Today on Newshub Nation ` Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters joins us live from Tauranga as New Zealand First celebrates its 25th anniversary. The Opportunities Party is back with a new leader, but is Gareth Morgan still calling the shots? We talk to Geoff Simmons. And could new evidence about a 1985 murder in South Auckland be enough to free a man who claims he was wrongly convicted? www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018 Kia ora, good morning. I'm Lisa Owen. Welcome to Newshub Nation. The Opportunities Party, or TOP, had the potential to really sway last year's election, but failed to get enough votes to get into parliament, ending up with just over 2% of the vote. In July, the party's former leader, Gareth Morgan, announced the party was to be deregistered, but now his former deputy, economist Geoff Simmons, is giving it another shot. He joins me now. Kia ora, good morning. Ata marie, Lisa. When you quit the party last December, you said you'd return if the circumstances were right. So was Gareth Morgan stepping down what you were waiting for? Well, I think, the real issue was that the people` the membership really made it clear that they really wanted The Opportunities Party to continue. And they stepped up and were prepared to pitch in and keep the party going. So I think that was the crucial thing ` really getting an indication that people wanted the party to continue. So are you saying that Gareth Morgan being out of the picture had nothing to do with your decision to come back? Well, Gareth always intended to step down after the election as leader. I think the question was how the party would move forward, you know, in the future, in terms of structure. So how is` what's different about this party, then, other than having you in charge? Well, we still` Gareth's still involved; he's on our policy committee, so we still get to use his big brain, but he's not involved in the political side whatsoever. So, you know, my plan is to work a lot more with the members and get a sense of where they want to see the party going and make it a much more democratic institution. Was it not a democratic institution before? Well, you know, it was set up by Gareth and fully funded by Gareth, so, obviously, he had a lot of input into how the party ran. So we are going to be looking for a much broader funding base so that we can draw on a lot of different perspectives. Is that a polite way of saying that he had too much influence? Well, I mean, I think that's up to people to decide for themselves. I'm asking you. Well, I mean, I think Gareth did a great job in terms of setting up the party, but in terms of a sustainable party going forward, it could never be a one-man band. Okay. Well, you say he's still on the policy committee, and he is also still going to fund the party ` he kicked in $2 million last time. But he has said, publicly, that that funding is tied to you implementing his policies. And if you don't do that, you will 'be personally liable to him'. What does that mean? Well, I think, actually, you know, everyone that's involved in The Opportunities Party is involved because they like the policies, so I think that's really a non-issue. We all want long-term` Is it though? Because he said it. And any form of government will be a coalition, so, you know, there's always compromise in that. And he's saying if you don't implement the policies, you're going to be 'personally liable'. What's he going to do? Make you pay it back at a dollar a week? Gareth realises that compromises happen in the Beehive, and he totally understands that that will happen when you actually get there and get in the coalition-forming process. But what he wants to see is a party that's standing for what works in the long-term. And The Opportunities Party is going to stay exactly that. So is he just being bombastic when he says that ` it means nothing? Do you think it's unusual for Gareth to be bombastic, Lisa? (LAUGHS) So does it mean nothing? Well, I mean` There's no responsibility to deliver anything in exchange for the money? His concern was that if he handed The Opportunities Party over that politicians would get` career politicians would get involved and the policies would be shifted to be more palatable to the public. But that` We are going to be sticking with the policies that we formulated at the last election. You are going to stick with all of those policies? Well, I mean, some of them will need updating, of course, to stay relevant, but the absolute general thrust will stay exactly the same ` what works in the long-term. But you just said there that there was concern that the policies might be changed to be more palatable to the public. Well, they have to palatable to a certain extent, don't they? Or you don't get enough votes. Well, I mean, I think we showed in the last election that, you know, in 10 months, we managed to get 2.5%, Lisa. 2.4, I think. Yeah, that's right. And now we have another two years to really get across our ideas to people. And that's really what it takes. When you're trying to do what works, these ideas are naturally more complicated than, you know, populist policies. So now we've actually got time ` we've got a couple of years to really get out and explain to people why our policies are going to make the difference to the issues that New Zealanders see ` our struggling economy, rising inequality, the housing crisis and our environment. Our economy is not struggling. Yes, it is. I'm an economist. (CHUCKLES) Our economy has been` is below the OECD average in terms of income and has been that way for many decades. We had a so-called 'rock-star economy' under National, but in the last few years that was propped up by immigration. And that did not raise the average incomes of New Zealanders at all. Okay, we're almost out of time, but I want to ask you about a couple of policies. Capital gains tax ` well, that basically lost Labour a couple of elections, didn't it? Your tax policy is like capital gains on steroids. How do you think you're going to be elected on that basis? Well, at the moment, income tax payers pay too much tax in New Zealand. And if we got all assets to pay their fair share of tax, then actually we could cut income tax by a third. That's what we need to get across to New Zealanders ` that income tax payers are getting a raw deal at the moment. And if we make assets pay their fair share, we can give quite a massive tax cut to the average Kiwi, more money in their back pocket, so that 80% of people will be better off. All right. Thanks for joining us this morning, Geoff Simmons, the new leader of the TOP party. Kia ora, Lisa. It has been 25 years since former National MP Winston Peters decided to start a new political party. Since then, New Zealand First has formed governments with both National and Labour, been dumped out of parliament and fought its way back into a coalition again. Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters joins me now from Tauranga, where the Party has gathered for its annual general meeting. Good morning, Minister, happy 25th. Is it as good this time round as it was the first time you turned 25? Good morning, thank you very much. I can't remember when I first turned 25. All right, well, let's get to the business of the week. This week, a draft report into the Meka Whaitiri incident was leaked to the Herald. That report found, on the balance of probabilities, that Meka Whaitiri physically grabbed her Press Secretary and left bruises. I'm wondering would you keep one of your MPs if they had been involved in an incident like that? Look, I haven't seen the report, and I can't, therefore, give you the benefit of what I know about it. I just haven't seen it. That report was leaked ` that's regrettable. When we've seen the final report in its totality, I'll be able to answer you. Would you keep on an MP who had committed an alleged assault? No, look, look, look, I'm not here to talk about Meka Whaitiri. I'm here to talk about a party that survived a quarter of a century, the second-longest surviving party in this country's history that hasn't changed its name. That's what I'm here to talk about. And we are talking about your party; I'm asking you what you would do` Doesn't sound like it to me. ...if one of your MPs was involved in a situation like that? No, we're not talking about hypotheticals. Let's cut to the chase here, what are we going to stand for in the next 25 years? And why have we survived for 25 years? Okay, we'll get to that, Mr Peters. The other thing, because you are Acting Prime Minister at the moment, National alleged in parliament that you rang Deputy Commissioner Wally Haumaha to reassure him after an inquiry was launched into his appointment and the circumstances of that employment. You say that your office checked your phone records, and there was no call. So, I just want to be clear, does that include any and every phone that you could have used to make the call, and was there any other contact using any other means with Mr Haumaha from you? I can't believe you're wasting my, or your viewership's, time. Mr Bishop said he had a revelation, and if he's had a revelation, then why hasn't he shown you that? That's what a revelation means. No, he made a vile allegation, couldn't prove it, and now you're asking me questions about it. Yeah, well, you could clear it up. Yes or no, have they checked all your phones? Did you have contact with Wally Haumaha? No, I'll clear it up by go` No, Lisa, we'll go to the original source, who promised all you journalists a revelation. What was that revelation? But you would know. Who would best know whether you've spoken to Wally Haumaha? You. Do you not want to give us a clear answer? No, no, that's` that's not the way our society, our democracy or our standard of law works. You just can't make baseless allegations without putting up the facts; he hasn't. And why aren't you talking to him about that and not wasting my time? Better to go to the source, Mr Peters. OK, if you won't answer that, let's have a chat about policy. You have said` No, it's not that I won't answer it, I can't answer it. I can't answer it because it is baseless, not true; the records show it's not true. The source was Mr Bishop. Please go to him, and I hope the next 25 years of journalism and politics is about that sort of thing, not silly side-track allegations. All right, let's move on to policy. You've said that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is a work in progress, and the Prime Minister has told us that you supported the bill through cabinet, and you've committed to passing it. But will it pass as it is laid out in Labour's manifesto? Look, the Minister in charge of it has told Parliament and you countless times that if he sees or hears of a great idea as it passes through parliament, he's going to grab it. Now, that's the way bills have been passed in parliament now for a hundred or so years. There's nothing new about this at all. So, are you expecting it to be tweaked, and what things do you think need to be changed? I expect it to be passed in the fullness of time, and we're very confident about that. In what form, is what I'm asking? I know what you're asking, and your colleagues have been asking this tedious question now for the last three weeks. You've had the same answers for the last three weeks. Now, can we talk about a party called New Zealand First? We'll get to some questions about your party a bit later. This is an important piece of legislation. So, I'm wondering, have businesses raised concerns with you about it in the form that it's in? Well, if you look at the submissions made by all manner of groups in this country, including businesses, including unions, you will see that there's a wide variety of input in the suggestions, as far as that goes. And we have had regard to them all. So from what kind of businesses are you hearing that there are issues with this legislation? You, personally, have you been speaking to any particular businesses? And what kind of industries are they in? There are 500,000 entrepreneurs and businesspeople in this country, and we try and speak to as many as we possibly can. On this piece of legislation, have you had any conversations with people, say, from, I don't know, meat and seafood industries talking to you about this legislation? We've talked to all sorts of industries about this legislation, big businesses and small businesses. We've talked to unionists about it; we've talked to people who are tradesmen and who are self-employed contractors. We've talked to them all about it. OK, so in terms of the unions, then, what conversations are you having with them or have had with them about where there might be room to move with this bill? Look, we've told all parties, whether they be on the far left, on the far right or in the middle, that the Government in this matter is an umpire, a neutral referee. And, in the context of how New Zealand First sees it, our job is to write industrial relations law that lasts not just for three years or one decade, but lasts for a long, long time. And if you have balanced, fair legislation, that will be the result. So at the moment, as it's written, do you think it is balanced and fair? Well, again, I said, it was a work in progress. It has still to go before the full committee of the house. We're still to hear all of the views of the people of this country. I don't know why we're trying to truncate and cut off a long process halfway through it just to satisfy these sorts of questions. All right. Well, let's move on to another policy that Labour is particularly committed to, which is Whanau Ora. Its pre-election promise was