The divided nature of our politics has been spotlighted once again.
A fiery debate has seen Te Pati Maori’s leaders suspended for Parliament in the harshest punishment ever handed down to a politician.
It was a vote made along party lines – with the Government parties voting in favour of the Privileges Committee recommendations, and the left-bloc voting against.
And that split was highlighted once again by two polls with conflicting results showing who will win next year.
Today on The Front Page, we’re joined by Newstalk ZB political editor Jason Walls to discuss the latest in politics – starting with a scandal that has hit the Prime Minister’s office.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Sound Engineer/Producer: Richard Martin
Producer: Ethan Sills
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Hilda.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. The divided
nature of our politics has been spotlighted once again. A
fiery debate has seen Tabatti Mouldi's leaders suspended from Parliament
(00:25):
in the harshest punishment ever handed down to a politician.
It was a vote made along party lines, with the
government parties voting in favor of the Privileges Committee recommendations.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
And the Left bloc voting against it, and.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
That split was highlighted once again by two polls with
conflicting results showing who will win next year. Today on
the Front Page, we're joined by Newstalk z B political
editor Jason Walls to discuss the latest in politics, starting
with a scandal that has hit the Prime Minister's office.
(01:03):
First off, Jason, a staff investigation found the PM's former
deputy Chief Press Secretary, Michael Forbes, allegedly recorded audio of
sessions with Wellington's sex workers. Christopher Luxen was understandably fuming
when he fronted media last week about it. He said
there'd be a deep dive of investigation into the questions
(01:24):
raised by the scandal.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
I have to say my sympathy is with the women
who raised these allegations and were made to feel unsafe
due to the actions of this person. I do want
to acknowledge and thank the staff and the beehive in
the Parliament who have worked alongside this individual and understandably
have found the news upsetting and distressing, and I'm committed
to ensuring that they have all of the support that
they need. I have zero tolerance for any behavior that
(01:49):
makes women or anyone feel unsafe, and this individual's conduct
fell unacceptedly short of the standards that I expect from
our people.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
What questions do you think this raises?
Speaker 4 (02:01):
Well, the number one question is why was the Prime
Minister's office not informed that there was a police complaint
laid against somebody that was applying for a job in
the prime Minister's office. The Deputy Chief Press sect is
an important role. They have access to a lot of information.
They're sorting out how the government communicates with the public.
So it's obviously of paramount importance that somebody like that
(02:22):
can be trusted. And the fact that this wasn't elevated
a as we now understand to then Police Commissioner Andy
costa and then he was not able to give it
to the beehive. Suggests that something has gone really wrong
in the system here. The importance is that the Prime
Minister's office needs to know about every part of a
staff member that is applying for their office, because it's
(02:42):
about safety of the information. I mean, it's not about
the character of the person per se, but it's about
if any bad actors are able to get any leverage
on somebody that works in the Prime Minister's office, then
that could be used for purposes which are not advantageous
for the country. We could put it that way. So
of course a's big issue that have been raised because
of the fact that the Prime Minister's Office was not flagged.
(03:04):
This issue was not flagged with them. Now it wasn't.
It was never elevated the police. It was a complaint,
no charges were laid. It's important to make that distinction.
But still the fact that there were people within the
government that were aware of the serious nature of the
complaint and that did not get passed onto the Prime
Minister's office, it shows that there has been a lapse
in the system.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
To say the least, these types.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
Of scandals have the potential to be quite damaging for
the party leader involved. Look at the Labour Party summer
camp sex assault cases one example. Do you think this
will have some kind of blowback for National or the
Parliamentary services.
Speaker 4 (03:38):
Well, what it will do is it distracts from the
message and it means that the things that the government
want to be talking about, they won't be able to
be talking about them because this scandal will follow them.
I think people will quite rightly look at this and
say it wasn't the prime minister's fault. He was never
informed of this. But the problem is it's a fault
somewhere in the government and the Prime Minister is ultimately
responsible for that. And anytime you have any sort of
(04:01):
allegations of sexual impropriety around politics or around politicians, it
immediately becomes a scandal. And so there is really no
way of avoiding something like this.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
I did see that he was pretty quick to say
if he didn't resign, he would be asked to leave.
