Ruling out Opportunity only harms Luxon’s election chances, right? It’s not that simple

The Opportunity Party's potential role in New Zealand's upcoming election as a "kingmaker" has drawn attention, despite not having secured a parliamentary seat. This status would grant the party the power to decide who forms the government if it manages to secure at least 5% of the vote, enabling it to enter parliament. However, New Zealand First's Winston Peters' experience in 2017 suggests Opportunity's preferences may not be clear-cut.

The party's leader, Qiulae Wong, explicitly states she is not interested in propping up the current government and explicitly rules out working with National Party leader and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. Luxon, in turn, has ruled out collaboration with Opportunity, citing their proposed land tax as a major reason, and encourages centre-right voters to vote National instead.

This stance might seem counterintuitive, but it could backfire if the polls are accurate, as it could push Opportunity's vote below the 5% threshold needed for parliamentary entry. If Opportunity does manage to cross the 5% threshold and form a coalition with Labour and the Greens, it could sideline Te Pāti Māori, aligning more closely with a Labour-led administration.

This could force Luxon to reconsider his stance or explore a National-ACT-New Zealand First coalition, potentially with a confidence-and-supply agreement with Opportunity. This arrangement could benefit Opportunity's long-term viability, given the lack of parliamentary or cabinet experience among its candidates. Therefore, while Luxon's refusal to work with Opportunity might appear illogical, it appears to serve a strategic purpose.

Voters should consider Opportunity's bottom-line policies and public statements, which suggest a preference for a Labour-led government, and weigh the implications of supporting a party that may vote against them in government.