The MMP system has faced criticism in recent elections, but some believe the 2026 election exposed it's shortcomings. 

Earlier this year, NZ Initiative Executive Director Dr. Oliver Hartwich did a deep dive into MMP and wrote a research paper titled "Unravelling MMP: How the 2026 election could break the voting system from two sides".

He joined Kerre Woodham to reflect on the research paper, and what this election tells us about the current system. 

LISTEN ABOVE

The MMP system has faced criticism in recent elections, but some believe the 2026 election exposed it's shortcomings.&nbsp;
Earlier this year, NZ Initiative Executive Director Dr. Oliver Hartwich&nbsp;did a deep dive into MMP and wrote a research paper titled "Unravelling MMP: How the 2026 election could break the voting system from two sides".
He joined Kerre Woodham to reflect on the research paper, and what this election tells us about the current system.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Dr. Oliver Hartwich: NZ Initiative Executive Director says 2026 Election shows flaws in MMP

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/845b8ccf-d82a-4e35-93e6-b4fc01648376/transcript

Well, isn't the taxpayer funded radio station the absolute epitome of all that is wrong with the public service? I'm not talking about their journos or producers. There are some excellent journos down the road trying to do some excellent work in extremely trying times. But boy, have they been let down by their masters, their paymasters in particular. 

Radio New Zealand's posted an unexpected and unbudgeted deficit of almost $12 million and is preparing to cut almost 60 roles instead of the 25 to 30 previously signalled. They're also expected to make another loss, another deficit of $7.8 million this year before they hope to return a balanced annual financial result in 2027/28. 

The board announced an independent review into its shock $11.8 million deficit after it said financial reporting during the year did not accurately reflect the true position of the books. In other words, the books bore no relation to the financial reality. Apparently, there is no evidence of criminality or fraud, which I think in a way is even worse. How on earth can you womble your way into a $12 million hole? How can you possibly be spending a million dollars more a month than you're taking in and not know? 

Again, everything that's wrong with the public service. Their CFO, Hilary Parker, made an abrupt exit from the building last month and that's when it was all uncovered. There'll be more on that down the track. RNZ board chair Brent Impey sounded brassed off and incredulous when he did the media rounds yesterday and this morning. 

IMPEY: Some of what I've witnessed here is inexplicable. I just cannot understand some of the issues around accounting treatment, the difference between personnel expenses being explained one way and being inconsistent with the payroll. It's, I've never seen anything like it before. 

HOSKING: Is it an accounting cock up, basically? 

IMPEY: It's two things. One is an accounting cock up, which can be fixed. They're one offs, they're not consistent. The second thing is the personnel costs, which are ongoing. 

That was Brent Impey talking to Mike Hosking this morning. How on earth does this happen? It's bad enough to have one numpty in charge of the books, but to have multiple numpties who don't know enough to ask questions or to recognise that they're spending more than they're getting. Is that a system failure? I am extremely concerned that there might be systems failures in other government departments. 

Remember the previous Auditor General John Ryan saying about the Covid spend up that some government department schemes might be good value for money, but there simply wasn't enough paperwork or information about the budgeting and the outcomes to determine that. There was no paper trail, so he couldn't offer an opinion as to whether it had been public money well spent or not. Look at the immigration disaster where people lie, where people cover up, where people keep wombling until they hope it gets better. Magically, somehow, they wake up and this disaster of their creation has magically disappeared. It's the equivalent of a three-year-old closing their eyes and saying, "You can't see me." Yeah, eventually you can. 

I don't set the alarm for 6am to go into work, earn my keep, pay my taxes for the fiscal philistines to squander it. There are some people who clearly should not be in charge of budgets of millions of dollars. I'd put myself at the top of the list. After that would be most members of the previous Labour government and right now RNZ's national's CFO. 

Do we have the resources, and do we need to do a check of other government departments? The only reason I'm perhaps being alarmist is that $12 million is a lot to lose in a year without even knowing you've lost it. And if it was just a one off, if you hadn't had the previous Auditor General going, "I don't know, the systems and the paperwork are so bad I cannot determine whether this was good value for taxpayer dollar." 

