- Waerea, waerea, ko te whariki, ko to whariki. Ka tupea mai ki a piri, ka tupea mai ki a tata. Ka whiti rere a manu ki te paepae o Uenuku. Haumi e, hui e, taiki e! Captions by James Brown. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2023 Nga mate o matara, nga mate o tata, haere mai, haere. Tatou e pae mai nei ki te hahatanga o te whenua. Tihei-wa mauri ora ki a tatou katoa, and welcome back to the Hui. Tuatahi, e mihi ake ana ki te tuahine Oriini. Nana ano tatou to kaupapa i hautu i tera wiki, e te tuahine, tena koe. There are just under two weeks to go to election day. And if the polls are to be believed, our guest on the programme today will be the next prime minister Aotearoa. He, of course, is the leader of the National Party and joins me in studio now. Christopher Luxon, tena koe. Welcome. - Tena koe, Julian. Good to be with you. - Thank you so much for your time. I wanted to start with a comment you made. You said the National Party invented 'by Maori for Maori'. Why did you say something so obviously not correct? - Well, I mean to say we advocated for it. That was a misspeak in a debate, and I apologise for that. But what I meant by that was that we are great advocates of 'by Maori for Maori.' And I'm proud of what that government achieved in coalition with the Maori Party and some of the things that we've done for Maori over that long period. - So tell me, then, Maori will find that possibly ironic, given you're also ` the party, and you particularly ` are leading the charge to disestablish the Maori Health Authority. So how do those two things marry together, if you believe in 'by Maori for Maori'? - Yeah, look, I mean, we just have a difference around co-governance of public services. And what I mean by that is that actually they are national goods, national public services that are made available to all New Zealanders, Maori or non-Maori. We want the coherence of having a single public health system. But within that, it's not about` we have one governance of a public health system, but we should be able to have lots of multiple providers within that system. And so we... there's a big difference, I think, Julian, between us and the Labour Party, which is that we do believe in this notion of localism and devolution. And so we want to partner very strongly with Maori health providers, because they are the best to be able to get to the community and to be able to deliver those outcomes. - Why isn't the Maori Health Authority the best way to do that? - Well, the Maori Health Authority is another bureaucracy. It is actually a government that has a different philosophy, which is centralisation and control. Let's build another massive bureaucracy in Wellington. - Oh, OK. Let's actually... And you've seen the reports. It's been a pretty damning report. And we're against that. I mean, we are for improving Maori health outcomes, absolutely. We know we've got a hell of a lot of work to do in that space. But the way that we will do that is in partnership with Maori ` and local Maori health providers in this case, education providers, other ways that we go about it. - The argument, though, is that that's what they have done. I mean there was a recent example ` Ngati Pikiao Hauora has been established in the last few days to deal with the direct impact it can have on health outcomes in that particular community. The Maori Health Authority supported one in Kaitaia to be able to lead to greater health outcomes in that area ` again, led by and advocated by the Maori Health Authority, so they're doing that job. - Well, I'd just say to you, I think there's a different way of doing it. I think, as you've seen in education, you can have a single education system, one governance structure for the delivery of education in New Zealand, but you can actually have charter schools, you can have kura, you can have a whole bunch of scenarios and delivery of that education system. And the same ` we don't have to have a separate Maori education system to be able to deliver that either. So the issue that I react to is we have a government that has added 14,000 bureaucrats to Wellington, that's creating centralised bureaucracy, believing that's the way that you solve problems and improve outcomes. And it's not. The way you do it is you do it by deploying locally in a very devolved way. - Well, you just mentioned a separate education system. The kura kaupapa movement is going through a claims process at the moment. It has been very successful, led by Maori. But it's looking to establish a kura kaupapa commissioner that would act directly on behalf of the interests of kura kaupapa. So the argument is actually that you do need a separate and more Maori-organised, Maori-led organisation to lead separate education, to get greater outcomes for Maori. - Yeah, and I disagree because the Government hasn't been doing that. They've actually stopped charter schools, for example, which was innovation in