WEBVTT - Jordan Williams: Polls are needed year-round

0:00:05.761 --> 0:00:10.201
<v Speaker 1>You're listening to the Weekend collective podcast from News talks'd.

0:00:09.641 --> 0:00:13.321
<v Speaker 2>Be right into the politics solo. Last week, as I

0:00:13.601 --> 0:00:16.721
<v Speaker 2>referenced briefly, the latest one News variant pole had national

0:00:16.761 --> 0:00:20.081
<v Speaker 2>and labor down, while an r NZ Read poll done

0:00:20.161 --> 0:00:22.761
<v Speaker 2>the same week had national down, Labor up, and one

0:00:22.761 --> 0:00:25.041
<v Speaker 2>of them had one side forming a government, the other

0:00:25.081 --> 0:00:27.961
<v Speaker 2>had another side, and the Taxpayers Union Courier poll had

0:00:27.961 --> 0:00:30.841
<v Speaker 2>both up. You'll see the same with overlapping polls by

0:00:30.841 --> 0:00:34.081
<v Speaker 2>different agencies showing significantly different results. So why are we

0:00:34.121 --> 0:00:36.281
<v Speaker 2>doing polls this far out from an election? What are

0:00:36.281 --> 0:00:38.761
<v Speaker 2>we looking to learn from them? And so I thought

0:00:38.801 --> 0:00:41.441
<v Speaker 2>we'd have a chat with our Taxpayers Union executive director

0:00:41.561 --> 0:00:44.081
<v Speaker 2>Jordan Williams, who joins me now, Jordan, good afternoon.

0:00:44.601 --> 0:00:45.681
<v Speaker 3>Get Tim.

0:00:45.721 --> 0:00:47.961
<v Speaker 2>What's the point of political polls at this time of year.

0:00:49.081 --> 0:00:52.081
<v Speaker 3>Well, it gives you a snapshot on the government. Is

0:00:52.121 --> 0:00:56.281
<v Speaker 3>that relative to the other parties of course, or you

0:00:56.321 --> 0:00:59.761
<v Speaker 3>always say, you know, don't look at any particular poll.

0:00:59.921 --> 0:01:02.601
<v Speaker 3>It's the trend that matters. And what all the polls

0:01:02.601 --> 0:01:05.241
<v Speaker 3>are telling us is that it's actually very close each

0:01:05.281 --> 0:01:08.041
<v Speaker 3>In the TVNZ and the r n Z Read research.

0:01:08.081 --> 0:01:10.641
<v Speaker 3>You know, TVNZ had a majority of the center right,

0:01:10.681 --> 0:01:12.961
<v Speaker 3>I think of two seats. R INZ had a majority

0:01:12.961 --> 0:01:15.601
<v Speaker 3>of the cent to the center left of two seats.

0:01:15.641 --> 0:01:18.161
<v Speaker 3>Both of those tell you it's very close indeed.

0:01:19.441 --> 0:01:22.441
<v Speaker 2>Okay, so just explain to me. I've got a bit

0:01:22.481 --> 0:01:25.401
<v Speaker 2>of a beef, which you can probably allay with the

0:01:25.441 --> 0:01:27.801
<v Speaker 2>margin of area of three point one percent. So one

0:01:27.921 --> 0:01:30.401
<v Speaker 2>News spend a lot of time talking about all such

0:01:30.441 --> 0:01:33.001
<v Speaker 2>and such as down one or down two. It's all

0:01:33.041 --> 0:01:35.521
<v Speaker 2>within the margin of era being three point one percent,

0:01:35.521 --> 0:01:39.001
<v Speaker 2>which I understand means if somebody scores, say ten percent,

0:01:39.441 --> 0:01:43.361
<v Speaker 2>we're confident that they're in reality between seven and thirteen percent.

0:01:43.521 --> 0:01:46.441
<v Speaker 2>So can you put that in perspective for me, because

0:01:47.001 --> 0:01:50.441
<v Speaker 2>it's almost never any not even lip service paid to it.

