I'm Oriini Kaipara. - And I'm Conor Whitten. Nau mai ` welcome ` to Newshub Nation. On the programme today, we reveal new details of a letter sent by Gaurav Sharma to the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff. - The UN warns we're just one misunderstanding away from nuclear annihilation. Minister for Disarmament Phil Twyford joins us, fresh from discussions in New York. - And how is James Shaw planning to win his party back ` along with his job as Greens co-leader? He joins us live. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2022 Up first on the programme today ` it's been wall-to-wall Gaurav Sharma for more than a week now, the backbench MP making unproven claims of bullying by his colleagues and lying by the Prime Minister, then doubling down. And the allegations just keep coming ` this morning, we can reveal new details of a letter sent by Sharma to the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff. It was written in December last year and spells out a number of his allegations. Sharma wrote... (READS) He accuses the Labour whips of systematic bullying 'to overburden me and ruin my reputation' and goes on to say... (READS) Here to discuss that letter ` and more ` is Dr Gaurav Sharma. Morena. - Morena, Conor. Thank you for having me. - There are some very strong claims in that letter. What was the Prime Minister's Office's response? - Uh, well, as I said, you know, this was written after I had actually met up with the Chief of Staff in person for quite a long period of time to discuss my concerns. At that meeting, I had provided a` (STAMMERS) A big list of all the concerns, including staffing issues that I had raised ` rather than the staff had raised ` and my concerns regarding the whips. I had also presented the screenshots that, you know, I've now shared on Facebook with the Chief of Staff. What happened was that things didn't get resolved after that. So on the 18th of December, I ended up writing this email, um, and presenting again the same things that I had raised in the meeting. - And what was the outcome of that? - Well, the outcome was that the` the Chief of Staff called me. Firstly, they were unhappy. There was no written reply to it. And it comes back to the whole thing about, you know, OIA and not having a paper trail. - OK. But the` So, the Prime - OK. But the` So, the Prime Minister's Office says that it was resolved after that letter and that you both agreed to move on. Is that wrong? - No, because we` Specifically, my claim says that there's` this is a formal complaint against Kevin McAnulty ` the subject of the emails say this is a formal complaint against Kevin McAnulty. It spells out` um, you know, if you could see the details of the email, which you've got, It spells out` um, you know, if you it has multiple claims in` in bullet points, and it takes you through that. And I did not` I kept saying... - OK. - ...'We still need to investigate it.' Even until last week, on Thursday, when I went out with the whips, I specifically said, I specifically said, in front of my lawyer... - OK. - ...that we need to` - We know all that. - Yeah. - We've been through that. - Yeah. - It's been a busy few days. Why didn't you approach the Prime Minister directly? - Because that is the culture in the Prime Minister's Office and in the Party ` that you go through a way, that you go through a way, and the way is not to talk to the Prime Minister directly; it is to talk to the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, because they don't want ` again, as I said ` a track record. Because it's now easy for the Prime Minister to come and say she didn't know about it, but her Chief of Staff has it in writing. She` He's met up with me in person, and all the allegations are out there. - OK. And you say that wasn't resolved; they say that it was. Um, there are parts of this we can't get into for privacy reasons, but I want to ask you more about the allegations of bullying, particularly that you've made about Kieran McAnulty. You say that he called you 'a terrible MP'. You say that he called you What exactly did he say to you? - So, he was basically talking about, you know, 'You're not managing your staff well. 'If they're not coming to work, you need to be picking up their workload 'instead of asking them to,' you know, 'perform as they're supposed to.' Um, he` Um, he` - 'Terrible MP' ` did he use those words? - Yes, definitely. Many, many times. And he repeatedly kept saying, you know, 'The problem lies with you, 'because nine out of 10 times it's the MPs that are the problem`' - Because Kieran disputes that. He says he never raised his voice, he didn't say those things. Do you have anything to substantiate those claims? - Look, I'm the one who's making the claims against bullying here. Can you tell me why` why it wasn't investigated in December by the Prime Minister's Office? Why am I the only one who gets Why am I the only one who gets asked repeatedly, uh, you know, to prove my claims, where any anybody else can come and say anything, try to assassinate my character on social media or anywhere else. But` But the question here, again, comes back to credibility of the Prime Minister's Office, But` But the question here, again, comes back to credibility who in December had this, and I'm saying ` again ` it's not just me who feels bullied; there's multiple members of Parliament, elected members of Parliament... - OK. - ...of the caucus who have raised these concerns ` they provided screenshots... - Yes. - ...and they continue to message me and say they're` they have been bullied. - OK. So, we're asking for evidence here. - Yeah. - Do you have recordings or colleagues that will corroborate? - I-I have` I have evidence, and` as I said, but I shouldn't be the one providing evidence. It should` - Well, if you make a claim, you need to be able to back it up. - Yes, but somebody needs to investigate it. That's repeatedly what I've asked for ` is an independent investigation to help Kieran McAnulty clear his name, to help myself clear my name. - OK. - That is` That is literally the gist of this whole conversation, of this whole saga, because I want an independent investigation, and that's not what's happening here ` instead of Prime Minister's Office repeatedly saying, you know, 'We're doing this,' and, 'We've done that,' and, 'We don't think there's anything to see here.' If there's nothing to see here, why would you not call an independent investigation? As I've said many times, if I worked in any other workplace, an investigation would have started by now. - OK. It is the whip's job to discipline the caucus. There are some who will say you are There are some who will say you are a new MP who doesn't understand how Parliament works. - But I'm not the only one. I'm talking about senior MPs ` who've been there six, nine, 12 years ` who have been bullied by the same` - Yep. In the letter, you talk about three separate MPs who had issues with bullying and mental health. Did any of them raise