Peter Dunne: Cross-Party Collaboration

In the wake of the provisional election results and the divisions across the country they revealed there has been much talk of the need for more co-operation between parties on long-term issues and the things they agree on.

That approach has been part of the mantra of the Opportunity Party since the outset of its election campaign. It picked up on deepening public sentiment that since the end of the Covid-era “team of five million” conformity, and the difficult economic and social recovery subsequently, our society’s divisions have become more pronounced and obvious than at any time probably since the Great Depression.

In their post-election comments, the leaders of both the National and Labour parties have acknowledged this theme, each promising more cross-party collaboration if they lead the next government. The Opportunity Party has identified education, health and infrastructure as areas ripe for such cross-party co-operation.

Certainly, there is an overwhelming logic for this happening in an area like infrastructure development. The long-term nature of such projects means that they always span the life of many governments and therefore cannot tolerate the stop-start approach depending on who the government is (an approach the Greens still adhere to when it comes to building roads) that has too often been the case in New Zealand’s past. Steps taken by both National and Labour during the last Parliament to ensure durable longer-term bipartisan commitments were welcome progress which should be built on, whoever forms the next government.

Infrastructure development is tangible – its success can be measured by the nature of projects consented, commenced and completed within a given period. But it is not quite so simple when it comes to health and education, although both have equally long-term time frames.

There would certainly be merit in broad bipartisan agreement on the general direction of these sectors over say the next ten years, but the inherently more political nature of both – not to mention the power of the vested interests in each which seem to think their priorities should dominate a government’s programme – makes that far more difficult to achieve in practice. Even if there could be multiparty political agreement, breaking the power of the vested interests who have dominated those sectors for too long is still likely to be a near-impossible challenge.

At the same time, many will remember that when National tried to involve Labour in changes to the school curriculum, Labour’s spokesperson did not even bother to reply to the Education Minister’s invitations and then complained about not being involved. Not even the Opportunity Party’s fuzzy warmth about better and more cross-party collaboration will overcome sheer foolishness and prejudice.

Notwithstanding the logic that parties should work together where they can, parties still should continue to develop and champion their own distinctive key policies in these areas. Greater cross-party co-operation, however desirable, cannot be allowed to become a proxy for lowest common denominator politics where parties become too wary or timid of stating principles or promoting bold policies lest that makes potential cross-party agreement subsequently more difficult to achieve. After all, there is little point in different parties, or ultimately even elections themselves, if there is no contest of ideas and the emphasis is instead on the search at all costs for a bland consensus.

An unintended and certainly unexpected consequence of the “team of five million” conformity encouraged for the best of reasons during Covid19 has been the level of wider social dislocation and intolerance we have seen in recent years. Without relitigating those unprecedented times, we should nevertheless appreciate that the drive for greater cross-party co-operation and wider community consensus should not be at the expense of shutting out those who disagree.

In any case, the biggest winners of greater cross-party collaboration in key areas of policy are unlikely to be long-suffering taxpayers, frustrated at the chops and changes in policy whenever a government changes. The biggest winners are far likely to be the bureaucrats who oversee such policies.

More continuity and certainty sound good, and generally desirable objectives but as Yes, Prime Minister’s Sir Humphrey Appleby cynically but correctly observed “A bipartisan policy is one which neither party really believes in.” In his view, bipartisan agreement often meant avoiding difficult decisions rather than resolving them which simply let public servants continue administering things much as they always have done, to their overall delight. There is more than one true word in this fictional satire.

It is undeniable that a clear message from the 2026 election was that voters are tired of the incessant political sniping that dominated the election campaign and the last few years generally. They want to see greater cross-party co-operation where practicable. As they absorb the election result, every party now needs to take this point on board. But as they do so, in the interests of our wider democracy, they must also be mindful not to surrender completely their individual philosophies or brands.

More consensual politics can and should be achieved by parties spending more time working together where they have common ground, rather than forever hunkering down over their divisions.

But it would be naïve and undesirable for Parliament to become no more than an ongoing Kumbaya session.

Peter Dunne, a retired Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, who represented Labour and United Future for over 30 years, blogs here: honpfd.blogspot.com - Where this article was sourced.