0:01:51.161 --> 0:01:54.001
<v Speaker 3>That's not quite right, of course, So that when they

0:01:54.041 --> 0:01:57.361
<v Speaker 3>talk about the the margin of era, what they mean

0:01:57.441 --> 0:02:00.081
<v Speaker 3>is sorry to put a stats head on, but go

0:02:00.561 --> 0:02:04.441
<v Speaker 3>for it. It's an era, it's a confidence interval, and

0:02:04.521 --> 0:02:08.321
<v Speaker 3>so you you know, statistically it's it's either ninety or

0:02:08.361 --> 0:02:12.321
<v Speaker 3>ninety five percent confidence it's within that bound. So there'll

0:02:12.321 --> 0:02:15.201
<v Speaker 3>always be rogue poles, you know, I talk about with

0:02:15.361 --> 0:02:17.281
<v Speaker 3>a taxais union pole, you know, one and twenty in

0:02:17.361 --> 0:02:20.081
<v Speaker 3>theory is rogue, which is why I say you never

0:02:20.121 --> 0:02:24.001
<v Speaker 3>put a particular emphasis on one pole. It is the trend.

0:02:24.081 --> 0:02:26.881
<v Speaker 3>And that's really why the tax Boers Union started polling

0:02:27.121 --> 0:02:29.601
<v Speaker 3>with our monthly polls is because there's the media have

0:02:29.681 --> 0:02:32.001
<v Speaker 3>pulled right back. What you get is, I mean ran

0:02:32.081 --> 0:02:35.041
<v Speaker 3>zet I think are polling every three or six months,

0:02:35.881 --> 0:02:38.241
<v Speaker 3>and you sort of that the media like to dial

0:02:38.281 --> 0:02:41.001
<v Speaker 3>it up to eleven, that there's some huge significance in

0:02:41.001 --> 0:02:44.121
<v Speaker 3>this pole. The good thing about monthly polling is that

0:02:44.241 --> 0:02:47.001
<v Speaker 3>if you've got sort of three consistent poles that start

0:02:47.041 --> 0:02:49.761
<v Speaker 3>to show a trend, then that's when you would put

0:02:50.081 --> 0:02:52.201
<v Speaker 3>put meaning into it. But just to pull you up.

0:02:53.081 --> 0:02:55.961
<v Speaker 3>The confidence interval or the margin of vera is done

0:02:56.001 --> 0:02:58.201
<v Speaker 3>at the fiftieth percentile, and if you go back to

0:02:58.241 --> 0:03:01.841
<v Speaker 3>your fifth form stats, you'll know that as the number

0:03:01.921 --> 0:03:06.361
<v Speaker 3>goes down, the confidence into or the margin of era

0:03:06.521 --> 0:03:10.561
<v Speaker 3>goes down. It really infuriates me when I read in

0:03:10.561 --> 0:03:13.761
<v Speaker 3>a court judgment some years ago this stupid High court

0:03:13.841 --> 0:03:17.081
<v Speaker 3>judges not understanding basic stats. They talk about you know,

0:03:17.081 --> 0:03:19.401
<v Speaker 3>that's parties in the margin of era, meaning it could

0:03:19.641 --> 0:03:21.401
<v Speaker 3>it could have it could have none, or it could

0:03:21.401 --> 0:03:24.881
<v Speaker 3>be double that's nonsense on Steltz because of course the

0:03:25.321 --> 0:03:27.721
<v Speaker 3>margin of ERA is about half once you get to

0:03:27.721 --> 0:03:28.721
<v Speaker 3>blow about ten percent.

0:03:29.081 --> 0:03:31.561
<v Speaker 2>Okay, So I guess the margin of ERAa is more

0:03:31.601 --> 0:03:34.161
<v Speaker 2>relevant to the parties who are polling thirty forty percent.

0:03:34.561 --> 0:03:38.561
<v Speaker 2>So if somebody's polling forty percent, it could be you know,

0:03:38.601 --> 0:03:40.801
<v Speaker 2>there's a ninety five percent confidence. Basically it could be

0:03:40.881 --> 0:03:43.361
<v Speaker 2>within close to three points other side.