The RNZ result made me think of that. Then you've got immigration where you've got layers upon layers upon layers of numpties who either don't want to bring the minister bad news or don't even know that there is bad news until it's all too late. All of these departments are funded by you and me. You and me doing what we're doing now. It's our taxes. 

And the thing, one of the things that used to really ruck me up with the previous government was that there was no accountability for the money. It was just, "Oh well, bugger it, you know. Let's just, let's just get more taxpayer dollars. Doesn't matter. We don't have to earn it. We'll just get more." And you've had the bosses, the outgoing bosses at RNZ complaining about cuts to their budget. They shouldn't have even been in charge of the morning tea kitty when they didn't know where it was going. How dare they ask for more money when they don't even know how much they've got or haven't got. 

Those of you with understanding of running a business will be able to answer this question more than I, because is it a systems failure? Is it particular to one government department or is it a warning sign that perhaps we need to look at other government departments and make sure that their systems and accounting doesn't have any holes that suddenly appear when it's tens of millions of dollars too late? If you can pick it up in time, that's fine. If you can see that there's something wrong in the way you report or the way you account or the way you put one figure into one box and another into another. 

And I also just wonder if when I look at some really successful companies in New Zealand, hugely successful, they've started with one person or one husband and wife team. And then they've grown and grown and grown. And they've tended to stick with the people that they started off in business with, same accountants, same bookkeepers who grew into accountants. They stick with family. And is that because you can trust one another? You can march in and have a look at the books without having to go to HR and explain yourself or I don't know. And are there some businesses that don't want to grow? You could, but you choose not to because you want to maintain oversight over your business. Once you start having to trust that people are doing their job, then you really are dependent on them knowing what they're doing. 

So I'd be really interested to hear from those of you who run businesses. Is there any possible way to explain how you could not know that you were $12 million out of whack? Should there be at least a cursory look at the books in other government departments to make sure it's not systemic failure across government? And what do you do in your business? Once you get really big, how do you keep the oversight that's got you into the successful position you're in now? 