that it was going to put $20 million of extra funding into Whanau Ora over four years. How open are you to that extra money? You know, this is seriously regrettable that at my party's 25th year conference that the line of questioning should be about every other political party but ours. But I'll give you an answer. There's a review of Whanau Ora going on now under the minister Peeni Henare. And when it's complete, we'll know what the review says. I'll know, the Parliament will know and, better still, the media will know. So if the review says that the extra money is warranted at that level, will you support it? Look, we're not going to deal` I'm not going to be answering questions about a hypothetical that was another party's pre-election commitment and which is not part of the coalition agreement. And that's the point` We're an open-minded party` No, listen, we negotiate, we see reasonable argument, we're happy to take on new things, but I'm dealing with the here and now as we know it, with a review coming up, and when the review is complete, we'll know a whole lot more. Whanau Ora was started, as you recall, with an anecdotal report without one empirical fact in it. Now, we know that's the history, but we're looking at whether or not, and is it possible, that notwithstanding that, that it's been successful. We've got an open mind about that. I'm happy, and my party's happy, to await the end of the review and the final report. Okay. Well, let's turn to your party and its future. Could you see your way`? Thank heavens for that. Now, how long did that take you? Oh, well, you know, you're acting Prime Minister. You need to get through those duties first, Mr Peters. No, no, stop right now, Lisa. Lisa, I don't want to make this contentious. I'm a very reasonable guy, as you know. Shall we move on to your party, then? No, no, I just heard you have an interview with another party, and it was all about their policies, and all of a sudden now it's about every other party's policies but mine. They're not in government. You are. So we need to talk about both things. You've got many hats` Precisely, Lisa. Thank you very much. So, could you see your way clear to working with this configuration of government for a second term? What configuration is that? With Labour and with the Greens. Look, we look at all possibilities. Unlike all the other parties, we don't go in with a pre-arrangement behind the voters' backs. We wait till we see what the voters have delivered to us, and we have for 25 long years. And when the voters have spoken, because they are, after all, the very core and essence of democracy, then we respond, and we'll do that next time, as we always have. So, again, you're going to go into the next election without declaring who you will work with? You're not going to make a pre-election commitment? Lisa, for 25 years, that has been our policy. It doesn't mean that we go in hostile to other parties or the possibility that maybe after the election, we'll have to work with them. But in the end, we are a party in the middle; we are not on the far left or the far right. We are a common sense party at the heart of this government, and we're not going to abandon our position. Since you've been in government, do you think that there has been a change in the support base for New Zealand First? Yes, there has been. In what way? Well, we're more popular now than we were on election night. Who do you think those supporters are? Because I've looked at the breakdown of your voters from the 2014 election ` 37% of the people who voted for New Zealand First party-voted Labour; 18% National. Now, in the 2017 election, it was 24% Labour and 22% National. And your point is? Well, what do you think that means about where your support is coming from? (CHUCKLES) It means that our party is more popular today than it was on election night; that the kind of polls that you use ` that usually have us down about 1% or 2% ` have us far higher than that now. Whenever I see your polls, I just double it, because that's the result on election night, usually. Well, those figures are from the Electoral Commission, and 22% of those people who supported you in the last election party-voted National. Are you sure that you can hold on to that support? Excuse me, are you telling me the Electoral Commission is doing its own polling? Not polling. This is a breakdown of the votes from the last election. No, no. The Electoral Commission could not possibly know that. We live in a country with a democracy. We have a secret ballot. The Electoral Commission could not possibly know that, so I don't know what you're talking about. It's the party votes that split, Mr Peters` Can I explain to you as someone who's got a political science degree and has been in politics a long, long time? The Electoral Commission would have to do a poll to do that. They could not possibly discern any of that from the ballots itself. All right. Let's move on. 25 years ` you must be thinking about the future of New Zealand First and, well, who's going to lead it. Do you have a succession plan? Well, what about you and your job and your succession plan? I do have one. I'll announce it at the end of the programme. But what about your succession? (LAUGHS) That'll be fantastic. I'm not` You could do the same. We're on the same show, Mr Peters. I'm not sending people out to pasture. The difference is that my party's in the here and now, clear and present, with a great future. And how long do you anticipate that you will lead the party? Do you have a succession plan? Well, I didn't really come on this programme in our 25th year of what's been a glorious party record, where we've faced all the media criticism and more spurious comment than any other political party and have survived the whole lot, to start talking about a succession plan. That will be over to my party board, party membership and, above all, my caucus colleagues. It has never been, and will never be, over to me. Is it something that you're going to be talking about at your meeting this weekend? No. Why not? Just because you think it's a good idea` Well, you might be going out to pasture, but I'm not, all right? Good to talk to you, Mr Peters. That is Winston Peters, Acting Prime Minister` (LAUGHS) It's been a pleasure. ...leader of New Zealand First and the Foreign Minister. If you have got something to say about what you've seen on our show, let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram ` NewshubNationNZ. Our Twitter panel this week is Tim Watkin, Jason Walls and Morgan Godfery. They are using the hashtag #nationnz. Or you can simply email us at nation@mediaworks.co.nz. The address is on your screen now. Well, up next, we dissect the week's news with our panel. But first ` he was convicted of murder in the 1980s, but did Alan Hall get a fair trial? And was crucial