00:00:07
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Wellington Mornings podcast with Nick Mills from Newstalk ZB.
00:00:12
Speaker 2: Friday face-off, Peter Dunn, Thomas Coghlan. Thomas is the New Zealand Herald political editor. And Peter Dunn, well, you know what Peter Dunn is? He's an ex-Cabinet minister. The worm man. We talk about the worm man, don't we, at this time of the year?
00:00:28
Speaker 3: It sounds like an insult, but it's actually an honour. It's 24 years ago that that happened.
00:00:35
Speaker 2: Oh, we've got a great video clip, but we've got a great soundbite. Coops wouldn't play it. Coops was playing, you know, Spoilsport because last week on the show, Mark Sainsbury suggested someone called you a little name. But anyway, before we get into the show proper, I'm hoping by the end of the show, Adam will change his mind and play it for us because I think we'd all enjoy it. But anyway, news broke overnight that Brooklyn and Thomas, I'll just quickly ask Peter about this. because he'd been to 150,000 of them. Karuna Mutu walked out of the Wellington Bays candidate for national, walked out of a meeting right at the beginning. He said it didn't feel fair, it didn't feel right that he wasn't. Have you ever walked out of a meeting? No, and that's a really silly thing to do. You've just got to put up with it, whatever the abuse, whatever the noise. It can be frustrating at times, and I was just saying to you before, I know many occasions where we had candidates meetings where it's the same audience every night. Everyone brought along their own renter crowd and the sort of the genuine voter was never to be seen. Well, you just go through the performance and everyone knows what you're going to say and you know what the reaction is going to be. But to walk out is really signaling defeat. A text suggested that he takes his family along and, you know, people should be mindful of you. You know, if you've got your kids and your wife there and Thomas, you've been to a hundred of these.
00:02:00
Speaker 4: I mean, Have you seen anyone walk out?
00:02:03
Speaker 5: I haven't seen– I mean, we have had with the taxpayers' union debates. We've had people not show up because of the controversy arising from Nicky Hager's book. But I haven't seen anyone walk out. I agree with Peter. I think it shows strength to be in a room that's sometimes hostile to you. There was a good debate a few weeks ago on Q & A. It was an agriculture debate, and it was in– It was in dairy country. I can't remember where in the.
00:02:28
Speaker 6: Waikato, I think.
00:02:28
Speaker 4: It was in Hamilton, wasn't it?
00:02:30
Speaker 6: I think so. Somewhere around.
00:02:31
Speaker 5: I think it was just outside of Hamilton. But the crowd was people in the dairy industry associated with that industry. But the Greens showed up. Steve Abel showed up. It wasn't a particularly friendly crowd to the Greens' point of view, but he showed up and he put his point across really well. I think he made some strong arguments. And I actually thought by the end of it, yeah. He wasn't getting any votes out of that room. Let's be honest. He wasn't winning any votes. But I did feel like he put his argument across well enough that they at least respected him. So I think if there's a hostile crowd, if you put your argument across well and you put your best foot forward, I think people can respect you for just sticking it through.
00:03:11
Speaker 4: Well, you know what?
00:03:12
Speaker 2: He might have got my vote on that day because I thought, like you, I thought he was magnificent.
00:03:16
Speaker 4: I mean, he articulated his point perfectly. He had facts.
00:03:22
Speaker 2: I always thought of him as the weird guy with the funny hair and the beard. But now, he's a smart guy.
00:03:30
Speaker 5: I quite like that style of politics. It's what we need more of, where you go into a hostile room and you put your case forward in a calm, reasoned, and un-hostile way and just try and convince people. We don't have enough of it, and yeah.
00:03:45
Speaker 6: It's good.
00:03:46
Speaker 2: Should we look at those meetings, Peter? I mean, we're going through them all at the moment and everyone's doing them. Should we look at them and say, look, we should be a little bit kinder to everyone and get through it? Or is, like Thomas says, it's just free for all and if you're strong enough, you survive. If you don't, you just sit there and cry.
00:04:03
Speaker 4: Well, it's a bit of both.
00:04:04
Speaker 3: It is a sort of a gladiatorial environment in some sense, but it's also a case where there are a lot of people who come along who genuinely want to hear what the candidates have got to say. I've chaired two candidates' meetings this week, one in Wellington North and one in Kenner, Peru. 190 at the Kenner, Peru one and 150 at the Wellington North one. Big crowds, well-mannered, respectful, listened intently to what the candidates were saying. And I think that's where the value of these things is. But, you know, the occasional raucous interjections or the sort of the booing and the jeering, Did you keep.
00:04:43
Speaker 4: Them under control, though, did you say? Were you the Speaker of the House?
00:04:45
Speaker 3: Were you saying, I'm going to send you out if you don't pay? I said I was going to run this like a parliamentary occasion, which would be good practice for some and a learning experience for others, and it worked. But traditionally, RO Valley was always a boisterous meeting. NIO used to have its boisterous meetings in my time. You knew that, and you prepared for it accordingly.
00:05:03
Speaker 5: I had a reporter at the RO Valley debate last night, And the no more water pistols, the water pistols are gone, which is a real shame. I think they had sound, sound hunker sound, a sound thing, which is a shame. I think the, the, the, the water pistols is part of the tradition. Um, but, but clearly, you know, I think, I think that we were worried that some people would, would maybe bring.
00:05:23
Speaker 6: Large water pistols sort of make me take them even too far.
00:05:26
Speaker 4: Can I go completely off script here?
00:05:27
Speaker 2: I might get a little bit in my ear at the moment because I've got my boss as my producer at the moment. I'm going to go completely off script and ask you about that meeting last night because I'm generally sitting here thinking to myself, that's Isha Viral. Was that Isha Viral against Tamatha Paul?
00:05:43
Speaker 3: Yes, in Wellington North.
00:05:44
Speaker 4: Yeah. Well, you chaired it. How did it go? Who won?
00:05:47
Speaker 3: Well, as I say, I think there were all the candidates participating.
00:05:51
Speaker 2: Present.
00:05:51
Speaker 3: I think Tamitha Paul was the better performer. That doesn't mean I agree with what she was saying, but she just came across much better. I think Aisha was intent and made her points, but didn't have the sort of the verve and the passion, perhaps, of Tamitha Paul. And if you were just looking at this from the point of view of a spectacle, I think she was the better performer.
00:06:11
Speaker 4: So who's going to win that seat, Thomas?
00:06:14
Speaker 5: Man, it's a really hard one, but just the boundary changes make it a bit more, well, we think, I would think that the boundary change is which absolve some of Peter's old electorate, make it a bit harder for the Greens to win. But, gosh, I mean, who knows? I agree that Tamitha's an incredible debater. We had a Herald debate last week where Tamitha Paul was up against, you know, Barbara Edmonds and Nicola Willis and some of those, you know, frontbenchers from other parties, Shane Jones. And she sort of took on John Key over this billionaire's remark, whether it's moral to have billionaires. And.
00:06:49
Speaker 5: I think probably, it's hard to know, I think on the balance, Key kind of won that point. He wasn't on stage with them. But, you know, the fact you've got this Tamitha Paul who's, yeah, this is her first term, kind of taking on the former prime minister, one of our most popular former prime ministers, and not doing a terrible job of it, that's impressive.
00:07:09
Speaker 4: And John Key.
00:07:09
Speaker 6: Yeah, John Key.
00:07:12
Speaker 4: That is impressive.
00:07:13
Speaker 5: Not many people could go up against John Key in the same sort of format and, and, and, and, you know, hold the right.
00:07:20
Speaker 4: Off script again.
00:07:21
Speaker 2: Um, did Nicola Willis, both to both of you, whoever goes to Nicholas, Nicola Willis, miss a giant opportunity, really not to stand and go amongst that.
