Interview: Peter Dunne, United Future party leader

Peter Dunne says the Greens or NZ First are not capable of mixing it in a successful coalition that offers stable government. Picture / Brent Phibbs

Peter Dunne spoke to Herald political correspondent John Armstrong and political editor Audrey Young about whether he can be a key player in the next government.

What is the most pressing reason why someone should vote United Future this election?

The most pressing reason is that the Government that emerges will be a combination or a coalition of sorts and you need to have a stable, reliable coalition partner and we've proved we're the only party that can do that. We've done it in the last three years. No other party has done it. Put New Zealand First or the Greens anywhere near the mix and you know it won't work. So that's he most pressing reason: stable Government and our common sense.

United Future has been a pretty well behaved support partner in Government, as you say, with none of the internal ructions that plagued New Zealand First or Alliance. Do you think voters are unlikely to reward you for that?

Very hard to say. This is the great conundrum. We know what voters would do if we hadn't been there; they would have punished us as they did others. We had no alternative and we just have to hope that their good sense come through on the day and that they recognise the role that we played. It has been unique and it no coincidence that it had coincided with a period of economic prosperity and growth which has been good for families.

If United Future held the balance of power, the chances are you would be the next Foreign Minister. Could you accept the prevalent One-China policy given your sympathies for Taiwan?

What I've said all along is that the differences between China and Taiwan are for china and Taiwan to work out. I want to see New Zealand develop the fullest relations possible with both countries within the confines of the current policy, the One China policy. If there is a move to change that in the future, then we'll deal with it at that time. But I think there's a lot more ground we can make in the current relationship within the confines of existing policy without compromising that.

Are you more sympathetic to Labour's so-called independent foreign policy or National's desire to improve New Zealand's relationship with old allies?

I think you can do both. I'm a great believer in New Zealand's nationhood. It was [former Labour Prime Minister] Norman Kirk who inspired me into politics many years ago with his view about an independent foreign policy for New Zealand. But I don't think that has to come at the price of particularly old allies like the United States and Australia. We have too much in common culturally and historically for that to be the case. What we need to be looking at is ways in which we can move those relationships forward rather than get stuck in the rut we are in at the moment with both.

Is retention of New Zealand's non-nuclear status a non-negotiable policy?

We are not prepared to compromise that and I don't think that in terms of the way in which we improve our relations with other countries, particularly the United States, that that needs to be compromised. There are things we can do more broadly in that relationship to strengthen it without just focusing on the nuclear. I think that is where the mistake has been made over the last 20 years on both sides. To focus on that one issue to the detriment of many, many other facets of the relationship. And I think where we ought to go - and in a way [departing US ambassador] Charles Swindells' speech hinted at that - was to look at a whole lot of broader connections, see the totality of the relationship and work at that. then the irritants become less obvious.

Would you support enabling legislation setting up a referendum on the nuclear issue?

No. I am not interested in a referendum at this stage. I'm much more interested in the way in which we look to how we improve our relationship, what the elements of it are. I think some form of inquiry by, for instance, the foreign affairs select committee might be a useful place to start.

Do you agree that your fortunes last election were tied to National's collapse?

No I don't and the reason I don't is that if you look at post election surveys on where votes came from, we got three votes from National for every 2.4 we got from Labour. So while we were the beneficiary to some extent, it is also true that 80 per cent of the votes National shed didn't come to United Future.

Did United Future get enough from Labour in the confidence and supply agreement [ no change to legal status of cannabis, Families Commission, victims rights legislation]?

We got everything we asked for in terms of the policy commitments and in terms of the way we operated, the process.

But in hindsight do you think you asked for too little?

No I don't. We did ask for less than we would ask for this time round but that was a reflection of the fact that i had a very new and inexperienced team and I was determined above all else that this agreement was going to last the distance. That was my overriding interest and I was determined therefore to get an arrangement that was attainable firstly in terms of getting us to the post before the Greens got there and secondly, making sure three years down the track we were able to say we had done everything we committed to do.

This time round, National or Labour, it will be a different story because we have got a more experienced team of people.

So you will be wanting to get more policy concessions?

Yes and I think both [Labour and National] know that. Last time was a somewhat unusual situation. It was important to me and to the country that we had a Government arrangement that was capable of lasting the distance because three failed MMP Governments in three elections would have killed MMP and I was acutely conscious that the onus was us to make it work.

What would be your priorities for United Future if it forms part of the next Government?

I don't want to get into our negotiating strategy right now but I think it is fair to say that areas that we have indicated an interest concern taxation, concern students, superannuation, older New Zealanders and conservation issues. Our views on those issues have been well signalled.

We would certainly be expecting in any future Government arrangement to be able to make progress on those policies.

How big a threat is the Destiny Party to the family-values vote?

Zero. Zero. It's policies are too extreme. Presentation is bordering on the theatrically ridiculous and frankly we're not losing any sleep over Destiny.

What do you say to your supporters who are appalled that prostitution and civil unions were legalised under "your watch"?

I say firstly that they conscience votes. They were not the votes of a particular party. The Prostitution Bill could have been defeated had [National leader] Don Brash voted against it, for instance. The Civil Union Bill could have been defeated had a handful of National MPs voted against it. So I say to them we didn't seek a moral veto - we couldn't expect one. Eight votes out of 120 is not that. We did all we could as a party to express our opposition to them but at the end of the day these were matters that Parliament as a whole decided.

What is the logic behind saying you would being negotiations with the party that received the most votes?

Simply because that's the party that the biggest number of New Zealanders will have expected to lead the Government. In other words this is about how you start the process, about who you talk to first. If a party gets the most votes and the most seats it is the party that the biggest group of New Zealanders has voted for and so it almost a case of it having the moral right to have the first go at forming a Government. We haven't said that that means that is where we would up. It is merely about who you would talk to first. this is to get around the New Zealand First [experience of] talk to one group in the morning, one in the afternoon and up the ante all the way through.

So if the election result throws up coalition options which could include United Future in coalition with National or Labour, would you not anticipate negotiating simultaneously with both parties?

Well it depends on the numbers. What I think New Zealanders were sickened by in 1996 was the auction and the spectacle and the theatre and prolonged nature and the focus being on the third party and we are not going to repeat that. Now let's wait and see what the election permutations are but the policy I have set out is really a mechanism for giving people some certainty as to how we would go about it. If there were multiple options then we would need to address quite how we approach that. But i'm not going to get into the position of playing one off against the other as Mr Peters did in 1996.

You appear to criticise National a great deal more than Labour. Does that say anything about your coalition preferences?

No it doesn't. I'm in a unique position. I've been a minister under both Labour-led Governments and National-led Governments. I know them both intimately. Both are as good and bad as each other. [Prime Minister] Helen Clark is someone who I have got on very well with and known well for 25 years and I have a huge respect for Helen Clark. Don Brash has been a personal friend of mine for nearly 20 years. So I can work with either. It's a matter of what the mix is and I don't have any preferences in that regard.

Could you happily work with Winston Peters?

It entirely depends on the circumstances. I'm the antithesis of Mr Peters in everything. I'm more considered, more rational, more reasonable, and more studied in my approach. I think that's what New Zealanders want. I'm not capricious, I'm not egotistical and I'm not focused solely on what's in it for us. We'll see but it would be a big call.

Can you work with the Greens?

To some extent we have on some issues. Could I work with them in a coalition? I think our differences would be too great in a formal coalition, but there other options.

Would United Future be willing to sit outside and prop up a Labour-Greens coalition?

I think that is a less likely option.

Than the Green supporting a Labour United Future coalition?

Yes.

You talked earlier about trying to get a deal ahead of the Greens last election, so are you in a sense competing with them for Labour's affections?

Labour has made it clear we are their preferred option. I don't see us competing for their affections as such. What I see us doing with both New Zealand First and the Greens is offering a different alternative. What we know is that a Labour Government that is dependent on the Greens will be tugged to the left. A National Government dependent on New Zealand First will be tugged more down its populist path. What we are offering is a party that will bring the balance back towards the centre rather than towards the extremes.

What we are saying is if Labour has the ability to lead the next Government, it has got to decide whether it wants to lurch leftwards or be moderated to the centre. National has got to make the same calculation.

Is it true that the Greens contacted United Future after the last election and before negotiations began to try to work out a deal whereby you weren't being played off each other by Labour?

They certainly contacted us, my recollection is it was during the negotiations. I wasn't interested in that because at that stage I felt we were most likely to get there first and was more focused on that than being side-tracked. I saw the Greens' move as a way of trying to include themselves in the loop and I thought at that point they were out of it.

Do you resent your success being attributed to a make believe worm?

Not really. People will read into it what they will. I think my success or our success was due to 135,000 people voting for us. They had their reasons. The worm was a device; it was an interesting device but do I resent it? No Do I care much about it? No. As you say it was make-believe. What mattered was 135,000 votes on the day.

You were the new phenomenon last election: do you have a big fresh idea this election or will you rely more on your record?

The myth of last election was that this so-called new phenomenon suddenly burst on the scene with a whole lot of new ideas. The key to understanding what happened last time was that that was the first time I had ever been included in the national debates. It was the first time I had ever had a chance to put a message that has been my hallmark for many, many years before a national audience and it worked. It is why I am so annoyed about the TV3 debate because I'm very confident that ranked alongside the other leaders I can get my message across and get it across well to New Zealanders. Like everyone I need the opportunity.

How important is Outdoor Recreation to United Future?

It is important for two reasons. Obviously it broadens our base in terms of membership supporters and networks. Some people say our two messages seem incompatible: they are actually identical. We are talking about the family as the cornerstone of New Zealand society and reflecting that in all our policies. When you look at what Outdoor Recreation is talking about, it is really talking about a lifestyle issue, about the ability to go out and enjoy the great outdoors. You put the two together and you've got a very compatible message offering a vision of Kiwi lifestyle and what being a Kiwi is all about. I think there is a remarkable synergy there.

But was it not a contrived and strategic alliance?

No. How it happened was if you look our conservation policy at the last election and look at theirs, they were separated by the proverbial cigarette paper. that was coincidence. We just came to view in 2003 that it was a bit silly to be separate and that we could do quite a bit more together.

You are frequently subject to innuendo by detractors about the sources of your party's funding. Are you supported by tobacco companies or pharmaceutical companies and if so, does it matter?

I don't think it matters and I have no idea because I don't see the cheques. I don't know and I deliberately stay clear of that. But am I influenced by them? Absolutely not because I don't know who funds us.