Today on Newshub Nation, Foreign Minister Winston Peters is here fresh from his Pacific trip. What does he make of proposed talks between Korea and the US? We talk to Green's co-leadership hopefuls Julie Anne Genter and Marama Davidson to find out about their plans for the party. And it's 100 years since the deadly Spanish Flu hit New Zealand, how would we cope with a similar pandemic today? Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018 Kia ora. Good morning. I am Lisa Owen. Welcome to Newshub Nation. US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un will soon sit down for talks together despite months of provocative tweets and comments that had the region and the world on edge, but will anything come out of these talks? Foreign Minister Winston Peters joins me now. Good morning, Minister. Good morning. How significant do you think these talks are? Well, it doesn't get any more raw or real or important than this engagement that's coming up. It's seriously important, critically important for whole lot of reasons but above all for the survival of humanity. So North Korea, as you know, doesn't have a good track record for keeping promises, and I saw your press release that said you welcome the indication of talks. Mm. How likely do you think it is that the meeting's going to go ahead? And what would you like to see come of it? Well, I think a lot of the things that have been happening have led to this moment and that the appearance of the North Koreans in the Olympic Winter Games was not by accident. I think also that China has played, behind the scenes, a more critical role than they have in the past, and all of this has led to this potential outcome now. One should not get carried away or rush to a judgement or get overoptimistic, but at least it represents an avenue for hope. What role has China been playing? I think that if they have been doing what the West and other parts of the world have been asking them to do, they've made it very clear to the North Koreans that this cannot go on. You have previously called for maximum pressure to be applied to North Korea, and I'm wondering ` what would you need to see to feel comfortable with UN sanctions being eased? A verifiable denuclearisation programme that we can have absolute confidence in, but, yeah, the added thing that I've always said is that to make this possible, a number of countries ` including our own ` need to step up and all around the region and assist North Korea to a different economic outcome so that they can be comfortable in where they go in the future. We are dealing with something, a different regime that is very rare in this world; it has very few parallels, but we have to give them a way out. So, you met recently with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and other diplomats. What role did those talks have to do with what's happening now? I think they're very important, because we were of a very clear mind that getting promises or having recriminative statements as part of the diplomatic choreography is just a waste of our time. We needed to be now or never. We needed to make it very clear to the North Koreans that we're here to help; we're prepared to go down the pathway of change and decisive and very sound economic future for them, but they have to give up this pathway of nuclearisation. When you say you're here to help, how much help are you prepared to give? Would you go along for those meetings? Have you been asked? Have you offered? Well, I've been to meetings there in the past, and I can't say any more about that other than to say if I was to ask New Zealanders whether the opportunity for a better future in terms of nuclear or non-nuclear was our part of the regional future and, indeed, the worldwide future, I think they'd be prepared to make a supportive statement and help out as well. But if a whole lot of countries join in to turn this result around, then it will not be all that expensive, but it'll be so progressive for our region and, indeed, East Asia and, in fact, all the world. Have you offered your services? No, I don't go round offering my services like that. I'm happy to serve in any capacity that I'm asked to serve in. I just wonder ` do you think that President Trump is the person to make this happen? Look, I'm not going to be commenting on that. The person that I have engaged with is Rex Tillerson and General Mattis and others in that context. But put aside` Yeah, but President Trump is having the meeting, isn't he? Do you think he's up to it? Put aside all that. If you go back over what happened over the last nine years since we were last trying to engage Korea, then this is a potentially decisively different moment. So I'm not going to, you know, pour cold water on what looks like potential success. Is he up to the job? Again, I'm not going to engage in that sort of conversation. What I'm interested in is the outcome,... All right. ...not making political points on The Nation at this time of the year. Well, President Trump has actually been very busy this week. He's also signed off on some significant tariffs on the steel and aluminium industries, and the EU has indicated that there's going to be some kind of retaliation. How worried should we be that New Zealand is going to get caught in the crossfire of all of this? Well, I mean, people forget that over 20 years ago ` in fact, about 1999 ` Clinton was applying tariffs against our NZ steel, and these were very, very significant. Now, that was a different administration. So the precedent is already there, but I think we've got a potential and a chance to get ourselves exempt from it. Have you requested an exemption? Well, I'm not the Minister of Finance; you'll have to ask Grant Robertson that. Are you aware of whether we've requested an exemption? Well, again, I've been offshore; I'm not aware we have or not, but frankly, I would've thought we had a chance with being seriously exempted... But that's` ...in the way that I saw recently the Canadians had been. Yes, but that's in respect of steel and aluminium. What if there's an ongoing tit for tat? Do you have any concerns for dairy? Because the Special Agricultural trade Envoy, Mike Petersen, says, you know, he is worried. Look, what's Donald Trump's biggest complaint? It's that the countries that are shouting out free trade for America don't take this free trade themselves. In fact, that's New Zealand First and my complaint ` that the countries that we deal with apply tariffs against us whilst we've given them total unfettered, free access to our country. It's simply not fair. In that context, there's something similar being said here, and it's not Luddite; it's not old-fashioned. So you have some sympathy. It happens to be an economic fact, which some propagators of the free market tenets should actually face up and describe why it's not fair for Donald Trump to do what he's doing. Now, that said, we believe in free trade, but we believe in fair trade and even-handed trade for the advantage of the maximum majority of people on this Earth. And I can see that we have got a similar and very sound argument to put to Donald Trump, in fact, a very compelling one as to why he should exempt us. So` The EU is not in the same boat when it comes to that. Okay. So you have some sympathy for his view, then, given your