November 10, 2025 • 11 mins
Tonight on The Huddle, Trish Sherson from Sherson-Willis PR and Child Fund CEO Josie Pagani joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more!
Foreign Minister Winston Peters has confirmed funding will still be withheld from the Cook Islands off the back of their China partnership. Is this the right tactic? Should we go further and threaten withdrawing citizenship rights?
ANZ has announced a significant profit boost today - should we be concerned? Or is this just business?
Tākuta Ferris and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi have been expelled from Te Pāti Māori after weeks of political infighting. Is this the end of the drama?
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 (00:00):
All right, on the huddle of this evening we have Trius,
Shirst and Josie Pagani. Trush's obviously with Shirton Willis pr
and Josie's with Child Fund CEO. There hire you too, Hello, Josie.
What do you think we do about this? I mean,
if money, we're never going to beat the Chinese on money.
So is the nuclear option here to take away citizenship rights?
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Well, I think you've got to take a step back.
So they've obviously got stuck in a stalemate here and
neither's backing down. And the mistake that Mark Brown has
made is the lack of consultation. Right, So in the
realm countries in New Zealand, we have we have you know,
we have some territory which is the ross dependence in
the Antarctica. We've got a dependent territory in Tokelau. And
(00:39):
then our relationship with the Cooks is sort of free association.
We do the foreign policy basically, yeah, but there's a
lot of sort of debate over how far that goes
and so on. So so yes, Mark Brown's made a
mistake in not consulting with us, because that's part of
our constitutional arrangement. But there's a need, you know, I
think New Zealand needs to take a deep breath too,
(00:59):
because you know, what have they done? They've signed a
deal with China. Well so have we. China's our biggest
trading partner. It's not like the Cooks have suddenly decided
to go nuclear and build a nuclear power station or something.
And we're not at war with China. So let's take
a step and yet, God, what do you know that
I don't want we come on?
Speaker 1 (01:17):
I mean, like we are obviously operating in an environment
where China is going to take Taiwan at some stage
and we're going to have to be potentially on a
war footing.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Yes, but we've also got clearly us a very good
job internationally of kind of hedging, right. We try not
to pick sides between you know, the China blocks.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
This is about China setting up bases across the Pacific,
and depending on how this has rolled out, what's so
I tell you, I'm sure they're not going to set
one up in the Cooks.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Maybe they are, but you've also got to realize that
even though we had this free association with the Cooks,
the Cooks are independent countries and even the cook can't
exist stuff free associations, so we can't. We can't do
this slightly patronizing thing of going, oh, you're our backyard,
and you know you can't do it deal with China
just we've done a deal with China. So I think
the answer here is not to go, don't do a
(02:05):
deal with China. It's to go, why are they doing one?
They're doing it because China says, right, we'll build your port.
That's what you want, So why aren't we doing that
with our aid money? And what's often what happens is
with our aid money, we tend to go in and go,
we've got a great idea for you, and we'll do
this in the Pacific. Why don't we listen to them
and go, actually, we'll do the thing you want us
to and we'll beat China because we've got better relationships
(02:27):
than you, not more money, better relationships, Jo.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
Trash, I think this is the right tactic from Peter's.
It's a ratcheting up of the pressure, but it's proportionate
and targeted. I don't think you want to use citizenship
as part of the realm, as you don't want to
politicize it. And let's face it, we if we play
that card, we have completely lost the last thing. We
(02:52):
have completely lost that We've got one.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Hundred thousand new Zealanders of Cogan and descent here.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
That's right. So I think that the other thing is
obviously citizenship is constitutionally embedded, so that that is that
is fraught and difficult, and we need these lines of
communication open there that there is a there is a
fracture here at the moment, but it's not a rupture.
And I think we want to keep our can completely,
(03:21):
keep our options open because to your point, if if
the direction of travel is as you say, if we
revoked citizenship now, then it is absolutely open slava for
the Chinese or anyone else to go in and really,
you know, effectively take over our role with the Long Islands.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
I think what's really sad about this is that Mark
Brown when he came in, he's been in for a
few years now, he came in with a real strong
drive for economic development and the Cooks and you know,
how are we going to make our own money get
off being dependent on aid? And he actually succeeded in that,
you know, the Cook Islands lifted themselves out of being
tasked a class as a developing country and they became
(04:05):
a mid level developed country that's now gone down again.