the system to deploy education out to any community. - But just kura kaupapa, you would agree that's successful, right? - Yes, I do. Yeah, I do. But I don't think you need to create separate bureaucracy. And what we've seen with this government time and time again is that their answer is that they do everything centrally and in a controlled way, through Wellington. And we believe in a very different concept. It is a fundamental difference between the two parties. - It's an ideological argument. - It is, but actually I think localism and devolution fits a lot more consistently with principles of iwi, when I look at... when I sit down with iwi leaders across the country ` and I've been doing that over a number of months now, in small groups ` actually, there's good alignment there. And that's what worked successfully in the past under previous National governments. And I want to get back to that, and I want to make sure that we continue to do that very well. - But those devolved services, those health services, those education services like kura kaupapa, are arguing that's what they want and that's what they need, and under that structure they can be more successful. - I think they can be more successful if we power them up in a different way. But what I don't need to do is go create a separate bureaucracy in Wellington. - But how would you know more about it than those who are running the kura kaupapa? - I'd also say look at the Maori Health Report that we've just seen. It's a pretty damning report. - One year, Chris. - Very damning. Not sure what it's doing. Not sure where it's going. - To be fair, one year. - Very poor processes. Not great. So not a great start. But again, my aversion is to actually, why would we create two bureaucracies? I'd sooner take that money and actually deploy it and actually get those outcomes. - But you do think that you know more about kura kaupapa and how to run kura kaupapa or those Maori health agencies more than them. - No, I don't. I don't. - But that's what you're arguing. - No, no, but what I'd say to you is I'm not prepared to start two bureaucracies. I think we can have one set of governance over the delivery over public services, one governance system for public services, and within that, you can have innovation within it. And you need to have innovation within it to actually deploy those services out to communities, not just Maori, but non-Maori as well. - Sure, Maori and Pacific Island rates are lower in terms of outcomes and equities. - Absolutely. And you know what the sad thing is, Julian? Every` Over this last six years, those health outcomes haven't improved for Maori or non-Maori. And actually, when you talk to the Maori Health Authority, they're unlikely to improve in the next five years. - They certainly didn't improve in the previous health system, that you want to go to. They certainly didn't improve under the previous health system, which you are advocating for now. - And they haven't improved in the Maori Health Authority's` - That's correct, though, isn't it? It did not improve under the previous` - I think there was a lot of improved outcomes. - Where? - If I look at Maori now not at school, if I look at Maori attendance at school, it's a real problem in New Zealand at the moment, right? It's terrible. The number of Maori kids graduating out of high school. - OK, come to health, then. Where have they improved in health? Maori death rates, bowel cancer, rheumatic fever. They haven't improved at all. - There was good improvements over a National government, over that nine-year period around things like rheumatic fever, by setting targets and actually being able to go after those targets and make sure we deliver those outcomes. But what I'm just saying to you is we wanna power up the delivery from Maori health providers into the community big time. But I'd sooner take the money out of a bureaucracy building in Wellington and actually put it out to the front line to deliver those services in a way that's much more targeted. - Even though the Maori Health Authority ` again, to come back to that ` was established to deal with the inequities in the health system, your ideological focus is to say that it won't get the outcomes, even though those on the ground are saying that it will lead to outcomes eventually? - It hasn't got any outcomes. It's a year into it. - To be fair, it's only been a year. - No, no, I got that. I've got that. But what I'm saying to you is a year in, a lot of money going in, to build bureaucracy, rather than money that actually could be going out to improve Maori health outcomes. I appreciate it's a different way, and it's different from how this government's doing it. But when I look at this government, it has spent 80% more in government spending. It spends a billion dollars more a week, and it hasn't delivered outcomes for Maori or non-Maori. Crime, health, education. - I see why you want to make this