Today on Newshub Nation, the coalition has the wobbles, and Simon Bridges is attacking from the sidelines. So we asked him how he'd manage Winston Peters. Are government's actually more efficient than the free market? We ask author Max Rashbrooke whether we should return to the so-called Nanny State. And the anti-1080 movement is gaining momentum ` but are their claims backed up by science? Kia ora. Good morning. I'm Lisa Owen. Welcome to Newshub Nation. It hasn't been a great couple of weeks for the coalition. There are questions over who's in charge ` Jacinda Ardern or Winston Peters. So it should be the perfect time to shine for an Opposition leader. But National's Simon Bridges' personal polling is stuck at around 10%, and the investigation into who leaked his expenses is dragging on. He's been in the job six months, so I asked him what his biggest achievement is so far. I think being very focused on the issues and making sure we're really driving policies. We've got great plans for New Zealand in 2020 and keeping very strong in the polls and in the public's perception of the National Party as the biggest, strongest party. You bring up the polls. So, you're party is polling strongly at about 45%, but you're on just 10%. Why is there that disconnect? Look, I suppose it's hard to know exactly what's going on. I think we're out of the cycle, if you like. It's not like it's the hot glare of a media campaign. I certainly don't take it lightly. Albeit, what I would say to you is what really matters, ultimately, is the party vote. That's what determines power, and it is, without overstating it, gratifying that ` not last year; not five years ago ` right now that National's still incredibly strongly supported under my leadership. Yeah, but the thing is ` at some point, you lose the mandate, don't you? If you're only polling 10%, can you really conceivably see yourself as a prime minister? And at some point, your party will make that decision. So what's the magic number? What do you need to get up to? Without over analysing it, I don't accept that. I think if you go back and you take, actually, any Opposition leader who's been a strong prime minister for the most part who didn't come in in the very last bit of it ` you take a Clark, a you take a Bolger; you go back through the others ` even the Langes of this world ` there often is that disconnect that is there. But I repeat ` I don't take it for granted. I don't take it lightly. I've got to keep working, and I've got a couple of years to justify the faith that New Zealanders would want to have in their prime minister. But` So put a goal on it, then. Put a number on it. What are you aiming for? I would say the most important thing is the party vote. Well, that gets the party in, but it doesn't guarantee that the party keeps you on. And, in fact, Bill English was 20% in the preferred prime minister stakes when he was rolled out; Little, just 5%; Shearer gone at 13%; Cunliffe at 18% ` almost double what you're polling at the moment. So what's your goal? You're missing the point. What's your goal? You're missing a fundamental point about all of that. It wasn't the personal approval ratings that did them. It was the party ratings. It was where the party was at. Not Bill English. Not Bill English. No, absolutely` But Bill English didn't get rolled as leader. He decided earlier this year that he had a long innings in politics, he had contributed a huge amount, and he left on his terms. My simple point to you is actually a sensible analysis of those numbers makes really clear it is the party vote that matters. So you're not prepared to put a number or goal that you're headed for? No, but what's true is that I don't take it lightly. I'm out there working. I feel very good about where we are, only a year in. In fact, I'd say this to you, Lisa, and to New Zealanders ` we have never seen an Opposition party, in the history of New Zealand, a year in, under a new government, doing as well, being as high profile, raising important issues and actually setting the agenda the way the National Party is today. Okay. Well, let's talk about your own party support. How confident are you that you've got 100% support of your caucus? Look, I'm confident. I feel very buoyed by the support I get, the messages I get every day. We are a strong, energised caucus. And you only need to look at how we're performing in Parliament, how we perform in the media to see how that is true. Yeah, but, you know, people will be wondering how you can possibly say that when a leak about your travel expenses could have ` and some people believe probably did come from ` within your own party. Look, you know, sure. I get that, and we're taking it seriously. There's all sorts of discussion about whether we should've or not. Actually, I think it's the right thing to do. We've got a process that's weaning its way along, trucking along, and we'll see where we get to. I ultimately don't know who it is. What I'd say to you, Lisa ` if ` and it is a big if ` if it is a National Party MP or a staffer, I will be incredibly disappointed. But I'll tell you what ` all of my other colleagues, my members of Parliament will also be very disappointed about that. So disappointed that you'd sack them? Well, we have to see what the circumstances are. But, you know, it will be a mixture, I think, of being clear and strong, because it's not good enough if it was one of us, and we just don't know that yet. Let's go through the process and see. But we also know there are some other issues at play here, potentially in terms of wellbeing and so on, so we'll just have to, look, actually exercise some clear, effective leadership on that. Okay. Well, there's a few things in there. First off, you've potentially got more than one leaker, because you've got the person who released your travel expenses, and then someone leaked the fact that you had received this text, so you've potentially got two leakers, haven't you? I doubt that, personally. You think they're one in the same, the person who leaked the text? I think so. And, in fact, what we have a sense of` Do you have some proof about that? No, no. But what I do know is that the police have made clear that the leaker is the same person as the texter. Yes, I'm talking about how that text to you came into the public domain and was reported by the media. Someone from within must have leaked that. I think the point of that is I personally ` and, no, I accept that it's not on the base of any evidence, because I don't think Radio New Zealand in the case of that leak knows who it is either ` I personally would say there's a case for it being the same person. But ultimately, Lisa, we don't know. These are legitimate questions, but let's actually see what happens. So why are you so determined to find this leaker? Well, I'm not, actually. I'm just answering your questions. You've hired two agencies to come in and help find this person. You are determined to find them. Actually, it's pretty simple. We've got a process going on. I don't think about it. I've got Gerry Brownlee and Paula Bennett doing it. I am incredibly focused on the things` Do you expect people to believe that you do not think about this? Absolutely I do! You're putting money and energy into this. You've hired two outside agencies to help you find this person. Why are you so determined? I haven't had a conversation with someone inside the party in at least a week on these issues. These are not things that day by day` Why not just drop it, then? Because