A Candid Conversation with Simon O'Connor

[00:00:00] Speaker A: And this young woman. Oh yeah, that's right. Simon got my best friend the life saving medical treatment she needed in Australia during COVID I remember when Rachel told me this, I said, ah, we're staying there. [00:00:12] Speaker B: It is the ultimate uni party. Probably almost the two blandest parts of [00:00:16] Speaker A: both parties put together in some way. Actually it's a very good way to put it is the bland is to both sides. It's all over the place. National is spending more money than labour. We're going into more debt than labour. We've got more public servants than labour hit. So they're desperately trying to find money. Well, they said it wasn't a big deal. And then the next minute out are going press releases and then stuff on X and Facebook and it's like, guys, what are you, what are you doing? [00:00:42] Speaker B: I gotta ask you this. Do you regret not going out to meet the protesters? [00:00:53] Speaker A: What am I talking about? [00:00:54] Speaker B: Yeah, well the start of every good interview or conversation is so what are we talking about? [00:01:00] Speaker A: What are we talking about? Who are you and why am I here? [00:01:02] Speaker B: I've been asking everyone lately, did you ever have a phase where you went through a conspiracy theory phase? Did you ever hear that? [00:01:10] Speaker A: Don't think so. God, that's a really good question. [00:01:12] Speaker B: Come on now, I could. Conspiracy theory, tell the truth theory, jfk. [00:01:16] Speaker A: No. You know it's funny, I've never been much into conspiracy theories. I think the JFK story is exactly what it is. Man landed on the moon. I don't believe in UFOs even though Trump is of course releasing more and more files. [00:01:29] Speaker B: But I love the reaction to that too. Everyone in the comments is like, okay, great, but what about the Predator files? Want to see the Epstein files? [00:01:35] Speaker A: I know, I find it on social media at the moment quite amusing and distressing at another level of just how about everything comes back to Epstein and it's like this post has absolutely nothing to do with that topic. Obviously I have no idea of the man other than what's reported. Never met them, I'm not American. Why is this comment being made? [00:01:57] Speaker B: He's become like the Epstein and I think sadly the anti Jewish stuff now the two sort of almost conspiracy du jour things like people are mainlining conspiracies now like crack cocaine all over the place. [00:02:10] Speaker A: Well that's the other thing that bemuses me is when. Well again, whatever the topic is, I'm posted on socials. Next moment there is the conspiracy theories. I think I posted a picture of photo that Artemis 2, the latest spaceship that went around the moon, they had a beautiful shot of the Earth and I shared it. Well, my comments was just filled with people that it's all fake. [00:02:31] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:02:31] Speaker A: And it's like, I'm sorry, I mean, I don't believe it's fake, but these, they not only are saying it, but they deeply believe it. [00:02:39] Speaker B: Yeah. It's really like. It is quite amazing, isn't it? And you just. I know I followed it and with interest. My son loves watching the Artemis stuff, but I never really posted on it, but I saw others, you as included and I thought, I know what going to happen here. I just know what's going to happen. [00:02:54] Speaker A: Occasionally I'll prod the bear. Not with, you know, an Artemis 2 photo, but certainly for my socials and possibly a bit like yourself, we're often talking pretty heavy issues. We lean into the political, cultural, ethical, moral issues. And so I'm always trying to inject something that's a bit lighter, a lovely sunset, picture that I'm paper or something. But even then it's when the real nasties and trolls come out. I did a post the other day, I was down in Nelson giving a talk and family has a farm and on the farm's a beautiful old. Like a stagnant pond, but a pond and a chair. And I did what I thought was quite an artful post, but people barrelling in, oh, we'll sit there and contemplate your political future and all. It was just nasty and stupid. [00:03:36] Speaker B: It's just insane. [00:03:37] Speaker A: It is, but it's. I mean, it's wore off a duck's back, but it's like, well, you've taken the time to come onto my page, but you don't even know that I'm not in Parliament anymore. [00:03:45] Speaker B: Do you feel that maybe people think they have a right because you were in Parliament, like. Cause you. It's one thing to be a public figure, in a sense. I think I've got a basic public profile. You had what is probably in New Zealand after perhaps one of our very few Hollywood celebrity types who make it big in Hollywood, politician is probably the next biggest public profile. Do you think that people feel they have a right then to make two comments? [00:04:08] Speaker A: I mean, certainly some politicians have a very high profile. I mean, I would say. [00:04:13] Speaker B: I'd say that's fair. [00:04:13] Speaker A: Yeah. I don't think I had a particularly high one towards the end. Towards the end. We did. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And in a strange way, actually, you know, if we want to get onto. That was actually a welcome platform at the end of the Day. I still remember as I was being pushed out, in effect, in front of the media. [00:04:29] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:04:30] Speaker A: Actually, that's not quite accurate. You know, there was requests after request to come and talk around the pro life post. It's like, fine. And in many ways I should have been held back from talking to the media for a few days and it was like, great, I'm just going to stand there and take it. And I think I stood for about 20 minutes and they're asking me, why did you post this thing about Roe v. Wade and abortion? It's like, well, I'm pro life. [00:04:52] Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah, why wouldn't I? [00:04:53] Speaker A: Why wouldn't I? Eventually they ran out of energy and they just effectively walked away. But it was just nuts and insane. [00:05:00] Speaker B: So steering them down, the tactic, do you think? I mean, but to be fair, you probably had a bit more gravitas and you'd had a bit more experience under your belt and you were mp, might have just blinked and gone, ok, ok, ok, I'll delete it and I'll apologise. [00:05:11] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, I ultimately deleted that post because it was being hijacked by trolls, particularly the pro death side, though some on the pro life side weren't doing themselves or to cause much credit. But it was getting quite toxic and that was the reason I eventually took it down. I got no problem with the post itself, to be honest with you, Brendan. Doesn't matter what political leadership tells me what to do. I won't name names. But, you know, one of the senior. One of my senior colleagues many years back, you know, was telling me not to go out to the march for life in Wellington. They may have been told politely but firmly to get stuffed. So, no, that was the reason I brought the post down. It was getting hijacked and I've only done that a couple of times on social media. I'm pretty much a free speech guy. But when a social media post has been hijacked, it's getting really nasty and mostly between commentators. Again, people can throw as much rubbish at me, it doesn't matter, but that's why it came down. But the whole way it was handled was very poorly managed, in this case by the National Party. Yeah, it really was a non story, which unfortunately Luxon and his advisors turned into a massive conflagration. [00:06:24] Speaker B: Yeah, it's funny, isn't it, how there was also a moment there, I think too, where people were just so panicked about saying the wrong thing and perception had become 9/10 of the law to such a degree that I Think it's definitely lessened now and probably Trump's had a hand in that. Right. So brash. It's like, oh, well, Simon's post seems, you know, quite mild. Quite mild, actually. You know, very nice in comparison. [00:06:47] Speaker A: You know, I think at the time, at the time, for me, the motivation was there was so much opprobrium on the pro life side and all the commentary was just about how terrible this judgment was. In fact, most commentators certainly here in New Zealand really didn't know what they were talking about. They didn't understand what the case actually did, which was effectively restoring the question of abortion to particular states rather than a federal level. But there was no recognition of the unborn. There was nothing, not even a crumb being thrown to the pro life side. I went, oh, stuff this. [00:07:20] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:07:21] Speaker A: But in doing so, and you know what, even knowing what happened and what I went through, I'd do it again. But there was so much, as I say, anger from the pro death side here and the pro abortion side that a politician, in this case me, putting my head above the parapet saying, this is a good thing, became the scapegoat. All that frustration and anger was channeled. But again, the National Party handled it exceptionally badly because really all that needed to be done was saying, yeah, that's his opinion. [00:07:53] Speaker B: Yeah. And they