Voters backing the Opportunity Party could see a coalition agreement negotiated by the party’s elected MPs blocked by just two members of its governing board, under constitutional rules defended by leader Qiulae Wong.

The arrangement means Opportunity’s parliamentary representatives would not have the final say over a governing agreement, even if the party holds the balance of power following Saturday’s election.

Under the party’s published constitution, any coalition or confidence and supply agreement requires the approval of at least 75 percent of its board.

That threshold means two opposing board members could prevent an agreement from proceeding, despite support from the politicians elected to Parliament.

One of the board members is Alan Wilderland, a major financial backer whose personal donations and contributions through his company, Alajamber Limited, total $221,160.

Wilderland recently suggested working with parties on the left might be easier, although he acknowledged he had no experience negotiating political agreements and could be wrong.

He also suggested Opportunity could find common ground with ACT on markets and pragmatism, while seeking greater social and environmental responsibility from parties on the right.

Opportunity leader Qiulae Wong has defended the board’s powers as “perfectly acceptable”.

Wong maintains Opportunity is willing to work with either Labour or National, regardless of the personal political preferences of individual board members.

ACT leader David Seymour has questioned why unelected party officials should be able to prevent an agreement reached by elected MPs.

“If they get to five per cent, and two unelected people choose the next Government and PM of New Zealand, this will be the most significant story of the election.

“The proposition is that if two of the seven board members don’t like the decision of the elected people in the Opportunity Party, they can veto that deal and effectively choose that the whole country gets a different government,” Seymour said.

His criticism follows changes Opportunity announced to its constitution in August.

The party said it had removed a separate provision allowing 75 percent of its board to overturn decisions made by its parliamentary caucus.

However, the constitution currently linked on Opportunity’s own website still contains that provision, raising questions about whether the publicly available document reflects the changes announced by the party.

It remains unclear whether the document has simply not been updated or whether the amendment has been formally implemented.

The separate requirement for board approval of coalition agreements also remains in the published constitution.

Wong has indicated that the party intends to conduct a full constitutional review next year.

The issue has taken on greater significance as recent polling suggests Opportunity could hold the balance of power following the election.

National leader Christopher Luxon and New Zealand First leader Winston Peters have ruled out arrangements with Opportunity, despite Wong maintaining that her party is prepared to negotiate with either side of politics.