Well, isn't the taxpayer funded radio station the absolute epitome of all that is wrong with the public service? I'm not talking about their journos or producers. There are some excellent journos down the road trying to do some excellent work in extremely trying times. But boy, have they been let down by their masters, their paymasters in particular.&nbsp;
Radio New Zealand's posted an unexpected and unbudgeted deficit of almost $12 million and is preparing to cut almost 60 roles instead of the 25 to 30 previously signalled. They're also expected to make another loss, another deficit of $7.8 million this year before they hope to return a balanced annual financial result in 2027/28.&nbsp;
The board announced an independent review into its shock $11.8 million deficit after it said financial reporting during the year did not accurately reflect the true position of the books. In other words, the books bore no relation to the financial reality. Apparently, there is no evidence of criminality or fraud, which I think in a way is even worse. How on earth can you womble your way into a $12 million hole? How can you possibly be spending a million dollars more a month than you're taking in and not know?&nbsp;
Again, everything that's wrong with the public service. Their CFO, Hilary Parker, made an abrupt exit from the building last month and that's when it was all uncovered. There'll be more on that down the track. RNZ board chair Brent Impey sounded brassed off and incredulous when he did the media rounds yesterday and this morning.&nbsp;
IMPEY: Some of what I've witnessed here is inexplicable. I just cannot understand some of the issues around accounting treatment, the difference between personnel expenses being explained one way and being inconsistent with the payroll. It's, I've never seen anything like it before.&nbsp;
HOSKING: Is it an accounting cock up, basically?&nbsp;
IMPEY: It's two things. One is an accounting cock up, which can be fixed. They're one offs, they're not consistent. The second thing is the personnel costs, which are ongoing.&nbsp;
That was Brent Impey talking to Mike Hosking this morning. How on earth does this happen? It's bad enough to have one numpty in charge of the books, but to have multiple numpties who don't know enough to ask questions or to recognise that they're spending more than they're getting. Is that a system failure? I am extremely concerned that there might be systems failures in other government departments.&nbsp;
Remember the previous Auditor General John Ryan saying about the Covid spend up that some government department schemes might be good value for money, but there simply wasn't enough paperwork or information about the budgeting and the outcomes to determine that. There was no paper trail, so he couldn't offer an opinion as to whether it had been public money well spent or not. Look at the immigration disaster where people lie, where people cover up, where people keep wombling until they hope it gets better. Magically, somehow, they wake up and this disaster of their creation has magically disappeared. It's the equivalent of a three-year-old closing their eyes and saying, "You can't see me." Yeah, eventually you can.&nbsp;
I don't set the alarm for 6am to go into work, earn my keep, pay my taxes for the fiscal philistines to squander it. There are some people who clearly should not be in charge of budgets of millions of dollars. I'd put myself at the top of the list. After that would be most members of the previous Labour government and right now RNZ's national's CFO.&nbsp;
Do we have the resources, and do we need to do a check of other government departments? The only reason I'm perhaps being alarmist is that $12 million is a lot to lose in a year without even knowing you've lost it. And if it was just a one off, if you hadn't had the previous Auditor General going, "I don't know, the systems and the paperwork are so bad I cannot determine whether this was good value for taxpayer dollar."&nbsp;
The RNZ result made me think of that. Then you've got immigration where you've got layers upon layers upon layers of numpties who either don't want to bring the minister bad news or don't even know that there is bad news until it's all too late. All of these departments are funded by you and me. You and me doing what we're doing now. It's our taxes.&nbsp;
And the thing, one of the things that used to really ruck me up with the previous government was that there was no accountability for the money. It was just, "Oh well, bugger it, you know. Let's just, let's just get more taxpayer dollars. Doesn't matter. We don't have to earn it. We'll just get more." And you've had the bosses, the outgoing bosses at RNZ complaining about cuts to their budget. They shouldn't have even been in charge of the morning tea kitty when they didn't know where it was going. How dare they ask for more money when they don't even know how much they've got or haven't got.&nbsp;
Those of you with understanding of running a business will be able to answer this question more than I, because is it a systems failure? Is it particular to one government department or is it a warning sign that perhaps we need to look at other government departments and make sure that their systems and accounting doesn't have any holes that suddenly appear when it's tens of millions of dollars too late? If you can pick it up in time, that's fine. If you can see that there's something wrong in the way you report or the way you account or the way you put one figure into one box and another into another.&nbsp;
And I also just wonder if when I look at some really successful companies in New Zealand, hugely successful, they've started with one person or one husband and wife team. And then they've grown and grown and grown. And they've tended to stick with the people that they started off in business with, same accountants, same bookkeepers who grew into accountants. They stick with family. And is that because you can trust one another? You can march in and have a look at the books without having to go to HR and explain yourself or I don't know. And are there some businesses that don't want to grow? You could, but you choose not to because you want to maintain oversight over your business. Once you start having to trust that people are doing their job, then you really are dependent on them knowing what they're doing.&nbsp;
So I'd be really interested to hear from those of you who run businesses. Is there any possible way to explain how you could not know that you were $12 million out of whack? Should there be at least a cursory look at the books in other government departments to make sure it's not systemic failure across government? And what do you do in your business? Once you get really big, how do you keep the oversight that's got you into the successful position you're in now?&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: The RNZ blowout epitomises the public service's problems

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/a69ad3f5-9c28-4135-9f16-b4fd01843dbd/transcript

And here we are, right back where we started on Friday. I hope you had a wonderful weekend and you got along and voted. We went as a family on Saturday and there was a sausage sizzle at the local school and it was all very straightforward. Showed my voter card, my smart voter card on my phone and in we went and all went off and did our own thing really.

I think there was one clear winner on Saturday night and that would be the pollsters. They got it bang to rights all the way through. I took some screenshots of polls leading into election night just to see and they were pretty much bang to rights. People are fed up with the two main parties, Opportunity was always going to get in and too close to call between the right and left blocks.

The second winner for me on the night and I don't want to blow smoke up his designer jeans, but I have to say Mike and Barry and Maurice and the team who put together the election night coverage did a fantastic job. And I guess that's what it comes down to is that ultimately election coverage is a radio job. There's nothing to see until the leaders' speeches and that's much, much later in the night. In the absence of anything to see, if you're a television channel, you manufacture things to see, like panels. And then everybody sits there and has their reckons and fills in time until the votes start coming in and the seats start coming in thick and fast.