I think it's the right thing to do in terms of` Why? Because of the overall integrity of the system. I don't think these are things you want to see happening. They're not desirable. But I wouldn't overplay it. You're looking for a traitor, aren't you? That's what you're doing. No, look, I think we're doing the right thing here. But all of your questions, ultimately in the fullness of time, I will suspect we'll have answers to. We don't today. I don't think it's worth getting too hung up on. I put it to you that the reason you are so determined to find this person is that you are concerned they are from within your own party, and you want to deal with that lack of loyalty. No, because I think, actually, whatever the scenario was, as I say, if it was inside my caucus, it would be very disappointed and my colleagues would be very disappointed about someone. But let me finish this, cos this goes exactly to what you've said. But actually it would be equally troubling if it was outside of that. So let's see the process truck its way along, let's see what happens, and let's deal with the facts as they come. You're talking about strong leadership, but you're sitting on the fence as to whether you would dismiss this person if they're one of your own. Because I don't have the facts yet to make that call. I'd make the case to you, Lisa, it is abundantly different to what we've seen from the prime minister in recent weeks. Why is it different? She has had the facts. Actually, let's take the Clare Curran one ` she has known the situation there. A prime minister in that situation should get the person in, should do what we're doing, face`to`face, look them in the eye, ask them the straight questions and get to the bottom of it. I can't do that because I don't know who the person is yet, whether it's in our party, whether it's in parliamentary services, whether it's wider. But what we do` You could do it with all your MPs, and you haven't, have you? You haven't pulled every one of your MPs in there and asked them if they've done it. I actually would say today I probably have talked with all of the members of Parliament. I certainly have collectively` Have you asked them directly, each of them? So have you asked them each directly if they are the leaker? Did you think`? That's what you're suggesting. Do you think, in the instance that the leaker was there, that they'd say, 'Yeah, look, it's me. Hands up!' I doubt that very much. Okay. What have you done about the allegation that Gerry Brownlee bullied a junior lawyer during a phone call? I have done precisely what Jacinda Ardern has never done in relation to the difficult issues she's faced. I've got Gerry Brownlee in, I've looked him in the eyes, and I've asked him clearly for an explanation about what has gone on. And I have satisfied myself that the discussion that has come from this law firm is arrant nonsense. So you believe Gerry Brownlee, then, when he says he wasn't bullying this person on the phone? Absolutely. And that's what leadership does. That's what Jacinda Ardern should have done in relation to Clare Curran. That's what Jacinda Ardern should have done in relation to Meka Whaitiri. That's what Jacinda Ardern should be doing at the moment around a raft of complex, pretty difficult issues with Shane Jones, with Winston Peters, with the Young Labour camp and a lack of accountability there. It's called leadership. But you're not going to do the same in your own house if it turns out that the leaker is one of your own? No, well, we haven't got to that yet, Lisa. I've asked you categorically ` if it is someone from within your own party, will you sack them? I've made clear what I will do, and that is` ...sit on the fence? No, no. We don't know the facts yet, Lisa. This is a silly ` with respect ` line of questioning. It's a pretty clear point. When we know the facts, I will deal with things as they come. But we're not there yet, unlike where Jacinda Ardern was on Clare Curran; on Meka Whaitiri; on Shane Jones and his defiance around her on business stuff; on Winston Peters in a variety of areas where he knows what he's doing and Jacinda Ardern does too. People within your own party have said if you don't get rid of this person, if they are a member of your caucus, then you will appear weak and you will spend the rest of your days looking over your shoulder. Are they right? Look, this is all speculation about where it may go. Let's let the process happen. Let's see where we'll get to and then deal with the cards that we're dealt. All right. Let's move on to policy and your stance on crime. You said at your National Party conference that you have the best ideas on law and order, on how to keep people safer by keeping our most violent predators locked up. What are those ideas? Pretty simple. Actually, it is being tough on crime and the cause of crime. I don't think` So no change? No, no. Do you wanna let me...? Yeah. There's a couple of things here ` that's crucial. I defy you to go around and say, actually, fewer prisoners means anything other than more victims in a New Zealand context. But what is also true, and I've made clear repeatedly, that actually if Andrew Little were up for a serious conversation about rehabilitation, about reintegration, actually about fundamentally social investment pre and post prison ` actually during as well ` we are absolutely up for that. We started those things in government. Whether it was Rangitahi courts, whether it was very serious drug and alcohol and work programmes in prison to get people ready for the outside, those things are all right. But, you know, it does not mean softening up on the sentencing, the bail and the parole laws. It just doesn't have to mean that that'll mean more victims of crime. Okay. So are you extending your hand across Parliament and saying that you will give them cross`party support if they sit down with you to discuss justice policy? Are you committing to that? I can give you this categorical assurance. If there is genuine rehabilitation and reintegration measures pre`prison to stop and prevent people getting there in the first place within prison and actually after, that isn't about just going soft on the sentencing, the bail and parole. We'll be there, and we'll support those measures. You've said that you want teachers to be highly respected, and part of that is pay. So how much do you think teachers are worth in this pay round? So they've been offered 3% over three years. What do you reckon is fair? I'll be really clear with you ` you go look at my maiden speech. Education and the value of it and teachers is littered throughout it. Give me a number. I'm not going to give you a number, but I have been crystal clear in the first speech I gave to the National Party conference this year what a priority education is, how important teacher quality is, and that does mean higher pay for teachers. I can't responsibly` Those are easy things to say when you are not giving specifics. So the other thing you talked about was decreasing class sizes, okay? So to what ` what class size, ratio, teacher ratio? We will be crystal clear on that for the election. I promise you on the show right now that New Zealanders will know the ratios we're talking about going into the election. All right. So if you won't name a number, just generally, where do you think those teachers are coming from? Because Nikki Kaye said in July 2017 that we were 300 teachers short in Auckland alone, and we know that recruitments to teacher training