Today on Newshub Nation ` United States Ambassador Scott Brown on a stunning week in US politics, head of our National Cyber Policy Office takes us behind the scenes of the Christchurch Call and Backstory ` the MP who acted in a drama club with Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019 Kia ora, good morning. I'm Simon Shepherd, and welcome to Newshub Nation. An estimated 170,000 people marched in 40 strikes around the country. Most of the protesters were school students ` it was New Zealand's contribution to rolling global protests inspired by climate activist Greta Thunberg. It was a bad week for Boris Johnson. Britain's Supreme Court ruled his suspension of Parliament unlawful. But his hard-line tactics continued this week, including a refusal to apologise for comments made about murdered MP Jo Cox. And the National Party has refused to take down its attack ads. This, despite instructions from Speaker Trevor Mallard, who says they defy rules by using edited footage of MPS without their permission. National Leader Simon Bridges says it's a matter of free speech, and he will leave the videos online to bring the matter to a head. Well, it's been a riveting political week in America ` an impeachment inquiry launched by the democrats into President Donald Trump's actions, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on the world stage at the UN, and of course, her first face-to-face meeting with the US President. US Ambassador to New Zealand, Scott Brown, helped arrange the meeting, so I asked him what was said. Well, certainly it was a great meeting. I think the Prime Minister after her meeting with the President` Picture this, I want your viewers to, kind of, picture this, so you're expecting to have a meeting with the President. So in comes the President, and then in comes the Vice President, and then in comes the Secretary of State, the new National Security Advisor, the President's Chief of Staff and other folks who work for the State Department. Not only do I know what happened, I was getting briefs from our contact within that ` right after it was over. And it was, by all accounts, a superior, superior meeting. Right. What was said though? Well, what was said, obviously, as was disclosed ` they talked about, obviously, the gun buyback programme. The President had an interest in that. He also had some comments about the earthquakes and exporting some of your technology to the United States and vice versa, so preparedness on that. The FTA, quite frankly, was the most important thing. It's a free trade agreement that I've been working on since I got here. Winston Peters visited in December and July. He spoke to the Vice President at length. She, obviously, brought it up, and good on her for doing so. OK, but is there any progress or positive noises? Of course there's progress. Don't forget we just did the KIWI Act, which was the priority. That's been done. It's fully implemented. Which allow businessmen to have` Five-year visas, they have investment trader visa opportunities in and out of this country into the United States and from the US and here. It's moving very, very well. Implemented in record time. We also have TIFA talks ` that's Trade Investment Framework Agreements. We've had those. They're actually happening again in October, where either your team's going to DC or vice versa to lay out the framework for the free trade agreement talks. So, yes, absolutely moving forward. You say it was a superior meeting. What do you mean by that? Just because of the range of personnel or`? Yeah. I mean, I've never seen that before ` to have that type of contact, cos not every country had that. Don't forget there were over a hundred world leaders there, and what? Six or seven countries had one-on-ones with the President. Sure. The range of people, but was it just happenstance or just opportunity` No, no. Were they there on purpose or did they just happen to be with the President? No, it was on purpose. It was on purpose. And why was it on purpose? Well, because we're working on some very important things, and New Zealand's a Five Eyes partner. It plays a very important role in that relationship. What New Zealand's doing on the Pacific reset, pushing back against some things that are happening here, what they're doing and trying to do on climate, what they're doing with the gun buyback. The relationship is` Why is the President interested in the gun buyback? Guns aren't really a priority for the President, are they? Why do you say that? Any time a person is killed in America or around the world` Don't forget, he was one of the first ones to call the Prime Minister. I can tell you for a fact that my office, within seconds, our FBI was working with your people to make sure that` 'Was there something else happening? 'Was there something else next?' And we've been working on it, and we'll continue to work on it` So are you talking that the President is interested in gun reform in the United States? Well, she said, and I won't add anything to it, that he seemed very interested in that. The style of the two leaders ` I mean, their speeches at the United Nations were, sort of, opposite, really. President Trump talked about patriotism. She talked about globalism. So does that make for an awkward meeting, though, cos it's sort of two worlds apart there? No, you saw the after-effects of the meeting. The Prime Minister spoke very eloquently about that relationship, saying that he clearly cares about New Zealand. He was very engaged in what's happening in New Zealand, and I would just look at the facts. Forget about the personalities. I was the first ambassador in this region. I've been here for 2.4 years. I was the second guy out the door. The President chose to send me here for a reason. Your viewers may not know, we've been here since the Treaty of Waitangi signing. So we're not new. We're long and strong friends. But you've got a renewed emphasis on the Pacific. Is that because of the change in the global order at the moment? Well, we've always been here. A renewed emphasis. Well, I think everybody has a renewed emphasis because there's a renewed emphasis with new partners who want to come in, and we're obviously talking about China. We're talking about China, yeah. Of course. And we are` China is not an enemy. They are a competitor, and they've got to play by the rules, and they're not. Well, I just want to talk about what the UN Secretary General said at the United Nations. He talked about fears of a great fracture ` two world powers, two different currencies, two different internets, two different sets of AI. He's talking about the US and China, here. It's a pretty grim outlook. Yeah, I don't know if I agree with him on that. That's certainly his opinion, but I'm not seeing any indications of that. You have a country, China ` they're still claiming they're a developing nation. Clearly they're not. I mean, they have the second largest military, the second largest economy, they have nuclear weapons, they're giving away billions and billions of aid, trying to establish the 'One Belt One Road' programme. So to think that we need to be separate, I think, is really not fair. So you're not trying to pull New Zealand on to one particular side of this? No, no, no. Listen, no one tells` You know this because you're a Kiwi ` you don't tell New Zealand what to do. You ask them for help, and we've asked, and you've asked us for help. We're there at times of need. That's how it's always been. All right. Look, from the outside it's been a stunning week in US politics. What is the White House saying to you about the possibility or the impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump? Well, you probably know more about it than me. But why is that? Well, you're a presenter, you're in the