Not Brash enough

New Zealand

Sep 22nd 2005 WELLINGTON
From The Economist print edition

New Zealand's opposition narrowly fails to dislodge the prime minister

THE polls had predicted a close race, but when New Zealanders learned the preliminary results of their election on September 17th, they were still surprised. The two biggest parties were so evenly matched that the absentee ballots might yet change the outcome. The Labour Party, which headed the outgoing coalition government, pipped its chief rival, the National Party, by fewer than 23,000 votes—with some 218,000 left to count.

The final results will not be known until October 1st, leaving the country in political limbo for two weeks. Labour's current tally would give it 50 of 122 seats in parliament, one ahead of National (see chart). But it also has more potential coalition partners, since the Green and Maori parties are unlikely to throw in their lot with National, while two centrist parties, New Zealand First and United Future, are sticking to their campaign pledge to negotiate first with whichever party turns out to have topped the poll.

Helen Clark, the Labour leader and prime minister of six years, has already begun discussions on forming a government, the electoral impasse notwithstanding. National, led by Don Brash, is hoping that the outstanding ballots might help it draw level with Labour, or pitch the Greens below the 5% threshold required to enter parliament. Thanks to the complicated electoral system, that might even reduce parliament to 121 members, and so decrease the number of seats needed to form a majority. But in the past, smaller parties have tended to benefit from the so-called “special” (mostly absentee) votes more than Labour or National. If anything, the Greens' showing is likely to improve, making things easier for Miss Clark.

Unless the results change dramatically, Mr Brash needs to cut a deal with the Maori Party to have a chance of forming a government—an unlikely prospect, given that National's campaign centred on an attack on special privileges for Maoris. Nonetheless, Mr Brash can claim credit for reversing National's fortunes. Under his leadership, the party has almost doubled its share of the vote. Labour, by contrast, has managed to lose two seats since the last election.

Moreover, National's policies, on Maoris and tax cuts, dominated the campaign. Faced with a surge in National's poll ratings, Labour was forced to offer (smaller) tax cuts of its own, and to sound a harsher note on the status of Maoris. National's strong showing came at the expense of smaller parties, whose vote-share halved. Indeed, some analysts are interpreting the results as proof that New Zealanders have finally got the hang of their proportional electoral system, which was first introduced three elections ago, in 1996.

In the past, they have flirted with all manner of small parties, leaving parliament a patchwork. That, in turn, has allowed the smaller parties to demand a disproportionate influence over policy, and to destabilise governments that refuse. This time, there should be less risk of the tail wagging the dog. Miss Clark has already indicated that she would prefer to lead a minority government, as she has for the past three years, with different parties providing support on different issues.

That would mean continued fiscal prudence, a new push for a free-trade agreement with China, and a doggedly independent foreign policy that will cause occasional friction with Australia and America. But as Mr Brash keeps pointing out, Labour must settle a few matters before it can get down to the business of running the county—including the question of whether it actually won the election.

Copyright © 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.