Crossing the aisle is a strength, not a weakness

2026-03-11 - 16:07

Opinion: Critics in some corners have tried to construct negative stories about the National-led government needing the Labour Party’s backing to get a free trade agreement with India approved because not all parties in the governing coalition are in support. In the last month we have also seen the two biggest parties in Parliament jointly support an anti-slavery bill without unanimity. Collaboration across the aisle is a desirable sign of strength in our liberal democracy and is essential to the underlying concept of MMP. There are two entirely separate issues: first, whether the majority in Parliament believes a given policy is in New Zealand’s interests; and second, how a multi-party parliament should operate. First, take the India free trade agreement as an example. There are reasons many see the agreement as timely and desirable. We are lucky to have some of the best and most experienced trade negotiators in the world, and the free trade agreement is supported by a broad range of experts and commentators. India is the world’s most populated nation, the world’s third largest economy with a rapidly growing middle-class and investor community. Like New Zealand, it is a post-colonial commonwealth democracy, albeit one over 200 times more populous. India is concluding many free trade agreements after decades of hesitancy. The Indian diaspora in New Zealand is a significant part of our multicultural presence and future. It also should not escape notice that the global artificial intelligence and digital industry is very dependent on Indian talent. Thus, reasons for not supporting the trade agreement need to be strong. For a few, it may relate to deep philosophical opposition to trade agreements in general. But some may worry regarding its quality and some of its terms, while for others, objections may be shaped by shorter-term political calculus, for example over visa policy. It is important to clarify expected impacts on trade, technology, and labour mobility. That is the information required to understand if the agreement is in New Zealand’s long-term interests (rather than a single political party’s short-term interests). Based on this evidence, it will be the role of the media to explore and highlight the rationales underpinning differences of partisan views to enable informed debate. The second, more fundamental issue is the question of how our democracy functions. Parties stand for Parliament with differing ideologies. These differences, rather than superficial cosmetic reasons, should guide voters’ choices. But once Parliament is formed, all parties in the House are expected to work in New Zealand’s long-term interests while not forgetting their underlying principles. In a multiparty democracy, formal coalitions are negotiated among some parties to form a majority. A coalition provides a functioning executive to ensure government’s functions are predictable and efficient. But that does not mean every decision of Parliament can or should be based solely on that coalition agreement. Nor does it mean that the opposition is bound to oppose all of a government’s bills for the duration of their term. Coalition agreements cannot envisage everything a government might face. Party positions do differ, and our political parties often seek to magnify those differences, especially in election year. This is the inevitable, if sometimes frustrating, nature of multiparty as opposed to two-party politics. The intent of MMP was not to build an impenetrable wall between coalition and opposition, but to encourage collaboration across parties. Parliament can only act if a majority of votes agree. This means that sometimes some supporting votes will come from both sides of the aisle. This happens often on many non-contentious issues. The anti-slavery bill illustrates this well. It shows how cross-party cooperation can advance legislation on an issue of importance even without coalition unanimity. When legislation does pass with support from across the aisle, it reflects pragmatic compromise and bipartisan support of exactly the sort that New Zealand will need to tackle many long-term challenges that cross political cycles. This cooperation is essential if we are going to successfully tackle ‘wicked problems’ – including climate change, inequality, energy security, and the future of superannuation – which demand sustained, cross-party collaboration. Detractors need not focus on a major party reaching out across the aisle as a sign of weakness. Rather they should see that as a victory for the underlying intent of MMP: enabling pragmatic politics that can get beyond extreme ideological positions or, more cynically, political positioning ahead of an election. The danger in any multiparty system is that when coalitions behave in ways that replicate the old two-party system, the risk of the ‘tail wagging the dog’ emerges. While it is unlikely a grand coalition of the centre could emerge in New Zealand, some pragmatic and less-partisan politics would be in New Zealand’s long-term interests. Efforts that do bridge the partisan divide should be seen as a sign of political maturity, not failure.