are way down ` way down. So even if you won't put a number on it, you're making a promise. Where are you getting the teachers from? So to be clear, the reason I won't put a number on it is ` right now, I'm not in government. I'm not in on negotiations. I don't know the nuances of the teachers' position and what things they say will ensure they're valued. I think fundamentally what we're talking about when we're talking about teachers is a long`run issue where teachers no longer, to some extent, feel like they are a respected profession in our communities, the way, say, a lawyer or doctor is, and they should. It's not good enough. I know this from the teachers in my family, in my community. Part of that is pay, and I'm signalling really clearly we should deal with that, actually. But part of it is also conditions; it's things like the time they've got outside of classrooms; it is things like the teacher`classroom ratios, which I think teachers would acknowledge that would actually make a huge difference to the quality of their work. All right. We're almost out of time, but I just want to ask you a couple of quick things. Very quickly, looking at what's going on in the coalition, in your view, yes or no, has Winston Peters gone a little rogue? Yeah, I think he has. And as much as we always knew he is that rogue, and he is still acting like the acting prime minister. He was for a time, but the prime minister is letting him do that, and that's a failure of leadership. So, in saying that, if you were in a coalition with Winston Peters, how would you handle him? Look, I think it's about having clear processes. It's about eye`to`eye meetings. It seems to me that isn't happening. I don't think anyone could deny, looking at this government closely, what you've got is a situation where both the top level but also underneath that, there just aren't the people and the processes to make sure that actually on issues like refugees, everyone's clear on what's going on. On issues like` Sitting down with them and having a conversation ` that would solve it? Actually consistently doing that, having people managing those things, they are all important. But here's what Winston Peters knows ` he knows now that that's not happening. He knows that if he pushes it, he effectively has a presidential veto on the issues of refugees, of law and order, of industrial law, of Crown`Maori relations. A prime minister showing leadership ` a Clark or a Key ` actually they didn't let that happen, and Jacinda` So you could work with him, then? You could work with him in government? I'm not going to get into a discussion of where we'll go on those things. You'll know our position, Lisa, come election time. All right. Thanks for joining me this morning. That is Simon Bridges, the leader of the National Party. If you've got something to say about what you've seen in our show, let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram ` NewshubNationNZ. Our Twitter panel this week is Chanelle Purser and Bevan Chuang. They're using the hashtag #nationNZ. Or you can just email us at... The address is on your screen now. And up next ` has the free market failed? And do we need an even more interventionist government? Author Max Rashbrooke joins me to discuss deep democracy. Plus, an effective way to save our native birds? Or a poison that's killing whatever it touches? We examine the myths and realities of 1080. A new book called Government For The Public Good is posing the question, 'Who does it better ` the free market or the government?' Journalist and author Max Rashbrooke makes the argument for a more active administration or what some people may call a nanny state. He joins me now. Hi, Max. This is a long-running debate, obviously, so is there a definitive answer as to whether the free market is better or the government is better? Well, I think what we've seen in the last 40 years is a dominance of the idea that the free market does things better. You know, that it's more efficient, that it's more effective, the competition drives better results. And I don't think we've stopped and looked hard enough at the answers there, because most people just cherry-pick their examples around Mt Eden and circa whatever. So, what I've done in the book is I've really run the rule over those claims about, 'Has privatisation, outsourcing delivered better services?' And the answer is, generally, no, it hasn't. Classic government action is much more effective than, I think, we've been led to believe. To be clear, are you specifically talking about services that would be regarded as being for the collective good like health, education, justice, prison supply ` things like that? Yeah, I think it's principally those areas in the last 40 years people have tried to make work as markets, things that were classically government-provided before that. That's been the big shift in the last 30 to 40 years, and that's what I'm saying, principally, hasn't worked. Now, there are examples where it has worked. You know, no one wants to go back to the days when the Post Office provided all our telecommunication services, but mostly that privatisation and outsourcing drive has failed to deliver on its promise of better services at lower price. But what measure are you using in judging this, because you can imagine there will be some people shouting at the television at this point, won't there? And they will argue that what you're talking about is an ideology. It's not a science, so what measure are you judging by? Look, in every one of these fields, there's different questions, right? There are different measures ` you've got different measures in health, you've got different measures in education ` but in each of these fields, there is a huge body of research that allows you to answer the question. The problem is we don't often look at or present that stuff. So you take charter schools, for example, the tiny evidence base for New Zealand, but from the US, there's 20 years of really careful research about ` do charter schools deliver better educational results? So, that's the measure there. The answer is really clear from the reviews of all the evidence ` they say, 'There is no evidence that charter schools are delivering educational gains 'better than traditional public schools.' That's a direct quote. But that raises the question, whether you can take an enormous charter school in America and take the results from that and say that, all things being equal, that will be the outcome in New Zealand. Does that compare to a tiny little school in Northland who is operating as a charter school? Some things will always vary from country to country, sure. But you have to think about` There are basic principles that underlie all these things, right? And the principle behind charter schools, which is the same with partnership schools, is fundamentally, you know, if you have schools competing, that will drive up results. And, actually, the evidence is really clear ` and it's clear across the board ` that systems where you have collaborative schools work better, because they share knowledge better. High performing schools can share that knowledge with others. Schools that are struggling can get help. If you have schools that are competing with each other, it's very hard for that good practice to spread, so you get a less effective system overall. Okay, if we accept the premise of your book, your conclusions, here's the conundrum. We're 10 years on from the collapse of the financial sector that, arguably, made