a current-government argument. But this is what people on the ground and researchers are saying will work. And that's not what you're listening to or advocating for. All the research says that this will work. - Yeah, and we come through a values base to say we believe in localism and devolution, and we believe in powering up community organisations, iwi organisations, Maori education, health providers, do the lot. But we want one coherent governance of public services, and within that, we can have, certainly, innovation, to be able to deliver and deploy services so that we get results. I am obsessed on results and outcomes, and I see a government that focuses` - Even though the research and the researchers and the academics and the GPs in the Maori health service are saying the outcomes will be achieved under the current system, you're still saying that your way's better. - I think we can power up Maori health providers and do a good job. Yep. - Let's change tack a little bit. Is race an issue in this election? - I think it's been made an issue, if I'm really honest with you. - By whom? - I don't think this is a big issue for New Zealanders, if I'm honest with you. The biggest issue by far is the cost of living, whether you're Maori or non-Maori. The second biggest issue is crime, whether you're Maori or non-Maori. - Who has made race an issue in this election? - I'd just say to you, I think` I've seen today and yesterday, I've seen Chris Hipkins come out, and he wants to actually make it about something very different, and that's because he's in a very negative frame of mind, and he's wanting to create fear and stoke a lot of fear, and I don't think that's a really good thing. - That was obvious in the leaders' debate, that that issue came up. But he's not the one that's made race an issue in this election campaign. Surely you can see that, right? - There are different` - The coalition partners that you will have to work with to go into government have made race an issue. - I'd just back it back a little bit. You know, and this is my frustration. I've had this conversation with both Chris Hipkins and Jacinda Ardern, which is actually that the issue that's causing frustration for people is this word co-governance, right? And essentially what's happened and why I'm so frustrated with this government is that they got an absolute majority, an absolute majority three years ago. And when I go back and look at Treaty settlements, for example, that was a case where Jim Bolger and Doug Graham actually had some courage, and they took their case to the New Zealand people as to why they needed to right wrongs, and they got people to buy into it. And yes, there were people on both extremes who would say we should never have done Treaty settlements, and others say we should never have... you know, we never got enough. But the point was they took the country with them and they made the case and they spent their political capital for it. And instead, what's happened is the word's been taken out of one context which was well understood and well supported, as it was under Chris Finlayson and the previous government ` that's what I want to continue doing ` and it's been put into the context of the delivery of nationalised public services, and that's something I don't support. - I'm not trying to cut you off. All I would say is that process was established actually in the late '80s, when Labour was in government. - Sure, but what I mean is it got operationalised. I'm proud of what got operationalised in that nine-year period of that National government. - I do want to talk more about the Treaty actually after this. And I look forward to talking more with you about National Party policies, but also the Treaty after this. Stay with us. We have more with the National Party leader Christopher Hip` Christopher Luxon. Sorry! That was almost a Freudian slip. Chris Luxon with us after this short break. - Auraki mai nei koutou ki ta tatou Hui. E mihi ana ki a koutou katoa i tenei wa. This is The Hui, with the leader of the National Party, Christopher Luxon. I want to talk about the Treaty, and in particular one of your coalition partners ` potential coalition partners if you are to form a government, the ACT Party ` is seeking a referendum on the Treaty, which will be of concern to this audience of Maori. So let's remove all doubt. Will you commit now here on The Hui that a referendum on the Treaty will not be held under your prime ministership? - Yeah, it's not our policy, and I think it's actually divisive, and so that's why we don't support it. - OK. But you can guarantee under your prime ministership there will not be a referendum on the Treaty? - That's our position. As leader of the National Party, that's what I've got to say. That's not what I've got to say. That's what I believe, as I don't think that's helpful. I think it is divisive and it's not something we're supportive of. - OK. I know it's