position, New Zealand First` Well, I have a great deal of sympathy for what I call even-handed fairness. Why should the EU be screaming blue murder about that when what's our barrier when we go to the EU? It's always massive agricultural subsidies to protect theirs against open access from our country. Okay, well, you bring up the EU, and, obviously, we're looking for a trade deal there, but the New Zealand First coalition agreement with Labour includes an obligation to explore a free-trade deal with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. How serious are you about that? And why do you think it's a good idea? Well, we're deadly serious about it, and I'll tell you why ` we had, for years, Tim Groser and the National Party boasting about the free-trade deal they were doing with Russia, and we were doing deals with Russia when they were a communist nation. Then all of a sudden on the golf course of Hawaii, the whole thing collapsed. Why would that be? And the EU, who thanked us for what we did, then started attacking our agricultural markets. Let's be honest here ` we're going to go into these conversations from here on in with our eyes wide open as to the facts and not pulling our punches. We might get a fairer deal that way. Okay, well, you'd be aware that there are sanctions, obviously, currently against Russia. Wouldn't it be a diplomatic faux pas to be sidling up for a free-trade deal? Now, what's extraordinary about that statement is that the UK right now has 5 billion-plus dealings with Russia. So how come they can argue that and the rest of the surviving EU argue their case whilst poor old New Zealand suffers massively, and the EU, despite our doing our bit for the embargo that they had asked us to follow, then starts aggressively attacking us in our own existing dairy markets? So we're an all-round loser, and all I'm saying is some of your leaders in the past should've been more honest as to what they were not doing and why they were not doing it. Okay, well the biggest prize would be a deal with the EU. I mean, trade there is about $19.6 billion ` two-way trade in 2016. $762 billion two-way trade with Russia ` tiny by comparison. It's not either/or; it's doing a trade deal with everyone we possibly can. It could be an either/or, though, couldn't it, Minister? Because the EU has expressed concerns about the fact we could be looking at that kind of deal. So it might be an either/or. It might stand in the way. Well, it might not either when somebody point out, 'But hang on; we know your level of trade between, for example, Germany and Russia. 'We know your level of trade between the UK and Russia, or France and Russia.' So let's have` What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the New Zealand gander. Okay. Well, then based on your own standards ` you know a Russian missile downed a passenger jet, 283 civilians killed over the Ukraine. They have basically taken over Crimea; they're meddling in the Ukraine, and it's confirmed they were meddling in the US elections as well. Do you not worry about any of that when you're considering a deal? I worry about all international circumstances in which human life is put at risk. But do you not think that precludes`? But I do not have all the facts. We have a lot of allegations, but we do not have the facts laid out clearly. Once you start talking about those sorts of moral judgements` An international reporter confirmed` When you're talking about those sorts of moral judgements, you might not be trading with anybody very quickly. Most countries don't survive ` well, a lot of countries that we're dealing with would not survive a serious human-rights issue or gender-equality issue or an ethnic-issue debate. Now, we still trade with them. You have said` I want to read a quote to you. 'Our relations need to retain New Zealand's traditional emphasis on human rights, 'the rule of law, transparency, good government and the promotion of democracy.' You'll recognise that, because you said it. Yeah, I know. So how does that apply when you're talking about doing a deal with Russia ` a free-trade deal with countries that have terrible human rights records, terrible labour records? Let me tell you about how it applies, and I thought it was very clear when I made my opening statement. It apparently applies to a whole lot of EU countries and the UK right now, for they are seriously trading with Russia. I heard Boris Johnson, a person I've got some time for, boasting about their over $5 billion trading with Russia. So we're being held to different standards, you think, Minister. Well, precisely. No, no, we're running around here `rather naively, by my say-so ` without knowing the full facts that might advantage our case. And besides, Kazakhstan is a seriously rising country; it's got a lot of opportunities for us there, and so have the rest. It's not just Russia, it's` So you're going to ignore the EU's views on it, then. I'm not saying I'm ignoring the EU's views on it. I'm taking into account their actual practical behaviour, because if their views and their behaviour were to match and they were the same thing, then we could follow it. But they don't. What they say is not what they do. But your own standards suggest that there should be an issue with negotiating this deal ` the standards that you've laid out about emphasising human rights, the rule of law, transparency, good government. I say again ` Ukraine, Crimea and blowing a passenger jet out of the sky. Well, those are the allegations that you say. No, that's an international report that confirmed the missile that hit that jet was of Russian origins and had been passed over the border to rebels. Well, right, then, see, you've got a problem, because you're saying the person that set that missile off was doing it at the direction of the Russians. Big problem ` your argument legally collapses right there, because you've got no evidence of that. It was a former Russian missile, yes, true. But who was responsible for setting it off? It's not for us to litigate. That was an international investigation that` Your point was going fine until you said that the origins are the substantive` How do you deal with that stuff? Or do you just ignore it? Do you just ignore it? Or do you go ahead with the deal, ignoring those things? I'm not just sliding by your allegations, because you've actually failed to make the case out. Well, like I say, international report found that, not me. So you are happy to put those things to one side? One more time ` they didn't find what you said they found ` that the instigator of that atrocity was working at the behest of the Russian government. All right. Well, let me put it another way, Minister. Let me put it another way. Do you not see any barriers in Russia's record to going ahead with a free trade deal? Look, I see barriers in dealing with a lot of countries that are near New Zealand now. Like? Well, deportation of New Zealanders from Australia is a serious barrier. We don't like it; we know someone was sent back here who'd never lived here and was caught by a 'Barnaby Joyce in reverse' complex of having a New-Zealand-passport father. Now, this is wrong, but we trade with Australia, and we carry on, because we hope one day to vastly improve the circumstance. And I believe it's possible. So don't put up all