0:03:43.961 --> 0:03:47.041
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, And of course the secret source for the different

0:03:47.081 --> 0:03:51.601
<v Speaker 3>polsters is that there are various different ratings. I mean

0:03:52.081 --> 0:03:54.801
<v Speaker 3>I can, of course I'm not a polster. I simply

0:03:55.121 --> 0:03:57.321
<v Speaker 3>contract of polling companies to do the texpos. You can

0:03:57.361 --> 0:04:01.201
<v Speaker 3>poll each month, but our supplier, we go back through

0:04:01.281 --> 0:04:05.641
<v Speaker 3>the elections, has tended to get that right than say

0:04:05.681 --> 0:04:09.241
<v Speaker 3>the closest the least wrong out of all the poles.

0:04:09.681 --> 0:04:12.841
<v Speaker 3>And in some of that secret source or the difference

0:04:12.881 --> 0:04:16.241
<v Speaker 3>between perhaps Radium New Zealand Television New Zealand, is each

0:04:16.321 --> 0:04:20.441
<v Speaker 3>polster waits on slightly different things. So for example, some

0:04:20.521 --> 0:04:22.521
<v Speaker 3>polls I think that the are in ZED won the

0:04:23.641 --> 0:04:26.081
<v Speaker 3>Australian company that did the worst of the Australian election

0:04:27.361 --> 0:04:30.041
<v Speaker 3>are variant. You know, I think they are online only

0:04:30.761 --> 0:04:32.961
<v Speaker 3>and you get some that have a particular waiting for

0:04:33.081 --> 0:04:37.081
<v Speaker 3>phone calls, some which include cell phones now some just

0:04:37.201 --> 0:04:41.561
<v Speaker 3>online panels which can be which you know, attract a

0:04:41.561 --> 0:04:44.401
<v Speaker 3>different demographic. And then of course you've got I think

0:04:44.521 --> 0:04:49.401
<v Speaker 3>television New Zealand weight for all of age, ethnicity and

0:04:49.641 --> 0:04:52.041
<v Speaker 3>education status, where I don't think are in z weight

0:04:52.561 --> 0:04:54.761
<v Speaker 3>for the education status. So there's lots of sort of

0:04:56.121 --> 0:04:58.681
<v Speaker 3>that modeling behind the scenes is kind of what you're

0:04:58.681 --> 0:05:03.561
<v Speaker 3>paying your expert pole stuff for their expertise than were

0:05:03.561 --> 0:05:06.041
<v Speaker 3>Sorry they won't let me say this, but from a

0:05:06.081 --> 0:05:09.121
<v Speaker 3>third party suspective, it looks a little bit of an

0:05:09.241 --> 0:05:11.521
<v Speaker 3>art rather than a strict science. Yeah.

0:05:11.681 --> 0:05:14.841
<v Speaker 2>Actually, by the way, I think I'm pretty sure read

0:05:14.881 --> 0:05:17.961
<v Speaker 2>research is online only and I think very into a

0:05:18.041 --> 0:05:22.921
<v Speaker 2>mixture for my memory around. Yeah, but I guess the

0:05:23.041 --> 0:05:27.361
<v Speaker 2>question is, I mean, how how much does methodology matter?

0:05:27.481 --> 0:05:31.001
<v Speaker 2>Because I just asked chat GPT and it gave me

0:05:31.041 --> 0:05:34.801
<v Speaker 2>some interesting answers around the propensity of online polling to

0:05:35.201 --> 0:05:37.681
<v Speaker 2>maybe favor people who are a little bit more technologically

0:05:37.761 --> 0:05:41.201
<v Speaker 2>literate and also anyway, but I mean, what do you

0:05:41.241 --> 0:05:45.001
<v Speaker 2>think about the method of online versus phone versus I

0:05:45.041 --> 0:05:46.281
<v Speaker 2>don't know, in the middle.