it with the Prime Minister's Office? - They have raised it with the office. Uh, they have` - What's been the outcome of that? - Well, it` Obviously, as you can see, nothing's come out of it. When I've done it in a written manner, obviously, nothing's come out of it. But also, these MPs are the ones who are repeatedly being coached on how not to do things in writing, But also, these MPs are the ones how not` even if you're making a complaint... I mean` This is not even about complaints. Even if you're doing constituent issues` - OK, we'll get to that in a moment. Let's talk about... - Yeah. - ...the OIA allegations. You say that Labour MPs were coached how to avoid the Official Information Act. Was that the explicit message? - Yes, definitely was the explicit message. It wasn't the first time ` I just want to be clear. It wasn't the first time. It's been done many, many times, including from day one, when we were coached about it ` to not do anything that can be tracked down. It's` OIA was repeatedly mentioned ` those three letters were repeatedly mentioned ` It's` OIA was repeatedly mentioned ` including on Monday night, where there was a panel` and I've said repeatedly there was the Deputy Chief of Staff of Prime Minister's Office, Labour Leaders' Office's Chief of Staff, one of the whips and a minister, and all of them talked from their different viewpoints how to get around it. What they were talking about was Minister's Office, initially ` that` instead of writing to the Minister's Office and having this OIA'd, write to the Labour Leaders' Office all your queries ` - Mm-hm. - because the Labour Leaders' Office have many researchers ` and they will liaise with the Minister's Office in a way where things can't be tracked down and then come back to you. - OK. Because` - My question was directly about the Prime Minister's Office, because I was in that session. So I specifically asked about the Prime Minister's Office cos I was thinking back to my times when I've made complaints. - Yeah, so let's talk about that. You knew when you put that complaint in writing to the Prime Minister's Office that you were creating a record, you were creating a paper trail. Did you always intend to embarrass the Labour Party? - No. Look, if I wanted to embarrass the Labour Party, I would have, you know, gone one and a half years and done this. If you look at the paper trail that there is, you know, of me genuinely going to ` as I've said ` you know, the Relationship Manager, their boss, their boss' boss, the Deputy CEO, the CEO, multiple whips, the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, you will see that, you know, I've followed the pathway that anybody would follow in a normal HR process. - Except you put it in writing, and you say they don't want you to do that. - Except you put it in writing, - Yes, but it's` - So, I mean... - (SIGHS) - ...you've spent 18 months taking notes, making secret recordings. What is your endgame here? - The endgame is to get justice, right? The endgame is that I've been bullied for a long time ` so are other members being bullied ` and to get justice. And the endgame here is, you know, understanding that the Prime Minister's Office doesn't want to resolve it. They don't want to investigate somebody, despite now proving` you know, screenshots from other MPs who are saying they're being bullied by the same person ` not just any other MPs, as well, but the same person. And the question shouldn't be about, you know, have I gone against the Prime Minister's Office, who are saying, 'Don't do something which can be tracked down'? The question should be, first of all, why is the Prime Minister's Office saying, 'Don't,' you know, 'do something that can be OIA'd.' And secondly, when evidence was provided, And secondly, when evidence why was this person promoted? That is` You know, it's about Prime Minister's credibility of promoting somebody who is a bully, who's bullied many members of caucus` - OK, we're running out of time here. - Yeah. - I'm sorry to interrupt there. Look, on Tuesday, the caucus will meet to decide whether to expel you. Will you be there? - Well, I haven't been invited, first of all. I haven't been invited to the pre-meeting that might happen the night before that, which` which was the case last week. So I don't know. If there's a caucus secret meeting happening before that, I'll see. - OK. A lot could happen between now and then, if this week's anything to judge by. Dr Gaurav Sharma, thank you very much for your time. - Thank you. - The Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, and Kieran McAnulty were both invited on to the programme today; both declined. We did not receive a response from the Labour Party President, Claire Szabo, but just before we came to air, we did receive this statement from the Prime Minister's Office. It said, 'It's been known from the start that Gaurav met with and wrote to the Chief of Staff, 'and the allegations in this email 'have been aired and refuted previously. 'have been aired 'They also misrepresent the meeting. 'Following the meeting, an email agreement was reached 'that Gaurav could start advertising and recruiting for roles 'with priority on electorate office staff. 'Gaurav agreed to choose a mentor before any appointments were made. 'It was also agreed that this represented moving on from the issues discussed 'and putting it behind them. 'Regardless, the caucus is meeting on Tuesday to consider expelling Gaurav 'as a result of his continued breaches of trust.' - Well, Matt McCarten has worked as Chief of Staff for two Labour leaders ` David Cunliffe and Andrew Little ` and as a lawyer, he says he's currently involved with multiple other cases of alleged bullying in Parliament. Matt joins us here in studio. Tena koe, Matt. - Kia ora. - Thank you for joining us. Now, there's quite a lot to Now, there's quite a lot to unpack there off the back of Dr Gaurav Sharma's korero... - Mm. - ...with Conor. - Mm. - But let's start with this ` he's looking` he wants an independent investigation; is he going about it the right way? - Well, first of all, just` um, I think you're` you're promoting me above my talent skill ` I'm not a lawyer, but, um` I'm a practitioner. Um, look, I` This is not about... This is about a breakdown of relationships, of trust and confidence. You know? In the end, you've gotta get to what it's really about ` is that, um, a new MP comes in ` a lot of them, they` it's a new environment, and you've got to remember and you've got to remember that Parliament is an adversarial environment. You know? It's a government and an opposition, and they want the job, the opposition. So therefore, you come into it` And the rules in a` like in HR and everything ` when you say` when Dr Sharma's asking, 'I want an inquiry, an independent`' They're not an HR department. This is politics. This is` The MPs are elected by the people. They're not employees. And so the whip is elected by the, um... the caucus to keep the thing together. So therefore, it's