That's something that famously he did not do recently, with
Husking in particular, a would you.
Speaker 5 (04:22):
Have secked him if he hadn't offered to resign, Well,
hypothetical he did resign. No, I know that, but just
answer the question, well, would you have seck Well.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
He didn't meet the expectations of a minister, so was
it a secable offense? Well, I think give him how
clear we'd been on the first instance about why.
Speaker 5 (04:38):
Just answer the question. So this is why you get
yourself reputationally in so much trouble. Would you have secked him?
Speaker 3 (04:43):
Yes or no. I could say he didn't meet the
expectators I have ministers, so you would have secked him.
I didn't need to because he.
Speaker 4 (04:49):
Resigned, and he copped a lot of criticism for that,
and he eventually had to walk it back after days
of bad media coverage on that one. But it was
ultimately untenable. I mean, there is no way that he
could have said anything else than he would have been
sacked if he didn't resign. He did caveat by saying
that there would be a short investigation because New Zealand's
(05:10):
employment laws dictate that the reasons around firing somebody is
a little bit more stringent than other countries in the world,
so an investigation would have been needed, but as the
Prime Minister said, it would have been short and he
would have been fired.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Moving on to another big story. You can only describe.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
The debate about debudy Maldi's suspension as chaotic.
Speaker 6 (05:32):
Why don't you put your brain into gear, get some
words in your mouth and sat debating.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
You can only keep your head buried in the colonial
sands of time for so long.
Speaker 7 (05:45):
Having had the first two minutes, he's never shut up
ever since.
Speaker 8 (05:49):
I say, two members of the government gets an absolute scrap.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
What did you make of the debate?
Speaker 4 (05:57):
Well, unfortunately I was watching it from up here in
Awakland because I was at the radio awards with you
hard Luck on the front page. You're always the winner
in my mind, now stop it. But it was watching
from Afar, watching Parliament TV. You did get a sense
of the emotion in the room. I haven't heard heckling
like that in some time, and if you're hearing it
on the internet live stream, it's probably about ten times
(06:19):
louder in person. And the assistant speakers had to stop
the debate a number of times because of the heckling. Now,
ultimately the sentence passed down by Parliament, and it's important
to say that parliament, because it was a vote by Parliament,
not the government. Was that they would be suspended for
twenty one days, that is Rawdi Waititi and Debbie Natti
Warepacker with seven days for Hannah Rapati might be clark.
(06:42):
But the opposition are affuming about this because they say,
although it is a vote of parliament, it was the
government parties that were the only one in support of
the twenty one days So therefore is it really a
vote of parliament if only the government parties are supporting
it and everybody else is in opposition. And that's the
lingering question here. But there were no surprises as to
how it played out in the House. I mean, Winston
(07:04):
Peters was had a bit of a shameful episode talking
about this quote unquote scribbles on Araudi Whiteity's face. And
this comes from the man that is talking about upholding
parliamentary standards and how those standards have been slipping. And
I think that he needs to take a good look
in the mirror and ask himself who is it that's
letting these standards slips, because something like that, despite the
context of what's going on, is not acceptable in the House.
Speaker 7 (07:29):
The Mari Party are a bunch of extremists and Middle
New Zealm and Middle New Zealm and the Mari world
has had enough of them. In fact, in the pole,
in the in the last pole, the last twenty four hours,
the one that the one on the cowboy had who
(07:49):
hates colonialism, the one that's shouting down there, well, the
scribbles on his face, the god that got half theself.
Oh Hangman's nick.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Can't point of it. Well, it's both sides as well.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Aytt held up a noose at one point, which was
pretty out there. And like you say, Peters was the
one decrying the lack of standards in the House only
a few weeks ago. I guess the C word is
crossing a line, but scribbles is okay.
Speaker 4 (08:16):
Well, I mean according to Winston Peters that must be
the case. I mean it's very offensive. And imagine if
it was a Pakihart politician saying it, you know, there'd
be no end to the headlines. I mean, Winston gets
away with quite a lot just because of the fact
that he's been around for a long time, and people
tend to say it's just Winston being Winston, but I think, yeah,
Rahwiti has done some things in the House that have
been very unparliamentary, as has Debbie referencing what is alleged
(08:39):
to a being the gun signal or the gun hand
gesture that she made it, David Seymour that she denies making.