0:05:46.081 --> 0:05:48.881
<v Speaker 3>Of the studio you get every three years, you get

0:05:48.881 --> 0:05:51.761
<v Speaker 3>a sort of you know that they have to pony

0:05:51.841 --> 0:05:54.001
<v Speaker 3>up and you get the actual results in the leeching,

0:05:54.401 --> 0:05:57.161
<v Speaker 3>and of course you can compare against all the different

0:05:57.921 --> 0:06:01.201
<v Speaker 3>polling companies. The other reason we use polling and we've

0:06:01.241 --> 0:06:03.961
<v Speaker 3>found it so useful though, is the polling of issues.

0:06:04.001 --> 0:06:06.041
<v Speaker 3>So do you think back years ago to when we

0:06:06.041 --> 0:06:10.161
<v Speaker 3>were doing our three Waters campaign. As part of the polling,

0:06:10.681 --> 0:06:13.161
<v Speaker 3>we were not necessarily releasing it every month, but that

0:06:13.361 --> 0:06:16.241
<v Speaker 3>for us was quite a useful benchmark to know how

0:06:16.281 --> 0:06:18.841
<v Speaker 3>we were going in terms of that campaign. And it

0:06:18.881 --> 0:06:24.441
<v Speaker 3>was quite quite incredible the dramatic change within a month,

0:06:24.681 --> 0:06:26.521
<v Speaker 3>and it was the moment we won. It was actually

0:06:26.521 --> 0:06:29.681
<v Speaker 3>when the mayors of Auckland and christ Church came out

0:06:29.721 --> 0:06:32.681
<v Speaker 3>together against three Waters. Now, of course it required twelve

0:06:32.721 --> 0:06:35.801
<v Speaker 3>months of campaigning beforehand to get to it, but we

0:06:35.841 --> 0:06:41.241
<v Speaker 3>could tell just immediately a dramatic jump. And so from

0:06:41.241 --> 0:06:45.321
<v Speaker 3>a lobbying campaign perspective, and I'm sure the parties would

0:06:45.561 --> 0:06:47.841
<v Speaker 3>they might not be quite as open, but that's the

0:06:47.881 --> 0:06:53.041
<v Speaker 3>sort of thing they're looking for. Similarly, around issues, you

0:06:53.081 --> 0:06:59.441
<v Speaker 3>will know that we often release favorable unfavorable results on

0:06:59.521 --> 0:07:02.521
<v Speaker 3>politicians I can tell you that I get politicians calling

0:07:02.561 --> 0:07:04.321
<v Speaker 3>me saying, why don't you put my name in the

0:07:04.361 --> 0:07:11.281
<v Speaker 3>preferred PM. Well, it's actually unprompted, I won't name, and

0:07:11.321 --> 0:07:17.121
<v Speaker 3>shame that those particular politicians come on the other one

0:07:17.201 --> 0:07:20.161
<v Speaker 3>that we don't release it all. We certainly do release

0:07:20.161 --> 0:07:24.841
<v Speaker 3>it every month to our members and supporters, but that

0:07:25.041 --> 0:07:28.241
<v Speaker 3>is country right and wrong direction? Do you think the

0:07:28.281 --> 0:07:30.201
<v Speaker 3>country is going in the right or wrong direction? And

0:07:30.241 --> 0:07:34.281
<v Speaker 3>that tends to be a precursor to the party vote.

0:07:34.561 --> 0:07:37.641
<v Speaker 3>I've sort of noticed that if that dramatically shifts, it's

0:07:37.721 --> 0:07:39.761
<v Speaker 3>usually three or four months later you start to see

0:07:40.121 --> 0:07:43.041
<v Speaker 3>a shift in the party vote between the government and

0:07:43.081 --> 0:07:43.641
<v Speaker 3>the opposition.