people start to rethink the free market, yet people are not flocking to support more government, and they would` well, critics would hold up Brexit and the election of President Trump to argue that we've lost faith in traditional government institutions. Do you agree with that? I think people have. And that's a big motivation for the book, actually. Because I think what has happened in the last 30, 40 years is that the idea that government is effective has been constantly run down and constantly denigrated. And so people` even people who, you know, might want government to do certain things, there's really good evidence that they just don't think that government does a good job of solving those collective problems, of achieving those collective goals. And so what I'm doing with the book is trying to say, 'Well, no, actually, there's a lot of evidence 'in the other direction.' Yeah, but there are examples where governments have failed miserably ` arguably, a local example would be the whole meth testing industry and $100 million wasted testing state houses. So governments do fail in policy areas monumentally, you would argue. Oh, look, I'm definitely not saying that government is perfect. We live in an imperfect world. All the things we deal with are created by people, so everything is deeply imperfect. But it's a question of, in an imperfect world, what things work better? You know, what will deliver us the best possible results? My argument is very often, it's classic government action. All right, well, let's look at a couple of examples, because there were interesting examples in the book. One of the areas that you looked at ` climate change and changing consumer behaviour, subsidies for switching to electric cars. And they're doing this in France, you say, basically giving people the equivalent of 20,000 New Zealand dollars to ditch their petrol car and get an electric one. Why should taxpayers carry the burden of that? Because the classic argument for subsidising something is there are what you'd call 'spiller over benefits' ` what economists call 'externalities'. It's not just an advantage to that person to have an electric car; we're all better off, because we all benefit from the reduced emissions. Now, there are still problems, in the sense that if you subsidise electric cars, it will go disproportionately to people who are already reasonably well off, because they're the buyers of cars. I'm not saying there aren't any counterarguments, but that's the justification, typically, for subsidies. And that's the downside, isn't it? Because sometimes you can do something for the collective good and it will still hurt a group within that collective. And in that case, the Productivity Commission has identified that, well, poor people will pay the higher price for that change in policy. Sure, but there's lots of offsetting things you can do ` I mean, anything that will increase costs for people at the lower end of the spectrum. You can increase payments, say, through the benefit system to offset for that. And I think more generally, if you look at the need to adapt to climate change, there's a huge role for government there, because the people who will be worst affected are people in the traditional extractive industries that are going to disappear. A lot of people in relatively low-paid work, people whose skills that they have now won't be so relevant in the future, they're not just going to seamlessly redeploy themselves into new jobs in the way that a free market purist would tell you. The evidence is that people have to be helped into new jobs and they have to be retrained. They need a lot of support from all of us collectively, and so that's another classic role for government. There's a chapter devoted to income inequality, and obviously welfare can be a contentious issue. You look at some of the things that the government could do if it wanted to provide more intervention. I just want to explain a couple of them very briefly. So, one would be a wealth-matching scheme where, say, kids could put up to 200 bucks into a bank account every year; the government will match that ` only poor kids ` so when they get to their teenage years, they've got a lump sum of money that they could use to acquire assets. Another one is bring back the inheritance tax. So you can get the first 200,000 for a free hit and then get taxed after that. Are those policies not political suicide? I don't think so. Not necessarily. Their inheritance taxes right now probably aren't very popular, but that's partly because there's traditionally been taxes on the person who's just died. And my proposal in the book is that you tax the recipients, and there's a really obvious fairness argument there. I mean, yes, people want to be able to pass something on to their children, and that's absolutely normal and natural, but it's also obviously unfair that some people get gifts that they haven't worked for and there are lots of kids from poorer families who don't get anything. And so the combination of those two proposals is you have some low-level tax on some people who are lucky enough to get gifts over $200,000, and you use that to set up the saving schemes for poor kids, and so that's giving them a decent start in life that they won't get through inheritance. Mm. It's very interesting, and there's so much more to talk about, because you think there should be more citizens involved in making these decisions as well. That is the book Government For Public Good. Max Rashbrooke is the author. Thanks for joining us this morning. Still to come, we dissect the week's political news with our panel. Plus, the Ban 1080 movement has been very vocal this week. But is there any truth to their claims about the poison? 1080 is one of our most effective tools for killing pests, and there is substantial research supporting its use. However, the 'Ban 1080' movement has been gaining momentum, just this week dumping dead birds at Parliament and going to court to try and stop aerial 1080 drops. The Department of Conservation isn't deterred and is preparing for its largest ever pest control operation next year. So, John-Michael Swannix decided to examine both sides of the debate, but first a warning ` some of the images in this report may disturb some viewers. (KIWI CAWS) This is a call that once would have filled our forests at night, followed by a dawn chorus ` the tune of tui, kaka, kakariki, fantails and kokako. But now you are more likely to hear this ` (POSSUM GROWLS) possums, rats, stoats and other introduced mammals kill more than 26 million native chicks and eggs a year. Here in Northland's Russell Forest they've silenced the dawn chorus. There's not a bird in sight. Nothing's flown past. We haven't heard anything. You might at least see a hawk or something out there, but there's nothing. Nine local hapu have worked with DOC over the past 15 months to draw up a forest health plan, with 1080 recognised as an essential tool. But it's been a tough road. DOC works very closely with iwi Maori around tikanga issues. It's about forming long-term relationships, and we know from pest control operations elsewhere that this one will be very successful, and we can knock rats, stoats and possums down to, probably, 90-100% of what they used to be before. That 1080 protects native species is indisputable. After an eight year operation in the 1990s the number of kokako in the central North Island bounced back eight-fold. And in 2006, a 1080 drop in Tongariro Forest saw the survival of kiwi chicks jump from 25% before the drop to more than 50% in the following two years. I shudder to think what the consequences would be if we stopped using 1080, because 80% of New Zealand's native birds are moving towards extinction. We need to reverse that, desperately. 