all about relationships and discussions. And I think that's where` I don't think that either of the people involved` I think there was a breakdown between the whip and Dr Sharma, and I think that's where it came from. And I don't think it recovered, and it just got worse and worse and it's come to this. - All right. Dr Gaurav Sharma took his concerns to the Prime Minister's Office` Chief of Office` uh, sorry` - Chief of Staff, yeah. - ...Prime minister's Chief of Staff in December last year. How would you have handled that? - Well, that` it's different when you're the Prime Minister. Like, you're the leader of the party, but you're` Prime Minister. When we were in opposition, under my tenure, our thing was very much is that the leader and the MPs build that personal relationship. And so every six months, we'd sit down for an hour or so with each of the MPs and, you know, get very clear and build that relationship. An MP always has a right` and I'm a bit surprised ` as an MP, Dr Sharma had the right to have a face-to-face meeting with the Leader of the Opposition, and` I mean of` (STAMMERS) and` I mean of` (STAMMERS) the party, and that should have happened. I think the Chief of Staff was acting in a managerial role rather than a political role, and I think that's where the missteps` Can I just say, though, that when` as a Chief of Staff, when an MP writes you a letter putting out the all` (STAMMERS) the allegation, that's a smoking gun, which we've now found exactly is what it was. - OK. - So they would've gone... You know? And that's where it's become a problem. - All right. So has the Prime Minister's Office got this wrong? - I think that Raj, the Chief of Staff, is a` he's very competent, but they would see it as` I think they saw it as a HR issue instead of a political issue. And I think that's the thing. And what they did is` as Dr Sharma said, 'Well, they won't put things in writing' ` they don't. It's about relationships, and it's political. So you sit down` What my job was, as Chief of Staff ` go and see the MP, sit down, go, 'Mate, 'What are you gonna do to fix it?' - Yeah. - Etc., etc. You don't send letters to each other. Right? No problems get solved like that. - All right, well, Dr Sharma's fate was decided by caucus on Tuesday, but they met ` allegedly ` in a secret meeting the night before. Was that the right move? - Yes, of course it is. Um, what we've got is` Because trust and confidence has broken down ` Dr Sharma's been sharing, you know, his position on his Facebook, and he's recording people's messages ` what does he think's gonna happen, you know? And so what... When these come to a crisis` Look, there's been a number of times both parties, both major parties, have expelled MPs, or, you know, they've been suspended. And what you do is you have a pre-meeting of those who want to be` They all wanna be there, of course, in this instance, right? Cos they will ask questions, and` and thing. And so that doesn't predetermine` But I know that Dr Sharma said, 'That's a predetermined`' And in HR, that would be seen to be in a Human Resources approach to life ` that would be seen as prede` This is a political process, so what happens is people ask questions and that, and` and that's what they've done. So they have their question, not gonna answer` So the debate will be` for the next meeting for the caucus officially is, 'Should he be suspended?' - Right. - It's not asking questions; it's saying, 'Should he be suspended?' - OK, Matt. You've been around` - And he has a right to explain his position... - OK. - ...at that meeting. - You've been around politics for a very long time. How widespread is bullying in Parliament? - Um, it's had an overhaul` See, part of this is Parliament trying to fix the bullying, funny enough, between staff and MPs, and I think this is where` The complaints were made by Dr Sharma's staff and him about them, right? So Parliamentary Services was trying to intervene on that. There's been zero tolerance. I mean, I've represented workers` I mean, I've represented workers` In fact, I'm down in Parliament, um, on Tuesday ` of workers who were bullied previously, a couple of years ago ` under the National Party, by the way ` MPs ` but that's now very rare. You know? There's a zero tolerance; it's stepped down the bullying. What Dr Sharma is talking about is bullying between the whip and himself, or amongst the MPs, so it's not with the staff. So, that bullying ` there has been, as I said, a zero tolerance, and I know that that has happened. I think the relationship between MPs where there's` robust in one people's mind and bullying in another person's mind, um, that probably will always be there, because it's that sort of environment, unfortunately. But, you know, it's like ` when someone speaks their mind, is it bullying? Or is it just, 'I'm telling you is what I think'? - All right. We're gonna have to leave it there. - You're welcome. - Thank you very much for joining us on the show today. Matt McCarten, everyone. Now, if you've got a news tip, get in touch with us ` we're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, or you can email us at nation@tv3.co.nz. E whai ake nei, we'll be back with our political panel ` Dr Lara Greaves Jose, Josie Pagani and Janet Wilson. But first ` the UN warns the world is just one misunderstanding away from nuclear annihilation. Minister for Disarmament Phil Twyford joins us live, fresh from discussions in New York. Phil Twyford joins us live, The war in Ukraine and escalating tensions between global powers undoing decades of painstaking work. Disarmament Minister Phil Twyford was in New York last month, part of a five-yearly UN conference aimed at getting things back on track. He joins us now live in studio. E te minita, tena koe. Welcome to the programme. - Morena. Before we get into this interview, Minister, Dr Gaurav Sharma was just here. I have to ask you, did the Prime Minister mislead the public? - Look, I want to leave all of these matters in the caucus room. I think that's with they're best dealt with. - You were in the alleged secret meeting on Monday. Did the caucus make it clear that Sharma was gone? - Yeah, Orini, I really don't want to get into this. This is a matter that I think This is a matter that I think the Prime Minister's dealt with extensively publicly. This is a matter that I think And there's nothing that I can add will actually help. - We do have to ask you, though. Sharma claims six other MPs have told him they've been bullied. Have you seen any evidence of that? - I certainly haven't. - You haven't? Have you ever had a conversation about avoiding the OIA by not putting things in writing? - The only conversations I've had have been about actually meeting the spirit and the letter of the OIA, so... - All right. Let's move on to nuclear weapons. You've said there are signs of a new nuclear arms race. That's a very serious claim. What are those signs? - Well, I think most experts on this believe that the world is more