0:07:44.401 --> 0:07:46.361
<v Speaker 2>I guess i'd probably answer the question do you think

0:07:46.401 --> 0:07:48.201
<v Speaker 2>the government's going in the right or wrong direction? Because

0:07:48.201 --> 0:07:49.721
<v Speaker 2>the country could be going in the wrong direction for

0:07:49.721 --> 0:07:51.601
<v Speaker 2>a whole bunch of reasons, I guess. But that's the

0:07:51.721 --> 0:07:54.201
<v Speaker 2>art of the poll, isn't it. Are you happy with

0:07:54.241 --> 0:07:55.761
<v Speaker 2>the way the media report polls?

0:07:57.481 --> 0:08:01.921
<v Speaker 3>Well? I find it interesting that and I think it's

0:08:02.081 --> 0:08:05.841
<v Speaker 3>it's sort of pasted the parcel of having particularly television

0:08:05.921 --> 0:08:07.801
<v Speaker 3>US out and not doing as many poles as they

0:08:07.921 --> 0:08:11.281
<v Speaker 3>used to. That they dial the results of every pole

0:08:11.401 --> 0:08:13.121
<v Speaker 3>up to eleven. I mean, you think about it. You know,

0:08:13.441 --> 0:08:17.881
<v Speaker 3>we're a humble taxpayers union. We're a pressure group. You know,

0:08:18.081 --> 0:08:21.241
<v Speaker 3>we have we wear our mission on our sleeves. And

0:08:21.361 --> 0:08:23.601
<v Speaker 3>yet I'm pretty confident that a lot of our poles

0:08:23.601 --> 0:08:25.921
<v Speaker 3>we just play down the middle for what they are,

0:08:26.041 --> 0:08:28.161
<v Speaker 3>as opposed to dial up to eleven as some sort

0:08:28.201 --> 0:08:32.361
<v Speaker 3>of disaster melt down the beehive because of one single pole.

0:08:32.721 --> 0:08:36.081
<v Speaker 3>As I say, poles will bounce around. It is the

0:08:36.201 --> 0:08:39.641
<v Speaker 3>trend over time that matters. And that's why I think

0:08:39.721 --> 0:08:43.481
<v Speaker 3>from our perspective, monthly polling is so good because once

0:08:43.481 --> 0:08:45.481
<v Speaker 3>you're starting to see sort of three poles in a

0:08:45.601 --> 0:08:48.841
<v Speaker 3>row showing a significant difference from say six months ago,

0:08:49.041 --> 0:08:52.161
<v Speaker 3>that NAT is telling you something much more than a

0:08:52.201 --> 0:08:53.921
<v Speaker 3>single pole or a single snapshot.

0:08:53.961 --> 0:08:57.721
<v Speaker 2>What about internal what about parties political parties internal polling?

0:08:57.761 --> 0:09:00.681
<v Speaker 2>What sort of caution notes of caution should we have

0:09:00.721 --> 0:09:04.121
<v Speaker 2>if any on those ones, Well, they'll.

0:09:03.961 --> 0:09:07.161
<v Speaker 3>Only lead them of cocause because we can see what's

0:09:07.201 --> 0:09:10.881
<v Speaker 3>going on. I find it delightful the way that the

0:09:10.961 --> 0:09:13.401
<v Speaker 3>parties only lead their internal poles when it's helpful to

0:09:13.441 --> 0:09:17.041
<v Speaker 3>them or to trip up the other side. They're probably

0:09:17.081 --> 0:09:21.681
<v Speaker 3>more interested in the reaction to political scandal or events

0:09:21.681 --> 0:09:24.241
<v Speaker 3>of the day than a group like the Texpaths Union.

0:09:24.521 --> 0:09:27.121
<v Speaker 3>But the reports that we send to our we called

0:09:27.121 --> 0:09:30.641
<v Speaker 3>our Texpower Caucus, our most generous supporters, is in effect

0:09:30.801 --> 0:09:33.041
<v Speaker 3>the reports that the leader of the opposition and the

0:09:33.041 --> 0:09:37.121
<v Speaker 3>Prime Minister is getting also every few weeks or every month,

0:09:37.481 --> 0:09:41.241
<v Speaker 3>depending on the party, with that real granular data. So

0:09:42.201 --> 0:09:45.721
<v Speaker 3>an example would be how was the center right or

0:09:45.721 --> 0:09:50.401
<v Speaker 3>how is a particular party doing in rural communities or

0:09:50.681 --> 0:09:54.161
<v Speaker 3>with a particular gender for example. Now, of course, as

0:09:54.241 --> 0:09:57.161
<v Speaker 3>you get more and more specific, your sample size gets

0:09:57.161 --> 0:10:01.041
<v Speaker 3>lower and lower, and your margin of error gets larger.