evidence withheld? In October 1985, Auckland man Arthur Easton was stabbed to death by an intruder in his Papakura home. Alan Hall was convicted of the murder, but his family say evidence was tailored to incriminate him ` a claim that's rejected by police and prosecutors. But for the first time, Newshub Nation can reveal crucial new information about witness evidence deliberately kept from the jury. Mike Wesley-Smith has the story. In Geoff Hall's garage, there are boxes and boxes of documents. Evidence, handwritten notebooks and old news clippings that tell the story of the murder of Arthur Easton. READS: 'The fight to free, son goes on.' Wow, this brings back memories now. In 1986, Geoff's brother Alan was convicted of murder, despite not matching original witness descriptions of the offender. READS: 'Described the intruder as a 6ft Maori.' Alan's 5'7" European. Geoff says Alan is not a murderer. Rather, a gentle man with an intellectual impairment. I think, you know, at the time from 13 or early teenage years, he sort of stopped growing the same as the rest of us. Alan's family have long battled to clear his name. His mum, Shirley, persevered for 27 years, even selling the family home to pay legal fees. Before Shirley died in 2012, her children made her one last pledge. It was one thing that I said to her, in her final weeks, was that, you know,... we are going to fight on till Alan has his, and the family has their, name back. (CONTAINER SCRAPES) That fight is documented in these thousands of pages, going right back to the beginning of it all ` 13th of October 1985. (PANTS HEAVILY) It's just after 8pm on a Sunday evening in Grove Road, Papakura, and a man has just committed murder. ARCHIVE: 'A masked intruder stabbed a middle-aged Papakura man to death last night 'and left his victim's two sons injured in the attack, which took place in their own home.' 52-year-old postal worker and loved father Arthur Easton has just been fatally stabbed with a bayonet. Minutes earlier, Arthur had been watching TV. His two sons, 16-year-old Brendan and 18-year-old Kim, were in their rooms. What happens next is shown here in a 3D animation, based on the statements both Brendan and Kim later gave to police. Brendan hears the back door open and goes to check it out, finding a masked intruder in the spare room. He shoulder charges the intruder to the bed and retreats to the hall, shouting for help. Dad! Dad! Arthur Easton comes running down the hallway. You bastard! Both Brendan and Arthur start to fight the intruder, pushing him up against the back door. Brendan's brother, Kim, exits his bedroom and joins the fight, punching the intruder several times in the head and groin. Kim goes into Brendan's room and gets a squash racquet. He returns and hits the intruder with it, eventually breaking it over his head. He then grabs a softball bat, but falls through the glass door as the intruder escapes. The offender left behind two vital clues ` the bloody bayonet and the hat he'd been wearing. Arthur Easton collapses to the ground, bleeding from three stab wounds. While Kim runs to get help, Brendan calls 111. And I was what they call a communicator dispatcher. That desperate call for help was answered by this man ` former police constable Anthony Lindsay. I do recall the fact that there was a stabbing. I do recall the fact that the person who rang me had said that the offender had run away and was a fairly tall Maori or Polynesian. Right. And you're quite clear on that? Very clear on that. Anthony then radioed out the first description of the offender provided by the Easton boys. Description of offender is a male Maori, approximately 18 years, 6ft tall. Black balaclava and jeans is the only description of clothing. Police arrived at the scene within minutes and soon had a vital lead. (DOG PANTS) A police dog had tracked the offender's scent down a nearby walkway out on to an adjourning street, where the scent was lost. Only minutes before, and very close by, a crucial eyewitness sighting takes place. Witness A, who we have decided not to name, was in his car at an intersection about 500m from the crime scene when he saw a man run out in front of him. He gave a police statement the very next day, which is read here by an actor. Former Detective Constable Bruce Hesketh was the man Witness A spoke to. These are my old police notebooks from the time. Bruce is now a defence lawyer, but can recall what Witness A told him. The person he saw, the way that person was running, looking over his shoulder, in my mind, that's very relevant. In the investigation's early stages, police told reporters they were looking for a 6ft male Maori aged in his late teens who had left behind the distinctive bayonet and hat. And I believe this will lead us to the offender. This is Kelvin McMinn, one of the lead detectives on the case, speaking to the media. But in the end, it was not a tall Maori man that police arrested. This means you're Alan. Kia ora, mate. It was, instead, this 5'7" pakeha man. His name is Alan Hall. So how did Alan Hall end up being convicted of murder? Well, it begins when the Easton boys changed their description of the offender. The day after their father was killed, they told detectives they couldn't be sure of the intruder's ethnicity and hadn't seen his face, because it had been masked by a woollen hat. And as for what they'd said on the 111 call, they said they'd only guessed that the offender was Maori. Effectively, we went right back to ground zero and started again. Right. And then Alan Hall was` seemed to just fall in our lap. Alan's family lived near the Eastons. And during door-to-door enquiries in December 1985, detectives learnt Alan had owned a bayonet and hat similar to those left by the murderer. And police soon tracked Alan down at his place of work. And did they say why they wanted to talk to you? Alan was taken to the Papakura Police Station and shown the hat and bayonet. It has the same rust marks. Yeah, it's mine. Have you seen this hat before? Yeah, it's my brother Greg's hat. I borrowed it off him when I went skiing. During more than 20 hours of questioning and two interviews without a lawyer, Alan gave inconsistent explanations of how he lost the hat and bayonet. As Alan's other brother Greg recalls, Alan eventually told police the items were stolen from his room a month before the murder. It was obviously taken there by somebody. And that person needs to make themselves known. Greg Hall says the family didn't report the theft from Alan's room, because it occurred shortly before the death of Alan's own father, Kelly. In all the upset and hurt that that has associated with it, you just forget about everything at the time. And as for Alan, he had another problem. He had no firm alibi for the time of the murder. Alan says, to clear his head as he came to terms with the loss