And really, I think the telly coverage is all a bit forced and manufactured. Radio with pictures, we watched it on YouTube. The ads were annoying, yes, but then you could always sign up to be a YouTube premium watcher, but the ads were a little bit annoying, but I much preferred that because if there's one thing Mike Hosking knows how to do, it's radio. And that's what election coverage should be, on the radio really. And I think no discredit to the presenters of the different television shows, they were just doing what they do best, standing there and trying to present a show, but when there's nothing to see, what is the point of television?

Anyway, however you saw it or heard it or what have you, the results are in and none of us is really any the wiser as Chris Hipkins put it so beautifully.
Tonight New Zealand has spoken. It may take us a little bit longer to figure out exactly what it is that you've said.

Brilliantly put. Winston Peters also sounded a note of caution. He's not his first rodeo, is it? Hey?
A lot of people are getting carried away right here, right now about what the outcome means. It'd be very wise if they held their counsel for a bit longer.

Well, quite. Qiulae Wong, Opportunity, they were the story of the election really.
You have voted to change New Zealand politics for good. I cannot express how grateful I am to all of you that have put your faith in us tonight.

And the Greens, they had a good night.
Tonight you made history. This is the biggest result the Green Party has ever achieved. And tonight we are also seeing an historic Green wave in the Māori seats and Māori support.

Yes, and before Chloe starts throwing her weight around about rigging elections, maybe she should have a long, hard look at just how the Greens did so well. And for Christopher Luxon, yet again it was a win that wasn't a win that was almost a win but was also a loss.

Some of the hardest phone calls tonight have been to colleagues and friends who look unlikely to make it back into Parliament. And in particular, I'm thinking of our most incredible deputy leader, Nicola Willis. I want to thank you, Nicola, for your dedication, for your determination and for your years of service to our party and this great country of ours. I'm also thinking of my friends Paul Goldsmith and Gerry Brownlee, Melissa Lee, Nancy Lu and Vanessa Weenink who've also missed out tonight.

So yes, where do we go from here? They'll cobble together some sort of government depending on the results. We're waiting for the specials that do tend to go left, but all of the pundits are saying it would have to be every single one of the specials would have to before anything would change. Probably National will cobble together a coalition that will be much the same as we had last time except they'll be just a little bit more demanding, I imagine New Zealand First and ACT because they've got a few more votes.

I did think Shane Jones was sounding very statesmanlike when he was saying people have said to him very, very clearly that they want less of the squabbling. People are fed up. And I think you can certainly look at the election, look at the results for the parties, look at the low voter turnout. Maurice Williamson had us all thinking it was the most amazing and the biggest and a record turnout.

Apparently the Electoral Commission got the numbers wrong on the website, but I was thinking, wow, well there you go, people are obviously really engaged in whatever side they want, they know they have to get out and vote. No. No. We did have a very, very good rate of enrolment, 93.7% of the population were registered to vote, but only 74.6 chose to cast their vote. Voter suppression again, Chloe cool your jets. There were 3.7 people enrolled to vote.

The fact that only 74.6% of them chose to cast a vote means that unless the voters were held at gunpoint inside their homes, there was no suppression of voting. How absurd is that? They just couldn't be asked. They were uninspired, completely and utterly uninspired by what the parties had to offer. Helen Clark has called for a thorough review into New Zealand's electoral system, looking specifically at campaign funding and disenfranchising enrolment changes. Should we look into whether vote splitting should be allowed? Should we go back to voting on the day? I don't think so.

I like the fact that people have to take it seriously and understand that there's an election coming up and they have to vote. They have to think about it. Campaign funding, well Opportunity benefited enormously from campaign funding. It was certainly ACT does a good job at getting money into the into the war chests, maybe. But the vote splitting, yeah, I don't think we're going to put up with having 130 MPs in Parliament, are we? Maybe we should be looking at that. But it's both sides that did it, both the left block and the right block. Te Pāti Māori started it, the Greens certainly benefited from it as referenced by Marama. Harry Mowbray, well a bit of thanks would be nice. You've had your moment in the sunshine.