0:10:01.841 --> 0:10:05.161
<v Speaker 3>But again, you put a number of polls together, you

0:10:05.201 --> 0:10:08.041
<v Speaker 3>start to get really meaningful data. We did that with

0:10:08.161 --> 0:10:11.481
<v Speaker 3>the mayors last year. We asked over a series of

0:10:11.481 --> 0:10:16.281
<v Speaker 3>about eight poles to rank your performance or rate the

0:10:16.321 --> 0:10:21.081
<v Speaker 3>performance of your local mayor. And then for those for

0:10:21.161 --> 0:10:22.761
<v Speaker 3>those cities where we had enough I think it was

0:10:22.801 --> 0:10:26.481
<v Speaker 3>sort of over three hundred responses, we ranked the performance

0:10:26.521 --> 0:10:29.241
<v Speaker 3>of every mayor. Now we got some angry emails, but

0:10:29.281 --> 0:10:31.721
<v Speaker 3>why didn't you do our mair? Well? The short point is,

0:10:32.161 --> 0:10:35.521
<v Speaker 3>and for some small councils, we just didn't have enough

0:10:35.881 --> 0:10:38.441
<v Speaker 3>responses even over a long time frame.

0:10:38.761 --> 0:10:42.041
<v Speaker 2>Statistically meaningful data should have a fun inbox to look

0:10:42.041 --> 0:10:43.921
<v Speaker 2>at just a couple of quick questions. What's the red

0:10:43.961 --> 0:10:45.721
<v Speaker 2>flag tip for you that makes you go no, I'm

0:10:45.721 --> 0:10:48.241
<v Speaker 2>not buying that result. Is it just a statistical anomaly

0:10:48.281 --> 0:10:49.881
<v Speaker 2>where it stands out from all the others? I mean,

0:10:49.921 --> 0:10:51.121
<v Speaker 2>would there be a time when you look at your

0:10:51.121 --> 0:10:52.601
<v Speaker 2>own pole and go, oh, hell.

0:10:54.241 --> 0:10:56.721
<v Speaker 3>Well, of course, I'm One of the great things about

0:10:56.761 --> 0:10:59.761
<v Speaker 3>doing polling is that any political leader will take your

0:10:59.801 --> 0:11:02.601
<v Speaker 3>phone call every month to give them the heads up,

0:11:02.801 --> 0:11:06.721
<v Speaker 3>as it really is a courtesy all the leaders officers

0:11:06.801 --> 0:11:08.761
<v Speaker 3>or the leaders of each of the political parties and

0:11:09.041 --> 0:11:11.641
<v Speaker 3>give them a heads up three or four hours before

0:11:11.641 --> 0:11:16.321
<v Speaker 3>public release. And the line I have found I use

0:11:16.681 --> 0:11:18.321
<v Speaker 3>when it is quite a shift in the polls, as

0:11:18.481 --> 0:11:19.961
<v Speaker 3>I say to them, you know, well, you know one

0:11:19.961 --> 0:11:22.281
<v Speaker 3>in twenties a rogue and this could be a rogue.