That you look at the footage, make up your own mind.
All of these things are very unparliamentary, so you just
need to really take a good look and you can't
accuse other people of letting down the standards if you
yourself as so often being the one that is letting
them down yourself.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
What's the harshest punishment anyone's ever faced in terms of suspensions?
Do you reckon? It's fair?
Speaker 4 (09:07):
It's a tough one, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
It's tricky because you don't want to make a precedent.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
But also twenty one day.
Speaker 4 (09:12):
Twenty one days, Robert Muldoon got three and it was
Robert Muldoon. You know, twenty one days is a long time.
But from the Privileges Committee, well, i should say the
National Act and New Zealand first members of the Privileges Committee.
But essentially their line was that they tea party Marty
have consistently time and time and again broken protocol, breached
the privilege of not just the House but of the
(09:34):
Privileges Committee. And something needed to be done. It couldn't
just be a slap on the wrist, or else it
would continue happening. So twenty one days was a shot
across the bow. I mean that shot probably punctured the
bow because it's more than just that. It's actually something
that's severely going to impact Tea Party Marty. But at
the end of the day, you know, twenty one days.
But I guess the bright side to this, as if
(09:55):
you could call it, that is for the next two
weeks parliament's on recess, so it doesn't really matter anyway.
It just essentially means there's one sitting week of Parliament
where they're not going to be there. And frankly and
Chris Bishop has made this point. TI Party Mary's absence
in the House has been noted. They're absent a lot,
so it might not even amount to being that much
of an issue for the House. There other MP's are
still there, they can still vote on things, and they
(10:17):
can still give speeches. It's just that the three MP's
or the two MP's by that time won't be able
to be physically present.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Do you reckon it was worth it for Tipati Marti though,
because it was the Hakka heard around the world, it
grabbed international headlines.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
That has to mean something, doesn't it.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
And quite frankly, a punishment this severe is only going
to embolden their supporters.
Speaker 4 (10:46):
Well, I mean, the downside is the fact that they
don't get paid for twenty one days. But I would
imagine if you're TI Party Mari, I mean, you have
the coffers of your political party and that could be
dug into to supplement the pay over that time. But
you know, cost benefit and analysis on this one, how
much money would it take to get a pr strategy
that was as far reaching as what Tea Party Marty
(11:07):
was managed to do. I mean, I was in Peru
a couple of days after it happened for the EPEC
summit and people there were talking about it, you know,
and that's just sort of publicity that you can't buy.
So on balance, if you're a Tea Party Marty strategist,
you'd be saying this is victory.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
So in amongst all this chaos, we've had a couple
of poles that are slightly contradicting TV and z's. One
us Varian Research poll gave it to the coalition last
week about twelve hours later are in Z's read research
Pole went in the other direction, Labor Greens into putty
Maori would have enough to win together.
Speaker 6 (11:44):
National is down two points on thirty four percent, a
NOBS result after a NOBS budget, Labor takes a bigger four,
down three on twenty nine no new points, with still
no new policies. The Greens, though, after releasing its alternative budget,
jumps up too points to twelve percent. The ACT Party
meanwhile slides down one now on eight percent. But look
(12:06):
who's on the up. New Zealand First now nick and
neck with Act on eight.
Speaker 8 (12:10):
Percent right, So we have got National in this poll
on thirty point seven points. That's down two point two
on our last poll in March. Labor has jumped ahead
of Nationals, so they're sitting on thirty three point two.
That's a slight increase of zero point nine. New Zealand
First is coming. They have bumped up one point nine.
That puts them on nine point one points in this poll,
(12:33):
while ACT has fallen two point eight down to six
points six points. Now the Greens and to Party Marti
they are both up. The Greens are up one point
six points to eleven point six while to party, Marti
has nudged up zero point five to five point five points.
Of course, that's just above that five percent three Shold
needed to return to parliament.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
First of all, isn't this a bit of a sign
that political polls this far out from an election are
a bit of a crack.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
Yeah, And what there's design to do is give a
bit of a flavor of the electorate at that point
in time. So the fact that things jump around isn't
that surprising, the fact that we're in an MMP environment
and the two results were actually relatively close, I mean
they mirrored each other exactly the opposite way. But what
it does show there were some levels of consistency in there.
