National, ACT and NZ First at odds over vote-splitting campaign

National leader Christopher Luxon has expressed his disappointment that his coalition partners signed off on an advertisement encouraging vote-splitting.

By Giles Dexter of RNZ

One of those partners - ACT leader David Seymour - thinks Luxon should look at the wider goal of keeping Labour out of power.

The other - NZ First leader Winston Peters - thinks Luxon has made a terrible mistake and says voting for National is "wasting your vote".

ACT and NZ First have given their blessing to a newspaper advertisement - placed by Reality Check Radio, but written by former National and ACT leader Don Brash - which encourages right-leaning voters not to give National their party vote, if they want to "keep the left out of government".

The intention is for people to split their vote and force an overhang, with National winning as many electorates as it can, but ACT and NZ First increasing their shares of the party vote.

In keeping with electoral law, both ACT and NZ First needed to sign off on the advert. On Friday, the parties confirmed they had done so.

On Saturday, Seymour said ACT initially said no to the campaign, but then approved it, under the condition it would back ACT in the Epsom and Tāmaki electorates.

"We are running a campaign to party-vote ACT and vote for the best candidate in your electorate, and it just so happens that in Epsom and Tāmaki, we strongly believe that's the ACT candidate."

Seymour is running for re-election in Epsom, while James Christmas hopes to keep Tāmaki in ACT's hands, after Brooke van Velden's retirement.

This means the two electorates would be exempt from the campaign's overall strategy to force an overhang.

Brash placed the advertisement encouraging people to vote ACT in Epsom and Tāmaki himself as a "personal message", as opposed to the vote-splitting campaign, which was placed by Reality Check Radio.

Luxon said National did not support the campaign and warned voters there were people "trying to confuse you" by saying a vote for another party was somehow helpful for National.

"It's a very tight election," he said. "It risks creating confusion amongst the voters and it's the thing that could actually create a Labour coalition government.

"That's not what we want to see."

Asked about ACT and NZ First backing of the campaign, Luxon expressed disappointment.

"I think, at the end of the day, it's disappointing. You're going to have to ask them as to what their motivation for supporting that campaign actually is," he said, "I'm just saying to you it risks actually Labour ending up the biggest party vote and then being able to form a government, and that's bad news for New Zealand."

In response, Seymour said Luxon "should be honest" that a party vote for ACT or a party vote for National both added to the goal of keeping Labour out.

"The coalition needs to work together to keep Labour out and we each have the right to campaign for people to vote for our parties," he said.

"A party vote for ACT will not let Labour come through the middle. A party vote for ACT adds to the coalition just as effectively as a party vote for National.

"Now, that's the basic mathematical facts."

He said he had not spoken to Brash about the overhang strategy, but if others wanted to encourage New Zealanders to give their party vote to ACT, then ACT would not stand in their way.

"There are people who are making a little bit too much of it," Seymour said. "I think there's a lot of people who are starting to get ahead of themselves.

"I just say, look, the voters own their votes. Your electorate vote, I would counsel you to give to the person who will answer your phone call on a Friday afternoon.

"Your party vote, vote for the party that shares your values. That's all I've ever campaigned for."

NZ First leader Winston Peters told a public meeting in Papakura on Saturday that their party vote was "critical" and there had always been two votes since MMP started.

"There's a right little row going on at the moment about the right for you to use that vote the way you please," he said. "Apparently, vote-splitting is a sin."

He told media afterwards it made "logical sense" to support the campaign and he did not know why so many people were trying to "defy gravity".

"If you party vote for the National Party, you are wasting your vote," he told supporters at the meeting.

Peters said Luxon was making a "terrible mistake" by saying he was disappointed, saying he was not reading how the system worked and an overhang had always been a potential possibility, since MMP was first voted on.

"The National Party's second vote - or the party vote - should be going direct to NZ First. That way, it'll really count."

Labour leader Chris Hipkins believed the right was in disarray.

"It shows the total dysfunction and disarray on the right of the political spectrum," he said. "My message to Kiwis is really clear - don't wake up next Sunday with a National hangover.

"Avoid that by giving two ticks to Labour."

A second campaign by businessman Harry Mowbray that encourages vote-splitting has hit a snag, after National complained to the Electoral Commission.

"Quite simply, we didn't want to be part of that campaign and we don't endorse that campaign," Luxon said.

If the strategy is successful and there is an overhang, several National MPs would be out of Parliament, including Finance Minister Nicola Willis, who is running list-only.

Asked whether he was concerned about losing Willis, his deputy, Luxon re-iterated the election would be tight and he was focused on making sure people understood the choice before them.

Luxon has said it was "non-negotiable" that Willis keeps the finance role for a second term, but the potential of losing her has seen Seymour facing questions on his own ambitions.

On Friday, Seymour told Newstalk ZB it was "very possible" he would go for the role in coalition negotiations, before later saying people were getting ahead of themselves.

On Saturday morning, he said everyone was getting "so excited" about the matter.

"I was on a radio interview yesterday and I was asked why I hadn't ruled it out, and I said, 'Well, because it's possible'. Then, all of a sudden, people said I was making a move, but all I'd done was outline that there are a series of logical possibilities."

Rather than "all this speculation about positions", Seymour said there needed to be a return to policies for people.