media. I'm not. I'm a diplomat now. I've certainly seen what a lot of other folks have seen, and I can say that we have three branches of government, and one of the roles of Congress is to be there as a check and balance and make inquiry if they feel it's appropriate. That's what they're doing in this. And once again` on another thing. This is not the first time they've done these things. So they're doing it again. That's part of the transparency of our government. It's all out there for everyone to see, to praise or criticise. So first of all, I find it hard to believe that you're not in the know because you do have diplomatic channels. You've been in politics for 30 years in the US. Well, it just happened, what, yesterday. I mean, yesterday-today. It's nothing new to me. I've been in politics, like you said, 30 years. And it is political season back home. So a lot of what you see may have some political overtones. I'm not saying this does, but that's the beauty of our checks and balance system. You have a process where the House has oversight, and if they feel that there's something they want to look into, there will be a process ` it'll be open and transparent ` it's a lot different in other countries, by the way. Sure. I'm not talking about other country's democratic systems. We're talking about the United States, here, because it's such an important player in the world. It's historic, isn't it, what's going on? There's only been two other impeachment proceedings launched, and Nixon resigned before impeachment proceedings happened. Well, first of all, we're not in impeachment proceedings. We've just had a whistle-blower complaint which they're going to verify it and make sure it's accurate, obviously. It's so preliminary right now, that to think that, 'Oh my God. 'He's being impeached.' Quite frankly` But the Democrats are talking about launching an impeachment inquiry in Congress. That's fine. That's part of the process. They can do whatever they want, and that's the way it would work ` just so your viewers know ` you have what you're seeing now, which is the inquiry where they'll gather the facts. The judiciary committee within the House will issue articles of impeachment, potentially, they'll vote on it. It'll go to the floor, they'll have conversations, potentially vote on it or not. It'll go to the Senate, it'll be up to the majority and to Mitch McConnell, whether he's even going to bring it forward. And the Senate, obviously, is controlled by the Republicans, so there's not much luck of that happening, is it? It's the beauty of American politics. It's a blood sport. Our founding fathers wanted it to be messy. Democracy is messy. Well, it's messy at the moment. Would you admit that? It's always messy. It's been messy since the President got involved. It was messy during times of President Obama. When I served in the Senate, it was messy then. Yeah, it's part of the process. Isn't it clear from what you've seen so far, that the US administration, Donald Trump, has tried to get a foreign leader to investigate a domestic opponent and influence` Yeah, I don't have any knowledge on that based on what I've read and what I'm seeing. No, I don't have enough information to make that, and, with respect, I don't think it's clear at all. OK. You know the President. Do you think he's worried? I know the President is one of the hardest-working men that I've ever met. We have so many things that are happening of a positive nature. I tell people to divorce themselves from the personalities of any politician and just look at the facts, and the facts speak very loudly that it's a very successful term. In terms of your priorities in the job, how are you navigating the US-New Zealand relationship? What's your priority? I would argue that it's the best it's ever been in quite a few years, based on what we're doing. The new space agency that New Zealand has, I think that's the biggest upside, economically, for New Zealand. There's so many business opportunities with the KIWI Act. That's a massive influx of business in and out of our country. So my priority is jobs ` job creation, wealth creation for both of our countries. Well, from New Zealand's perspective, let's talk about trade, then, and I want to talk about what you said on the programme last time you were here. The US still imposes steel tariffs on New Zealand. We're after an exemption, and last time on the show you said, 'If it takes me making a phone call to the President at the appropriate time, I'll do it.' I did more than that, actually. I was in the Oval Office ` was it ` back in July and asked him specifically about that. And? And it's something that is a global problem right now, and there's still a process in place for countries like New Zealand and other smaller countries that have very little steel or aluminium opportunities for China or other countries to go through the backdoor. That being said, to quote the Prime Minister, or paraphrase the Prime Minister ` or was it the Deputy Prime Minister ` we're focussing on larger fish right now. If we do a free trade agreement, that stuff will be all barrelled up. We've kind of gone a little bit past that, and we're focussing on the big fish, which is the FTA. Right. So there's not going to be an exemption, is there, for any of those` No, no, no, I didn't say that. These things take time. Obviously, the KIWI Act took 20 years. Do I think it's going to take 20 years to get this exemption done? No. Do I think focussing on the China trade issues right now, and also the Canadian-Mexico deal that they did, and don't forget ` we did South Korea, we're doing Japan. So they're working, but the bandwidth within USTR is a little limited. USTR? US Trade Relations? US Trade` Yes. So we're not a high priority. Well, I would argue the fact that you just met with almost half the Cabinet. The Prime Minister met with half the Cabinet and she brought it up directly to him, and he said he directed` Well, I can't` He directed? He said that he would be looking` According to him, she said he took it very well. He was very interested in helping. Scott Brown, there, and if you've got something to say about what you've seen on the show, let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram ` NewshubNationNZ. Our Twitter panel this week is Lewis Holden and Mark Thomas. They're using the #NationNZ or you can email us at nation@mediaworks.co.nz But still to come ` behind the scenes of the Christchurch Call with its mastermind Paul Ash. Plus ` Backstory. The hippy MP who grew up on Great Barrier Island but isn't with the Green Party. How could Facebook let that happen? It prompted Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to develop a framework to eliminate terrorist and extremist content online ` the Christchurch Call. She's been at the United Nations announcing the latest developments, but will it be effective or just effective PR? JACINDA ARDERN: The terror attack of March 15 in Christchurch was unprecedented in its use of social media as a weapon. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is calling social media a 'global problem'. She wants answers. New Zealand (SPEAKS INDIAN LANGUAGE) Jacinda Ardern. (SPEAKS HINDI) Jacinda Ardern. They want companies to sign up to what they're calling the Christchurch Call. Why I'm here today is 51 lives lost in New Zealand ` very, very heavy on my mind. Your leadership following Christchurch resonated around the world. I don't think anything they've announced so far would have changed what happened in Christchurch. I would call on our social media platforms of all variety to demonstrate responsibility. So, last May, we joined the Christchurch Call to action, because we know the best way to keep people safe is to work together. In addition to those original countries that pledged to support the call, we have 30 additional countries... I don't think it's something that it matters particularly strongly to a whole bunch of New Zealanders. I just find it quite ironic that Simon Bridges would criticise the Prime Minister. She is actually making progress. No one wishes to see these platforms used to cause harm. Well, our next guest is one of the architects of the Christchurch Call. He's been in every meeting throughout its development. You won't know him, but the Prime Minister relies on him. Director of our National Cyber Policy Office, Paul Ash, joins me now. Paul Ash, thank you very much for your time. I know you've just come back from the United States. Was the Christchurch Call actually your idea? Kia ora, Simon, and thank you for the opportunity to talk about the Christchurch Call. Immediately that the attacks happened, we as a team needed to provide advice to the Prime Minister on how we might respond to the attacks and, in particular, the use of online platforms. We provided advice to the effect that we were going to need to look at some form of collaborative and voluntary solution, and we were going to have to work internationally, including with the major tech platforms, as a way of trying to grapple with this problem and come up with constructive solutions. Was it hard to get the big tech companies on board? Well, no, it wasn't, actually. One of the starting points for this was that we came to the conclusion and put to the firms that we didn't think they wanted this kind of content on their platforms any more than we did, and that resonated with them. The Prime Minister met early on with the president of Microsoft, Brad Smith, when he was in Wellington. They discussed the idea of a Christchurch Call, and Brad, in fact, was instrumental in working with introducing us to the key people across the other companies ` with Facebook, with Google, with Twitter and with Amazon ` to pull together a core grouping of senior folk from the companies who were keen to work with us on this issue. OK. So, let's fast-forward four months. You've been at the UN with the Prime Minister. What was your role there, and what was the most significant thing to come out of the last week? So, I think three significant things, really, came out of the last week. First, we saw a large number of countries joining the group of supporters of the Call. They looked at the approach, the voluntary collaboration that we'd put in place, and felt that was something they wanted to participate in. And we now have, I think, just over 50 supporters from governments and international organisations working together in support of the things in the Call. Second ` that the companies themselves really stepped up to the plate, and over the past four months or so, we've worked with them on how we might re-launch the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, which will deliver a wide range of the capabilities and pieces of work needed to try and put long-term solutions in place. And we've worked with countries and with the companies on a crisis-response protocol ` what would we do if and when, God forbid, something like Christchurch were to happen again? The third significant piece has been the development of an advisory network of civil society organisations that is now over 40-strong and is providing really good input, some of it very direct, to the governments and companies involved on how to address this problem most constructively. You just mentioned the crisis-response protocol ` a plan to respond to events like March 15. Google's planning to come here to carry out a test later this year, so what can you tell us about that? What will it involve? So, we really welcome this initiative from Google, and it's exactly the sort of thing that we hoped to see when we stood up the Christchurch Call ` companies, governments, civil society working together. It should involve somewhere around 150 people coming together in Wellington in December to test out some scenarios that might happen online and see how the crisis-response protocol would work in that environment. And in terms of scenarios, we'll be looking at scenarios that perhaps don't quite meet the threshold for activating the protocol; a scenario that will look very much like Christchurch; and one that may look at where this kind of problem might go next ` where would people look to exploit the internet and social media platforms in similar sorts of instances? So you're saying you're looking at a scenario which could possibly be worse than Christchurch? An even more doomsday scenario? We've had to take a good hard look at not only where we think violent extremists and terrorist groups are operating at the moment, but where they might look to take their efforts to exploit online platforms in future, yes. So does that mean the threat level is rising? I mean, is Christchurch being taken as a blueprint by some of these organisations, and they're thinking of where they could go next? Well, Christchurch was unprecedented in the way that it used livestreaming to spread an act as it was happening, but it's not in isolation. Over the past five to 10 years, we've seen terrorist groups and violent extremist groups looking to exploit the internet in various ways. And my sense is that, actually, we're better equipped at the moment to deal with that than we were before Christchurch. The response protocol, the efforts that the firms have put in ` both individually and together ` will make a real difference. But as in any risk management exercise, we have to prepare for worst-case scenarios and ensure that we've tested what those might look like and had a crack at making sure we have the responses in place should they happen and that we're looking to reduce the risk of that happening in the first place with the other efforts we're carrying out. Have you actually come up with that worst-case scenario, what we could be looking at? We're still working that one through, and I probably wouldn't want to talk about that in public in case it gives people ideas. But in effect, when you're pulling together an exercise, it's a case of sitting down and trying to work out ` if you were on the other side of the equation, what are the sorts of things you might like to think about, or how would you look to use and exploit social media platforms? Just in terms of quickly reacting to these events as they're happening, what about livestreaming? Facebook could have just turned that off if they wanted to. So you're not getting that level of commitment from the tech companies. We are seeing a range of measures to try and deal with this kind of content. So, if you look at some of the companies, they've looked at the number of verified users that you have to have o be able to use livestreaming. They've looked at ways to try and deal with that. The issue here is that this is not a simple fix. You could turn livestreaming off, but then you actually deny that capability to the vast majority of its users, who are those looking to use it for good purposes. The key, really` Right, okay. Sorry, I was just going to say ` the stated goal of the Christchurch Call is to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online. So is that realistic, or is this more of a global PR effort? It's definitely not a global PR exercise. The key thing here is to try and put in place the range of measures that enable the benefits of the internet to continue to be enjoyed by those who use it appropriately, while constraining the ability of those who would use it for evil or for violent purposes to do so. And that requires a mixture of technical fixes; it requires a mixture of making sure that we have safety nets in place where people do seek to do that; it requires ongoing work. And one