made it into something more. Right, by turning it into a, you know. [00:07:57] Speaker A: Well, they said it wasn't a big deal. And then next minute out are going press releases and then stuff on X and Facebook and it's like, guys, what are you doing? What are you doing? Again, I'm not saying that from a personally worried side, but in terms of message management strategy, wasn't it absolutely appalling? And it's spiraled from there. I mean, particularly in the pro life space. Now we have a supposedly Christian prime minister who said that he'll resign if anything is ever done around the abortion issue. And it's like, well, again, even take the abortion element out of the question. You know, politics 101, you never, you never say what your bottom lines are and you never say you're going to resign over anything. [00:08:35] Speaker B: You always give yourself wiggle room, always. [00:08:37] Speaker A: But, you know, Winston, I must say, for all his mercenary qualities, is pretty good at that. He's always got just that little bit of wiggle room. [00:08:45] Speaker B: Yeah, it shows too, I think, the power of that, I'm going to call it a lobby, that it's probably more of a bureaucracy, that pro abortion bureaucracy and the machine within, you know, the fact that they were so Laxone was so afraid of it, he just couldn't even speak without putting himself under the bus. The fact that they felt they had to throw you under the bus, you know, and probably insane at times where that group didn't have that level of control or that ideology didn't have that much sway. [00:09:14] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, the bureaucracy has enormous control these days, and you've seen it even in some of the current political discussions. Not even in the ethical space. You know, the government of the day has spoken its intent. Ministers have given their intent. I mean, something as unsexy as the reform of the rma. The government's been clear what it wants to do, but what the bureaucrats have come back with is almost the polar opposite. And that's happening in a number of areas. So whoever's in government, you know, needs to take control, remind their bureaucracy they're not in charge. But the second side too is, you know, particularly in national, that the Conservative side has been slowly pushed out of Parliament. You know, Alfred Narrow is another example. I could list others too. So that sort of Conservative voice, that tension that's traditionally been a national between the Conservatives and Liberals is breaking, I would argue. And so they're not leaning into these issues. They're running scared. In the days of someone like Bill English, they used to always try to trip him up on moral issues. Cause he's Catholic. [00:10:17] Speaker B: That's right. He suddenly became the Catholic Prime Minister when euthanasia, abortion was being discussed. [00:10:21] Speaker A: But, you know, I've always admired the way Bill handled it. It was just like, yeah, so what? Which is the way you handle these. [00:10:29] Speaker B: Take the boy out of Dipton. [00:10:30] Speaker A: Yeah, that was just the perfect way. But when politicians say they're one thing but act on another, that's what I think causes a high level of distrust. It's just not authentic. And as I was saying earlier when I fronted the media again, all the press team around me, all that buzz, it's just like a. They're just media. And two, in my case, I know exactly what I'm going to say. I'm pro life. This is what a pro life person would say. What's the mystery? What's the history? [00:11:00] Speaker B: Yeah, it is interesting, isn't it? I've heard you speak about this, but the managerial class, it's a problem everywhere. And also now what we're seeing, I think, is the adventeer of what some call overseas, the uniparty. You know, the Democrats and the Republicans start to look very similar. Trump has obviously a very dividing line, but in the uk, that's clearly an issue. Australia, it's becoming an issue. And now here, I think in New Zealand, it's finally starting to become more pronounced. [00:11:25] Speaker A: Yeah, I think you're seeing. I don't think it's necessarily the end of the major parties, but, yeah, they're sort of seen as the same in many ways. You know, here in New Zealand, labor and national talk a different game on a lot of issues, which is why I don't think there'll be any sort of grand coalition. That's just a nice novelty for media to talk about. But in reality, not much is changing. So, you know, look at the economic metrics of New Zealand at the moment, or what's happening around a treaty of Waitangi or climate change, or the debacles at the moment around local councils. The National Party has been saying one thing, but its movement is in the same trajectory as Labor's. And whether that is partly, Brendan, a lack of political will, but at the same time it's that managerial class. I think the best analogy, if I might, is actually Andrew Little, who's just become the mayor of Wellington. He's in a small office looking into a wall, whereas the chief executive is almost, I think, in the penthouse suite with views out across the harbour. And for me, that is highly symbolic [00:12:30] Speaker B: of really who's in the power behind the throne. Yeah, yeah. [00:12:33] Speaker A: And it's the same in Auckland Council. I can't speak to Christchurch and other places, but your elected officials, be they councillors, the mayor or MPs, they don't really run things anymore. And it's the chief executives, it's their bureaucracies. But if you want to explore it too. Partly it's because of how we now draft laws. It just hasn't happened by accident. [00:12:57] Speaker B: I get a feeling too that both of the major parties, neither of them has a sense of vision at the moment. Neither of them sort of knows quite what to do. They're in. It feels like they are both in crisis mode. Labor's faking it more because they don't ever have to show the receipts. Cause they're not in power. They just get to criticise. But then when you ask them to show their workings, well, what's your solution? They don't really have one. But like the health system, that's only going to get worse. The increasing costs, suddenly the student fees. The other day, they just cut it off. I mean, it was the worst way you could. Why not Grandfather people in and say, right from this date, it will end. Anyone who's in the scheme is in everyone. From there on, it's no more. It's just like panic stations. [00:13:35] Speaker A: It feels like, yeah, I think fundamentally there's again picking the major parties. But yeah, they've stepped away from a value proposition and in many ways too, you have very ambitious individuals who just want to be there for either what they perceive as status and power. And so for me, partly explains it. When these people who haven't got a set of principles or key values that they're holding to, it explains why when they do get power, they don't do anything because they don't know what to do. They don't have a blueprint. I mean, for labor at the moment, it's not bad politics to be a small target, to say very little. But that will become a problem for them in the future. For national and the Coalition, I mean, that student loans is a good example. Sorry, the. Not student loans, the fees, free. Moving it from first to third year or final year. Made sense. [00:14:25] Speaker B: Yeah, it did make sense, but the [00:14:27] Speaker A: optics of it again was that Winston effectively leaked it and the government said, oh, well, just too bad, not well managed. A bit like when they announced the pay equity situation last budget where they just said, oh, we're not basically doing pay equity anymore. I would argue very badly handled. Although in both cases, the government needs money. You know, not to sound too partisan here, and I'm talking about my own former team, but national is spending more money than Labour. We're going into more debt than Labour, We've got more public servants than labor hit. So they're desperately trying to find money and hopefully without boring your viewers. The problem is they keep talking about savings, but they're not any savings because any money they have saved gets immediately spent on something else. [00:15:16] Speaker B: Yeah, that's right. [00:15:16] Speaker A: So it's just like, ah, we're in a bit of an economic pickle. [00:15:20] Speaker B: It's interesting because you talk there about principles and lack of principles. You know, you are someone who came into politics with, obviously from a very principled position. You were a seminarian with the Marist. [00:15:33] Speaker A: I look good in black fathers. [00:15:34] Speaker B: I was going to say, I'm back in black, maybe. And then you go into politics. And it's also. What's interesting to me is how that trajectory sort of unfolded for you. But also National. Cause it seems probably I'm not. I'm a bit more. I'm a man of the world, a cosmopolitan man who's met a few people and understand how that happens. But I imagine a lot of people would think, well, if he was a Catholic seminarian, Marist Father, he'd probably go for Labour, wouldn't he? You know, like, how did that trajectory unfold and what was it about national for you? [00:16:03] Speaker A: Yeah, look, I've always been political and even when I was in my teenage years, for various things, I'd be writing letters to the editor and again, I'm opinionated. If my parents. I could not tell that song, people go, what? Yeah, so always been highly opinionated, which, you know, has its good and bad sides. So it was always political, still quite political in the seminary and that. I was interested in politics and, you know, was writing the odd opinion piece and so forth and I forgot what it was called, but sort of a early version of what we'd think now of Substack and other blogs where you could. [00:16:44] Speaker B: Oh, WordPress or something. [00:16:45] Speaker A: Yeah, it was even earlier, but it didn't last very long. But long and short. One of the catalysts for leaving the seminary was I was becoming quite political and I've always said you shouldn't be priest and oh yeah, politicians always not [00:16:58] Speaker B: a good mix, they shouldn't be together. [00:17:00] Speaker A: I always remember, I don't know which South American country it was, but John Paul II is getting off the plane and one of the government ministers was also a Catholic priest, John Paul too. You see him remonstrating with him. But yeah, I was becoming political in the sense for me that I could possibly achieve more by getting into politics. I looked at it that, you know, priestly life is amazing. [00:17:23] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:17:24] Speaker A: I don't regret a day of the training at all and all the experiences. But I sort of thought of it as, that's me helping individuals and families. If I can have some effect on policy, then we might be able to do wider. So that's one of the key reasons I left. A lot of people have put to me, though, why national? I suppose it's more centre right and that sense of personal responsibility. And I'd also then situate in the notion of human dignity. Whereas I found for me, generally speaking, the left might look more caring, but I think it actually panders to people's problems and often holds them down. So to use an analogy, because I used to be a prison chaplain, a more centre right approach is you go and you don't make excuses for the prisoners, you don't tell them it's just all going to be okay. You speak the truth to them, you say you're stuffed up and yep, there's a price to pay. But you also say, I'll walk alongside you and assist. So you're honest, but you're preserving their dignity by being honest and frank with them. But if you will, then walking alongside. Whereas I think sometimes on the left, and these are generalities, we make excuses for people, oh, we have to help you. And you don't allow people to actually flourish in themselves. And at its most perverse. And both political sides, both spectrums come with perversities. You know, on the right, too much focus on personal responsibility means we leave people alone. [00:18:53] Speaker B: Yeah, that's right. [00:18:54] Speaker A: But on the left, and indifference. [00:18:55] Speaker B: Right and. [00:18:56] Speaker A: Absolutely. Well, that's the heart of something like libertarianism. And you and I were talking before the turn the cameras on about utilitarianism. But on the left, they keep people as victims. They ultimately hold people down, almost wanting them to always remain in a victim state so that they on the left could feel we're doing something to help you because it becomes part of their identity. [00:19:16] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's interesting, isn't it? I suppose too, the time you came into the national party, it was a very different party and there genuinely was. It was a big tent movement still. You know, you could exist as a Catholic with a Catholic sensibility, as Bill English and others proved, and it was not anathema. [00:19:35] Speaker A: Yeah. I think that tent has sadly got smaller. There's still some good people in National. It's still a good party, but the tent has narrowed. Its tolerance for what would be traditional conservative views or Christian views has narrowed. As I say myself, Alfred Nara, amongst others, were effectively pushed out in different ways. Alfred's in some ways a bit more brutal, with a very low list ranking. In my case, national provided absolutely no help whatsoever and a few bits of mischief as well. [00:20:11] Speaker B: I mean, I'm not going to ask you to back this up, but as an outsider looking in and as someone who is happy to say, yeah, he's a friend, is that I had a sense of betrayal about the way that was conducted. I mean, when particularly Paula turned out in that famous incident in the photograph and everything else with Brooke, I was like, yeah, even if you're. It doesn't matter what you think about Simon, this feels like a complete basic lack of loyalty to the people you're supposed to be loyal to. [00:20:37] Speaker A: Yeah, well, that sort of fits Paula's mo I'm sad to say that's not just sort of the only instance of her. Her behaviors. But it's the strange irony, and I have to talk a little bit into this in that it hasn't actually bothered me losing it's actually worked out really well, but it did do and has done enormous damage to National. [00:21:00] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:21:01] Speaker A: Because. Yeah, when you have a senior figure like that doing the dirty on her own party, as I said, it doesn't matter if it was me or anyone else. You're doing your own dirty on the party. That is damaging and has remained damaging. Now, that's National's problem. But I remember they called me. Rachel and I were in the United States at the time. I had zipped across for a week to the us. I remember the party doyens calling up and there'd been some polling done to say, oh, look, actually it's real neck and neck between you and your arrival in the electorate seat. It was no surprise to me, but I remember saying to them, I, well, what are you going to do to help? I mean, me and my team will work even harder. [00:21:43] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:21:43] Speaker A: Oh, oh. We just wanted to let you know. And it's like, so you'd expect. [00:21:50] Speaker B: So that moment, you know, the jig is up from there's party hq. [00:21:54] Speaker A: Party hq and even trying to get the party leader into the electorate. Look, the things you do were not done, which is, you know, you would allow a candidate or an MP to put up more signs of their name and face on it, not just the party's material, because that tends to what is required. MPs will put up their big hoardings, but primarily it says vote labor or vote National. So they might do that. They might give you a little bit of extra funding, they might redirect some of the regional energy. They would send more senior people in to try and back things up, which was not done. So that all just undermines the work. But the result ultimately for me, Brendan, was not a surprise. It was to a lot of my supporters. But I knew weeks prior things were in trouble. The one was when I think it was Radio New Zealand called me up one night and said, oh, we've been out all day with your rival and these are the things we heard. And I said, oh, okay. And it was all negative. And that was the first part of it. It was like, interesting sits in. Fascinating. You say that because some of my friends you talked to today and they wouldn't have said negative things. I said, but look, I'm more than happy to come out with you tomorrow or the next day, whenever. No, I said, well, you've just spent a whole day with my rival. You weren't with me. No, no, just. Just email us some responses. And that was the end of that. So you go, okay, the Media continues to be quite biased and what they were doing too was amplifying the voice of my opponent. But the second side was actually my wife. Rachel was door knocking and a young woman answered and she was basically echoing the line which in this case act was pushing. Oh, he's absolutely does nothing. [00:23:37] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:23:38] Speaker A: And that's when he said oh, who is Simon? What does he do? He does nothing for us. And Rachel said oh well you know, he helps people with this and this and one of the things she mentioned like with health, accessing healthcare and this young woman. Oh yeah, that's right. Simon got my best friend the life saving medical treatment she needed in Australia during COVID And I remember when Rachel told me this, I said oh we're stuffed. [00:24:01] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:24:01] Speaker A: If someone in this case remember the situation, you've saved your best friend's life but you forget. [00:24:08] Speaker B: Yeah. Emotions taken over. [00:24:10] Speaker A: It's like pure propaganda where we're done. So I remember it was like 8:15 on election night. The numbers are coming through. Yeah but it was like a liberating so switch for both of us when it was like we've lost, you're free, Freedom, you're free. [00:24:21] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. That's interesting. So there's a certain, probably a certain frustration cause I mean no one likes to go into a race and not come first. But also there's, I imagine after a number of years of the trials and tribulations of political life it might have been quite a welcome thing. [00:24:38] Speaker A: I thought I had another three years in me. Gretchen. I'd always thought like at the end of 15 years that would be it. So had I won in 2023 I would have been in this term, would have said it was my final term and so on but I actually think there's a bit of a grace that I lost rather