Today on Newshub Nation, we speak to Winston Peters, ahead of his final week as acting Prime Minister. Simon Bridges joins us as National meets for its first party conference since last year's election defeat. And as the Maori Party considers its future, a leading indigenous politics expert tells us why New Zealand could do better. Copyright Able 2018 Kia ora, good morning. I'm Simon Shepherd and welcome to Newshub Nation. Well, there was a bit of uproar in the House this week when acting Prime Minister Winston Peters referred to himself as 'one of the government's leading stars' during a discussion on medicinal cannabis bills. Whether or not you agree, it's certainly been his time to shine as acting Prime Minister over the past few weeks. And Winston Peters joins me now. Good morning, Minister. Thanks for coming onto the show. Good morning. How is it being a star? Look, I think some of you guys have got to learn to take a joke. That's what I meant by that, but they all got sort of over-reactive to it. All right, so the context of it was medicinal cannabis. National's put forward its own bill this week. As it stands, will New Zealand First support Labour's medicinal cannabis bill? Yes, we will, but I think it's fair to say that if you're being balanced and reasonable, that we don't think that we've got the perfect answer here. We've come into our full committee of the House ` that means every provision of the bill will be re-examined, and if it's in any way short or deficient, we can fix it. OK. Which is what the National Party should've done ` they were sitting on the committee, after all. And for nine years before that, this critical issue of great concern they had, but no attention whatsoever. We'll come to that in a moment. What are your concerns, then? What are New Zealand First's concerns about the bill? Was it that detailed? A ` that it works for people that need that sort of medicinal care, but that it's not available and open to abuse. I think's our serious worry. And in its current form you're not happy? Well, I think in the current form it's safe, but maybe it's too safe where people who need the medical help are concerned, and so maybe too prescriptive. But we don't want to go the other way where it's just free and on the market without any reference to the public. So at the moment it's too restrictive and needs to go a bit further. Are you asking for it to be relaxed a little bit? Well, I'm trying to look at it from an independent neutral point of view. The legislation is the government's legislation after the First 100 Days. But as I say, you've sent it to the Select Committee, you've sent it to the public to take some suggestions, to hear what the public has got to say. And I think we should, you know, very soundly respond to that. OK. You just mentioned that there's Select Committee process. National says it has a lot of concerns that were being ignored, and so that's why they did the work themselves. So that's a good example of constructive Opposition. You've heard the Kiwi ads ` 'Yeah, right?' For goodness' sake, for nine years, nothing at all, at a Select Committee where they've got four members, nothing at all, and as the bill is reported back to the House on that day, they put this matter of critical urgency into a ballot box from which it may never be withdrawn. They were` And please don't tell me that's how you handle a crisis. OK, well, first of all, they're saying that they were given a message by Labour representatives on that committee; that their ` National's `concerns were not going to be addressed. Look, if they look around the House, they've got other parties on this matter, and it's really a social issue as well, so that can hardly be their excuse. But they never even gave me the bill. They put the bill in the ballot paper, without even showing New Zealand First. Now, does that sound to you like it's got integrity and sincerity behind it? All right, so, you talk about them not doing for nine years about this very important social issue. What did Labour do about it? What did the Opposition do about it? You can't have it both ways. Well, you know what I did about it. I've been promising for years a full-scale referendum, and if they can live with the result, I can. But if the people say no, it's no. Simon Bridges ` do you think that this is a way for him to stamp his mark? Is he pushing National to the left or to the right with this kind of politics? I think he's somewhat confused, because he's out there pushing this issue real hard, and I couldn't believe the intensity of questions in the last week all on the question of marijuana. Now, I thought that's somewhat extraordinary, because we got a huge geopolitical situation of uncertainty abroad, we've got all sorts of things happening to the economy, and all of a sudden, he's discovered hashish, so to speak. (BOTH CHUCKLE) Doesn't show much organised focus, does it? So, this is point-scoring by Simon Bridges, is that what you're saying? Well, it has to be, in the sense that he never even showed us the bill. Now, we've got a reasonable stance on it, and if he thought that the bill had some merit, why didn't he give it to us before he put it in the ballot? We just may have discovered something else that` where we could improve it. Right, OK. Look, you mentioned geopolitical situations. I'd like to talk to you about Foreign Affairs, since you're our Foreign Affairs Minister, in particular, the new defence policy statement talking about potential threat from China. China obviously has taken exception to this, saying it wants a correction and that New Zealand is wrong about this. Don't you think that this is a risky position, given they are our biggest trading partner? All positions can be risky, but in the end, we're not the only ones who are saying that on the South China Seas. The international courts are saying it; others are saying it in the neighbourhood. We're just reflecting a fact, and if we can't have an adult, mature relationship with a country that we've been on good terms with since 1972, then there's something wrong. I'm not concerned about that, because a bit of plain, frank speaking and honesty with a long-standing relationship is likely to improve it. Is that going to hurt us economically? I don't believe so, no. Why not? Surely, they have a lot of economic might. They are our biggest trading partner. Because the Chinese have said that they don't behave that way. That's my evidence for that. But China's also in a standoff with the U.S. I mean, we're talking about economics and economic uncertainty, so China's in a standoff with the U.S. over tariffs. Are we going to get caught up in the middle of this? Are we going to be vulnerable to a trade war? Well, I think there is a great likelihood for collateral damage to New Zealand. In what form? But not as great as some other countries might be. We don't know what the form will be. There could be some collateral damage. We could possibly escape it by the arrangements we do have with all those countries. I mean, we've got an application to the United States to remove ourselves from the steel and aluminium embargo against us, in terms of the tariff arrangement. I think we have a chance of succeeding there, honestly. Really? You're feeling positive about that? Because you're just about to meet with the U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at the conference this coming week. So are you confident that we can get an exemption? Well, I'm very confident at being able to put up a rock-solid answer or reply to the Americans as to why we should be exempt. Yeah, I'm very confident. And they have to remember that when you have allies, you have to have regard to their economic circumstance. OK. When` I mean, this trade war could escalate. There's, like, $500 billion worth of potential tariffs. How can we, as a country, mitigate it? We can't. Right, so we're just at the whim of these major economies? No. We belong to international organisations ` the WTO and other organisations ` where we expect the rules to be for the good of the world, not just a few countries. We can do all we can there, and we're doing it all the time, but as I say, when you have an argument of the type that's happening in the U.S.