0:11:22.321 --> 0:11:26.921
<v Speaker 3>This hasn't setted recent polls, but then again there's been

0:11:26.921 --> 0:11:30.201
<v Speaker 3>a few of our polls where subsequent Television New Zealand

0:11:32.321 --> 0:11:36.321
<v Speaker 3>staff Roy Morgan have actually confirmed our results. So you

0:11:36.401 --> 0:11:41.321
<v Speaker 3>don't really know at the time, but if it's if

0:11:41.361 --> 0:11:43.601
<v Speaker 3>you can't explain a dramatic shift. The one I find

0:11:43.641 --> 0:11:46.161
<v Speaker 3>really interesting is that January. We usually first in the

0:11:46.201 --> 0:11:49.161
<v Speaker 3>field in sort of mid January, and there's been a

0:11:49.161 --> 0:11:51.361
<v Speaker 3>few summers where there's been quite a shift in the

0:11:51.401 --> 0:11:55.321
<v Speaker 3>polls that sort of we haven't been able to unable

0:11:55.361 --> 0:12:01.321
<v Speaker 3>to explain subsequently confirmed by subsequent polls. But I will

0:12:01.321 --> 0:12:05.321
<v Speaker 3>admit that those poles I have thought this be a

0:12:05.401 --> 0:12:09.601
<v Speaker 3>roague because as I say, one in twenty has those

0:12:09.641 --> 0:12:12.961
<v Speaker 3>two large parties outside the confidence in the marketing of error.

0:12:13.001 --> 0:12:15.281
<v Speaker 2>Hey, I really appreciate your time this Aftener and Jordan, Hey,

0:12:15.321 --> 0:12:17.881
<v Speaker 2>just one quick question. Actually, have you ever done a

0:12:17.921 --> 0:12:20.641
<v Speaker 2>poll on how we feel about our nuclear free status?

0:12:20.681 --> 0:12:22.841
<v Speaker 2>Because I reckon that there's a lot of assumptions made

0:12:22.841 --> 0:12:24.681
<v Speaker 2>about that. This is just one a completely different issue.

0:12:24.681 --> 0:12:27.681
<v Speaker 2>But can I nominate that for a question? Do you

0:12:27.681 --> 0:12:29.481
<v Speaker 2>think we should cling on to our nuclear free status?

0:12:29.481 --> 0:12:30.961
<v Speaker 2>And I reckon you do that you'll be in for

0:12:31.001 --> 0:12:31.801
<v Speaker 2>an interesting result.

0:12:32.601 --> 0:12:34.841
<v Speaker 3>I actally think we should. We have quite a long

0:12:34.881 --> 0:12:37.041
<v Speaker 3>list of things that we'd love to poll on, but

0:12:37.121 --> 0:12:39.241
<v Speaker 3>we tend to stick to things that are in the mission,

0:12:39.321 --> 0:12:42.761
<v Speaker 3>in the in our wheelhouse of taxes, government waste government accountability.

0:12:43.081 --> 0:12:45.401
<v Speaker 3>But I should add that the only thing is is

0:12:45.441 --> 0:12:50.041
<v Speaker 3>that if we didn't release it and it leaked, I

0:12:50.041 --> 0:12:52.601
<v Speaker 3>would worry that people would say there was some sort

0:12:52.641 --> 0:12:55.561
<v Speaker 3>of conspiracy. I love polling on sort of interesting issues,

0:12:56.001 --> 0:12:58.881
<v Speaker 3>but I am duty bound to keep, you know, keep

0:12:58.881 --> 0:12:59.601
<v Speaker 3>it within the mission.

0:12:59.641 --> 0:13:02.441
<v Speaker 2>Okay, Well, stick around because we're going to ask callers

0:13:02.441 --> 0:13:05.161
<v Speaker 2>what they want, what question they'd like you to to

0:13:05.441 --> 0:13:07.641
<v Speaker 2>poll on next and I'm going to throw that one

0:13:07.681 --> 0:13:10.841
<v Speaker 2>over the great Okay, geers, Jordan, thanks very much for

0:13:10.841 --> 0:13:14.641
<v Speaker 2>your time. All rights Jordan Williams, TAXPAS Union executive director.

0:13:15.281 --> 0:13:18.081
<v Speaker 1>For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to News

0:13:18.121 --> 0:13:21.761
<v Speaker 1>talk edb weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast

0:13:21.841 --> 0:13:22.801
<v Speaker 1>on iHeartRadio