One of them was the Green Party. People actually liked
(13:21):
their alternative budget. I mean that's said. It lumped us
with eighty eight billion dollars of new taxes forty four
billion dollars of new debt, but you know, people like
the offering that it was free GP visits and a
universal basic income for university students and people on the benefit.
And Choe Swarbrick is probably seen through a lot of
the noise and she'll be happy with these numbers, and
it also shows that Winston Peters is riding high. I mean,
(13:43):
if you look at where Winston usually is at this
point in the electoral cycle, it's way lower. I mean
we're looking at two or three percent. Now he's at
eight and rising, and we're still eighteen months out from
an election. Winston's vote tends to rise the closer we
get to the election. Now he's not shackled with the
burden of being deputy Prime minister, expect to see campaign
Winston well underway.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
And looking at these numbers, neither side is really pulling
ahead in a massive way. It all feels pretty even
at the moment. Do you see either of the main
parties breaking out in a big way, being able to
gather on their own or is it going to be
a really tight race next year?
Speaker 4 (14:21):
No, I don't think that's going to happen. I think
we saw that with Jacinda Ardern once extraordinary circumstances with
the COVID nineteen pandemic and this sort of rally around
the flag mentality that happened at the same time. Unless
there is a major national disaster and Chris Luxon knocks
it out of the park or he really fumbles the
bag I don't think we're going to see something like that.
I think we've really starting to as a country mature
(14:43):
into MMP and the way that it works. And that
is a big question for Chris Hipkins because he's looking
at Tea Party Marty right now. A lot of people
do not like Tea Party Marty. They have their supporters.
But if you're a left leaning voter, there is polling
I've seen from David Farrier that suggests that if you're
a right leaning voter and you're national voter, you tend
to like the likes of Winston Peters and David Seymour
(15:04):
even though you're giving your vote to the NATS. On
the other side, if you're a labor voter, you tend
to not like Chloe Swarbrick very much, and you really
don't like Debbie Nadi Wapacker and at Awiti Waitititi. So
he's going to have to deal with that going forward.
And I think Matthew Houghton in his column on Friday
made similar points about the idea that at some point
Chris Hipkins is going to have to make a call
(15:24):
about who potentially would be his deputy Prime minister. Would
it be Debbie, would it be RAUDI, would it be
Chloe or would it be Matama? And I think there
are a lot of voters that would look at that
and say that's not my cup of tea. But if
you're looking at the other side and you've already seen
three years where the coalition government so far has held
it together, there hasn't been anything. You know, there's been
wobbles along the way, but there hasn't been anything too
(15:46):
majorly in terms of bust ups between the big three.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
Do you reckon Chris Hipkins has the chops?
Speaker 4 (15:51):
Yeah, yeah, I do. I think that he's a good communicator.
I think that he's a good leader. It takes a
special kind of politician to be able to lead the
opposition in its first after government. There has been relatively
little infighting. Even if there is, we haven't heard about.
It is a really good sign for him. And he's
very good in the House. He has all the markings
of a prime minister, and he was a prime minister
(16:12):
for about six months. He probably chomping at the bit
together a long.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
Ago this time.
Speaker 2 (16:16):
And Jason, we're halfway through this term of parliament. How
do you think it's gone so far? And do you
have any predictions for the second half of the year.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
Yeah, well, I think if you're looking at it from
Chris Luckson's perspective, you'd be probably optimistic about how it's
been so far. I mean, I think one of the
great things that the Prime Minister was able to do
was this coalition agreement. I think it's one of the
great political master strokes that we've seen in some time.
Getting three parties around the coalition table was an absolute doozy.
(16:45):
And the fact that he's also allowed those coalition partners
to continue to be their individual parties. We're not seeing
some gray lump of a politician that David Seymour has become,
not stepping outside the line, afraid of saying something that
might offend the people that hold the Cabinet manual very tight.
He's still David Seymour, He's still got his personality in
(17:05):
the scene with Winston Peters, and we see that reflected
in the polls. I mean, there's a reason, as I
was saying before, Winston Peters is still sitting at about
eight percent, where in other years it's been closer to two.