So you know, he's got all the right intentions, and
part of this China deal is trying to cement that
right yea port and economic development stuff.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
So yeah, I hope the city I take your point right,
see it from their point of view, rather than imposing
our values on them. Trisha, there's a text here that says,
this is Apropos, A and Z making two point five
billion dollars profits gone up nearly twenty percent private business,
the CEO's remunerations, the shareholder's business, no one else's. I
feel much like that. I'm stressed about this.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
I absolutely agree with that, and I think often in
these debates we lose that proportionality and around this debate
that this ongoing, it's not even a debate, but we
make statements about people's remuneration, especially these big CEOs. Unless
you are one of those CEOs or you have seen
them working up close, you really have no idea of
(04:59):
the responsibilities they carry and the flesh and blood that
they have to give to get that that salary. And
it is up to shareholders if they view that that
that that person is up to that value. I think
we need a much more mature conversation around it, and
in fact, I would love it if we never ever
again saw one of these knee jerk you know, headlines
(05:22):
about and also credit to Antonio. I heard her on
the show earlier and I thought the way that she
spoke to that, she didn't shy away, she owned it.
It's a It's a real mark of her leadership, I think.
I think.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
So, hey, Josie, hang going to take and we'll get
your take after the break. It's back with the huddle, right, Josie,
what's your take.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
On the salaries. Look, I don't mind people being paid
what they're worth of their making making a lot of
money for the company. I think what New Zealanders don't
like is when you find out that you know, the
former head of Fonterra who lost god knows how many
million was paid, you know, and the job, and the
same with you know, Fletcher Building. Whether it's it so,
I think it's just it's more that there's just this
(06:00):
sort of auto feel that you kind of just get
more money if you're in those roles. But with the
bank's profits, you know, part of the problem here is
that they're making a profit when we're in one of
the worst recessions in a long time. Insolvencies have gone
up about one thousand percent, unemployment's gone up, so it's
not really a sign that the economy is doing well.
I don't believe that. And I also think, you know,
(06:22):
there's still a problem in the lack of competition in
the banking sector. I mean, ninety percent are Australian owned banks.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
You know.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Looking fixes Nicola fix at six o'clock she will, We'll
ask her about that. Okay, Trish, what do you think
happens next with the Maori Party? Do they because t
udoroff Level was on the show earlier said he thinks
that they're going to go for the walker jumping law.
Do they do that?
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Well, it's a it's a very critical strategic question for
to Party Maori and here's why. So invoking the walker
jumping bill is easy for them, that's the easy part.
So what they have to do is they have to
get two thirds of their caucus to agree. They take
it to Speaker Brownly as long as they've followed the
proceeds and they've got the two thirds effectively, he then
(07:03):
rubber stamps it right, so that then triggers vacancy of
seats and two by elections. Here's the tricky bit for
to Party Malori. You are a tiny party. You are
absolutely fractured. We know they've got no dough and their
bleeding members because of all the disunity. If they go
for two by elections before the general election, I would
(07:26):
put money on it that Mariomeenno and Taku Taku would
stand again. So to Party Malori would have to stand
candidates against those two. And who else is going to
want those seats? Lay Labor Labour wants those seats back.
That would be an absolute gift to Labor. And if
Labor could win them in two by elections before the
(07:48):
general election, highly likely they will win them again in
the general election. And so to Party Mali would have
actually put a risk two very valuable seats.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
So the alternative then is that they end up in
parliament within a sense to Maru parties and then they've
got to differentiate themselves. And I think this point you
were making, Heather is it's hard to see what the
differences between Rahwari and Debbi and Takuta and Maria Mino.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
Can a difference be that Maria Meno and Takuta because
they will not be They're not trying to become part
of a labor led government, so they can afford to
be as radical as you like, whereas these are the lot.
Now I have to tack a little bit to the same.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
And I think both both parties. I'm already calling them
two parties, and I want to kind of feel that
this is a positive thing, that Mary politics is fracturing
in a way that it is healthy. Right, it's got
one voice for Mari. But it just feels like you've
got two basically ethno nationalist parties, that's what you've got.
