GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO Q+A. I'M SUSAN WOOD. ON THE PROGRAMME THIS SUNDAY ` < HAVE YOU LIED? NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT. DIRTY POLITICS, BACK IN THE HEADLINES. CAN JOHN KEY AGAIN CONVINCE VOTERS THAT HIS HANDS ARE CLEAN? WE ALSO LOOK AT NEW LEGISLATION TO GIVE OUR SPIES MORE POWERS. IT'S BEING RUSHED THROUGH PARLIAMENT AND COULD BE LAW BY CHRISTMAS ` WE SPEAK TO TWO DIFFERENT OPPONENTS ON WHY YOU SHOULD BE WORRIED. ALSO ON THE PROGRAMME ` FINANCE MINISTER BILL ENGLISH. DAIRY PRICES DOWN, THE SURPLUS IN DOUBT ` WHAT'S HAPPENED TO OUR ROCK-STAR ECONOMY? ARE TAX CUTS OFF THE AGENDA? THEN ` ARE CHANGES IN STORE FOR OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM? JUSTICE MINISTER AMY ADAMS ON WHETHER WE NEED A NEW WAY OF DEALING WITH SEXUAL AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES. RACHEL RACHEL SMALLEY IS OUR POLITICAL INTERVIEWER, AND WE'LL ANALYSE ALL THE ISSUES WITH OUR PANEL ` POLITICAL SCIENTIST DR BRONWYN HAYWOOD, FORMER NATIONAL PARTY PRESIDENT MICHELLE BOAG AND FORMER LABOUR CANDIDATE JOSIE PAGANI. DUE TO THE LIVE NATURE OF Q+A, WE APOLOGISE FOR THE LACK OF CAPTIONS FOR SOME ITEMS. GOOD TO HAVE YOU WITH US. THE WEEK BEGAN WITH TWO REPORTS INTO ALLEGATIONS FROM THE DIRTY POLITICS SAGA. IT ENDED WITH JOHN KEY AGAIN UNDER PRESSURE OVER HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH CONTROVERSIAL BLOGGER CAMERON SLATER. THE PRIME MINISTER WAS UNAVAILABLE TO APPEAR ON Q+A THIS MORNING. HERE'S HOW THAT STORY UNFOLDED THIS WEEK. < PRIME MINISTER, JUST ADMIT THIS. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. < HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO CAMERON SLATER < SINCE THIS REPORT CAME OUT YESTERDAY NIGHT? I HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO HIM ON THE PHONE FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS ON END. HE SENT ME A TEXT ONE TIME, BUT I CAN'T REMEMBER WHEN THAT WAS. < HAS HE TEXTED YOU ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE? NO. NO. NOT ABOUT THIS REPORT. DID HE HAVE COMMUNICATIONS WITH CAMERON SLATER BETWEEN THE 23RD AND 25TH OF NOVEMBER REGARDING THE CHISHOLM INQUIRY OR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S INQUIRY? CALLING THE RIGHT HONOURABLE PRIME MINISTER. NO. ON MONDAY THE 245H OF NOVEMBER, I RECEIVED AN UNSOLICITED TEXT MESSAGE FROM MR SLATER WITH A REFERENCE TO THE REPORT. THERE WAS A VERY SHORT EXCHANGE WHERE I BRIEFLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT TEXT MESSAGE. < HAVE YOU LIED? NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT. WHAT I'VE DONE IS I'VE ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS AS I'VE HEARD THEM. WE SPOKE TO DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER BILL ENGLISH EARLIER, AND YOU'LL HEAR THAT INTERVIEW ABOUT THE ECONOMY A LITTLE LATER IN THE PROGRAMME. BUT HERE'S WHAT HE HAD TO SAY ABOUT HIS LEADER'S RELATIONSHIP WITH CAMERON SLATER. WELL, LOOK, IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO COMMUNICATE. JOHN KEY'S GIVEN HIS EXPLANATIONS AS TO HOW HE COMMUNICATED. AND, LOOK, THE PUBLIC WILL MAKE UP THEIR OWN MIND. THERE WAS A BIG RUN ON THIS BEFORE THE ELECTION. JOHN KEY RUNS A VERY TRANSPARENT, OPEN GOVERNMENT. HE ANSWERS EVERY QUESTION. I THINK THE PUBLIC ARE VERY IMPRESSED WITH HIS TEMPERAMENT, ABOUT HOW HE DEALS WITH ALL THESE ISSUES. THEY TRUST HIM, AND I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GONNA BE OVERLY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS. NO, NO, THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR EROSION OF TRUST AROUND THIS, BECAUSE WHAT WE'VE SEEN THIS WEEK ` HE'S HAD TO GO BACK INTO THE HOUSE AND HAD TO APOLOGISE FOR MISLEADING THE HOUSE. AND YOU MAY SAY IT'S NOT ILLEGAL, BUT LEADERSHIP IS ABOUT DOING WHAT'S RIGHT; IT'S NOT A MATTER OF SKIDDING UP AGAINST THE LAW, IS IT? WELL, LOOK, HE'S BEEN COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT. NO PRIME MINISTER'S EVER DIVULGED THEIR TEXTS BEFORE. AND I'M SURE IT'D BE PRETTY INTERESTING TO HAVE A LOOK THROUGH SOME OF THEM ON PAST ACTIVITIES. SO, LOOK, HE'S BEEN QUITE STRAIGHT-UP. PEOPLE MAKE THEIR OWN JUDGEMENT. I THINK THE PUBLIC INDICATED IN THE ELECTION THEY WANT GOVERNMENT AND JOHN KEY FOCUSED ON THE ISSUES THAT MATTER TO THEM. AND THIS REMOVES THE FOCUS, BECAUSE THERE HE IS, RUNNING BACK INTO THE HOUSE TO HAVE TO STRAIGHTEN THINGS OUT. THERE HE IS HAVING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON THIS, AND THERE HE IS, I THINK, WITH SOME DAMAGE TO HIS REPUTATION FROM IT. WELL, LOOK, AGAIN, THE PUBLIC WILL MAKE UP THEIR OWN MIND. I MEAN, JOURNALISTS DON'T LIKE BLOGGERS ` THAT'S A BIG PART OF WHAT DRIVES THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION. JOHN KEY IS A VERY TRANSPARENT COMMUNICATIVE PRIME MINISTER. I'M NOT SURPRISED ` HE TALKS TO A WHOLE LOAD OF PEOPLE. BUT YOU DON'T LIKE THIS BLOGGER MUCH, DO YOU? I MEAN, YOU DON'T HAVE MUCH TIME FOR CAMERON SLATER, DO YOU, MINISTER? WELL, LOOK, I DON'T HAVE A, SORT OF, STRONG PERSONAL VIEW, FRANKLY. YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PRIME MINISTER GOING BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS? YOU'RE COMFORTABLE ABOUT WHAT YOU READ IN THE REPORT THIS WEEK ABOUT WHAT WENT ON IN THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICER WITH THAT BLOGGER? WELL, LOOK, JOHN KEY'S SHOWN HIS TEXTS. I'M QUITE COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT'S IN THE TEXTS. IT SEEMS TO BE A PRETTY CIVIL EXCHANGE OF VIEWS, AS YOU WOULD EXPECT BETWEEN A PRIME MINISTER AND ANY RANGE OF JOURNALISTS AND BLOGGERS. LOOK, PEOPLE THINK IT'S NEWS THAT POLITICIANS OR POLITICAL ADVISORS TALK TO THE MEDIA ` COS THIS BLOGGER'S PART OF THE MEDIA ` THEN THAT'S HARDLY THE SHOCK OF THE CENTURY. BUT YOU