your policy. - Yeah, yeah, yeah. - And you can see where I'm going here. You know, the question is fairly clear. If you are to be prime minister, you're the one ultimately that will make the call. - I think a referendum on a name change of the country ` Aotearoa New Zealand ` is something that you'd go forward with, but I personally don't think there's a need for us to change the name right now, either. But that's our position. We don't think it's helpful. We're not supportive of it. We think it would be more divisive. - OK. And so do you also see, then, a conversation or indeed a review of things like Treaty principles as being similarly divisive? - Yeah, well, look, we've had a set of Treaty principles that we've interpreted and worked with over the last almost 40 years. It's quite a technical issue about the application of it into legislation within the Parliament. That is something that I'd be open to hearing different views about, but it's not something we've been considering. What I am more focused on, as you well know, is cost of living and the economy and how we actually get better outcomes for Maori, and that's what it's gotta be about. - What are the Treaty principles? - We've got kawanatanga, we've got rangatiratanga, and we've got equality under the law ` Article 1, 2 and 3. - OK. That's a little bit... - Equal... - One is equity, which is, given the conversation we've just had on health` - In Article 3, all citizens have equal protection under the law, Maori and non-Maori. - OK. But you mentioned rangatiratanga. What does that mean? What does that look like if you were to become prime minister? - Well, for me, what that means is exactly what we were doing in the last government, which was essentially saying, we acknowledge that we need to work in partnership, that obviously that's a well-established concept, a well-established Treaty principle, clearly. I think the Treaty gives us a lot of good things in this country. We should be very proud about it. It's been a process working our way through it, but it's something that's very inspiring as a document, for all New Zealanders. But it's exactly what we've been talking about, which is, you know` and we've seen it in the context of Treaty settlements all the time. Maori having control and ownership and influence over the management of their own local natural resources in the context of Treaty settlements, in partnership with district or regional councils, as we've been doing, is fantastic. That has worked incredibly well in New Zealand, I think. I think we've got better outcomes as a consequence of that. Where you and I disagree is actually, then, as we go to Article 3 and think about the provision of national public services, that's where I think those services are available to all New Zealanders on a basis of equality, and the delivery of those services can be done through local community providers and iwi providers and health providers and Maori, but that's different. - I don't necessarily think I personally disagree. I think this is the argument that many actually in the field would talk about, because when they talk about rangatiratanga, they always say a means of achieving rangatiratanga is equity ` not equality, right? Equity. Equity in distribution of resource. Equity in delivery of outcomes. Equity, for example, in policy. So let's talk a little bit about policy, then. How will your tax cuts achieve equity, particularly for Maori, say, with average wage? - Yeah. So, if you look at it, an average wage earner in New Zealand would be $50 better off a fortnight under us with our tax relief plan. What I've decided to do is that actually in a cost-of-living environment that we're all going through at the moment, and the fact that, you know, we've got a government that frankly, I don't think, has looked after low- and middle-income New Zealanders well, I am targeting them with tax relief, because I want them to keep more of their own money in their pocket to spend and to save as they see fit. And that helps Maori or non-Maori, frankly. - But you said New Zealanders, right? - Yes. - What is the Maori average income? - It'll be lower than the average income across New Zealand. It'll be about $62,000, is it? - $44,800. - So just above minimum wage. - I'm not trying to trap you. - No. - I just want to make sure that we understand when we talk about average wage and when we talk about all New Zealanders, there are differences. - Julian, let me be clear. I fully understand that there are massive differences between Maori outcomes and non-Maori outcomes, whether you look at health, education, wealth, economy, home ownership, everything, right? I get it. But the question is, now, I'm a little bit tired of the conversation. I want outcomes and I want delivery. And I have sat there watching a government for six years that hasn't delivered for Maori or non-Maori, and I actually want those outcomes changed. But the way we do