New Zealand’s October 14 election coincided with the Voice referendum where Australians decisively said ‘No’ to enshrining divisive race-based politics in the Constitution. Watching from across the pond, New Zealanders might reflect on the Australian experience that divided and continues to divide the nation as elite activists double down on their pre-referendum positions. However, New Zealanders may have little influence on the outcome as their Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system forces coalition governments. This may mean the Act Party, the National Party’s junior coalition partner, will expect the government to test the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi by referendum. The decolonising trend that is currently shaking the foundations of Western liberal democracies is still evident in New Zealand politics. Indeed, it may well be a long, slow accident in the making if things don’t go in Chris Luxon’s favour.

New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy like Australia, but its constitution is unwritten. Voting is not compulsory, and there are dedicated Māori seats. Māori people can choose to vote in either the general election or the Māori election. New Zealand has had a unicameral system since 1951 when the upper house, the Legislative Council, was abolished, and it adopted the MMP electoral system (used in postwar Germany) in 1996. As recently as 2011, New Zealanders have confirmed their majority support for MMP by referendum.

MMP gives New Zealanders two votes: one to elect a local representative (electorate MPs) and the other to vote for the governing party (list MPs). The system is difficult to explain simply, but the basic idea is that unlike the previous first-past-the-post (FPP) system (where whoever had the most votes won without requiring 50 per cent of the vote), MMP favours coalitions rather than the two major parties. Under FPP, two-party dominance by either Labour on the left or the Nationals on the right was effectively assured. But that is another story. Electorate MPs are elected using the FPP system, whereas list MPs are elected using a quota system which is similar in principle to how Australians elect senators.

Further, the NZ House of Representatives typically consists of 120 seats, made up of both electorate and list MPs. However, if the number of electorate MPs exceeds the number of quotas a party receives from list MP votes, the size of the house becomes fluid, and the additional MPs occupy ‘overhang seats’. The National/Act coalition currently holds 61 seats which is a majority in the nominal 120-seat house, but it may not be a majority if there are overhang MPs.

At the moment, the house is expected to have 121 members, but we won’t know for some time.

This is because New Zealand has two types of voters: ordinary voters and special voters. (A bit like those who vote at booths on election day versus postal voters, but not including pre-poll voters.) This is significant because special voters represent about 20 per cent of all New Zealand voters and, unlike Australia, these votes typically favour the left (although Prime Minister-elect Chris Luxon thinks it will be different this time). This means that counting votes can take up until the counting deadline. This year the deadline is November 3.

So, what does this have to do with New Zealand’s ongoing dance with division? It means that Nationals leader Chris Luxon will be Prime Minister in a National Party-led coalition government. But until the count is finalised, Luxon won’t know whether he is in coalition with only the Act Party (his preferred option), or in coalition with the Act Party and Winston Peter’s NZ First Party. This has implications for the New Zealand government-in-waiting that parallels the issues observed during Australia’s recent referendum.

Winston Peters is considered a ‘statesman’ of New Zealand politics and has been at the hustings for some 44 years. His father was Māori, but Peters has previously called for the Māori MP system and Māori language place names to be abolished. He sees such policies as separatist – he said recently there is no one Aboriginal voice in Australia or no one Māori voice in New Zealand – and has been called a populist and New Zealand’s Donald Trump. But his NZ First Party has achieved the required 5 per cent party vote to secure list MPs, so the 78-year-old is far from done. If NZ First is required for the Nationals to govern, then we can expect to see some sparks fly. A canny negotiator, Peters has previously forced concessions such as being appointed Deputy Prime Minister, Treasurer, and Foreign Minister.

The Nationals may be in for quite a ride. The Act Party wants a referendum to confirm the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, which aims to address Māori chiefs’ historical understanding of the English language agreement. Peters is against separatist notions that divide New Zealanders and may be the fly in the ointment for the libertarian Act Party’s agenda. Chris Luxon will have his work cut out for him.

What may happen is that Luxon will opt for a non-binding referendum that operates similarly to a plebiscite in Australia. Binding referenda mean that once the vote is in, it becomes law, whereas non-binding referenda can only become law if, after the position is supported by a majority of voters, 75 per cent of MPs then endorse the voters’ choice. A non-binding referendum may be Luxon’s only option if he is to placate both Act and NZ First, perhaps hoping that the New Zealand experience will replicate Australia’s.

The situation New Zealand finds itself in is a legacy of former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern who resigned mid-term, stating she was too tired to stay in the role. Despite her global media status, Ardern’s legacy was largely symbolic with little lasting policy impact other than dividing the country. Voters angry at her legacy punished Labour at the polls and resuscitated Winston Peters’ career.

The division in New Zealand is a result of Ardern’s policy of ‘co-governance’. In the academic literature, co-governance refers to involving ‘citizens and non-profits in the design and planning of public services’. It can consist of co-design of policy or co-delivery of services and can be an effective tool in addressing localised policy and service delivery issues where the circumstances are various, particular, and complex. But as a panacea for building trust in government, it neglects the very real problem that the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

No government can ever outsource political blame. Even if the co-governance ‘partner’ is happy, voters will blame governments for undesired outcomes. Ardern used co-governance with Māori citizens in a way that the voice in Australia was supposed to function. Of course, Australians rejected the approach in much the same way that New Zealanders have rejected Ardern’s legacy.

Chris Luxon may have no choice but to muddle through Ardern’s legacy if the Act Party gets its way. But New Zealanders aren’t mugs, and the votes are in. The revival of Winton Peters’ NZ First Party might just be the counterbalance that New Zealand needs to bring it back from the brink of the permanent division that Australia so convincingly avoided.

The ANZAC spirit is never far away, and October 14 was a good day for Australasians it seems.