-China circumstance, for us to say we can have an effect on it would be... Well, others parties might say that, but I'm not going to say that. So we can't. OK. The other things I wanted to raise about the defence policy statement has also identified Russia as a potential threat. So are you going to raise any questions with the U.S. at this meeting about its relationship with Russia when you speak to Mr Pompeo? (CHUCKLES) We'll talk about a lot of things, I expect. So that's a yes? You are? No, I'm not saying that. I haven't written the agenda yet for what we're going to talk about. Sure, but are you concerned? Well, we're concerned with any circumstance that looks like it could lead to lack of peace, a lack of stability. None of that helps. Yes, I am concerned. Right, because the U.S. seems to like Russia. Mr Putin's going to the White House. Well, yes, that's a fact. Yes. (CHUCKLES) All right. And your point is he shouldn't? No, I was wondering if you were concerned` As Winston Churchill said, 'It's far better jaw, jaw, jaw, than war, war, war.' And he would know. One of our other greatest relationships is Australia. Have you been talking up the importance of that, especially with the Pacific reset? But do you think that friendship's taken a bit of a beating in recent weeks? No, I think plain talking helps the Aussies. Don't want anybody becoming the raw prawn with them, as I say. Bit of frank dialogue is very important. We've got a great relationship, but it could be so much better, and my job is to emphasise to the Australian people and state government and their central government that they've never needed New Zealand like they need them now. They say that we don't do any heavy lifting. Did you take exception to that, or is that just not true? Well, he talked about the heavy lifting when it came to illegal boat migration. If you've got a map of the Southern Pacific, he would know why we couldn't do the heavy lifting because we're not in Australia, they are. So, it's just an easy point for them to score, is it? Well, he didn't score any points when he said that. That's why there's a bit of a kick-back on other matters. What ` the flag? (CHUCKLES) Well, it's a fact, isn't it? I don't know if it is a fact. They would take exception to that. In 1901, we adopt our flag. 1954, they adopt a flag that's almost identical to ours. The things speak for themselves. Wasn't going to make a big point. I think we've even got the solution for them, if you like. What's that? Probably a big kangaroo, like the maple leaf in Canada. Right, so` But it's not going to be a point of argument. I'm just stating a fact. And when you see us at the Olympic Games or the Commonwealth Games when` well, the Olympics Games were in Sydney and our three athletes came first, second and third ` one New Zealander and two Aussies ` it was very confusing to see which flag was which. I suggest you should draw out your design and offer it to Malcolm Turnbull. No, I'm just saying an obvious point. Ok, let's move onto justice reforms. This is a big issue that's coming up. Prison populations forecast reached more than 13,000 by 2027, and there's the emphasis on having it brought down by 30%. So to do that, would you, New Zealand First, consider changes to bail, parole and sentencing laws, as part of a package? Yes. How far would you go with those? Well, first of all, look, the prison population has fallen by about 500 since we've come to power. That's the first thing. But there's no new policies as a result of you guys. That's just a fact, you know? So maybe your projections are wrong. They're not my projections, they're Ministry of Justice projections. Well, maybe their projections are wrong. That figure has been proven wrong. I'll give you a second example. If we look at the number of people who are in prison awaiting trial ` that is, they're in prison incarcerated probably for a year ` if you can shorten that to six months, you have a dramatic drop in your prison numbers, just like that. OK, so` It might mean we might need to ` hold up ` a number of new judges, and systems to bring people to trial, but that's a pretty self-evident one. So any change that can happen in the reduction of prison numbers and reduce the $1000-cost per prisoner per year, is for the best. This idea of 'throw them in a throw the key away' and being hard on crime a la Simon Bridges` Well, actually, you've been hard on crime in the past. And I am hard on crime. I believe in putting people out in the fields and rivers of this country and clean the whole things up, rather than have them in prison. Are you saying you believe in hard labour, chain gangs, rock-breaking? It's not chain gangs, it's not rock-breaking, it's a smart idea to organise people. We've got forests we've got to plant up north, and right in the middle of it is a prison. How about we put the two together? It's an obvious opportunity. We won't imperil the public's safety, but we'll get things done. I would say to you that you are a bit at odds with Labour over this reform package, and the example is the Three Strikes Law. You pulled the rug from under Andrew Little when he tried to repeal it. Chester Borrows is now heading up the advisory group of criminal justice reform. He doesn't support Three Strikes Law. So if that group recommends abolishing it, would you support that? Well, before we rush and do that, what we said to Mr Little was, and it's still a work in progress, is that if get all these other things right, then you can deal with the Three Strikes Laws because it will be very blatant and obvious to the public that they don't work, and they don't. But here's the point ` you cannot expect the public to go with you and support your changed plan or reform without proving how it works, and that's all I've asked for. Right, OK. And in terms of Three Strikes Law, as you seemed to indicate, it doesn't work. Well, the trouble is, you've got something like 116 now waiting on the third strike, so something that has not worked ever since the much-disgraced Act member bought it in, you remember who he was, don't you? It didn't work, and all this time, and we haven't got very many who have been effected by the third strike, nevertheless, there are a stack out there all ready to go, and I don't want that not to be treated as a serious matter before we change and bring in the reform. OK, so as part of the wider package, you'd be happy for it to go. Well, the thing is, Andrew Little is a reformist minister, and he's not doing it because he's weak on crime. What he's doing it for is the system right now doesn't work. We've got one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. Here