September 6, 2025 • 10 mins
This week on the Sunday Panel, journalist and TV producer Irene Gardiner and Partner at Freebairn and Hehir Lawyers, Liam Hehir, joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more!
The Auckland by-election had a noticeably low voter turnout - should we be concerned about this? Is there any alternative?
Over in the US, President Donald Trump raised some eyebrows over his decision to name the Department of Defence to the Department of War. What should we read into this? Does it display a worrying mentality, or is it attention seeking?
Matthew Hooton recently wrote an opinion piece suggesting Luxon's facing a 'leadership crisis' and National's losing faith in his. Is this just stirring - or does he have a point?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Sunday Session podcast with Francesca Rudgin
from News Talks EDB.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Good to have you with us. It is time for
the panel, and today on the panel I am joined
by a journalist and TV producer, Irene Gardener. Good morning, Irene,
Good morning Franchester and partner at Freebairn and Hair Lawyers,
Liam Here.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
Good morning, Liam, goody.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Good to have you both with me. Hey, Look, we
had the Tamaki Mikado by election, and we've had a
few by elections in the last few years. One thing
that we seem to notice with these by elections is
they have very low turnout. I spoke to political reporter
Adam Ps this morning. He said, look, mate, he said,
I got the impression that some people were a bit
(00:46):
concerned about this particular got a bit confused about this
particular by election that was taking place in Auckland for
the Maori seat, because some people would maybe for the
local body elections and things like that. Is that me
any excuse, Irene, or did the by elections just not
manage to grab people?
Speaker 3 (01:06):
I think it can vary from situation to situation. There
may have been some confusion with this one. Because of
the time and slightly colliding with local body things. I
think the by elections in you know, actual central government
that get a big turnout sometimes when there's a particular
moment we you know, voters really want to show the
(01:27):
government that they love it or oppose it or whatever.
And you know, sometimes there's reasons like that where they
do well. A lot of the time they are a
bit of a sort of a nothing, and this one
was kind of unusual in that, you know, looking at
it from a Marli voter perspective, I mean, you're going
to have Penny Henry anyway, and you had an interesting
new candidate for Puget Mahdi, So I can sort of
(01:50):
see why it went the way it did. In terms
of the cost. I always worry about the cost of things,
you know, when we are so tough for so many people.
But we live in a democracy and this is our system.
And if someone who is an electric guy, then I
guess this is what we have to do, and then
(02:10):
we can do it a different way. And we did
have with us a lawyer.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Well, no, you raise an interesting point there, Irene, because
you're right, we do have to do it. There were
eighty four voting booths open, but just under sixty percent
of the votes were cast in advance, excluding special votes.
But it is costly to run these things, Liam, I mean,
I don't know if there is any other way you
can do it.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
You have to do it money, right, Well, well, there
are alternatives that we know, and the one that would
work in New Zealand is to have a substitute or
a provision for an appointment when somebody passes away. So
like in Europe and South America, for example, they often
(02:53):
have sort of substitutes who are nominated to step in
you avoid the buy need for a by election and
the person from the same party. In the United States,
so can they often have for some things, we'll have
appointments by governors and things like that. But you know,
my view was that, you know, democracy costs money, like
you know, all the things to scrimp and save on
(03:13):
which we should always be doing. The fact that we
have to hold elections from time to time isn't one
of them. And turn out slow. But you know that's
always been a case outside of a general election, especially
when the governing parties don't have candidates on the tickets, right,
So by elections often a referendum on how the government's going,
(03:35):
and probably quite widely for the government. They didn't have
anyone on the tickets, so what we motivation really? You know,
so I'm not surprised by any of it, and I'm
not alarmed either.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Okay, all right, then Trump has renamed what it has
been was reported on Thursday that the Trump administration plans
to change the Defense Department's name to the Department of
War to present a more aggressive image of its military
to the world. Does this concern you at all, Irene?
Does do you see this as sort of setting them
up to look like they're war mongering and it's a
(04:09):
threat to international stability? Or do you each just think
it's attention seeking.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
I think most things that Trumps and does are sort
of in the attention seeking area. But it does worry
me in that, you know, that is in the modern world,
that is not what the Department of Defense should be called.
You know, it should be about defense, not about warmongering.