00:07:33
Speaker 4: And why Thomas?
00:07:35
Speaker 6: Well, it's, it's, it's Peter's former elite crew basically. So I think his view is more important than mine.
00:07:41
Speaker 3: Well, I think she did. I think, um, She should have won it last time, frankly, and I don't know why she didn't, but that's history. But I think she should have had a go this time. She's had an office in the electorate for the last three years. I think that the solid blue cores are still there. And with a three-way contest between the Greens, Labour and National, three sitting MPs, one being the Minister of Finance, I think she'd have been in with a very good chance.
00:08:09
Speaker 4: Why not?
00:08:09
Speaker 3: I don't know. I suspect she might have two things. One was the Michael Cullin precedent, really, where he said, I'm too busy as Minister of Finance to do a decent service to my electorate, as it was St Kilda in those days in Dunedin. So he went on the party list. She may have felt the same thing. And at the time she made that decision, of course, there was no suggestion National wasn't going to get any or few list seats. So it seemed like a pretty safe transition. And I think she may rue that in time.
00:08:38
Speaker 5: I wonder whether she was a bit burnt by losing Wellington contests several times now. And I wonder also, obviously, Wellington's going through a tough time at the moment with the public service retrenchment and cuts to some public service, some core parts of the public service. So I wonder whether that makes it more difficult to win a Wellington electorate. You're sort of fronting up to the voters who... who are at the hard edge of some of the decisions you've been making. But, yeah, it could be a decision that she regrets because the left vote might split. She could have come through the middle there, potentially.
00:09:15
Speaker 4: You're right, though.
00:09:16
Speaker 2: I mean, it would have been a very hostile situation. We're talking about Mutu this morning. I mean, you know, it would have been a very hostile situation for her to front every day out, wouldn't it?
00:09:26
Speaker 6: It's difficult to be a national MP in Wellington right now.
00:09:29
Speaker 3: But, you know, she's the deputy leader of the party. She's a very senior minister. If she can't put the government's case, or the National Party's case, who can? And I think that in many senses, by opting out of the contest, she effectively flagged the national vote in Wellington, which could be ultimately to her cost.
00:09:51
Speaker 6: And there's always party votes in it as well.
00:09:52
Speaker 3: That's what I mean, yeah.
00:09:54
Speaker 6: Even if you lose, I mean, There.
00:09:55
Speaker 5: Were some, I think during the key government, National might have won the party vote in some Wellington electorates because Labour and the Greens did split the left vote.
00:10:05
Speaker 6: But they did.
00:10:06
Speaker 5: Run quite strong campaigns, knowing they probably weren't going to win the electorate, but they still managed to drive up the party vote. And National does need to think about that across the country, driving up that party vote.
00:10:16
Speaker 2: Friday, face-off with Thomas Coghlan, New Zealand Herald political editor, and Peter Dunn, former Cabinet Minister. Peter, I was bemused... Because I thought I was the only person of our ink that was an undecided voter.
00:10:29
Speaker 4: How the hell with your political background can you be an undecided voter?
00:10:34
Speaker 3: Oh, because I have a very clear view of what I expect from political parties and none of them are delivering it. And so I thought, well, maybe I've got this wrong. I went and did the TVNZ vote compass and I just came as a big sort of dot in the middle of nowhere. So, yeah, I mean, I'm an old fashioned liberal. And there is no liberal voice in New Zealand politics. There's a harsh libertarian voice in the form of ACT. There's national. It's all over the show. Labour and the left-wing bloc don't attract me. New Zealand First xenophobia doesn't appeal. And opportunity parties, I was going to say waffle. It's not that, but it's a sort of a bit of a kumbaya feeling there. I just don't see how we restore an effective working liberal democracy in this country with the current suite of political parties we've got.
00:11:23
Speaker 4: Are you getting any closer? No.
00:11:26
Speaker 2: Thomas, are you hearing, you're travelling around, you're with the politicians, you're travelling around, you're all at the debates, you're on everything. Are you hearing the same thing or is it Peter and I a little bit weird?
00:11:36
Speaker 5: No, no, very much. And I think there is a bit of a drift in those two major parties. I read Peter's newsletter this week before I actually knew you were on the show. And so I was chuffed that you were. It's nice to be able to talk about it. The sort of sense that Labour is actually labor is quite backward looking in terms of the tax and uh industrial relations you know it is a real um in sentiment terms it's kind of turning its back on on the modern economy which is just a more open liberal economy um towards a more high tax command and control um more heavily unionized and and um economy which is you know it's not what new zealand's been used to in the There are questions about whether we went too far in the 90s, but certainly Labour's kind of policy platform turns the clock back on that a wee bit, and National's all over the place. I mean, even this morning, Christopher Luxon seemed to say yesterday that opportunity was in the picture. This morning, Simeon Brown's saying they're not. It's The National doesn't seem to know what it stands for, much less how to communicate what it.
00:12:49
Speaker 4: Stands for to the public.
00:12:50
Speaker 2: I want to go back to that because I think that's another topic on its own because like you, I thought last night, ah, I knew, I had a feeling that they were going to soften their stance on it. But anyway, let's go back to that when we've got it on. Because I want to ask Peter, would you actually think about not voting? No, because I think the right to vote is really important.
00:13:11
Speaker 4: But you just told us.
00:13:12
Speaker 3: Well, I'm going to have to reach a decision in the next little while. But to not vote seems to me to be an abrogation of a real privilege. And so I would not seriously consider that. I think it's a right that's been hard fought for, and I think you've got to exercise it. But can I just give you an example of the sort of thing that really frustrates me? At the moment, AI is a huge issue. And all of the parties are developing AI policies. I don't pretend to understand it fully, but they all are. But they're all about how you control its spread, how you make them pay for the power that these data centres are going to use. It's very sort of mechanistic and government interventionist into this. I contrast that with Taiwan, where they are putting $ 6 billion a year into upskilling their small business sector is to how to cope with AI, how to operate it effectively, how to use it to their advantage. And it just strikes me, that's the sort of thing where we miss the plot. We worry about the regulatory framework and the rules and the structures. And there are people out there struggling to deal with these sorts of things, these new innovations, and we're doing nothing to help them sort of develop and utilise those skills to the overall benefit of their businesses and the country as a whole.
00:14:30
Speaker 2: Thomas, it scares me a little bit that we aren't– I'm an AI freak. I'm totally AI. Totally, you know, if I'm buying a new watch, AI is telling me where to buy the watch.
00:14:43
Speaker 5: Yeah, I use it a bit too. I find it very useful as a search tool. You know, journalism, obviously, you try to find what did this person say? In 2005, I remember a Treasury report. Can you find me that Treasury report? It's so much better than Google and that sort of stuff. And increasingly with our website, it's quite useful to sort of code interactives. So you can create very interesting pieces of code to sort of illustrate your story. So, yeah, I'm a bit of a power user. But I agree that it is a– it could– it risks– well, it will fundamentally upend our labour market, and we're not really talking about it.
00:15:27
Speaker 2: Do we need the government to be doing more than they're doing?
00:15:32
Speaker 6: I mean, probably. We did.
00:15:34
Speaker 5: There was, I mean, COVID really stuffed a lot of this up. In opposition, Grant Robertson and the Labour Party looked at the future of work and what would happen to a more, when technology really started to wreck jobs, what we know of as the labour market. And what came out of that was the social employment uninsurance scheme, which was criticised as a jobs tax. And obviously it sort of got lost in the hurricane of policy around COVID. But it's certainly something to, the ideas that they were discussing were the right ones, I think. And it's certainly something that is worth thinking about as we head into this AI thing, because We are probably going to need more flexible labour markets. And that is terrifying because one thing everyone loves is job security. It's nice to know that if you do a good job that you wake up tomorrow morning and you have a job. And AI and technology obviously wrecks that. And I think labour was looking at that because unemployment insurance is used in places like Scandinavia to enable a more flexible labour market, which helps you deal with technological change. It means businesses are have the courage to hire more people because they know that if they've hired too many people.
