spinofflive
Lan Pham with her trusty bike (Photo: Shanti Mathias)
Lan Pham with her trusty bike (Photo: Shanti Mathias)

PoliticsSeptember 18, 2023

Meet Lan Pham, the MP-in-waiting who loves native fish and hates politics

Lan Pham with her trusty bike (Photo: Shanti Mathias)
Lan Pham with her trusty bike (Photo: Shanti Mathias)

Freshwater ecologist Lan Pham leapfrogged a pair of sitting MPs to nab the sixth spot on the Green Party list, all but guaranteeing her a place in parliament. She tells Shanti Mathias why she’s trying to make the world ‘not so screwed’.

Lan Pham skirts around some rotting camellias on the footpath, checks the address on her clipboard and marches down a driveway. She knocks at the door: five raps, syncopated. “Hopefully someone will answer – I want you to have lots of content for your article,” she says. The last six houses she’s tried, this tag-along journalist trotting behind, have been empty. The door opens. Pham beams widely and starts talking.

Her opening is practised. “I’m the local Greens candidate running for this area,” she says. Then she tries to read the vibe. We’re in the well-off suburb of St Martins, part of the Banks Peninsula electorate she is standing in, so she might mention something about the tax study that revealed how 312 wealthy families pay much less tax than the average earner, or talk about the importance of protecting the environment for future generations. 

After a conversation with a tired mum who says she and her partner aren’t on the same page about who to vote for, Pham ticks boxes on the clipboard she’s brought with her, indicating weak support for the Greens. “I can’t imagine being in a relationship with someone who had different political values to me,” she says, shaking her head. At the house of a retired teacher who is sweeping the drive, she talks about the failures of imagination in National’s education policy. 

The teacher mentions a concern about Act having cabinet seats. “Oh, I know,” Pham says, her eyes widening, groaning a little bit. “It’s so close. We can’t let them win – we need your votes!” 

Lan Pham (Photo: Shanti Mathias)

Pham is confident and assured: after all, this isn’t her first campaign. The 37-year-old was elected to Environment Canterbury (ECan), the regional council, twice. She was the highest-polling candidate in 2016, even though she was running from the remote Raoul Island in the Kermadecs, where she was living at the time. For her second council run in 2019 she didn’t have to do door-knocking, she says, but she did anyway, because she enjoys it. Her demeanour is certainly friendly, dressed for the spring chill in boots and jeans, with an unobtrusive Green badge pinned to her colourful plaid jacket.

A few days after the door-knocking session, I meet Pham again on a grey Christchurch afternoon. Her bike, a slightly battered secondhand commuter that she bought at an op shop when she first moved to Christchurch, is parked outside bar Dux Central. Pham has her bike helmet and a tote bag from the Local Government NZ 2019 conference on the seat next to her. She shows me the calendar on her phone, blocked with events to go to in the weeks before the election, although she admits that were it not for the master Green campaign calendar, she’d be keeping track of everything on paper. She’s gained a new appreciation of the “party machine”, operating at a far bigger scale than when she was a local government representative.

After Elizabeth Kerekere left the Green Party amid controversy in April, the provisional list of candidates supplied by the party was reshuffled. It was fully confirmed in May, and Pham was at number six, above two sitting MPs. If current polling numbers hold, she’s essentially a shoo-in. “It sort of went from ‘I’ll give this a crack, this will be awesome’ to ‘oh my gosh, it’s really happening,’” she says, laughing. “I felt terrified, but a healthy terrified, because this is really big, it’s big for me and my family.” The list ranking has meant she could quit her job and focus on campaigning full time. 