1080 also helps farmers fight bovine tuberculosis. It's made a massive difference to us being able to get on top of TB, especially here on the West Coast and other places where there's lots of native bush. The possums were coming out on to the farms at night and giving TB to the cattle. 1080 is particularly useful for saving native birds, during what's called a 'mast' year, when the forest produces huge amounts of seeds and fruit. This causes the number of rats to explode and the stoats, who feed on the rats, to do the same. Unless you deal with them right there and then, you can expect that there will be a drop in the native species which are susceptible. Next spring is expected to be mother of all mast years. To combat it, more than 1 million ha has been earmarked for pest control. It'll be the largest series of pest control operations that we've ever undertaken. At $33 a hectare aerial 1080 is the most cost effective method. Even so, next spring's operations will cost about $36 million. But DOC has the cash ` with a budget boost from the government. The biggest increase in conservation funding in 16 years and an extra $81 million over four years to do large-scale predator control. However, next years operation comes as the 'Ban 1080' movement is gathering steam. There's so much anti-DOC rhetoric and sentiment out there, but when you look around the regions that's probably understandable, because DOC is the last visible face of government in a lot of those places. Everybody else has picked up sticks and left. The debate on 1080 is not new. However, a 2011 report by then Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, cooled the fervour about its use. The conclusions I reached were, actually, very clear ` surprisingly so. The overall one was that it's really a good thing, and we have to keep using it, and we need to keep using more of it. One day we may not need to, but I was surprised by how good it was on all the dimensions. But New Zealand First isn't convinced. This type of pest control doesn't particularly have full buy-in from across the public, so what we need to do is urgently find alternatives that will have the right social licence buy-in. As part of its coalition deal New Zealand first secured funding to investigate alternatives to 1080, but until these are ready the party recognises that 1080 will still be used. We can't just leave these predators to run rampant in our ngahere. Hunters are another group with concerns about 1080. We're very supportive of the idea of reducing predators in New Zealand backcountry and New Zealand bush. We're very unhappy about the use of 1080 or any toxin when it takes out New Zealand game animals, which we place a high value on. In the 1970s around 25 kilos of pallets were dropped per hectare, but these days it's more like 2 kilos per hectare. So, the risk of killing deer is much reduced from what it was, but it could still happen. It's not just game animals, though. Native birds like kea, especially those fed by humans, have died from eating 1080. So, even though there are a few kea that have died and by-kill in recent drops, the far bigger threat to the kea are the stoats and the rats that are eating them. And the nesting success of kea has been far greater than the by-kill. DOC says that dying the baits green, scenting them with cinnamon, and reducing the amounts dropped per hectare has almost eliminated bird by-kill. But on social media, photos like this one claim 1080 is killing our native birds. In this case, dogs and cars around the Bay of Islands were responsible. No monitored kiwi has ever died from the use of 1080 ever. We've monitored more than 600, I think it is, in recent years and none of them have died from the use of 1080. Scavenging dogs are another concern, as the poison can linger for months in animal carcasses. Dogs are very susceptible to 1080, and so it's very important that when a drop is taking place people with dogs do not go into those areas and have them off-leash, because they can eat a poisoned carcass and it can kill them. While dog deaths by 1080 are distressing, it's important to keep in mind that relatively few die this way ` around three a year. Compare that to the 10 dogs a year poisoned by blue-green algae or the many more hit and killed by cars. But it isn't just by-kill that some groups are concerned about. 1080 is considered to have sever overall animal welfare suffering ` to the animals that ingest it. We don't have any preferential views on, say, a dog or a cat to versus a stoat or a rat, we acknowledge that they can all feel pain. What we argue is ` if they are going to be managed, they must be managed in a humane way. However, Dr Wright says 1080 is classified as moderate on the humane scale of poisons. It's not pleasant, but it's relatively quick compared with many others. It's also not pleasant when a stoat comes upon a mother bird in her nest with her chicks and eats the lot. The SPCA wants painkillers added to 1080 to minimise suffering, while the Deerstalkers Association want it imbued with repellent to prevent by-kill. DOC says it's looking into both of these options but that the costs are prohibitive. Kill traps are recognised as one of the most humane methods but even self-resetting traps simply can't cope with pest populations during a mast year or cover difficult terrain like aerial 1080. You can't do that with a load of traps, because you'd have to cut tracks to put the traps in place. For each trap you'd have to put in one for possums, you'd have to put another one in for stoats and rats. Now, to cover that and service them would be diabolically difficult. 1080 in our water is another concern raised by those opposed to the poison, with videos like these circulated online. That argument led to a drop over the Hunua Ranges being put on hold by the Environment Court last week, over concern it could affect Auckland's drinking water. 1080 has never been discovered ` measured ` in drinking water, even at very low levels, because there are controls put in place to make sure this doesn't happen. The official contamination limit is two parts per billion. The equivalent of two drops of ink in an Olympic swimming pool, a precautionary amount. You'd have to drink something like 60,000 litres of water in one sitting to have 50% chance of dying. From 1990 to now just six of the 3500 samples taken from waterways following 1080 drops had concentrations above two parts per billion. None were in human or stock water supply. If bait falls in water, the first thing that happens is that the 1080 leeches out, quite fast, and then it is diluted to very low levels and then finally, over a matter of hours or days, it breaks down in the environment to harden the substances. This is also what happens if an animal eats a sublethal dose. The poison does not build up in the body but is metabolised and excreted within a few days. The chemical in 1080 is fluoroacetate, it evolved naturally in more than 40 species of plants around the world to stop animals eating them. In fact, it's in the water supply of Perth city. Nobody in Perth seems to keel over from 1080 poisoning, despite the fact that some of those seeds and leaves are at higher toxic ratings than the pallets that