Minor parties take centre stage

The five minor party leaders debated on TVNZ last night, and with a combined support above 40%, it mattered more than usual, writes Henry Oliver in today’s excerpt from The Bulletin.

Last night, an hour before the minor parties debate, a new 1News-Verian poll put the combined support of the non-National/Labour parties above 40% – compared to 31% at the last election and 15% three elections ago, as noted by RNZ’s Craig McCulloch. With Opportunity on 8% and holding the balance of power, and National and Labour still tied on 28%, the five leaders on stage could hardly be considered “minor”.

It also marked 30 years and a day since New Zealand’s first MMP election, when Winston Peters first held the balance of power. Lyric Waiwiri-Smith writes on The Spinoff today that the minor parties have gone “from sideshow to main act” – the battle between them "is no longer just a sideshow; it’s the whole contest.”

Qiulae Wong’s biggest opportunity yet

The debate was billed as the “Kingmakers’ Debate” and, yes, every party represented on stage will be crucial for either “major” party to form a government after the election; only Opportunity, the one party who has declared a willingness to work with either right or left bloc, is likely to truely take the role. 

The Post’s Henry Cooke called it “the biggest stage for Wong so far,” and she used it well. In the first segment (probably the most-watched) she explained her bottom lines, made clear her land tax policy remained a live goal despite not being a non-negotiable, and talked over Peters “with ease.”

When, according to 1News’s recounting of the debate’s six best moments, David Seymour tried to put her in her place by reminding the audience she hadn’t made it to parliament yet, she noted the 8% poll result from an hour earlier made that look “pretty promising.” Cooke writes the exchange “made him look petty.”

Peters said she had “never been here for five minutes.” “I have watched politics for the last 40 years, and that's why I’m here,” she replied, “because it hasn’t changed in all that time.”

Greens v Opportunity

Perhaps the sharpest exchange came when moderator Tova O’Brien asked what differentiated the Greens and Opportunity. Swarbrick said the Greens wanted to “actually change the Government.” 

Wong’s response: “Imagine how many of those most egregious things that have happened in the last three years the Greens could have stopped if they were willing to work with National.” 

Swarbrick: “And allow the vulnerable to be punched down upon.”

Cooke argues the fight revealed “how tactical – rather than ideological – those differences really are,” noting the only genuine policy disagreement was over public transport fares. Swarbrick told the media afterwards that Wong was “pandering” to Luxon.

The veterans

Seymour, RNZ notes, was “especially effective at carving out his own ground,” standing alone in backing drug testing for beneficiaries and defending the supermarket duopoly. Peters had a rougher night. He was “easily interrupted” and “did not manage to lace the grumpiness with the charm that usually makes it go down so easy,” Cooke writes. Wong challenged him over comments on unity and diversity, which she called “really dangerous rhetoric.” Asked whether diversity was good, four leaders raised their hands; Peters didn’t.

On te reo, Peters said it was “a treasure” but called compulsion “coercion,” complaining that te reo Māori names for new City Rail Link stations were confusing. “You poor thing,” Waititi replied with pitch-perfect delivery.

Peters also suggested Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan had told him privately that he wasn’t worried about being told to “go back to your own country” in the House. Xu-Nan told The Post their later conversation was condolences after his brother’s death, unrelated.

Other notable moments

The Spinoff’s live blog by Joel MacManus records Seymour and Peters splitting over the minimum wage – Peters wants it to rise with inflation, Seymour wants a freeze, and Peters predicted NZ First would win that argument. On drug testing, Seymour was the only leader to raise his hand in support; Swarbrick quickly responded: “so much for libertarianism.”

Wong and Seymour also clashed over donations: Wong was questioned about Opportunity’s plan to cap donations at $30,000 given her party’s own large donations. Seymour noted Opportunity was founded with a $3m donation from Gareth Morgan – the largest in New Zealand history – and said if Wong thought that corrupted a party, “then she is leading a corrupt party.”

Waititi, RNZ observes, delivered a more assured performance than in the first debate, excelling at focusing his message to Māori role voters, and claimed some credit for the Greens’ polling: “You’re welcome, Chlöe.”

Cooke flags one loose end: Wong has said she would call the party with the most votes and the party with the most seats – which could be two different people if an overhang shifts the numbers. She clarified afterwards it would be the person with the most seats, and still expected Luxon to pick up, regardless of any ruling out. But, Cooke writes, “someone will just have to give her his number.”