at risk of nuclear catastrophe now - Well, I think most experts on this believe that the world is than at any time since the height of the Cold War in the 1960s. We are living in a time of increased superpower rivalry. The invasion of Ukraine, I think, has just shown how delicate things are. And, you know, just this week, new research out from Rutgers University that showed that there's no such thing as a limited nuclear exchange. If we saw an exchange between Russia and the United States, for example, three quarters of the world would be facing starvation within a few years. This is putting the planet and humanity at risk. - So is this the most dangerous period in our lifetime? - I would say other than` since the Second World War we are now more at risk of nuclear catastrophe, and that's an opportunity and a challenge for today's generation of leaders to step up. You know, in previous generations, think about Kennedy and Khrushchev in the '60s, Gorbachev and Reagan in the '80s, even though times are very dangerous and uncertain right now we're arguing ` and I argued this at the UN just a couple of weeks ago in New York ` we need the leaders, particularly of the nuclear weapon states, to step up and get serious about negotiating arms control. - Yeah. What would a nuclear exchange mean for New Zealand ` to make that real for our viewers? - Well, the report that I mentioned paints a cataclysmic picture for the planet. And interestingly, it says the modelling ` the climate modelling, the nuclear winter that a major nuclear exchange would create with huge soot and ash in the atmosphere, it would reduce the temperature of the planet. Food production would crash. You'd be looking at mass starvation across the globe. Interestingly, Australia and New Zealand, because of where we are on the planet, would be much less at risk of that. would be much less at risk of that. But can you imagine what the refugee movements would be globally? I mean, it's a it's a scenario for the planet none of us want to contemplate. - Yeah. Look, Minister, you are one of the few in the world ` a minister for disarmament, and we have credibility on and we have credibility on this issue. So shouldn't you be doing more? - Well, I think one of the things that I've found since doing this job is that New Zealand has standing, you know, because of our anti-nuclear law, the work of politicians like Helen Clark and previous generations, New Zealand is listened to. We are one of the clearest We are one of the clearest and strongest voices. - Yeah, so why not treat this like the Christchurch call? - Well, we are in fact. You know, when I was in New York recently at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, New Zealand was lining up with independent foreign policy countries like Austria and Ireland, like Brazil, Mexico, Chile. Like South Africa, Egypt. - So have you have you have you actually thought about doing an international joint statement with the Prime Minister? - So the Prime Minister is very active on this issue. She raises it in almost every international meeting that she does. We have done a number of joint statements with other countries. New Zealand is` we're almost permanently campaigning on this issue internationally and in large part it's kind of what we're known for in international forums is a very strong and principled voice for peace and for nuclear disarmament. - All right. You've just arrived back from the Nuclear Non-proliferation. Conference in New York. What tangible progress was made there? - Well, we're three weeks into a four-week conference. It was surprisingly encouraging in the first week of the conference, the White House came out with a the White House came out with a proposal saying they were ready to sit down with Russia and negotiate a new arms control framework, and to start negotiating with China. So things have got off to a good start, but we're getting down to the crunch period over the next week. And this is traditionally when the nuclear weapon states and their allies ` And this is traditionally Australia, Korea, Japan, the NATO states in Europe ` tend to put the brakes on and try to wind back the language. So my message to the anti-nuclear majority of countries is, let's hang tough. Let's use the majority that we have in the UN to put pressure on the nuclear weapon states. - All right, on that note, why didn't you mention AUKUS in your address to the UN? - Because the main game here is the reduction of nuclear weapons. That's what our focus has been. AUKUS is a is a defence technology sharing relationship between the US, the UK and Australia. It is being discussed and debated at the conference. - OK. Jeffrey Miller says we may be inching towards becoming part of it. What's your response to that? - Well, you know, we're nuclear-free. The nuclear submarines that Australia is looking to acquire under this arrangement, they won't be able to come in our waters. So that's the starting point. There is an issue about AUKUS and that is that it's unprecedented for a non-nuclear weapon country to get nuclear propelled submarines. New Zealand's position is that Australia, the UK and the U.S. have got to sit down with the International Atomic Energy Agency and work through what this means for the nuclear safeguards rules, because they're very important. They're about stopping the spread of highly enriched weapons-grade uranium around the world. - Thank you very much for your time and for coming onto the show this morning. Tena koe. - Thank you. - Phil Twyford there, e te iwi. Let's see what our political panel has to say about that. Over to you, Conor. - Thanks very much, Orini. Joining us this morning is Auckland University Senior Lecturer in New Zealand Politics, Dr Lara Greaves, former National Party Press Secretary Janet Wilson, and former Labour candidate Josie Pagani. former National Party Press Tena koutou, welcome to the programme, everyone. - Morena. - Morena. - Wow, what a week. Janet, I'll start with you. - Yeah. Gaurav Sharma is accusing the Prime Minister of lying. He's said it again, and again, and again. From what you've seen this week, does he have a case? - No, I don't think he does, because he's failed to produce any evidence. I think what the Labour Party has is a problem with one rogue MP. I think what the Labour Party has is a problem with one rogue MP. And that, certainly I think on Tuesday, will be dealt with. Because if it's not dealt with, he has still got the microphone, he can still talk through as a Labour MP and that that gives Labour all sorts of problems. - So is Tuesday too long? Should we be dealing with this now? I mean, there's no signs that this is going to let up between now and Tuesday. So what do you think of the political management here? - Well, I think there's no sign that it's going to stop after Tuesday, either. And in terms of political management, - Well, I think there's no sign that it's going to stop after Tuesday, either. Matt McCarten made a good point that, you know, this is not so much about HR but about politics, and it hasn't been managed. If you've got an MP writing a formal letter to the PM's office, you should be managing this. It should never have got to the point where it had to go public. They should have spotted that they had an MP who was about to break. So I think the management of it has been weak and it could have been prevented. And now there's a problem, of course, that, the sort of brand of kindness and wellness and support and all the nice-speak of support from the Prime Minister clashes with the stuff that Dr Sharma's saying, which is alleging cover-ups and bullying, and so on. So how you resolve that without So how you resolve that without some kind of investigation ` even if you expel him, he's either going to be a backbench MP, an independent MP sitting there, a weeping sore... - Right. So` - ...or you're going to have a by-election. - So we do need` - Both are bad. - We do need an investigation. What do you think, Lara? - I think this is all really tricky, and I would actually want to lift this actually out of the political` lift it out of party politics and actually think about the ways` And I really liked how you asked him about his end game, Dr Sharma's end game, because actually what a lot of this is doing is fuelling the other big story of the week, the disinformation, misinformation. And that whole vacuum in our democracy, because it's just actually giving a lot of material for those people that say politics are corrupt, the Prime Minister's a liar, all of that kind of thing. for those people that say politics We're just giving more material to that. - So what's the answer? And independent investigation? - I think that becomes really tricky around exactly who's been complained about and when, because you've got the different moving parts of parliamentary services, the Labour Party itself, and sort of his relationship to other Labour MP's. And exactly what that is legally ` tricky. - If you were the Labour Party, there is no way you would want an investigation into this, because you are going to be shown up for some of the things that you didn't do and you should have done. You only hold an investigation when you know what the results are going to be and the results are not going to be good for you. - You also don't want a by-election... - No. - ...because even though Labour did well in 2020 polls, which that was a marginal seat ` Hamilton West, and polls would show that Labour wouldn't win on it. But I think there's another point here, and you're right to take it up to a level of what's this really about? And I think it's about the pointlessness of backbench MPs, actually. You know, you've got a whole bunch of MPs` - It's a little harsh. - Well, well, not their fault. It's the system that we've set up where your party unity above all else is valued. We fetishize party unity. So rather than going, 'Actually we've got a whole bunch of backbench MPs, 'f they're just there to be foot soldiers and make up the numbers for the frontbench, 'what's the point of them?' So, you know, give them more to do. Let them push back on policies, let them disagree with their frontbench like they do in the UK and in Australia. Embrace diversity of ideas. Now I'm not saying that that's what Dr. Sharma is doing. It's a staffing issue. But there is a culture issue there about a parliament that's either too big ` we've got too many backbenchers ` or, make it smaller, maybe, but also give them more to do. Let them be legislators or let them sit in select committees or do more. Because at the moment they're just sitting there with nothing to do but sit there and fume. - Janet, does anybody come out looking good out of this? - No, not really. You've got a Prime Minister who had seemingly held a secret meeting on Tuesday and didn't let the protagonist know about it. You've got other MPs who are bleating as well, but only anonymously. What you've got as a party in slight disarray. And that's really interesting to me, because, you know, when they came in with this unprecedented number of MPs, it was always going to happen. - It's amazing it's lasted this long. - It's amazing. - It's amazing it's It's 22 months. It's amazing it's lasted this long. - A lot of water to go under the bridge between now and Tuesday. The only person who wants to talk about this is Dr Gaurav Sharma. Is that a mistake? - Oh, that is a long time - Oh, that is a long time in politics, and, I mean, this is the other issue where you've got the social media sitting there and at any time he could fire off. That's a bit scary. It's really hard to see where this will go. And yeah, I suspect it will go in the` the Labour Party ` will they use the party-hopping legislation? Will it go to by-election, and all of that. But actually, also, another thing that we've been talking about, all the different political parties but... ACT? ACT ` We have to apologise to ACT in a way, or I personally have to apologise to David Seymour in Act, for thinking that that caucus was going to explode. And actually, they've been the most kind of disciplined and in order out of everyone. Which is not necessarily what we expected as of the last election. - OK. Well, we'll get to all the other party politics, because there's been so much of it lately. Thank you very much. We'll come back to you later in the show. Up next ` James Shaw's strategy to regain trust and win back the leadership. Plus, why are the Prime Minister and members of Maori caucus converging today on Ngaruawahia? and members of Maori caucus Peeni Henare will reveal all after the break. James Shaw falling short of James Shaw falling short of the 75% support he needed from his party to hold on to the leadership, forcing him to reapply for his job. And while no one is challenging him for that role, he hasn't won it back yet either. James Shaw joins us now live in studio. Tena koe, James. - Tena koe. - You've got 20 days now before voting closes to convince the party to re-elect you. What have you been doing to change their mind? - Well, I'm kind of taking this as an opportunity to reconnect with the party and also to try and support our local body candidates as well. Given that we've got a local body election occurring at the same time, there's been a lot of Zoom calls, as you might expect. But I'm also doing a number of in-person events around the country as well. So I'm doing a number of things here in Auckland this weekend, I'll be in Christchurch and Dunedin next weekend and so on. - And you wanted that feedback because very clearly you missed some of the criticism before that vote happened. Have you spoken to the delegates who voted against you and what have they told you about why they did that? - Well, not directly, in the sense that I don't know who the delegates are who voted against me because those votes aren't recorded. But I have had meetings with branches where people have kind of aired their concerns, which I completely understand. So I'm sort of` - What are they? - Well, I