of his dad, he'd been for a walk in the vicinity of the Easton home around the time of the murder. Did anyone see you go out for a walk? Oh, no. But with no alibi nor adequate answers as to how his bayonet and hat had ended up in the Arthur Easton home, in April 1986, Alan was arrested. His trial took place in September of that year at the Auckland High Court. At trial, Alan's lawyers made a number of arguments. They said he had no motive; he didn't know the Easton family; there was no forensic evidence conclusively linking him to the crime scene. The offender had been punched repeatedly and had a squash racquet broken over his head, yet none of Alan's work colleagues or family had seen any injuries on him. And then there was the inconsistent stories that Alan had given to the police. The lawyers said, 'Well, that was a result of his intellectual backwardness.' And their last point was a simple one ` how could someone of Alan's small size overpower three much bigger males? The jury, though, wasn't swayed. Alan was found guilty. And while it is entirely predictable for a convicted murderer to claim a jury did not hear the whole truth, in this particular instance, Alan Hall is correct. Stay with us. We'll have more on Alan Hall's case after the break. but is Gareth Morgan still calling the shots? We talk to Geoff Simmons. Welcome back. Alan Hall was convicted of a 1985 murder he says he didn't commit. His family think he didn't get a fair trial, and it seems the jury who convicted him didn't hear all the evidence. Mike Wesley-Smith explains. In the early stages of the Arthur Easton homicide investigation, police believed the person Witness A saw running that night was most likely the murderer. This is where we have the sighting of the person. Witness A told Bruce Hesketh the man he saw was Maori and between 5'7" and 6ft. I always considered that that was highly relevant to the case. But here's a crucial fact. The jury in Alan Hall's murder trial never heard Witness A say the man he saw was Maori. This is because this reference was removed from his statement without his knowledge. Neither Alan's defence lawyers, the trial judge nor the jury knew either. Now, even back in 1986, prosecutors were required to give the Defence copies of statements made by witnesses who may have identified the offender. Alan's family say that did not happen with Witness A. And when Alan Hall became the prime suspect, police decided to revisit Witness A to discuss his sighting. The task fell to Detective Sergeant James White, who was told by Witness A... Not convinced at the reliability of Witness A's sighting, police decided to conduct what they called a 'suspect sighting experiment'. Well, you're talking about the experiment they ran with Detective Inspector Ryan sitting there and getting a bunch of police officers to run across the road. Bruce wasn't involved in this experiment, but it involved a Detective Inspector Ryan playing the role of Witness A. Other police officers then ran across the road in front of Inspector Ryan, who concluded he could not reliably tell what the ethnicity was. I mean, it was, what, six or seven months later, at a different time of the year, probably different lighting. There are so many variables there. The results of police's own experiment was one of the reasons it was decided Witness A's 'Maori' description should be removed from the statement. It's a joke, OK? It's a complete joke. This is Associate Professor Scott Optican, an evidence law expert. I asked him what he thought of the police experiment. If their argument for redacting (BLEEP)'s description of the offender as Maori is based on an experiment which itself would never even have met evidential levels of sufficiency to be admitted in court, you know, all the more reason not to rely on it for doing what they did. It just doesn't work all the way around. It just doesn't work all the way around. It's completely inappropriate. I also asked Scott if it was OK for witness statements to be changed if police or prosecutors believe their evidence is unreliable. No. No. Absolutely not. In essence, you're setting yourself up as either the judge or the jury. And that's something that police and prosecutors should absolutely not do. At trial, because Alan's lawyers didn't know Witness A described seeing a Maori man, they didn't ask that he give evidence in person. That meant his altered statement is that was read to the court. And the judge actually emphasised the importance of his evidence in his summing up, telling the jury... Witness A didn't discover what had happened until he was contacted by Alan's lawyers years after Alan's appeals had been exhausted. He provided them this affidavit, describing his meeting with Detective Sergeant James White. Over the past year, I've tried numerous to speak to Witness A without success. I've also tried to contact Detective Sergeant James White and get his response to Witness A's claims. When I did reach him, he told me he wasn't interested in speaking to me. Here is what Witness A said about the changes made to his statement... I have also discovered this police document summarising the evidence against Alan. It says... Witness A's evidence is clearly recorded as saying he would tell a court the person he saw was... For more than 32 years, it has never been established who decided that Witness A's statement should be changed. That was, until this year, when I received a letter from Detective Senior Sergeant Kelvin McMinn, one of the lead detectives in the Easton homicide investigation. He confirmed that police considered Witness A's 'Maori' description was unreliable and then claims it was the Crown prosecutor who decided that that description should be removed from Witness A's evidence read to the jury. The Crown prosecutor was Peter Kaye. He emailed me to say preparing court statements was the domain of police. And while he would have examined evidence, he told me... Peter Kaye says he's not suggesting police misled anyone. And both he and police officers involved strongly reject any suggestion of impropriety in the investigation and prosecution of Alan Hall. And the questions over Witness A's evidence don't stop there. His court statement records him as saying the person he saw was wearing a blue jersey, and then refers to Exhibit 31. Exhibit 31 was Alan's blue jersey police seized from his home in December 1985. His brother Greg still has it. Police allege Alan may have worn this sweatshirt when he murdered Arthur Easton in October 1985. But at trial, Alan's lawyers produced evidence showing Alan actually bought the jumper two months after the murder. Well, they said back in October, on the night of the murder, Alan was wearing the sweatshirt. But he has a receipt from December, when he bought it. Witness A later said he was never shown Alan's jersey by police. Other