of the key issues that ` as we worked through with the companies and got to understand their perspective and shared with them ours ` became very apparent is that this is not a static threat, that this is an adversarial issue where you have groups of people actively looking to exploit and subvert the controls that companies and governments would look to put in place. Right. Just quickly ` the US hasn't signed up to this; China hasn't; no Russia. So how big a barrier is that to the Christchurch Call actually being effective? We have, I think, now just over 50 countries involved. The European Union's members are largely signed up to supporting. The countries from around the globe now ` from Latin America, from North America, from Asia ` are involved. But the big players aren't there, are they? Well, the key thing here is ensuring that we can bring about effective change, and if you look at some of the largest markets for the companies, many of those countries are now on board. We have Japan; we have Indonesia; we have India participating. And in a sense, we're wanting to make sure that we can work with the companies to deliver effective change, and that's what we think we've seen over the past few months and what we think will be ongoing. In effect, that's the measure, rather than who in particular has signed up. Are we driving that change? All right. I just want to move on. You're talking about what's next. One of the things that's next for us is the election, 2020. As the head of cyber policy in the PM's department, how confident are you in the security of Election 2020? Well, the integrity of elections sits right at the core of democratic societies and protecting the way of life that we all enjoy in democratic societies ` making sure that elections are able to be held in a free and fair way. Cyber security is critical to that, and in the last election, measures were put in place to ensure that we could lift the cyber security that was wrapped around the electoral infrastructure and around the support that political parties had if they needed it. Looking ahead, we've certainly seen evidence of interference in elections worldwide. We have relevant agencies working on making sure that good information security measures are in place. We know that commercial providers are involved in that too, and as we head into next year's election, it will be important to ensure that all of those involved are focused on cyber security and making sure that any efforts to subvert the process that sits at the core of our democracy are dealt with. Sure. What is the next urgent step for you in terms of protecting the sanctity of our next election? Well, if we look at the last election, a set of principles and protocols were put in place on how support might be provided. Across government at the moment, agencies are working together on ensuring that we've got the right level of support in place. Much of that, though, sits with the Electoral Commission and the electoral commissioner herself ` in terms of the integrity of the electoral process and keeping that secure ` and actually with the political parties involved and making sure that they have kept their platforms secure. All right. Paul Ash, head of the cyber security` or cyber policy in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet ` thank you very much for your time this morning. Thank you, Simon. Up next ` our expert panel on a head-spinning week in politics. Plus ` how well do we really know our MPs? We go home to the Hutt Valley with Labour's Ginny Andersen. She's a self-described hippy who was raised on Great Barrier Island and later went on to act in a drama club with Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi. These days Ginny Andersen lives for drama of a different kind as a Labour MP based in the Hutt Valley. We visited her there to hear her backstory. (GENTLE GUITAR MUSIC) I've got four children. Piper's 18, Corban's 15, Jack's 7 and Eliza is 5. I get lots of help. I guess I'm lucky to have really good support from local families, from my husband ` he does a lot of washing, does a lot of dishes and washing for someone who works full-time ` and my mum and dad have been huge. So, they've` both the previous elections that I've stood in, they've moved down and moved in and taken over, pretty much, looking after the whole house while I've been out campaigning. When my son was about 3, he was learning his colours at daycare, and they held them up, and when they held up red, he called out 'Labour'. And, um... (LAUGHS) he just thought it was called Labour. So they've known no different, really. They've always known that that's... I was either campaigning to be elected or I was in Parliament as long as they can remember. This is my husband, Geoff, pretty much when I first met him. I worked at New Zealand Police for 10 years before I became an MP. And so overnight I pretty much became a mum, when I met Piper and Corban. So I moved to the Hutt when we met, not long after we met, and yeah, I became stepmum to these two. So that was pretty cool. I don't think I'd even lived with a boyfriend before, and then suddenly I was a partner and a mum at the same time. It definitely made me more patient and understanding, I think, a better parent. I grew up, early years, on Great Barrier Island. So, lived right across the road from the beach. My mum and dad were my teachers. I went to school when I was about 6 months old. They put me in the dental clinic, and mum would breast-feed me from there. And, yeah, I was reading when I was about 2, evidently, because I just went to school with my parents and pretty much just lived on the beach and the school and ran pretty wild. That's the whole school at Great Barrier. So, the school was Mulberry Grove School, and it was just shot on the beach right beside the school. I thought this one was pretty amusing, because I realise I've got the same haircut as I did when I was 12. So, um, yeah... (LAUGHS) That was third form at Avonside Girls' High School. Old school magazine ` 1993, telling my age. So, Marion Hobbs. She's running for council now, I think, down in Dunedin. She was... has remained a really good friend, right through life. And so, yep, I was her head girl. And it was a really enjoyable time for me. I enjoyed my seventh-form year very much. I think girls' schools in Christchurch, there was a bit of a tendency just to accept things and say yes. And we were definitely in the era of not doing that and standing up and questioning why things were the way they were. And I've always continued to do that through my life. And it set me off looking at doing political science, pretty much. Kai aku rangatira, e nga tini me nga mano o nga hau e wha, nei te mihi kau atu ki a koutou katoa. I studied te reo Maori, which was probably a bit unpopular when I first started, but really pleased that I continued to learn that through. (GUITAR PLAYS) (GROUP SINGS WAIATA) When I chose that as an option, they sort of encouraged me not to. I can remember them saying, 'It's not an academic language, so you won't be in the top stream.' And I can remember being told that I'd be the only Pakeha girl in the class, and that was meant to deter me in some way, but it didn't. And I like looking at things from a different perspective. I think when you learn another language you just take another point of view of the world, and I think, particularly in politics, it's really important that you step out of your own shoes and you look at life from someone else's point of view. I probably shouldn't show you this one, but I will. So, we did university drama and comedy competitions, that we would compete. And this is the Vic University team. We were in the Canterbury team. And this is... They're not actually nude, by the way. They're wearing bicycle