we use out here to control possums. Another concern is aquatic creatures like koura, eels and trout eating 1080 pallets or the carcasses of poisoned animals and for humans who catch them to then be poisoned. However, research has shown this is nigh impossible. I know it's very emotive, but I've been around 1080 for the best part of 20 years, off and on. I've stood under helicopters. I've been in that, supposed, toxic area. I haven't got horns coming out of my head. There's also concern that 1080 can cause miscarriages or kill humans. There's absolutely no evidence for that, and there have been experiments done on laboratory animals. But the dosage to affect fertility is very, very high and in such a level that would never occur with humans. A possum hunter is believed to have died from 1080 in the 1960s. That was probably a mistake with the gentlemen used a jam, which was allowed to be used then, for applying 1080 and he put it on his bread and butter. I mean, look, we're not supposed to be comparing things but if you applied the same rule to 1080 as you apply to cars, we'd be walking everywhere. The fears about 1080 have real world consequences. DOC staff and contractors have been intimidated, sent death threats and in some cases had their vehicles sabotaged. It's also sparked protest around the country. I think there's been a lot of misinformation spread, a lot of scare-mongering. It is a really safe and effective tool. Research is underway to find alternatives to 1080, but scientific tools must be proved safe ` a process that takes years, and DOC says we simply can't afford to wait. We've got a heart too, and we're trying to save species, and we're doing our damndest. If another tool that replaced 1080, which was as good as it came along we'd be using it, but, hey, that's not going to happen for the next 10 years. I can guarantee. (BIRDS CHIRP) Still to come ` Auckland's youngest councillor Richard Hills talks to Finn Hogan on this week's Facebook Live, but first we catch up with our panel ` Stuff Political Editor Tracy Watkins, Newshub Political Editor Tova O'Brian and Radio New Zealand's Series and Podcast Executive Producer Tim Watkin. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` Tracy Watkins, Tova O'Brien and Tim Watkin. Thanks for joining us this morning. Simon Bridges, leader of the National Party, Tracy, we talked about the leak quite a bit. First of all, he said they were taking it seriously. And then later in the interview, he said he didn't think it was worth getting hung up on. 'I don't think about it,' he said. Do you buy that? No, I don't, because he doesn't know the answer to the inquiry yet. Until he knows the answer, he just doesn't know how bad it's going to look. Um, but, yeah, he, obviously, has decided he's not going to talk about this any more. He's appointed Gerry Brownlee ` the spokesperson on all things leak. The big question, of course, is when they come out with the answer. The PM's off to New York at the end of next week. Gee, that would be a good time to have that come out, wouldn't it? Yeah, um, buried in amongst all the headlines from New York. Fridays are quite good days to release things` Fridays are a good day. But, remember, this is also the guy who wanted the` he was the one that called for the inquiry in the first place. He wanted the high level forensic inquiry, led by a high court judge. He wanted this. But he does not want to look publically like he is obsessed` as obsessed and as worried as he is behind the scenes. That's why he's pushed it off to Gerry Brownlee and Paula Bennett. Cos it's gone on too long now. Yeah. Two basic things that we should agree on ` leaks are good. By and large, leaks are good things. Journalists would say that. Yeah. Yeah, but public transparency. They are good. They hold power to account a lot of the time. Secondly, this was a very minor one. It was public information that was coming out anyway. So the fact that we're still talking about it months on is just nuts, and he has absolutely dug himself a hole. Yeah. So when I put it to him that the reason he wanted to know who the leaker is is because he needs to shut down a traitor, a person within. And he kind of dodges that question. Well, what's the motivation? If it's such a low level leak, Tim, why does he need to find this person? Well, he's now got himself all tangled up in this, and he can't get out of it. And the best he can do is palm it off to Gerry Brownlee. But he said to you he wants to look clear and strong off the back of this. That does suggest he's going to have to sack whoever comes out, assuming it is someone involved with` inside National. And so, yeah, the path is there. They've just got to get there and get there quickly. Tracy, is he going to have to sack the person if it turns out to be one of his own? Well, there is the text that suggested that the person involved had some sort of mental health issues and so sacking them might look a little bit less than compassionate. But by calling the inquiry, making it such a big deal, he has really raised the stakes. He's talked about it being a leadership issue for him. And, you know, that's important. I think, at the time, he should have just shrugged his shoulders and said, 'Yeah, of course, I travel around the country. 'This is how much Jacinda Ardern spent in the election campaign. No big deal. 'It's coming out in a couple of days.' And then zipped it, yeah. It looks like this is the goal of the inquiry, right? Cos he's gone out there, and he's said that he wanted the inquiry to try and offer this person wrap-around support or whatever. But in one breath, he's saying he has got the person's well-being at heart, but in the same breath, he's pushing on with this inquiry, which the person says could risk their well-being. So it certainly looks like a witch hunt. I mean, call me cynical, but that's what it looks like. He is trying to weed this person out. He thinks there might be a leak in his caucus, and he wants to plug that leak. And I think he will try and make an example of them, just by reading into some of the things he was saying in there about what his caucus thinks that he should do with this person if, indeed, they are from his caucus. What about policy? Cos we did ask him about policy. And he spoke about` Where was it? (ALL CHUCKLE) Well, he spoke about it in what could be considered his kind of flagship speech at his own party's conference. He mentioned education, but he had no answers` specific answers on education, Tracy. No. No further answers than we had at the time he announced it at the conference. And there were questions at the time of the conference ` how many teachers? Put some numbers on this. How many` What size classrooms? Should he have them by now? Cos people would argue it's early in the election cycle. It is early in the election cycle. I think with something so specific as that, you probably do need a number, otherwise it all looks just a bit flaky. And then you can unroll the rest` It's your speech, right, at your conference where all eyes are on you. This is the first time you're going out there in front of the party faithful trying to tell them what you stand for. And then you put out some wafty headline without any actual detail. He's only just done the tour around the country. He's just done the listening stuff. There does have to be a phased thing where you listen, then you build policy, then you announce. The problem is that I think if you look back ` certainly, in the last decade, where Labour