And you know, I mean Takuta said during the by election,
you know he doesn't want Paquiera and Indians and sind
(08:49):
Islanders voting in a Mari Electric. Well now it seems
there are some Mari who don't want mar to vote
in a Mari Electric.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
So it's just not getting very confusing.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
It's a bit like you know, the People's Judaea's Front
against the Judaea's People's Front. But I would hope I
think you're right. I think it might push to party
Mari into being the parliamentary voice of Mary again and
they start to be a little bit more respectful of
parliament and maybe it pushes whatever party Takuza and Goniameno
(09:16):
decide to call themselves into being the kind of radical
out of parliament parties and they'll be gone.
Speaker 3 (09:20):
Well the risk is for them though, and I think
this is actually a high likelihood now voters, it doesn't
matter what stripe they are, they publish. They punish disunity
the hardest, and I think that their reality to Party
Maria is steering down now is that they could lose
their party being in parliament totally. I don't think anyone
(09:42):
in that party currently understands what it takes to get
an activist grouping and actually get it into parliament, like
Tariana did and like Peta Sharpouls did and.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Bring he sounded great, Well, it's so reasonable.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
There's only one party that has managed to come back
from being out of parliament, and that's New Zealand first.
They've done it twice. But as we know Winston Peters,
he defies political gravity. So the likelihood of that happening
for to party Mary is, I think is very low.
And I've heard from several people over the weekend who
are in and around this and have been working behind
(10:18):
the scenes for party Marie for years. They are heartbroken
at what's happening because they can see the very live
possibility that they're.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Going to lose everything that was always going to happen.
I mean, I like that quote that Penni said during
the last by election where he said they need more action,
less hucker and that's the problem.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
All right, guys have spreadfast, by the way, just quickly.
Does John Thamahay need to go? Will he goes?
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Guy?
Speaker 1 (10:45):
I'm not going to say.
Speaker 3 (10:47):
What I'm going to say is I think from a
unity point of view, he he does, and to allow
the party to move on. I think financially the party
is tied to John Tomaheery and that's why he's staying in.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
And it's also got you know, Raweri is his son
in law, his daughter's you know, involved in party.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
It's me It's messy, all right, guys, thanks, thank you
very much, appreciate it. Trish Sheerson Joseph beganni our huddle
this evenings. For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive listen
live to news talks. It'd be from four pm weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
All right, on the huddle of this evening we have Trius,
Shirst and Josie Pagani. Trush's obviously with Shirton Willis pr
and Josie's with Child Fund CEO. There hire you too, Hello, Josie.
What do you think we do about this? I mean,
if money, we're never going to beat the Chinese on money.
So is the nuclear option here to take away citizenship rights?
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Well, I think you've got to take a step back.
So they've obviously got stuck in a stalemate here and
neither's backing down. And the mistake that Mark Brown has
made is the lack of consultation. Right, So in the
realm countries in New Zealand, we have we have you know,
we have some territory which is the ross dependence in
the Antarctica. We've got a dependent territory in Tokelau. And
(00:39):
then our relationship with the Cooks is sort of free association.
We do the foreign policy basically, yeah, but there's a
lot of sort of debate over how far that goes
and so on. So so yes, Mark Brown's made a
mistake in not consulting with us, because that's part of
our constitutional arrangement. But there's a need, you know, I
think New Zealand needs to take a deep breath too,
(00:59):
because you know, what have they done? They've signed a
deal with China. Well so have we. China's our biggest
trading partner. It's not like the Cooks have suddenly decided
to go nuclear and build a nuclear power station or something.
And we're not at war with China. So let's take
a step and yet, God, what do you know that
I don't want we come on?
Speaker 1 (01:17):
I mean, like we are obviously operating in an environment
where China is going to take Taiwan at some stage
and we're going to have to be potentially on a
war footing.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Yes, but we've also got clearly us a very good
job internationally of kind of hedging, right. We try not
to pick sides between you know, the China blocks.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
This is about China setting up bases across the Pacific,
and depending on how this has rolled out, what's so
I tell you, I'm sure they're not going to set
one up in the Cooks.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Maybe they are, but you've also got to realize that
even though we had this free association with the Cooks,
the Cooks are independent countries and even the cook can't
exist stuff free associations, so we can't. We can't do
this slightly patronizing thing of going, oh, you're our backyard,
and you know you can't do it deal with China
just we've done a deal with China. So I think
the answer here is not to go, don't do a
(02:05):
deal with China. It's to go, why are they doing one?