Pham might be an MP in waiting, but she talks about the possibility carefully; it is both real and not-real to her. On one hand, she’s thinking about how strange it will be to live and work in Wellington again, walking through the “little pocket” of the parliamentary precinct only a few hundred metres from where she went to school at Sacred Heart and St Mary’s College. Pham is thankful to have extended family in Wellington for support; she’s pretty sure she’ll be the first MP of Vietnamese heritage (Gina Dao-McLay, also Vietnamese, is number 23 on the Greens list). But at the same time, she couches her political intentions in “mights” and “ifs”. Nothing is certain, after all, until the election is called. 

two women standing together in the sunshine, one is light skinned with brown hair and one is brown skinned and petite with black hair
Chloe Swarbrick and Lan Pham in 2017. (Photo: Finn Jackson)

The making of a Green politician

So how did a first-time candidate running for the Greens get such a plum position on the list? The party list is determined by Green members. After an initial application process, potential candidates are grilled by delegates to come up with a draft list. “It was so intense – I lost my voice,” Pham says of the interview stage. The list is finalised after it is voted on by all Green members.

Pham’s high position is a signal of the party’s priorities. With the retirement of Eugenie Sage, who also ran in Banks Peninsula, the party wanted someone in Te Waipounamu in an electable position to replace her, as almost all of the party’s senior MPs are from the North Island. The party also wanted to stay true to its environmental credentials, so Pham’s background as a freshwater ecologist was a good fit. 

That’s the ranking, then, but how did Pham, who professes to “hate politics”, end up running for parliament? It started with a political awakening more than a decade ago. 

Raised in the Brooklyn suburb of Wellington, Pham is the “second equal” – a twin – of six children, with an older brother, two younger sisters and a younger brother, and a twin sister. She exclaims when I tell her I have a non-identical twin sister too. “Twin life! I love the twin life.” Pham’s Vietnamese dad came to New Zealand to study during the war in Vietnam. At university, he met her Pākehā mum, of English and Irish heritage. Her mum was the primary caregiver, deeply involved in the community as a social worker and teacher, while her dad “worked literally night and day to put food on the table”. 

She was aware, vaguely, that her mother was a supporter of the Alliance and then the Labour Party, and during her childhood, refugee friends lived with their family. But as she describes it, she had a sense that decisions were being made elsewhere, by people who knew what they were doing. “I genuinely believed that the world was governed by these wise, all-knowing people that made really good decisions,” she says, sighing at the naivete. She remembers hearing Don Brash’s Orewa speech in 2004 and liking the idea that things should be fair, then coming home and telling her mum about it. “I remember her being like, ‘one day you’ll realise that that’s basically wrong.’” Her mum died soon after, passing away when Pham was 19. 

light reflecting off a tank and small fish lurking at the bottom
Inanga, a galaxiid fish whose numbers are in decline. (Photo: Finnbar Lee)

“It wasn’t until I was 24 that I learned to use my brain,” she tells me now, taking a sip of her soda with lemon and leaning against the bar’s green velvet seats, as ‘Wagon Wheel’ pipes tinnily through the speakers. By then, Pham had finished university – she studied at Massey in Palmerston North – and moved to Otago to take part in the Conservation Corps programme, which trained people to work in the environment. “Driving tractors, operating chainsaws, that kind of thing.” 

“It was the native fish, the freshwater critters, that got me going ‘hey, this is really cool!’” she says, lighting up. “I was meeting all these incredible native species that were just getting destroyed by trout predation, their habitat being bowled by forestry or farming intensification. I was like – how is this happening? How are there no laws to protect them?” 

She speaks with affection about the fish she studied, and expresses sadness that most people only encounter native galaxiid species when they’ve been fried into whitebait fritters. As she learned about the perilous state of the environment, “my whole idea about these wise people [running the country] was shattered.” She went back to university to get a masters in ecology; part of that process included presenting to a select committee on oil and gas drilling in Aotearoa’s exclusive economic zone. “A staffer emailed me saying ‘did you know that Eugenie [Sage] quoted you in parliament?’ and it made me feel – not awesome about myself but like, why isn’t there anyone else?” 

