New Zealand general election, 2005
The
2005 New Zealand general election took place on
17 September 2005 and determined the composition of the
48th New Zealand Parliament. No single
party or recognised bloc won a majority in the
unicameral House of Representatives, but the
Labour Party of
Prime Minister Helen Clark secured two more seats than its closest rival, the
National Party of Dr
Don Brash. Most of the other parliamentary parties polled less well than in the previous election, losing votes and seats, but the new
Māori Party took four
electorate seats, including three from Labour.
Brash deferred conceding the election until
1 October 2005, when the inclusion of special votes caused National's tally of seats to drop from 49 on election night to 48.
The election saw a strong recovery by National: it won 21 more seats than at the
2002 election, when it had suffered its worst result since it first fought a general election in 1938. Despite this resurgence, National failed to displace Labour as the largest party in Parliament. National's gains apparently came mainly at the expense of smaller parties, while Labour won only two seats fewer than in
2002.
On
17 October, Clark announced a new coalition agreement that saw the return of her
minority government coalition with the
Progressive Party, with
confidence-and-
supply support from
New Zealand First and from
United Future. New Zealand First parliamentary leader
Winston Peters and United Future parliamentary leader
Peter Dunne became ministers of the Crown, though outside
Cabinet. Peters became
Minister of Foreign Affairs while Dunne became Minister of Revenue. The
Green Party, which had thrown its weight behind Labour before the election, received no cabinet post (see below), but gained several concessions on matters such as energy and transport from Labour.
The results of the election give a
Gallagher index of disproportionality of 1.11.
For further details of results (including results by constituency) see
New Zealand general election, 2005: in depth resultsGoing into the election, Labour had assurances of support from the Greens (six seats in 2005, down three from 2002) and from the Progressives (one seat, down one). This three-party bloc won 57 seats, leaving Clark four seats short of the 61 seats needed for a majority in the 121-seat Parliament (decreased from the expected 122 because the final results gave the Māori Party only one
overhang seat, after it appeared to win two overhang seats on election night). On
October 5 the Māori Party began a series of
hui to decide whom to support. That same day
reports emerged that a meeting between Helen Clark and Māori co-leader
Tariana Turia on
October 3 had already ruled out a formal coalition between Labour and the Māori Party. Māori Party leaders also held discussions with National representatives, but most New Zealanders thought the Māori Party more likely to give confidence-supply support to a Labour-dominated government because its supporters apparently heavily backed Labour in the party vote.
Had Turia and her co-leader
Pita Sharples opted to join a Labour-Progressive-Green coalition, Clark would have had sufficient support to govern without support from other parties. As a result, Labour needed the support of New Zealand First (seven seats, down six) and United Future (three seats, down five) to form a government. New Zealand First said it would support (or at least abstain from opposing in confidence motions) the party with the most seats. Clark sought a positive New Zealand First commitment rather than abstention. United Future, who supported the previous Labour-Progressive
minority government in confidence and supply, said it would talk first to the party with the most seats about a support or coalition arrangement. Both New Zealand First and United Future said they would not support a Labour-led coalition which included Greens in Cabinet posts. However, United Future indicated it could support a government where the Greens gave supply and confidence votes [
1].
Brash had only one possible scenario to become prime minister: a centre-right coalition with United Future and
ACT (two seats, down seven). Given the election results, however, such a coalition would have required the confidence-and-supply votes of both New Zealand First and the Māori Party. This appeared highly unlikely on several counts. New Zealand First's involvement in such a coalition would have run counter to Peters' promise to deal with the biggest party, and Turia and Sharples would have had difficulty in justifying supporting National after their supporters' overwhelming support for Labour in the party vote. Turia and Sharples probably remembered the severe mauling New Zealand First suffered in
1999. (Its supporters in 1996 believed they had voted to get rid of National, only to have Peters go into coalition
with National; New Zealand First has never really recovered.) Even without this to consider, National had indicated it would abolish the
Maori seats if it won power.
The new government as eventually formed consisted of Labour and Progressive in coalition, while New Zealand First and United Future entered agreements of support on confidence and supply motions. In an unprecedented move, Peters and Dunne became Foreign Affairs Minister and Revenue Minister, respectively, but remain outside cabinet and have no obligatory
cabinet collective responsibility on votes outside their respective portfolios.
Possible government setups |
Election billboards advertise the parties and candidates standing nationwide and in each electorate |
The
2002 election had seen the governing
Labour Party retain office. However, its junior coalition partner, the
Alliance, collapsed, leaving Labour to form a coalition with the new
Progressive Coalition, formed by former Alliance leader
Jim Anderton. The coalition then obtained an agreement of support ("confidence and supply") from
United Future, enabling it to form a stable minority government. The
National Party, Labour's main opponents, suffered a considerable defeat, winning only 21% of the vote (22.5% of the seats).