I don't know. I think both National and Labour need a major refresh, a major refresh. They cannot rely on old party loyalties, they cannot rely on history. They have to make themselves modern and relevant, otherwise they will die. They will just become a footnote in history. Should both Chrises keep their jobs? It'll be hard to get rid of whoever leads the next government, very hard to get rid of somebody who is the Prime Minister, but I give the one who forms the government 18 months. I give the one who doesn't about enough time to clean out his desk. And which way should Opportunity go?

I'm kind with the pundits who think they should go on the cross benches and learn the ropes, learn where the loos are before they start throwing their political weight around.

LISTEN ABOVE

And here we are, right back where we started on Friday. I hope you had a wonderful weekend and you got along and voted. We went as a family on Saturday and there was a sausage sizzle at the local school and it was all very straightforward. Showed my voter card, my smart voter card on my phone and in we went and all went off and did our own thing really.
I think there was one clear winner on Saturday night and that would be the pollsters. They got it bang to rights all the way through. I took some screenshots of polls leading into election night just to see and they were pretty much bang to rights. People are fed up with the two main parties, Opportunity was always going to get in and too close to call between the right and left blocks.
The second winner for me on the night and I don't want to blow smoke up his designer jeans, but I have to say Mike and Barry and Maurice and the team who put together the election night coverage did a fantastic job. And I guess that's what it comes down to is that ultimately election coverage is a radio job. There's nothing to see until the leaders' speeches and that's much, much later in the night. In the absence of anything to see, if you're a television channel, you manufacture things to see, like panels. And then everybody sits there and has their reckons and fills in time until the votes start coming in and the seats start coming in thick and fast.
And really, I think the telly coverage is all a bit forced and manufactured. Radio with pictures, we watched it on YouTube. The ads were annoying, yes, but then you could always sign up to be a YouTube premium watcher, but the ads were a little bit annoying, but I much preferred that because if there's one thing Mike Hosking knows how to do, it's radio. And that's what election coverage should be, on the radio really. And I think no discredit to the presenters of the different television shows, they were just doing what they do best, standing there and trying to present a show, but when there's nothing to see, what is the point of television?
Anyway, however you saw it or heard it or what have you, the results are in and none of us is really any the wiser as Chris Hipkins put it so beautifully. Tonight New Zealand has spoken. It may take us a little bit longer to figure out exactly what it is that you've said.
Brilliantly put. Winston Peters also sounded a note of caution. He's not his first rodeo, is it? Hey? A lot of people are getting carried away right here, right now about what the outcome means. It'd be very wise if they held their counsel for a bit longer.
Well, quite. Qiulae Wong, Opportunity, they were the story of the election really. You have voted to change New Zealand politics for good. I cannot express how grateful I am to all of you that have put your faith in us tonight.
And the Greens, they had a good night. Tonight you made history. This is the biggest result the Green Party has ever achieved. And tonight we are also seeing an historic Green wave in the Māori seats and Māori support.
Yes, and before Chloe starts throwing her weight around about rigging elections, maybe she should have a long, hard look at just how the Greens did so well. And for Christopher Luxon, yet again it was a win that wasn't a win that was almost a win but was also a loss.
Some of the hardest phone calls tonight have been to colleagues and friends who look unlikely to make it back into Parliament. And in particular, I'm thinking of our most incredible deputy leader, Nicola Willis. I want to thank you, Nicola, for your dedication, for your determination and for your years of service to our party and this great country of ours. I'm also thinking of my friends Paul Goldsmith and Gerry Brownlee, Melissa Lee, Nancy Lu and Vanessa Weenink who've also missed out tonight.
So yes, where do we go from here? They'll cobble together some sort of government depending on the results. We're waiting for the specials that do tend to go left, but all of the pundits are saying it would have to be every single one of the specials would have to before anything would change. Probably National will cobble together a coalition that will be much the same as we had last time except they'll be just a little bit more demanding, I imagine New Zealand First and ACT because they've got a few more votes.
I did think Shane Jones was sounding very statesmanlike when he was saying people have said to him very, very clearly that they want less of the squabbling. People are fed up. And I think you can certainly look at the election, look at the results for the parties, look at the low voter turnout. Maurice Williamson had us all thinking it was the most amazing and the biggest and a record turnout.
Apparently the Electoral Commission got the numbers wrong on the website, but I was thinking, wow, well there you go, people are obviously really engaged in whatever side they want, they know they have to get out and vote. No. No. We did have a very, very good rate of enrolment, 93.7% of the population were registered to vote, but only 74.6 chose to cast their vote. Voter suppression again, Chloe cool your jets. There were 3.7 people enrolled to vote.
The fact that only 74.6% of them chose to cast a vote means that unless the voters were held at gunpoint inside their homes, there was no suppression of voting. How absurd is that? They just couldn't be asked. They were uninspired, completely and utterly uninspired by what the parties had to offer. Helen Clark has called for a thorough review into New Zealand's electoral system, looking specifically at campaign funding and disenfranchising enrolment changes. Should we look into whether vote splitting should be allowed? Should we go back to voting on the day? I don't think so.
I like the fact that people have to take it seriously and understand that there's an election coming up and they have to vote. They have to think about it. Campaign funding, well Opportunity benefited enormously from campaign funding. It was certainly ACT does a good job at getting money into the into the war chests, maybe. But the vote splitting, yeah, I don't think we're going to put up with having 130 MPs in Parliament, are we? Maybe we should be looking at that. But it's both sides that did it, both the left block and the right block. Te Pāti Māori started it, the Greens certainly benefited from it as referenced by Marama. Harry Mowbray, well a bit of thanks would be nice. You've had your moment in the sunshine.
I don't know. I think both National and Labour need a major refresh, a major refresh. They cannot rely on old party loyalties, they cannot rely on history. They have to make themselves modern and relevant, otherwise they will die. They will just become a footnote in history. Should both Chrises keep their jobs? It'll be hard to get rid of whoever leads the next government, very hard to get rid of somebody who is the Prime Minister, but I give the one who forms the government 18 months. I give the one who doesn't about enough time to clean out his desk. And which way should Opportunity go?
I'm kind with the pundits who think they should go on the cross benches and learn the ropes, learn where the loos are before they start throwing their political weight around.
LISTEN ABOVE