think I mean, there's a lot of different, you know, kind of ways in which this manifests. But I think ultimately what it boils down to is that sense of frustration that in government But I think ultimately what it boils down to is that sense of frustration there are compromises that get made, and the speed and the scale at which we are moving does not match that of climate crisis. - OK. But you were saying that before the vote, you're saying it afterwards. Some of these people are going to want to see a change. I mean, we have spoken to some of those who voted against you. One of them told us, 'I haven't heard anything different from him 'in the last two weeks that I didn't hear in the last two years.' So what, if anything, has actually changed? - Well, ultimately, like I said, I think as I get around the country, the conversations that I'm having with people are much more, kind of, in depth around kind of some of the issues and challenges of being in government. I think that the way that we communicate with our own members, I think I need to kind of get out more on the road and spend more time with them, because I've effectively been trapped in Wellington for much of the last two years. - Yeah. And you have been doing that, and four weeks ago, I think you said you talked to all of the branches, talked to the members, you'd set talked to the members, you'd set out your vision for the future. Have you done that? What's your vision? What's your vision? - Well, it is simply that the Green Party needs to be an even bigger and stronger part of the next government. I mean, if people are frustrated at the pace of challenge` - It doesn't sound like a new vision to me. - Well, it's... What I said when is that I was committed to taking us into government for the first time with ministers and then safely out the other side. Now, that job is not yet done, and climate change is still a problem. I'm pretty proud of the track record that I've got in getting us to the start line, but there is a lot more that we have to do. - Yeah, I know all of that. But we're asking what's changed? Because you said that you needed to listen, you needed to change. 'He was extremely unimpressive. 'I've seen no vision for what the party can fall behind.' So it doesn't sound like that message is getting through. - Well, Conor, you know, I think that there will be people who remain opposed to my leadership. There have been people who were opposed to my leadership before the AGM this year as well. But ultimately, I am convinced that I have the support of the vast majority of the party and actually the majority of the and actually the majority of the party understand that whilst we have a radical vision, the political system is what it is and you have to` If you're going to be able to be in politics, you have to work with the system as it is. You have to try and reform it as a part of the system. But ultimately, you know, government is challenging. It's incredibly frustrating. It does not move at the speed or the scale of the challenges that we face. - So is there a core group of members who are simply never going to support you as co-leader? - Well, you'd have to` I mean, you clearly have asked them, but that's really for them to determine. - And if there are, does that mean you don't need to change? - No, I'm not saying that I'm not intending to change. But part of what I have to do is clearly is to continuously sell why it is that we are in government. - Because this is a fundamental debate within the party, right? There are people who believe that having a seat at the table isn't worth anything if you have to compromise at all. What do you say to them? - Well, look, I think` And look, this has been a debate in the Green Party for as long as I can remember, and I was around in the early 1990s, and there were debates then about whether we should even be in politics at all. But having made the choice to be a parliamentary political party, to say that, you know, we will be that part of the wider we will be that part of the wider green movement that does engage with the political system and tries to reform it from within then by definition, that comes with compromise. For a party that's built around consensus, you have to build consensus with people who disagree with you as well as people who agree with you. And we can only go as far as the public gives us licence to go, and that is the purpose of the wider green movement. Which is to ensure` You know, if you look at kind of Greenpeace and Forest and bird and World Wildlife Fund, Generation Zero, the school strikes, you know, that movement is incredibly important in building pressure on the political system, and demanding that we go further and faster than we have. And in the job of the Green Party inside parliament and the council tables up and down the country, is to do what we can with the circumstances that we've got in order to create change. That's how the kind of jigsaw fits together in my mind. - And it's a complicated jigsaw. It is hard to get everyone to agree. I understand that. - Well, it's politics by definition. You know, not everyone's going to agree. - Of course. Of course. But there is a question here about your party constitution and stability. I mean, 225,000 Kiwis voted for a party led by you and Marama Davidson at the last election. And then 32 Green delegates turned around and voted you out. Should the public be worried about who they're getting if they tick Greens in 2023? - No, absolutely not. I mean, I think that the mechan` - Couldn't we do this all again next year? - Well, again, I think it's probably not appropriate for me, given that I'm a directly interested party to, you know, comment on the Constitution. But I think if you look at our track record ` you know, like any other political party, we've had our ups and downs. We are the only political party, under MMP, the only support party under MMP who has increased our support in government. So we're polling higher now than we did on election night 2020. That was polling higher than we did in 2017. I think that if you ask the public at large, what they will tell you is that, you know, regardless of anything that's going on, talking about ourselves and so on, they can see the value that we're adding from inside government and holding the government to account from outside government as well. - OK. Let's talk about that. This is our last question. One of the big criticisms from members when that vote happened was that you don't do enough to critique the government. I know you can't do that in your own portfolio, but you can do it on everything else. So this is your chance. What's the government getting wrong? - Well, look, let me just address - Well, look, let me just address the first, because I don't actually agree with that. I think it's really important that people are able to see all of our caucus, right? If you look at the work that Teanau Tuiono has done going to Damien O'Connor on some of the areas where we're falling down on