barriers, because otherwise, we'd be not trading with anybody. So you're saying sign up, but express your views, and campaign from a closer relationship. Look, I don't care if we're trading with Tokelau or China ` the biggest country in the world. We should treat them as equals, and we expect them to treat us as equals. OK, let's move on to the so-called 'waka jumping' legislation. That's going to need the support of the Green Party to get it over the line. Do you think that the Greens' confidence-and-supply agreement means that they have to support it? Is that your reading of the situation? The confidence-and-supply agreement is with the Labour Party, not with the coalition government of Labour-New Zealand First. Just with the Labour Party, which is part of the coalition, albeit the biggest part of it. But the second thing is, I believe` Regardless, do you believe that it obliges them to vote for that piece of legislation? Well, the Greens have a constitutional schism of a huge capacity to ensure that it's the choice of the mass majority of their members. There are protections for them in this legislation. But if people think that jumping the waka or jumping out of the boat when you feel like it is democratic in an MMP environment, then they don't know democracy. But you need them to get it over the line. Are they going to support it? I do need them to make it over the line. Let me tell you, I'm somebody ` probably one of the rarest people in this country; since 1954, nobody had ever walked out of Parliament and resigned on a matter of principle, but I did. So I'm not asking anyone to do what I didn't do. So I didn't just walk out and make my own party; I walked out and gave up a whole lot of things, including about one-third of my retirement entitlements to start a party on a matter of principle. Just please don't just slide past that, because it's OK for you in your comfortable well-paid existence; I understand that. But you don't know what it's like to walk off for seven weeks, to have a whole lot of organisation dependent upon you whilst you're trying to fund I appreciate your` a very unnecessary by-election forced by a matter of principle. That's your personal story; I appreciate that. Do you think you're going to get this legislation over the line? Yes, I do. So the Greens, you think, are going to support it. Well, I think if the people in National Party have any sense of democracy and what MMP's about and the need to keep faith with what the election-night result is, then they themselves will vote for it. But people say it's antidemocratic, that it's just an insurance policy for you. Well, if you are in these sort of` if you're part of the... Unreconstructed Morons Collective making those sorts of personal arguments, that's fine for you to say, but it's not true. Okay. My bona fides is I resigned from Parliament. What's there for them to make that allegation? All right, let's move on. You'll be the Prime Minister for a few weeks shortly ` quite a few weeks. How closely will you be consulting with Jacinda Ardern during that time? You know, at what level will you consult with her around decision-making? Well, I know that the media and a lot of commentators will not give her peace of time, but she would have a rather bigger priority at that point in time, and I'm certain she can have confidence in her ministers, including me, to ensure that the country runs properly. So will you consult her on all decisions, only big ones or at what level? Well, I mean` What do you think? The reason why I'm taking over for the time being the job of being prime minister is to make those decisions based on what? The coalition agreement, fundamental understandings of principle; it should not be any way difficult. I want to assure my media friends that this is something I have done over 22 years ago; this is not going to be a problem. Kelvin Davis, he'll be deputy, will he, Deputy Prime Minister? You happy with that? Well, take a wild guess. He's number two in the Labour Party now, so if he's number two then, take a wild guess ` he'll be the deputy, yes. All right. Thank you very much for joining us this morning, Minister. If you've got something to say about what you've seen on our show, let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Or you can email us ` nation@mediaworks.co.nz. The address is on your screen now. And up next ` we're joined by two MPs vying to be the co-leader of the Green Party. Plus, a particularly nasty strain of the flu could be on the way this winter, we look at how well our health system is prepared to cope. Next month, the Green Party will choose a new co-leader to replace Metiria Turei. There are two contenders for the role, Julie Anne Genter and Marama Davidson, and they both join me now. Good morning. Morena. Ata marie. Julie Anne, can I start with you? 2017 election results were your worst in, what, a decade? More than a decade. So has the Green Party lost its way? No, we had a really difficult election, and it ended up really well for us, because we've ended up as part of a government with Green Party ministers for the first time ever, but we had to pay a huge price in losing our co-leader, Metiria Turei, shortly before the election. There's no question that we don't want a repeat of that in the future. We need to regain the votes that we lost. We need to build from there. Marama Davidson, 6%. It ended well is what Ms Genter says. Did it? Yeah, if it wasn't for the incredible hard work of our Green Party volunteers all around the country, we wouldn't have done as well as we did, and so we are in government in a confidence and supply agreement, with ministers ready to make good, green, progressive change. Isn't the sign of a good leader being able to recognise a weakness? And it sounds like you're both in denial. No, what we do face is a political risk of losing the ordinary support that smaller parties lose in their first term in an MMP government of, on average, 28%. That would see the Greens down at 4%. I'm very aware that we need to grow our Green movement, and that's the only way that we are going to come back in 2020 with more MPs able to influence much stronger in the next government, absolutely. OK. So, Ms Genter, what's your top priority, your number one priority, for a Green Party under your co-leadership? The number one priority is growing the number of Green MPs and being a large part of the next government after 2020. And your number one policy priority? I think that, typically, we usually campaign on three. No, I'm asking you for your number one. Number one ` I think it's got to be the environment, but we can't achieve environmental protection without changing the economic system that is exploiting people and the environment. Marama Davidson, do you agree that the environment is the number one priority? Again, to address the environmental degradation, we have to transform the social and economic factors that absolutely led to that. But, actually, I'm also proud to lead my number one priority is also renter's rights and rent controls. You can't have two number one priorities, so is it the environment, or is it social justice campaigning? The Green Party understands that we need to address our environmental, social, and economic systems for the outcomes that we want, that we need. OK. Well, I've been reading your charter, and it says ecological wisdom is the top priority ` the environment. 