00:16:52
Speaker 4: It's– They can get the money back.
00:16:54
Speaker 6: Yeah.
00:16:55
Speaker 5: But it also gives you as an employee, it gives you confidence that you're not going to be stuffed if the technology drives a wrecking ball through the economy. But again, sadly, it was all lost.
00:17:08
Speaker 4: Righto, guys. Come on. Help me out this way.
00:17:11
Speaker 2: This morning when I first picked up the news media, I saw that Christopher Luxon was softening his stance on Opportunity Party and QLW. I thought, about time, sensible, smart. Then I listened to Mr Hosking and there's a Simeon Brown going, nope, nope, nope, wrong, wrong, wrong.
00:17:33
Speaker 4: Thomas Coghlan, what's going on?
00:17:35
Speaker 5: I think this is a case of the Prime Minister. He's not the most effective communicator And he was at a public meeting in Greymouth, and I think he seemed to speak in a way that did not articulate the views he actually held, which was not the first time. So his office has since clarified that the rule out of opportunity still stands. And he was actually talking about this overhang issue. I think the people in the crowd were a wee bit confused about how to strategically vote. He was telling them not to, to just vote for two ticks blue. Simeon Brown, yep, clarified. Prime Minister's office later clarified. So the rule out of opportunity for the moment still stands.
00:18:12
Speaker 2: Can I just ask you, because you're a resident expert here right now, if it means going into opposition or going with Kewle Wong, what will happen after the election?
00:18:24
Speaker 5: I think he'll pick up the phone. I just, I can't, I can't imagine. He's worked very hard to be Prime Minister and I can't imagine that, that, for pride, he would go into opposition rather than pick up the phone.
00:18:39
Speaker 6: He'll pick up the phone.
00:18:40
Speaker 5: And I personally think, I mean, I was agreeing with Peter before about some of the issues around the substance of opportunity, but I do think multiple party government makes you a better major party. And I think some of the strengths of, I think our best MMP governments were the clerk and key governments. And I think one of the strengths of those governments were Clark and Key's ability to build broad coalitions to their left and their right, and it allowed them to govern more flexibly because they had places to go. And I think one of the flaws of this government, and I think the flaw of the second term of the Ardern government, is that they can only go to their extreme. This government's been pulled to its extreme and it's made it weaker.
00:19:28
Speaker 2: Can I expose my ignorance here? Was the Key government the one that went with the Maori Party?
00:19:32
Speaker 5: Yes, they had three terms. And with Peter too, Peter was there. And I mean, they even had a very loose deal in that first term with the Greens over some housing stuff. So Key inked deals with everyone. And it made him a better prime minister. I think it made the National Party better because if you're a major party, you are a broad, by definition, you have to be a broad church to survive. And so you need to have friends on to your centre and friends to your extreme. And this government only has friends on its extreme flank. And it's made it, I think it has made the National Party weaker.
00:20:02
Speaker 2: OK, Peter Dunn, there's two questions here for you. One, will he pick up the phone? And two, is it our fascination with the Opportunity Party? Because I'm fascinated by.
00:20:12
Speaker 4: It as well. I'm in that camp.
00:20:14
Speaker 2: Have to put my, I'm not saying I'm going to vote for them, but in that fascination camp. Is it just because we want change? We're sick of what we've got? Let's take the first one first. The old maxim that the worst day in government is a thousand times better than the best day in opposition will apply. So if he has to, he'll pick up the phone. How does he swallow that rat?
00:20:37
Speaker 3: Oh, I think he looks at the numbers. This is what the electorate's delivered. This is But the people expect us to work together to form a government. There's all sorts of ways you can get around it. But the key point is, he will be the one picking up the phone. Kudo Wong keeps talking about who she'll be calling after the election. She'll be waiting to receive a call. She won't be in a position, even if they do extremely well, to make that call first. It will be the person who's likely to lead a government who will be inviting you to come in to the tent to talk. As to why the fascination, they're new. I think we're at a point in our politics where Some transitions are taking place. I agree with Thomas's point about the way this government has operated over the last three years. But I think we're seeing, if not the end of the party, we're certainly seeing the gradual end of Winston Peters and his influence on New Zealand First. And as a consequence, the influence of that party may shift a little bit over the next little while. So we're at a transitional stage. Here's a bright new party, bright new face that appears on the scene. quite good to mop up a lot of that undecided vote whether it holds us a little bit of the green still we all like a little bit yeah yeah um the greens are you know i think in danger of through perhaps no fault of their own other than just their survival starting to look a bit sort of stale too so this is a good refresh for the system but can i just get back to something thomas said which i think was very important about the mix of governments previously uh One of the things that I think is often overlooked is that because you had both Clark and Key had partners to their right and to their left, those partners were also able to be used by them against some of their own caucus members. So the extreme people in the National Party caucus or the Labour Party caucus, their edge was blunted by the fact that Clark or Key could say, look, sorry, I sort of agree with you, but we can't do this because of our partners knowing full well Phew, thank God we aren't.
00:22:31
Speaker 6: Right.
00:22:33
Speaker 4: Sorry, you go, Thomas.
00:22:34
Speaker 5: Well, I think it was one of the flaws of that Ardern second term is that because she didn't have that, some of the most unpopular things she was doing around co-governance and three waters, she was really being pushed to that by her Maori caucus, and she had nowhere to go. She had no way of blunting that influence, and it made her incredibly unpopular because she had no, despite being this incredibly popular leader leading a majority government in a system designed to prevent majority governments, majority single party government, she was being driven by her extreme flank because she had nowhere else to go.
00:23:05
Speaker 2: Thomas, I've got this feeling, and I hate being ageist because I'm getting old myself, is Winston Peters too old?
00:23:14
Speaker 6: Too old is a difficult question.
00:23:16
Speaker 5: He's definitely, I mean, obviously, the facts of physics and time and the universe means that he is older than the selection that he has been in the past.
00:23:26
Speaker 6: And he's not as.
00:23:28
Speaker 5: He's certainly, I think, people watching, and you'll be talking about the performance this week in the minor parties debate, he's less quick and sharp than he used to be.
00:23:37
Speaker 6: That's certainly a thing.
00:23:38
Speaker 2: I mean, the highlights are very difficult. I'm sorry to put that on you because I know as your position and where you are, it's a very difficult thing to ask you. But Peter Dunne, I don't know whether you saw the short Radio New Zealand interview with John Campbell, but it scared me a bit.
00:23:52
Speaker 3: Yeah, look, I don't think the issue is whether he is too old chronologically. but it's more whether he's too old politically. And I think that the answer to the first question is open. The answer to the second question is yes, I think he is. He's been around since the late 1970s. I don't think he's, up until perhaps the last three or four years, he seemed to be able to reinvent himself in terms of the conditions of the time. I think perhaps his heavy workload as foreign minister has meant that he's been a bit too immersed in that. And I just watch him in various television performances. Now, even little things like it's still the double-breasted suit and the casual regime is the black polo neck sweater with the light jacket. That's been his sort of entree for- Since 76. Since the 76. And I think it's just all signs that political time is catching up with him. And with opportunity now coming onto the scene, that's diminishing the sort of historic influence he's had. So- Yeah, I think this might be the last hurrah.
00:24:55
Speaker 5: I think he even has the same polka dot tie.
00:24:58
Speaker 6: Probably. I was looking at pictures the other day.