than tried to, to bow out because I think had I been bowing out I would have been trying to sort of dial things back and slow down as is normal and quite human. But I don't know if that would have been the best thing obviously for constituents and others so. But no, no regrets or, or worries and I'm not really someone who I can observe what happens. Obviously we've talked about how the media are amplifying the messages against myself and promoting the opponent national. Not particularly helpful but I'm not particularly resentful in any way because I never worry about the things I can't control. Those things are beyond my control at the time. [00:25:34] Speaker B: And yeah, yeah that's, that's the Maorist seminarian coming out, you know, you know, give it all over to God and just, you know, don't sweat the small stuff. That's. [00:25:43] Speaker A: That's. That's precisely it. I never. I never do. In fact, I'm meaning to write about that because I've recently turned 50 and people have been going, well, you know what, you know, that classic. What are the life lessons? And you know, about turning 15, 50. That's right. But that's one of the things for me. Live with no regrets. You can always reflect and you learn from mistakes. But the idea of regret, particularly around things that you've got no control of, has never made any sense to me. Becomes this weight of baggage that people seem to cart around. [00:26:12] Speaker B: And it's fascinating to me now, too, watching the aftermath in that electorate. So Brooke was there, she's gone, just leaving. And look, to me, it suggests maybe that she's wise enough to realise, gosh, this ain't much of a life to be in at all for her. And then it looks like now, I mean, I don't know the guy who has taken over as the potential replacement, but I look at it and I think it seems like an opportunist who saw an opportunity, left one party, jumped into another to get that opportunity. I don't know if the electorate's gonna benefit out the other side of all of this. [00:26:41] Speaker A: Yeah, I'm not sure either. I don't actually spend a lot of time pondering it, to be honest. I mean, I'm happy to give some thoughts and again, that's partly my personality. I'm usually full in for something and then I'm full out. I mean, obviously, you know, like yourself, I'm involved in podcasts and commentary, but I. I'm not part of the national party anymore. I don't follow. [00:27:02] Speaker B: You're not Barack Obama or Helen Clark [00:27:03] Speaker A: hanging around, directing traffic. I'll step in on issues, but in terms of what's happening locally and the politics of the local, it's not. It's not my gig anymore. It's funny, after the election in 2023, there were some people who said to me, she won't last. And it's turned out to be. Yeah, to be true. To be honest, I think, particularly electorate work, if you haven't been an electorate mp. [00:27:32] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:27:32] Speaker A: You generally have no idea of just how intense it is, both in terms of just unquenchable demands. Yeah. And I used to joke too, to my team, like, people don't knock on the door of the constituency office to tell you they're Having a great day. It's always problems. So it's health problems or housing, New Zealand problems or welfare problems, ACC problems, immigration problems. Literally dogs, trees, neighbors, Endless. [00:28:01] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:28:01] Speaker A: So it's, it's exhausting and often thankless. And to be fair, if you're then in government and you're a minister, all of that, it just huge intensity. So you know, at one level of whatever her motivations are, you're better off getting out. If you're not, it's not working for you. The guy has taken over. I know him, as I said very much was being prepared for National. I think he actually was the first. [00:28:31] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:28:32] Speaker A: Last election looked very smart, very intelligent. But at the same time, yeah, I think there is an opportunity saying actually there's a way forward to get into Parliament by switching sides. But I've seen that across the political divide, look, I won't name names but there are people who are national who you go, you'd be much better in Labour. But they know that they're going to get an opportunity. And the same with Labour. There are people on the labor benches that I look at and looked at and still look at and go, you're a centre right person but because of who they are or their connections, they get in with, with Labor. So. And that applies to other parties too. I mean National's got a good candidate as well. He's working really hard in Tamaki at the moment. But you know, this is a good example, Brendan, of a short week in politics because very few people actually put their hand up to be selected as the National Party candidate in Tamaki because they thought it was not winnable against act. [00:29:34] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:29:35] Speaker A: Which was probably not an unreasonable assessment with the promotion that Van Velden gets through media and so forth. So very few put their hand up. Mahesh, who's one again, good bloke, working hard, wins the selection but probably not expected to win the electorate. Then Van Velden pulls out. Yeah, selection's done. So no one else can put their hand up for Nash. He is the candidate. And then the unforeseen. Is it James Christmas, I think his name is, has come in from act. So it's going to be interesting and ultimately it will come down to who works the hardest, I think. [00:30:13] Speaker B: Yeah, interesting because two unknowns potentially one with a bit more profile probably in his back pocket. [00:30:18] Speaker A: But I'm already seeing what I think is a bit of media mischief. I mean, is that a tautology? Let us ponder that for a moment. I think it's a bit of media mischief in that as I do pick up the papers digitally, I might. I'm not that old and concerted and I'm reading the old newspaper, but I pick up the iPad and read the news. I see a lot of commentary on the ACT candidate. [00:30:40] Speaker B: Yes. [00:30:41] Speaker A: And almost nothing about the national candidate. And it's reminiscent of what I experience. And other MPs will experience this too. But the media are actively promoting. [00:30:52] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:30:52] Speaker A: The. [00:30:53] Speaker B: It's the top party syndrome. [00:30:55] Speaker A: Yes. [00:30:55] Speaker B: How the heck is top party even a media story? Have never entered Parliament. I'm not polling close enough. But there's clearly people. Someone in the media wants them in Parliament. [00:31:05] Speaker A: It's funny, I was looking at that this morning because I think it's the spin off. I'll have to wash my mouth out now, but I was looking at the spin off this morning. I've got a big story on top. And look, it's no surprise where I sit on politics, I think tops are confused. Nothing there. [00:31:19] Speaker B: It is the ultimate uniparty. Probably almost the two blandest parts of [00:31:23] Speaker A: both parties put together in some way. Actually, it's a very good way to put it is that bland is to both sides. It's all over the place, everything from universal basic income to implementing the treaty. And the leader, who is a woman, doesn't even know what a woman is. So, I mean, we could go on. But I think it's a really good example of the media making something out of nothing. They are quite prepared to, as we've seen for weeks now, what are effectively promotional puff pieces of top. Which you won't get of other smaller parties. [00:31:54] Speaker B: No, no. You were in Parliament for the Ardern years. And I sometimes people call me up on this, but I use the word regime all over the place. I just. A regime is a regime and people think negatively that word. You know, the Trump regime, the Obama regime, the Ardern regime. And people think, oh, you know, you're being describing it as a tyranny. No, it's not a negative framing of it. But during the Ardern regime, the Ardern years, for those who are uncomfortable, what was that like? You had a front row seat almost. You know, you're up close and personal in that space. What was that like? [00:32:25] Speaker A: It was. It was tough. It was tough. And I don't say it was dramatic. Oh, it was so tough. It was difficult years as a parliamentarian, as a constituent MP and just as a. As a human, I suppose as a parliamentarian, our fundamental, what we call privileges as a parliamentarian went out the window. The ability to even Go to Parliament was curtailed. The ability to move around the country was curtailed. And these are ancient rights which MPs have to not only be able to speak, but to move about. And so that was difficult. A lot of the parliamentary procedures changed, so the ability to hold the government to account broke down, I would argue, and deliberately so, and almost in league with the media, because they basically were singing the tune or the same hymn as government and indulging what Ardern and her friends were doing around Covid. Fundamental freedoms went out the window. It's something, you know, I've spoken about a lot, you know, our freedoms, the right. And I'm talking now not just about MPs, but as Kiwis, you know, your right to the freedom of speech, freedom of belief, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of, you know, privacy around your health needs, all of that went out the window. And human rights exist for the bad times. [00:33:55] Speaker B: Yeah, that's right. Human rights exists when you need them most. [00:33:57] Speaker A: Yeah, exactly. They don't. You don't need, if you will, human rights when times are good. Yeah, they should be there. But unfortunately for New Zealand, and I suppose philosophically, I found it very difficult, the most fundamental human rights went out the window. And I know, like Simon Bridges, when he was trying to actually hold the government to account and speak absolutely pilloried by the media, the idea that the leader of the Opposition would travel to Wellington to hold the government account during one of the greatest crises we've fought was being harassed in the media of trying to put us all at danger. I mean, it was absolute nonsense then, as it is now. I know when I was doing some pushback on my own. Right again, media reacting. How dare you say these things? I mean, it was just appalling. [00:34:45] Speaker B: It's interesting because I look at now what's happening with this cruise ship and the hantavirus thing, and that's actually a very serious scenario, potentially, and it is. It could get out of hand and cause a lot of harm to people, and it has a very high fatality rate. It's a known quantity. It's very serious. But as a result of what happened, really largely in the Western world, but probably mostly globally as well, with COVID now you've got conspiratorial thinking as the first line of approach. People who don't want to even probably obey what should be basic quarantine measures, or they think it's okay not to obey them because there was such a, I think, a distrust created because of [00:35:23] Speaker A: the excesses of COVID Now, massively so, Massively so. I mean, Hunter virus. I mean, far worse than Covid, fortunately, very difficult to transmit, but clearly what's happened on that. I've forgotten the name of the boat, doesn't really matter. Shows it is transmissible human to human. [00:35:40] Speaker B: And a longer incubation period, like 45 days or something. [00:35:43] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, I feel sorry for the individuals who are going to be effectively locked up for 45 days, but yeah, I mean, look, the way Covid was managed in New Zealand, mismanaged, ultimately, I'd make a quick distinction in the early days, I think actually what Jacinda and the crew decided was appropriate as my own view, but it slowly got out of hand and then progressively got more and more out of hand because actually they liked the power, they liked the control. Fear is an amazing tool to make people compliant and it went on for far, far too long. [00:36:16] Speaker B: Well, that was what John Key, I remember him being interviewed, he said very early on, he said, it's very easy to go into these things. It's a lot harder to get. Get out of them. [00:36:23] Speaker A: Yeah, well, it's analogous to any geopolitical conflict. You know, think about the Middle east at the moment going in easy, how to get out, who knows? And there's never a shortage of examples of that. But the damage that the management of COVID did wasn't just economic. I mean, we are suffering the consequences of that now, as we knew would happen. But it is also on that relational or moral front, as in, yeah, a lot of people now are so hurt by the way things were done, forced around the vaccinations or mandated out of their jobs, they have at one level become understandably quite sceptical. Some have sadly gone right down into rabbit holes and it's very hard to draw them back. But yeah, we have a much more sceptical society now around our politicians, our media, health authorities. I mean, look, symbolically, one of the worst things that happened was that one o' clock every day you had Jacinda and Ashley Bloomfield together. The fusion between the Head of Health and the Prime Minister, that should never have happened. Either the politician is speaking in their right separately or the Head of Health, but they were in lockstep and it was all beautifully media managed. I think, amongst other things, that's caused a lot of. Yeah, a lot of damage to people's. [00:37:40] Speaker B: It was a technocracy in almost its purest form, really, wasn't it? [00:37:43] Speaker A: Yeah. And, you know, drew people in. It was the best time of the day for Rachel and I though we'd go out for a walk at 1 o' clock because there was no one else on the streets, didn't have to pick up the next array of cases. [00:37:55] Speaker B: I gotta ask you this. Do you regret not going out to meet the protesters? You know. Cause it seems some people that still comes back. I see people having a go at you regularly over that. And I don't know if people quite appreciate perhaps the intensity of what was going on inside Parliament in at that point. But do you regret that moment? [00:38:14] Speaker A: I don't know. No, I don't. You know, with hindsight, would I go out? Yes, partly knowing the trajectory of where my political life went. And I can delegate. [00:38:27] Speaker B: Hindsight's 20 20, though. [00:38:28] Speaker A: Hindsight's 20 20. And you know, objectively, I think actually people should have gone out. MPs should have gone out. It was a failure. But a bit like we were discussing earlier, I don't regret it because at the time I made the decision with the best information I had. And yeah, I think it's easy. And I understand why people get upset. I think fundamentally, no matter the concern or concerns, you know, the Parliament is a place where people can come to or meant to be able to come to and to be heard. And I think actually a lot of the tension probably at that time, maybe not overall, but a lot of the tension could have been eased had some MPs gone out and listened. And obviously they didn't. Which I think has really just fueled. It's just added more fuel and resentment to the fire. But I think it is easy for people who, and I do see all the comments, and I've spoken about this a few times, to go, oh, well, you know, you should have, and gutless and all of this. But, yeah, I don't think they understand what was happening in the Parliament. And I usually use the analogy of someone, you know, think about whatever their job was, if they were to take a certain action, knowing that that would end their career, would they do it? [00:39:45] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:39:46] Speaker A: And particularly, as I've tried to phrase it to people, I had other things I wanted to do and say, and that was part of the reason I didn't ultimately go out. Talked about it a lot. I won't mention there was a small cluster of us who talked about it frequently to go out and probably to do it together for a little bit of protection. Not from the protesters before Parliament. [00:40:07] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:40:07] Speaker A: But no, what was happening in the Parliament at the time, all the political leaders were saying to their caucuses, don't go out. Yeah, the speaker of the House was saying, don't go out. Now, to be really clear to your viewers and listeners, that doesn't bind you as an individual mp. But the security services, the police, everyone was saying, don't. Don't go out. The media, of course, you know, almost wanting someone to go out so they could then martyr them. So as an individual mp, you're sitting there going, well, I suppose it really is as simplistic as if I do this. And this was my calculation, if I do this, I would like to do it. I'd have no problem with even standing on the steps of Parliament. I had sort of rehearsed in my head of saying, look, I don't agree with everything you guys are saying, but I'm prepared to listen. Yeah, that a. It wouldn't have been enough because I wouldn't have been senior enough. So it would have been thanked briefly. And then who was that guy? And where's someone more senior? But I would have been drummed out of Parliament within days. That's my assessment. [00:41:09] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:41:10] Speaker A: And as I say, the reason I didn't is that I thought, you know, there's. I've got my views on Covid, but I have a whole lot of other issues, from the pro life space to China and constituent issues that I still want to speak to. [00:41:22] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:41:22] Speaker A: And so that's why I didn't go out. [00:41:24] Speaker B: Yeah. It's interesting, isn't it? And there's also a sense, too, in which you do. I mean, this is a very conservative and, you know, Christian Catholic sensibility of obedience to rightful authority. And, you know, you're not the party there, in a sense, you're locked down by your own party. They're all. I mean, I think probably culpability lies with the party higher ups, that they bought into an agreement, didn't they, with Ardern, that she got everyone to sign. And. And then sort of, the MPs are [00:41:49] Speaker A: bound, in a sense, you are bound to a degree. Again, there was nothing to stop me physically or other MPs walking out. But the cost of it. Again, it's an assessment. I can't prove it because it's in the past, but my sense would have been I would have been hauled into the party leader's office, beaten, not quite figuratively, to a pulp, by my cork. So you've broken ranks, you've created dissension [00:42:15] Speaker B: in the party, you're making us