Kerre Woodham: Where do we go from here?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/9140ade9-d3ba-42ce-98c0-b4fc0174d14c/transcript

Well, the polls close at 7pm tomorrow, fat orange pens notwithstanding, and the votes will be counted. By the time I'm back here on Monday, we should have a fair idea of what the government for the next three years could look like. Notice I have used a conditional sentence: should, could, because really, who would know if you look at the polls? 

It's been a funny old election. At least it'll be interesting – the electorate battles, there are many of those that are going to be fascinating. I will be glued to ZB throughout the evening. This is one of the times when you think, oh, wish I could be working on Election Night. It's great being part of the team that brings you results. But the next best thing is being able to hear the fruits of everybody's hard work, so I'll be listening to ZB – I'll find that more interesting than the television coverage. 

And there were so many undecided voters, myself included. I think the most helpful comment came from a texter a couple of weeks ago who said, "rule out who you simply cannot vote for and tick the box for who's left", which is advice I've heard before, but that text came at a time when I needed to hear it. Are you still undecided? I think I'm clear now, pretty clear now. 

Are you still undecided? Have you changed your mind over the course of the election campaign? And when it comes to the election campaigns, who in your mind ran the best one? As far as I'm concerned, National and Labour ran terrible campaigns, absolutely awful. Boring, repetitive, uninspiring, negative, nasty. 

Losing Chris Bishop as campaign manager as punishment – never have the lines "this is going to hurt you more than it's going to hurt me" or "this is going to hurt me more than it's going to hurt you", never have they rung more true, as you dump Chris Bishop as campaign manager for being involved in the attempted coup. And that's cost National. I don't think Simeon Brown will be getting another call up. The National campaign was so bad that Harry Mowbray and Don Brash decided to put down the lattes and take over the campaign. And then core voting messages were a distraction. Split voting: no, yes, no, yes. To convince voters you're a strong and stable party, surely you need your supporters to be harmonising and singing from the same song sheet. So no, absolutely dreadful. 