I presume it's all a bit of a distraction because
(04:35):
you know, he said his ridiculous things about solving both
the Gaza situation and the Uruk Ukraine situation. You know,
within twenty four hours of being and and of course
that's not turned out to be true. So yeah, I mean,
will it actually happen. I mean, I'm assuming there'll be
quite a few people who will oppose this because a
(04:56):
it'll cost money, and the just doesn't seem like a
very sensitive thing to do. Globally.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
It felt like it was a response to sort of
the meeting that was taking place in China and China's
military parade and things.
Speaker 4 (05:08):
Yeah. Maybe, but whatever the reason for it, I'm actually
really in favor of it. I think it's an honest naming, right.
It's you know, the idea of having an Apartment of
Defense or a Ministry of Defense is the euphimism the
US has, I mean the last thirty years something of
the Cold War, the US has had more than territor
and fifty military interventions. They haven't all been defensive, and
(05:30):
most of them haven't been defensive unless they're really torturing
the word and you know, like that's been called the
War Department in the past, and the UK they had
a Ministry of War and they're actually more honest thing
about what it does. So I think always in favor
of calling things by their proper name, and if you
look at you know, if you want to talk about
all wealthy in names, you know that the Ministry of Love,
(05:51):
the Ministry of plenty, and you know that sort of
things we're euphemism's that disguised the true purpose. So you know,
sometimes one of the things about Trump is that he's
you know, he's vulgar, But there's sometimes an honesty in vulgarity.
So I've loved thought that we should be calling things
by their proper names, including war departments should be called
war departments.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
But do you think or is it a plopay?
Speaker 4 (06:17):
But the USA has invaded has it's invaded so many
countries and launch military under Obama and a under Bush
under Clinton and Trump? You know, it's it's it's not
going to stop. What they're doing is waging war. And
you know, so I do think it's more.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
Honest, you know, But do you think that might.
Speaker 4 (06:36):
Tell well whether or not whether or not it's good
or not it's what's happening.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
No, no, no, I was just going to ask, great
if if they're doing it because they want to, they
just want to be more transparent and look and being
more honest about it. Great, But do you think it
also reflects a change of mentality. Maybe that that could
be concerning.
Speaker 4 (06:53):
Well, I think that the mentality remains the same, which
is that the US will always push. So it's what
it considers this natural interest and it will always use force.
And that's what a great thing. But it is what
it is. You know. It's just I said, a top
clock is right twice a day. And whatever the motivations
(07:14):
that Trump has, actually this is something nice to bored.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
And I know, look, as you mentioned, Irene, you do
worry about the cost. They're going to need to change
Defense Department seals on more than seven hundred thousand facilities
in forty countries in all fifty states. Just got a
cost anyway, why I'd love to move on and get
your thoughts very quickly. On Matthew Houghton's article, his opinion
(07:39):
piece in The Herald at the end of the week.
He made the point that within weeks Christopher Luxon could
face the likelihood of some of his MPs, you know,
basically advising him that they've lost his you know, they've
lost confidence in him. Liam. Do you think that Matthew
knows something we don't all know, or do you think
he is kind of putting these things out there and
(08:03):
waiting to see what happens.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
Well, Matthew has He has predicted seven of the last
three National Party leadership challenges and cous you know, the
track record of predicting CAUs is very long, and sometimes
it's come off. I'm never quite sure how much of
it as coincidence, but at least one time he had
a hand in it at least that didn't work out
(08:26):
so well. Like it's you know, like Matthew is very
much on the outer of the inside of national parties.
So I think that if it's got a genuine information
that's coming from disgruntled people on the back bench, which
could be a real could be a real thing, from
his contacts in New Zealand fares which are quite strong.
But you know, I just you know, and from you know,
(08:49):
from the friends that I have in the party. I
just there's no alternative. I just you know, you don't
replace a leader unless you have another leader lined up
who's going to get as many votes as plus one
plus one more. And you know, every time tried that
without a very clear successor in mind, be it Chrystal
Luxen taking over from Collins, or Key taking over from
(09:12):
Brash or English taking her over from Key. It's been
a disaster. So I guess the time will tell, and
there's going to be the eighth prediction that forty percent
are going to be saying at thirty percent.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
So Irene, do you do you think he might be
onto something here? And I suppose if we were talking hypothetically,
Eric Stance that and Chris Bishop, the two you know
that he feels would be out for the role probably
the two that you would.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
Turn to, or Nichola Willis. I sem to agree with
Liam though that there you know, while there may be
some thought that you know, he's not getting the cut through,
there isn't really a big obvious successor if there was,
you know, they'd probably grab it.
Speaker 4 (09:55):
That.