that is actually we've gotta build a much stronger economy, because actually that is the thing that enables us to afford the public services we want for Maori or non-Maori. - No, I understand the point. The reason why I raise the point about wages and in particular one-third of Maori who earn under 30K, I mean, how much better off will they be under your government and your tax cuts, and how will that in any way, shape or form address the inequity? - Yeah, so, essentially what you've got is, just so you understand the tax plan, the minimum wage is ` essentially what you're saying now ` is the average median wage for Maori, full-time working Maori, is essentially the minimum wage. With that comes a whole bunch of other entitlements and/or provisions that will continue. If you think about accommodation supplements and other entitlements that happen through our welfare system. - But not public transport. You're ditching that. - For sure. - Not free ECE for under-2s. Not $5 prescription fees. - No, but actually we are gonna deliver family boost, which is actually helping families ` 130,000 families who earn under $180,000 who have early childhood costs ` we're gonna give the money directly to them. Up to $75 a week, $3900 a year. And that is really important, because actually for low- and middle-income earners, that's something that's gonna help them tremendously. So just because we've got it's not the Labour Party policy of delivering for 2-year-olds, we've got a better mechanism, we believe, to get the money to people to support them with their childcare costs. And likewise on public transport, I'd just say to you, rather than trying to do it that way, what we're saying is let's give people tax relief, and then they can spend and navigate those costs that they've got to deal with themselves. - Give me the figure again, please, Chris. So, for a third of Maori who earn under 30K, how much should they get again in tax cuts? - Well, that's not a full-time` A full-time minimum wage earner in New Zealand... a full-time minimum wage earner in New Zealand is earning about $42,000. $22.70 an hour times 40 hours a week gets you to where you need to be. And what we're saying for a minimum wage earner in New Zealand, it will be about $26 a week. $20 a fortnight, sorry. - The Children's Commissioner argued that indexing benefits to the average wage would be the number one thing a government could do to tackle child poverty in Aotearoa New Zealand. Is that wrong? - I think we're gonna make sure that we actually give beneficiaries regular increases every year, and we're gonna base it off the cost of living. That has been the long-standing convention. - Not on inflation? - On inflation, which is the cost of living, so that people can actually adjust to the cost of living. - But not on the average wage? - No. No. And there are a number of reasons for that. One is that actually you've seen that in recent times, when inflation has got out of control and wages for the last three years have actually been not keeping up with inflation, people are going backwards. - But you're gonna bring inflation down. - We are gonna bring inflation down. That's the point I'm trying to make. So what we wanna make sure is that people who are on a benefit are actually, their purchasing power stays intact, because as inflation comes in each and every year, they're getting cost-of-living increases with their benefit. OK? So that's... Be clear ` we're not cutting benefits. We're actually gonna be increasing benefits, but the basis by which we do it is on the basis of inflation. - But some figures suggest, though, that if you don't tag it to the average wage, you end up losing $2 billion over the next four years for beneficiaries. So therefore, beneficiaries lose 2 billion over four years. - No, that's not true. - How is it not true? - We are increasing benefits each and every year. - Tagged to inflation. - But the basis by which we're doing is we're linking it to inflation. Why? Because that, I think, is the higher-order concept of making sure people don't get caught out. - It is currently, but when you bring inflation down, it will be lower than the average wage. - So that actually their dollar goes and actually buys the right` it doesn't lose value, essentially, each and every year if it's linked to inflation. Now, the other benefit of that is, frankly, also, then it encourages people to get from welfare into work. And that is a big part of what we have to do. Because I'm telling you, 60,000 more people on unemployment benefit under this government, at a time of record job shortages and low unemployment, is unacceptable. - I'm getting yelled at by the boss. Even though potentially you could be the boss of the country after the next election, I'm getting yelled at. We actually, I think, are gonna keep Christopher Luxon here for the next part, because there's a lot more that I want to discuss. So stay with us. We'll have