The collapse of National's vote led ultimately to the replacement of leader
Bill English with parliamentary newcomer
Don Brash on
28 October 2003. Brash began an aggressive campaign against the Labour-dominated government. A major boost to this campaign came with his "
Orewa speech" (
27 January 2004), in which he attacked the Labour-dominated government for giving "special treatment" to the
Māori population, particularly over the
foreshore and seabed controversy. This resulted in a surge of support for the National Party, although most polls indicated that this subsequently subsided. National also announced it would not stand candidates in the
Māori seats, with some smaller parties following suit.
The foreshore-and-seabed controversy also resulted in the establishment of the Māori Party. The Māori Party hoped to break Labour's traditional (and current) dominance in the Māori seats, as
New Zealand First had in the
1996 election.
A number of "minor" (less successful) parties contested the election. These included
Destiny New Zealand (the political branch of the
Destiny Church) and the
Direct Democracy Party.
A series of opinion polls published in June
2005 indicated that the National Party had moved ahead of Labour for the first time since June
2004. Commentators speculated that a prominent billboard campaign may have contributed to this. Some said the National Party had peaked too early. The polls released throughout July showed once more an upward trend for Labour, with Labour polling about 6% above National. The release by the National Party of a series of tax-reform proposals in August increased its ratings in the polls.
Direct comparisons between the following polls have no statistical validity:
No one political event can explain the significant differences between most of these polls over the period between them. They showed either volatility in the electorate and/or flaws in the polling methods. In the later polls, the issue of National's knowledge of a series of pamphlets (distributed by members of the
Exclusive Brethren and attacking the Green and Labour parties) appeared not to have reduced National Party support.
For lists of candidates in the 2005 election see:
*
Candidates grouped by electorate*
Candidates grouped by party*
Party listsNew Zealand operates on a system whereby the
Electoral Commission allocates funding for television and radio advertising. Parties must use their own money for all other forms of advertising, but may not use any of their own money for television or radio advertising.
| Party | Funding | | Labour | $1,100,000 |
| National | $900,000 |
| ACT | $200,000 |
| Greens | $200,000 |
| NZ First | $200,000 |
| United Future | $200,000 |
| Māori Party | $125,000 |
| Progressives | $75,000 |
| Alliance | $20,000 |
| Christian Heritage NZ | $20,000 |
| Destiny NZ | $20,000 |
| Libertarianz | $20,000 |
| 99 MP Party* | $10,000 |
| Beneficiaries Party* | $10,000 |
| Democrats | $10,000 |
| National Front* | $10,000 |
| New Zealand F.R.P.P.* | $10,000 |
| Patriot Party* | $10,000 |
| Republic Aotearoa New Zealand Party* | $10,000 |
| The Republic of New Zealand* | $10,000 |
|
*Must register for fundingSource:
Electoral CommissionLabour and five other political parties were investigated for alleged breaches of election-spending rules relating to the 2005 election, but no prosecutions were brought.
[2] Labour stood accused of overspending by over $400,000 in the 2005 general election, and using public money to finance their campaign. Under New Zealand's political system, parties may only spend up to a certain amount on campaigning. The
Electoral Commission, the independent body charged with supervising compliance with campaign rules, referred the Labour Party to the police[
3]. According to the commission's data, Labour disclosed expenditure of $2,798,603, $418,603 more than the party's $2,380,000 limit. On this point, the police decided that "there was insufficient evidence to indicate that an offence under s214b of the Electoral Act had been committed."[
4] Additionally, claims allege Labour used over $400,000 of taxpayers' money to produce a number of pamphlets and "pledge cards" promoting Labour, and that this constituted advertising for the party, but the party secretary had not authorised this expenditure (as the law required). The police also investigated this case, who decided that "there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case" of an offence under section 221 of the act (which requires a party secretary to authorise party advertising in writing). However, they decided not to lay a prosecution, preferring instead to warn Labour that similar future offences would risk prosecution, because it was clear a number of other parties had also used similar tactics and it would have been unfair to single Labour out.
Some observers have made claims that the Labour government allegedly used public money to promote the Labour Party in the past. Before the 2005 campaign, public funds paid for bus billboards showing the Labour election phrase "You're better off with Labour"[
5]. However the Speaker of the House, Margaret Wilson (also a Labour MP) ruled that this advertising promoted the national budget, not the Labour Party.
*
Elections New Zealand, joint website of the Electoral Enrolment Centre, Chief Electoral Office, and Electoral Commission.
*
2005 General Election Results from the Chief Electoral Office, Ministry of Justice
*
nzvotes.org, comparative information on parties, candidates and electorates
*
New Zealand Herald Election 2005 website*
Stuff.co.nz Election 2005 website*
Scoop Election 2005 website*
Scoop Election 2005 campaign diary