That sense of shattered ideals, that someone should already be doing something, has stayed with her in the years since. Pham realised that she was hungry for scale, to do something big picture that could make a difference. She started a group, Working Waters Trust, to work on community engagement around freshwater. “Lan was full of energy, a natural for connecting with people,” remembers Nicki Atkinson, who helped lead Working Waters and is “not at all” surprised that Pham ended up running for parliament. 

a woman in jeans and a coat speaking in front of an audience
Lan Pham speaks about freshwater issues to an audience in Mount Pleasant; ECan councillor Vicky Southworth sits on her right. (Photo: Shanti Mathias)

‘There are all these awesome projects on freshwater, but they’re just little bubbles,” Pham told an audience at a campaign event screening documentary Rohe Kōreporepo: The Swamp, the Sacred Place in Mount Pleasant, a suburb by the bike lane to Sumner beach. In a beautiful wooden hall, near a sign for the event pinned to the back of a piece of corflute advertising failed 2022 Christchurch mayoral candidate David Meates, Pham paces back and forth. She is explaining to the audience her frustration at seeing how freshwater was being damaged, but not being able to change the root cause. 

After stepping down from ECan, Pham thought she’d find a way to connect some of those bubbles together: she’d been appointed a freshwater commissioner, a new direction for the National Policy Statement on Freshwater under the principle of Te Mana o Te Wai. “I was like, goodbye politics! Hello decision making under that framework.” But then the Otago Regional Council’s bid to have every aspect of its regional plan considered part of freshwater – after all, liquid concerns trickle quite literally into everything – was rejected by the high court. Pham saw a vision of losing decades of her life to paper pushing, deciding what counted as water and what didn’t, over and over again. So she quit, and when she heard Sage would not be standing in this year’s election, she put her name forward for the Greens. 

a woman smiling in front of a graffiti wall
Pham is proud of her Vietnamese heritage and excited to be the first Vietnamese-heritage MP (Photo: Shanti Mathias)

Campaigning: hard work and spectacle

When I speak to those who have worked with Pham in the past, everyone mentions her energy. “On Raoul Island, she would organise dress-up parties and short film competitions, things that made it feel like we weren’t stuck on an island, away from everyone,” says Ben Ngapo, who volunteered with her at the time. Pham says the decision to run for ECan while working on a remote volcano was a little bit spontaneous. She and her husband Emerson were based on the island for 13 months, managing weed eradication on the biodiverse island and supporting the volcano and atmosphere research that takes place there. She campaigned from the island, which had a population of seven, with offbeat videos: in one, she places a pamphlet in a seabird nest and tries to go door-knocking. “Lan, you live here,” another volunteer says when she knocks on the door of her own house. 

“She’s quite zany in the way she campaigns,” says Atkinson, remembering a rap about freshwater fish.

It was on that remote island sanctuary that Pham started using the power of spectacle to direct attention to causes she cared about. In 2015, as climate marches took place around the world, Raoul Island’s entire population of seven turned out to protest. She put some photos online and was mentioned in The Guardian

Another moment of internet-based campaigning came a few years later, once she was an ECan representative, when she made a video soundtracked by Taylor Swift’s ‘Bad Blood’, featuring Pham and friends dancing under irrigators to make a point about freshwater contamination in Canterbury. Pham clutches a lilo in a verdant field, then goes on a date where a waiter with the face of then-environment minister Nick Smith pours her “100% pure” brown and muddy water while facts about water systems flash on screen. It’s very 2016, but it’s clear she’s having fun. She laughs at the “shoddy editing job” – she put it together herself – but is thoughtful about whether she might use TikTok or other video platforms herself in her campaign. 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Lan Pham (@lanpham.nz)

“I’m thinking about it,” she tells me later in the week at Christchurch Central candidate Kahurangi Carter’s campaign launch, at a cafe just off Moorhouse Avenue. But she has another spectacle to show me first. “Look at this from New Brighton today!” Pham opens her phone, which has a photo of her two kids, aged two and five, on the lockscreen, and flips through pictures of a sand carving on the beach reading “The Time is Now”, the Greens’ campaign slogan. “Miriam, you’re there too – how epic is this?” she says to the Greens general manager and authoriser Miriam Ross, who is duly acknowledged in the corner of the gritty artwork, as the law requires

“I’ve seen Lan a few times, she seems really cool,” says a young Greens supporter at the event, who lives in Banks Peninsula and has brought their dad along to try to convince him to vote for the party. People are nibbling at coconut cake and milling around the exposed concrete floor while a musician in a floaty dress sings into a microphone. Lots of people are wearing green. 