DON'T TALK TO THIS BLOGGER, DO YOU? WELL, THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE I DON'T TALK TO, JUST COS I'M BUSY AND I'M GETTING ON WITH THE JOB. AND ACTUALLY, I'M LESS INVOLVED IN THE DAY TO DAY TUSSLING AROUND POLITICS, BUT I THINK THE PRIME MINISTER DOES A GREAT JOB OF KEEPING FOCUSED ON THE ISSUES THAT MATTER TO PEOPLE, EVEN IF THE MEDIA AND SOME PEOPLE, COMMENTATORS WANNA TALK ABOUT A WHOLE LOT OF THIS OTHER STUFF. LET'S BRING IN OUR PANEL NOW ` POLITICAL SCIENTIST DR BRONWYN HAYWOOD FROM CANTERBURY UNIVERSITY, FORMER NATIONAL PARTY PRESIDENT MICHELLE BOAG, AND FORMER LABOUR CANDIDATE JOSIE PAGANI. Does the evidence equal the conclusion in your mind? The report is clear that the wrongdoing ` Cameron Slater can attack a politician, but the report shows the prime Minister was politicising the SAS. They wanted to make Phil Goff look like a liar. Jason EdE was on the phone at the time Cameron Slater was e-mailing. The report talked about this incident and said on that occasion staffers had used that information for political purposes. John key has learned a valuable lesson this week, and that is that Cameron Slater is only interested in his own ego. The fact that we have not seen any screenshots since the last election tells me that this is the first time the Prime Minister has gone back to Cameron Slater. His personality is such that he does talk to lots of people and he gets an exchange and is politically sympathetic. Bronwyn, that is the mystifying question, isn't it? What's up with key? There are two sets of issues. As a Prime Minister, keys strength is that he projects a easy to like and confident personality. Somebody like Cameron Slater doesn't inspire confidence for business, party donors, members. Its wider than that. Michelle, you touched on the Prime Minister feeling under siege. Being under siege, you don't make wise decisions. It opens up a much wider debate in the Labour party. The national party is the party of the rule of law. The defence is that it wasn't wrong. The national party says they are fine in principle with dealing with the SAS directly and giving the information to a blogger. It's not as broad as that. When you listen to John key, his words were very carefully chosen. If you pick those words to bits, there was nothing he said that was incorrect. Obfuscation is a question of politics. He was very careful that his words were accurate. That's what this whole thing is about in terms of politics. You have looked like a unified church for a long time. There are few people in the party who have spoken to Cameron Slater. I am offended that you called Mr Cameron Mr and not the Prime Minister. He has a small group of people who do have to do with them, but generally people don't. It's all about ego. John key makes his own decision about who he engages with. As Prime Minister, he can't afford to offend people. I take your point that this is a Prime Minister, but there are constitutional questions that are bigger than he said, she said. What the report has said is that either what happened is not acceptable and we put the SIS operatives within the Minister's offices or the Department of Prime Minister. I would be worried if we put someone from the Secret Service into political office. We need to think carefully about where we put that Secret Service conduit. This is the problem. No matter what you think about Cameron Slater, this isn't about Cameron Slater. This is about the Prime Minister's office. He can say as the Minister responsible for SIS, he should have known. It's about the politicisation of an arm of government. If the Prime Minister's office had phoned the police and said dig around a bit on Phil Goff, that's the same. Since then, the Prime Minister has taken a wise step, and delegated this. These people are clear their processes. I am sure if Chris Finlayson had been in his role then this would not have happened. He talked about I can't be bothered with select committee for six months, and that shows arrogance. Michelle. Just because someone has a good sense of humour and might be regarded as dismissive, this brings us to a whole other question. SEND US YOUR THOUGHTS. WE'RE ON TWITTER @NZQANDA. YOU CAN EMAIL US AT Q+A@TVNZ.CO.NZ OR TEXT YOUR THOUGHTS AND FIRST NAME TO 2211. KEEP THEM BRIEF ` EACH TEXT COSTS 50C. UP NEXT, RACHEL'S HERE WITH THE LAW SOCIETY AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERATION OF ISLAMIC ASSOCIATIONS ` WHY THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT A BILL TO EXTEND SIS POWERS. AND LATER, TRACTORS AND HOT TEMPERS ` WE LOOK BACK AT WHAT WAS MAKING THE POLITICAL NEWS THIS WEEK IN 1997.. YOU HAD TO BE QUICK IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE A SUBMISSION ON THE GOVERNMENT'S BILL TO EXTEND SIS POWERS, INTRODUCED ON TUESDAY NIGHT. SUBMITTERS WERE GIVEN TILL THURSDAY TO HAVE THEIR SAY. ORAL SUBMISSIONS WERE TAKEN AT THE END OF THE WEEK, AND THE BILL IS DUE BACK FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE NEXT TUESDAY. IF IT ALL GOES THE GOVERNMENT'S WAY, IT COULD BE LAW BY DECEMBER THE 11TH. I'M JOINED NOW BY DR ANWAR GHANI, PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERATION OF ISLAMIC ASSOCIATIONS OF NZ; AND IN WELLINGTON, LAW SOCIETY HUMAN RIGHTS SPOKESPERSON ANDREW BUTLER. Andrew, I'll start with you. What concerns you most about this legislation? Two levels of concern include the technical aspects, substantive content of the Bill. Are you concerned about the urgency, the speed with which it has been passed? As Sir Geoffrey Palmer said, rushed legislation often goes wrong. From what we've seen in Canada, and Australia, this is a pressing issue. That might be true. 6 months to a year might be stretching it. What is it in the bill you