evidence gathered by Alan's family includes a mysterious police job sheet included in documents sent to Alan's lawyers. They believe it shows there were serious misgivings about the investigation within the police force at the time. The document is headed up simply 'some police are honest'. There are now, in fact, so many questions swirling around Alan Hall's murder conviction that even one of the detectives who helped put him behind bars thinks it needs to be re-examined. These things never stay buried. In the passage of time, it's brought out the fact that this was hidden. And it has to be addressed, because it's a miscarriage of justice, whichever way you look at it. Scott Optican believes Witness A's false statement may have caused the jury to reach a different verdict. If I was in appellate court, I would be disturbed enough by it that I would say, you know, the likelihood of it having an impact is strong enough that I would quash the conviction and try it again. For now, Alan Hall remains in prison as a convicted murderer. He insists he is innocent and says Arthur Easton's sons deserve to know who really killed their father. After the break, we dissect the big political news of the week with our panel ` Marg Joiner from SenateSHJ, Sandra Grey from the Tertiary Education Union, and RadioLIVE Drive host Ryan Bridge. but is Gareth Morgan still calling the shots? We talk to Geoff Simmons. Welcome back, I'm joined now by our panel, Marg Joiner, Ryan Bridge and Sandra Grey. Well, got to have a chat with Winston Peters, 25th birthday for his party. Was that quintessential Winston Peters, Marg? Yeah, I think so. And I guess what we have to remember is that 25 years ago, he was standing up there launching the party and being written off as it was being launched. So, I think it was a fair position from him. He didn't want to talk about the events of the week. He is still the Acting Prime Minister. Meka Whaitiri, didn't want to talk about that, what standards he would set for his own MPs, Ryan, yet this week they passed a waka-jumping bill which means you'd get kicked out for disloyalty to your own party. Yeah, look, the thing that surprises me the most this week, not just from your interview with Winston, but from the Government generally is the radio silence on Meka Whaitiri. Here we have, including in the Maori Caucus, Kelvin Davis, for example, you know, who stood up on a platform of anti-violence campaigning, and you've got a Minister who's accused and according to a report, on the balance of probabilities, grabbed and bruised a staff-member. And absolute radio silence from every minister from, you know, 6 days from Sunday, including now Winston Peters. I just` I'm baffled by it. What do you think, Sandra? Well, I mean, I guess I'm not baffled, because, I mean, in past when we've seen assaults on staff, or alleged assaults on staff in parliament, those have been pretty quickly silenced as well. And, I mean, the decision hasn't been made yet. I think Jacinda Ardern did the right thing in standing the Minister down straight away; you have to let these processes run. But staff in Parliament, like all staff every where, deserve a really fair go on these things, and they deserve to be safe in the places they work. So, you know, this is going to be a tough call when the final decision is made about where the probability lies. The leaked report does seem to say, you know, that a staff member was grabbed, that's not acceptable in any workplace. And yet, she remains co-leader of the Labour Party Maori Caucus. Yep, and still an MP. On the employment legislation, he has in the past said that it's, well, it's not a done deal in the form that it's in, but he won't, seemingly, articulate what it is he wants to change, either. Well, I mean, I guess behind the scenes, we do know that employers have been quite strongly talking about the 90-day rule and the trial periods for workers, and they've been talking about some of the strength being given back to workers to collectivise. So, we do know that there's been a lot of conversations behind the scenes. It is really important that New Zealand First listen to the people that voted them in, which are a lot of workers who have been out there very strongly saying, 'We need better protection.' So, if he's saying he's gonna go with what the public think, then, you know, it's the workers who are really strongly for it. He said the Government s a neutral referee. Is it though, Mar? Yeah, I dunno. It should come as a surprise to no one that we get this kind of horse trading under MMP. And I think, you know, there are concessions being made. So, we've been talking a bit this week and previous weeks about swallowing dead rats. And I think that's a reasonably simplistic way of looking at it. But do you think he's about to swallow a dead rat? Or is he about to shove a dead rat down someone else's throat? He may swallow it, but he'll extract some concessions. And those concessions, while nuanced, and the devil's in the detail, they'll be made very well known to his supporters and his members this weekend, I'm sure. So, Whanau Ora, Ryan, he has in the past said that it's basically a koha for a separatist system. There he kind of seemed to be, well, not conceding` well, giving a little bit of ground. Because he didn't rule out $20 million extra funding. He said, 'I'll wait for the report.' Yeah, look, he used to call it 'a grubby deal' between The Maori Party and National. That's how he described Whanau Ora. The guy doesn't like it. Clearly New Zealand First voters don't like it. The whole separatist thing that he talks about is something that's very strong within the New Zealand First Party. But look, this is one of a number of issues, as we've pointed out, that he is going to use, because he will need to use, to drive a wedge between him and Labour before he next election. Because he needs to have something different about New Zealand First if he's to survive. This is his third stint in power, he's never made it past the first term in Government. So, he needs to do this and he needs to do it well. I think what we've seen` We've seen the greening of the Labour Party from the top down. And the only counter-point to that at the moment is New Zealand First. Though I would argue there is, without needing to drive an extreme wedge, there is a point of difference already. They're bringing the views of the provinces into the mix, and that's important. And I do think small parties do have to do this under MMP. I mean, one of the good things about MMP is that it brings a range of views around the table. But they do have to differentiate themselves or they are electoral losers. That's right. And when it comes to Whanau Ora, however he sees the scheme as having started, there are many successes. And we do know from all of the evidence around the world