Pham waves at me from across the room a few minutes later. “I have to go to a candidate debate,” she says, frowning. “And I don’t want to, because this is so much fun!” She’s made fast friends with the Green Christchurch candidates, most of whom are running for the first time. Before she leaves, though, she has a few words of praise for the other candidates in Banks Peninsula whom she’ll be debating tonight. “I really like [Act candidate] Laura Trask, she has lots of energy – it’s just that she says that the Greens can’t pay for their policies, and she’s wrong.”

three women: lan, of veitnamese heritage on the left, sahra ahmed, of somalian heritage and wearing a hijab in he middle, and kahurangi carter, Māori and wearing a green dress on the right
Pham with Sahra Ahmed (centre), the Greens’ Christchurch East candidate, and Kahurangi Carter, right, who is standing in Christchurch Central, at cafe Ally and Sid. (Photo: Shanti Mathias)

What can an MP do?

Pham is dedicated and determined in the vision she presents to voters, but will being an MP offer the large-scale change she longs for?

She would like to be government, of course, she responds, taking the opportunity to condemn the direction the country might take under National and Act. “And New Zealand First – I need to remember to start adding that as well.” But if two terms of regional council have taught her anything, it is that change is possible, but also slow. “I don’t have any big romantic ideas that I will be able to influence this or that,” she says. “I’m after transformative change, but it’s still about the direction you’re taking, right? I’m going to do my best to make sure those changes are as big and in the right direction as possible. But I’m totally aware they might be little steps.” 

‘If you value The Spinoff and the perspectives we share, support our work by donating today.’
Anna Rawhiti-Connell
— Senior writer

She appreciates being able to “download” all her thoughts about political change with her husband. “He loves politics, and he can think about what to do when I want to just forget about it – it feels like a real team thing.” 

While her young children aren’t particularly aware of their mum’s job, and what the election might mean for them, the rest of her family are encouraging. “My dad’s excited, especially if I enter parliament as the first MP of Vietnamese heritage.” Her twin sister, who looks similar enough to Pham that they are sometimes confused, is happy for her but has a few reservations. “When my profile goes up, so does hers – there’s that look, when someone sees you, but it’s not you who they’re recognising.”

a hand with horange manicured nails holding stickers saying "tax the rich" and "I only date people who vote Green"
Stickers being distributed at a Green Party event in Christchurch (Photo: Shanti Mathias)

Pham’s former colleagues, at least, are convinced that she will be a good MP. “Lan is capable and pragmatic, which you need when you just have seven people living on an active volcano in the middle of the ocean,” reflects Ngapo. He resists the temptation to compare parliament to said volcano, but thinks that the qualities will transfer. “She’ll be a big advocate for parents and children as well as the environment, her personal style is practical and productive – she’ll be really approachable.” 

Her future colleagues are positive too. Greens co-leader James Shaw praises Pham’s experience on local government. “She is intelligent, hard-working, articulate and great with the public,” he told The Spinoff in a statement.