'Ecological sustainability is paramount.' Do you accept that the top priority of the Green Party` Lisa, those aren't top priorities. And as co-leader, I will not weaken any of our Green Party charter. No, but it says` It's not number one, and, in fact, if you read through our charters, you will see that all of the principles depend and are inextricably linked to each other. And as co-leader, I will not weaken any of our principles. I have read all of this, and there's no mention of social justice, and it does say that ecological sustainability is paramount. Social responsibility and appropriate decision-making as well. The definition of paramount is 'more important than anything else; supreme', so environment ` the number one issue for the Green Party. Are you deviating from that? No, the Green Party itself and the members have been very clear that we need to uphold social responsibility, appropriate decision-making, and a commitment to peace and violence, alongside ecological wisdom and underneath the umbrella of a commitment to Te Tiriti as our founding document. I guess what I would say, Lisa, is it's obvious that if we don't have a planet and we don't have resources, we don't have a society, and that's why it's in that logical order. But it's also true that we can't protect our planet and our natural ecosystems if we don't have a fair society. We can't have a fair society if we don't have peaceful ways and appropriate decision-making, which is democracy. So that's why the four things work together. But there's no question that no planet; no people. So it is number one. OK, Simon Bridges is extending the olive branch to the Greens. I want to know, specifically, what would it take for you, as co-leader, to work with the National Party under Simon Bridges? They'd have to change a lot of their fundamental policies. I mean, Simon Bridges was the biggest cheerleader for increasing oil and gas exploration last term. Although he tried to greenwash and say he was investing in public transport, walking, and cycling, The reality is that the National government with him as transport minister was spending tonnes of money on uneconomic motorways. But you're in government with someone who hasn't ditched their mining policies either, hasn't put a moratorium on mining, so why couldn't you work with Simon Bridges? No, there actually have been quite significant changes between the National Party's policy on this and the new government's policy, but obviously the best way for people to ensure that we're ending fossil fuel exploration in New Zealand is to vote for the Green Party. Marama Davidson, could you be pragmatic and work with Simon Bridges as National Party, and what would it take? He would have to move a lot. He did open up Maui dolphin sanctuary, for example, to seismic explosion and mining, so he would have to move. We know what he's done; I'm wondering what he needs to do ` what he needs to do to work with you. He would have to understand that you cannot pretend to be a champion for the environment while also letting social and economic systems further degrade the environment. So Simon's got a lot of work to do if he thinks he could work with the Green Party and be a truly progressive and transformational government. OK. In your pitch to the Green membership, you said you would be a brave leader. Wouldn't it be brave to say that you could work across with any party, not to just commit to one party, to be available to all sorts of coalition configurations? Ultimately, it's up to the party to determine our political positioning, and really, if you look at our political positioning in the previous elections, it always has said that we will work with constructively and challenge any government, and we prioritise that based on their policies and their track record. So it's not that we're biased against the National Party; we just have nine years of a degraded environment, increasing inequality, reduction in local democracy from the National Party. So if there is a complete change in policy and direction, of course we'd be open to working with them. Marama Davidson, the current confidence and supply deal ` a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being a dog, 10 being amazing, how well do you think that deal is? Oh, no, I think it's an 8, but I think the Greens` An 8? I think the Greens have a role to push beyond the current government's agenda. We are the most progressive political party in government, and as an MP outside of the executive, my particular role would be to push and show the constituents that we are the most progressive party who will push beyond the government's agenda. Well, you're pushing that the role is best suited to someone who is not a current minister ` that you'll have more time to deal with the flock. So are you committing here on this show not to take up a ministerial portfolio if you become the co-leader ever? In this first term, while we are settling in to this arrangement of being in an MMP coalition agreement, I think it's important that, to grow our movement by 2020, we need a co-leader who has the independence and the freedom to maintain our unique Green voice, our independent voice; that's going to be how we can be of relevance... Isn't that a cop-out? ...and to grow our support. The portfolios have already been handed out, and if you're saying that it's better to be outside, not have a ministerial portfolio, surely you're going to stand by that for the foreseeable future? For the first term, I think it's important, and for the second term, the membership will decide on whether we think we're ready to have two co-leaders as a minister. For the first term, as an MP outside of the executive, I'm really clear that I will have the freedom, the independence, to be able to stay strong in those core Green issues that push beyond this current government's, like deep-sea oil drilling. We will stay there, and we will stand there, and we will show the voters if you truly want to address climate change, it is the Green Party you need to vote for. Julie Anne Genter, you would have heard Winston Peters talking about the waka-jumping legislation. I wasn't sure what he was saying. We need to ask him for clarification. He thinks he's got the numbers. He needs you guys for the numbers. So do you support the waka-jumping bill? Would you, if you had free choice, vote for that bill? Look, in the Green Party, we listen to the members; they make the policy, and we represent that policy in parliament. Well, as someone who said you're going to be a brave leader, you're not being particularly brave answering this question. The question is if you had free will, would you vote for it? Do you think it's good legislation? Would you give it your vote if you had a choice? No, I don't think it's great legislation. I understand we want to preserve the proportionality. I understand that impulse. But I don't know that this legislation is the right way to do that. And our party has serious problems with the legislation, so we need to sit down and have a very frank conversation with our partners in government and say we have a problem. We have to listen to our members, we have to respect our constitution and our policy, and we need to find a way forward