agriculture; if you look at the pressure Julie Anne Genter has been putting on Michael Wood about some of the funding decisions around transport and so on, you can see that actually our caucus is, you know, providing that critique of the things where we feel that the government is falling down, and that is the design of the cooperation agreement that we have with the government, and the government signed up to that, that we would have two members of the executive, you know, who would, you know, lead on those issues. And then we would have eight people outside of the executive who would hold the government to account from the perspective of the Green Caucus. - OK, we need to leave it there. Climate Change Minister and aspiring Greens co-leader James Shaw, thanks very much for your time this morning. - Thanks for having me. - E whai ake nei, our political panel returns ` Dr Lara Greaves, Janet Wilson and Josie Pagani. Plus ` the Prime Minister and dignitaries from all over Aotearoa have descended on Turangawaewae Marae today. We take you there. We're back now with our political panel ` Dr Lara Greaves, Janet Wilson, Shos` Jose Pa` Pagani. (LAUGHTER) ` Tena koutou, welcome back. - 'Showy Pagani'. I'll take that(!) - I've already done this, I shouldn't forget it. Janet, there can't be many people happier in politics this week than Sam Uffindell in the National Party. - Yeah, yeah. I think a big thank you to Mr Sharma is probably` They'd be calling for. I would expect the political lens and the spotlight to be back on them, though. Luxon promised a two week review, Maria Jude QC said we'll have to come back by the end of this week, which will then place the National Party leader and Uffindell in a bit of a pickle, I think. - And, Lara, that review, we don't - And, Lara, that review, we don't know the terms of reference. We won't know the terms of reference. And the review itself isn't going to be released. This is all going to remain private. Is that the right move? - Yeah, that's a tricky one, because they're going to then get charged with not being transparent enough. And that... I mean, that's where the distraction has been particularly good for them. But ultimately, that review can't conclude that there's going to be have to be another by-election in Tauranga because you can just think about how bad that would be for National. If in fact there are more If in fact there are more allegations against Armando, that his position has then untenable, and then there's a by-election in Tauranga that would be an absolute disaster for them and for 2023. - Yeah. Josie, this is a question about transparency, isn't it? I mean, given the original secrecy, this wasn't revealed to the public, despite the fact the party knew it. Are they getting this wrong? - Well, and wasn't revealed to the party leader, even` So there's a cultural problem right there in the middle of the National Party, too. This report should be made public even if they have to redact some stuff, because otherwise Christopher Luxon is asking us just to believe him at face value that there's nothing to see here, assuming that's the conclusion of the report. So you can't say, well, you know, the Prime Minister should have an independent investigation, and we should know what happened and then say, 'Well, just trust me,' you know; 'You don't have to see what's in the report.' Absolutely we should see what's in the report. - So when this report comes back, does that put it to bed? - No! No, I think it ignites it. It ignites it even further, because they haven't been transparent, right? They haven't told us what the terms were. They haven't told us what was actually going to be in it. They're going to make a proper proclamation based on that. That's going to place them under enormously more pressure. There is no way they will have another by- election. - No one wants the by-election, Labour or National. - No, no. I'm sure... - We do. We would like one. - Does Sam Uffindell have a future in politics, then? If he's gonna hang around. - No, he doesn't have a future in politics. - No. No, he doesn't. - And neither, unfortunately, does Dr Sharma. - No. - These two MPs, whatever happens, are basically gone. - Mm. - Let's talk about some one else pitching for their future, We just heard from the former co-leader of the Greens, James Shaw, still the only candidate standing, but still has to win it back. Is it is it even possible to be a Climate Change Minister in a Labour government and a popular Green co-leader at the same time? - No, but that doesn't mean - No, but that doesn't mean to say that he's not doing a damned-fine job. He in actually doing a really fine job. If you look at their ratings from 2017 when Metiria Turei, the Metiria Turei thing blew up. He has managed ` single-handedly, I think ` to keep those poll ratings up. So this is a dichotomy, isn't it? You've got a voting public that likes him and what he stands for. And you have the activists within his party who are saying, 'You're not moving fast enough, 'and we don't like you.' - And this is a problem with small parties, right? They're idealistic, they don't like compromise. But actually, what James Shaw But actually, what James Shaw was just saying there is absolutely right. That compromise isn't a flaw in the That compromise isn't a flaw in the system, in democracy, it's actually inherently important to it. It's not` The opposite of compromise isn't revolution; it's defeat. So if you're not in government, and he also made the point that in 2020 they had about 8% of the population voted for them. That's not a mandate for a green revolution. So what he's done is actually quite remarkable on only 8%, and` yeah. - But climate change won't wait, will it, Lara? - Yeah, and that's the hard thing ` and, I think, the hard thing for him and people within the Greens, where we all start talking about party politics ` 'This person did this, this person did that, 'this is the Greens' constitution.' Meanwhile, the planet's` We know there's all of these adverse weather events going on. Meanwhile, all of that is happening, and I guess that's the key tension and frustration in politics ` is it politics as a game, or is it politics as actually impacting all of our lives and all of our futures? So... - Janet, I just wanna ask you quickly about election year and stability. I mean, you've worked in the National Party... - Yep. (LAUGHS) Because I've worked in an election year when there wasn't stability? Is that what you're inferring? - Not at all. I wouldn't dare. How big an issue is this going to be next year? With` National's saying you vote for the Greens, or you vote for Labour, you get the Greens, and you don't know who you're gonna get. - I'm not sure they would do that this time round, because clearly it didn't work for them last time round. I'm pretty sure that that will be exactly not what they say, that they will be trying very hard. I know for a fact that they are trying to get diversity out there. The Uffindell saga ` and