pants with appendages. so, this is Taika Waititi and that's Jemaine Clement, and they came second, I think, in that comedy competition, which was a university one. So that's a wee while ago. But we would take a hot political topic, think about a funny angle and write a skit and perform it. Yeah, and there's none I'm gonna say on camera. Yeah. (LAUGHS) It probably wasn't daytime TV viewing. I never take lightly being able to speak freely, being able to say what I think about something. That's a huge thing, as a politician. When you work for government, when you work in that, you largely need to be able to get the work done and be behind the scenes. And I loved doing that, but being able to stand up in Parliament and to say what I think about something is a strong power, and I don't take it lightly. (CHUCKLES) People are very surprised that I like sewing. So, this took me quite a while to make. This is meant to be like Jack and the Beanstalk, but these magic beans kind of look like kidneys, so I'm not sure if I succeeded there. But yeah, I made one of these for Jack and one for Eliza. And I like using old recycled blankets. So, I'm pretty lucky to live in Wellington and so be near electorate and Parliament. That makes life a lot easier. And that's my great uncle Bill Andersen in the wee frame there. So, Bill was pretty prominent in the union movement in New Zealand in the 1970s. I'm very proud of what he... what he sort of stood for. He went to prison for truck drivers. So, yeah, I grew up always with pretty strong political debates around the table. A lot was having him in the family. All right, I'm joined now by our panel ` Thomas Pryor from Sherson Wills PR, Tracy Watkins, editor of the Sunday Star-Times, and political commentator David Slack. Thank you to the panel for coming in this morning. Look, National's defying the Speaker and refusing to take down its attack ads. That's what we're going to first. David, what do you make of that? Civil disobedience with bad faith, really. In what way is it bad faith? Because what you look for above all in politics is advancing understanding, not complic` not muddying it. And I think what they've been doing with these attack ads is floating little elements out of context and doing what is being embraced in many places, which is essentially what the real meaning of 'fake news' is. OK. This is nothing new though, is it Tracy? No, and I do actually disagree, because I do have a point of principle on the footage from TV. I mean, MPs have tried for years to control how the images are shown from what is seen in the House. Now, as far as I'm concerned, it's public material. It's public footage. It's screened on Parliament TV, and it should be used however. Attacks ads during an election campaign? Well, that's nothing new. And I think if this is the worst it gets, then that's fine. We've seen some pretty horrendous examples overseas of the sort of attack ads that can be done. I think attack ads holding a politician to their words on a particular issue, that's within` They're not necessarily doing that. They're being edited out of context, some of them. Well, yeah, that's true. But that's not exactly the first time that politicians have taken comments out of context. That's true. And so, Thomas, is this somewhat hypocritical of Labour? Well, no, without a doubt, it certainly is, and when they were in Opposition, they had a very different view on it. I think what it does show, and the fact that Labour are putting so much effort into getting these things taken down, is they're working, right? These attack ads have been pretty effective for National. They're pouring a lot of money into them, and they're putting out one or two a week at the moment. And I think they're hurting Labour. And I'm kind of with Tracy. Our Parliament is bizarre on its restrictions on how you can use footage of MPs in the House. I mean, the House of Commons in the UK, it's really robust. You can use footage of MPs asleep. Anything they do in the Chamber is... And you can't do that here, can you? You can't do that here at all. I do think our standing orders, which are the rules around this in the House, need to be reviewed and need to be updated. Cos frankly both Labour and National are equally as guilty of playing silly buggers with these rules to their own advantage in the past. To be clear, I'm finding fault more with what they're doing than the fact that the standing orders is an issue. Because I think that there's a real risk of Streisand effect. Yeah, absolutely. And I think that's a different sort of issue, in terms of, as you say, that veering off almost to fake news, in terms of... Cos they could actually use images from press conferences or anything else quite freely. So, Simon Bridges is saying this is an issue of free speech. Is it? What I'd like to see... What would be hilarious is if, in order to explain what they mean by free speech they find that in the end, they have to go back to explain how in Ancient Greece we had the concepts of democracy and how they emerged. And suddenly you'd have the same stuff you could splice up. I think the difficulty is it becomes one of those nuclear exchanges. Then Labour pulls out a whole lot of Simon Bridges ` and it could easily be done. The attack ads get countered with another sort of attack ad. I think National's been better at them so far, particularly through social media, but there's nothing to stop Labour doing the same. Where's it going to go to from here? Is the Speaker just going to leave it alone, or is he going to review it? Trevor Mallard doesn't have much of a record of leaving things alone, I think, so I suspect... But he will be buying a fight. Yeah, and I don't think National are gonna back down. This is good for them, right? We're all talking about these ads now, so I can guarantee people will be going on and viewing them, and the numbers looking at them will go up. Every National MP last night went and reposted the video in question which caused the complaint, saying, 'We're posting this in the interest of free speech.' So it's certainly not in National's interest` I think the thing to bear in mind is a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on, as the old saying goes. And what we are dealing with, so much amplified by social media in the current climate, is lies being used, and half-truths and misrepresentations dominating debate. And that's, in the end, good for nobody. And that's a social media issue, rather than something the Speaker can control. Do you think any of this will have a kind of chilling debate or make MPs more restricted on what they would say in the House, or nothing's gonna do that? God, no. No. OK. Glad we reached consensus on that. The funny thing is, this particular video in question which the complaint was about, Deborah Russell MP it features, she thinks it's funny. She tweeted it out... She actually pinned it on her tweet, didn't she? She's probably got more publicity out of this than anything else she's done. Everyone else is like, 'Who?' All right. Has National done this on purpose just to take the shine away from Jacinda Ardern's trip to the US? Tracy? Probably everything they do is about taking the shine away from Jacinda Ardern, particularly on the international stage. I thought Simon Bridges' comments about the Christchurch Call were a bit of an own-goal in terms of if he thought that was gonna take the shine away from her trip to the US, especially when we saw the social media companies responding to that call. Yeah, he doesn't look that great. No, and also I don't quite understand the strategy. Because if National is in government, they don't want to get to a situation where any trip overseas looks like some frivolous part of the job, because ultimately, that's what the Prime