Their coalition partner hasn't helped them either. ACT's been very sensible, they've learnt their lesson from the last campaign, but ew, Michael Laws, ew. But then Labour's coalition partners haven't helped them either. The Greens and Te Pāti Māori might have policies that their voters support and that they believe in and that they think will reduce the impact of gangs and the misery they wreak by engaging with the gangs. But good solid swing voters get mightily spooked by soft on gangs policies and Chris Hipkins had to come out all puffed of chest and steely of jaw to try and right the ship. 

No, the minor parties have run relatively good campaigns: ACT, the Greens, Opportunity, they've stuck solidly to their guns. They probably will get over, just. But for if you're a centre swing voter, it's been pretty uninspiring. 

When it comes to voting, are you pretty clear? Have you been clear all the way through? What was the pivotal moment of the campaign for you, or was it simply taking the advice of my texter: ruling out the parties you simply cannot, cannot bring yourself to vote for and ticking the box for what's left? 

Well, the polls close at 7pm tomorrow, fat orange pens notwithstanding, and the votes will be counted. By the time I'm back here on Monday, we should have a fair idea of what the government for the next three years could look like. Notice I have used a conditional sentence: should, could, because really, who would know if you look at the polls?&nbsp;
It's been a funny old election. At least it'll be interesting – the electorate battles, there are many of those that are going to be fascinating. I will be glued to ZB throughout the evening. This is one of the times when you think, oh, wish I could be working on Election Night. It's great being part of the team that brings you results. But the next best thing is being able to hear the fruits of everybody's hard work, so I'll be listening to ZB – I'll find that more interesting than the television coverage.&nbsp;
And there were so many undecided voters, myself included. I think the most helpful comment came from a texter a couple of weeks ago who said, "rule out who you simply cannot vote for and tick the box for who's left", which is advice I've heard before, but that text came at a time when I needed to hear it. Are you still undecided? I think I'm clear now, pretty clear now.&nbsp;
Are you still undecided? Have you changed your mind over the course of the election campaign? And when it comes to the election campaigns, who in your mind ran the best one? As far as I'm concerned, National and Labour ran terrible campaigns, absolutely awful. Boring, repetitive, uninspiring, negative, nasty.&nbsp;
Losing Chris Bishop as campaign manager as punishment – never have the lines "this is going to hurt you more than it's going to hurt me" or "this is going to hurt me more than it's going to hurt you", never have they rung more true, as you dump Chris Bishop as campaign manager for being involved in the attempted coup. And that's cost National. I don't think Simeon Brown will be getting another call up. The National campaign was so bad that Harry Mowbray and Don Brash decided to put down the lattes and take over the campaign. And then core voting messages were a distraction. Split voting: no, yes, no, yes. To convince voters you're a strong and stable party, surely you need your supporters to be harmonising and singing from the same song sheet. So no, absolutely dreadful.&nbsp;
Their coalition partner hasn't helped them either. ACT's been very sensible, they've learnt their lesson from the last campaign, but ew, Michael Laws, ew. But then Labour's coalition partners haven't helped them either. The Greens and Te Pāti Māori might have policies that their voters support and that they believe in and that they think will reduce the impact of gangs and the misery they wreak by engaging with the gangs. But good solid swing voters get mightily spooked by soft on gangs policies and Chris Hipkins had to come out all puffed of chest and steely of jaw to try and right the ship.&nbsp;
No, the minor parties have run relatively good campaigns: ACT, the Greens, Opportunity, they've stuck solidly to their guns. They probably will get over, just. But for if you're a centre swing voter, it's been pretty uninspiring.&nbsp;
When it comes to voting, are you pretty clear? Have you been clear all the way through? What was the pivotal moment of the campaign for you, or was it simply taking the advice of my texter: ruling out the parties you simply cannot, cannot bring yourself to vote for and ticking the box for what's left?&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: When it comes to voting, is it a clear choice?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/dc3e9be1-4fbb-4263-bf57-b4f901782b29/transcript

Dr. Oliver Hartwich: NZ Initiative Executive Director says 2026 Election shows flaws in MMP

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips