After this, thankfully, the interview returns to policy. I'm glad Jack Tame brought up the impact of Opportunity's UBI on recent returnees, who wouldn't get a Citizens' income until they've been back for up to 5 years. I didn't know this, and it's detail like this I rely on interviewers like Tame to draw out.

I don't agree with this bit of TOP policy. Every citizen and permanent resident ought to get UBI for every week they're in the country. Basically like benefits now.

(18/?)

#UBI #PolicyNZ

I still think Jack Tame is drawing a long bow here. To hit the target, his arrow has to pass through Opportunity's polling being purely a function of campaign spending, making the party subject to the will of the donors, and the membership tolerating the Board using an emergency measure to routinely whip the caucus.

As with any conspiracy theory, you've got to admire the creativity of all this conceptual plumbing. But was this really the best use of almost 3mins out of 24?

(17?)

To be fair to Jack Tame, this time Quilae Wong didn't give the correct answer to his question about the Board veto when he first asked it. So he had to read her the constitution for context.

This could be deception, or maybe Wong just doesn't know the Opportunity constitution well enough. This is something a leader definitely ought to know about their party, and be prepared to vigorously defend (eg referencing rogue caucuses past).

(16?)

The part of the interview focused on the campaign donation limit policy starts about 3mins in. Despite having his point acknowledged when he first makes it, Jack Tame spends a full 4mins grinding on this point, out of a 24min interview,

Then he moves on to the gotcha about the Board's carefully limited power to discipline a rogue caucus, if they're going against the party charter. I've already commented on this, so I won't rehash it here;

https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/117108361684946851

(15/?)

To be fair to Jack Tame, perhaps he expected Wong to do what NZ politicians tend to do when asked a question like this. Ignore it and answer a vaguely related one, blurt a talking point like CLuxon would, or quibble with the claim that they're not practicing what they preach.

Maybe he was taken aback when Wong gave an honest answer immediately, admitting the inconsistency? So much so that he didn't know what do, except plough on with his prepared gotchas. Wasting valuable interview time.

(14?)

But Jake Tame isn't done chewing on this bone.

"You've currently taken more big donations than the Labour party."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9YV3hc6cVk

As with Tame's opening comment on polls, technically true, but misleading.

Yes, Labour has received more of its campaign funding for medium donations than big ones. But by wording it this way, Tame implies Opportunity are spending more than Labour. Not true, according to figures I just shared.

Very disappointed with the game Tame is playing here.

(13/?)

For a start, it's very clear Opportunity's policy would make it easier for smaller parties to compete for attention and votes, not harder. That's one way the premise of the question is misleading.

Then there's the implied claim that other parties polling reflects their merit, while Opportunity's comes from spending money. Even though the NatACTs are spending many times more, and both Winston First and Labour are spending more too;

https://nzpt.cjs.nz/finances/

(12/?)

"Your polling has increased from 0.4% a year ago, to 8% today. Why should TOP get to benefit from a campaign fueled by big donations, and potentially make it into Parliament, then immediately pull up the ladder so that smaller parties who want to replicate your success can't do it in the future."

#JackTame, 2026

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9YV3hc6cVk

I'm deeply disappointed in Tame. This kind of badgering really is beneath him, and this is a deeply disingenuous question.

(11/?)

Jack Time would not be doing his job if he didn't ask Wong about Opportunity accepting donations over what would be allowed under their own policy. But I think Wong's answer is quite reasonable; they're playing by the rules as they stand, in the hopes of getting in and improving them. AFAIK there is *no* NZ political party that imposes any limit on the size of donations received.

So why does Tame get out the stick on this? Wong acknowledged the inconsistency What more is there to say?

(10/?)

#FreudianTypoOfTheWeek

Podvast (n.): Extremely long audio recording

"We should be making this a contest of ideas, not who can put the most billboards out there, or pay for as many social media ads as possible."

#QuilaeWong, 2026

Agree. So what policy can ensure that, while still fully protecting freedom of political expression?

Jake Tame tells us Opportunity policy is to ban donations over $30,000, as proposed by the Independent Electoral Review in 2024;

https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/constitutional-issues-and-human-rights/independent-electoral-review/

I'd go further, but sounds sensible enough.

(9/?)

#CampaignFinance #PolicyNZ

Tame then moves on to regulating political donations. A lot of hay has been made by Labour and Green partisans about the deep pockets of some of the people funding Opportunity;

https://mastodon.nz/@jeremy_pm/117103677747559842

So a lot turns on their opinions about the role of money in politics.

(8/?)

Jack Tame quickly covers Opportunity's proposal for an "anti-corruption body". This one's a no-brainer, especially given the blatant policy aution we've seen from the NatACTs this term.

Tame points out we're widely perceived as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. Arguably that's because some forms of corruption have been effectively legalised (see above), so they're not reflected in the data being compared. But to the degree it's true, it's because we're proactive about it.

(7/?)

I'm almost offended by the suggestion that there aren't enough capable and public-minded people in Aotearoa who are *not* paid to lobby politicians, to fill 120 seats every 3 years. This answer suggests too that the Opportunity party list has a few people on who were recently paid for lobbying. If so, at lease the party is being consistent, but ...

It's picking up on small but important details like this that make Jack Tame one of the most formidable interviewers in NZ media.

(6/?)

Jack Tame asks whether a stand-down period would go both ways. But Quilae Wong clarifies that Opportunity's policy would only stop people leaving "government" and walking straight into a lobbying job.

"The other direction is less of a threat, and it would severely limit the ability of people to stand for office."

People whose *job* has been to schmooze politicians on behalf of anyone with enough spare money to pay for that (not most kiwis). I don't agree this is "less of a threat".

(5/?)

Arguably I spend "a substantial part" of my time trying to influence decision-makers. Occasionally I even email them, or even less often, speak to them in person. Does that make me a 'lobbyist', even though nobody pays me to do that?

If so, opponents would be quite right that regulating 'lobbyists' would have chilling effects on democratic participation. Any reasonably definition needs be limited to people who are *paid* to influence decision-makers.

(4/?)

The first topic Jack Tame asks Wong about is regulating lobbying;

"[Opportunity] want a stand-down period, a lobbyist's register, and a code of conduct. Poor lobbyists."

He doesn't sound very sympathetic ; ) But so far so good. Tame goes on to summarise TOP's definition of 'lobbyist';

"Someone who is paid by clients to influence decision-makers, or who spends a substantial part of their time lobbying."

What this means, in practice, depends on how they define 'lobbying'.

(3/?)

#PolicyNZ

The first thing that caught my attention is this;

"For the first time this week the 1News-Verian poll had the Opportunity party over the all-important 5% threshold ..."

#JackTame, 2026

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9YV3hc6cVk

I had to fact-check Tame on this. He's correct, of course. The Verian poll has been an outlier here, and I know that's the one he's obliged to spruik. But not putting that in the context of regularly polling above 5% in polls for months could be seen as a little misleading.

(2/?)

RE: https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/117108361684946851

Apparently Jack Tame's Q+A interview with Opportunity leader Qiulae Wong is getting a lot of mileage on social media ('TOP leader DESTROYED by Jack Tame' sort of stuff). Since I've posted some fairly sympathetic comments on them here - including fact-checking claims based on a clip from it - I thought it's only fair that I check out the full interview;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9YV3hc6cVk

Strap in folks ...

(1/?)

#QiulaeWong #Opportunity #QAndA #NZElection2026

When I was living in China from 2018-2019, I saw heaps of Windows OS (including on MacBooks!?). Even Windows XP, which was officially put out to pasture in 2009. Even the extended support they offered for XP, to those who stubbornly refused to switch to a newer version, ended more than 3 years before I arrived in China.

Yet I remember seeing XP terminals in places like the library of the university where we lived. Maybe there's a clue in that to why the Chinese OS transition is so slow.

(3/3)