Mike’s Minute: It’s not crack, but a mature coalition instead

We have our first agree to disagree clause of this new coalition. 

First point to make - what a mature look it is. 

New Zealand First has invoked the clause, which is probably not the surprise. 

The surprise is that in previous coalitions this would be described as a crack. "Coalition cracks forming" was the headline from Newshub. Yet in 2024 if it is as it seems, it’s a clause, that's life and we move on. 

That is to the credit of Christopher Luxon, who stitched this thing together with the view of it holding long term. So far, so good. 

As regards who is right, it is to do with the ACT-led decision that the Covid inquiry will now be in two parts. Part one is the bit that’s on now, headed by Tony Blakely. They will finish their work and report in November. 

Then we get part two with a new chair, new commissioners and wider terms of reference. 

Now, if Brooke van Velden argues it's worth keeping the current inquiry because they are underway and stopping it would be wasteful, then I have an element of sympathy. 

Although it was a jack up from Labour, it will elicit some things that are of value. 

As much sympathy as I have for the wastage argument, I have more sympathy for New Zealand First, who on this question, are more right than ACT is. 

Blakely should never have been appointed and the terms of reference are a joke. It was classic Labour - stack the deck and pretend it’s a proper game. 

The stuff we desperately want investigated isn't part of the inquiry; vaccine procurement and efficacy and all the wider economic and social issues that we are still wading through. 

Personally, I'd like to see people called and compelled to turn up, but that is wishful thinking. 

The other bit is the second part won't report back until 2026, which is election year. Covid started in 2019 and the report is due seven years later? That’s not pace or progress. 

Act will have their reasons, but on this Winston Peters has read the mood better and I think ultimately is on the right side of it. 

But the fact he can invoke a clause and not spit the dummy is massive progress in the collegiality of a multi-party arrangement running the country. 

And the success of that is not to be underestimated. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
So as you've heard, we've got our first degree to
disagree clause of this new coalition first point to make.
I think it's important how mature does this look? I
mean New Zealand first has invoked the clause, which is
probably not a surprise if anyone was going to invoke it,
to be them the surprise. As in previous coalitions this
would have been described as a crack. Cracks are forming
in the government, angst would be growing, headlines would increase
in frequency. And yet in twenty twenty four, if it

(00:23):
is as it seems, it's a clause, that's life. We'll
move on. That is to the credit by the way
of Christo de Luxen, who stitched the thing together with
the view of it holding long term. So far so
good as regards who is right. It is to do
with the Act led decision. As you've just heard that
the COVID inquiry will now be in two parts. Part
one is the bit that's on now headed by Tony Blakeley.

(00:43):
They will finish their work and report in November. Then
Part two new chaired new commissioners, wider terms of reference
now it Bruk van Velden argues, and I think she did.
It's worth keeping the current inquiry because their underway and
stopping it would be wasteful. I've got an element of
sympathy for that. Although it is a jack up from labor.
It will some things that are of value. But as
much sympathy as I have for the waste to chargument,

(01:05):
I have more sympathy for New Zealand first, who on
this question are more right than actors. Blakely should never
have been appointed, and the terms of reference are a joke.
It was classical labour stack the deck can pretend it's
a proper game. The stuff we desperately want investigated isn't
part of the inquiry, vaccine procurement and efficacy, all the
wider economic and social issues. We are still wading through

(01:26):
that as we speak, with this crippled old economy of ours. Personally,
I'd like to see people called and compelled to turn up,
but that's wishful thinking. The other bit is the second
part won't report back until twenty twenty six election year.
COVID started in twenty nineteen. The reporters do seven years later.
That's not pace or progress. Act will have their reasons,

(01:48):
some of which you just heard, but Peter's on this
has read the mood better and I think ultimately is
on the right side of it. But the fact he
can invoke a clause and not spit a dummy his
massive progress in the collegiality of a multi party arrangement
running the country, and the success of that is not
to be underestimated. For more from The mic Asking Breakfast,
listen live to News Talk Set B from six am weekdays,

(02:11):
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.