'We've got to do things differently': Goldsmith makes his plea at lively Epsom debate

Epsom voters have long been savvy about strategic voting, giving ACT their electorate vote, and National the party vote.

The country's smallest and wealthiest seat was the only one where National won the largest party vote share in its 2020 drubbing.

But the days of a deal over a cup of tea are long gone.

Polling on 11 percent in this week's 1News Verian poll, ACT doesn't need the seat to survive anymore.

Instead, it's National's Paul Goldsmith who's at risk.

The veteran candidate is ranked sixth on the party list. Even that might not be enough to save him.

Goldsmith, who has spent his entire time in Parliament as a list MP ("Not from any lack of desire, on my part," he says) faces a future outside of Parliament on current polling, unless he can loosen his coalition colleague David Seymour's iron grip on the seat.

At the Sommervell Presbyterian Church on Thursday night, the 10th election debate at this location, moderator Tim Watkin acknowledged there was a "real interest, nationally" in the electorate, as Goldsmith set out his claim.

"For 15 years that I've been in Parliament, we've had an ACT MP and National MP based here, and I think it's been a good combination," Goldsmith said.

Goldsmith said "at the start" it made sense not to contest the seat.

"Not from any lack of desire on my part. It's just the way things were."

But now, he's arguing for two ticks blue.

"If we want to keep both an ACT and a National presence in the electorate, we've got to do things differently this time."

ACT has held the seat since 2005, Seymour since 2014.

He thought Goldsmith was talking down his party's chances, and that National would bring a number of list MPs in.

"Epsom has always had a strategy, but Epsom has never been only a strategy. You do actually have to want the job, and do the job, and be up there representing people day by day, whether you think it's to your electoral advantage or not. There's a difference between public service and politics," he said.

"It belongs, and has always belonged, to the people of Epsom."

The duo were joined by Labour's Camilla Belich, the Greens' Lawrence Xu-Nan, and New Zealand First's Martin Gummer.

The Opportunity Party's candidate Paul Jackson was a late no-show.

"A lost opportunity," remarked one crowd member.

Health, tax, Winston ... and the mob

Perhaps because he was sat on the end, and furthest away from the moderator, Seymour spent some early portions of the two-hour debate frozen out.

Amidst an argument between Goldsmith, Belich, and Xu-Nan on the health system, he joked their parties would not be able to run supermarkets as they would be "arguing about whose job it was to put Toffee Pops on the shelf".

He was able to get going when talking about debt, tax, and interest rates, and his contributions garnered strong support from the crowd, albeit helped by the pink jacket-clad crew of supporters in the front row.

Despite Goldsmith's role as National's justice spokesperson, the controversy around candidates appearing at a gang pad was only occasionally mentioned, and usually as an effort from Goldsmith to change the subject.

"When's she going to talk about the Mongrel Mob?" Goldsmith interjected when Belich spoke of her background in law, and her opposition to changes to unjustified dismissal laws.

A question from the floor about US Vice President JD Vance appeared to floor Goldsmith, until he took advantage of being in the spotlight.

"While I've got the microphone, I do want to ask my neighbour: has she visited a Mongrel Mob pad?"

"No, I haven't," responded Belich. "Have you?"

With Auckland Hospital and Starship both in the electorate, Belich was keen to talk about health.

As the candidates debated whether or not the health system was in crisis, she told them to speak to the frontline.

"I think it is worth listening to them, the people who actually do the work, and when they say it's in crisis actually believe them."

Xu-Nan, holder of the record for the most words spoken in the House last term, also held his own in the church, getting support for criticising comments Winston Peters made to him in the House.

The Green MP also denied Peters' claim that he spoke to him directly about the comments.

"This particular issue has never been discussed, and I'm flabbergasted that he's actually gone out and said we had a conversation. Perhaps he could be lying. Perhaps he could have mistaken me for another MP, which, to be honest, is also highly likely."

Gummer, the only candidate on stage who has not been a member of Parliament, told Xu-Nan that Parliament was a robust place, that much worse things were said in Parliament, and it was time to move on.

But the crowd at times turned against Xu-Nan, none more so than when he started to explain why parties have met with the Mongrel Mob.

After the debate, a constituent named Jane told RNZ she was not sure what the outcome of the vote would be.

"People around here that I know of have their own minds about things. They're not looking to someone to tell them how to vote," she said.

"A lot of them will vote for who they most want to represent them, not for concocting numbers."

Another voter, also named Jane, said she enjoyed the opportunity to see the candidates' characters, and was on the lookout for arrogance and humility.

"It's those offhand, arrogant comments that actually have more of an influence on their personality than their good ideas," she said.

Jane called Seymour "trumped up", and "sort of" felt sorry for Goldsmith and the situation he was in.

"I like the guy, I thought he showed some humility, I did like him. But you can't make a vote on sympathy."