we've got this country with all this space in the world ` same size as the UK or almost the same as Japan ` all this space, scenery, everything you've got going for it, and look at the level of criminality. All right, let's` You've had five weeks. You've got a little bit longer to go as acting Prime Minister. Everybody was anticipating the big Winston Peters show. How do you think you've done? Well, I proved some of the cynics wrong. How? The sky didn't fall in. (CHUCKLES) It's been a state of absolute normalcy and corroboration, and I'm glad about that. And I think we've gone very, very well, and will leave on Wednesday night ` I think it's midnight ` having ensured that no crisis happened that we weren't able to handle. So is it something you want to do again? I never thought of it that way, actually. To tell you the truth, it's very difficult to be the Foreign Minister and being trapped at home. (CHUCKLES) So that's a no? You don't want to be acting Prime Minister again? No, no, I'm happy to do it, but the reality is, we've now got a concatenated programme of travel that's` Perhaps... How should I put it? One doesn't look forward to the lack of it, it's just, you've got to be on the road so often. OK, which job would you prefer? I prefer any job that I've currently job in that context. I've enjoyed doing it, but I didn't enjoy the media cynicism at the start and the arrogance of journalists. I've been around a long time. We know. And to have these flippant comments being made, and I thought, 'Well, we'll see who's right or wrong.' How shall I put it without being too self-centred? I've been written off more times than people have had hot dinners on this matter, and I'm pleased that we've had such a good run. Well, you've been around a long time. Speaking of which, so after 25 years leading New Zealand First, will you be leading it through the next election? This far out, I've never, ever commented on what I'm going to do. It depends on a whole lot of things, including one's health, how fit you are, what the team thinks, and most critically of all, whether you're being there is critical to victory. That's what's most critical. So are you fit and healthy right now? Yes, I am. OK. Are you critical to victory? (CHUCKLES) Our polls are on the rise, as you well know, not the ones that you guys run, but the internal polling of Labour and National has us looking very strong. We've never been this strong so far out. We know we can do much better, so, yes, we'll have a discussion about that later on. Not this year, next year. OK. Just wanted to get your input on current leaders, so if it's a choice between Simon Bridges and Jacinda Ardern next time around, could you work equally with both of them? Well, look, I'm not going to do hypotheticals. Never been my` The chances of Simon Bridges lasting the next election on the past National Party record is not good. I've seen this, I've been there, I've seen the instability when a party loses like National. And the roll-over of leadership is horrible. So you're predicting that Simon Bridges will be gone soon? No, I predict that the first person they'll come for is Paula Bennett, because that's what jackals do. They don't go for the biggest animal, they go for the smallest and weakest one, and then it will be Simon. When will Simon's time be over? I'd be unwise to give an exact date, but one of these days you'll look back and say he was right. OK, so Simon Bridges is gone. And Jacinda Ardern ` will she be around next election? I'll tell you why Simon's gone, Simon's discovered so much of his past, a bit like Columbus discovered America ` by accident. What do you mean by that? First of all, he turns up, and all of a sudden he's decided that he's a Maori. Nobody knew that before he got there. Then he started looking for his iwi. And now he's discovered marijuana. You can't have too many discoveries like this before people start saying, 'Oh, yeah, but what does this man really think? What drives him down inside?' Do you think that Simon Bridges is going to lose this centrist popular National Party support base? Do you think he's lost that? Yes. Wow, OK. I just want to` Before we go, I just want to` You can't be polling` I know what their polls are. You can't be polling 41, and as a leader, be polling under 10. That means three quarters of your party doesn't want you. OK. Simon Bridges gone according to Winston Peters. Finally` Well, how could you work it out? Surely, if you're going to lead a party, the lead have got to want you as a leader. We'll see if you're right. Finally, Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage is coming to town in September. You met him in London. He took you to the cricket. That's right, yeah. Are you going to return the favour and take him out? You wouldn't believe it. Again, I'm going to be offshore. Oh, really? I can't avoid it. He also compared you to Donald Trump, didn't he? Well, I don't think he was right about that. Nothing similar about me and Donald Trump, you know that. Have you ever been in the same room, at the same time? As Donald Trump? No, but I could have been. I remember he came here 21 years ago, and people forget, the railway station down in Auckland was going to be up for sale, and Ngati Whatua was talking about starting a casino, and Donald Trump came over here, most of you have forgotten, trying to get into a partnership with the Ngati Whatua to start a casino, and he said as part of it, he would learn the Maori language. (CHUCKLES) I never forgot that. We'll leave it there. Acting Prime Minister for a little bit longer ` Winston Peters, thank you very much for your time. Thank you. OK. Well, if you've got something to say about what you see on the show, let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. NewshubNationNZ is our Twitter hashtag. Our Twitter panel this week is Tim McCready and Graeme Edgeler. They'll be using the hashtag NationNZ. You can also email us at nation@mediaworks.co.nz. But up next, National leader Simon Bridges joins us head of his party conference in Auckland. Plus, leading Maori academic on why New Zealand should sing up to a UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people. Welcome back. The National Party is meeting this weekend for its first conference since losing last year's election. Leader Simon Bridges has been in the job for five months, landing perhaps his biggest blow this week by withdrawing the party's support for the government's medicinal cannabis bill and producing one of its own. Three MPs ` Shane Reti, Chris Bishop and Michael Woodhouse ` have been working on it for a number of months, sparking accusations National had acted in bad faith. I ask Simon Bridges exactly when the party decided to draw up its own bill. Look, when they came to caucus, and I can't tell you the exact date. And I say they, really, Shane Reti, Michael Woodhouse and Christopher Bishop ` their position was, 'Here's the bill,' they ran us through it. And my effective position to them was, 'Well, look, how can we sign up to something that has nothing 'in it, has no framework that tells us what a medicinal cannabis regime would look like in New Zealand?' So, you know, let's reserve our position somewhat. But, you know, if you're wanting to do something here, put up or shut up. Give me a regime that we understand and we can work with. Ok, but surely you can remember roughly when that was, when the