Peter Dunne: Political Commentator on Luxon surviving a second leadership challenge, Chris Penk losing his portfolios

Time's ticking for National to rebuild itself as a united front after putting Christopher Luxon's leadership to the test a second time. 

The Prime Minister survived a confidence vote launched by Chris Penk - at yesterday's three hour caucus meeting in Wellington. 

He's now dumped Penk from his ministerial portfolios and the former Defence Minister has announced he'll quit politics in November. 

Political Commentator Peter Dunne told Mike Hosking Luxon should be commended for surviving the challenge, but a third one would be a stretch too far. 

He says this has to be the end of it through to the election, and all the sentiments about the party being “100% united” have to be demonstrated if National’s to come through this unscathed.  

Dunne was sceptical of the idea that Penk had launched the challenge to put himself forward for the job, saying he felt it was "a bit far-fetched", and that Penk was more likely testing the waters for others, namely Chris Bishop and Erica Stanford. 

"I don't think he necessarily was actively working with Bishop and Stanford, although he was clearly touting their cases," Dunne told Hosking. 

"[Luxon] can't really run a credible government without those two, so they have to be there, they have to be [kept] in senior roles, and they have to be seen to be treated as senior ministers." 

LISTEN ABOVE  

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Remaining questions out on pink Gate, was is national mortally
wounded or was that it was that a circuit breaker
if they are wounded, how badly. Peter Dunn knows all
about this. He's been there and done that, of course,
and he's back with that's Peter, Very good morning to
you from wandering Mike. You've got to give Luck some
credit for facing them down twice and winning, don't you?

Speaker 2 (00:19):
Yes, you do, but I think you know three times
has probably a stretch too much. So this has got
to be the end of it through to the election.
All the sentiments yesterday about where one hundred percent united
have now got to be demonstrated. In fact, if Nationals
to come through this unscaped.

Speaker 1 (00:33):
A lot of people critical of that press. I mean,
he did it first time round as well. He turns
up says something, leaves a lot of people critical of that.

Speaker 2 (00:40):
Are you no? I think that that in the circumstances,
if it opened himself up to questions given his capacity
for verbal gas, I think there were really risks that
that could have gone awrse. So I think he handled
that correctly. And I think that even making the pink decision,
whether you agree with him not by press stable was
probably the correct thing to do as well.

Speaker 1 (01:00):
What's your summation of what you think happened there? Because
I do not believe that Pink was wanting to be
the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

Speaker 2 (01:07):
No, I see, I've heard that theory. I think it's
a bit far fetched. I think he was the genuine,
slightly sort of John Boy Walton out there, you know,
sort of knew what had to be done for he
knew how to do it and sort of stumbled into something.
I don't think he necessarily was actively working with Bishop
and Stanford, although he was clearly touting their cases, and
I think in the circumstances a sort of political moaivity

(01:30):
just caught up with them.

Speaker 1 (01:31):
You go back to the let's involve Stanford and Bishop
in this in some way, shape or form, given their
role in this or whatever does luxe and he's got
to keep them close. This goes back to Clarke, etc.
Got to keep them close, and in keeping them close
you potentially negate future problems. Is that fair?

Speaker 2 (01:49):
I think absolutely correct. I mean, he can't really run
a credible government without those two, so they have to
be there. They have to be in senior roles and
they have to be seen to be treated as new ministers,
So no option there but to keep them closer.

Speaker 1 (02:03):
No, does this solve itself if they go to the
election and they get back as a coalition in the
second term. Do Luxon's problems go away if they travel well?
Or is Luxeon forever doomed in some way, shape or form.

Speaker 2 (02:17):
I've always thought that Luxeon wouldn't do two terms, that
sometime during the second term he would decide of his
own volition to move away. I think that's still the
case assuming they win reelection, and I think the question
then becomes how the transition is managed, and maybe what
we're seeing now at the first sort of stages of
that being played out pretty hampristedly. I agree, but I
think this is the jocking ing for what happens when

(02:39):
Luxon eventually moves on.

Speaker 1 (02:41):
In general terms, how damaging is this for national Do
you expect it to be this is it and we'll
move on, or this is going to hit them and
hit them hard.

Speaker 2 (02:50):
I think it will hit them. Whether it will hit
them harder, I think is an open question. But it
will certainly hit them in the short term, and a
lot will depend on how people behave out in the
elector one loose comment or one sort of ill defined
sort of moment could sink them. They've got to be
really tight and really disciplined from now and I think
that's going to be a challenge because you've got a

(03:11):
lot of MPs who'll be making miscalculation. Look, I'm doomed
whatever happens, So I've got to go out there and
make every post a winning post for me. And that's
the risk that they start campaigning for themselves rather than
the party.

Speaker 1 (03:23):
Right your expertise please on the opportunities party. No one
knows how a small party can suddenly rocket to prominence
more than you do with the worm. So last night's poll,
whatever they're at, is that enough? If we get two
or three of those, are they in or we still
can't say that.

Speaker 2 (03:40):
I think it's too early for this reason. I think
they've potentially peaked about a month or two two early.
If they were in this position sort of four to
five weeks out, you'd be much more confident about their
capacity to sustain that momentum through to the election. So
I'd rather wait until that point. But at the moment,
I think they're playing it quite well. I think they're
being very sorry about their options, which is correct. The

(04:02):
one thing they cannot afford to do, though, is get
ahead of themselves in terms of their aspirations. If they
are to be part of a government, then my very
strong advice to them to be will be to not
seek ministerial positions because they don't have the experience, but
to work on a confidence and supply basis. The problem
with all politicians, of course, is that are in those circumstances,
personal ambition often gets the best better of personal judgment.

Speaker 1 (04:24):
Good point. Are they filling a gap, a genuine political
gap in the landscape, or are they the recipient of
disdain and upset and misery from an electorate that's sick
of seeing what we're seeing.

Speaker 2 (04:36):
I think it's more the latter. Now having said that,
they do have some defined policies, but I don't think
they are well known or well understood. But I think
they are appealing at the moment because they're different. They're
the fresh faces on the block and they're not part
of the circus that's going on at present, and that
goes right across the house. I mean, you look at
the comments by Hipkins yesterday on who he would work with,
which sort of having promised a firm statement now becomes jelly.

(04:58):
So I think there's a public revulsion against this whole
current political environment, and that beneficiaries of that.

Speaker 1 (05:04):
Always enjoy your company. Peter Peter Dunn, political commentator for
me United future leader. Of course, reference to the worm,
if you weren't around or too young or whatever, is
famously the worm. They used to have the worm on
television in the Big debate. The worm went up and
Peter was in parliament, simple as that. Whill he was
already in parliament, but he got like six or seven MPs,
just like that very opportunity party. Yes, speaking of Hipkins,
So he's in Rhoda Rua yesterday he finally admits that

(05:28):
the public housing got out of hand, No kidding, there
are lessons to be learnt. Following the influx of people
into Rhode. Rua asked whether the city deserves an apology.
He couldn't say yes, He couldn't say sorry, And that's
his great archilles heel. He is so arrogant that the

(05:48):
best he can ever say, and he said it about
COVID as well. Well. Listens to learn we did our best.
We did our best. There are lessons to be learned.
He can never say sorry. He doesn't know how to
say sorry, he doesn't know how to show any level
of human and I think as the campaign goes on,
that's going to count against them.

Speaker 2 (06:03):
Seven So what was that? For? More from The mic
Asking Breakfast Listen live to News Talks at B from
six am weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio