didn't he take an even tougher stance?

I think he was probably trying to preserve the dignity of the candidate involved.

He understood that she had members of her family who were gang members.

Now, it's not an offence to have family members who are gang members.

It's unfortunate, but it's not an offence.

I think he felt a degree of human sympathy for her, but he needed to make the point absolutely clearly that Labour would have no truck with working with the gangs.

But, you know, look, one thing that's worth considering on this, Catherine, you and I have been around for a while.

But for you, is turnout the other really key issue here in terms of just how tight the left-right split is, as well as, of course, where the opportunity makes it?

didn't he take an even tougher stance?

I think he was probably trying to preserve the dignity of the candidate involved.

He understood that she had members of her family who were gang members.

Now, it's not an offence to have family members who are gang members.

It's unfortunate, but it's not an offence.

I think he felt a degree of human sympathy for her, but he needed to make the point absolutely clearly that Labour would have no truck with working with the gangs.

But, you know, look, one thing that's worth considering on this, Catherine, you and I have been around for a while.

But for you, is turnout the other really key issue here in terms of just how tight the left-right split is, as well as, of course, where the opportunity makes it?

But generally it was conducted in good heart, although I thought that the clear winner was Seymour.

A lot of people have said that.

Phil, what were your thoughts? Yeah, look, what can we celebrate? First of all, that it was relatively a good-humoured and civilised debate.

So congratulations on that as the moderator.

And that's good at a time when politics is increasingly polarised.

I think the weakness of the format is that you've got four leaders, you've got numerous topics, and you can't dig down and really lock people in on their weaknesses.

Now, he tried with Seymour.

And Phil, how long did it take a government to be formed then? It was about six or seven weeks.

Phil, I imagine you're happy to be out of the game today.

Well, it brings back a few memories.

I mean, this isn't entirely new.

When I first went into Parliament and we didn't have electorate secretaries in those days and my wife used to take all the calls, she got a number of death threats, you know, on the phone.

At one particular meeting I went to, I came out to find my campaign van.

It had all the windows smashed in it.

So extreme behaviour fortunately isn't the norm in New Zealand, but it can happen.

Phil, which is there is nothing to be achieved from passing 45% of students who haven't learned enough to pass.

Phil, I imagine you're happy to be out of the game today.

Well, it brings back a few memories.

I mean, this isn't entirely new.

When I first went into Parliament and we didn't have electorate secretaries in those days and my wife used to take all the calls, she got a number of death threats, you know, on the phone.

At one particular meeting I went to, I came out to find my campaign van.

It had all the windows smashed in it.

So extreme behaviour fortunately isn't the norm in New Zealand, but it can happen.

Phil, which is there is nothing to be achieved from passing 45% of students who haven't learned enough to pass.

I don't know if those people get paid at all for doing that.

No, no, they, they, volunteers don't get paid.

Well, they certainly don't in the Labour Party.

Um, I'd be a much wealthier person [laughs] if, if they did.

Um, and, and I doubt that they're paid in the other party, uh, uh, other parties as well.

And what we try to do on our podcast is actually to encourage people to join up to a political party, be active in it.

You know, we don't nominate you've got to join this party or that party.

Yeah

Thoughts, Phil?

Yeah, well, I watched both, but I was at one.

I was at the Manukau Centre.

Yeah, Chris Ipkins was on fire.

It was really helpful.

We had the Manukau Youth Choir beforehand, and they are just fantastic.

They were great.

I mean, that's the problem.

Would you be interested, Phil, in reading about that?

about his latest book.

Look, I'll follow it.

I'll see what comes out of the press conference.

I've got no idea what's in it.

I've got to say, look, he's not always right, Nicky Hager, but he has often been right and he's disclosed things that it was in the public's interest to know about.

One of those was Brash's association with the Exclusive Brethren, which he denied and he knew nothing about it.

What do you think, Phil? Is Winston Peters right in what he said, which is basically we need to let go of this anti-American crap that we do all the time?

Would you be interested, Phil, in reading about that?

About his latest book? Look, I'll I'll follow it.

I'll see what comes out of the press conference.

I've got no idea what's in it.

I've got to say, look, he's not always right, Nicky Hager, but he has often been right.

And he's disclosed things that it was in the public's interest to know about.

One of those was Brash's association with the Exclusive Brethren, which he denied and he knew nothing about it.

What do you think, Phil? Is Winston Peters right in what he said, which is basically we need to let go of this anti-American crap that we do all the time?

But how much of this comes back to Labour's story, or lack thereof?

Yeah, I don't think the small target strategy works in a multi-party system.

It's fine if you've got First Past the Post and you've got two major parties.

If you're in opposition, you just say, look, the present crowd have made a mess of it.

We're a better alternative.

But in a multi-party system, there are a whole lot of parties competing for that vote and a whole lot of personalities.

If the small party strategy worked really well, then you wouldn't have seen a drift in the polls for Labour from where it was three or four months ago.

It just seemed like the most, even of recent meetings of the Pacific leaders, some of whom are absent, by the way, the presence, the geopolitical backdrop was just highly visible, right? What was your take on it?