struggled ` they always left it late. They always said` ran these same lines, 'You'll know by the time for the election.' And it was always` Goff, Shearer, Cunliffe ` I bet, if you asked them all now, they would say, 'I wish I'd got some hard policy out earlier.' Because the narrative becomes` Because they're not mutually exclusive either, are they? Like, you can do the 'go out there and listen to people and formulate your policy over time', but you can also have some. Yeah. You only have to pick a couple, right? Exactly. And your set piece at your party` It was embarrassing. His two speeches ` the first day, he announces Act Party policy with no real detail; the second day, he announces Labour Party policy with absolutely zero detail. And that was his keynote speech. That was the one where everyone in the party should have been able to look to him and go, 'OK, this is what this guy stands for.' You never has as long as you think you do in opposition. And you've just got to crack on. And the narrative becomes that you've got no policy. If you keep it going for two years, that becomes the narrative. And then you get into the election campaign, and I think` You know, how many election campaigns did we see Labour roll out one policy after another, incredibly detailed manifestos. But still the narrative was 'you've got no policy'. Before we move on to what he thought of Winston, I just quickly want to cover justice issues, because this government's been taking a lot of heat around justice. So he said that they're going to have the best justice policies, Tim. And when he was put on the spot there` Positively Trumpian. (ALL LAUGH) No details. But was he kind of extending the hand? Or not? If you're Andrew Little or Kelvin Davis sitting here watching the screen and heard that, you're going, 'Right. He's not going to help me on bail laws and so forth.' So you carve off legislation for that. But you put together a bill that is around rehabilitation and reintegration. And, yeah, look, give them some of the phrasing around social investment ` that's what they want to call it, that's fine. But if you can get a grand coalition over some serious justice reform around rehabilitation and reintegration, which is` cos Bridges said, 'If Andrew Little is serious about this' ` if you give Andrew Little nothing else, he is serious about this. So there is absolutely an opportunity there for Labour to go grab that. All right. Let's talk about Winston Peters, cos he says Winston's gone rogue. He agrees, Winston's gone rogue and says he'd handle him with a good sit-down chat. Oh, well, good luck with that. (ALL LAUGH) I think that's been tried over the years. Making it clear to him. Yeah, I think that's been tried over the years. Winston does what Winston does, you know? And dodging the question, Tova, about whether he would be able to work with him if he was placed in the same position. Yeah, indeed, but I also think, just on that point, pulling Winston in and trying to have` giving him a talking to, I mean, Jacinda Ardern ` Winston Peters likes her, genuinely likes Jacinda Ardern, and look what he's doing to the Labour-led government. He's never said a nice word about Simon Bridges. He calls him 'Simple Simon'. And he keeps having a crack about whether his law credentials are valid or not. He's not said a single nice thing about him, so I would love to be a fly on the wall of a meeting where Simon Bridges pulls Winston Peters in and gets him under control ` a bit like that meeting, perhaps, where he pulled Gerry Brownlee in for` Yeah, what did you make of that, Tim? Because he's been` Simon Bridges has been on at Jacinda Ardern, saying that he should get Meka Whaitiri in the office for a one-on-one, and he made quite a play of the fact he'd had a chat to Gerry Brownlee. And that is good. He should be doing that. I think anybody who knows Gerry Brownlee knows that he's a feisty character. And so, you know, I think there's a certain 'where there's smoke, there's fire' element, but I wasn't part of that conversation. I don't know how rude he was to that lawyer or not. But good on Bridges for actually calling him up and having a word to him. It's not unreasonable for a boss to say, 'Hey, what's going on here?' All right. Speaking of words, Derek Handley has basically penned an open letter, I suppose, in some ways, about the fact` now, this is the guy that was supposed to be the chief technology officer, he was offered the job a month ago, took it ` this was all around the Clare Curran thing ` and then, oops, my job's gone. Yeah, after he arrived back in New Zealand from New York with his family, (LAUGHS) seems to be the case. The extraordinary thing about that is he announced that, on a post on LinkedIn ` and very shortly after that, there was some sort of scramble to get a press release out from the government or, I don't know, some sort of press statement confirming it` So he led the charge. Yeah, and, again, you know, I think we keep coming back to this, but there's some sort of problem with the whole communication lines, and it's all a bit shambolic. Yeah, and deeply cynical as well, as you pointed out, Lisa. This is the fourth Friday in a row where the government has announced something massive which is going to be seriously damaging to them. And in the press gallery, we're used to these, kind of` The John Key government used to do all the time, you get a massive document dump on a 4pm on a Friday afternoon, have to weed through thousands of pages or in the midst of a` you know, deep in a recess. But this government came out and said, 'We are going to be the most transparent government` 'open and transparent government ever in the history of all time, ever, ever, ever.' We're going to feel different. We're going to be open. When in actual fact, they are just as closed as any other government. But they wrote a check that their buck couldn't cash. And that's a real concern. There were genuine expectations about not just OIA reform, but a way that you actually handle things. And they're not delivering yet. Gotta go. Do stay with us though. We'll be back after the break. Welcome back. You're with Newshub Nation and our panel. Well, to start off with, we should say that Jacinda Ardern was supposed to appear on the show this weekend and pulled out of that interview, and the reason she was supposed to appear this weekend was because she had pulled out of the prior interview. So she's cleared the decks of her media appearances, Tim. What do you reckon? I'm quite appalled by this. And a lot of people at home won't understand the way this business works. And so it's difficult ` people go, 'Oh, yeah, she doesn't wanna do that. 'She doesn't have to turn up on a Saturday morning or a Sunday morning.' It is unprecedented. I've produced these kinds of shows for eight years. A prime minister pulling out of an interview is rare in that it never happens. So for her to have pulled out of three interviews now with The Nation is appalling, especially when you go into government promising to be` 'I want this government to feel different. I' want it to be transparent. I want it to be open.' When you come in claiming a mandate like that, then you have to honour it in practice as well as in word. And she's failed to do that. Well` Sorry, I'm outraged! Outraged! (LAUGHTER) But what's frustrating is she keeps saying, 'Oh, I make myself available every day. 