government's bill was introduced in December? No. Or was it in the first reading in January? No, because as you'll be aware, look, we voted for it first reading when it entered the select committee process in good faith. But let me` So it was during the select committee process that you decided to go off on your own tangent? We're talking about the last couple of months. But let me be really clear to I think you're getting at, and that is, 'Well, why have you done this when the government's got their position?' For two reasons, firstly, they never had a framework on which we could pin off a regulatory regime, simply wasn't good enough. And second, they made incredibly clear to the members on that select committee that they would not countenance widening things from where they were. And so we knew, straight up, we were in a position where they weren't going to accept the suggestions that we were making, that the members were making, the kind of constructive feedback that we were clearly putting forward in terms of the questions on that select committee. OK, so you didn't engage in the select committee process and you went off and did your own thing, Shane already went off to the US. No, that's entirely incorrect. We engaged. You know, my members were there, they engaged fully and constructively. But the problem is you can't turn a bill that's a dog into a pony. You know? It just wasn't there; it didn't have the things to hang off it. And secondly, it was made quite clear by the government members on that select committee that they would not play ball, they were not going to widen this bill. So we did, I think, what a constructive opposition should do. We went out and we did the work the government should have done. Is that a constructive opposition, when you're doing your select committee process and you do have a chance to change things, and you're working on something which the government knows nothing about? Which came as a surprise? But as I say, it's because their framework simply wouldn't countenance this, and they'd said no, we're not going there. But be really clear, we are where we are now, here's the thing, we have the comprehensive framework, and I know that they will pick it up, one way, shape or form or another because, ultimately, they can't go past it. We've done the work, all of the experts, it seems to be, are saying this is a really significant` So you don't have any faith in that process. Is this how ` for this particular bill ` is this how you're going to approach everything being in opposition? A constructive opposition? No, think about it. I mean, there's different courses for courses, depending on what's happening. On climate change, I've been incredibly constructive. We've been working quite hard with James Shaw. The other areas, in the economic sphere, we're actually, we just don't agree with what they're doing, fundamentally. There'll be different ways of doing things. But we have been constructive here, we've done the work the government should have, we've put the bill up. They can take it on board and have a better, comprehensive framework for medicinal cannabis in New Zealand. And I think that'd be a good thing to do. All right, let's talk about compassion here for the people that are suffering, that are terminally ill. Johnathan Coleman said during the first reading, 'We have to be mindful of the needs of those people, 'and in the end, compassion has to win out over a very poorly designed piece of legislation.' Compassion is not winning out here because your piece of legislation is just going to sit there in the biscuit tin waiting to be pulled out. But putting up a dog is not compassionate, and that's what the government's done. Actually, compassion needs works as well. And if David Clark had compassion on this, he would have set his health officials to work, he's got thousands of them, and they would have done the sort of work that, frankly, a very small number of my MPs would do. But here's the thing, the bill is there now. Your point's right, actually, it won't be, I hope, just languishing there in the members' bill ballot, a bit like a lottery ball waiting to be picked out. I hope the government seriously and honestly engage with it. And I don't care, frankly, about the credit. They should take the parts that work, which I think is the regime we've put in place, fundamentally, and they should go with it. It would be better for New Zealanders. It would be compassionate. Ok, well, first of all, it was such a surprise and you didn't even consult with the government. You didn't consult with The Drug Foundation, one of the leading, sort of, organizations. Who in New Zealand did you actually consult with? I've been really clear about that. Now I don't go through, can't go through and name the names because I'm the leader of the National Party, I'm not my health team. You should be able to name one major` But no, but be clear about this, in terms of those people, organisations, my understanding is The Drug Foundation, it is others like Mr Le Brun and so on who really know a lot about this ` and I know Newshub have been talking to ` we did consult with them, we did talk with them. And their criticism, frankly, of the government is that David Clark, despite repeated requests, has never met with them. So I come back to it, we're doing the work and leading the way a government should. I know that criticism. Those people have told us that they weren't consulted, like The Drug Foundation. Certainly, I know, Shane Reti has talked with a number of folk and bodies. But, as I say, as leader, I don't know the detail. All right. You've had nine years as government; why did you not introduce medicinal cannabis legislation then? Why now? There's a couple of reasons. Firstly, I'm a new leader; I wasn't leader then. I was never in the health area; that's not something that I've actively considered. So I think, you know, you can't say, you know, We are just going to stay the same, 'we are never going to change.' Actually, opposition is about thinking through and changing. And here's another really important point, when the evidence is there, we go with it. And what we saw here, I've been out listening, I've heard from sufferers, I've heard from a range of New Zealanders about the importance of this. And we've also taken an evidence based approach from Shane Reti and others. OK, and the previous government didn't listen, that's what you're saying, and you're listening as the new leader. No, I think, here's the deal, sometimes issues come up in their importance. They're not things that at a different time we were thinking about. We had other issues, GFC, earthquakes. That was a long while ago. Look, I think whether it's mental health, whether it's medicinal cannabis, potentially whether it's something like plastic bags ` these are issues that people are thinking more about today` Medicinal cannabis has been in the spotlight for a long time ` Helen Kelly, for example, you know? This kind of thing has been in the spotlight for a long time. Are you just jumping on the political bandwagon now and bringing up your own legislation? Well, on that point, we know we're going to have a medicinal cannabis regime in New Zealand. I've always actually ` you can go back and look at my comments whenever I've made them ` supported in principle a medicinal cannabis regime, but it's also incumbent on us as a responsible, constructive opposition to make sure it's a regime that works. When the government wouldn't do that, we did. I hope they pick it up. You just mentioned that you're the new leader. Is this an indication that you're a new liberal kind of National leader? Well, funnily enough, I get a lot of flak for all sorts of views, but the reality is we have put forward, I think, quite an exciting, comprehensive medicinal cannabis regime that includes manufacture of cannabis; it includes dispensing from the pharmacy. I think it will be a world-leading regime. Right, so, are you going to hold Jacinda's hand and let them take your ideas and say, 'Yes, there you go. Let's get this through. Let's get it done now. 