with this, and we can't guarantee a vote for it at second rating. Marama Davidson, some people are saying because you didn't raise this at the discussions and you didn't have an out clause in your confidence and supply... Oh, at the negotiations. ...that you're stuck with it. So did James Shaw make a giant mistake here? Nothing comes back on one person with the decisions that the Green Party make. I did raise my concerns from the start about the waka-jumping legislation. Are you going to be a fence-sitter in the leadership role? So whose mistake is that? Someone's got to own it. It comes back to the caucus, absolutely, across all of us, with all of our party decisions. And what we have to do now, Lisa, and what I've been working with the members on is making sure that we have regular, transparent, honest communications with the membership so they're aware of the sticky issues that are going to come down the line and we have a consensus and appropriate decision-making processes to work out where we go next. OK. We've got to leave it there. We're going to be coming back. Stay with us after the break, and we'll continue this conversation with the two women vying for the co-leadership of the Greens. We're back with Marama Davidson and Julie Anne Genter. Both are vying for the Green Party co-leadership. Julie Anne Genter, how would you describe your party's current relationship with New Zealand First? I think it's going really well. We have a positive working relationship. There are a lot of areas where we have agreement, like in transport policy, for example, and then there's areas where clearly we disagree and we're able to have respectful conversations about that. And I think we just need to be open, honest, and very strong in the Green Party's positions on these things. Well, you've positioned yourself in the pitch to your membership is that you will voice your dissention; you will work out how to say what you don't believe in in a coalition situation. Is your current leadership not speaking up enough? Look, our current leadership, I think, is doing a great job, but also James and I have very different styles, you know. He's very collaborative; he's very much seeking agreement, and that's great` Too much so? I just think that stylistically, I would be a bit clearer and a bit stronger. So he's being too agreeable? No, I don't think you need to say he's being too agreeable to say that we have a different approach to style, but I have very positive, respectful relationships with parties across parliament, with the leadership, particularly in the government, and I think I have enough... But you're pitching a firmer hand, aren't you? ...respect in the house to be able to stand up for the Green Party. OK. Marama Davidson, James Shaw ` are you 100% happy with his leadership style and how he's leading the Greens at the moment? Lisa, our first-time ministers, we need to have compassion for them being able to settle into their role. Lisa, everyone understands that ministers have a whole different level of accountability; that's understandable. So he's still finding his way? Is that what you're saying? Across parliament, we've got new ministers settling in and finding their way and working out and negotiating where their places are in terms of what they can speak up on, what work they're doing. Obviously our ministers need to prioritise their portfolio areas, and so again` So you're not 100% happy with how he's doing at the moment ` room for improvement? No, again, what I'm bringing to the co-leadership as a non-executive member is the ability to be able to focus on maintaining our independent voice, working with our membership in particular, and supporting the portfolio priorities of our ministers, of our Green ministers. But that said, I have to say that being a minister outside cabinet, my colleagues know that I will express a different point of view. I've even done it in the areas where I'm an associate minister ` in transport and health ` and I have very positive working relationships with those ministers. One thing that ministers have, which is a bit of an advantage, is you have a lot of resource and support and you have a huge platform to demonstrate how you're making a difference, and I do think people want to vote. So that's why you'd be better as a co-leader than Marama? Well, I think that the position should not be considered on the basis of whether someone is a minister or not, but I don't think it's fair to say that ministers have a disadvantage. In fact, I think that this role is giving me a huge advantage that will enable me to be an effective co-leader for the Green Party. So, Lisa` No, I just want to` Can we move on? Because we're running out of time. Marama, you have said it would be the greatest honour of your life to follow in the footsteps of Metiria Turei. And Jeanette Fitzsimons. Yeah, and Jeanette Fitzsimons, but I want to concentrate on Metiria Turei because this is where the contention is within your party. Would you have her back as an MP under your leadership? She did incredible work throughout her whole entire parliamentary career. Would you have her back as an MP under your leadership? Do you want her back? I'm happy to step up into this leadership role that is empty. I think she's done incredible service for our country and has done for a heck of a long time. So you don't want her back as an MP. And we've moved on ` our party has moved on ` and I'm my own woman and going to bring my own leadership style to this role to complement James. I'm not asking if you would have her back as a co-leader. Do you want her back? Do you stand by her to bring her back as an MP in the Greens? No, I think she wants to rest. I think she's done her service. And I think the Green Party has gone through a lot now and are ready for new leadership. OK. Do you stand by, Julie Anne Genter, the way your party handled that situation, and would you have done anything differently? I think we all would agree that we could have done things differently. I think that Metiria shared a very brave story, and it was trying to communicate something that's very important, which is how difficult things are for people who are reliant on a benefit and that our social safety net is broken and it causes people to make bad decisions and to have to be dishonest and that, therefore, it's the law and the policy that is unjust. But nobody ` nobody in the party ` would say that we couldn't have done things better to plan for the fallout, plan for the rest` So you're OK with her defrauding the system? Her point was not that it's OK to commit fraud, Lisa. Her point was that the law and the policy is unjust and it needs to change. I'm asking you what your line in the sand is. And she should have been clear about the fact that it's not OK to commit fraud, but it's also not OK to have a system that forces people to lie to survive. Hey, so is this still causing ructions in your party about how this was handled? We are very clear, and the members understand that we've got some things to learn` That's not what I'm asking you. Is there still dissention? Because we're being told that there is; this is a cause of some tension still for the Green Party, how this was handled. And that's why I want to bring the party together and heal the party... You concede there is this tension. ...and make it clear that we've got things to learn from what was handled. But the point absolutely was ` and I know this personally ` that you should not have to lie or face the choice of getting your power cut off because you have got not enough to survive. So you accept there is still tension in your party that needs to be dealt with over this issue? We've got several sticky issues that I will bring the party together on to work through on several issues. Just very quickly before we move on, is there anything in either of your backgrounds that could place you in a Metiria Turei-type situation? Yes or no? No. No. OK. All right, let's move on to some quick-fire questions, starting with you, Marama Davidson. OCR ` what is the rate, currently? Is it about 1.75? Yes, it is. Inflation is at...? 1.6. OK. Median wage? Excuse me. (CLEARS THROAT) Median wage? Oh, goodness. 