00:25:00
Speaker 2: I can't talk because I sort of wore the same uniform for years too. Let's talk about someone that's coming onto the scene. Kule Wong. Thomas, you've been following this whole road show. You've seen her at the minor leaders debate, which I felt she performed. I don't want to call her the winner, but she performed extremely strongly. She's making every post the damn winner. I've had her on the show. She's very impressive. Tell us your thoughts.
00:25:26
Speaker 5: I think there are two factors there. One is what we were talking about earlier. The two major party leaders are so uninspiring, just so uninspiring. And then everyone else, obviously we had James Shaw swap out for Chloe Swarbrick. But other than that, we've basically got the same cohort of leaders that we did last time around. So it is a stale, it's a stale lot.
00:25:46
Speaker 6: And Q.
00:25:46
Speaker 5: Lei Wong is incredibly articulate. She articulates the frustration. It's interesting, what she's frustrated with is not particular policies, but it's politics in general. She's talking about the flaws in our political system and the flaws of the major parties dictating what they want and the minor parties pulling politics to the extremes. And so it's sort of interesting to see that she is running against a political system as much as she's running against a particular– or running for anything. So it's a perfect storm for a person like her and a politics like hers to sort of rise up.
00:26:27
Speaker 4: Could they still miss out?
00:26:28
Speaker 6: Yes, definitely.
00:26:30
Speaker 5: Curia is a very good pollster, and Curia has been below five at the moment. The others have them above five, well above five. I think it's interesting Peter was talking earlier about concerns in some of the debates from questions saying we don't know which way you're going to go after the election– I had a reporter at the Wellington Aro Valley debate last night and some of the questions were, how can I vote for you if you're going to, obviously, I think in Aro Valley, they want a change of government. It's pretty clear that Aro Valley does not support this government. But the questions in that Aro Valley debate were, well, how can I vote for you if you're just going to turn around and prop up Christopher Lux and they don't want that? So I think there is a risk for opportunity that as it gets close to the election and they continue to make these overtures, the national people are like, you know what, I want a change of government from opportunity, and if opportunity is not going to guarantee me a change of government, I'll just vote for the Greens or Labour.
00:27:23
Speaker 4: Peter, your thoughts on Kiu Lei Wong?
00:27:25
Speaker 3: She's an impressive young woman, there's no doubt about it. I met her late last year when she'd just taken over the role, and I thought then that this was someone of talent and ability, and I think she's grown from strength to strength during the campaign. Having said that, we still are not entirely sure about what her message is, but it's coming across quite well.
00:27:44
Speaker 4: It's refreshing.
00:27:45
Speaker 3: Well, there's a billboard in the Wellington Railway Station, and it's an Opportunity Party billboard with three words on it. Left with a line crossed out, right with a line crossed out, and forward.
00:27:59
Speaker 6: And that sort of appeals to people.
00:28:00
Speaker 3: It's a very simple message.
00:28:03
Speaker 4: Forward to what? Forward how? Give them some time.
00:28:06
Speaker 6: Doesn't matter.
00:28:06
Speaker 4: Doesn't matter.
00:28:07
Speaker 3: But I think that's the appeal. Now, the challenge will be, as Thomas has pointed out, once they get there, if they do, and I think that's still an open question, what do they do? Because A, they will be inexperienced. B, there'll be a weight of expectation upon them. And C, whatever government arrangement they entered into, they will not be calling the shots.
00:28:30
Speaker 1: OK.
00:28:31
Speaker 3: OK.
00:28:32
Speaker 2: Let's, before we go to hots and nots, give me the formation, Thomas, of the next government.
00:28:38
Speaker 4: Come on, I'm putting you on the spot.
00:28:39
Speaker 6: Oh, that is impossible. There are two.
00:28:42
Speaker 4: What's your gut telling you?
00:28:43
Speaker 5: Well, the public polls at the moment, the public polls suggest a change of government. And I think opportunity is probably more likely. Kule Wonga said she'll pick up the phone to the party with the most seats. As Peter says, it'll be the party with the most seats calling her, not the most votes, but the most seats. So if it's the most seats, the Nats will probably call her first, but I wonder whether they'll be able to give her what she wants. I also think Winston Peters would probably not mind going into opposition. Being in opposition is actually quite good for New Zealand First because they are more oppositional as a party than they are governing. So I'd say slightly more likely than not to have a change of government, given if opportunity goes above the threshold, because they are, yeah.
00:29:25
Speaker 4: Peter, you've got to be quick.
00:29:27
Speaker 3: I think slightly in favour of a national-led government being returned, possibly supported from the crossbenchers by Opportunity Party. And interestingly enough, on the point of oppositional politics, I suspect New Zealand first were opt to go onto the crossbenchers and not be part of the government.
00:29:46
Speaker 4: Wow.
00:29:47
Speaker 3: But it's still on a knife edge.
00:29:49
Speaker 4: Now, I haven't heard that one before, so.
00:29:51
Speaker 1: The Friday Face-Off. Hot and not.
00:29:56
Speaker 4: Come on, Thomas, give us your hots and nots for the week.
00:29:59
Speaker 5: Well, my not, I've just been up covering the campaign in Auckland and I caught the city rail link for the first time, Underground Trains. And that is awesome. It's incredible. And it's so, so good. It is like the future has arrived in New Zealand finally. And the reason it's my not is that whilst Auckland has been busy tunnelling and building the city rail link, Wellington has been arguing about what to do. We had an offer on the table for the Basin Reserve flyover. We didn't like that. Fair enough.
00:30:26
Speaker 6: I didn't like it very much either.
00:30:29
Speaker 5: We had the Let's Go Wellington moving, which was controversial. We offered to The government was offering to fund 60% of that. We didn't like that. We sort of twiddled our thumbs, didn't like it, got rid of that. We had an offer to build the second Mount Victoria Tunnel, which has now been put on the back. That was going to be funded by central government, put on the back burner. We've decided we don't want that. And actually the government sort of decided for us. And now there's no funding on the table to build big infrastructure in Wellington. It's off the table and Wellington clearly needs something, but it hasn't got any central government money. So what it's not, the reason why it's my not is that Wellington... The next time someone, we looked a gift horse in the mouth, and the next time some big infrastructure comes to Wellington, the council probably needs to take what's on the table and stop fighting over it because it's really, Auckland's been pushing ahead and we haven't been. My heart is the Wellington Jazz Festival. It's Wellington's best festival. It's not, in my view, it is not as flashy as some of the other festivals, but it's incredible. It's on this weekend.
00:31:23
Speaker 6: Get out to it. It's incredible.
00:31:25
Speaker 1: Great.
00:31:25
Speaker 3: Peter.
00:31:26
Speaker 6: Peter.
00:31:26
Speaker 4: Quickly, because Thomas took time out of your time. I'll be brief.
00:31:29
Speaker 3: My hot, and I'm just referring to the two candidate meetings that I chaired this week, one organised by the Tawa Rotary Club, the other one organised by the Thorndon Society and the Thorndon Residents Association. Brilliant events, good turnouts, excellent questions of all the candidates and strong performances by them. So I think Kinepuru and Wellington North, whoever is elected, will be well represented in the next Parliament. My not, the story about And I'm not advocating the return of phone boxes, but the fact that Spark has announced it's getting rid of the phone boxes because it couldn't get a deal with Auckland Council over a return for the advertisements they have in the phone boxes.
00:32:09
Speaker 4: What's it to do with Auckland Council? That's part of the problem. I've got to go.
00:32:13
Speaker 2: Sorry, Peter, I hate cutting you off, but I've got to go to my ad breaks. Thomas Coghlan, Peter Dunn, thank you very much for joining us.
00:32:19
Speaker 1: For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills, listen live to News Talk ZB Wellington from 9am weekdays or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Wellington Mornings podcast with Nick Mills from Newstalk ZB.