oppose? Rachel, the Law Society is keen to say there is a attempt to achieve balance. In the area of visual surveillance, on about concerns is the way the word regime is written, it doesn't focus on foreign terrorists, which is the focus of the Bill. If the powers are approved by parliament, it could be to do with espionage. It's not specific enough. But these concerns be dealt with with a wider review of legislation? That could be next year. What are your concerns specifically about this legislation? This Bill has been focused on the Muslim community. The people who are joining in from overseas countries to the war and arrive is a focus. The bill doesn't specifically target the Islamic community. It's not about terrorism or Muslims. That is correct, however it is the impression. Do you accept there is a risk? That these are unprecedented times and we do want to take steps to increase security? These are difficult times. The risks are there, but from the Muslim community perspective, we are not highlighted in this Bill. We need to do all that we can to keep our peace. We are open to dialogue, to a discussion to see how we can work together to keep peace. The prime Minister says there are people here who are becoming radicalised. Do you accept that he is right and there are at least five in the Middle East who are New Zealanders? He would have more information than I would have. The government is right in terms of discouraging people from joining the war there. Domestic league, we do not have any of those type of people. We don't know, do we? No, we don't. Legislation won't bring an end to that, but that is about having transparent dialogue with the Moslem community. Is the government conversing with the Muslim Kennedy? CORRECTION: Community. No. You said in your submission that the Muslim community is feeling the impact of this legislation. What is this doing for race relations? We're seeing Islam phobia coming in. That is not a good sign we are seeing our children and females being abused. It is not a good sign for us as a community. We are peaceful community and proud of it. We do not compromise our social interaction with one another. Once that trust is affected, problems start. Andrew, why do you think that the government is rushing this through? I'm not sure, Rachel. The government must have information that suggests an increase and powers are inadequate. LOTS TO TALK ABOUT WITH OUR PANEL AFTER THE BREAK. PLUS ` DAIRY PRICES DOWN, THE SURPLUS LOOKING ELUSIVE ` ARE THE ECONOMIC GOOD TIMES OVER JUST AS THEY BEGAN? FINANCE MINISTER BILL ENGLISH IS NEXT. LET'S GO BACK TO OUR PANEL. Michelle, interesting comments about speed of this legislation. Does the government have information were not privy to? People who are concerned about the speed don't realise the potential for terrorism events in New Zealand. In February we start the Cricket World Cup. There are Muslim countries involved in the Cricket World Cup. The house won't even be back in session until very early February. That would be too late. I was privileged to hear Lockwood Smith, our High Commissioner in London, speaking to a group here in New Zealand this week. He was astounded at the debate here in New Zealand. He said in the UK there is no debate. Everybody accepts the only way for them to keep safe is to have the powers given to the security services to enable them to pick up these people who are planning these events. What has been unremarked on is the huge success that they've had in the UK. There was a plot to blow up the Queen and a whole lot of dignities around too. The fact they have managed to derail so many of those terrorism threats in the UK is solely due to the capacity to be able to identify these threats. In the UK and also in Australia they are taking the time to debate this. They are debating right now and they will continue to debate until May about whether or not you take passports away. The problem with rushing law is you end up not getting cross-party support. You can't just take a passport away and think you've killed an ideology. You've got to take the time to get it right. That is the point that the law society and the Muslim community are making. Who was right Josie or Michelle? These high risk. The international security council has asked for nations to disrupt travel. The British have a very different way of dealing with security. But the British have engaged in months of discussion. The very significant thing is British has backed off from revoking passports completely. The Prime Minister like ours has jumped the gun by leaping into a decision about let's revoke passports. After months of debate, the Secret Service said no. Let us monitor and manage what's happening. Rushing raises radicalisation. It creates a situation where we have a confrontation. Heaven forbid we suspend constitutional rights for cricket. When you're making a huge constitutional change, when you have a situation where you think we'll just have a look and save we find some evidence, that's a massive change. The reason for this is Kristen Nason said is that they can't get hold of me for a warrant, I might not be some time and I might not be available. Surely there was a system where you can get a warrant if you have evidence. It's only the temporarily stay. In a case where we need to do this, we will get a warrant retrospectively. To take issue with what Bronwyn said, we're not suspending constitutional rights for cricket. Look at those huge terror events that have happened on the subcontinent where cricket has been targeted because it is a global event that attracts hundreds of millions of dollars and when we are hosting a global events, countries around the world are depending on us to have the appropriate systems in place