18? No. Median household income is just over 80,000. Median wage? Median wage is... 49,000 average wage. Closer to 60,000. Oh, annual. Sorry. Hourly. I thought you meant by hour. Unemployment rate is currently what, Julie Anne Genter? 4.4, but it's higher for women, and it's much higher for Maori and Pasifika. Correct. GDP ` what is it, per year, for New Zealand? Can I just say that the unemployment rate is also not the whole labour market rate. This is what we need to be looking at. Yes. Understood. So GDP ` what is it? What, the growth rate or the total number? Total number. 268. I'll take it. 270. Did you know that? No. OK. So what percentage of senior roles are held by women in New Zealand currently, according to a survey that was out this week? Not enough. Well under 20%. Yes, down from about 30 at its peak. You've raised housing as a major issue that you're interested in, so the national median house price is what, according to the Real Estate Association of New Zealand? Is it about 700? No. No, it's 400 and something thousand. About $440,000 $460,000? 550 grand. In Auckland, it is what? Oh, that's excluding Auckland. Sorry. Yeah, sorry. In Auckland, it's $800,000. It is about $800,000 for Auckland. It's come down, but... (CHUCKLES) Yeah, if you take the national median, it's about $820,000. $550,000 is including Auckland. It's the national median house price. Yeah, including Auckland. The national median excluding Auckland is about $450,000. Auckland itself is about $800,000. Last question ` how much is 2 litres of milk, non-organic, from somewhere like Countdown? It's like $4? $5. $5. 4 bucks 50. (LAUGHS) Thank you both for joining us this morning. Still to come ` 100 years after the deadly Spanish flu hit our shores, we look at how our health system would cope with a pandemic now. But first we catch up with our panel ` Iron Duke boss Phil O'Reilly, former Green Party leadership contender Vernon Tava, and public policy expert Marg Joiner. (PULSING THEME MUSIC) Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` Marg Joiner, Phil O'Reilly and Vernon Tava. Good morning to you all. There we had Winston Peters, Foreign Affairs Minister. He is holding out some hopes for these talks between North Korea and Donald Trump but say he would need to see some real moves in order to take the foot off the sanctions. What should we expect to come out of this? So, I guess, is an issue that's confounded the Western world since the 1950s,... Yeah. ...so perhaps it's, you know, gonna take someone that's off the wall as Donald Trump to see some progress in it. So do you think his ` well, can we say ` uniqueness might be an advantage? Potentially. Uniqueness, unconventional ` those sorts of things. Phil, he didn't wanna be drawn on whether he thought Donald Trump was the man for the job, but also he said he hasn't offered himself up. Might we expect to see Winston over there as well? Well, Rex Tillerson might ask him, of course. He's been asked before, so he's absolutely right about that, but actually, what's happening here is Trump's foreign policy is being quite successful. I mean, he's strong-armed North Korea with a bit of threats and a bit of jingoism into changing, and much more than that, as Peters said, he's actually changed China's attitude. China's walked away from North Korea a bit, because it's just become impossible to support them. But in reality, this is probably a victory as much for North Korean diplomacy as it is for US diplomacy. Think of Kim himself meeting Trump as an equal, as a nuclear nation ` that's something that successive North Korea leaders have asked for for quite a while, so in a sense, it's as much a victory for Kim as it is for Trump. Well, cos I was gonna say, ultimately, Trump could be being played. Exactly, and the North Koreans have had a long history of this, of course ` stopping nuclear tests for a while, getting a bit of action, get a bit of money, starting again. Mm. So the talks themselves will be massively important; what happens after ` even more important. Mm. Vernon, Winston Peters has just returned from the Pacific, where's he been on, well, shall we call it a charm offensive with Jacinda Ardern, giving out aid, all the rest of it? And talking about what our responsibilities are there and a shift ` is it a shift? I don't think so, really. I think, yeah, 'charm offensive' is an appropriate term, and the term 'reset' has been used. Yup. Although, really, it is a continuation of the existing policy. There was a change in emphasis in the last government from the more European focus of Helen Clark to a Pacific focus under Murray McCully's foreign ministership, so they've continued but turned up the dial a bit. What a lot of New Zealanders don't really realised is that New Zealand is seen as regional power in the Pacific and does have a very significant role, along with Australia, and, of course, there are much greater, you might say, incursions of China into that space as well. So both countries know that they certainly need to step things up to remain a player. Phil, is this reset bein' driven by Winston Peters and New Zealand? Or is it because, say, Julie Bishop might've mentioned it to him or Australia wants it? Well, it's not a reset, as you've just heard. Yeah. It's more a slight change in emphasis. That's a good thing, by the way, because you want a long-run kinda diplomatic process in the Pacific, so the fact that the Government calls it something else it's not, that's fine; I mean, we're doing the right thing. What's happening really is that New Zealand diplomatic efforts over the years have been around trying to make sure that we retain leadership in the Pacific. When you see new actors, like China but others as well, starting to enter that space so the Pacific becomes a contested space, was it driven by Bishop? I doubt it, because New Zealand doesn't do that kinda diplomatically. What's happening here is as usual, New Zealand is quiet and effective, and Australia is loud and sometimes effective. (CHUCKLING) Marg, he seems really dead keen on pursuing this free-trade deal that is including in the coalition ` well, actually, there have to be real efforts towards this deal, according to the coalition, and he's saying he's deadly serious about it. Is he on the right path? Yeah. Yeah, well, I think in terms of consistency with this reset thing` So we've had the reset with Maori with five days in Waitangi, the reset with the Pacific ` five