Minister's job is. OK, so 18 meetings, UN speeches, media appearances. Winston Peters said it was a diplomatic coup, Thomas. I think that's cos he thinks he was responsible for it. (LAUGHTER) No, I think was a very solid trip from the Prime Minister, actually. There were some concrete outcomes that came out of New York. We were talking about this just before. In comparison to the last trip, where it was more about her presence rather than concrete outcomes, she needed to deliver something on this trip, and she certainly did with the Christchurch Call. I think the meeting with Trump, it wasn't as bad as what people feared, but also there actually wasn't anything concrete, though. Like, there wasn't any move on the steel tariffs or exemptions. So nothing concrete in that regard, but overall really good. I guess one thing I would say is I'm not sure if actually this makes any difference to domestic support. People have sort of blocked it out, to a certain degree. Is it not, David, the perfect distraction for the Labour Party investigation and unhappy farmers? Well, yes, you get to move the conversation along. Helen Clark was especially good at that. And she'd actually expressly say, 'Move on,' and strangely, people did. And events do carry you along, and that's beneficial. It was interesting... I think one interview with Jacinda Ardern was talking about the difficulties she sees between domestic and international, in the sense that there isn't actually a lot of value locally in what you do internationally, but you're obliged to do it. I think the real model for all prime ministers here is how Norman Kirk did it. He went out into the world and sort of, for the first time, really, positioned New Zealand as non-aligned and able to articulate concerns that independent nations or smaller nations might have. And I think, in a way, she was doing that, and I think that's a valuable contribution to make. Now, it doesn't necessarily mean it has a payoff here, but as a citizen of the world, it's a bloody good thing to see. I think there is a payoff, though, in the sense that you look at what Labour was being absolutely engulfed by before she went overseas, then you have the entire press gallery's attention turned to the fact that she's in New York, she's meeting Donald Trump; the conversation has changed. It sort of always allows them to push a reset button, these sort of trips. And I think that, in way, given what was happening domestically, that has had value for her. It allows her to set the agenda again when she gets home. She's arriving back this weekend, and arriving to what, Thomas? I mean, these issues don't go away. Yeah, and I agree with you, Tracy, but I think it's really interesting` I think National, their calculation is that what was your strength turns into your weakness, right? And this is why they are pushing this line against her, that actually New Zealanders will get to a point where they go, 'Yeah, she is more interested in meeting Facebook and faffing about overseas, 'and all these issues remain at home.' I'm not sure if it's there yet with the Prime Minister, but it probably will happen at some stage, right? It was the same thing with Trudeau was prime minister. He was feted. People loved the fact they had this global, glamorous prime minister. He then went on a trip to India and just got absolutely destroyed at home, and that was kind of the beginning of the end of his fairy tale. So National will be hoping that the Prime Minister` I don't think it's happened yet. There is the thing to bear in mind, too, and that is the media will sometimes just decide in the end, a bit like a dog chasing a car that's now stopped, that nothing new is happening with a story. So even as much as it was causing great difficulty for her before she went, nothing really has moved on in that story. We're looking for the next car, are we? Is that what you're saying? Oh, always. Always, always. Just before we go, I just briefly want to talk about the climate over at the climate change talks. Greta Thunberg made a very emotional speech at the UN this week. And it seemed to act as a trigger to some people, didn't it? What do you make of the reaction, Tracy? Yeah, I think Liam Dann called it 'triggering old white men', or something, didn't he? And I think most... It's sort of like, yeah, it was very dramatic, very theatrical, and I'm not sure that, particularly, it would have won over any new fans. I think she's done amazing things, but I'm not sure if the delivery was quite right for the circumstances. But saying that, yeah, it has been interesting. There's almost like this generational divide between the reactions. She wasn't... She was talking as much to those young people who were out marching on Friday and a week before. And it probably would have had an effect. Shouldn't we just be saying, 'Well, 16-year-old on the world stage, just let her go for it,' rather than being so critical of her performance? Yeah. What I did think was funny ` and they'd probably both hate this comparison ` but in her and Trump you had two great users of theatre, and they were almost kind of annoyed at being upstaged by each other. Cos they are both very good at doing these grand, dramatic gestures. And it's amazing, she's a 16-year-old woman talking about really big issues, but nonetheless, I kinda thought there was some similarities between them in some ways. People remember Joan of Arc. They don't remember the people who put her on fire. (LAUGHS) That's your summation of it? Yeah. Alan Jones? Who the hell was he? For example. Oh, OK. All right. And in terms of the Prime Minister addressing` being at the forefront of the climate change debate and positioning New Zealand there` She wasn't. She wasn't? I mean, and this is the strange thing about this government. Actually, here she is talking about a nuclear-free moment for her generation, well, back home the ETS can't go to Cabinet because they can't get agreement from New Zealand First. So she had to give what was a pretty lukewarm speech on climate change, really. Nice rhetoric, nice sentiment, not really much concrete action. But announcing climate trade agreement talks with five other countries. Yeah, but those other countries weren't exactly the big hitters. I think Fiji and Iceland and... Yeah. And I think Thomas is right. At some stage the actions have to match the rhetoric. She can't keep going back to the international stage and being` And she is still held up as one of the flagship leaders on this issue, but the Government is having problems delivering. So they're being hamstrung by a domestic political situation, which she's just flown back into. Yeah. What a nice return. OK. Thank you very much to the panel. We'll leave it there for the moment. Up next, National's Chris Bishop gets five minutes to convince us he'd make a better Transport Minister than Phil Twyford. Plus reporter Finn Hogan with sassy scenes in Parliament this week. Welcome back to The Pitch. Today, Chris Bishop has five minutes to convince you National can do better than any other party on transport. When the coalition came to power, it scrapped spending on major highways projects, pivoting instead to public transport and regional roads. So I asked Chris Bishop what his priorities would be if he became transport minister. The National Party is the party of infrastructure, and we want to get spades in the ground. Fundamentally, that's the most important thing we can do for the transport system right now. At the moment, under Labour's policy settings, there won't be a single major new transport project start for a decade. And you've seen the Prime Minister's own Business Advisory Council warning that we're facing an infrastructure crisis. So within the first hundred days, you're talking about spades in