Speaker 3 (09:57):
I think they should do something really modern and interesting
and have co leaders, have Christ Bishop and either Nichola
Willis thought record completely different.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
There we go throwing out something different. I love it, Irene,
Thank you so much, Irene Gunner and Liam Heired.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
For more from the Sunday session with Francesca Rudkin. Listen
live to News Talks it Be from nine am Sunday,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Sunday Session podcast with Francesca Rudgin
from News Talks EDB.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Good to have you with us. It is time for
the panel, and today on the panel I am joined
by a journalist and TV producer, Irene Gardener. Good morning, Irene,
Good morning Franchester and partner at Freebairn and Hair Lawyers,
Liam Here.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
Good morning, Liam, goody.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Good to have you both with me. Hey, Look, we
had the Tamaki Mikado by election, and we've had a
few by elections in the last few years. One thing
that we seem to notice with these by elections is
they have very low turnout. I spoke to political reporter
Adam Ps this morning. He said, look, mate, he said,
I got the impression that some people were a bit
(00:46):
concerned about this particular got a bit confused about this
particular by election that was taking place in Auckland for
the Maori seat, because some people would maybe for the
local body elections and things like that. Is that me
any excuse, Irene, or did the by elections just not
manage to grab people?
Speaker 3 (01:06):
I think it can vary from situation to situation. There
may have been some confusion with this one. Because of
the time and slightly colliding with local body things. I
think the by elections in you know, actual central government
that get a big turnout sometimes when there's a particular
moment we you know, voters really want to show the
(01:27):
government that they love it or oppose it or whatever.
And you know, sometimes there's reasons like that where they
do well. A lot of the time they are a
bit of a sort of a nothing, and this one
was kind of unusual in that, you know, looking at
it from a Marli voter perspective, I mean, you're going
to have Penny Henry anyway, and you had an interesting
new candidate for Puget Mahdi, So I can sort of
(01:50):
see why it went the way it did. In terms
of the cost. I always worry about the cost of things,
you know, when we are so tough for so many people.
But we live in a democracy and this is our system.
And if someone who is an electric guy, then I
guess this is what we have to do, and then
(02:10):
we can do it a different way. And we did
have with us a lawyer.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Well, no, you raise an interesting point there, Irene, because
you're right, we do have to do it. There were
eighty four voting booths open, but just under sixty percent
of the votes were cast in advance, excluding special votes.
But it is costly to run these things, Liam, I mean,
I don't know if there is any other way you
can do it.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
You have to do it money, right, Well, well, there
are alternatives that we know, and the one that would
work in New Zealand is to have a substitute or
a provision for an appointment when somebody passes away. So
like in Europe and South America, for example, they often
(02:53):
have sort of substitutes who are nominated to step in
you avoid the buy need for a by election and
the person from the same party. In the United States,
so can they often have for some things, we'll have
appointments by governors and things like that. But you know,
my view was that, you know, democracy costs money, like
you know, all the things to scrimp and save on
(03:13):
which we should always be doing. The fact that we
have to hold elections from time to time isn't one
of them. And turn out slow. But you know that's
always been a case outside of a general election, especially
when the governing parties don't have candidates on the tickets, right,
So by elections often a referendum on how the government's going,
(03:35):
and probably quite widely for the government. They didn't have
anyone on the tickets, so what we motivation really? You know,
so I'm not surprised by any of it, and I'm
not alarmed either.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Okay, all right, then Trump has renamed what it has
been was reported on Thursday that the Trump administration plans
to change the Defense Department's name to the Department of
War to present a more aggressive image of its military
to the world. Does this concern you at all, Irene?
Does do you see this as sort of setting them
up to look like they're war mongering and it's a
(04:09):
threat to international stability? Or do you each just think
it's attention seeking.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
I think most things that Trumps and does are sort
of in the attention seeking area. But it does worry
me in that, you know, that is in the modern world,
that is not what the Department of Defense should be called.
You know, it should be about defense, not about warmongering.
I presume it's all a bit of a distraction because
(04:35):
you know, he said his ridiculous things about solving both
the Gaza situation and the Uruk Ukraine situation. You know,
within twenty four hours of being and and of course
that's not turned out to be true. So yeah, I mean,
will it actually happen. I mean, I'm assuming there'll be
quite a few people who will oppose this because a
(04:56):
it'll cost money, and the just doesn't seem like a
very sensitive thing to do. Globally.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
It felt like it was a response to sort of
the meeting that was taking place in China and China's
military parade and things.