days in the Pacific ` and now the reset on a broader scale and of international stage, and I think the focus on Russia is part of that in terms of not maintaining the status quo and leading change. Perhaps it's just perception at the moment, but it is definitely a consistent and concerted effort. He gave the EU quite the serve there. Is he right? Well, the EU needs Russian gas. (CHUCKLES GENTLY) I mean, that's why they do so much trade with them, and, of course, they've been historical trading partners. Yup. So to try and say that there's a moral equivalence between Russian-backed separatists shooting down a jet and invading a sovereign nation, Ukraine, and the Australians sending us back some citizens I think is quite wrong-headed. You know, I couldn't think, in all fairness, that we could do a free-trade deal with Russia right now. We trade a bit with them ` that's the difference. The Europeans have always traded a lot with them. Mm. So I just don't see the moral equivalence argument that he ran at all in that last shot. What about you, Vernon? Well, look, you've gotta remember, this is absolute red meat for Winston Peters' core constituency, which is` I mean, he even mentioned that he's got a lot of for Boris Johnson. It's that same sort of jingoistic nationalism that does him a great favour, particularly in the provinces and in the rural sector ` the people who are really feeling the squeeze for our possible lack of market access. Mm. We're gonna need to leave it there. Stay with us, though. We will be back after the break. (PULSING THEME MUSIC) Welcome back. You're with Newshub Nation and our panel. Well, we had the potential Green Party co-leaders on. Who do you think came out of that looking the best, Vernon? Who's the potential co-leader there? Well, look, I've said for a long time and still believe after watching that that Marama Davidson is the most likely winner, not just based on the performance, but based on the general dynamics of the party. In many ways, Marama Davidson represents a big part of the self-image of the party, that there is the commitment to the treaty ` and she's obviously very strong on those issues and has relationships in that space ` and the strong social justice approach, which needs to be balanced up against James. And that social justice term is used entirely advisedly as against social responsibility, which is the actual charter value. And she kept her cool... under pressure, which I think is something that's very important for someone in a prominent role like that. So I think she's nose to head, but some of the answers to the questions did tend to come out as just straight evasiveness rather than answers. Yeah. Do you think they need a co-leader? Well, setting aside the debate about how we get there and achieve it, diversity is increasingly important in politics and business, so that's a start, but looking at that interview and coming in here before seeing the interview, I think it's a huge challenge for the Greens to insert a co-leader at this point in the term. Minister Shaw is doing a really good job. He's looking confident and comfortable in the leadership. Well, didn't he get a bit of a serve there from both of them in some ways? Do you think you could read it that way? Because when I asked about James Shaw's leadership, it was Julie Anne Genter who talked about how she was going to be a stronger voice. The implication was that he's not being strong enough. Which brings this challenge, the point I made to the fore, at the simplest, you half your oxygen with a co-leader. So in an attempt to let the Greens hold their own in this coalition, he's doing a really good job at the moment. I think there's some potential challenges coming their way with the insertion of a co-leader. Both of those potential co-leaders, Phil, screwed their nose up, basically, at the thought of working with Simon Bridges and the National Party. If they're going to get back in 2020, is that the right approach? Well, I think that will be a matter that will be decided much closer to an election. You were just seeing a pitch for Green voters, of course. The rest of the public was watching on as they were pitching to the Green Party on the television there. So it would be pretty hard during the course of a Green leadership election to say, 'Hey, maybe we should get in bed with the Nats at some stage.' I think the Labour Party's done a very clever thing by making them part of the government to all intents and purposes, and that ties them in to the Jacinda Ardern government so long as it exists ` six, nine, three, whatever it is years. So this is an issue that'll play out over a period of time, and I think it will take quite a while. It'll probably take 10 years for this to play out, as a generational change plays out in the Nats and the Greens. But one thing is clear ` whilesoever the Greens say it's all about social justice and stuff and then the environment, I think they'll have a much harder road than if they say, 'Really, we're an environmental party,' because if you say that, then the option of working across the lines becomes much easier for them. Yeah, and if you think about the last election ` and Marama Davidson made the point, and it's a very good one, that they're gonna need to work hard to keep relevance at the next election ` they campaigned on the exact same issues as Labour, so they're gonna need to have a really strong strategy to be able to remind voters who they are and what they've achieved, not just with Labour, but as a standalone party. Vernon? The closest thing we have to an iron law of MMP is that minority support partners in a government heavily shed votes, and the Greens are far too close to the critical threshold for that to be a survivable option. So the closer they hew to the government and the more they retain this view that 'we can only possibly work with a Labour-led government', the greater a risk they actually undertake there. And the whole line, the consistent default, 'Look, that's up to the membership; this is up to the membership; that's up to the membership' ` the reality is that there is a smaller group within the party that actually create proposals and take them to the membership to vote on as essentially a yes or no proposition, and that's the reality, so it is actually up to the leadership to make those positioning decisions. Do you all think that the Metiria Turei saga is behind them, or is it still a bit of an open wound? Oh, I think you saw clearly there it's still, within the party, an open wound, and that's to be expected; it was a big knock for them. Yeah. Vernon? I mean, there's no question. And I think it was quite visible on the faces of their contenders that you were speaking to there that this is still very much a live issue and is one that they still feel the need to really debate you down on the point. I felt it would have been fairly safe to say, 'No, I don't agree with benefit fraud.' I don't think that would have been any great backdown or climbdown from the position that was taken. And just end the conversation there. That would have been the end of it. But there is still a need to defend it, and it did show. Not wanting to relitigate the whole thing, cos it certainly got a lot of coverage, but there are signs that the essential lessons perhaps haven't been learned by the