It’s difficult to write about Pham without overusing the word “enthusiastic”. She has the quality of wholehearted belief in what matters and what can be changed that is a characteristic of compelling politicians. This enthusiasm doesn’t distract from her clarity: I saw her speak at a School Strike for Climate protest in 2021 in Christchurch’s Cathedral Square, describing the necessity – and real possibility – of change for a, well, greener, future. The young crowd, many in school uniforms, loved it. 

a whole lot of kids holding signs at a protest
A 2021 climate strike in Cathedral Square, Christchurch, where Pham was a speaker (Photo: Shanti Mathias)

Pham has been burned out before. She describes weeks of sickness and bone-deep exhaustion before the 2019 local government elections, during which time she was hit by a car on her bike. “I literally bounced off the bonnet, it stopped just before hitting my head,” she says. She kept campaigning, feeling more and more unwell. Today, she holds onto it as a reminder to keep her priorities straight. “I’m going to give [parliament] everything, but I’m not going to give it everything everything, you know?” 

While door-knocking, Pham was sympathetic to voters who felt frustrated that more change hadn’t happened under Labour. When I talk to her, she’s still trying to puzzle it out: “What happens between dreaming and putting something on the table for the nation and getting elected – and then the actual reality of governing? Why is there such a disconnect there?” 

When she thinks about becoming an MP, it’s this that she is worried about, that her drive to make things happen will be overcome with a system that is resistant to big ideas. “Is it just that the system itself cannot support incredible change?” She thinks about the Covid response – rapid, effective, radical. “How can that translate to actually responding to our biodiversity and climate and inequality crises?” 

Pham comes across as optimistic and enthusiastic, certainly. But she says that this energy comes, in part, from knowledge of all the loss that has taken place already. “I basically assume it’s too late, that we have overstepped lots of planetary boundaries that it will be difficult to claw back on,” she says. “The evidence is piling up, but it’s not making a difference.”

Instead, it’s the possibility of being “not so screwed” that gives her hope. She’s come to politics because she’s had to learn, over and over again, that it’s changing people, not accumulating evidence, that makes a difference. “With politics, I want the pathway to what’s possible to be real and relevant to people. It’s about creating a better world, and why wouldn’t we want to do that?”

Keep going!
The first debate is on Tuesday evening at 7pm on 1News. This is not the set. Image: Gettya
The first debate is on Tuesday evening at 7pm on 1News. This is not the set. Image: Gettya

PoliticsSeptember 18, 2023

Let the debates begin

The first debate is on Tuesday evening at 7pm on 1News. This is not the set. Image: Gettya
The first debate is on Tuesday evening at 7pm on 1News. This is not the set. Image: Gettya

This week Chris Hipkins and Christopher Luxon meet in the first big TV debate of the campaign. How much is at stake, and do these things make a difference? Toby Manhire explores the meaning and history of leader debates in Aotearoa.

At some point after six on Tuesday evening, two men called Chris will arrive at TVNZ in central Auckland. Each joined by a small, carefully selected entourage – the head of press probably, a pollster perhaps, another aide or two – they’ll be directed to dressing rooms, welcomed and briefed by producers, chuck some makeup on, then as the clock ticks towards 7pm, they’ll be ushered through the warren of corridors to Studio 3 for the first leaders’ debate. If the pattern of recent elections is followed, they’ll still be processing a new poll just revealed on the 6pm bulletin. 

Two-and-a-half weeks into the nomadic whirr of an election campaign, it will be the first time – notwithstanding a polite nod at the BusinessNZ election conference or a chance encounter in a Koru Lounge – the two men vying for the role of prime minister will have come together since parliament rose.

Chris Hipkins and Christopher Luxon will be nervous, of course. It would be weird if they weren’t. More than a million people are likely to tune in to the debate, the first of four in which the men go head to head, many more eyeballs than have been trained on any part of the campaign so far. 

Chrises Hipkins and Luxon (Image: Archi Banal)

Luxon, a first-term MP, faces another new challenge. He has been keen to play down expectations. Hipkins is these days a parliamentary veteran, and thrives in that arena, but this forum is a new one to him, too. Having slumped in the polls, the pressure is on to shift the dial; try too hard and get it wrong, and he could just make things worse.