But how much of this comes back to Labour's story, or lack thereof?

Yeah, I don't think the small target strategy works in a multi-party system.

It's fine if you've got First Past the Post and you've got two major parties.

If you're in opposition, you just say, look, the present crowd have made a mess of it.

We're a better alternative.

But in a multi-party system, there are a whole lot of parties competing for that vote and a whole lot of personalities.

If the small party strategy worked really well, then you wouldn't have seen a drift in the polls for Labour from where it was three or four months ago.

It just seemed like the most, even of recent meetings of the Pacific leaders, some of whom are absent, by the way, the presence, the geopolitical backdrop was just highly visible, right? What was your take on it?

Right, Phil, what do you think? Do you like the sound of what Brian Roach is proposing?

Well, I think there's a case that can be made for reducing the number of ministries and departments.

We have a whole lot more departments, and not only countries our own size, but some countries that are much bigger than us.

But the critical thing is that it needs to be properly thought out and properly executed because...

Over my time in politics, I've just seen too many stuff-ups where restructuring has been disruptive, it's been costly in terms of redundancy, it's held up progress in what the departments are meant to be doing, it's undermined morale, and it's sometimes been disastrous and reversed.

And Morris will remember the case of Murray McCully's effort to halve the size of foreign affairs, which was totally aborted and was just an absolute mess.

So it's the quality of how you think it out and how you execute it that counts.

Now, Phil, former foreign minister, have you got an insight into what the hell is going on at the Pacific Islands Forum?

Right, Phil, what do you think? Do you like the sound of what Brian Roach is proposing?

Well, I think there's a case that can be made for reducing the number of ministries and departments.

We have a whole lot more departments and not only countries our own size, but some countries that are much bigger than us.

But the critical thing is that it needs to be properly thought out and properly executed, because over my time in politics, I've just seen too many stuff-ups where restructuring has been disruptive, it's been costly in terms of redundancy, it's held up progress in what the departments are meant to be doing, it's undermined morale, and it's sometimes been disastrous and reversed in terms And Morris will remember the case of Murray McCully's effort to halve the size of foreign affairs, which was totally aborted and was just an absolute mess.

So it's the quality of how you think it out and how you execute it that counts.

Now, Phil, former foreign minister, have you got an insight into what the hell is going on at the Pacific Islands Forum?

Yeah, yeah, I have, sadly.

What God is what we always wanted to avoid, and that's the Pacific Islands becoming pawns in a great power competition.

[laughs] Okay, Phil, what do you think of the rates gap?

Oh, look, um, [laughs] if you...

Look, you want to bring down rates, there's easy ways for the government to do it.

Uh, government could start paying rates on their own properties that are exempt from rates at the moment.

Um, they add 15% cost themselves to, uh, rates because they put GST on top of it.

They could return that 15% to councils.

Uh, and you could allow alternative funding options like the bed tax.

[laughs]

How do you feel about it?

[laughs] Well, um, you know, normally I, I'm, I'm allergic to, uh, big money buying political influence.

That's what I'm allergic to, and I've just seen, you know, uh, Graham Hart put half a million into National and, uh, Nick Mowbray, um, a little bit less than that.

Um, you know, a lot of people donate money, uh, because they're rich and powerful, and they want a government that will support them continuing to be rich and powerful.

You've got to at least, uh, acknowledge this guy, uh, Alan Wilderland [laughs] is, is putting money into a party that's gonna make him pay more tax.

So I suppose you can't accuse him of, um, of putting money in to support his self-interest.

Oh

... of contracts that they, that they would miss out on.

How do you feel about it?

[laughs] Well, um, you know, normally I, I'm, I'm allergic to, uh, big money buying political influence.

That's what I'm allergic to, and I've just seen, you know, uh, Graeme Hart put half a million into National and, uh, Nick Mowbray, um, a little bit less than that.

Um, you know, a lot of people donate money, uh, because they're rich and powerful, and they want a government that will support them continuing to be rich and powerful.

You've got to at least, uh, acknowledge this guy, uh, Alan Wilderland [laughs] who's, who's putting money into a party that's gonna make him pay more tax.

So I suppose you can't accuse him of, um, of putting money in to support his self-interest.

Mm

... of contracts that they, that they would miss out on.

Will Luxon survive?

I think that question's, um, still open.

Uh, I think that if, if the National Party polling what they were on, 29% tonight, that, that's locked them into, you know, that's, that's their norm now.

They were on 38% at the last election.

Um, those MPs, uh, uh, that are in marginal seats will be thinking, "I, I, I'm gone, uh, unless something changes." And if it gets worse, and if Luxon makes further, uh, unprovoked errors like he's made in the last couple of weeks, um, there well, could well be a third coup attempt, and, uh, it may well be third time lucky.

I mean, nothing's certain in politics.

Um, it, it's an act of desperation that might, might not produce a lot of difference.

From experience, what does happen when a party really gets those speed wobbles?

So, yeah, we've just got to work with what we've got right now.