look bad, probably because we didn't go out with you. [00:42:18] Speaker A: Right, exactly. All of that from the speaker, everyone else, Ashley Bloomfield, a Whole lot of them would have been decrying this dangerous move and the media will have. Would have absolutely pummeled me. And again, any other MP that went out, they would have been pummeled to such a point where you'd be forced to resign. And again, I know people go, well, you should have just done that, and well, that's fine, people are welcome to that view. Of course, they would probably not apply that to themselves. [00:42:46] Speaker B: No, no, you get to test that yourself if you're in that situation one day. [00:42:49] Speaker A: Well, we went through it early on. Early on, I think it was the Herald was going around asking every MP their vaccination status. [00:42:58] Speaker B: That's right. [00:42:59] Speaker A: And I politely told them to get stuffed because it's my own medical information. I'm not going to go around. I think I might have mischievously said to one report, I'm not going to ask you what drugs you're on for your STI status. But that was being flippant, by the way. I don't know the status of people's health in that way, but it was. But for me it was like, no, you don't. You don't get to know that whether I'm vaccinated or not. Well, they ran a story, might have even been front page. I remember Simeon Brown was in a similar position at the time. Maureen Pugh, I think it was only four or five of us in total and effectively the media did a hit job on us. And all I can remember is days of irrational phone calls, particularly from constituents. Oh, you're trying to kill me. If I wanted to kill you, I could think of more effective ways. That sounds a bit threatening, doesn't it? [00:43:49] Speaker B: That's David Seymour in his bill. [00:43:51] Speaker A: Yeah, that's right. But the beat up and the emotional [00:43:58] Speaker B: response of people, the fear was in the air, it was palpable. People forget that. [00:44:03] Speaker A: And so I suppose that coloured some of my views that something as simple as I saw it as, simple as that your vaccination status had people in an absolute uproar, including media chasing you down corridors, asking about it repeatedly. Yeah, it was a pile on. And that's exactly what would have happened if it had gone out. And that would have been the end of my political career. And as I keep saying, there are other things I wanted to do because I think people need to understand I wasn't in politics for the money, I wasn't for the status, wasn't in there because I wanted to become a party leader or anything like that. I did it because I enjoyed it and Felt it gave sort of purpose and meaning. But yeah, go out, lose job. Yeah, that's how I assess it. [00:44:45] Speaker B: Look, I think I have a suspicion that one of the first questions that the media would have hounded you with was, so do you agree that the Prime Minister should be lynched? They would have been, you know, because maybe that became a whole central focus of it. You know, you can see exactly how you would have been tarred and feather. [00:44:59] Speaker A: Oh, absolutely. And look, they'd have done a little bit similar to what you saw around that pro life post. They would say it's a dissension between the leader, whoever it was at the time, because of course, national was going through them faster than you could blink. And particular MP that the media love. Any tension within political parties, which is one of my actual concerns, Brendan, about where our democracy is going, is you really don't have 120 MPs in many ways, you know, sort of working together to run the country. What you have is party leaders and then the MPs under them are really just like automatons. Yeah, I visually have it and I was part of that at one point. You're sort of like a penguin. Sort of. Yeah, yeah. Because. Because to go against the party leader or the party line is instant copy for the press. Ooh. Brendan Malone says this, but his party leader says that they don't like. Well, so the media love. [00:45:53] Speaker B: They love the drama. [00:45:54] Speaker A: They love the drama, but political parties don't. Unity doesn't matter if. And that's why Te Parti Mori is struggling at the moment. Unity is so important. [00:46:02] Speaker B: Yeah, I was going to ask you there. What do you think, like, how do you feel about the state of politics now and where it's heading in New Zealand? [00:46:12] Speaker A: It's an amber or an orange light going off on my head. It's not a full scale emergency, but I think we are seeing declining trust in our democratic structures. So certainly in the. I'll break it down a little bit in the parliamentary space. As I say, I think you're getting more automatons and fewer characters, so people with their strong values and principles and instead you're ending up with a managerial class of MPs with enormous concentration of power into the party leadership. In other words, you're not getting that breadth of depth and consideration, including in the caucus rooms, because your advancement in the political party doesn't matter if it's Greens, Labor, national act, wherever is determined by the party leader. They determine your list ranking, they determine whether you get a ministerial ship. So we're creating a political culture that's about power and about sycophancy. You've got a bureaucracy that is, by and large captured any of the major ethical issues, from trans rights to abortion, euthanasia. If you see the reports coming out of the Ministry of Health Education, highly politically captured. The courts, unfortunately, I think are becoming ideological themselves, are becoming quite activist in their decisions and judgments on a number of issues. Not all, but, you know, there's a couple of components and that's all. It's wobbling and shaking. [00:47:41] Speaker B: Yeah, it's interesting. Yeah. I don't think it's an unfair assessment. I was contemplating this the other morning. Every morning, my routine Monday to Friday is pretty much the same. I get up, I have a sustained time in prayer, then I drop my son at the bus stop till he goes into high school and I'm in the gym by about quarter past seven and the TVs are on. And what have you got on? One of the TVs, which is always next to the Sky Sport one, which I'm trying to watch, is the breakfast news and I'm just. There's no sound either. And it just dawned on me the other morning, it feels a lot like we are presiding over, like, trivialities, whether it's the media or it's politicians, and no one quite really has a vision or a deeper sense of why are we doing the things we're doing, what are the policies for, for what's the higher goods that we should be serving. It feels like that is just. It's missing. And I know probably we can rightly say, I think Ardern's vision was ultimately vacuous, but she, at least you could say there was a sense. She had a sense she's supposed to have some sort of vision, even if her outworking of it was incomplete. [00:48:48] Speaker A: Yeah, I think it was incomplete. But yeah, she did have a vision of sorts. I mean, part of it is infused by her socialist politics. I mean, she genuinely wanted a kinder, fairer society as she perceived it. Certainly when it comes to New Zealand, around the whole co governance. Is that what we call it these days? She had a very clear vision there. I would argue we've ended up with a less kind and caring society and sadly, we've end up with a very divided society now, I don't think. Well, we were talking about this earlier too. No one ever acts for a bad reason. Everyone thinks they're doing the right thing. But I think unfortunately, with her policies or her government's policy, we've ended up With a very divided New Zealand so Mori PKEH men versus women, men versus trans men and women versus trans women, old versus young, tenant versus landlord and it just goes on and on. It's very, very divided and I think unfortunately little's being done at the moment to really bring that back together partly because no one wants to talk about it. So how do you fix things if you try to keep avoiding it? And secondly, I think people, and I like what you said earlier, they're focusing on trivial things and not some of the bigger underlying. [00:50:04] Speaker B: Yeah, it's like why okay, you got a pension and you've got a pension policy and, and there's a bit of a debate around that at the moment but there's no sense of the higher goods that should actually drive or what principles should exist or why are you doing that? It seems pure combination of perhaps utility and very self referential. Well no, I should, I'm entitled to that or I want that or you know, there's no deeper sense of anything there. [00:50:27] Speaker A: Yeah, there's very rarely an appeal to. It's not higher reason but you say greater principles. It often media's not exclusively to blame in this space but that's often just how they phrase things. It's at the very low level oh, you're not going to get your money, you deserved it. And at the moment playing Winston says this versus Luxon at one level, yes, that's nice to know but yeah, ask them what are the principles driving them and on that one it is completely unsustainable for New Zealand to continue paying. The level of superannuation at the starting age is at 65. It's just not feasible, it's not tenable unless you know your children are going to be paying much higher