They're doing it because China says, right, we'll build your port.
That's what you want, So why aren't we doing that
with our aid money? And what's often what happens is
with our aid money, we tend to go in and go,
we've got a great idea for you, and we'll do
this in the Pacific. Why don't we listen to them
and go, actually, we'll do the thing you want us
to and we'll beat China because we've got better relationships
(02:27):
than you, not more money, better relationships, Jo.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
Trash, I think this is the right tactic from Peter's.
It's a ratcheting up of the pressure, but it's proportionate
and targeted. I don't think you want to use citizenship
as part of the realm, as you don't want to
politicize it. And let's face it, we if we play
that card, we have completely lost the last thing. We
(02:52):
have completely lost that We've got one.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Hundred thousand new Zealanders of Cogan and descent here.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
That's right. So I think that the other thing is
obviously citizenship is constitutionally embedded, so that that is that
is fraught and difficult, and we need these lines of
communication open there that there is a there is a
fracture here at the moment, but it's not a rupture.
And I think we want to keep our can completely,
(03:21):
keep our options open because to your point, if if
the direction of travel is as you say, if we
revoked citizenship now, then it is absolutely open slava for
the Chinese or anyone else to go in and really,
you know, effectively take over our role with the Long Islands.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
I think what's really sad about this is that Mark
Brown when he came in, he's been in for a
few years now, he came in with a real strong
drive for economic development and the Cooks and you know,
how are we going to make our own money get
off being dependent on aid? And he actually succeeded in that,
you know, the Cook Islands lifted themselves out of being
tasked a class as a developing country and they became
(04:05):
a mid level developed country that's now gone down again.
So you know, he's got all the right intentions, and
part of this China deal is trying to cement that
right yea port and economic development stuff.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
So yeah, I hope the city I take your point right,
see it from their point of view, rather than imposing
our values on them. Trisha, there's a text here that says,
this is Apropos, A and Z making two point five
billion dollars profits gone up nearly twenty percent private business,
the CEO's remunerations, the shareholder's business, no one else's. I
feel much like that. I'm stressed about this.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
I absolutely agree with that, and I think often in
these debates we lose that proportionality and around this debate
that this ongoing, it's not even a debate, but we
make statements about people's remuneration, especially these big CEOs. Unless
you are one of those CEOs or you have seen
them working up close, you really have no idea of
(04:59):
the responsibilities they carry and the flesh and blood that
they have to give to get that that salary. And
it is up to shareholders if they view that that
that that person is up to that value. I think
we need a much more mature conversation around it, and
in fact, I would love it if we never ever
again saw one of these knee jerk you know, headlines
(05:22):
about and also credit to Antonio. I heard her on
the show earlier and I thought the way that she
spoke to that, she didn't shy away, she owned it.
It's a It's a real mark of her leadership, I think.
I think.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
So, hey, Josie, hang going to take and we'll get
your take after the break. It's back with the huddle, right, Josie,
what's your take.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
On the salaries. Look, I don't mind people being paid
what they're worth of their making making a lot of
money for the company. I think what New Zealanders don't
like is when you find out that you know, the
former head of Fonterra who lost god knows how many
million was paid, you know, and the job, and the
same with you know, Fletcher Building. Whether it's it so,
I think it's just it's more that there's just this
(06:00):
sort of auto feel that you kind of just get
more money if you're in those roles. But with the
bank's profits, you know, part of the problem here is
that they're making a profit when we're in one of
the worst recessions in a long time. Insolvencies have gone
up about one thousand percent, unemployment's gone up, so it's
not really a sign that the economy is doing well.
I don't believe that. And I also think, you know,
(06:22):
there's still a problem in the lack of competition in
the banking sector. I mean, ninety percent are Australian owned banks.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
You know.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Looking fixes Nicola fix at six o'clock she will, We'll
ask her about that. Okay, Trish, what do you think
happens next with the Maori Party? Do they because t
udoroff Level was on the show earlier said he thinks
that they're going to go for the walker jumping law.
