And until National announced that, to a surprise to many, I think, that it would use some of the foreign aid budget to fund medicines through Pharmac, has there been any discussion at all about cuts to foreign aid?

There had been a bit of speculation and I think hand-wringing from people in the aid sector, NGOs, who look at other countries around the world.

I think Australia has made some cuts to its aid budget, certainly a number of countries in Europe, the United States under Donald Trump famously, the USAID programme.

So I think there was a bit of concern about what would happen here.

Winston-Peters has had a tendency to act as a bit of a blockade to that in the past, but there was a review of our aid programme in 2024 that said not necessarily that we need to spend less, but that we're spending our money on too many different projects.

If you're diverting your attention between hundreds of different initiatives, are you actually doing justice to any of them? So that had sort of signalled that there might be some sort of change to the way that we deliver our aid and where we focus it.

It's good for our reputation or it's good for our image.

Oh, look, I think altruism plays some role, but there are certainly other motivations.

I mean, can you tell us about the statement that they did agree and how it wasn't, uh, in keeping with PIF guidelines, uh, unanimous?

Yes.

Yeah.

So it was, was surprising on, on the upside, I guess, that they did reach agreement given, as you said, the foreign ministers could not arrive at a, a, at a joint statement.

So it was a, um, I think a statement of concern around tests in the region, including specifically a test conducted without sufficient notice.

So that was referring to China and everything but name, which I think was where the, the foreign ministers got stuck in, in Suva, in asking for 24 hours notice.

So I think the fact that they could get that across the line s- um, suggests there was sufficient concern.

Uh, so what were the lessons for New Zealand, or what will be the challenges for us next year as we take over the leadership of the Pacific Islands Forum?

What are they telling us right now? Because it really seems [laughs] that no one is winning the big numbers.

No.

I, I mean, I think the striking thing in some respects is, is the lack of support for both major parties.

You know, we, we haven't seen both, both National and Labor below 30% for, I believe, decades now.

So not exactly a, a ringing endorsement.

So I think you're right, Tim, that the minor parties to a large extent are setting the agenda in terms of their policies because there's just not that amount of confidence.

But I mean, of, of the two big players, I think Labor might have more cause for concern.

Yeah

So who did he rate, Sam? Did he rate Erica Stanford or Chris Bishop? Who was he doing this for? 'Cause he wouldn't have been acting alone.

That is the million-dollar question, and I'm afraid I don't have a, a clear answer to that.

I think you're right, clearly this was not some, uh, unilateral move by him.

There have been some pundits suggesting that there was a Stanford-Penk ticket being thrown around, others suggesting that Chris Bishop was involved somehow.

So I mean, it could, could be all of the above in, in some sense, but the pretty clear fact here is that he was not doing this for himself.

He is expedient.

He is, yes, a cabinet minister, but low enough ranked that he can be moved out.

We're not gonna talk to them about their taxes, but we'll talk to them about some green initiatives or something."