that, actually, you know, provision by Maori for Maori is gonna work better. So giving up on something Because you didn't like the way it started is actually really unhelpful. You know, when you're in government it doesn't matter who did the deal originally. If it's a good thing for New Zealanders, let's keep it. Marg, I attempted to talk to him about vote splitting, because he has said that he thinks his support base is changing, with New Zealand First. So, in 2014, it was more likely that a voter split their vote and gave one of their votes to Labour and the other one to New Zealand First. It's changed now, in 2017, if you look at the split of the votes, basically, half of the people who voted for New Zealand First gave their vote to National and the other half gave them to Labour. So, will those National voters who gave a tick to New Zealand First be running for the hills next time round? Quite possibly. I mean, I guess we may see a two-party system` a two-party parliament, sorry, under a multi-party electoral system, which would be fascinating from a political science point of view. And I'm sure Sandra is more of an authority on that. But it would be fascinating, and it may have put the heebie jeebies up voters a little bit, and they may go running back to the major parties. Right, he really wanted to talk about his party, and then he didn't. Because when I asked him about succession, he doesn't want a bar of that. But isn't that the question that everybody's gonna be asking on the 25th anniversary when he's been in parliament for so long. Of course it is. But, you know, the generals don't talk about toppling the dictator in front of the dictator. So, it's going to be an awkward conversation that, maybe, they have over tea and scones at parliament. I don't know. But, yeah, it is the question that will be on everyone's lips, particularly heading in to the next election. He's 72 years old now, Winston Peters, which, notwithstanding, Winston Churchill, I think, was 81 and Prime Minister. So, you know, there's still time yet. But it is an important question and one that he doesn't want to answer, because as soon as he puts an expiry date on himself... ...everybody's looking for him to go? Exactly. But New Zealand First should learn from the other parties who haven't done decent succession planning. You get out into the wilderness if you don't actually show that you're a party beyond the leader. Both Labour and National have shown when you don't talk about next leaders, you go into chaos. Yeah, in saying that, though, the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, we didn't really see her full potential until she was in the top job. So, it's got pretty good infrastructure as a party, some good people. So you can throw a new leader in at the 11th hour is what you're saying? And still do well? Well, potentially. I guess what I'm saying is that the future leader may be in the Parliament now, or it may be someone else in the party. I mean, there's, you know... Do you think the future leader of New Zealand First is in parliament now? I couldn't answer that. I mean, it's a million dollar question, as Ryan said, what the succession plan is. So, I wouldn't know. Ryan, what do you reckon? Is the future leader in there already? I think the most obvious choice would be Shane Jones. He may lack discipline, but he's got the same, you know, he's got as much charisma as Winston Peters, which is what that party needs, because it's pulling` You know, it's anti-immigration here, it's got so many disparate parts. You're saying it's a personality party? It's a party of personality. Sandra, what do you reckon? I mean, I agree about the personality. I think some of the better MPs will be overlooked because they don't have that edge, the xenophobic, almost, edge, the anti-treaty edge, the controversial edge. Which was what gives New Zealand First its appeal, to media in particular, so and to the public, cos it creates controversy. All right, we'll leave it there for the moment. Stay with us, we're back after the break. but is Gareth Morgan still calling the shots? We talk to Geoff Simmons. Welcome back to Newshub Nation and our panel. I also spoke this morning to Geoff Simmons, who's the new leader of the TOP party, Sandra. Any hope for him? Because wasn't that a personality party too? I think they're gonna really struggle, without having Gareth's name and image and his controversy that he brings, because he does, you know, polarise people. And I think TOP will struggle. I think what they've got to do is create the image for the whole party, not the detailed policy, because most New Zealanders don't look at the detailed policy. They want to know in broad-brush terms what kind of country are you gonna make us into if you get into a coalition government, and I don't think they've spelled that out clearly yet. He says, and the party has a position that they could go with anybody, in terms of coalition partners, any combination of government. But do you think they have a natural home? Looking at their policies. Um, no, I think they've got a natural, kind of, voter base if they were to be the disruptor they could be. And I think the Green Party should be worried, I think they may cannibalise some of their votes. But, as Sandra said, they've got a lot of work to do. So, the other thing missing there is the money. So, it does take a fair bit of funding to get a political party up and running and get it the profile that it needs, come 2020. National needs friends, cos it's only got, literally, one, which is David Seymour. Could they potentially be wanting this party to do quite well? Well, yes, because, one, they would cannibalise the Green's vote, and two, they would do two things, one, cannibalise the Green's vote, but also provide an option for a coalition partner. But I just don't see it happening. Even though, and I was talking to Geoff out in the green room, and he said that they've got 4000 party members, the Green Party's got about 5000, National and Labour about 10,000 each, so there is a huge, you know, party membership out there. It's about the money though, isn't it, as well? That's right. And so, without the money, without the face of Gareth Morgan, how on earth is this party gonna get anywhere? And with a threshold so high. Well, that's it. That's one of the issues, you've gotta get 5%. They weren't even close to that. That's right. And it is one of the issues. We're not going to see new parties in Parliament that aren't breakaways from existing parties at the moment, because the way our electoral system's set up. And even if they do, their longevity would then be a question. I can't recall a party that's come into Parliament and lasted in recent years. How much influence do you reckon Gareth Morgan will still be having if he's stumping up the money and he's on the policy