Yeah, look, I think he was pretty straightforward.

He wants a change in the system because the system's not working for him.

And he said he doesn't want to be sitting around the Cabinet table with numpties and yahoos.

And then he said, of course, I'm not talking about my current coalition partners, but by God, he was.

I'm like, who else? Who else, yeah.

But look, people are not going to vote for a change of MMP if the PM's doing it because he's losing support to smaller parties.

Be

Uh, do you agree with that? Did you agree with Chris Finlayson's premise? I know you were laughing.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, um, you know, I, I listened to, to it, uh, online, and I really couldn't make up my mind whether he was just, um, playing politics by a- appealing to a xenophobic, uh, base that New Zealand First has, has, or whether he was a grumpy octogenarian [laughs] bigot who'd lost it.

But, um, I, I don't think you can e- excuse it by age.

Uh, Winston Peters has been doing this as long as I've, uh, known him, and I've known him for a very long time.

And, you know, you just...

Look, if it was one of his own MPs, like Andy Foster, born in the UK, nothing wrong with that, he wouldn't have told somebody born in the UK, "Go back to your own country." Um, he, he made that comment quite specifically because the MP was, uh, was born in China, d- despite the fact he'd lived here 30 years.

What do you reckon, Phil?

How do you reflect on that when you consider

the recent words? Yeah, it's double standards, isn't it? I was relatively diplomatic, maybe not for a career diplomat, and I wasn't one of those, in asking the question whether Trump understood history, referring obviously to his attempt to appease Putin over Ukraine.

And because I knew that both...

Winston Peters, named after a certain Winston, and the President Trump having the bust of Winston Churchill in his Oval Office.

Churchill had spoken out loudly against appeasement in 1938 when Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Adolf Hitler.

And the lesson of history was very clearly that when you appease an aggressor, you don't satisfy them, you only encourage them to go on and make further demands.

Now, that was a question asked in a place called Chatham House, which is a certain thing called Chatham House Rules.

But will the opposition, do you think, be able to translate that into more votes?

Phil, I would like to start with you on this one because with that fallout from China, how do you think that's going to play diplomatically after these headlines have been reverberating around the world?

Oh, I think it's gonna play out really badly.

Um, firstly, I mean, there's, there's two impacts, isn't there? The, the first impact o- of his comments, go back to your own country, is to, to wind up the racists and the bigots in New Zealand, and to make people from our, our ethnic communities, uh, feel unwanted, looked down upon, uh, less secure, uh, less welcome.

But there will be, and there has already been an, an impact on our relationship with China.

Now, we're remembering that China is our biggest, by far, trading partner.

It's our biggest source of international students, and it's a major market for tourism.

And Peters has basically gone out and said, uh, they're a bunch of liars.

What's your reading of that poll?

Phil, what do you make of all of this stuff?

Well, I'm going to be consistent on this.

I was opposed to Three Waters because I didn't think central government should be dictating to local government what it should be doing.

Uh, we were democratically elected, we're accountable to our electors.

And I'm opposed to the National Party and the coalition's U-turn on the idea that you'd have localism, that, uh, the democratically elected and accountable, uh, representatives on council shouldn't be told what to do about every single thing by central government.

Why the hell do we have local government if central government overrides it all the time? So what I say is that, uh, local government's close to the people in their area, the people don't like what the local government's doing, they can change it.

But they don't need to be dictated to by central government on almost every aspect of what they are doing.

Mm.

They never take the

initiative to do the right thing on their own account, because they always put their money ahead of public safety or public interest.

I've got a bit of a thing about these companies.

They're not only powerful in terms of their control of media, But they then, people like Elon Musk, turn that power into wanting to create a society in his own image.

And God knows that's the last thing in the world that we would want.

They don't pay taxes.

They put their profit ahead of everything else.

Pretty incredible story, Phil.

So I don't know how I feel about somebody restraining someone on the floor who has, you know, one to three days worth of online training and one day in practical tests, you know? Yeah.

Look, I'm with that.

You know, people are employed as security guards often because of their build, but not necessarily because of their judgment.

And I don't want to go into any place and somebody having the right to detain or search me against my will because they've done three days training.

Yeah, I agree completely with both of you.

So, you know, act as...

Going over the top as it always

Phil, something that even remotely entertains you?

Phil, what do you think?

Well, I've been a firearms license holder for 50 years, and I do the test every 10 years, and they come along and they interview you about whether you're a fit and proper person, and, uh, that's, you know, having a gun license to me is not a right, it's a privilege, and I've gotta justify that privilege by saying that I'm a, a person that's unlikely to use violence.

And, you know, if you go out, he- he's done three things basically.

First of all, he said that he'd use a shotgun to protect his family against immigrants.

Now, why immigrants? Um, you know, surely some of our homegrown people like the Head Hunters might be [laughs] the people he should be protecting himself against.

Um, but, you know, look, I, I, I hate the prejudice in that, and I... and, you know, the laws on use of firearms against other people are very clear in self-defense.

But this stuff about, it's not just burning down mosques and temples.

Mm.