party. Hey, on another topic, Phil, obviously this week Steven Joyce has, you know, exited stage left. Is this is the result that Bridges would have been hoping for, do you think? What it demonstrates is the renewal of the party is going on at pace. I would have expected he would have stuck around as finance spokesman for a little while, so the fact that he's gone does say that Bridges is up for a much more clean-out kind of approach, and that's obviously evidenced by Amy Adams coming in. Cos Steven Joyce said he hadn't been offered the portfolio at that point. Precisely. And that tells you something about what Bridges was attempting to achieve in terms of renewal, so I'd expect to see quite a few young faces ` younger faces ` on the Nats' front bench. They will take a hit in the polls as a result, because, of course, they will be an unknown quantity, but Bridges is obviously working on the basis that if he can get that renewal, get that energy going, then he's best-placed for 2020. All right. We're out of time. Well, this year marks 100 years since the outbreak of a deadly strain of the influenza dubbed the Spanish flu. Thousands of Kiwi soldiers began dying in France during World War I, and the virus soon reached New Zealand. 9000 people died in just six weeks. Influenza outbreaks might not be so deadly now, but medical experts are warning that this coming winter could be our worst flu season in years. Tony Wright looks at how prepared our health system is to cope with a major pandemic. (LIGHT MUSIC) There are few memorials that acknowledge it, but the influenza pandemic of 1918 was one of the most traumatic experiences New Zealand has ever faced. You could go to work in the morning and have no symptoms and be dead by the end of that day, And it was just the sheer numbers ` in Auckland, over 1200 died within a few weeks. Grave diggers worked 24-hour shifts to bury the dead here at Waikumete Cemetery. Historian Dr Stephen Clarke says entire families perished together. And there was a case in central Auckland ` a sign put up in the window, 'please help us', and by the time that the services got round to them, the whole family had died of flu in there. While there have been major advancements in the understanding, prevention, and treatment of influenza in the 100 years since, how would New Zealand cope if a similar deadly strain arrived in 2018? There are degrees of preparation. We have a pandemic plan, which we didn't have in 1918. And so I think that's a huge advance. One level, nothing can totally prepare us for an event like 1918 or another virus that might be just as bad or worse. Professor Michael Baker has spent two decades studying influenza and believes the ability of New Zealand's health services to deal with large outbreaks of disease has been eroded and compromised. We've wound down our national public health capacity. We've got great people, say, in the Ministry of Health, but there just aren't enough of them, and we also fragmented our activities, and I think we saw that with the Havelock North response. Medical authorities struggled to deal with the Havelock North gastro outbreak in 2016 when 5500 people ` a third of the town's population ` fell seriously ill. I think Havelock North and the inquiry was very critical of the Ministry of Health, and it's actually worth reading their recommendations, but they are really calling for a very significant increase in New Zealand's capacity to manage these kinds of events. It's time for a major stocktake of our national capacity for managing emerging infectious diseases and other threats to health. However, Health Minister David Clark believes there were plenty of positives to take from the Havelock North outbreak. One of the really good things that came out of Havelock North was that 5000 people needed to be seen, and primary care proved to be incredibly flexible. They adopted a new model, and everybody got seen in very short order. So what we do know is that primary care is really adaptable when situations like that happen. And the minister is adamant the national pandemic plan could work if called upon. I'm convinced that the pandemic plan we have in place is as good as it could be. We, as a government now, many of us in opposition did petition to make sure that health was more sustainably funded over time. And we will want to improve things, of course. There have been a myriad of recent pandemics worldwide ` a major SARS outbreak in 2002; a cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe; the H1N1, or swine flu, pandemic in 2009, which killed over 1400; another cholera outbreak in Haiti; a measles outbreak in the Congo; the Ebola epidemic in 2013 that killed over 11,000; and a swine flu outbreak in India two years ago. Swine flu affected one in every 1380 New Zealanders and put a major strain on medical services. While the 1918 influenza arrived by boat, H1N1 turned up at the airport. The big minuses are obviously very rapid air travel. We saw that in 2009 with the most recent influenza pandemic where it arrived in New Zealand almost instantaneously with it being identified in Mexico, so that's a minus. The other minus, I think, is there are a lot more humans on the planet. There appear to be more emerging infectious diseases. The unpredictability of the influenza virus was highlighted in the northern hemisphere this past winter when the flu vaccine didn't work as well as predicted. Tens of thousands were infected and hospitalised by the H392 strain, commonly known as the Aussie flu. New Zealand's Immunisation Advisory Centre says the flu vaccine has been delayed this year because it is being altered to protect us. Our vaccines are based on our best prediction of matching what we think are going to be the prevailing circulating strains. Last year, we were lucky; we had a fairly mild season. But even in the mild seasons, people get sick and people die. It's estimated around 500 Kiwis die of flu-related causes each winter, but the officially recorded number is only a fraction of that figure. The reason is many people who die from influenza have other chronic conditions ` heart disease, maybe they've had a stroke, or they've got chronic respiratory disease. The people most at risk are the very old or the very young, and admission into hospital is only reserved for extreme cases. In winter we always have a percentage of patients with the flu, and some of those turn into admissions, and some of those are very, very sick, cos flu can be a serious condition. But generally, patients are treated in the community with the flu, and we obviously recommend the vaccination in advance. So, like 100 years ago, it's the community that really battles a mass outbreak of disease. It would be largely up to us to look after our loved ones and our neighbours. You can't wait for necessarily rescue services to arrive. Nursing services may be overwhelmed, as they were in 1918, so I think that community resilience is really important. And that is all from us for now. If you didn't catch all of the show, you can watch now on ThreePlus1. We'll see you again next weekend. Thanks for joining us. Captions by Madison Batten, John Gibbs, and Shrutika Gunanayagam. www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018 This programme was made with the assistance of the New Zealand On Air Platinum Fund.