to protect the people. These global sports events have been cancelled before now because of terrorism threats and because of terrorism incidents. I would say that we have to be really careful if that is our concern, then this legislation might not deal with that problem. This legislation actually suspends passports which is a very high threshold. What the British have done is to spend 10 to 30 days. You have to suspend only according to this legislation because you are going to cancel a passport. This Bill is not just about foreign fighters. It is about local, regional terrorism. In New Zealand when we have uses terror powers, we've used them inadequately and wrong way. We have to be really really careful. I'm not saying don't have an SIs. But we need to slow down and remove some of the pressure and hype. No one is disputing the fact that we need to be extra careful right now because of the Cricket World Cup. I'm much more concerned about the 48-hour non-warrant surveillance. I think that reverses the principle of having to go to a judge and said that you have some evidence to show that you need to watch this person getting rid of that is a reversal of constitutional agreement. You can't say you will cover carte blanche guarantee that no New Zealander will be spied on. You can't say that any more of this legislation is passed. There are some New Zealanders who warrants being spied on. There are people` as ever be said, this is a situation where, if they can't get access to the proper authorisation, but they deem it necessary to do it now, then they will. Imagine a situation where they discovered two people were about to meet and they were absolutely convinced that this would be material to terrorism threat. What would they do? It might take an hour to get hold of the Miand that might be too late. We've had hundreds of years asto be able to get warrants in time. When they didn't have the instant communication that we have now. This is very close to my heart because I am adjusting of Eden Park. When I'm sitting there in a full stadium of 60,000 people watching New Zealand demonstrated play cricket, with prime ministers of both nations, I will want to know is a trustee of that place, that someone we can rely on his made sure that our people are safe. No one is disputing that. It's about whether this will achieve that. The Law Society said of the big wide tool. It's going to be temporary legislation. DAIRY PRICES ON THE DECLINE, EXPORTS TO CHINA DOWN, WARNINGS OF A SLIGHT RECESSION. WHAT'S HAPPENED TO OUR SO-CALLED ROCK-STAR ECONOMY? FINANCE MINISTER BILL ENGLISH SAYS GROWTH PEAKED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AND MUCH MORE MODERATE GROWTH IS EXPECTED FROM HERE ON IN. I SPOKE TO HIM EARLIER AND ASKED HIM ABOUT RETURNING TO SURPLUS, WHICH HE IS NOW WARNING COULD BE ELUSIVE. IS HE SOFTENING US UP FOR BAD NEWS? WE BELIEVE WE CAN GET TO SURPLUS. AND WE WON'T KNOW IF WE'RE THERE UNTIL ABOUT THIS TIME NEXT YEAR, WHEN WE GET THE ACTUAL RESULT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 14-15. I MEAN, THESE NUMBERS MOVE AROUND A LOT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A FEW HUNDRED MILLION ON A BUDGET OF 70 BILLION. SO WHEN YOU GET SOME UNCERTAINTIES LIKE THE DAIRY PRICES FALLING A BIT FURTHER FASTER, THAT'LL HAVE AN IMPACT ON OUR TAX REVENUE. OUR EXPENDITURE'S PRETTY MUCH UNDER CONTROL. WE THINK WE CAN GET THERE BECAUSE WHILE DAIRY PRICES ARE DOWN, THE REST OF THE ECONOMY'S ACTUALLY IN PRETTY GOOD SHAPE. AND A LOT OF COMMODITY PRICES ARE HIGHER THAN THEY WERE. SO YOU'RE A NUMBERS MAN. GIVE ME A PERCENTAGE CHANCE YOU THINK WE WILL GET TO SURPLUS THIS TIME ROUND. 80%? 90%? WELL, THERE'S A VERY HIGH CHANCE. WE'RE COMMITTED TO IT. OF COURSE THERE'S ALWAYS SOME UNCERTAINTY. AND THAT'S WHY WE DO REGULAR UPDATES ABOUT THE TRACK WE'RE ON. AND THAT'LL HAPPEN AT THE HALF-YEAR UPDATE. AND IF WE DON'T GET TO SURPLUS THIS TIME, WILL YOU BE TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT? BECAUSE WE'VE HAD AMAZING COMMODITY PRICES, FOR EXAMPLE, UNTIL NOW. SO WILL YOU BE STANDING UP AND TAKING THAT ONE? WELL, IN THE SENSE THAT WE'VE MADE AN UNDERTAKING THAT WE WANT TO ACHIEVE THIS SURPLUS AND WE'LL TAKE WHATEVER HAPPENS. BUT WHATEVER HAPPENS IN THE SHORTER TERM, WE ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK HERE. WE'VE GOT A SERIES OF FORECASTS BEFORE THE FINAL RESULT. BUT THE FORECASTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY SHOWN THAT OUR TAX REVENUE IS GROWING BECAUSE WE'RE A GROWING ECONOMY. SOMETIMES IT'S NOT GROWING AS FAST AS WE EXPECT, LIKE WHEN DAIRY PRICES ARE DOWN. OUR EXPENDITURE IS UNDER CONTROL AND WE'RE IMPROVING PUBLIC SERVICES AS WE GO. THAT'S RELATIVELY UNUSUAL IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD. YOU ALSO PROMISED WHEN YOU CAME INTO POWER TO TURN US INTO AN EXPORT-LED RECOVERY. YOU TALKED ABOUT EXPORTS BEING 40% OF GDP. WE'RE STILL SITTING AROUND THE 29%-30%. THINGS HAVE TURNED DOWN A LITTLE BIT IN SOME QUARTERS. IS THAT GOING TO BE AS GOOD AS IT GETS FOR US? I DON'T THINK IT IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS RIGHT NOW. ARE YOU GOING TO GET TO 40%? I THINK IT'S A 2025 OBJECTIVE FOR THE GOVERNMENT. SO THAT'S STILL A GOOD 10 YEARS AWAY. AND YET WE HAVEN'T MOVED FAR, HAVE WE? AND THERE'S SOME REASONS FOR THAT. ONE HAS BEEN THE FACT OF THE CHRISTCHURCH EARTHQUAKE. SO A LOT OF THE RESOURCES ` PEOPLE AND CASH ` IS GOING INTO THAT DOMESTIC REBUILD RATHER THAN INTO BUILDING OUR EXPORT INDUSTRIES. PRICES FLUCTUATE. THAT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE LONG-TERM. THAT MIGHT KEEP US GOING FOR A DECADE OR TWO, BUT WE STILL NEED THOSE EXPORTS, THOUGH, DON'T WE? YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. AND WE'RE SEEING SOME REAL SUCCESS THERE NOW WITH THE BURGEONING SUCCESS OF THE IT SECTOR, THE WINE BUSINESS PICKING UP, THE NON-DAIRY` IT'S STILL NOT 40%, THOUGH, IS IT? BUT YOU DON'T GET THERE IN ONE BIG JUMP BECAUSE WHAT IT NEEDS IS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF CAPITAL TO SHIFT INTO THE EXPORT SECTOR. YOU HAVE HAD SIX YEARS, THOUGH, ON THIS ONE, AND IT DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE MOVED FAR. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF HEADWINDS. BUT IT IS A LONG-TERM OBJECTIVE. YOU'VE HAD SOME TAILWINDS, THOUGH, CALLED DAIRY PRICES. YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. AND FOR THAT REASON THE VALUE OF EXPORTS WAS UP. BUT THERE'S BEEN THE HIGH EXCHANGE RATE, FOR INSTANCE. IT'S THE HIGHEST FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE SINCE THE SECOND WORLD WAR. SO IT'S A LONG-TERM OBJECTIVE. THE GOOD THINGS IS THAT OUR EXPORTERS, UNDER THOSE PRESSURES, HAVE DONE EXTREMELY WELL. ACTUALLY, THEY SHOULD'VE GONE BACKWARDS, IN THEORY. BUT THEY'VE BECOME MORE RESILIENT, MORE PRODUCTIVE, MORE EFFICIENT, MORE COMPETITIVE, AND THAT'S A GREAT BASE. AND YOU'RE STARTING TO SEE ` YOU KNOW, THE FLOAT OF ORION. SUDDENLY WE'VE GOT A BILLION-DOLLAR COMPANY ON THE STOCK EXCHANGE. IT'S JUST ABOUT ALL EXPORTS. THEY'VE HARDLY SOLD ANY PRODUCT IN NZ. THEY'RE JUST GOING TO GROW WITH THE $100M THAT THEY'VE RAISED FROM THAT. BNZ'S STEPHEN TOPLIS TALKING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OF US SLIPPING INTO A VERY SMALL RECESSION IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS. WE'VE HIT THE TOP, HAVEN'T WE? ARE THE BEST OF THE ECONOMIC DAYS OVER FOR NOW? THE TRICK HERE IS TO TRY AND GET A MODERATE CYCLE, OK? GROWTH PROBABLY HAS PEAKED, EARLIER THIS YEAR. BUT ISN'T IT ABOUT SUSTAINABLE GROWTH? ISN'T THAT WHAT WE WANT TO HAVE? AND THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT. WE'RE GETTING THE CONDITIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE GROWTH ARE LOOKING MODERATELY POSITIVE. THAT IS, HOUSE PRICES ARE SLOWING DOWN ` HOUSE PRICE INFLATION. OUR INTEREST RATES ARE LOWER FOR LONGER. THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE GONNA HELP PEOPLE GET 2.5%-3% GROWTH, WHICH MEANS PAY RISES YEAR ON YEAR A BIT MORE THAN INFLATION. THAT'S WHAT GETS THEM AHEAD. SO THE BNZ'S A BIT MORE AT THE NEGATIVE END OF THE FORECAST. BUT THE PROSPECT'S AN AVERAGE 2.5% GROWTH FOR FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. THAT'S A VERY GOOD OUTLOOK. COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS. TAX CUTS ` LIKELY OR NOT? YES. 2017 WE SAID IN THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN, AND THERE'S NO REASON TO BE OFF-TRACK ON THAT. MIGRATION. ARE YOU EXPECTING THAT TO SLOW ANY TIME SOON? WELL, WE'VE BEEN EXPECTING IT TO SLOW FOR A FAIR BIT OF THIS YEAR. IT HASN'T. AND IT JUST KEEPS ON COMING. I THINK THERE'S SOME SPECIAL FEATURES OF IT WHICH MEAN IT COULD RUN ON. ONE IS THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION IN AUSTRALIA'S NOT THAT GOOD, WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVE THE FIRST NET INFLOW IN 24 YEARS FROM AUSTRALIA. THE OTHER IS THAT A FAIR BIT OF THOSE BIGGER NUMBERS ARE STUDENTS, SO OUR EDUCATION INDUSTRY'S GROWING, AND THAT'S PRETTY POSITIVE. SO IT'S NOT LIKE LARGE NUMBERS OF LONG-TERM PEOPLE COMING AND INFLATING THE HOUSING MARKET. SO IT'S BEEN PRETTY POSITIVE` A MORE POSITIVE EXPERIENCE THAN WE EXPECTED. HAVE YOU WORKED OUT AROUND THE HOUSING STOCK, THE STATE HOUSING STOCK, HOW MUCH OF IT YOU'RE GONNA SELL? THE PERCENTAGE? WE'LL BE MAKING THAT CLEAR IN THE FIRST PART OF NEXT YEAR. SO YOU MUST BE WELL DOWN THE TRACK IN TERMS OF WORK. YOU MUST HAVE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA. WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THE GENERAL APPROACH FOR TWO OR THREE YEARS. THERE'S A BIG OPPORTUNITY HERE TO CRACK THE WELFARE DEPENDENCY PROBLEM WE HAVE HERE IN NZ, AS WELL AS PROVIDE MORE LAND SUPPLY TO THE AUCKLAND HOUSING MARKET AND OTHERS. SPEAKING OF LAND SUPPLY, HAVE YOU RULED OUT, FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT WAS A GREAT PIECE OF PIECES OF LAND, SELLING TO DEVELOPERS? WOULD THAT BE A POSSIBILITY FOR SOME OF THOSE PROPERTIES? YES, AND SOME OF THAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW. THERE'S, YOU KNOW` AT MARKET PRICES, I'M ASSUMING. YEAH. I CAN JUST THINK OF AN EXAMPLE OF A DEVELOPMENT WHICH HAS CURRENTLY 11 STATE HOUSES ON IT, AND THE DEVELOPER'S MOVING THAT UP TO 50. AND WE'LL END UP WITH 20. WE HAD 11, WE'LL END UP WITH 20 STATE HOUSES, COS THERE'S MORE DEMAND IN THAT AREA ON THE NORTH SHORE. AND THE DEVELOPER WILL GET TO SELL OFF` BUT YOU'RE NOT DISCOUNTING FOR DEVELOPERS, ARE YOU? YOU'RE NOT DISCOUNTING TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS? OR ARE YOU? NO. THOSE ARE AT MARKET PRICES, AND THAT'S HOW WE WOULD EXPECT TO PROCEED. WE DO WANT TO HELP DEVELOP WHAT WE CALL COMMUNITY HOUSING PROVIDERS, AND IN SOME OF OUR PROVINCIAL AREAS IN PARTICULAR, WHERE WE HAVE SURPLUS HOUSES, WE MAY NOT GET EXACTLY WHAT'S ON THE BOOK VALUE ` THE THEORETICAL VALUE. BUT, LOOK, THAT'S AHEAD OF US. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOVING THROUGH THIS PRETTY CAREFULLY, COS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS WE LOOK AFTER THE NEEDS OF OUR TENANTS, AND THAT WE ENABLE MORE PEOPLE WITH SERIOUS HOUSING NEED TO GET THE SUPPORT THEY NEED. AND WHAT ABOUT SELLING SOME OF THEM TO FIRST-HOMEBUYERS? WELL, THERE'S A BIT OF THAT GOING ON NOW. SOME OF THEM TO THE TENANTS, ACTUALLY, AS FIRST-HOMEBUYERS. AGAIN, IT'S ALL PRETTY SMALL SCALE, AND WE WANNA BE CAREFUL ABOUT THE SPEED AT WHICH WE LIFT THE RATE. WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT WE NEED TO LIFT THE QUALITY AND TYPE OF OUR HOUSING, SOCIAL HOUSING STOCK. WE NEED MORE OF IT. THAT'S PRETTY CLEAR. AND WE NEED MORE EFFICIENT USE OF THE LAND IN THESE METROPOLITAN AREAS WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF LOWER-INCOME PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD HOUSING NOW. WE CAN HELP WITH THAT PROBLEM. I KNOW YOU'RE NOT GONNA GIVE ME A NUMBER; I KNOW YOU'RE NOT GONNA GIVE ME ANY SORT OF NUMBER AT ALL. BUT GIVE ME A SENSE OF THE SCALE OF THIS THING IN TERMS OF SOCIAL HOUSING, IN TERMS OF STATE HOUSING IN NZ. THIS IS A REVOLUTION NOT AN EVOLUTION, ISN'T IT? THIS IS A MASSIVE CHANGE. I'D SAY IT'S AN EVOLUTION THAT'S JUST GOING TO SPEED UP A BIT. WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT A REVOLUTION HERE, BECAUSE AT THE CORE OF THIS ARE PEOPLE WITH HOUSING NEED. AND YOU CAN'T MESS AROUND WITH THEIR LIVES IN A WAY THAT'S RANDOM AND UNPREDICTABLE. SO WE'VE DONE` I'LL JUST GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS WE HAVE BUILT UP A PIPELINE OF ABOUT 900 HOUSES OUTSIDE HOUSING CORP. SO COMMUNITY HOUSING PROVIDERS PROVIDING UP TO 900 MORE HOUSES. OVER THE NEXT YEAR WE'D LIKE TO LIFT THAT PIPELINE TO A FEW THOUSAND. SO WE'LL OUTLINE ALL THAT IN THE FIRST PART OF NEXT YEAR. NEW JUSTICE MINISTER AMY ADAMS IS HERE AFTER THE BREAK. IS IT TIME TO LOOK AT BETTER WAYS TO DEAL WITH SEXUAL AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN OUR COURTS? ARE WE LETTING DOWN VICTIMS? THE MINISTER TELLS US NEXT. THIS WEEK SIR OWEN GLENN'S INQUIRY INTO CHILD ABUSE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RELEASED ITS SECOND REPORT, CALLING FOR AN OVERHAUL OF OUR, 'BROKEN SYSTEM.' IT MADE A WIDE RANGE OF RECOMMENDATIONS, INCLUDING A NEW FAMILY VIOLENCE COURT AND MORE ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF PERPETRATORS. EARLIER RACHEL SMALLEY ASKED JUSTICE MINISTER AMY ADAMS ABOUT THE REPORT AND WHETHER SHE THOUGHT PROTECTION ORDERS WERE FAILING VICTIMS. I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY FAIR TO SAY THAT WE NEED TO LOOK VERY CLOSELY AT THE REGIME, BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THEY ARE BREACHED OFTEN. CERTAINLY IT'S A PIECE OF WORK THAT I'VE ALREADY ANNOUNCED ` THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S ALREADY ANNOUNCED IS UNDERWAY, WHICH IS A FULL REVIEW OF THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, WHICH IS THE FRAMEWORK THAT PROTECTION ORDERS SIT UNDER. WE HAVE TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK IS RIGHT, AND ALSO WHETHER THE ENFORCEMENT AND APPLICATION OF THEM IS WORKING AS BEST AS IT CAN. AND IT'S AN AREA OF WORK THAT I'M ALREADY UNDERWAY WITH. DO YOU THINK IT'S LIKELY TO SEE SOME CHANGES, THEN? I THINK THAT'S LIKELY. BUT AT THIS EARLY STAGE, IT'S HARD TO PREDICT WHAT THEY WILL BE. WHAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT IN THIS WHOLE AREA OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS THAT WE TAKE A VERY BROAD APPROACH TO TALKING WITH STAKE-HOLDERS, THE COMMUNITY, ALL OF THE GROUPS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THE SECTOR AND GETTING A SENSE OF THE DIRECTION WE NEED TO GO IN. THE GLENN REPORT ON FAMILY VIOLENCE OUT THIS WEEK HAS A NUMBER OF RECOMMENDATIONS. ARE YOU LOOKING TO ADOPT ANY OF THOSE? IS THAT IN STEP WITH YOU? I THINK THAT A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE RAISED IN THAT REPORT REALLY DO REFLECT SOME OF THE THINGS WE'VE ALREADY INDICATED NEED TO HAPPEN. ONE OF THOSE IS THE IMPORTANCE OF A VERY COORDINATED APPROACH. ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT I DID ON BECOMING MINISTER OF JUSTICE WAS WITH MINISTER TOLLEY FORM A HIGH-LEVEL MINISTERIAL GROUP TO COORDINATE EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN THE FAMILY VIOLENCE SPACE. THERE ARE A LOT OF AGENCIES DOING A LOT OF THINGS, AND THEY NEED TO BE VERY WELL-COORDINATED WITH A SINGLE POINT OF REFERENCE, AND THAT'S WHAT MINISTER TOLLEY AND I ARE PROVIDING. YOU'VE REOPENED THE REVIEW ON HOW WE'RE DEALING WITH CASES ABOUT SEXUAL VIOLENCE. THAT WAS THE REVIEW THAT JUDITH COLLINS SHUT DOWN. WHY HAVE YOU REOPENED IT? IT'S ALWAYS BEEN MY VIEW THAT ONE OF THE THINGS WE NEEDED TO DO IN THE JUSTICE SECTOR IS THINK VERY CAREFULLY ABOUT HOW WE PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE, WHO TEND TO BE THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN WHO'VE BEEN THE SUBJECTS OF SEXUAL OR FAMILY VIOLENCE. I THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT MORE WE CAN DO TO SUPPORT. WE'VE COME A LONG WAY, BUT WE KNOW THAT IT'S A TERRIBLY TRAUMATIC PROCESS TO COME FORWARD AS A VICTIM. AND THE COURT SYSTEM CAN AND MUST THINK LONG AND HARD ABOUT WHETHER THERE'S MORE IT CAN DO. THE LAW COMMISSION PIECE OF WORK WILL BE A USEFUL CONTRIBUTION TO THAT. LIKE MINISTER COLLINS, THERE ARE SOME PARTS THAT WERE POSSIBLY OUTSIDE COMFORT LEVELS WHICH WOULD SEE, EFFECTIVELY, THE BURDEN OF PROOF REMOVED AND THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE GONE. I'VE RULED THOSE OUT, BUT BEYOND THAT, I'VE ASKED THE LAW COMMISSION TO THINK ABOUT THE FULL RANGE OF OTHER ISSUES THAT COULD MAKE IT EASIER FOR VICTIMS TO COME FORWARD. WAS COLLINS WRONG TO SHUT THAT DOWN, DO YOU THINK? NO, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THAT. I THINK SHE RAISED SOME VERY FAIR CONCERNS ABOUT SOME OF THE MORE POTENTIALLY EXTREME SUGGESTIONS. AND SHE WAS WORKING THROUGH A NUMBER OF PRIORITIES, BOTH FOR THE COMMISSION AND HER DEPARTMENT AT THAT TIME. RIGHT NOW AT THIS POINT IN TIME I THINK IT IS A PRIORITY TO PICK IT UP. AND I'VE ASKED THE COMMISSION TO DO THAT AS A MATTER OF PRIORITY. WHEN THE ROAST-BUSTERS CASE WAS DROPPED BY POLICE, WELLINGTON RAPE CRISIS SAID, 'OUR SYSTEM DOES NOT DELIVER JUSTICE 'FOR SURVIVORS AND NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.' DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? I