Do they do that?
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Well, it's a it's a very critical strategic question for
to Party Maori and here's why. So invoking the walker
jumping bill is easy for them, that's the easy part.
So what they have to do is they have to
get two thirds of their caucus to agree. They take
it to Speaker Brownly as long as they've followed the
proceeds and they've got the two thirds effectively, he then
(07:03):
rubber stamps it right, so that then triggers vacancy of
seats and two by elections. Here's the tricky bit for
to Party Malori. You are a tiny party. You are
absolutely fractured. We know they've got no dough and their
bleeding members because of all the disunity. If they go
for two by elections before the general election, I would
(07:26):
put money on it that Mariomeenno and Taku Taku would
stand again. So to Party Malori would have to stand
candidates against those two. And who else is going to
want those seats? Lay Labor Labour wants those seats back.
That would be an absolute gift to Labor. And if
Labor could win them in two by elections before the
(07:48):
general election, highly likely they will win them again in
the general election. And so to Party Mali would have
actually put a risk two very valuable seats.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
So the alternative then is that they end up in
parliament within a sense to Maru parties and then they've
got to differentiate themselves. And I think this point you
were making, Heather is it's hard to see what the
differences between Rahwari and Debbi and Takuta and Maria Mino.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
Can a difference be that Maria Meno and Takuta because
they will not be They're not trying to become part
of a labor led government, so they can afford to
be as radical as you like, whereas these are the lot.
Now I have to tack a little bit to the same.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
And I think both both parties. I'm already calling them
two parties, and I want to kind of feel that
this is a positive thing, that Mary politics is fracturing
in a way that it is healthy. Right, it's got
one voice for Mari. But it just feels like you've
got two basically ethno nationalist parties, that's what you've got.
And you know, I mean Takuta said during the by election,
you know he doesn't want Paquiera and Indians and sind
(08:49):
Islanders voting in a Mari Electric. Well now it seems
there are some Mari who don't want mar to vote
in a Mari Electric.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
So it's just not getting very confusing.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
It's a bit like you know, the People's Judaea's Front
against the Judaea's People's Front. But I would hope I
think you're right. I think it might push to party
Mari into being the parliamentary voice of Mary again and
they start to be a little bit more respectful of
parliament and maybe it pushes whatever party Takuza and Goniameno
(09:16):
decide to call themselves into being the kind of radical
out of parliament parties and they'll be gone.
Speaker 3 (09:20):
Well the risk is for them though, and I think
this is actually a high likelihood now voters, it doesn't
matter what stripe they are, they publish. They punish disunity
the hardest, and I think that their reality to Party
Maria is steering down now is that they could lose
their party being in parliament totally. I don't think anyone
(09:42):
in that party currently understands what it takes to get
an activist grouping and actually get it into parliament, like
Tariana did and like Peta Sharpouls did and.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Bring he sounded great, Well, it's so reasonable.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
There's only one party that has managed to come back
from being out of parliament, and that's New Zealand first.
They've done it twice. But as we know Winston Peters,
he defies political gravity. So the likelihood of that happening
for to party Mary is, I think is very low.
And I've heard from several people over the weekend who
are in and around this and have been working behind
(10:18):
the scenes for party Marie for years. They are heartbroken
at what's happening because they can see the very live
possibility that they're.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Going to lose everything that was always going to happen.
I mean, I like that quote that Penni said during
the last by election where he said they need more action,
less hucker and that's the problem.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
All right, guys have spreadfast, by the way, just quickly.
Does John Thamahay need to go? Will he goes?
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Guy?
Speaker 1 (10:45):
I'm not going to say.
Speaker 3 (10:47):
What I'm going to say is I think from a
unity point of view, he he does, and to allow
the party to move on. I think financially the party
is tied to John Tomaheery and that's why he's staying in.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
And it's also got you know, Raweri is his son
in law, his daughter's you know, involved in party.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
It's me It's messy, all right, guys, thanks, thank you
very much, appreciate it. Trish Sheerson Joseph beganni our huddle
this evenings. For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive listen
live to news talks. It'd be from four pm weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
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