The debates would be “critically important”, said Hipkins in an interview with The Spinoff last month. In some sense their unique qualities were lessened by the modern reality in which even “a passing comment you make in a public meeting that someone films on their phone … could actually end up reaching a massive audience in a very short space of time”, but they nevertheless provided a rare chance “to tease out ideas a little bit more”. 

Trailing in the polls, Labour’s leader will be keen, desperate even, to prosecute further the question of National’s costings for its controversial proposed tax on foreign property buyers. Campaign chair Megan Woods believes the debates “are going to be really critical”. While there were “a lot of important things in this campaign”, this was “the most important audience, around a million people”. Her priority, unsurprisingly, was an “intense focus for a sustained period … about this $2 billion hole”.

Woods’ counterpart, Chris Bishop – himself a former award-winning debater – agreed, on the role the events played, at least. “They’re important, no doubt about it, clearly they’re important,” he said. “This is the opportunity to compare the two alternative prime ministers.”

Phil Goff and John Key debate on TVNZ in 2011. Photo: Supplied

Important, sure. But can they really make a difference, change the game? Geoffrey Craig, an AUT professor who has studied New Zealand campaign debates across decades as well as the international scholarship, has summed it up this way: “It is difficult to delineate specific effects of leaders’ debates but research has suggested that watching debates leads to increased voting rates among prior nonvoters; that debates do help inform voter knowledge about party policies on issues; and that non-aligned voters are most strongly influenced by the encounters.”

For Steven Joyce, who directed strategy on five National campaigns from 2005, the leader debates achieved real consequence “when they provide catalytic points where things that have been brewing for a while”. Speaking to The Spinoff on the publication of his memoir On the Record, Joyce offered the example of John Key’s 2011 “Show Me the Money” line at the Press debate in Christchurch – the first such event, held in the aftermath of the earthquakes. A fiscal hole proclamation that pre-dated Joyce’s own “fiscal hole” coinage, this was Key’s way of pointing a floodlight at Phil Goff over how Labour planned to make the numbers add up on promises including a capital gains tax and the removal of – sound familiar? – GST on fruit and vegetables.

“[Before] the Show Me the Money thing happened, we’d been banging away for some time about our concerns about what Phil Goff was promising, and feeling that it was very detached from the reality of where the country was, with the earthquakes and the GFC and so on,” said Joyce. “On the surface, we weren’t getting a massive amount of traction with that. But it was building. And then John made that line in the Christchurch Press debate …and: job done. I mean, John didn’t know that was going to have the impact it did, I don’t think, ahead of time. But it worked. And he had the smarts to stop there. It was done.” 

Other debates have conjured up evocative and encapsulating moments. In 2017, Bill English offered the “stardust” epithet for his opponent, Jacinda Ardern, in one debate, and the “I got up again” line in the other. Wind back to 1984, and the pugilist Rob Muldoon’s “I love you Mr Lange”, responding to Labour leader David Lange offering a post-election olive branch, was imprinted in history almost immediately – a scene that seemed to have sprung out of an Orson Welles movie. 

They can also operate as examinations – opportunities for audiences to assess whether challengers are up to the task. It was a bit like that in 1984, as it was in 2008. “Labour really believed Helen Clark was the ace, and she was so far ahead of John Key that she would wipe the floor with him,” reckoned Joyce. “And that didn’t happen. That was a test … that he passed.” We may look back on 2023 as a test of a kind, too. 

‘I love you, Mr Lange’: the 1984 classic. Via NZ On Screen

Key was aided in 2008 by a staffer called Nicola Willis, who took on the role of Helen Clark in preparatory mock debates. Key’s then chief of staff, Wayne Eagleson, would later say: “John had prepared, to be fair, but Nicola turned up and absolutely dealt to him. We had to stop the debate at one point because we thought we didn’t want John’s confidence to be knocked. If you look back to that election, the fact John was widely considered to have won that first leaders’ debate against Helen Clark was a really big deal, and Nicola played a big part in it.”