it is a saga ` shows you that it's not clearly getting through at all levels. And that's the problem they've got. And I take Josie's point ` it's the cultural issue and the governance structure, and top down, where the board has all the power and control and the grassroots` ` Really enjoying this, Janet, as always, but we're going to have to jump in there and wrap it up for today. Dr Lara Greaves, Janet Wilson and Josie Pagani, thank you so much for your time today. Dr Lara Greaves, Janet Wilson Stay with us. We're back after the break. Politicians and dignitaries from all over Aotearoa have descended on Turangawaewae Marae this morning. It's the stronghold of the Maori King, Kingi Tuheitia, who has been on the throne now for 16 years. It's also the base of the Kingitanga Movement, which was first established 160 years ago. Among today's guests is the Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, Peeni Henare, who I spoke to just before they entered the Marae this morning. Peeni Henare, who I began by asking him why they travelled there this weekend. Peeni Henare, who - Tena koe te tuahine. Uh, yes, we're here at Ngaruawahia. My lifelong interest here is, My lifelong interest here is, of course, through my whakapapa and my family, but what's more important today, the King and the Kingitanga, and, of course, Waikato Tainui welcome members of parliament, political leaders and other leaders in the community onto the Marae to debate and to discuss the important issues in front of Maoridom today. - Yeah, the king has previously said he wouldn't vote Labour, Peeni, so what has Labour done to improve that relationship with Kingi Tuheitia? - Look, we've worked really hard to make sure that we can deliver for Maori, and that's essentially what the king has made clear to us. The establishment of a Maori Health Authority, the Maori Wards, all those kinds of matters are important kaupapa the King keeps a close eye on. And we meet with him regularly outside of the Koroneihana time, which I think is important to the relationship. Look, regardless of which way our whanau vote, the most important thing is to have a platform to speak and also a platform to listen. - What is the place of the Kingitanga in this modern political landscape? - What is the place of the Kingitanga in this Why is it still important? - Look, its relevance today is just as important as it was when it started, and the thing about King Tiheitia in his time, of course, he's had to manage some very difficult times, across COVID, amongst other things. And I think its relevance today is, one, a place of gathering for all people across the country, And I think its relevance today is, two, a platform to amplify the matters that are important to us, and, of course, three, he wahi whakwhnaungatanga, a place for us to come together to both mourn those who have passed, but also look towards the future. - Peeni, Sir Toby Curtis, a man notably missing from the kaupapa this year, who's always gone to the Kingitanga, to the Koroneihana. I understand, Labour, you yourself attended his tangi in Rotoiti yesterday. Tell us, what is Sir Toby Curtis's legacy? - His legacy is one of Maori education advancement, one of huge reach into the issues that are important to our community, but also humility. One of the outstanding traits of Sir Toby I recognised in my time as a member of Parliament was his ability to bring an issue in front of members of Parliament and ministers, and at the end of the meeting there was a good resolution and of course everyone's manner was intact. and at the end of the meeting there And so he will be sorely missed, not just here at the coronation, but amongst his community and the communities across Aotearoa. - Tena koe, Peeni. Hey, let's move on to Ukraine. You've met the new ambassador for Ukraine. Will you give more lethal aid? which I've been on quite a large number of donor meetings, in fact, about five or six where we've managed to discuss what they need most. And as we do that, we look towards what we can supply and how we can be most effective in this. Which is why to date, we've given not just putea, but of course, our most recent announcement, with 120 people and personnel going up to train in the UK. Now I just wanted to stress our greatest asset in the NZDF is our people, and so why wouldn't we utilise that great asset? And I know it's welcomed by both Ukraine and our partners. - In terms of our equipment, though, pioneers, is that up to standard? - Look, our equipment, of course, we know that we're going through a regeneration period - Look, our equipment, of course, we as we look towards the post-COVID world. And we've got a challenge to make sure that we've got the capabilities that match our aspiration and our strategic goals. Those don't come cheap. So we've got to make sure we have the right processes to make the right decisions so that our Defence Force so that our Defence Force is resilient but also responsive into the future. And those are the decisions that the Defence Policy Review we announced are going to be making in the coming months. - President Zelensky sees there are high level New Zealand soldiers training Ukrainian troops. Are our SAS soldiers there, Peeni? - Look, it's usual government policy, we don't talk about the SAS. But I can tell you in this particular uiuinga that the SAS are not in Ukraine But I can tell you in this and they're not there training our people. If any request for our special services comes in, of course, Cabinet is going to have to consider those requests as they come, but I can confirm for you now they are not there. - Appreciate your time this morning, Peeni Henare, tena rawa atu koe. - Tena koutou. - And that's almost all from us for now. But before we go, we do have some news. - And that's almost all from us for This is Oriini's last show with us as a regular co-host of Newshub Nation, and this coming in right now is our way of saying thanks to you. She's heading back to present Newshub Live at 4.30 and get out in the field more reporting, but you'll still see her here as a guest interviewer and reporter, and we're all very glad about that, and you will always be part of the Newshub Nation whanau, Oriini. - Tena koe, Conor. Thank you very much. And it's been an honour and a privilege to be a part of this. I do miss Si, but I'm glad you're here. It's been a very eventful morning for us on the show today. You've done a stellar job, Connor. So, you know, a mihiana kia koutou i ti kainga, to those of you, our audience, our loyal audience, thank you very much for your support over these last few months. - And we've already booked her for Te Wiki o Te Reo Maori, so you will see her back again here very soon. - You will! Nga mihi nui kia katou katoa, and Newshub Nation will be back again next weekend. Noho ora mai. Captions by John Gibbs, Helen Crown and Maeve Kelly Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2022 This show was brought to you by the New Zealand Air Public Interest Journalism Fund.