taxes into the future. And again people might disagree with that assessment but let's debate and argue if you will in that space not ooh, there's tension in the coalition. [00:51:19] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah and that's that Burkean idea, right of a healthy society is one which holds in tension the, you know, Chesterton's democracy, the dead, the tradition, those who've gone before and our elders, those who are presently here and obviously the unborn yet to come. And you've got a sort of those of us who are presently here have an obligation to hold both of those other two things in tension and it seems that's absent. [00:51:41] Speaker A: It is and I mean part of it is our political structures. So it's not just personalities. I mean I think I need to underline that just about Every MP is there for what they think is the right reason. Yeah, of course we might disagree with them but you know, MPs aren't going to Parliament going right, how do I screw things up today? [00:51:58] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's right. [00:51:59] Speaker A: But you know, with a three year term that we have, it's very easy to get into short termism. [00:52:05] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:52:06] Speaker A: But almost by the time you've got your feet under the treasury benches, you're thinking about the next election and so you're always trying to moderate what you do and say. So that's an ever present challenge in our system. So, yeah, thinking long term, why does the current government or any government of the day need to worry about 10, 20 years down the road? Because they won't be in the government. [00:52:30] Speaker B: Yeah, that's a good point. [00:52:31] Speaker A: And that happens often. I can remember many fraught discussions in caucus around this where I won't be able to give particulars because of caucus sensitivity. [00:52:42] Speaker B: Yeah, of course. [00:52:42] Speaker A: But you know, as someone who would often appeal to principles and to, I would suggest to you, more long term, consistent views would often raise if they'd agreed to do something. But you go, well if you agree to that, this is going to be the consequences. And often the reply would be, well that's just too bad in effect because we just need to win the votes now, what's popular now. So look, in this case, kudos to national actually talking again about superannuation is just not, it's not sustainable. But we'll see it in the vote. Are people prepared to go, okay, this is a good decision because it's going to be better for our kids and their grandchildren or are we going to go, oh, I just want it for me. Is Winston or Luxon going to win on this one? We'll see. [00:53:26] Speaker B: What do you think are like? I have a theory that we are now starting to see some of the foreign political issues breaking on our shores. You know, that wave has finally reached us, you know, and some of these issues it seems are going to become moving forward, if not real imagined populist stalking horses that, you know, like someone like a Winston can utilise and others. Do you think that's a fair assessment? [00:53:51] Speaker A: I think so. I mean we're in an exceptionally connected world now. So the goings on in the UK or the US are very present to us. In fact, you can ignore New Zealand news if you want and just purely watch what's happening in America. You know, jump onto sky and watch Fox News and CNN and, and all of that and equally on X and other places. [00:54:14] Speaker B: So even Al Jazeera now, it's a news force in its own rights. It's quite amazing. [00:54:18] Speaker A: It is. I suppose you could say there's a lot of media. Al Jazeera is just a terrible propaganda arm. I have. No, no, tell us what you really think. Yeah, I know. No time for. If you're watching Al Jazeera, stop now. His dad is watching Russian tv. [00:54:33] Speaker B: Dasvadanya. [00:54:34] Speaker A: That's right. That's it. Me. Be careful. If you're watching CNN and Fox as well, I will sometimes, I must admit, bounce between the two. So when, if there are particularly American issues happening, I will quite literally jump onto CNN and watch it and then I'll jump onto Fox and watch it and then sort of come to a conclusion that, you know, they're openly biased. But no, it is going to come here. We're in a very globally connected world. I suppose, in many ways, what's happening in countries like the uk, the us, Australia, is going to happen. Here in New Zealand, we're usually about five or 10 years behind. So I certainly expect in this election immigration is going to be a big issue. I think Winston's already fired a shot over the bow around his resistance with the India New Zealand Free Trade Agreement. Obviously, it's become a really big topic in recent local council elections. Strangely in the uk, obviously, one nation winning a by election in the seat of Farah there in New South Wales, taking out a liberal seat, which is the equivalent of the National Party. [00:55:40] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:55:42] Speaker A: But, yeah, immigration, I think generally people feeling they cannot get ahead economically, this is a major problem in the West. There'll be a lot of discussion around that. Climate change will probably come into it, but indirectly, whenever you look at poles, climate change is usually quite low, but it's around energy. And I know it's a big issue both in the UK and Australia, is that people are finding getting energy doesn't matter, it's the fuel for their car, electricity coming more and more expensive. And the counter argument these days is really, if you want prosperity, you need more energy, not less. And so again, particularly in the likes of the UK and Australia, where they seem to be going backwards and they don't have access to the hydropower and the like that we have, that's become a major point. So, yes, a very long way of saying what you're seeing happening in America, uk, Aussie and throughout Europe will eventually come here, I think. [00:56:36] Speaker B: Yeah. Interesting. Two little things. I was thinking, how do we wrap this whole thing up, mate? But two Little things I want to ask you about. One we've got to ask about the election. Do you have a sense of how. I mean, it still feels to me too, like I've got some sort of ideas, but it feels still like early days as well. It's hard to see, you know, the shape from the shadows. A little bit. Yeah. But do you have a sense of where things could go? [00:56:58] Speaker A: Oh, we've already got it sorted. There we go. There's one for the conspiracists. No. Yeah. [00:57:04] Speaker B: No, I was speaking to Klaus Schwab [00:57:05] Speaker A: and he's told me we've already sorted it. [00:57:08] Speaker B: Yeah. The next pandemic's coming three days later. [00:57:12] Speaker A: Yeah. Jokes aside, before anyone just clips that part, look, I think the centre right will. Will win. So I think you've seen it in the polls. It doesn't mean it's a dead certainty and I'll come to that. But, you know, my pick is the centre right will win, but you will see national diminished, New Zealand first much higher and ACT just a little bit higher. I'm a little bit confused, I have to say, with ACT at the moment, in that normally they're quite, I don't know, edgy, punchy. You think of the last election. We're getting quite a lot of media coverage and traction this time around. They're not. For whatever reason, New Zealand first has a lot of momentum. [00:57:52] Speaker B: Do you buy to the theory, then, that Winston very cunningly decided that he would be deputy in that first part of the term, so that then that would leave him free? Whereas Seymour's a bit more bound now in that regard. [00:58:04] Speaker A: He is. I mean, Seymour can still act as the party leader, you can switch hats, but it is slightly more difficult. Oh, absolutely. Winston's experience kicking in. And look, Winston's a smooth operator before the music cues, but he's a very smooth operator and he's very good. And New Zealand first is very good at just picking up little bits of votes here and there. So he's got the fishing lobby for one reason or another. He's got the racing industry like him. You know, he's certainly spoken into those who are vaccine hesitant and feel worried about the COVID year. So he taps into that. He's lent into some of these culture wars now around, you know, what is a woman and his English language bill. So percent here, percent there. And because he just calls a spade a spade, he's picking up disaffected voters, particularly from National. But, yeah, when you look at the polls, you know, your Mikey Shermans and others. Actually, that's probably unfair to pick on just one news channel, but, you know, they all just focus. Oh, National's gone down and Labour's gone up. Well, yeah, that's nice, but you gotta look at the overall picture and the overall picture has the centre right stronger and consistently so. So, yep, they will win. They probably will reform as a coalition, but as I at this time expect that New Zealand first will have more. [00:59:29] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:59:30] Speaker A: More seats, more power at the cost of. Of National. There is a chance, Brendan, that if Winston really picks up 15 to 20% of the vote, he will be the kingmaker. Either way, it may come down to him asking for or expecting to be given the premiership. I will be the pm. Which