'Look at how lucky you are to live in this democracy where the prime minister is available to you.' Yes, but that has always been the case. And, yes, we are lucky in New Zealand, but these commitments are part of her job. I was told by someone close to the ninth floor that, 'Oh no, she can't do them because she needs to get out there and be the prime minister.' Being the prime minister means speaking to people. You speak to people through shows like this, and you're held to account on shows like this. We don't have` Skirting those obligations is simply not on, especially not three times on the trot. There's not a lot of TV current affairs left in New Zealand. The kind of work that these shows do is vital. Being available to that and being held to account and actually winning the argument. To be able to come on and actually win an argument with you, Lisa, when you can play devil's advocate and say, 'But what about what the critics say?' 'Argue these complaints.' Come and actually front up, Prime Minister. Where are you? You should be here. Well, don't worry. Simon Bridges can take your spot. Sweet as. We'll move on, because she is going to be giving a speech today. What are we expecting from her? Tracy? Well, I think we're expecting her to put the last few weeks behind her. It's called 'the reset' ` another one. I think we've had a few of these by now. I gather that Winston Peters and James Shaw will be there. It's the big coalition... It's a show of force, of solidarity. A show of force and setting ahead the priorities, showing our government's got a plan and priorities for the next couple of years. I think they're talking about it across every spectrum ` the economy, business, society. Is there going to be anything new? No, I think it's going to be a repackaging. So whether that does the... OK. So even if it is a repackaging, how important is it for her, given what these last few weeks have delivered? I actually think it could potentially backfire. If you're going out there doing this big speech where you want to try and reclaim the narrative and show that you've got this plan and show that your coalition is functioning together, it could just end up highlighting the fact that there have been` this mensis horribilis that the prime minister has emerged from, that they have had myriad problems within the coalition governments. All of these squabbles ` and by squabbles, I mean, um, humiliating Machiavellian manipulations within the governing partners. I think it could end up highlighting all of that and making them look a bit desperate. I mean, to be fair, this was planned about the time she came back from maternity leave, so a lot of problems that have happened in the intervening period weren't seen on the horizon at the time. But it's certainly going to help to try and reset. If it generally does give them a blueprint and a plan, then that would be a good thing. I think there is, um, a lot of miscommunication and` This poor implementation is clear. This Labour Party in opposition struggled to look competent. That is what kept them out of government for three terms. Now they have power, they're still not looking particularly competent, and part of that is a planning and processing thing. There's not good communications. The ministers are not holding together well. There are a lot of them who do look like they're on training wheels and are figuring stuff out fast, and so if they generally can make this into a plan on the blueprint, they desperately need one. They keep telling us they have a plan and a blueprint. She keeps telling us to look to the speech from the throne, the coalition agreement and the confidence and supply agreement thing. 'That is our plan.' So she's just repackaged those into a reformatted document. I'm sorry. It` That was the plan up until last week, where Winston Peters said even some of that stuff. You raise Winston Peters there. Are these ructions just teething problems? Or is it more than that? I think it's more than that. I think Winston Peters had a clear goal in mind when he went with Labour rather than National. Labour was definitely the smaller and weaker of the two major parties, just by sheer dint of numbers. But, quite clearly, his plan over the last week has been to` he jumps down your throat if you call it a Labour-led government or if you talk about Labour policies. He doesn't believe` He see himself as an equal partner in this case. Yes, he does. Yeah. Labour is not the senior partner. No, and everything has to go through him. This is the point where he's going to make an example of Labour by doing this stuff with the refugees and doing this stuff` Yeah. It's almost like he's trying to remind him who's the boss here. This is the thing. You look at it. This is a man who's 73 years old. All of the other leaders around him are in their 30s and 40s. He is almost twice the age of most of them. He's danced the dance before most of them were born, so he has more power now than he has ever had. But he does have to be careful with that. Voters do not like to get the impression that the tail is wagging the dog. It's one of the oldest criticisms of MMP. So he could actually hurt himself if he doesn't be a little bit careful. OK. So how does Jacinda Ardern change the narrative, then, of this, 'She's the prime minister, but who is really the boss?' How does she change that narrative? Tova? Shuts him up. I think on terms of the refugee issue ` the three big things we've seen have been the refugee issue. Winston Peters, when refugees were front and centre, in Nauru, just reannouncing the government policy, contrary to what it had been. The justice reforms Andrew Little had announced ` three strikes repeal ` and then Winston Peters quickly kiboshes it the following Monday. And the most egregious example ` the industrial relations reforms that Labour wants to get through, and Winston Peters and NZ First agitating in the background and threatening, basically, to not let that pass as it is. I think she needs to A) shut him up and get him in line, if they wanna keep talking about how things are working so well behind the cabinet doors, and the coalition's talking to each other, and it's not as messy out in public as it is... you know, everything's actually quite tidy, make it tidy, tell them to get in line. And also she needs to win the refugee argument now. She needs to win the industrial` She needs to win. We've gotta wrap it up. You can carry on the conversation. But Auckland City's youngest councillor Richard Hills joined Finn Hogan on this week's Facebook Live to discuss everything from golf courses to 1080 to being the first openly gay councillor. The media did ask me when I was the first openly gay councillor, 'Oh, how does it feel?' And at first I was kind of keen to just dismiss it and be like, 'Oh, I'm just like any other councillor.' But a lot of young people did message me throughout` when I got elected saying how cool it was, that it wasn't a barrier for me and people still elected me, and it was really great to have a role model or whatever. So I kind of realised I did have a responsibility to... ...openly embrace that. Yeah, and not be, you know, closed down about it, which I never have been. But I think it's that balance of I'm just like every other councillor around the table. It doesn't affect my decisions around bus stops or housing or whatever, but it is important to also be a representative for that community and make sure I'm speaking up on issues. And that is all from us for now. We will see you again next weekend. Thanks for watching. www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018