00:00:12
Speaker 2: Friday face-off, Peter Dunn, Thomas Coghlan. Thomas is the New Zealand Herald political editor. And Peter Dunn, well, you know what Peter Dunn is? He's an ex-Cabinet minister. The worm man. We talk about the worm man, don't we, at this time of the year?
00:00:28
Speaker 3: It sounds like an insult, but it's actually an honour. It's 24 years ago that that happened.
00:00:35
Speaker 2: Oh, we've got a great video clip, but we've got a great soundbite. Coops wouldn't play it. Coops was playing, you know, Spoilsport because last week on the show, Mark Sainsbury suggested someone called you a little name. But anyway, before we get into the show proper, I'm hoping by the end of the show, Adam will change his mind and play it for us because I think we'd all enjoy it. But anyway, news broke overnight that Brooklyn and Thomas, I'll just quickly ask Peter about this. because he'd been to 150,000 of them. Karuna Mutu walked out of the Wellington Bays candidate for national, walked out of a meeting right at the beginning. He said it didn't feel fair, it didn't feel right that he wasn't. Have you ever walked out of a meeting? No, and that's a really silly thing to do. You've just got to put up with it, whatever the abuse, whatever the noise. It can be frustrating at times, and I was just saying to you before, I know many occasions where we had candidates meetings where it's the same audience every night. Everyone brought along their own renter crowd and the sort of the genuine voter was never to be seen. Well, you just go through the performance and everyone knows what you're going to say and you know what the reaction is going to be. But to walk out is really signaling defeat. A text suggested that he takes his family along and, you know, people should be mindful of you. You know, if you've got your kids and your wife there and Thomas, you've been to a hundred of these.
00:02:00
Speaker 4: I mean, Have you seen anyone walk out?
00:02:03
Speaker 5: I haven't seen– I mean, we have had with the taxpayers' union debates. We've had people not show up because of the controversy arising from Nicky Hager's book. But I haven't seen anyone walk out. I agree with Peter. I think it shows strength to be in a room that's sometimes hostile to you. There was a good debate a few weeks ago on Q & A. It was an agriculture debate, and it was in– It was in dairy country. I can't remember where in the.
00:02:28
Speaker 6: Waikato, I think.
00:02:28
Speaker 4: It was in Hamilton, wasn't it?
00:02:30
Speaker 6: I think so. Somewhere around.
00:02:31
Speaker 5: I think it was just outside of Hamilton. But the crowd was people in the dairy industry associated with that industry. But the Greens showed up. Steve Abel showed up. It wasn't a particularly friendly crowd to the Greens' point of view, but he showed up and he put his point across really well. I think he made some strong arguments. And I actually thought by the end of it, yeah. He wasn't getting any votes out of that room. Let's be honest. He wasn't winning any votes. But I did feel like he put his argument across well enough that they at least respected him. So I think if there's a hostile crowd, if you put your argument across well and you put your best foot forward, I think people can respect you for just sticking it through.
00:03:11
Speaker 4: Well, you know what?
00:03:12
Speaker 2: He might have got my vote on that day because I thought, like you, I thought he was magnificent.
00:03:16
Speaker 4: I mean, he articulated his point perfectly. He had facts.
00:03:22
Speaker 2: I always thought of him as the weird guy with the funny hair and the beard. But now, he's a smart guy.
00:03:30
Speaker 5: I quite like that style of politics. It's what we need more of, where you go into a hostile room and you put your case forward in a calm, reasoned, and un-hostile way and just try and convince people. We don't have enough of it, and yeah.
00:03:45
Speaker 6: It's good.
00:03:46
Speaker 2: Should we look at those meetings, Peter? I mean, we're going through them all at the moment and everyone's doing them. Should we look at them and say, look, we should be a little bit kinder to everyone and get through it? Or is, like Thomas says, it's just free for all and if you're strong enough, you survive. If you don't, you just sit there and cry.
00:04:03
Speaker 4: Well, it's a bit of both.
00:04:04
Speaker 3: It is a sort of a gladiatorial environment in some sense, but it's also a case where there are a lot of people who come along who genuinely want to hear what the candidates have got to say. I've chaired two candidates' meetings this week, one in Wellington North and one in Kenner, Peru. 190 at the Kenner, Peru one and 150 at the Wellington North one. Big crowds, well-mannered, respectful, listened intently to what the candidates were saying. And I think that's where the value of these things is. But, you know, the occasional raucous interjections or the sort of the booing and the jeering, Did you keep.
00:04:43
Speaker 4: Them under control, though, did you say? Were you the Speaker of the House?
00:04:45
Speaker 3: Were you saying, I'm going to send you out if you don't pay? I said I was going to run this like a parliamentary occasion, which would be good practice for some and a learning experience for others, and it worked. But traditionally, RO Valley was always a boisterous meeting. NIO used to have its boisterous meetings in my time. You knew that, and you prepared for it accordingly.
00:05:03
Speaker 5: I had a reporter at the RO Valley debate last night, And the no more water pistols, the water pistols are gone, which is a real shame. I think they had sound, sound hunker sound, a sound thing, which is a shame. I think the, the, the, the water pistols is part of the tradition. Um, but, but clearly, you know, I think, I think that we were worried that some people would, would maybe bring.
00:05:23
Speaker 6: Large water pistols sort of make me take them even too far.
00:05:26
Speaker 4: Can I go completely off script here?
00:05:27
Speaker 2: I might get a little bit in my ear at the moment because I've got my boss as my producer at the moment. I'm going to go completely off script and ask you about that meeting last night because I'm generally sitting here thinking to myself, that's Isha Viral. Was that Isha Viral against Tamatha Paul?
00:05:43
Speaker 3: Yes, in Wellington North.
00:05:44
Speaker 4: Yeah. Well, you chaired it. How did it go? Who won?
00:05:47
Speaker 3: Well, as I say, I think there were all the candidates participating.
00:05:51
Speaker 2: Present.
00:05:51
Speaker 3: I think Tamitha Paul was the better performer. That doesn't mean I agree with what she was saying, but she just came across much better. I think Aisha was intent and made her points, but didn't have the sort of the verve and the passion, perhaps, of Tamitha Paul. And if you were just looking at this from the point of view of a spectacle, I think she was the better performer.
00:06:11
Speaker 4: So who's going to win that seat, Thomas?
00:06:14
Speaker 5: Man, it's a really hard one, but just the boundary changes make it a bit more, well, we think, I would think that the boundary change is which absolve some of Peter's old electorate, make it a bit harder for the Greens to win. But, gosh, I mean, who knows? I agree that Tamitha's an incredible debater. We had a Herald debate last week where Tamitha Paul was up against, you know, Barbara Edmonds and Nicola Willis and some of those, you know, frontbenchers from other parties, Shane Jones. And she sort of took on John Key over this billionaire's remark, whether it's moral to have billionaires. And.
00:06:49
Speaker 5: I think probably, it's hard to know, I think on the balance, Key kind of won that point. He wasn't on stage with them. But, you know, the fact you've got this Tamitha Paul who's, yeah, this is her first term, kind of taking on the former prime minister, one of our most popular former prime ministers, and not doing a terrible job of it, that's impressive.
00:07:09
Speaker 4: And John Key.
00:07:09
Speaker 6: Yeah, John Key.
00:07:12
Speaker 4: That is impressive.
00:07:13
Speaker 5: Not many people could go up against John Key in the same sort of format and, and, and, and, you know, hold the right.
00:07:20
Speaker 4: Off script again.
00:07:21
Speaker 2: Um, did Nicola Willis, both to both of you, whoever goes to Nicholas, Nicola Willis, miss a giant opportunity, really not to stand and go amongst that.
