Labour’s party list is light on showcasing new talent but balances all the various competing interests as best it can. National’s challenge is a list based on merit and ability and to show it's ready to govern.
Opinion: Putting Labour's party list together for the election was always going to be difficult. Leaving aside all the current political upheavals affecting the Government, Labour faced constructing a party list coming off the back of its abnormally strong result at the last election.
Accommodating all the MPs who came in on that tide, regardless of present circumstances, was always a near impossible challenge.
READ MORE:
* Labour looks for heavy hitters ahead of list rankings
* Labour’s car crash of an election campaign
* Labour risks shedding its more moderate 2020 supporters
Compounding an already difficult task is the polling showing Labour likely to win no more than 38 to 43 seats this election, well down on the 65 it secured in 2020. Whichever way the list was drawn up there were going to be significant casualties, with just over a third of the current caucus facing defeat in October.
For that reason, Labour’s list had two eyes to the future – one considering what the party’s strongest line-up in a future coalition government with the Greens might look like, and the other, more likely, shaping Labour for a period in Opposition. The final list is a careful balance between the two objectives.
But there are still challenges ahead for the party. The list seems predicated on the assumption that Labour will lose many of the electorates it won last time. Otherwise, based on current polling, senior figures such as Speaker Adrian Rurawhe, ministers Andrew Little, David Parker and Peeni Henare, could struggle to be returned.
If Labour retains most of the seats it gained last time – which is unlikely – these senior figures will be gone. Unlike former ministers Michael Wood, Phil Twyford and Jenny Salesa, who have all fallen sharply in their list rankings, Rurawhe, Parker, Little and Henare do not have an electorate seat to fall back on to ensure their re-election to Parliament.
In contrast, newer, up-and-coming ministers Jan Tinetti, Ayesha Verrall, Willow-Jean Prime, Ginny Anderson, Rachel Brooking, Kieran McAnulty and Priyanca Radhakrishnan have all risen strongly on the list and seem likely to make it back. They are joined by backbencher Camilla Belich, although on current polling she is on the re-election brink.
In the light of this year’s pattern where it has missed so many opportunities to put its stamp on things, it remains an open question whether National will use its list to make a real difference
Nevertheless, this group looks like providing Labour’s future core, in government or opposition, alongside the leadership of Prime Minister Chris Hipkins, Deputy Prime Minister Carmel Sepuloni, and senior ministers Kelvin Davis, Grant Robertson, and Megan Woods. For Little and Parker though, and Wood, Twyford and Salesa, the message is clear: they should look to making the coming term in Parliament their last.
The picture is gloomier at the lower end of the list. Several MPs who won electorates in 2020 have been ranked so low on the list that they have to retain their electorate seats to get back to Parliament. These include minister Jo Luxton, backbenchers Shanan Halbert, Glen Bennett, Anna Lorck, Terisa Ngobi, Steph Lewis, and Sarah Pallett.
All of them face extremely tough challenges to do so. In an even more dire position are list MPs Dan Rosewarne, Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, Liz Craig and Angela Roberts, who are standing in strong National-held seats which they will not win. Their days in Parliament are numbered.
Overall, though, the focus does seem to be on preparing for Opposition, rather than continuing in government
There is a risk for Labour that those lower-ranked MPs holding electorate seats, who in effect now have nothing left to lose, will decide that their best way back to Parliament will be to campaign for themselves, and their local areas, regardless of their party’s policies. Though such an approach is unlikely to be successful, it does contain the risk of more destabilisation and embarrassment for the Government as the campaign proceeds. There will need to be careful management of any MPs contemplating such a tactic, which could sap further energy from the overall campaign.
On the positive side, Labour’s list does give a clear picture of its line-up for the future. However, with little movement at the top – four of the top six are the same as last time – it does not offer a similarly clear view about future leadership, especially if the party ends up back in opposition. It is hard to see Hipkins and Robertson sticking around for too long in that event, and even harder to see a future credible leadership emerging from Sepuloni, Davis or Woods.
Of all the major parties only National has yet to release its party list. Given its poor result in 2020, it has much more flexibility in the preparation of its list. It will be defending 24 electorate seats – just over half Labour’s number – and is not expected to lose any of these. With polls showing National winning 45 seats or more, that leaves the party considerable scope when it comes to list placements and should be an opportunity for it to bring in much new talent to form the basis of a future government.
Whereas Labour’s task was to construct a list that accommodated as many of its MPs as possible without too much blood on the floor, National’s challenge is to put together a list based on merit and ability, rather than paying off old debts or rewarding loyal service. The calibre of National’s list will also provide a clear indication of just how optimistic the party is about leading the next government.
When MMP was introduced, it was hoped party lists would provide an opportunity to introduce and showcase new potential ministerial talent, rather than just reward party hacks. Labour’s list, although somewhat light on showcasing new talent, not only balances all the various competing interests within the party as best it can, but also sets out Labour’s shape and tone for the future. Overall, though, the focus does seem to be on preparing for opposition, rather than continuing in government.
National has the greater opportunity through its list to showcase new talent and show it is ready to govern. But, in the light of this year’s pattern where it has missed so many opportunities to put its stamp on things, it remains an open question whether National will use its list to make a real difference.