He's been allowed to be Winston and Luxon has allowed
him to be Winston because he knows when we come
to the next election, he needs to form a coalition
and he needs to have the numbers across the House,
not just within national Thanks for joining us, Jason anytime.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzed Herald dot co dot nz. The Front Page
is produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is
also our sound engineer. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to The
Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts,
(17:55):
and tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.
Hilda.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. The divided
nature of our politics has been spotlighted once again. A
fiery debate has seen Tabatti Mouldi's leaders suspended from Parliament
(00:25):
in the harshest punishment ever handed down to a politician.
It was a vote made along party lines, with the
government parties voting in favor of the Privileges Committee recommendations.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
And the Left bloc voting against it, and.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
That split was highlighted once again by two polls with
conflicting results showing who will win next year. Today on
the Front Page, we're joined by Newstalk z B political
editor Jason Walls to discuss the latest in politics, starting
with a scandal that has hit the Prime Minister's office.
(01:03):
First off, Jason, a staff investigation found the PM's former
deputy Chief Press Secretary, Michael Forbes, allegedly recorded audio of
sessions with Wellington's sex workers. Christopher Luxen was understandably fuming
when he fronted media last week about it. He said
there'd be a deep dive of investigation into the questions
(01:24):
raised by the scandal.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
I have to say my sympathy is with the women
who raised these allegations and were made to feel unsafe
due to the actions of this person. I do want
to acknowledge and thank the staff and the beehive in
the Parliament who have worked alongside this individual and understandably
have found the news upsetting and distressing, and I'm committed
to ensuring that they have all of the support that
they need. I have zero tolerance for any behavior that
(01:49):
makes women or anyone feel unsafe, and this individual's conduct
fell unacceptedly short of the standards that I expect from
our people.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
What questions do you think this raises?
Speaker 4 (02:01):
Well, the number one question is why was the Prime
Minister's office not informed that there was a police complaint
laid against somebody that was applying for a job in
the prime Minister's office. The Deputy Chief Press sect is
an important role. They have access to a lot of information.
They're sorting out how the government communicates with the public.
So it's obviously of paramount importance that somebody like that
(02:22):
can be trusted. And the fact that this wasn't elevated
a as we now understand to then Police Commissioner Andy
costa and then he was not able to give it
to the beehive. Suggests that something has gone really wrong
in the system here. The importance is that the Prime
Minister's office needs to know about every part of a
staff member that is applying for their office, because it's
(02:42):
about safety of the information. I mean, it's not about
the character of the person per se, but it's about
if any bad actors are able to get any leverage
on somebody that works in the Prime Minister's office, then
that could be used for purposes which are not advantageous
for the country. We could put it that way. So
of course a's big issue that have been raised because
of the fact that the Prime Minister's Office was not flagged.
(03:04):
This issue was not flagged with them. Now it wasn't.
It was never elevated the police. It was a complaint,
no charges were laid. It's important to make that distinction.
But still the fact that there were people within the
government that were aware of the serious nature of the
complaint and that did not get passed onto the Prime
Minister's office, it shows that there has been a lapse
in the system.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
To say the least, these types.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
Of scandals have the potential to be quite damaging for
the party leader involved. Look at the Labour Party summer
camp sex assault cases one example. Do you think this
will have some kind of blowback for National or the
Parliamentary services.
Speaker 4 (03:38):
Well, what it will do is it distracts from the
message and it means that the things that the government
want to be talking about, they won't be able to
be talking about them because this scandal will follow them.
I think people will quite rightly look at this and
say it wasn't the prime minister's fault. He was never
informed of this. But the problem is it's a fault
somewhere in the government and the Prime Minister is ultimately
responsible for that. And anytime you have any sort of
(04:01):
allegations of sexual impropriety around politics or around politicians, it
immediately becomes a scandal. And so there is really no
way of avoiding something like this.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
I did see that he was pretty quick to say
if he didn't resign, he would be asked to leave.
That's something that famously he did not do recently, with
Husking in particular, a would you.
Speaker 5 (04:22):
Have secked him if he hadn't offered to resign, Well,
hypothetical he did resign. No, I know that, but just
answer the question, well, would you have seck Well.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
He didn't meet the expectations of a minister, so was
it a secable offense? Well, I think give him how
clear we'd been on the first instance about why.