more from Chris Luxon after this. - Hoki mai ano, ko te hui tenei, ko Te Hui, ki a Christopher Luxon, He is, of course, the leader of the National Party. Chris Luxon is with us. - Sorry, Julian, can I just correct, minimum wage is $47,000 a year. It'd be $20 a fortnight someone would get under our plan. And if you get median wage, it'd be $50 a fortnight. - I'm sure people will pick up on that. - (CHUCKLES) - Crime. There was an interesting conversation in the leader's debate about gangs. And a conversation about particularly what happened in Opotiki, about taking patches off gang members. I saw an interplay between a whanau who went to support gangs' protests in parliament. Your police spokesperson... - Mark Mitchell went there. - Mark Mitchell immediately inferred or actually immediately thought that this was a whanau who were from a gang, who were members of gangs. Isn't this a part of the problem, that we have your police spokesperson who just because people go along and support gang members, gang whanau, immediately makes an assumption about them? This is what's wrong. - Well, I'll say what the real problem is, is that we've had a 70% growth in gang members, and we've actually got nine gang members for every 10 police officers in this country. And that is not great. And we know that gangs actually want the rights of being New Zealanders, but they're not prepared to take the responsibilities. And that's what this country is actually built on, is that we have rights and responsibilities to each other and to the country. And you can't just` I wanna be` Because we're starting from a place, probably in a different place, which is that I don't think gangs are good for New Zealand. I think they peddle in misery and cause pain and suffering for New Zealand families up and down this country. - Again, the assumption that I think they are isn't what is actually the case. - No, but we've gotta start somewhere. And in my view, very clearly, is it's not good for young people to be joining gang life and encouraging gang life. I don't think it's right that a government pays $2.75 million for drug rehab with the Mongrel Mob. I just don't buy that. - But removing a gang member's jacket isn't gonna do anything, is it? - Well, no, but if you look at the laws that have been passed in Queensland or Western Australia ` actually both Labor premiers of those states, for example, a lot of what we're talking about here is actually very consistent with that. We have banned gang patches in public buildings, and you don't wear them into those places. We're just asking that to happen now in the broad public. - How would that have solved what happened in Opotiki? - Well, we want to make sure that actually it's illegal to wear... it's wrong to wear your patch out in public. - But how would it have solved what happened in Opotiki? Because my understanding is actually a part of what happened was a community-led solution. There were talks about how they were going to try and control` - What I observed was actually a school shut down for a week, and loss of learning. What I observed was actually people not feeling that they could catch the bus service, because it was suspended. And when you talk to people that were in that town, there was a lot of fear and intimidation. And so why should a gang be able to come to town and have higher rights than other regular New Zealanders? - Have you been to Opotiki? - I haven't. I was in Whakatane yesterday. I haven't got to Opotiki yet. - So you can understand, though, that someone who talks like that, who has actually hasn't been to a Opotiki, people will take that and go, 'But hang on, this is a part of our community, and we were trying to lead this issue.' - Yeah, but I'm really sorry. We have a major problem with crime in New Zealand. We have a major problem. And the way that we're going at the moment are saying this is just how things are in New Zealand is utterly unacceptable. We get to choose how it is in New Zealand. And every 18 months, every six months we see more frequency, more gratuity, more gratuitous violence, and we see worse crime. And so people do not feel safe in New Zealand in their own homes, their own businesses, their own communities. This morning I've actually been out meeting with several retailers, who have actually been ram-raided, been the victims of theft and crime. It is a traumatic experience. And essentially we've had a government that has been soft on crime and it's actually said, let's just reduce the prison population by 30%. That would be fine. All of us watching this would say that would be great` - You and I both agree that prison is no good for anyone, right? - It isn't, but actually, we want prison popu` - And getting recidivism rates down is a good thing, isn't it? - Getting prison population down by 30%, when don't have a 30% reduction in crime doesn't work. That is not acceptable at all. - But boot camps don't work either, Chris. - They