be more money in household pockets in time for the 2026 election which will offset the pain of low growth and productivity, redundancy and unemployment, and the decline in public services, especially the health sector.
That may be enough to hold on to National’s core voters, who always prefer to see the country “in good hands” rather than more unpredictable and uncertain times like Labour’s last three years in government. But it is unlikely to inspire enough other voters to boost National’s support to anywhere the party vote levels it attracted under Key. That is why National needs both Act and NZ First to poll well and be prepared to continue supporting a National-led government.
Act has no other option than supporting National if it wants to stay a party of government. But its achievements so far have been mixed. It can point to law-and-order issues such as bootcamps and the three strikes law, but these were probably initiatives National would have implemented anyway. However, the uneasy messages the party is sending about its attitude to firearms control detract from its tough law-and-order approach. In any case, there is limited vote-gaining potential from any of these policies – they are more about securing Act’s base than attracting fresh support.
Act’s flagship Ministry for Regulation is too amorphous to excite most voters. All they see at this stage is the irony of a new bureaucracy being established to control existing bureaucracies, and the high salaries reportedly being paid to its staff. People are far more interested in having actual regulations removed or abolished than a new ministry being established. In that regard, changes National ministers are making to transport and local government regulations are already having much greater impact.
All that leaves for Act is its self-described common standard of citizenship policy, better known as the Treaty Principles legislation, which every other party in Parliament has promised to vote down when it reaches its second reading stage sometime next year. But Act will continue to promote the policy as a differentiator more than anything else, although to likely limited effect. Any votes it will gain from the policy will come from the right-wing end of the existing centre-right bloc, at the probable expense of National and NZ First. Act’s policy is unlikely to grow the overall size of the centre-right vote.
NZ First’s differentiator is its newly announced policy to establish a $100 billion Ireland and Singapore-style, politically independent infrastructure development fund, funded through foreign investment attracted by favourable tax concessions. Leaving aside the irony of the hitherto fiercely xenophobic NZ First that has previously railed against foreign investment now promoting incentivising significant foreign participation in New Zealand’s future infrastructure development, the policy is likely to have voter appeal across political lines.
Unlike Act, NZ First is not boxed into a corner when it comes to whom it might support after the election. Although all the present signs are neither NZ First nor Labour would want to work together after 2026, the two did reach government support arrangements in 2005 and 2017, something National and Act will not have forgotten.
NZ First leader Winston Peters is already promising to be more active on the domestic political scene next year, after he steps down as deputy prime minister. The impact a more activist Peters, alongside Shane Jones, aggressively pushing key NZ First policies such as the infrastructure fund may have on the Government’s overall cohesiveness and stability remains to be seen, but will be warily watched by National and Act.
The current America’s Cup contest highlights the importance of picking the right wind shifts. As the second year of the current parliamentary term unfolds, the governing parties’ challenge will be sensing the correct political wind shifts and taking advantage of them. Also, at some point Labour and its Green Party and Te Pāti Māori allies will awake from their slumbers and come off the political sidelines to start engaging more actively with the electorate.
When that happens, the one-sided advantage the Government has enjoyed so far will be severely challenged, with the pressure to demonstrate achievements over lofty ambitions intensifying. Labour failed in government because it could not translate its dreams into reality. As National and its partners seek to mark out their own territory for the next election, they must now be wary not to fall into the same trap.