Speaker 5 (04:38):
Just answer the question. So this is why you get
yourself reputationally in so much trouble. Would you have secked him?
Speaker 3 (04:43):
Yes or no. I could say he didn't meet the
expectators I have ministers, so you would have secked him.
I didn't need to because he.
Speaker 4 (04:49):
Resigned, and he copped a lot of criticism for that,
and he eventually had to walk it back after days
of bad media coverage on that one. But it was
ultimately untenable. I mean, there is no way that he
could have said anything else than he would have been
sacked if he didn't resign. He did caveat by saying
that there would be a short investigation because New Zealand's
(05:10):
employment laws dictate that the reasons around firing somebody is
a little bit more stringent than other countries in the world,
so an investigation would have been needed, but as the
Prime Minister said, it would have been short and he
would have been fired.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Moving on to another big story. You can only describe.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
The debate about debudy Maldi's suspension as chaotic.
Speaker 6 (05:32):
Why don't you put your brain into gear, get some
words in your mouth and sat debating.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
You can only keep your head buried in the colonial
sands of time for so long.
Speaker 7 (05:45):
Having had the first two minutes, he's never shut up
ever since.
Speaker 8 (05:49):
I say, two members of the government gets an absolute scrap.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
What did you make of the debate?
Speaker 4 (05:57):
Well, unfortunately I was watching it from up here in
Awakland because I was at the radio awards with you
hard Luck on the front page. You're always the winner
in my mind, now stop it. But it was watching
from Afar, watching Parliament TV. You did get a sense
of the emotion in the room. I haven't heard heckling
like that in some time, and if you're hearing it
on the internet live stream, it's probably about ten times
(06:19):
louder in person. And the assistant speakers had to stop
the debate a number of times because of the heckling. Now,
ultimately the sentence passed down by Parliament, and it's important
to say that parliament, because it was a vote by Parliament,
not the government. Was that they would be suspended for
twenty one days, that is Rawdi Waititi and Debbie Natti
Warepacker with seven days for Hannah Rapati might be clark.
(06:42):
But the opposition are affuming about this because they say,
although it is a vote of parliament, it was the
government parties that were the only one in support of
the twenty one days So therefore is it really a
vote of parliament if only the government parties are supporting
it and everybody else is in opposition. And that's the
lingering question here. But there were no surprises as to
how it played out in the House. I mean, Winston
(07:04):
Peters was had a bit of a shameful episode talking
about this quote unquote scribbles on Araudi Whiteity's face. And
this comes from the man that is talking about upholding
parliamentary standards and how those standards have been slipping. And
I think that he needs to take a good look
in the mirror and ask himself who is it that's
letting these standards slips, because something like that, despite the
context of what's going on, is not acceptable in the House.
Speaker 7 (07:29):
The Mari Party are a bunch of extremists and Middle
New Zealm and Middle New Zealm and the Mari world
has had enough of them. In fact, in the pole,
in the in the last pole, the last twenty four hours,
the one that the one on the cowboy had who
(07:49):
hates colonialism, the one that's shouting down there, well, the
scribbles on his face, the god that got half theself.
Oh Hangman's nick.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Can't point of it. Well, it's both sides as well.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Aytt held up a noose at one point, which was
pretty out there. And like you say, Peters was the
one decrying the lack of standards in the House only
a few weeks ago. I guess the C word is
crossing a line, but scribbles is okay.
Speaker 4 (08:16):
Well, I mean according to Winston Peters that must be
the case. I mean it's very offensive. And imagine if
it was a Pakihart politician saying it, you know, there'd
be no end to the headlines. I mean, Winston gets
away with quite a lot just because of the fact
that he's been around for a long time, and people
tend to say it's just Winston being Winston, but I think, yeah,
Rahwiti has done some things in the House that have
been very unparliamentary, as has Debbie referencing what is alleged
(08:39):
to a being the gun signal or the gun hand
gesture that she made it, David Seymour that she denies making.
That you look at the footage, make up your own mind.
All of these things are very unparliamentary, so you just
need to really take a good look and you can't
accuse other people of letting down the standards if you
yourself as so often being the one that is letting
them down yourself.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
What's the harshest punishment anyone's ever faced in terms of suspensions?