'Let's change the current legislation.' Yeah, I want to reach out. I've instructed my health team to be there talking with the party spokespeople in the other parties. I hope they pick it up. We can move past the politics that they are trying to play, and they do the right thing on this issue. But the select committee process is in place to do exactly that. Yeah, but here's the deal ` you know, as I keep saying, it's pretty simple, those government members on that select committee made quite clear they would not countenance widening the bill, putting in the improvements that we were asking questions about at the select committee. One last question on this ` is your objection to including loose-leaf cannabis a way of placating your conservative base? Because you seem to be going towards being a more liberal-leaning National leader. I think the reality is this, we have coming up a referendum on cannabis for personal use ` you know, decriminalisation, if you want to put it like that. I don't want to change this medicinal cannabis debate into that by the back door; that's another debate, a legitimate one for New Zealanders to have. But loose-leaf, I think, normalises and effectively decriminalises, and that's not what we're trying to do here. Right. You talk about working constructively with the government as a constructive opposition leader. Let's talk about climate change now. James Shaw told us last week that New Zealand can be a leader in reducing greenhouse gases; and John Key stated he wanted New Zealand to be a 'fast follower'. So what is your position on this? Yeah, I think I'm much more on the John Key side of this. But be really clear, in one of my first speeches, I gave a significant one on climate change. And I know James Shaw agrees with me when I say it is fundamentally important that the opposition ` the biggest party in parliament, National ` is being constructive on this. We are signing up for an enduring framework ` an advisory climate commission ` and without that, I would argue James Shaw and the government literally have nothing. Business, NGOs ` they have nothing. They have no certainty about what the framework will be in future parliaments. I'm showing leadership on that. I've put that up because this is an important issue. But I think, you know, the problem with what James Shaw is saying ` you know, leading from the front, being out the front of others ` is that could be incredibly disruptive to our economy, to New Zealanders in terms of cost along the way. I favour a more deliberative, planned, thorough approach. Economic advice is that if we act sooner, it will cost us less. Well, let me` So you're going to cost us more in the long run with that kind of attitude. Let me give you a really clear example of why I disagree with that ` oil and gas and the ban there. Now, people can have all sorts of views, but what should have happened with that is it should have gone to a newly comprised climate commission to work through the detail and the phasing and how the transition might have looked like. Instead, the government just rushed head-on. And so if that is what James Shaw is talking about, I can't go along with it. James Shaw himself said ` I'll just make this point ` he said, 'You know, you look back at Rogernomics and the dislocative, disruptive effect of probably right reforms there, but done too quickly, too radically.' I don't want to see that with climate change. With climate change, our economy is unique in that it 40% of our income comes from agriculture, OK? Yep. So that needs to be addressed. Don't we have to lead there, because we're in a unique position? Yeah, we do have to lead, and I think we can` OK, but then you said we have to be a fast follower. No, no. And I think here's how we lead ` and National did a good job on this, but I reckon we need to double down, and the government I lead would ` in terms of investment, science and innovation. But be really clear, I don't think we say to our farmers, to our agriculturalists, 'You're in. You're going to face all these costs. 'No one else in the world is doing that. We're not giving you any technological solutions to do that.' I think that's cutting off our nose to spite our face. Should farmers be brought into the Emissions Trading Scheme? At the current time? No. For the reasons I've just given and a few others as well. Over time, can it happen if we meet certain criteria? Absolutely. And I come back to it ` that's around technology; that's around what the rest of the world is doing; it's also around treating the science properly and being evidence based. And at the moment, methane's effectively treated the same as CO2 when the scientific consensus is becoming very clear ` actually, methane is much less of a long-term problem. How are we going to meet the climate change obligations that your government, when it was in power, signed up to if we don't bring agriculture and farmers into the ETS? Well, I suppose, ultimately, that comes down to what a carbon zero looks like. Because even James Shaw doesn't know that` But the even more concrete targets ` the ones under the Paris Accord, which are 30% less than 2005 emissions that you signed up to ` how are we going to meet those if we don't bring agriculture into the ETS? Hey, and be clear, I did sign up to them ` literally. I was there as minister. So the question is how are we going to meet them? I get all this. Here's how ` by, firstly, getting an enduring framework in place. We're doing that. Then making sure we're getting good and proper advice from that climate commission. And then over time, methodically, sensibly moving through what we need to do. I made clear to you on farming ` at the moment, I think it's cutting off our nose to spite our face. But over time, as the technology gets better, as we see the world do things as well, I'm sure New Zealand will. Simon Bridges, National Party leader, thank you very much for your time. Thank you. All right, still to come, we dissect the week's political news with our panel, plus National's newest MP Dan Bidois and why his new career would probably surprise some of his former teachers. Welcome back. A leading expert on indigenous rights says New Zealand could do better when it comes to Maori representation in politics. Dominic O'Sullivan is now based in Australia, but was back here recently to speak at an AUT university about Maori politics, public policy and the right to self-determination. Mike Wesley-Smith asked him why it is important for New Zealand to sign up to the UN's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Well, it does codify the right to self-determination in more specific ways than the Treaty of Waitangi does. So in that sense, it may be a useful policy guide, but it would never displace the treaty; it