the ground ` spades in the ground doing what? Certainly within our first term, we want to get started on as many projects as we possibly can as quickly as possible. Like what? Uh, well, um, when we were leaving government in 2017, there was a project called the Tauranga Northern Link, for example. It was funded; it was consented; it was out for procurement; it was ready to go. It's one of the most dangerous sections of state highway in the country, and there's huge growth occurring in that area. I visited it just a couple of weeks ago. That's one project that is shovel-ready. You could literally have spades in the ground right now. But it's been cancelled by the government. So the Roads of National Significance policies ` would you reinstate all of those? You will have to wait and see our policy for next year, but we certainly will be having more Roads of National Significance under the next National-led government, major transformational projects to better connect our regions and make it easier for Kiwis to get around the countryside, but also in our cities as well. OK, what about the $2 billion East West Link? Would that be back on the table in Auckland? Yeah, we campaigned on building the East West Link. You'll have to wait and see the specific projects that we will be funding next year, but that is a very important project for that part of Auckland. How high up your priority list is something like light rail for Auckland? We're pretty sceptical about light rail in Auckland. The economics of it are very challenging. The economics of it were challenging when it was $2 billion, which is what we were advised it would cost. Now, under the current government, it's $4 billion, and you've got Shane Jones saying actually it could cost $8 billion. So that is a staggering sum of money for a transport project. And so we're pretty sceptical about the economics of it. Would you scrap it if you got into power? It depends where it's at, doesn't it? You know, we're the party of the sanctity of contract. And of course, if the project is well advanced, then these things are very difficult to unwind. But so far, there has been very little progress on it. We're two years in; we're yet to even have a business case. Cabinet is yet to even consider this thing properly. Simon Bridges, as transport minister, started protecting a light rail route out to the airport in Auckland. What's changed, or is that still part of your policy? It's still part of our policy. The plan under us was do bus rapid transit, you know, basically around about now, and then some time in the 2040s, maybe the late 2030s, you would look at light rail, potentially, depending on how the route had gone, and then economic growth and population growth and things like that. All right. So, that government has put a big commitment on spending on public transport ` something like $4 billion to save on congestion and emissions. Would you continue that kind of spend? Well, public transport under National hit record levels. Where I'm from, in Lower Hutt, in Wellington, there are record numbers of people heading into town on the train in the morning, and same in Auckland. And I think it's a huge success story, actually, public transport in Auckland. More Aucklanders are taking the train; more Aucklanders are taking the bus. It's fantastic` Would you continue that spend? Yeah, well, I'm a massive advocate of public transport. Every high-quality modern city in the world that people want to live in and that you want tourists to go to has high-quality public transport, so that will be a focus for us. The government has also had a big boost for KiwiRail in the budget. Do you support that? We support some rail investments ` the ones that are economic. For example, putting a third main line, possibly even a fourth main line into Auckland, that is a sensible project. And actually Labour supports it; we support it. I don't understand why it hasn't happened in the last two years. Electrifying the line down to Pukekohe ` we campaigned on that. That's a sensible project. What about upgrading the rail line to Northland? Well, they've put $100 million into it, just to sort of maintain it. 99% of freight in Northland travels by truck, not by rail. So the economics of rail in Northland are challenging. You're talking about no new taxes, and you want to repeal the Auckland regional fuel tax, so how would you actually fund these projects? What we've signalled is that we'll be looking at a range of innovative funding mechanisms ` more Crown contributions; we're looking at potentially more public-private partnerships; and also congestion pricing in our cities to manage demand on our motorways. What about the fee-bate scheme that the government is proposing for electric vehicles and cleaner emissions vehicles? You oppose that. What would you do instead? We do oppose it. We will have a package of incentives around electric vehicles. I drive a Nissan Leaf. So does Simon Bridges and his family. So does Scott Simpson, our environment spokesperson. We like electric vehicles in National. So how are you going to encourage the uptake? You'll have to wait and see. We'll have a package of incentives. So you haven't developed one, as yet. You'll have to watch this space. We will be incentivising electric vehicles. We like them. We think it makes sense for New Zealand. Because of course, in New Zealand, we're 85% renewable. OK, so, what is the number one change that voters would notice when you became transport minister? You will see more capital expenditure on transport than what Labour is doing, and you will see a restoration of the State Highway budget that has been slashed by $5 billion under Labour. Chris Bishop there. Stay with us. We'll be back after the break. Welcome back. And we're back with our panel ` Tracy Watkins, David Slack and Thomas Pryor. Thank you for your time. Let's talk about Scott Brown there talking about the bilateral... Well, was it a bilateral, for a start? Or was it a cast aside, pull aside... Pull aside, a meet and greet ` not quite the formal bilateral, but that doesn't mean anything to anyone outside of... He was saying it was a stellar... Stellar, yeah, and listing all the people who were there. I mean, I think from Jacinda Ardern's point of view, it was just` sent the right signal back home when Simon Bridges was saying she was faffing around wasting time. I'm not sure what came out of it concrete. I mean, we heard Scott Brown talk about talks for an FTA, and there's a meeting next year. But Thomas and I were talking about this before. I was in the press gallery for 20 years, and I can't remember how many stories I wrote about an FTA being around the corner, and it's never eventuated, cos it's just never been strategically important enough to the US. Right. And so Scott Brown used the word 'directed', but should I read anything into that? Yeah, it seemed like a bit of a slip-up, and he almost tried to pull it back afterwards. In reality, I think there'll be some low-level official talks kicking off in October. I'm with Tracy. I just don't think we're gonna see any progress on this any time soon. It would require us to give up some things that are politically impossible, like Pharmac. It would require the US to give up some things that, at a local level, political level, are gonna be difficult around agricultural access. I think it's a nice thing to talk about, but it's a long way away. And all of this was in the background of Washington at the time, David, of impeachment. Scott Brown there saying, 'Oh, it's just the political season. We shouldn't read anything into it.' No, this is different. This is different? The very fact that Nancy Pelosi judges that this she can act on is all the guidance you need. You know? There is something very clear here. There