00:07:33
Speaker 4: And why Thomas?
00:07:35
Speaker 6: Well, it's, it's, it's Peter's former elite crew basically. So I think his view is more important than mine.
00:07:41
Speaker 3: Well, I think she did. I think, um, She should have won it last time, frankly, and I don't know why she didn't, but that's history. But I think she should have had a go this time. She's had an office in the electorate for the last three years. I think that the solid blue cores are still there. And with a three-way contest between the Greens, Labour and National, three sitting MPs, one being the Minister of Finance, I think she'd have been in with a very good chance.
00:08:09
Speaker 4: Why not?
00:08:09
Speaker 3: I don't know. I suspect she might have two things. One was the Michael Cullin precedent, really, where he said, I'm too busy as Minister of Finance to do a decent service to my electorate, as it was St Kilda in those days in Dunedin. So he went on the party list. She may have felt the same thing. And at the time she made that decision, of course, there was no suggestion National wasn't going to get any or few list seats. So it seemed like a pretty safe transition. And I think she may rue that in time.
00:08:38
Speaker 5: I wonder whether she was a bit burnt by losing Wellington contests several times now. And I wonder also, obviously, Wellington's going through a tough time at the moment with the public service retrenchment and cuts to some public service, some core parts of the public service. So I wonder whether that makes it more difficult to win a Wellington electorate. You're sort of fronting up to the voters who... who are at the hard edge of some of the decisions you've been making. But, yeah, it could be a decision that she regrets because the left vote might split. She could have come through the middle there, potentially.
00:09:15
Speaker 4: You're right, though.
00:09:16
Speaker 2: I mean, it would have been a very hostile situation. We're talking about Mutu this morning. I mean, you know, it would have been a very hostile situation for her to front every day out, wouldn't it?
00:09:26
Speaker 6: It's difficult to be a national MP in Wellington right now.
00:09:29
Speaker 3: But, you know, she's the deputy leader of the party. She's a very senior minister. If she can't put the government's case, or the National Party's case, who can? And I think that in many senses, by opting out of the contest, she effectively flagged the national vote in Wellington, which could be ultimately to her cost.
00:09:51
Speaker 6: And there's always party votes in it as well.
00:09:52
Speaker 3: That's what I mean, yeah.
00:09:54
Speaker 6: Even if you lose, I mean, There.
00:09:55
Speaker 5: Were some, I think during the key government, National might have won the party vote in some Wellington electorates because Labour and the Greens did split the left vote.
00:10:05
Speaker 6: But they did.
00:10:06
Speaker 5: Run quite strong campaigns, knowing they probably weren't going to win the electorate, but they still managed to drive up the party vote. And National does need to think about that across the country, driving up that party vote.
00:10:16
Speaker 2: Friday, face-off with Thomas Coghlan, New Zealand Herald political editor, and Peter Dunn, former Cabinet Minister. Peter, I was bemused... Because I thought I was the only person of our ink that was an undecided voter.
00:10:29
Speaker 4: How the hell with your political background can you be an undecided voter?
00:10:34
Speaker 3: Oh, because I have a very clear view of what I expect from political parties and none of them are delivering it. And so I thought, well, maybe I've got this wrong. I went and did the TVNZ vote compass and I just came as a big sort of dot in the middle of nowhere. So, yeah, I mean, I'm an old fashioned liberal. And there is no liberal voice in New Zealand politics. There's a harsh libertarian voice in the form of ACT. There's national. It's all over the show. Labour and the left-wing bloc don't attract me. New Zealand First xenophobia doesn't appeal. And opportunity parties, I was going to say waffle. It's not that, but it's a sort of a bit of a kumbaya feeling there. I just don't see how we restore an effective working liberal democracy in this country with the current suite of political parties we've got.
00:11:23
Speaker 4: Are you getting any closer? No.
00:11:26
Speaker 2: Thomas, are you hearing, you're travelling around, you're with the politicians, you're travelling around, you're all at the debates, you're on everything. Are you hearing the same thing or is it Peter and I a little bit weird?
00:11:36
Speaker 5: No, no, very much. And I think there is a bit of a drift in those two major parties. I read Peter's newsletter this week before I actually knew you were on the show. And so I was chuffed that you were. It's nice to be able to talk about it. The sort of sense that Labour is actually labor is quite backward looking in terms of the tax and uh industrial relations you know it is a real um in sentiment terms it's kind of turning its back on on the modern economy which is just a more open liberal economy um towards a more high tax command and control um more heavily unionized and and um economy which is you know it's not what new zealand's been used to in the There are questions about whether we went too far in the 90s, but certainly Labour's kind of policy platform turns the clock back on that a wee bit, and National's all over the place. I mean, even this morning, Christopher Luxon seemed to say yesterday that opportunity was in the picture. This morning, Simeon Brown's saying they're not. It's The National doesn't seem to know what it stands for, much less how to communicate what it.
00:12:49
Speaker 4: Stands for to the public.
00:12:50
Speaker 2: I want to go back to that because I think that's another topic on its own because like you, I thought last night, ah, I knew, I had a feeling that they were going to soften their stance on it. But anyway, let's go back to that when we've got it on. Because I want to ask Peter, would you actually think about not voting? No, because I think the right to vote is really important.
00:13:11
Speaker 4: But you just told us.
00:13:12
Speaker 3: Well, I'm going to have to reach a decision in the next little while. But to not vote seems to me to be an abrogation of a real privilege. And so I would not seriously consider that. I think it's a right that's been hard fought for, and I think you've got to exercise it. But can I just give you an example of the sort of thing that really frustrates me? At the moment, AI is a huge issue. And all of the parties are developing AI policies. I don't pretend to understand it fully, but they all are. But they're all about how you control its spread, how you make them pay for the power that these data centres are going to use. It's very sort of mechanistic and government interventionist into this. I contrast that with Taiwan, where they are putting $ 6 billion a year into upskilling their small business sector is to how to cope with AI, how to operate it effectively, how to use it to their advantage. And it just strikes me, that's the sort of thing where we miss the plot. We worry about the regulatory framework and the rules and the structures. And there are people out there struggling to deal with these sorts of things, these new innovations, and we're doing nothing to help them sort of develop and utilise those skills to the overall benefit of their businesses and the country as a whole.
00:14:30
Speaker 2: Thomas, it scares me a little bit that we aren't– I'm an AI freak. I'm totally AI. Totally, you know, if I'm buying a new watch, AI is telling me where to buy the watch.
00:14:43
Speaker 5: Yeah, I use it a bit too. I find it very useful as a search tool. You know, journalism, obviously, you try to find what did this person say? In 2005, I remember a Treasury report. Can you find me that Treasury report? It's so much better than Google and that sort of stuff. And increasingly with our website, it's quite useful to sort of code interactives. So you can create very interesting pieces of code to sort of illustrate your story. So, yeah, I'm a bit of a power user. But I agree that it is a– it could– it risks– well, it will fundamentally upend our labour market, and we're not really talking about it.
00:15:27
Speaker 2: Do we need the government to be doing more than they're doing?
00:15:32
Speaker 6: I mean, probably. We did.
00:15:34
Speaker 5: There was, I mean, COVID really stuffed a lot of this up. In opposition, Grant Robertson and the Labour Party looked at the future of work and what would happen to a more, when technology really started to wreck jobs, what we know of as the labour market. And what came out of that was the social employment uninsurance scheme, which was criticised as a jobs tax. And obviously it sort of got lost in the hurricane of policy around COVID. But it's certainly something to, the ideas that they were discussing were the right ones, I think. And it's certainly something that is worth thinking about as we head into this AI thing, because We are probably going to need more flexible labour markets. And that is terrifying because one thing everyone loves is job security. It's nice to know that if you do a good job that you wake up tomorrow morning and you have a job. And AI and technology obviously wrecks that. And I think labour was looking at that because unemployment insurance is used in places like Scandinavia to enable a more flexible labour market, which helps you deal with technological change. It means businesses are have the courage to hire more people because they know that if they've hired too many people.
00:16:52
Speaker 4: It's– They can get the money back.
00:16:54
Speaker 6: Yeah.
00:16:55
Speaker 5: But it also gives you as an employee, it gives you confidence that you're not going to be stuffed if the technology drives a wrecking ball through the economy. But again, sadly, it was all lost.
00:17:08
Speaker 4: Righto, guys. Come on. Help me out this way.
00:17:11
Speaker 2: This morning when I first picked up the news media, I saw that Christopher Luxon was softening his stance on Opportunity Party and QLW. I thought, about time, sensible, smart. Then I listened to Mr Hosking and there's a Simeon Brown going, nope, nope, nope, wrong, wrong, wrong.
00:17:33
Speaker 4: Thomas Coghlan, what's going on?
00:17:35
Speaker 5: I think this is a case of the Prime Minister. He's not the most effective communicator And he was at a public meeting in Greymouth, and I think he seemed to speak in a way that did not articulate the views he actually held, which was not the first time. So his office has since clarified that the rule out of opportunity still stands. And he was actually talking about this overhang issue. I think the people in the crowd were a wee bit confused about how to strategically vote. He was telling them not to, to just vote for two ticks blue. Simeon Brown, yep, clarified. Prime Minister's office later clarified. So the rule out of opportunity for the moment still stands.
00:18:12
Speaker 2: Can I just ask you, because you're a resident expert here right now, if it means going into opposition or going with Kewle Wong, what will happen after the election?
00:18:24
Speaker 5: I think he'll pick up the phone. I just, I can't, I can't imagine. He's worked very hard to be Prime Minister and I can't imagine that, that, for pride, he would go into opposition rather than pick up the phone.
00:18:39
Speaker 6: He'll pick up the phone.
00:18:40
Speaker 5: And I personally think, I mean, I was agreeing with Peter before about some of the issues around the substance of opportunity, but I do think multiple party government makes you a better major party. And I think some of the strengths of, I think our best MMP governments were the clerk and key governments. And I think one of the strengths of those governments were Clark and Key's ability to build broad coalitions to their left and their right, and it allowed them to govern more flexibly because they had places to go. And I think one of the flaws of this government, and I think the flaw of the second term of the Ardern government, is that they can only go to their extreme. This government's been pulled to its extreme and it's made it weaker.
00:19:28
Speaker 2: Can I expose my ignorance here? Was the Key government the one that went with the Maori Party?
00:19:32
Speaker 5: Yes, they had three terms. And with Peter too, Peter was there. And I mean, they even had a very loose deal in that first term with the Greens over some housing stuff. So Key inked deals with everyone. And it made him a better prime minister. I think it made the National Party better because if you're a major party, you are a broad, by definition, you have to be a broad church to survive. And so you need to have friends on to your centre and friends to your extreme. And this government only has friends on its extreme flank. And it's made it, I think it has made the National Party weaker.
00:20:02
Speaker 2: OK, Peter Dunn, there's two questions here for you. One, will he pick up the phone? And two, is it our fascination with the Opportunity Party? Because I'm fascinated by.
00:20:12
Speaker 4: It as well. I'm in that camp.
00:20:14
Speaker 2: Have to put my, I'm not saying I'm going to vote for them, but in that fascination camp. Is it just because we want change? We're sick of what we've got? Let's take the first one first. The old maxim that the worst day in government is a thousand times better than the best day in opposition will apply. So if he has to, he'll pick up the phone. How does he swallow that rat?
00:20:37
Speaker 3: Oh, I think he looks at the numbers. This is what the electorate's delivered. This is But the people expect us to work together to form a government. There's all sorts of ways you can get around it. But the key point is, he will be the one picking up the phone. Kudo Wong keeps talking about who she'll be calling after the election. She'll be waiting to receive a call. She won't be in a position, even if they do extremely well, to make that call first. It will be the person who's likely to lead a government who will be inviting you to come in to the tent to talk. As to why the fascination, they're new. I think we're at a point in our politics where Some transitions are taking place. I agree with Thomas's point about the way this government has operated over the last three years. But I think we're seeing, if not the end of the party, we're certainly seeing the gradual end of Winston Peters and his influence on New Zealand First. And as a consequence, the influence of that party may shift a little bit over the next little while. So we're at a transitional stage. Here's a bright new party, bright new face that appears on the scene. quite good to mop up a lot of that undecided vote whether it holds us a little bit of the green still we all like a little bit yeah yeah um the greens are you know i think in danger of through perhaps no fault of their own other than just their survival starting to look a bit sort of stale too so this is a good refresh for the system but can i just get back to something thomas said which i think was very important about the mix of governments previously uh One of the things that I think is often overlooked is that because you had both Clark and Key had partners to their right and to their left, those partners were also able to be used by them against some of their own caucus members. So the extreme people in the National Party caucus or the Labour Party caucus, their edge was blunted by the fact that Clark or Key could say, look, sorry, I sort of agree with you, but we can't do this because of our partners knowing full well Phew, thank God we aren't.
00:22:31
Speaker 6: Right.
00:22:33
Speaker 4: Sorry, you go, Thomas.
00:22:34
Speaker 5: Well, I think it was one of the flaws of that Ardern second term is that because she didn't have that, some of the most unpopular things she was doing around co-governance and three waters, she was really being pushed to that by her Maori caucus, and she had nowhere to go. She had no way of blunting that influence, and it made her incredibly unpopular because she had no, despite being this incredibly popular leader leading a majority government in a system designed to prevent majority governments, majority single party government, she was being driven by her extreme flank because she had nowhere else to go.
00:23:05
Speaker 2: Thomas, I've got this feeling, and I hate being ageist because I'm getting old myself, is Winston Peters too old?
00:23:14
Speaker 6: Too old is a difficult question.
00:23:16
Speaker 5: He's definitely, I mean, obviously, the facts of physics and time and the universe means that he is older than the selection that he has been in the past.
00:23:26
Speaker 6: And he's not as.
00:23:28
Speaker 5: He's certainly, I think, people watching, and you'll be talking about the performance this week in the minor parties debate, he's less quick and sharp than he used to be.
00:23:37
Speaker 6: That's certainly a thing.
00:23:38
Speaker 2: I mean, the highlights are very difficult. I'm sorry to put that on you because I know as your position and where you are, it's a very difficult thing to ask you. But Peter Dunne, I don't know whether you saw the short Radio New Zealand interview with John Campbell, but it scared me a bit.
00:23:52
Speaker 3: Yeah, look, I don't think the issue is whether he is too old chronologically. but it's more whether he's too old politically. And I think that the answer to the first question is open. The answer to the second question is yes, I think he is. He's been around since the late 1970s. I don't think he's, up until perhaps the last three or four years, he seemed to be able to reinvent himself in terms of the conditions of the time. I think perhaps his heavy workload as foreign minister has meant that he's been a bit too immersed in that. And I just watch him in various television performances. Now, even little things like it's still the double-breasted suit and the casual regime is the black polo neck sweater with the light jacket. That's been his sort of entree for- Since 76. Since the 76. And I think it's just all signs that political time is catching up with him. And with opportunity now coming onto the scene, that's diminishing the sort of historic influence he's had. So- Yeah, I think this might be the last hurrah.
00:24:55
Speaker 5: I think he even has the same polka dot tie.
00:24:58
Speaker 6: Probably. I was looking at pictures the other day.
00:25:00
Speaker 2: I can't talk because I sort of wore the same uniform for years too. Let's talk about someone that's coming onto the scene. Kule Wong. Thomas, you've been following this whole road show. You've seen her at the minor leaders debate, which I felt she performed. I don't want to call her the winner, but she performed extremely strongly. She's making every post the damn winner. I've had her on the show. She's very impressive. Tell us your thoughts.
00:25:26
Speaker 5: I think there are two factors there. One is what we were talking about earlier. The two major party leaders are so uninspiring, just so uninspiring. And then everyone else, obviously we had James Shaw swap out for Chloe Swarbrick. But other than that, we've basically got the same cohort of leaders that we did last time around. So it is a stale, it's a stale lot.
00:25:46
Speaker 6: And Q.
00:25:46
Speaker 5: Lei Wong is incredibly articulate. She articulates the frustration. It's interesting, what she's frustrated with is not particular policies, but it's politics in general. She's talking about the flaws in our political system and the flaws of the major parties dictating what they want and the minor parties pulling politics to the extremes. And so it's sort of interesting to see that she is running against a political system as much as she's running against a particular– or running for anything. So it's a perfect storm for a person like her and a politics like hers to sort of rise up.
00:26:27
Speaker 4: Could they still miss out?
00:26:28
Speaker 6: Yes, definitely.
00:26:30
Speaker 5: Curia is a very good pollster, and Curia has been below five at the moment. The others have them above five, well above five. I think it's interesting Peter was talking earlier about concerns in some of the debates from questions saying we don't know which way you're going to go after the election– I had a reporter at the Wellington Aro Valley debate last night and some of the questions were, how can I vote for you if you're going to, obviously, I think in Aro Valley, they want a change of government. It's pretty clear that Aro Valley does not support this government. But the questions in that Aro Valley debate were, well, how can I vote for you if you're just going to turn around and prop up Christopher Lux and they don't want that? So I think there is a risk for opportunity that as it gets close to the election and they continue to make these overtures, the national people are like, you know what, I want a change of government from opportunity, and if opportunity is not going to guarantee me a change of government, I'll just vote for the Greens or Labour.
00:27:23
Speaker 4: Peter, your thoughts on Kiu Lei Wong?
00:27:25
Speaker 3: She's an impressive young woman, there's no doubt about it. I met her late last year when she'd just taken over the role, and I thought then that this was someone of talent and ability, and I think she's grown from strength to strength during the campaign. Having said that, we still are not entirely sure about what her message is, but it's coming across quite well.
00:27:44
Speaker 4: It's refreshing.
00:27:45
Speaker 3: Well, there's a billboard in the Wellington Railway Station, and it's an Opportunity Party billboard with three words on it. Left with a line crossed out, right with a line crossed out, and forward.
00:27:59
Speaker 6: And that sort of appeals to people.
00:28:00
Speaker 3: It's a very simple message.
00:28:03
Speaker 4: Forward to what? Forward how? Give them some time.
00:28:06
Speaker 6: Doesn't matter.
00:28:06
Speaker 4: Doesn't matter.
00:28:07
Speaker 3: But I think that's the appeal. Now, the challenge will be, as Thomas has pointed out, once they get there, if they do, and I think that's still an open question, what do they do? Because A, they will be inexperienced. B, there'll be a weight of expectation upon them. And C, whatever government arrangement they entered into, they will not be calling the shots.
00:28:30
Speaker 1: OK.
00:28:31
Speaker 3: OK.
00:28:32
Speaker 2: Let's, before we go to hots and nots, give me the formation, Thomas, of the next government.
00:28:38
Speaker 4: Come on, I'm putting you on the spot.
00:28:39
Speaker 6: Oh, that is impossible. There are two.
00:28:42
Speaker 4: What's your gut telling you?
00:28:43
Speaker 5: Well, the public polls at the moment, the public polls suggest a change of government. And I think opportunity is probably more likely. Kule Wonga said she'll pick up the phone to the party with the most seats. As Peter says, it'll be the party with the most seats calling her, not the most votes, but the most seats. So if it's the most seats, the Nats will probably call her first, but I wonder whether they'll be able to give her what she wants. I also think Winston Peters would probably not mind going into opposition. Being in opposition is actually quite good for New Zealand First because they are more oppositional as a party than they are governing. So I'd say slightly more likely than not to have a change of government, given if opportunity goes above the threshold, because they are, yeah.
00:29:25
Speaker 4: Peter, you've got to be quick.
00:29:27
Speaker 3: I think slightly in favour of a national-led government being returned, possibly supported from the crossbenchers by Opportunity Party. And interestingly enough, on the point of oppositional politics, I suspect New Zealand first were opt to go onto the crossbenchers and not be part of the government.
00:29:46
Speaker 4: Wow.
00:29:47
Speaker 3: But it's still on a knife edge.
00:29:49
Speaker 4: Now, I haven't heard that one before, so.
00:29:51
Speaker 1: The Friday Face-Off. Hot and not.
00:29:56
Speaker 4: Come on, Thomas, give us your hots and nots for the week.
00:29:59
Speaker 5: Well, my not, I've just been up covering the campaign in Auckland and I caught the city rail link for the first time, Underground Trains. And that is awesome. It's incredible. And it's so, so good. It is like the future has arrived in New Zealand finally. And the reason it's my not is that whilst Auckland has been busy tunnelling and building the city rail link, Wellington has been arguing about what to do. We had an offer on the table for the Basin Reserve flyover. We didn't like that. Fair enough.
00:30:26
Speaker 6: I didn't like it very much either.
00:30:29
Speaker 5: We had the Let's Go Wellington moving, which was controversial. We offered to The government was offering to fund 60% of that. We didn't like that. We sort of twiddled our thumbs, didn't like it, got rid of that. We had an offer to build the second Mount Victoria Tunnel, which has now been put on the back. That was going to be funded by central government, put on the back burner. We've decided we don't want that. And actually the government sort of decided for us. And now there's no funding on the table to build big infrastructure in Wellington. It's off the table and Wellington clearly needs something, but it hasn't got any central government money. So what it's not, the reason why it's my not is that Wellington... The next time someone, we looked a gift horse in the mouth, and the next time some big infrastructure comes to Wellington, the council probably needs to take what's on the table and stop fighting over it because it's really, Auckland's been pushing ahead and we haven't been. My heart is the Wellington Jazz Festival. It's Wellington's best festival. It's not, in my view, it is not as flashy as some of the other festivals, but it's incredible. It's on this weekend.
00:31:23
Speaker 6: Get out to it. It's incredible.
00:31:25
Speaker 1: Great.
00:31:25
Speaker 3: Peter.
00:31:26
Speaker 6: Peter.
00:31:26
Speaker 4: Quickly, because Thomas took time out of your time. I'll be brief.
00:31:29
Speaker 3: My hot, and I'm just referring to the two candidate meetings that I chaired this week, one organised by the Tawa Rotary Club, the other one organised by the Thorndon Society and the Thorndon Residents Association. Brilliant events, good turnouts, excellent questions of all the candidates and strong performances by them. So I think Kinepuru and Wellington North, whoever is elected, will be well represented in the next Parliament. My not, the story about And I'm not advocating the return of phone boxes, but the fact that Spark has announced it's getting rid of the phone boxes because it couldn't get a deal with Auckland Council over a return for the advertisements they have in the phone boxes.
00:32:09
Speaker 4: What's it to do with Auckland Council? That's part of the problem. I've got to go.
00:32:13
Speaker 2: Sorry, Peter, I hate cutting you off, but I've got to go to my ad breaks. Thomas Coghlan, Peter Dunn, thank you very much for joining us.
00:32:19
Speaker 1: For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills, listen live to News Talk ZB Wellington from 9am weekdays or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