Speaker 4 (05:08):
Yeah. Maybe, but whatever the reason for it, I'm actually
really in favor of it. I think it's an honest naming, right.
It's you know, the idea of having an Apartment of
Defense or a Ministry of Defense is the euphimism the
US has, I mean the last thirty years something of
the Cold War, the US has had more than territor
and fifty military interventions. They haven't all been defensive, and
(05:30):
most of them haven't been defensive unless they're really torturing
the word and you know, like that's been called the
War Department in the past, and the UK they had
a Ministry of War and they're actually more honest thing
about what it does. So I think always in favor
of calling things by their proper name, and if you
look at you know, if you want to talk about
all wealthy in names, you know that the Ministry of Love,
(05:51):
the Ministry of plenty, and you know that sort of
things we're euphemism's that disguised the true purpose. So you know,
sometimes one of the things about Trump is that he's
you know, he's vulgar, But there's sometimes an honesty in vulgarity.
So I've loved thought that we should be calling things
by their proper names, including war departments should be called
war departments.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
But do you think or is it a plopay?
Speaker 4 (06:17):
But the USA has invaded has it's invaded so many
countries and launch military under Obama and a under Bush
under Clinton and Trump? You know, it's it's it's not
going to stop. What they're doing is waging war. And
you know, so I do think it's more.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
Honest, you know, But do you think that might.
Speaker 4 (06:36):
Tell well whether or not whether or not it's good
or not it's what's happening.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
No, no, no, I was just going to ask, great
if if they're doing it because they want to, they
just want to be more transparent and look and being
more honest about it. Great, But do you think it
also reflects a change of mentality. Maybe that that could
be concerning.
Speaker 4 (06:53):
Well, I think that the mentality remains the same, which
is that the US will always push. So it's what
it considers this natural interest and it will always use force.
And that's what a great thing. But it is what
it is. You know. It's just I said, a top
clock is right twice a day. And whatever the motivations
(07:14):
that Trump has, actually this is something nice to bored.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
And I know, look, as you mentioned, Irene, you do
worry about the cost. They're going to need to change
Defense Department seals on more than seven hundred thousand facilities
in forty countries in all fifty states. Just got a
cost anyway, why I'd love to move on and get
your thoughts very quickly. On Matthew Houghton's article, his opinion
(07:39):
piece in The Herald at the end of the week.
He made the point that within weeks Christopher Luxon could
face the likelihood of some of his MPs, you know,
basically advising him that they've lost his you know, they've
lost confidence in him. Liam. Do you think that Matthew
knows something we don't all know, or do you think
he is kind of putting these things out there and
(08:03):
waiting to see what happens.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
Well, Matthew has He has predicted seven of the last
three National Party leadership challenges and cous you know, the
track record of predicting CAUs is very long, and sometimes
it's come off. I'm never quite sure how much of
it as coincidence, but at least one time he had
a hand in it at least that didn't work out
(08:26):
so well. Like it's you know, like Matthew is very
much on the outer of the inside of national parties.
So I think that if it's got a genuine information
that's coming from disgruntled people on the back bench, which
could be a real could be a real thing, from
his contacts in New Zealand fares which are quite strong.
But you know, I just you know, and from you know,
(08:49):
from the friends that I have in the party. I
just there's no alternative. I just you know, you don't
replace a leader unless you have another leader lined up
who's going to get as many votes as plus one
plus one more. And you know, every time tried that
without a very clear successor in mind, be it Chrystal
Luxen taking over from Collins, or Key taking over from
(09:12):
Brash or English taking her over from Key. It's been
a disaster. So I guess the time will tell, and
there's going to be the eighth prediction that forty percent
are going to be saying at thirty percent.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
So Irene, do you do you think he might be
onto something here? And I suppose if we were talking hypothetically,
Eric Stance that and Chris Bishop, the two you know
that he feels would be out for the role probably
the two that you would.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
Turn to, or Nichola Willis. I sem to agree with
Liam though that there you know, while there may be
some thought that you know, he's not getting the cut through,
there isn't really a big obvious successor if there was,
you know, they'd probably grab it.
Speaker 4 (09:55):
That.
Speaker 3 (09:57):
I think they should do something really modern and interesting
and have co leaders, have Christ Bishop and either Nichola
Willis thought record completely different.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
There we go throwing out something different. I love it, Irene,
Thank you so much, Irene Gunner and Liam Heired.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
For more from the Sunday session with Francesca Rudkin. Listen
live to News Talks it Be from nine am Sunday,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com