With eight days left until election day you’re forgiven for wanting the campaign to come to a close. TVNZ’s multi-party debate on Thursday night shows candidates may be feeling the same way.
“Gentlemen, let’s get into it.”
The term gentlemen may have been a bit kind of moderator Jack Tame, with it not taking long for the sniping to start.
“Look, it's been a long campaign and I can understand a lot of people may feel over it,” Act leader David Seymour began his answer to the question: why are the values of your party in the best interests of New Zealand? READ MORE: * The first big leaders’ debate, bar the PM * Campaign chairs get claws out over debate
Questions about coalitions came within the first five minutes with NZ First leader Winston Peters and Seymour asked if they trusted one another to be a stable coalition partner.
“As Jim Bolger said, and as Helen Clark said, and as the Labour Party was saying all the way to 2020, we can be,” Peters said.
“You’ve got to establish trust and this is not a very good start now.”
Seymour said the problem was he did not know what Peters stood for.
"He said he'd stick up for licensed firearm owners, sold them down the river, said he’d stand up for farmers, voted for James Shaw’s Zero Carbon Act, said he'd stop co-government, He Puapua was dreamt up under his nose even as Deputy Prime Minister he couldn't stop that.”
But as much as a Seymour-Peters tit for tat was expected, Green Party co-leader James Shaw also brought along his fighting spirit.
“If you're voting for the National Party, this is what you're voting for. So I would say that's pretty high risk,” Shaw said after the trust question was asked.
It was a similar line to what his co-leader, Marama Davidson, brought to the Newshub Powerbrokers debate – “do people trust Luxon to manage these two [Seymour and Peters] for real?”
Shaw continued to scratch the itch named David Seymour (commentary courtesy of panelist Janet Wilson) during the debate, calling him out on interruptions (“David, remember when I asked for your opinion? No, neither do I” and “I'm starting to realise that the people who can tolerate you are the real heroes here, you know that?”).
“Jack, do your job,” pleaded Peters as the pair squabbled over carbon pricing.
“If we are just squabbling over the ETS [Emissions Trading Scheme], we are losing everyone very quickly,” Tame interjected to bring the conversation back to the question asked on climate change (what is the one policy of your party that will reduce emissions the most?).
On the topic of co-governance Te Pati Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi gave a straightforward explanation, telling the public it was nothing to fear.
“These are Treaty rights. This is what te iwi Māori expect and it’s what our tipuna expected back in 1840 … and so this is ensuring that we are part of the discussion, because we haven't been.
“This country wasn't taken by force, this country was settled by consent, and ensuring that Māori have an equal voice at the table. Kohanga reo hasn't hurt anybody, kura kaupapa hasn’t hurt anybody, Whānau Ora hasn’t hurt anybody, a Māori authority is not going to hurt anybody but what we'll do is start to rebalance the setting.”
Both NZ First and Act are campaigning hard on race-based issues.
Act wants to redefine the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and have them agreed to by referendum saying the Treaty is not being implemented as intended.
“What we need instead is a clear statement by Parliament that the principles of the Treaty are what it actually says – that we have nga tikanga katoa rite tahi, or the same rights and duties, that's what it actually says,” Seymour pitched.
“What about Article Two?” Waititi interrupted. “The word is undisturbed, full and exclusive rights.”
Waititi said a decision on the Treaty would not be good for Māori.
“Not in a Western democracy, because that's the tyranny of the majority. You’re going to allow the majority to determine the outcome of a minority.”
Winston Peters said it had started out as a “certain thing”, but was now “elitist and extreme [and] ordinary Māori don’t get any say whatsoever”.
“What’s an ordinary Māori?” asked Waititi.
“I’ll tell you that because I was brought up with them,” Peters responded.
“This is absolutely a trampling of the mana of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which was an agreement to allow kāwanatanga to govern over their own people. Article Two was to ensure that we could govern ourselves, that's what rangatiratanga is, and to be treated as equals, that's the basis of the Treaty of Waitangi,” Waititi finished.
Parties were asked why people commit crime with both Shaw and Waititi landing on poverty, Peters saying because they had “criminal intent” and Seymour putting it down to poor literacy.
A discussion on immigration policies saw a sense of agreement with parties admitting the infrastructure, particularly housing, to support more immigration did not exist and this was a problem that needed solving.
Finishing on the economy and policies to help with the cost of living, parties were asked to raise their hand if they thought National’s tax plan was credible.
Zip.
Similarly, if they thought Labour's plan to remove the GST off fresh fruit and vegetables was credible.
Still nothing.
Seemingly both Waititi and Peters forgot they had a version of a GST-free policy themselves.
Up until the end of the debate NZ First’s website stated under its 2023 election policy list to “take GST off basic foods including fresh food, vegetables, meat, dairy and fish".
However, its party manifesto, which was published just as the debate was beginning, has changed that instead to secure a Select Committee Inquiry into GST off basic fresh foods.
“We must examine if this would deliver real benefits for taxpayers before legislating for it. We would want to ensure savings get to consumers before we support legislation to this effect,” the manifesto said.
The GST-free policy was scrubbed from its website later on Thursday night.
Te Pati Māori’s policy is to remove GST from all food.
“You’ve got Labour talking about bread and butter issues, but bread and butter is actually not part of their GST tax policy. So this is to ensure you give our people some integrity and some mana.”
Leaders were then asked what they had done recently to “calm the waters and encourage civilised debate”.
James Shaw said he “[tried] not to make it personal and I try to talk about the responsibility that we have as politicians to ensure that we are using language that isn't divisive”.
Seymour said Act “relentlessly put out policy ideas to solve problems … rather than constantly bickering over personality of which I agree, there's been too much from some people in this campaign.”
Winston Peters said he was actively campaigning on “not putting up with racism”.
“We hate this idea that this party can say to my right [pointing to Waititi], that they've got superior genetics, or a superior DNA, that's racism and we're not leaving off calling it out.”
Waititi hit back: “Using words like subhuman, apartheid, separatism, segregation, racist. Those are the words that are triggering and emboldening that type of behaviour.
“It's happened to one of our candidates just yesterday, and we will not tolerate it.”
Quick fire questions:
One policy of your party that you would kick yourself in the green room afterwards, if you didn't mention it already:
Waititi - Mana Motuhake policy.
Peters - full-scale inquiry into the response to Covid-19.
Shaw - free dental care for all.
Seymour - cut wasteful government spending.
As a politician, is it ever okay not to tell the truth?
Waititi - Never.
Peters - If you've got any brains, you will tell the truth because you'll be seen and found out, your body language will show it.
Shaw - No, I think integrity is critical.
Seymour - No, it’s not.
Finish this sentence: Climate change is …
Shaw - A huge risk to humanity. But it is also the greatest opportunity in at least a generation in order to give ourselves a more productive, cleaner, smarter economy.
Seymour - Something that we must manage very, very carefully.
Peters - Has been with us for millions of years.
Waititi - A human issue.
Have you ever voted for a party that is not the one you represent?
Waititi - Absolutely.
Peters - It’s a secret ballot.
Seymour - I'm happy and proud to say I've always given my party vote to Act but I have given my candidate vote to another candidate.
Shaw - I've only ever voted for the Green Party.