committee? Look, he's` It's the Gareth Morgan without Gareth Morgan in the front row. It is, I mean, he's not wanting to do the media work and go out there speaking to people in public. But he's the one writing the policies, and I think his policies are too far from National for him to naturally find a home with National. I mean, there's a few that are closer, but, you know, I think he's carving out quite a unique policy space. And, like I say, they've gotta figure out how to sell that to New Zealanders, and they are appealing to some people. Well, he said they don't want to change policies to make them more palatable to the public. But also, if we return to the point we made earlier about voters running back to the main parties, given this coalition Government, that doesn't paint a pretty picture for a new small party. Mm, interesting. Ryan, I know you've been following all week the movements of the Prime Minister at the UN General Assembly, how do you reckon she's gone? Given what's been going on at home. Yeah, look, I think she's done fantastically. You know, you couldn't have asked for more. It's a 10 out of 10 in terms of performance on the world stage, the Steven Colbert show, her ability to move from serious speech at the United Nations General Assembly to fun, almost flirty, young world leader in a late night TV show. Effortless, 10 out of 10, but, huge questions unanswered at home. The benefit for her is that, generally, voters won't care about Meka Whaitiri or about Derek Handley. What do you reckon, Sandra? On the world stage, what she set out, and it's this division between the two major parties, she's really carving out that territory now, of, 'We are very different to the last Government, we are very different to the US Government,' which is about hate and, you know, harm, and, 'We're going to be this new...' 'We're gonna hug you to death instead.' Absolutely, absolutely. And she's done it everywhere, on every platform. It's brilliant. She has, she's introduced that new word to this, sort of, international diplomacy of 'kindness', being kind. It's just so refreshing, and with those themes of kindness and collaboration she's showing the world that you can be a disruptor without being a Trump. And that's gotta be good for global politics. But she's gonna have to come home and she is headed home, and she's gonna be then faced with Meka Whaitiri and Derek Handley. How has she done with those things, Sandra? I think there are issues around being a very new leader and handling very difficult and complex issues. And I think that has shown in both of these issues. But, you know, in terms of, 'do you remember speaking to people about some job offer that was very vague?' You know, all of us have those lapses. Maybe it was genuine, who knows? But she needs to come and front those immediately when she gets to New Zealand, and make sure she clears the air and make sure she moves forward. Selective memory loss? I think absolutely. If you look at the wording of her responses to Simon Bridges in Parliament, it was textbook John Key, actually. It was the only other person I could see who was that good at answering a question so selectively that you could be left with interpretations and insinuations either way. And, even to the point where he said, 'Did you reply to that text message?' And she said, 'I did not reply to that particular text message on that day.' Well, she replied several days later. So, you know, there is nuance there to be explored, and I think she was being a bit cute. And it looks, perhaps, a bit messy. But is it fatal? Absolutely not. She has launched an inquiry to find the leak of the Meka Whaitiri report. Searching for a leaker hasn't worked that well for Simon Bridges. Yeah, it seems to be an issue on both sides of the house. And that's an issue, perhaps, of caucus discipline. And it will be on the minds of all politicians right now, I'd say. What do you think of searching for the leaker, Sandra? Look, I think it is problematic in the case of an inquiry, for the employee concerned. Because you actually have to be very, very careful when people have made allegations that you follow process very, very well, or that can end up harming the worker concerned. So I think that's a really important part about why you wouldn't leak that type of report. I mean, I think one of the things around Labour's approach so far on other issues is they've been very open and transparent, pre-releasing documents, releasing whole swathes of documents, you know, saying we're gonna do it very open and transparently, but not on some issues. Yeah, and that's why it stands out. Well, that is all from us for now. And for my final show on Newshub Nation, this is the bit that Winston Peters has been standing by to hear, the new co-hosts will join you next week, Emma Jolliff and Simon Shepard. Thank you so much for joining me over the past five years, I've enjoyed your company. Good morning, and welcome to The Nation. I'm Lisa Owen. I've invited some friends along to help me out. It is so, so good to be back with you, Lisa. Kia ora, good morning, I'm Lisa Owen. Welcome to Newshub Nation. We want the Prime Minister to feel comfortable, bit of pinstripe around her. Normally the Deputy Prime Minister. (LAUGHS) WHISPERS: We call it the 'Winnie Pinnie'. I think that you should crawl back into the whole that is reserved for the corporate executioners like yourself. Mrs Fox, he's an invited guest. Thank you both for` Yeah, no, I'm sorry, I've had enough. Thank you both for joining me this morning. All right. Thank you, I was actually just admiring your suit. This is my Winston Peters suit. I love it. Yeah. It's the 'Winnie Pinnie'. (LAUGHTER) Best clap ever. You said you would get five MPs. What was I thinking? What were you thinking? What was I thinking? So are you lacking ambition or just holding out for the leadership? Well, it's a bit more complicated` (CLAMOUR OF VOICES) One at a time, one at a time. '...and the promotion of democracy.' You'll recognise that because you said it. Yeah, I know. So how does that apply... Sorry to interrupt you, but how does that work? Well, it's not at all easy. It is, if you read the Government research, it is. (STUTTERS) Look, I couldn't give you a percentage, but what I also know` 20%, I think it was. Right. I'm answering your question. No, do you have it? Do you have that permission? Yeah. I'm just about to answer that, Lisa. Just make it filthy, they're the best ones. There's something we need to clear up here. I'm wondering ` did you sit` Whoa! Is this mine? (HIP HOP MUSIC) There is some well educated guesses here. (LAUGHS) The only thing I think is slightly wrong is the size of the arms. That's largely inappropriate. (LAUGHS) All right, are we done here? Cool! Thank you. This programme was made with the assistance of the New Zealand On Air Platinum Fund.