do. If you look at the LSV` - Well, hang on. They didn't work in 2011. Of the 17 offenders that went into that youth programme, only two came out and didn't re-offend. The rest did. - Yeah. And so we have based this programme on the LSV programme. And I was in Whakatane yesterday, and I had a mum come up to me just as I was leaving, in the main street, with all the cameras around, and I didn't know what she was gonna ask me. And she said, 'Chris, can I ask you a question or have a comment?' And she told me her daughter was on the LSV programme, and it changed her life. And I hear that consistently. I've heard of even young people who were on the LSV programme who end up joining the police. So we've taken the principles of LSV, we've taking the principles of social investment, putting the community organisations in at the beginning. And I tell you, our military leaders are much better mentors and leaders than what we've seen with those supervisors at Oranga Tamariki. - All right. Again, there'll be people who say, well, we've just come out of a Royal Commission on Abuse in State Care, and there are potential issues that would rise out of your programmes. - Well, let's be clear. The failure of Oranga Tamariki is something we should be very ashamed about. - Well, it wasn't just Oranga Tamariki, it was state care. - Yeah, no, I got it. But actually, what we've seen in the last six months and the stories that have come out of that for our most vulnerable kids is unacceptable. - I want to talk a little bit about aspiration for 2040. You are potentially going to have to be a prime minister that has to work with David Seymour in Winston Peters and all that brings in. I know you're gonna push your line there about you don't want to work with Winston Peters, but that could be a reality. In what shape or form, then, can we start to talk about a foundation for the aspiration of a country that will celebrate 200 years of the signing of its founding document with those two characters on either side of you? - Well, actually, I think that's the big opportunity that we have, is what is the kind of country we want to have in 2040? - With those two? - Absolutely. Let me be clear on two` You're setting me up here a little bit with the coalition conversation. So, I mean, the first thing I'd say to you is I think there's a lot at stake in this election. And I can tell you, the last six years haven't been great. If you ask yourself a simple question, are you better off today than you were six years ago? The answer is no. And will you be better off with Te Pati Maori, Greens and Labour in three years? No. - Surely you can see the argument that you and Winston and David are part of a coalition of chaos, at the same time. Surely you can see that, particularly with their arguments on race. - No, so that's why I'm saying to everybody, and that's why I've come out this last week and actually said really clearly, this election matters. It is not a done deal. It is actually a very close election. Every MMP election is. Be very intentional, thoughtful and purposeful about where your party vote goes. That's why I keep saying party vote National. I've been saying that for months and months. What I would say is that then, beyond that, my strong first preference is then to work with National and ACT in a two-party coalition. I think we will be very constructive. We have been in the past, and we can be in the future as well. And then you raised New Zealand First, and I wanna be really clear about that. - How are you gonna make that work? - No, but on New Zealand First, I want to be really clear. All I'm saying is that that is my last-resort option, and all I'm trying to do is, if in the event of avoiding another three years of Te Pati Maori, Greens and Labour, I would make that call to New Zealand First. - How is that not going to be a coalition of chaos? - I'd just say to you, New Zealand First hasn't gone with us for 27 years. And we all remember 2017. - But how is it not going to be a coalition of chaos? - The answer is, get back to the core thing, and actually, if you want change, you have to vote for change. - OK. Now I'm very much getting yelled at. Thank you for your time. Really appreciate it. And I know there are other Maori organisations that would love to talk to you, and I hope you're open to talking to people like Mihi Forbes and Moana Maniapoto as well, before the campaign closes. Thank you so much for joining us. - Appreciate it, Julian. Good to be with you. - That was, of course, Chris Luxon, the leader of the National Party. Kia ahatia, kua tairi ake te korero a ta tatou Hui ki konei. You can find all our stories and this interview on social media platforms and at newshub.co.nz. Kia mau ki te turanga o Taputapuatea. Haumi e, hui e, taiki e! Captions by James Brown. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2023 - Ko te reo te take. - Na Te Puna Whakatongarewa Te Hui i tautoko.