THINK WE CAN CERTAINLY ASK OURSELVES THE QUESTION, CAN WE DO MORE TO SUPPORT VICTIMS IN COMING FORWARD?' WHAT MIGHT WE DO MORE, THEN? IF YOU LOOK AT THE ROAST-BUSTERS REPORT, ONE OF THE THINGS NOTED IN THAT WAS THE REASONS THAT THE VICTIMS DIDN'T WANT TO COME FORWARD, THE ONE THEY MOST COMMONLY CITED WAS THE FEARED REACTIONS OF THEIR FRIENDS, THEIR COMMUNITY, AND THE MEDIA. THAT WAS THE ONE THAT WAS FRONT OF MIND. BUT CERTAINLY, THE PROCESS THROUGH THE JUSTICE SYSTEM WAS PART OF IT, SO I THINK PART OF THAT, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT HOW VICTIMS ARE CROSS-EXAMINED, WHETHER IT'S FAIR TO PUT THE VICTIM'S SEXUAL EXPERIENCE ON TRIAL AND NOT THE DEFENDANT'S, WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE SPECIALIST LAWYERS AND JUDGES LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE ISSUES, WHETHER THAT EVIDENCE CAN BE PRE-RECORDED AWAY FROM THE COURTROOM AND THEN PRESENTED LATER. SO, LOOK, I THINK THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT COULD MAKE IT EASIER, BUT LET'S BE CLEAR ` HAVING TO RELIVE AND RETELL AND RE-EXPERIENCE THE TRAUMA THEY'VE BEEN THROUGH IS AWFUL. NOTHING WILL EVER TAKE THAT AWAY, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY, I THINK, CONSIDER IF WE CAN MAKE IT EASIER. ANDREW LITTLE SAID ON THIS PROGRAMME LAST WEEK THAT THE CASE SHOULD HAVE GONE TO TRIAL REGARDLESS, REALLY, OF THE OUTCOME, BECAUSE HE SAID IT'S ABOUT THE MESSAGE AND AT THE VERY LEAST, THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED. WHAT DO YOU THINK? I THINK POLITICIANS HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL EXPRESSING THEIR OWN JUDGEMENT OF WHETHER THE POLICE SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T BE CHARGING PEOPLE. IT'S A VERY LONG-ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE THAT POLITICIANS SHOULDN'T WADE INTO POLICE-CHARGING DECISIONS. IT BRINGS US BACK, THOUGH, AGAINST A PRINCIPLE, YOU KNOW, OF THE SYSTEM IS FAILING WOMEN AGAIN. WELL, AS I SAID, I'M NOT GONNA COMMENT SPECIFICALLY ON THE POLICE'S DECISION TO CHARGE FOR A VERY GOOD CONSTITUTIONAL REASON, BUT WHAT I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR IS HOW THE JUSTICE SYSTEM THROUGH THE COURTS WORKS FOR THOSE WOMEN AND THE PERCEPTION THAT IS THEN CREATED. AND I THINK, AS I SAID, I'M VERY OPEN TO IMPROVING THAT SYSTEM, AND I'VE ASKED THE LAW COMMISSION TO LOOK AT THAT AS A MATTER OR PRIORITY. OK. THE JUSTICE BRIEFING THAT YOU RECEIVED AS INCOMING MINISTER, IT ALSO SAID THERE WERE FUNDING PRESSURES ON ALL AREAS, ACROSS THE BOARD, REALLY. IS THAT ONE OF THE REASONS WHY SOME OF THESE CASES DON'T END UP GOING TO TRIAL? NO, LOOK, ABSOLUTELY NOT. SO THE JUSTICE BRIEFING THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS TALKING ABOUT PRESSURES THROUGH THE COURTS AND THE JUSTICE PORTFOLIO. THE DECISION NOT TO CHARGE IS ONE FOR POLICE. AND IT CERTAINLY DIDN'T RELATE TO ANY FUNDING ISSUES FOR THEM. BUT, OF COURSE, LOOK, ALL CROWN SECTORS ARE LOOKING VERY HARD AT HOW WE CAN DELIVER MORE EFFICIENTLY WITHIN CONSTRAINED BASELINES. THAT'S THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION WE'RE IN, AND I THINK THE JUSTICE MINISTRY, LIKE OTHERS, ARE DOING A VERY GOOD JOB OF ADAPTING TO THAT. ARE YOU GOING TO SEEK MORE FUNDING? LOOK, I THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE SUFFICIENT FUNDING TO DELIVER A GOOD SERVICE FOR NZERS. DO YOU HAVE THAT NOW? I THINK WE DO. SO NO MORE MONEY? WELL, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE PRESSURES ON THE JUSTICE SYSTEM ARE DEMAND-DRIVEN. REALLY, WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS TRY AND DO THE WORK WE ARE DOING TO DRIVE CRIME RATES DOWN, AND THE LESS CRIME THAT'S BEING COMMITTED, THE LESS PRESSURE ON THE JUSTICE SYSTEM. AND ACTUALLY, WE'RE SEEING NOW THE LOWEST CRIME RATES IN 35 YEARS. SO IT'S GOOD, BUT WE HAVE TO WATCH IT CAREFULLY. THE JUSTICE BRIEFING ALSO HIGHLIGHTS SOME ISSUES ABOUT THE WAY WE TREAT 17-YEAR-OLDS IN OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. WE LOOK AT THEM AS ADULTS. AND EVEN THE UN HAS HIGHLIGHTED THAT AS HAVING, YOU KNOW, SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. WHAT DO YOU THINK? LOOK, AT THIS STAGE, I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE FROM THE POSITION WE'RE IN. I'M AWARE THAT THERE ARE A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT 17-YEAR-OLDS COULD BE DEALT WITH IN THE YOUTH COURT SYSTEM. WE ARE OUT OF STEP WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS, THOUGH, AREN'T WE? I'VE HAD SOME VERY STRONG ADVICE FROM PEOPLE IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM WHO VERY STRONGLY ADVISE ME AGAINST CHANGING IT. SO I THINK YOU NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL. LOOK, THERE ARE 17-YEAR-OLDS WHO SEEM MUCH MORE LIKE CHILDREN; THERE ARE 17-YEAR-OLDS WHO ARE VERY MUCH MORE LIKE ADULTS. AND, LOOK, AT THIS STAGE, I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR CHANGE, BUT IT'S SOMETHING I'LL KEEP AN OPEN MIND ON. OK. KIM DOTCOM HAS BEEN IN COURT THIS WEEK. HAVE YOU BEEN KEPT ACROSS, AS JUSTICE MINISTER, WHAT'S GOING ON IN COURT? LOOK, I DON'T WATCH IT VERY CLOSELY, FOR THE VERY SIMPLE REASON THAT IF, IN TIME, MR DOTCOM IS TO BE EXTRADITED, AS THE JUSTICE MINISTER, THAT WILL BE MY DECISION TO MAKE, SO I TRY AND KEEP MYSELF REMOVED FROM THE DAY TO DAY LEGAL DISCUSSION AND MEDIA COMMENTARY ON IT. BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WHEN I COME TO MAKE THAT DECISION, I HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DO SO VERY OBJECTIVELY. HE SAYS HE'S BROKE. IS HE RECIEVING LEGAL AID? I COULDN'T TELL YOU. THOSE DECISIONS ARE MADE ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDANTLY OF ME. YOU ARE THE MINISTER, OF COURSE, AS YOU MENTIONED, WHO WILL SIGN OFF IS HE IS TO BE EXTRADITED. DO YOU THINK YOU'RE GONNA COME UNDER SOME DEGREE OF DIPLOMATIC PRESSURE HERE? YOU KNOW, WASHINGTON'S WATCHING; HOLLYWOOD'S WATCHING. THIS ISN'T A SMALL DOMESTIC ISSUE; THIS IS A RATHER MAJOR ISSUE WITH IMPLICATIONS. WELL, WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT WHEN EXTRADITIONS COME ACROSS THE MINISTER'S DESK, AND I'VE DEALT WITH ONE OR TWO ALREADY, WE HAVE TO HANDLE THEM VERY VERY CAREFULLY AND UNDER A VERY CLEAR PROCESS. AND I WOULD BE VERY SURPRISED AND FRANKLY, NOT ACCEPTING OF ANYONE SEEKING TO PUT ANY PRESSURE ON ME FOR REASONS OTHER THAN THE PROPER STATUTORY FRAMEWORK. SO IF ANYONE TRIED TO EXERT THAT PRESSURE ON ME, I CAN TELL YOU THAT I'D BE VERY MUCH FEEDING BACK TO THEM THAT THAT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE And working through the process I need to work through. THE PANEL'S BACK AFTER THE BREAK. WE LOOK BACK AT WHAT WAS MAKING THE POLITICAL NEWS THIS WEEK IN 1997 ` TEMPERS FRAY AS FARMERS COME TO THE CAPITAL TO PROTEST. THAT'S NEXT. WELCOME BACK. Rachel has joined the panel. Michelle, Andrew Little has had a good week. He has. I picked him to be the leader because I think he's got the right touch. The greatest valueis in the morale for the Labour Party. The better his colleagues feel about his performance, the more likely they are to behave themselves and get in behind. If you don't get in behind the leader, then none of it is going to work. I think he's had a very good start and I think he will be a formidable opponent. I think he sounded very authentic, he sounded like himself. It's been like dad telling of the naughty teenager. Cut the crap. He's been, I think, strong in the house. Again, it's issues that for the Labour Party you would expect the Labour Party to come out and have a strong position against for example sexual harassment in the workplace. You would expect the Labour Party to have a position against politicising the SIS. The real test will be whether they can shift votes from the centre to Labour. He also was a very competent leader outside Parliament. The thing that I felt sad about was that he was quite quiet and Gloucester's bark when he was in the back. Now that he's in a leadership role, and he's just honest way. The big trick now is he's just starting. He has a different style of union leader. That will be a shift for Labour. The big problem for the media is that he is still new. We still have to keep critiquing power. The rollers to critique the government. It's to change the Labour party and fax the Labour Party. Are you starting to see any signs of cohesion here or is it too soon? You also have to have a culture where you're able to debate things when the public see the Labour Party getting excited about things and having difference of opinion openly, they will start thinking that this is a robust strong party that is not afraid to fix itself. That's one of the changes. The other changes democracy in the party. It has to be a democratically elected president. The have to start to attract more members. All these issues, next year. It easier for Little to do this. He has the union background Buddy doesn't have to be tied to the old union structures. There is a level of trust that he gets what it is. This is a real threat for national because he can engage with the new New Zealand. The dealings I've had with injury little over the years is that he is open and pragmatic and understands business. He sat down across the table from business. He knows that without that business, his people wouldn't have jobs. We will hear Andrew Little's first speech outside Parliament on Monday morning. Stephen Joyce left today for the New Zealand jobs fear in Sydney. Thank you, panel. BEFORE WE GO, LET'S LOOK BACK TO THIS WEEK IN 1997. TARANAKI FARMERS TOOK THEIR TRACTORS TO PARLIAMENT TO PROTEST A NEW LAW THAT ALLOWED MAORI LEASEHODERS TO CHARGE FULL MARKET RATES AND EVENTUALLY BUY IT BACK. A LAST-MINUTE LAW CHANGE ALLOWING FARMERS TO CHALLENGE COMPENSATION FAILED TO WIN OVER LESSEES, AS DUNCAN GARNER REPORTS. CONFRONTING ANGRY FARMERS, MAORI AFFAIRS MINISTER TAU HENARE. YOU'RE AWAY WITH THE FAIRIES. I'VE GOT $300,000 OF ASSETS, AND I'M GONNA GET $20,000 FOR IT. IS THAT FAIR? IT DIDN'T LAST LONG. NO, NO. HE'S TELLING YOU NOT TO TALK TO ME. THANK YOU. TRACTOR HORNS HONK KEEP THEM COMING THROUGH! COME ON! ROW UPON ROW OF FARMERS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS PACKING PARLIAMENT GROUNDS, THE PROTEST OVER THE FUTURE OF LAND FARMERS SAY IS THEIRS. BUT MAORI OWN THE LAND, AND THE GOVERNMENT'S NEW LAW MEANS THAT THESE FARMERS, WHO'VE PAID PEPPERCORN RENTAL FOR YEARS, WILL SOON PAY MARKET RENTS, AND EVENTUALLY, MAORI CAN BUY THE LAND BACK. SOME MPS HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ALL WEEK THAT THIS COULD TURN INTO A RACE DEBATE. TODAY ` SIGNS THAT WAS BEGINNING TO HAPPEN. IT WAS GIVEN TO THE PAKEHAS TO BREAK IN AND LOOK AFTER. NO ONE WANTED TO DO IT` DON'T TELL ME ABOUT THE LAND BEING GIVEN TO YOU. NO ONE WANTED TO DO ANYTHING. THE LAND WAS STOLEN FROM MAORI. THE LAND WAS STOLEN FROM MAORI, AND YOU'VE LIVED OFF THE PEOPLE'S BACK FOR 110 YEARS. OUR PEOPLE DIED FOR THIS LAND. BULLSHIT! IF THEY WERE MAORI, THEY'D BE MARCHED OFF THERE RIGHT NOW. CROWD BOOS MARAE IS NEXT WITH NEW PLYMOUTH MAJOR ANDREW JUDD, WHO'S FIGHTING FOR FAIRER MAORI REPRESENTATION ON COUNCILS. AND REMEMBER, Q+A REPEATS TONIGHT AT 11.35PM. THANKS FOR WATCHING, AND THANKS FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS. THOSE WERE THE QUESTIONS AND THOSE WERE THE ANSWERS. THAT'S Q+A. SEE YOU NEXT SUNDAY MORNING AT 9. CAPTIONS BY FAITH HAMBLYN AND JESSICA BOELL. CAPTIONS WERE MADE POSSIBLE WITH FUNDING FROM NZ ON AIR. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2014