of you two, Labour or National, will give it to me? Yeah. [00:59:52] Speaker B: It's almost like the sporting thing that a lot of us would be. You know, you could see the potential disaster out the other side, but also you sort of thought, ah, wouldn't it be interesting? [01:00:02] Speaker A: He's always wanted it, you know, he was. When he was first in politics. Was it in the 1970s? [01:00:08] Speaker B: Yeah. [01:00:09] Speaker A: And with national, he was sort of. He felt himself destined and I think the party at the time saw him as being the first Mori. [01:00:16] Speaker B: Yeah, he was building minister. Yeah, Actively so. [01:00:18] Speaker A: And I think he still wants it. So I think that's the potential curveball ahead that there's going to be in the coalition negotiations. Who will give it to him if he gets enough of the vote. [01:00:30] Speaker B: Yeah. [01:00:31] Speaker A: That said, as we keep saying, a week is a long time in politics and who knows what will happen or not happen. We've already seen a few bumps in the road for these political parties so far, but I think the trajectory currently is a centre right win last thing. [01:00:52] Speaker B: And it probably seems the most important thing in a lot of ways. We talked a lot about politics, but, you know, you and I are both men who strive to claim that authentic conservative mental, which means you gotta conserve goodness, truth and beauty. What does that mean to you? What does that actually practically mean? What does it look like? How do you avoid becoming a political animal who's not actually conserving goodness, truth and beauty? Maybe you're just conserving the status quo or conserving power or something else, you know? [01:01:20] Speaker A: Yeah, great question. I suppose I don't have a quick ready answer for that. I sort of try to live by an adage of the unreflected life is not worth having and so constantly trying to reflect on the decisions I'm making, the articles I'm writing, the Commentary I'm giving. So it's not a. What's the right word? Brennan? I'm not spending hours and hours sort of regurgitating over stuff that I do, but I do try each day to reflect on the thoughts I've been having and the writings I've been doing and going. Was that the right thing? [01:01:59] Speaker B: Yeah. Examination of conscience and motives. [01:02:03] Speaker A: Yeah, well, I mean, that was something I picked up in my seminary days. I mean, some of your viewers will know about the priests and seminarians do what I call the office of hours, where there's set prayers during the day and the night prayers. You always begin with an examination of conscience or consciousness, one of the two. And I've always found that a really good discipline. It only can be a few minutes. You're not sitting there smoking your pipe, which I don't, by the way, but it's not sitting there smoking your bike, pondering the imponderables. But yeah, long and short, who did I meet today? What was I thinking today I read this book. Are the ideas good or not? So there's always testing, I suppose, is one of the keys. I try to have a little bit of humility, I suppose politics has actually helped me with that, believe it or not, because some of my opponents in the political realm, I realized early on their passion for a view that is opposite to mine is held just as passionately as I hold mine. Which is why I got on quite well with the likes of Lewis Awl and others, for example, we're polar opposites on a whole number of issues and I disagree with her as she disagrees with me, but I can respect that she has the same passion for her views as mine. So I think there's always a good humility in play and then the other is just always reading and reading widely. And I actively try to take a lot of time to see what the other side is saying and why. And I suppose that's something I often speak about to people, is what you feel about things is not that interesting, actually, not to me, but why you feel what you do. So I don't know that's a great answer. But it is very much always just trying to self reflect on why I'm holding the positions. I do allow myself to be challenged. Having a little bit of humility and I don't get it right all the time. Rachel tells me often on social media when I'm sort of giving a flick here and there, quite cathartic. It's like that probably isn't the most true. Well, actually I think it's often true, but it's not necessarily the most beautiful thing at times. But I give some troll a bit of a figurative slap. Yeah, yeah, yeah. [01:04:08] Speaker B: So not just a purpose driven life, but a principle driven life really, isn't it? [01:04:12] Speaker A: Well, trying to. I mean, yeah, I adhere to a series of principles. I've had the good fortune, and it was primarily through seminary life, but it then went into, you know, post seminary academic life. Philosophy and theology is a. A big part of what I've been trained in. So there's a. I don't know, a discipline in that. [01:04:32] Speaker B: Yeah. [01:04:32] Speaker A: So even if I'm feeling something or thinking something, you know, my training beholds me to go and. And reflect on that and sometimes live in the tension of, okay, well, I'm thinking this at the moment, but that doesn't accord with other thoughts I've had. Or is that consistent? What does this look like? If I push it to sort of ad absurdum. So I spend a lot of time in my head, which is why I like to run and run alone. And I don't have AirPods or anything in. I am usually pondering. [01:05:06] Speaker B: Interesting. [01:05:06] Speaker A: And I drive my family mad because I now speak to myself a lot. If I'm in the house, I will be talking to myself and sort of having a debate, sometimes out loud and sometimes just in my head, but my hands are moving. Rachel caught me out the other day because I was writing the sub stack. Yeah, yeah. [01:05:26] Speaker B: She's like, what are you doing? [01:05:28] Speaker A: Oh, sorry. I'm really just having a conversation with myself here. [01:05:32] Speaker B: I'm exactly the same. And my wife knows because I sort of. I'll start murmuring away like as sometimes it turns into actual vocal murmurings. You're the second person I've been up here over the last day or so recording different episodes. And you're the second person who said that's exactly how they grapple with things. [01:05:47] Speaker A: Yeah, I do. When I'm running, I don't. I'm just too, too busy. Too busy puffing and panting. But yeah, I will be. I'm usually pondering something. And so when I do see people, I always feel a bit rude if I do sort of run by them. But usually I'm just, yeah, pondering the imponderables. And it's, I think, a healthy thing to do. [01:06:07] Speaker B: Break the shackle of the screen and actually stop and contemplate the world around you and your place in it. [01:06:11] Speaker A: I think so. I mean, this will be no surprise because it affects most of us as humans now but it is. What's that? Sort of. It's like a treadmill or whatever. [01:06:20] Speaker B: The rat on a wheel. [01:06:22] Speaker A: It is. And life, I mean, I find it. I mean, life is so much easier now compared to political life. But, you know, I can spend just about all day on the. The computer, literally, the emails, messaging people for podcasts, obviously doing the podcast, writing up scripts, writing up my subject stacks, sending advice to clients, and it's just like, gosh, have I gone out and literally smelt the roses? Engage with other people. So, I mean, those are, you know, good disciplines to try and I'm not very good at them. To go out for a run on the walk, make sure you put your device down, have a chat with the wife, call up a friend, have a chat, call up the mum. All of those things, I think are helpful for me. [01:07:01] Speaker B: Simon, that was awesome. I mean, what can I say? Thank you for your time, my friend. [01:07:05] Speaker A: Always a pleasure. [01:07:06] Speaker B: It's good to be in person too. [01:07:07] Speaker A: It actually does make quite a difference. I enjoy the podcast and online radio, I do. And Zoom makes it very easy in the system we use. Vmix, have you ever seen it? [01:07:18] Speaker B: I've seen. [01:07:18] Speaker A: Yeah, I know VMix, it's good, but it's not quite the same as in person. And I might have said it to you before. I do find it funny when I do eventually meet people in person. A, it's lovely, but B, it's sort of this. I can't. I haven't quite found the words yet, but it's. It's almost incongruent because you sort of feel you know them. [01:07:39] Speaker B: Yeah, that's right. [01:07:40] Speaker A: But you've never met them and. [01:07:41] Speaker B: Oh, they've got legs now. Simon, thank you so much, mate. [01:07:45] Speaker A: It was really good. [01:07:46] Speaker B: Thank you. [01:07:46] Speaker A: Oh, pleasure. [01:07:47] Speaker B: Hi there. If you're enjoying our content, then why not consider becoming a paid supporter of our work? You can do that at either Substack or Patreon, and the link for for both are in the show notes for this episode. If you do become a supporter, then you'll get access to exclusive content, early release content, and also you'll be helping to fund all of the offline work that we do as well all of the youth camps and the events that we speak at and all that other stuff that happens that you don't see online. A huge thank you to all of our paid subscribers. It's thanks to you that this episode is made possible.