would never supersede the principles enunciated in that initial document. Why is it important for countries like New Zealand to be really involved in UN declarations like the one on the rights of indigenous people. United Nations declarations are international statements of principle. They're not made all that often, so when they are made, they certainly have influence. And if they're adopted by member states, then they can become incorporated into domestic law. Right. But New Zealand hasn't ratified the document, as I said; its simply accepted it as an aspirational document. But if a country were to adopt it into its domestic law, it would provide policies of real substance in terms of land rights, education, health, the ways in which political systems operate. There's a lot in the declaration that provides views on states operating inclusively in their political structures and ensuring that indigenous voices are real and meaningful in the operations of the state. So in your view, until New Zealand fully adopts the declaration, can it really stand at the international table and say that it is doing all it can to promote Maori rights? Well, it can, and it does, but whether it does that truthfully, of course, is a contested point. And many people would argue that, in a sense, the declaration provides guidance on the implementation of the treaty in a fuller sense than many people would argue is the case now. Would you support a move for the New Zealand Government to ratify the declaration? I would. So we already have the Treaty of Waitangi, the Waitangi Tribunal, but for Maori who are looking to seek a legal remedy for, say, a breach of their rights, what additional use could the declaration be for them? Well, in that case, courts would be able to consider the declaration as part of their consideration of international law more broadly. And I think, you know, one would have to wait and see how courts interpreted it and how it was used, but it would certainly provide perhaps another layer of legal argument and certainly another layer of political and moral argument. So turning now to Maori representation in parliament. We currently have seven Maori seats. Do you think that number should be increased? Well, of course, the guaranteed seats in parliament aren't the only way in which Maori can enter parliament. And, you know, we see that, obviously, through members elected from party lists and an increasing number of members holding general seats. It was interesting in the Northcote by-election, the two leading candidates were Maori. I think even 10 years ago, that would have been just about impossible. So in terms of the guaranteed seats in parliament, I think the Maori electoral option as it works now provides a reasonable political solution in terms of the fact that the number of seats will go up if that's what Maori want and that's what they signal by choosing in greater numbers to go on to the Maori roll. On the other hand, a lot of Maori voters have the wish to vote on the general roll. And if the number there increases, obviously the number of guaranteed seats will go down. Now, separate Maori political representation ` even at a parliamentary level ` has long been opposed by groups such as Hobson's Pledge, with which former National Party leader Don Brash is involved. He's long criticised what he says is 'Maori privilege'. What's your position on that view? Well, I think Brash's position is overtly racist. Yeah. And I suppose it does say something positive about race relations in New Zealand that it is a debate that probably hasn't got terribly far in terms of sustainable policy influence. It certainly had some policy influence when he was leader of the opposition and when the Orewa speech was made. Yeah. But I think politics has moved on from that, and that's why Brash is not prime minister, I suppose. It's a very noisy, vocal view, but it's a view that doesn't have a great deal of theoretical substance behind it. Yeah. It's a view that a lot of people see through, I think. And while it's a view that will always be there, it would require a significant shift in public mindset, I think, for that view to prevail, and it would also require, I think, a significant diminishing of Maori political assertiveness. And I think that's one of the reasons why it's so important democratically to have a strong Maori voice in parliament ` to confront those ideas that are, I think, quite obviously racist. So some would say, in overall terms, the trend in New Zealand politics has been towards the greater realisation of Maori rights, but with the ascent of politicians like Donald Trump, for those that are looking to protect minority rights is there perhaps a cautionary tale that they can't be complacent? Well, that's right. Trump tells us that; Brexit tells us that; and Brash tells us that too. Nothing can be taken for granted in politics. It's always evolving; new ideas are always emerging; old ideas are always being contested. Which is why, I think, parliament is such an important site of rangatiratanga. Iwi, of course, and hapu are as well and essentially so. But if those are the only sites of rangatiratanga, then the full possibilities of self-determination, the full possibilities of a robust and equal citizenship are diminished. And finally, if you had to give New Zealand an academic grade on how well it's doing promoting and protecting rights, what would you write on the bottom of the report card? Well, I think, with any kind of difficult and contested public policy, the answer's always going to be, 'could do better'. Right, still to come, we dissect the week's political news with our panel ` public policy specialist Marg Joiner, former National Party General Manager Chris Simpson and Newshub Political Editor Tova O'Brien. Welcome back, and I'm joined now by our panel, Waikato Chamber Of Commerce CEO and former National Party general manager Chris Simpson, Marg Joiner from Senate SHJ and Newshub Political Editor Tova O'Brien, welcome to you all this morning. Medicinal Cannabis has been a hot topic this week. Tova, National's bill is an example of constructive opposition or political point scoring? Maybe a little bit of column A, a little bit of column B. I think that I agree with most right-minded people outside of the beltway on this that these politicians just need to get over their political egos, smash their heads together and actually think about the people at the heart of this. We're comparing apples and oranges a bit because National's bill is a 33-page, comprehensive, whether you like it or not, piece of legislation. Labour's is an 8-page rush job with a whole lot of gaps, but pointing forward to a regulatory scheme that we have no idea what it looks like. So we don't yet know how we can compare those two things. But I think if we take a step back, those guys come together and actually try and work out what works for the people at the hear of this, the terminally ill, people with chronic pain, the people that actually need this medicine. So, Chris, is that gonna happen? Uh, again, from a national perspective, you're looking at making sure that people aren't just wandering around smoking joints. So it's not having open leaf, it's actually proper products that they actually have. But the National bill's right down to making sure that the plantations are not near urban development, so not near houses. So it's quite in depth versus, actually, as Tova