is language he used in his phone call with the Ukraine president which, although it doesn't use the actual, literal words 'get dirt on my opponent',... (LAUGHS) ...and the meaning is clear. And, you know, what you're now gonna see from him is a stout defence on the very basis that 'you don't have the actual words', cos that's the way he's gone all the way along. You... You, um... You don't need a weather man to tell you which way the wind's blowing. OK, but what's the point, Thomas? What is the point? Because the Republicans control the Senate. Is this a process that is just gonna go nowhere? Yeah. I mean, I think this is quite a high-risk move by the Democrats and by Pelosi. Yes, you know, on paper, there is clearly some certainly questionable if not illegal behaviour gone on. But the question is ` will this be like the Clinton impeachment, which ended up backfiring on the Republicans, empowered the Democrats, empowered Clinton? And they got better results in the mid-terms. Clinton came back stronger than ever. Or will it be like the Nixon impeachment, where actually, by beginning the process and starting to ask the questions, they began to find, you know, the real dirt, which led to Nixon having to resign. Did it become` Do you think, Tracy, it came to the point where the Democrats had to be seen to be up? Because it was an actual` what they call a roadmap for that investigation now. Yeah. And I think` Well, David's point about Nancy Pelosi ` I mean, she has resisted, so far, going down this track, so the fact that she has announced the start of this proceedings... But I'm with Thomas. It's very high-risk. People from afar look at it` It's not gonna change the minds of any of Trump's supporters. It probably just galvanises them. In fact, there were reports about the amount of money that was immediately being raised. And it could actually empower` I mean, Trump loves to have an enemy, right? And Pelosi charging this, who has got` people dislike her in the States, right? Swing voters don't like her. So if he can turn her into the enemy who's persecuting him and the whole fake news agenda, it could work for him. The big 'if' is what else is out there? What else can be dug up? But there's also to bear in mind... What hasn't been dug up? (LAUGHTER) Well, yeah. That is the concern. Actually, just as an aside, I was reading this morning that there is also the question of tax, where there's a committee looking at that, which also has a whistleblower but hasn't had the same attention, which may also present information that kinda... maybe unsticks a few of those Republican senators that you were implying are all there as one group. Yep. Peel them off, yeah. Yeah. Scott Brown today was saying, 'This is just part of the transparency. Let's celebrate it.' Basically, that's what he was saying. Interesting spin, wasn't it? (LAUGHTER) It was good. It was really good. OK. The other big issue that was over there which affects us is the Christchurch Call, of course, and we've seen more countries sign up to it. And we had Paul Ash on saying that there's going to be a test case here with three different scenarios, including a worst-case scenario than Christchurch. Yeah. It was fascinating. It's gonna be interesting, because they're talking about the crisis protocols, and that's what they're testing out. Christchurch happened, and, I think, within about 40 minutes, they'd managed to take down that livestream. And there'd only been about 4000 views at that stage, but it was the amount of uploads that were the problem. And I'm not sure` There's technical people who might know how to fix that, but, yeah. It's a massive problem in how to deal with that. There's been talk about them having artificial intelligence trying to spot these livestreams as they happen. Is it progress that she's made? Yeah, I must admit I was quite dubious about the Christchurch Call initially. I thought it would just be kind of a feel-good thing. And that in itself is not a bad thing necessarily. But I think it's gone further than what most people expected. The other really interesting thing which Paul didn't talk about in that interview but they agreed in New York is to actually begin to look at the algorithms. And that's a really key area, right? Cos, hey, you get down these rabbit holes. I look at something which seems relatively innocent and innocuous that then leads me through to something else. And these companies have been really reluctant to go near them, obviously, because it's their commercial gold. Yeah, exactly. They're making money off it. But they have, as part of this` I'm not quite sure the format, but they are prepared to start offering up some information so there can be some work on how can you start to address those that sends often kinda confused, angry ` and they normally are men ` into these kind of rabbit holes, where they get more and more indoctrinated until they're in a position to go and do something. So I think the Prime Minister` but actually, also the officials. People like Paul, who we very rarely see, and they're doing a really amazing job, going out and driving these sorts of initiatives on the global stage. I think it was` Sorry. Well, I've run out of time, David. I'm awfully sorry. - (LAUGHTER) - I'm gonna have to leave it there. I know you've got words of wisdom, but we're not gonna hear them. Sorry. (CHUCKLES) Thank you very much to our panel ` Thomas, David and Tracy. All right, fiery scenes in the House this week, with the Speaker booting two MPs from the chamber within minutes of each other, and Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters making the very most of his short time in the top job. Here's Finn Hogan with the week that was in Wellington. FINN HOGAN: Well, Trevor Mallard certainly wasn't taking any prisoners in the House this week. In light of the answer` Order. Who said that? Leave the chamber. Yes, Kieran McAnulty and Shane Jones were both ejected within minutes of each other. Order. Now,... Shane Jones will go. Meanwhile, Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters was relishing his opportunity to spar with Simon Bridges and was showing no mercy. The second-least popular member of the National Party caucus. (LAUGHTER) The second-least! I mean... And has he got some competition to get there! It comes question time, they won't ask me a question, and the reason for that is... nobody likes to get beaten up in the first round. Able to write my own questions and my own speech, unlike that turkey over there. (LAUGHTER) Why don't you ask me a question and show some courage, eh? ('OOH'ING, JEERING) Hear, hear! Does the member want to do it voluntarily, or do I have to require it? I withdraw and apologise. But Gerry Brownlee wasn't about to let that go without a fight. What he really should ask is, 'Why does he seem to be so irrelevant that he gets no questions?' And while David Seymour did do his best to capitalise on Winston's boasting, it didn't quite pan out. I seek leave to be able to ask the Prime Minister an additional primary question and 10 supplementaries. Is there any objection to that course of action? (MURMURS OF 'YES', LAUGHTER, JEERING) I think it's fair to say... the coalition was divided on that matter. (LAUGHTER) But the burn of the week unquestionably came courtesy of Crusher Collins herself. If the government keeps that up, it'll be 'whipless'. As opposed to witless? (LAUGHS) (LAUGHTER, APPLAUSE) Well, love her or hate her, she certainly keeps the chamber interesting. And that's all from us for now. Thank you so much for watching, and we'll see you again next weekend. Captions by Ella Wheeler, James Brown and Alex Walker. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019 This programme was made with the assistance of the NZ On Air Platinum Fund.