Another former National staffer, who is today an MP and campaign chair, Chris Bishop, pitched in in different years. He played the parts of both Phil Goff and David Cunliffe in training, he told The Spinoff, but he isn’t impersonating Hipkins in this campaign, and refused to reveal who was, only that the role was being shared by staffers and “people close to the National Party”.

As for Labour, who is playing Luxon in Hipkins’ prep? “Not a chance,” was Woods’ reply. “You’re not getting anything out of me.”

The 2008 campaign marked another change: a shift to the leaders of Labour and National debating one another, and one another only, leaving the other parties to scrap it out between them. 

Eagleson approached Helen Clark’s chief of staff, Heather Simpson, to propose they insist on taking part only in head-to-head contests. “Our view was that there were realistically only two prospects for prime minister, so they should debate each other, with the minor-party leaders having their own debate,” Joyce wrote in his memoir. “It was a bit cheeky, but we thought we’d give it a shot … It was John’s chance to look prime ministerial and to be measured up against Helen Clark.”

It worked. “I’m not sure why Labour agreed to our approach,” Joyce wrote. “In some ways it would have been easier for them if it was Helen Clark up against everyone else. She had far greater name recognition, and in a group she could rely on John being attacked by some ‘friendly fire’ from the likes of Act, while at the same time receiving grenades from Winston Peters and the Greens. She could have been positioned as above the fray. I think Labour believed Helen would wipe the floor with John on a head-to-head basis, backing her vast experience over that of the new boy.”

Last week’s Queenstown finance debate reveals how it benefits the smaller parties to share a stage. The event – which was not televised but widely streamed – pitched David Seymour and James Shaw alongside Grant Robertson and Nicola Willis. Seymour trumped the field for one-liners, while James Shaw impressed in the face of crowd antipathy. 

Act has repeatedly urged broadcasters to reconsider and worked to put their leader on the stage alongside those, at least, of Labour, National and the Greens. One senior party figure recently told me the existing approach was “cartelised”. The Greens have not actively lobbied of late, but have over the years sought a change – former co-leader Metiria Turei considered the status quo “anti-democratic” – and continue to believe the current system is not suited to MMP.

Woods said it wasn’t something they’d thought much about, that it was a matter for the producers. Bishop said: “We’re very comfortable with the status quo. The public are assessing two people only as alternative prime ministers. That’s been the tradition now for some years.”

In the minor league, meanwhile, legal challenges for a time became almost routine. Reflecting the perceived importance of the encounters, parties tasked their lawyers with getting their leaders on screen.

When Conservative Party leader Colin Craig found himself off the invite list for The Nation’s minor parties debate in 2014, he appealed to TV3. When that failed, he went to court, arguing that the decision to include parties with lower polling was arbitrary and unreasonable. An interim ruling left The Nation obliged to squeeze him in, and set producers on a madcap scramble around Auckland to find an extra podium.

In subsequent elections, Advance NZ and the New Conservatives have taken legal action after being given the cold shoulder by, respectively, Newshub and TVNZ. Both were unsuccessful – the networks have learned that the key is to lay down clear criteria for inclusion and stick to it. 1News is yet to confirm who will qualify for its multi-party debate, pending poll results to come.

Since the first televised election debate in 1969, an important question for producers, with varying degrees of input from the parties across the decades, is which format to choose. At podiums or around a desk? Just them, or with a studio audience, or town hall style even? Do you want a whooping, booing partisan crowd, or do you deliberately choose undecided voters? Questions from the audience,? If so, live or pre-recorded? Should a panel of pundits be bolted on the end? Should the questions focus squarely on policy, or is character fair game, too? How much knowledge can you assume of the audience at home?

One of the most memorable, controversial and wriggly innovations in format saw “the worm” appear on screens in debates across the late 90s and 2000s, with studio audiences live-marking the leaders’ contributions, which appeared in real-time as a line chart on the screen. 

The technology was blunt, unsophisticated and hardly enlightening. But it did have an impact. In 2002, United Future leader Peter Dunne’s commonsense contribution to a TVNZ debate saw the worm travel rapidly north. That, combined with a boost in media coverage it sparked, saw United Future surge and ultimately win eight seats.

That wasn’t the end of the worm, but after fresh controversy in 2011 election, it was put out to pasture. 

Peter Dunne and the worm device in 2011. Via NZ on Screen

Then  there is the question of who should host. When it was announced that Mike Hosking – a polarising, openly partisan figure who also happens to be an exceptional broadcaster – would return to moderate all the big TVNZ debates in 2017, there were protests from the Māori Party and from Winston Peters (as there had been from Labour’s David Cunliffe in 2014). A petition to have him replaced was signed by 76,000 people. It was not successful. 

This time around, Jessica Mutch-McKay hosts both 1News leader debates – reward for the political editor’s excellent performance in the second of the debates in 2020. The first is this week, the second on October 12, a couple of days before polls close, at a time when it is likely more than half of voters will already have cast their ballots. 

Patrick Gower will host Newshub’s debate on September 27, while the Press debate, livestreamed on Stuff, returns on October 3, moderated by the Christchurch newspaper’s editor, Kamala Hayman, and Stuff political editor Luke Malpass, and with an audience expected to number 200. Multi-party debates – absent the leaders of the two main parties – are on Newshub on September 21 (moderated by Rebecca Wright) and TVNZ on October 5 (moderated by Jack Tame).

‘If you regularly enjoy The Spinoff, and want it to continue, become a member today.’
Toby Manhire
— Editor-at-large

This week’s first big debate has found a hype man in the form of Richard Prebble. Writing in the NZ Herald, the former Labour minister and Act MP said tomorrow night could be “pivotal”. “Hipkins must win the Leaders’ Debate by a knockout. If he does so, National/Act will fall short,” he argued. But, “should Luxon surprise us and be judged the winner, he will achieve a landslide election victory.”

Hosking put Prebble’s prognosis to National MP Mark Mitchell last week, seeking assurances Luxon was not going to “get freaked out”. The ZB broadcaster said: “The cameras are on, it’s live, it’s an hour of primetime television. People are sitting down trying to make up their minds. Is he going to turn red in the face and get all bleurgh-bur-bur-blur and get beaten up, or is he better than that?” 

Jacinda Ardern, Mike Hosking and Bill English in the second 1News debate from 2017.

Not a chance, protested Mitchell, but Hosking was on a roll. “In a debate – and I’ve been there and I’ve done them – the pressure is immense. And if he can’t handle it he’s going to get eaten alive, and if he gets eaten alive you’re toast.”

Luxon would be fine, Mitchell said, he’d prospered in “corporate America, one of the most brutal and difficult environments”. As the spectre of the bleurgh-bur-bur-blur hovers, however, Steven Joyce’s advice to anyone walking into the studio-lit blaze of a TV debate is timely. 

“The key thing is to learn your stuff and then relax and be yourself,” he said. “Don’t get too freaked if you make a mistake. Because actually it’s not about that. Sometimes commentators get very excited if there’s a slip-up. If it’s a slip-up that catalyses something [the public] believe, then, yeah, that’s a big deal. But, most of the time, they know that politicians are human and they give them quite a lot of latitude.”

The shadow boxing is already under way. Asked last week on the campaign trail about the debates ahead, Luxon sought to manage expectations. “Chris Hipkins is a 20-year career politician. He’s a champion debater, he’s probably the best debater in our parliament, probably in New Zealand,” he said. “I haven’t even done a debate before. I lose a lot to my wife.” Hipkins countered in equally artful pseudo-generosity. Luxon would be a “formidable debater”, he said, given his preparation and high-calibre coaches.

Labour’s Deborah Russell popped up on social media, meanwhile, with a morsel some industrious researcher had presumably dug up – a clipping from the Christchurch Boys’ High School magazine of 1988, congratulating the winner of the prize for senior debating: CM Luxon.

Follow Gone By Lunchtime on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Politics