said, come together and actually try to help those that are really sick right now. OK, Marg, do you think that we just got caught up in the whole political process in this debate this week? Yeah, I do think so. And the most important thing is this, and that is, that as Tova points out, there is a very warranted and serious need for it and demand for it. And they just need to get on and make it accessible. But it's not just the people who are needing it for health reasons, there's also an industry here that is looking to start a local supply. They need the certainty, and as Chris has said, we need to get it through the house, that's one thing. But then we need the serious regulatory framework that gives the clarity and consistency. What Peters was saying was really interesting there, wasn't he? He was saying after the second reading, before it goes to the committee of the whole house, they could go back to the drawing board, so the select committee process failed, for all intents and purposes, this time round. But perhaps they could go back to the drawing board before the committee of the house, before third reading, and perhaps we will end up with a bit of a Frankenstein of the two bills or some kind of bill that addresses everybody's concerns. It seems that Mr Bridges is happy to give the credit to the Government. I'm so sure. Well, yeah, I'm sure that's going to happen. But it's been a big week for them, I mean, it seems they've caught people by surprise and it's a big week in terms of, it's the party conference, starting today, and they're rolling out big guns, Tova, John Howard and Sir John Key. Really important to show a big level of support for Simon Bridges who's polling is terrible. Yeah, but the flipside of that, isn't it, like you bring out John Key when, in our last poll, last Newshub, Reid Research poll, was Simon Bridges, his preferred Prime Minister rating was 9%. That is bugger all compared to where Bill English and John Key were at the same stage in their leadership. So he should be worried, he should be worried about how he's resonating with the public. Then you bring in John Key again, and John Howard, like, there's a risk of being overshadowed, like, by these two massive political behemoths. Well, it's a bit hard. It's a bit hard, though, also, that he's come in at a time with a Prime Minister that has superstar status. And when John Key arrived, it was at the very end of Labour. So very difficult from a polling perspective. And so he's still got some yards to go, yeah. Yeah, and he's a self-assesed work in progress, and I think that's correct and it's a good approach from him. But there are other indicators of success. So the party polling isn't looking too bad. And he also looks as though he's got a unified caucus, although that's not what Winston thinks. Well, Winston says that it's all over, not only for Simon, but first cab off the rank, is Paula Bennet, she's gonna go. What do you think, Chris? I` That's typical Winston, that's Winston playing politics. He's done it for many, many, many years. I've seen it first hand when I was Director Of Research down there, so that's what you say, you always go for the weak wildebeest, he's trying to work out which one that one is. And I'd be looking at Judith Collins as well, because she popped up on our preferred, we don't ask people who they think should be the Prime Minister in our polls, she popped up in the preferred Prime Minister stakes. She's getting a lot more air time, actually, since the Prime Minister's been on maternity leave. She's been getting a lot more air time than Simon Bridges, cos he's been doing his road shows. She says she's perfectly happy, but we know she has leadership ambitions, they don't die in a ditch overnight. And she's also on the hot topics of transport, urban development and housing, and she's got Phil Twyford in her sights. OK, so do we think that Simon Bridges is gone by the next election? Whoa, anyone, anyone? (LAUGHS) I don't know. (LAUGHS) I think he's still getting his feet under the desk, so it's a bit early to say. But I do think a self-assesed work in progress is a good, kind of, summary of where he's at right now. And the point that Marg made about the party vote, as well, if he can hold on to the party vote, that's where all of Labour's leaders that fell over, they fell over because they couldn't hold on to the party vote. It doesn't matter, I mean, the preferred Prime Minister thing is really important and it is a gauge of personal leadership. And in opposition, you need to be a strong leader. You need to be resonating but if he holds on to the party vote he's safer. Yeah, but where he does have the horsepower is he's come through the party ranks. So, he's been through the Young Nats, he's been in caucus, he's been a minister, he's a lawyer, he's been through procedures committee, he knows the detail. And what will happen, ultimately, for government is that they will get nailed on the detail. However, it's picking up on being a leader as well. Well, the thing about being a leader, he seems in these interviews to be distancing himself from the previous government. 'I'm the new leader now, I've got these liberal policies.' (MARG AND CHRIS STUTTER) And then he invites Keysey to the conference. They need to do that, they can't keep hanging on to their legacy in Government. He needs to put a stamp on it and create a vision, and I haven't seen that yet, but I'm sure it's coming. And they're going to bide their time in opposition as well, aren't they? Because they can. So in terms of seeing real policy developments, I don't think we're gonna get the big dump of policy until election year. But we will start seeing a bit of a vision, a bit emotive, but his motivation and where he wants to take the party. Exactly, and John Key was very clear when he arrived that he was going to be the Prime Minister, he was the number one gunner and he was the new person in town who was gonna run this country. That was quite different, but John also worked up into it because he was in opposition, so he had the ability to do that. So should we be surprised, that as Winston Peters says, that 'Simon Bridges has discovered hashish.' (ALL CHUCKLE) Yeah. Anything, anything to get him over the line? Nah. No, no. (SIMON AND TOVA LAUGH) But it is` Well, he did mention that there are some serious geopolitical issues on the go, and so the contrast of that is something that is worth looking at. But I suppose any opposition in any Government can walk and chew gum at the same time as well, right? Like you can work on issues like medicinal cannabis that affect a lot of people while also talking to some of those bigger geopolitical issues. And medicinal cannabis is actually a $85 billion industry. All right, OK, we have to wrap it up, that's enough of Mr Bridges right now. Stay with us, we're gonna be back after the break. Welcome back. We're back with our panel ` Chris Simpson, Tova O'Brien and Marg Joiner. Thanks for joining us again. Winston Peters is just finishing up his time as acting prime minister. He said that he's proven us all wrong ` the sky hasn't fallen. Has he proved us wrong, Marg? Uh, yeah, I've got to agree with him in that it's remarkable that after 40-odd years in the game, the man is still surprising us. So I have to agree with him there. It's not his first rodeo. To me, he performed as expected, which was with competence, statesman-like, understated. Wow, that's a good rating, Chris, isn't it? A good rating from Marg. Yeah, I have to agree. And you just look back to when he was foreign affairs minister and his close relationship with Condoleezza Rice; he's got that part. Plus, it was only six weeks. Yeah. (CHUCKLES) Wasn't enough time. Tova? There was a few times` The sky didn't fall in, but there were a few times I definitely felt, you know, something tapping me on the head perhaps. But I've always described Winston Peters as 'kaleidoscopic'; you never know what you're going to get. Cantankerous, charming, intelligent, obstructive ` all of these things, I think, his reign` his unprecedented long reign as acting prime minister, I think has been equally kaleidoscopic. And he didn't rule out doing it again. No, no. Why would he? Why would he? I mean, he loves it, and there's nothing right now to` there's no reason why he should give up doing what he loves right now. He seemed to mention that the travel, being foreign minister, was a bit arduous, didn't he? There was the indication there. Yeah, he was kind of saying that you can't do your job as foreign minister when you're tethered to a desk as prime minister. That's perhaps some of the conflicts in that job, but I mean the man could cryogenically freeze himself and still be` you know, he could be prime minister in 2050. (LAUGHS) I wouldn't put it past him. He was a first user of social media way back in the '90s. And social media then was just getting out and about and going to the halls and meeting people. He loves doing that stuff, so, yeah, he doesn't like being` OK, well, let's talk about, you know, how long he's going to last. He says, if his health is right, and if he's critical to the success of New Zealand First, he will be around at the next election. What do you take from that, Marg? Oh, I think it's just honest. And it's what you'd expect. So he knows this is his quarter century as the leader of the party. And this is the party, remember, that some commentators were writing off at its launch party in July 1993. So, yeah, I think it's an honest answer. But will New Zealand First survive without him? Is he critical to their success, Tova? Winston Peters is New Zealand First, in my opinion. It doesn't matter how much he says he's not and that it's a democracy, it's a caucus, but Winston Peters is the leader. I think this time round though, he has got, perhaps, a stronger caucus than he has in previous terms, so perhaps there are some ` like the Shane Joneses, the Fletcher Tabuteaus, the Ron Marks ` who are actually doing the mahi and are a bit stronger perhaps than some of his MPs previously. So perhaps there's room, but Winston Peters ` I mean, he is the brand of the party. Winston Peters is New Zealand First. Just look at United Future. Peter Dunn gone, that's gone. Peter Dunn is gone` But is Winston Peters our version of Donald Trump, Chris? Well, same age. And, basically, he's there; he loves the job; he loves the sport of politics. And if you're loving it, why would you be retiring? Well, speaking of the sport of politics, the Greens this week ` let's talk about waka jumping. They had to swallow a dead waka rat, didn't they, Tova, to support the Waka Jumping Bill? A sewer rat as well. Like, I mean, this is a party that's born of the values party; it talks about its values being at the very core of its kaupapa. And then they've gone` they've completely flipped on that, supported the waka-jumping legislation, which cuts deep into their values for the sake of the stability of the government, for the sake of Winston Peters, basically. I think that they're going to need to watch their membership. Their membership will hate this. And they're going to need to think about this going into the next election, because I do believe it could haunt them going into the next election. Marg, do you think that they have negotiated something in the background that's in return for having to do this? Yeah. I don't know if it's in the background. I mean, the Zero Carbon Bill is a coup for them. And although it is Jacinda Adern's baby as well, I think they're doing fairly well in terms of achievements in government, but Tova's absolutely right. Like any small party that joins a coalition or, in this case, confidence and supply, they're in trouble come the next election, because voters punish them. And in this case, it's their membership` their close membership that might be punishing them. And these are the realties of government, right? They're just smacked with the realities of government... For the first time. ...and how you have to compromise. That's right, they're in government now for the first time, they're the Green Party, welcome to the big club, that's how you do it. Well, speaking of the big club, let's go global now. And I just wanted to talk, Chris, about China and our defence policy statement on it naming them as a threat. Have we shot ourselves in the foot by talking so tough with China? No, not at all because behind the scenes in the previous government you had those conversations. It's been brought out more and more into the open. And if you look at Winston when he was Foreign Affairs Minister with Condoleezza Rice, the conversations that they would have with America has always been quite strong. That's where it is, it's just more in the open now. Nothing's hidden. OK, and Tova, what do you think, just quickly? Yeah, I think there's two sides of it. Maybe they're being realistic about the relationship with China, perhaps than the other Government with rosy-tinted glasses, but also, there is a chance we'll be collateral damage in this. We're about to upgrade our FTA with China, there could be diplomatic ramifications as well, the Prime Minister is travelling to China, I think, later this year. So we'll see how that could play out. All ready, China's asked us to apologise and correct the statement. So we are, I've said it before, we are a kiwi going up against a dragon, you know? Yeah, OK. But we've always done that, we've always been independent. And we've always had to balance the two superpowers. And we're OK. And we had Rewi Alley in China helping them and the Communists back in the 30's, so... All right, we're gonna have to wrap it up. Thanks very much, Marg Joiner, Chris Simpson, and Tova O'Brien. OK, so National's newest MP Dan Bidois joined us on Facebook Live this week to tell us how he's finding his new job. He also told us a bit about life before politics, including how he got suspended from Howick College as a teen. Uh, look, I'm not proud of this, but now I can say it with, you know, a little bit of a smile on my face, but I once got dared into pulling a moonie at the deputy principle... That's very good. and in fact did so, and I got suspended for doing that. (LAUGHS) From now on, the school at Howick College when I went to school, and, um, you know, basically I was the Fonzie of my High School and the guy that` That's high self-praise. ...probably was popular for the wrong reasons. But yeah, that was something` You know, kids, if you're watching out there, do not do this at school. But, yeah, that's probably up there with the worst things I've ever done. That's pretty good. Well, I don't know if the Fonzie ever pulled his pants down, but that's all from us for now. See you again next weekend, thanks for watching. Captions by Starsha Samarasinghe, Elizabeth Welsh and John Gibbs. www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018