Do you reckon? It's fair?
Speaker 4 (09:07):
It's a tough one, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
It's tricky because you don't want to make a precedent.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
But also twenty one day.
Speaker 4 (09:12):
Twenty one days, Robert Muldoon got three and it was
Robert Muldoon. You know, twenty one days is a long time.
But from the Privileges Committee, well, i should say the
National Act and New Zealand first members of the Privileges Committee.
But essentially their line was that they tea party Marty
have consistently time and time and again broken protocol, breached
the privilege of not just the House but of the
(09:34):
Privileges Committee. And something needed to be done. It couldn't
just be a slap on the wrist, or else it
would continue happening. So twenty one days was a shot
across the bow. I mean that shot probably punctured the
bow because it's more than just that. It's actually something
that's severely going to impact Tea Party Marty. But at
the end of the day, you know, twenty one days.
But I guess the bright side to this, as if
(09:55):
you could call it, that is for the next two
weeks parliament's on recess, so it doesn't really matter anyway.
It just essentially means there's one sitting week of Parliament
where they're not going to be there. And frankly and
Chris Bishop has made this point. TI Party Mary's absence
in the House has been noted. They're absent a lot,
so it might not even amount to being that much
of an issue for the House. There other MP's are
still there, they can still vote on things, and they
(10:17):
can still give speeches. It's just that the three MP's
or the two MP's by that time won't be able
to be physically present.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Do you reckon it was worth it for Tipati Marti though,
because it was the Hakka heard around the world, it
grabbed international headlines.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
That has to mean something, doesn't it.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
And quite frankly, a punishment this severe is only going
to embolden their supporters.
Speaker 4 (10:46):
Well, I mean, the downside is the fact that they
don't get paid for twenty one days. But I would
imagine if you're TI Party Mari, I mean, you have
the coffers of your political party and that could be
dug into to supplement the pay over that time. But
you know, cost benefit and analysis on this one, how
much money would it take to get a pr strategy
that was as far reaching as what Tea Party Marty
(11:07):
was managed to do. I mean, I was in Peru
a couple of days after it happened for the EPEC
summit and people there were talking about it, you know,
and that's just sort of publicity that you can't buy.
So on balance, if you're a Tea Party Marty strategist,
you'd be saying this is victory.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
So in amongst all this chaos, we've had a couple
of poles that are slightly contradicting TV and z's. One
us Varian Research poll gave it to the coalition last
week about twelve hours later are in Z's read research
Pole went in the other direction, Labor Greens into putty
Maori would have enough to win together.
Speaker 6 (11:44):
National is down two points on thirty four percent, a
NOBS result after a NOBS budget, Labor takes a bigger four,
down three on twenty nine no new points, with still
no new policies. The Greens, though, after releasing its alternative budget,
jumps up too points to twelve percent. The ACT Party
meanwhile slides down one now on eight percent. But look
(12:06):
who's on the up. New Zealand First now nick and
neck with Act on eight.
Speaker 8 (12:10):
Percent right, So we have got National in this poll
on thirty point seven points. That's down two point two
on our last poll in March. Labor has jumped ahead
of Nationals, so they're sitting on thirty three point two.
That's a slight increase of zero point nine. New Zealand
First is coming. They have bumped up one point nine.
That puts them on nine point one points in this poll,
(12:33):
while ACT has fallen two point eight down to six
points six points. Now the Greens and to Party Marti
they are both up. The Greens are up one point
six points to eleven point six while to party, Marti
has nudged up zero point five to five point five points.
Of course, that's just above that five percent three Shold
needed to return to parliament.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
First of all, isn't this a bit of a sign
that political polls this far out from an election are
a bit of a crack.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
Yeah, And what there's design to do is give a
bit of a flavor of the electorate at that point
in time. So the fact that things jump around isn't
that surprising, the fact that we're in an MMP environment
and the two results were actually relatively close, I mean
they mirrored each other exactly the opposite way. But what
it does show there were some levels of consistency in there.
One of them was the Green Party. People actually liked
(13:21):
their alternative budget. I mean that's said. It lumped us
with eighty eight billion dollars of new taxes forty four
billion dollars of new debt, but you know, people like
the offering that it was free GP visits and a
universal basic income for university students and people on the benefit.
And Choe Swarbrick is probably seen through a lot of
the noise and she'll be happy with these numbers, and
it also shows that Winston Peters is riding high. I mean,
(13:43):
if you look at where Winston usually is at this
point in the electoral cycle, it's way lower. I mean
we're looking at two or three percent. Now he's at
eight and rising, and we're still eighteen months out from
an election. Winston's vote tends to rise the closer we
get to the election. Now he's not shackled with the
burden of being deputy Prime minister, expect to see campaign
Winston well underway.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
And looking at these numbers, neither side is really pulling
ahead in a massive way. It all feels pretty even
at the moment. Do you see either of the main
parties breaking out in a big way, being able to
gather on their own or is it going to be
a really tight race next year?
Speaker 4 (14:21):
No, I don't think that's going to happen. I think
we saw that with Jacinda Ardern once extraordinary circumstances with
the COVID nineteen pandemic and this sort of rally around
the flag mentality that happened at the same time. Unless
there is a major national disaster and Chris Luxon knocks
it out of the park or he really fumbles the
bag I don't think we're going to see something like that.
I think we've really starting to as a country mature
(14:43):
into MMP and the way that it works. And that
is a big question for Chris Hipkins because he's looking
at Tea Party Marty right now. A lot of people
do not like Tea Party Marty. They have their supporters.
But if you're a left leaning voter, there is polling
I've seen from David Farrier that suggests that if you're
a right leaning voter and you're national voter, you tend
to like the likes of Winston Peters and David Seymour
(15:04):
even though you're giving your vote to the NATS. On
the other side, if you're a labor voter, you tend
to not like Chloe Swarbrick very much, and you really
don't like Debbie Nadi Wapacker and at Awiti Waitititi. So
he's going to have to deal with that going forward.
And I think Matthew Houghton in his column on Friday
made similar points about the idea that at some point
Chris Hipkins is going to have to make a call
(15:24):
about who potentially would be his deputy Prime minister. Would
it be Debbie, would it be RAUDI, would it be
Chloe or would it be Matama? And I think there
are a lot of voters that would look at that
and say that's not my cup of tea. But if
you're looking at the other side and you've already seen
three years where the coalition government so far has held
it together, there hasn't been anything. You know, there's been
wobbles along the way, but there hasn't been anything too
(15:46):
majorly in terms of bust ups between the big three.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
Do you reckon Chris Hipkins has the chops?
Speaker 4 (15:51):
Yeah, yeah, I do. I think that he's a good communicator.
I think that he's a good leader. It takes a
special kind of politician to be able to lead the
opposition in its first after government. There has been relatively
little infighting. Even if there is, we haven't heard about.
It is a really good sign for him. And he's
very good in the House. He has all the markings
of a prime minister, and he was a prime minister
(16:12):
for about six months. He probably chomping at the bit
together a long.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
Ago this time.
Speaker 2 (16:16):
And Jason, we're halfway through this term of parliament. How
do you think it's gone so far? And do you
have any predictions for the second half of the year.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
Yeah, well, I think if you're looking at it from
Chris Luckson's perspective, you'd be probably optimistic about how it's
been so far. I mean, I think one of the
great things that the Prime Minister was able to do
was this coalition agreement. I think it's one of the
great political master strokes that we've seen in some time.
Getting three parties around the coalition table was an absolute doozy.
(16:45):
And the fact that he's also allowed those coalition partners
to continue to be their individual parties. We're not seeing
some gray lump of a politician that David Seymour has become,
not stepping outside the line, afraid of saying something that
might offend the people that hold the Cabinet manual very tight.
He's still David Seymour, He's still got his personality in
(17:05):
the scene with Winston Peters, and we see that reflected
in the polls. I mean, there's a reason, as I
was saying before, Winston Peters is still sitting at about
eight percent, where in other years it's been closer to two.
He's been allowed to be Winston and Luxon has allowed
him to be Winston because he knows when we come
to the next election, he needs to form a coalition
and he needs to have the numbers across the House,
not just within national Thanks for joining us, Jason anytime.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzed Herald dot co dot nz. The Front Page
is produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is
also our sound engineer. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to The
Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts,
(17:55):
and tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!