GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO Q+A. I'M SIMON DALLOW WITH POLITICAL EDITOR CORIN DANN. TODAY ` THE TPP TALKS IN HAWAII HAVE STALLED, AND NZ IS COPPING SOME OF THE BLAME. WE'LL SPEAK TO TRADE MINISTER TIM GROSER ABOUT THE KEY STICKING POINTS AND WHETHER HE'S STILL CONFIDENT HE CAN GET THIS DEAL OVER THE LINE. I'LL ALSO BE TALKING TO RODNEY JONES, A NZ ECONOMIST BASED IN BEIJING. HOW WOULD CHINA TAKE A PACIFIC TRADE DEAL? SHOULD WE BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE RISING TIDE OF CHINESE INVESTMENT ALL OVER THE WORLD? HE GIVES HIS INSIGHT ON THE WORLD'S SECOND BIGGEST ECONOMY. JUSTICE MINISTER AMY ADAMS IS HERE TO TALK FOR THE FIRST TIME ABOUT HER NEXT MOVE IN TACKLING OUR VERY HIGH RATES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. SHE WANTS AN OVERHAUL OF THE LAW AND BETTER PROTECTION FOR VICTIMS. BIG CHANGES ARE IN STORE. AND WE'RE VERY PLEASED TO HAVE SUSAN WOOD BACK TO INTERVIEW TIME EDITOR NANCY GIBBS. AT THIS STAGE IN EVERY PRESIDENTIAL RACE, THERE IS ALWAYS THE SHOOTING STAR OF SUMMERTIME. (LAUGHS) AND WE'LL ANALYSE ALL THE ISSUES WITH OUR PANEL ` FRAN O'SULLIVAN, NZME EDITORIAL DIRECTOR FOR BUSINESS AND MICHAEL WOOD, LABOUR PARTY COUNCIL MEMBER. AFTER AN INTENSE WEEK OF NEGOTIATIONS, THE TPP TALKS IN MAUI HAVE WRAPPED UP... WITH NO DEAL. THE MINISTERS ARE HEADING HOME BUT VOWING TO REGROUP SOON TO HAMMER OUT A FINAL DEAL. OUR TRADE MINISTER TIM GROSER IS ON THE LINE FROM MAUI. They need a sense of how disappointing this is? I have mixed emotions. I'm disappointed, but relieved that we were able to avoid a situation of New Zealand being thrown out of this negotiation Or expecting a suboptimal deal On our number one export. How much of a risk is it that we will be thrown out? I think it is a political fantasy that we will be thrown out of this negotiation. But I'm trying to think realistically. There are one or two countries that would... We would only be taking ourselves out. They will not push us out. What are we trying to get in terms of dairy? There are two sticking points. There are a range of other technical matters, but the two key sticking points are the deal on autos and the deal on dairy. Everybody including two major players in the auto area weRe staggered to find out the dimension of the problem on autos. For reasons that were concealed we were gobsmacked to find that something so fundamentally important to this negotiation is the auto trade, which dwarfs dairy in magnitude by 100 or so, was not in a clear position to be settled. The two key issues are dairy and auto. There are some issues in pharmaceutical and IT. I have told the Prime Minister I am comfortable with the direction on that. What are the chances on dairy? You have to have big moves from the likes of Japan the US and Canada. How realistic is that? It's not realistic to think that we will get everything we want. This is a negotiation. Nor is it realistic to expect New Zealand to expect a sub optimal deal. I don't know of people thought we were bluffing, but you never know until you get to the endgame. We've got to fight for New Zealand. On all the rest of the deal, of great interest to our exporters, there is a great deal shaping up. It is a complicated equation for us. The timeframe is tightening. Who knows if we will get a deal before the US election. There is no formal timetable. I have been telling the Prime Minister there is a strong shared informal understanding That this has to be done in weeks, not months. It is the worst kept secret in international politics. The Canadian election is now underway, and Canada is exposed both on dairy and auto. LET'S BRING IN THE PANEL NOW ` LABOUR PARTY COUNCIL MEMBER MICHAEL WOOD AND NZME EDITORIAL DIRECTOR FOR BUSINESS FRAN O'SULLIVAN. What did you think of that? It is for both domestic and international consumption. if he does not hang tough on dairy, there is no chance of a deal. There has been some movement on dairy but very small. The big cliffhanger in all of this was the auto bust up. That was the primary reason given for the talks stalling. The issue there is essentially most trades takes part in global value chains these days. Mexico said it wanted more regional trade, in other words more parts made within the region, so they got a bigger slice of the economic dividend from auto manufacturing. Other major players like the United States and Japan all chimed in. Each has rules of origin, which determine where things come from in the value chain. It doesn't affect us in the sense that without the auto stall, you're unlikely to get a deal in the first place. Dairy was also sitting there. These two major issues made no real progress at Maui. We've had an indication since from the Japanese Minister that he expects the ministers to resume their own talks before the end of August. Is this able to play out given the different levels of protectionism, tariffs? What you are seeing from Tim Groser is post-failure tough guy positioning. Canada ` dairy product access. We would want to unlock to get economic benefit for New Zealand. We didn't hear any recognition from the Minister about those issues around sovereignty that are important for New Zealanders. The government here is showing it is a bit out of touch. We didn't even get an acknowledgement that those are issues in the interview. I'm talking about New Zealand's fundamental right to regulate in its own public interest, in health and control Of its land. These are major questions. Labour set them out as being bottom lines for us. The Minister set these aside. There needs to be reflection on that after the failure in Maui, and put the spotlight on those issues. How likely is the success for Tpp? There has to be a reasonable chance. Some of the other issues Michael talked about, there has been broad agreement reached. The usual trade thing is nothing is done until it's done. While there is broad agreement on a range of issues, the key deal breakers are the two major issues. In the case of dairy with Canada, they offered a tiny extra quota of dairy coming into Canada. But that is not the primary issue. It is very complex. Canada doesn't want to shift on this. It's unfortunate if the country like that with itsprotectionist policies became the dealbreaker for everyone else. It would be better for Canada to drop out than New Zealand to drop out. Unfortunately, Canada is also part of NAFTA, so when it comes down to that, the US and Mexico will want to keep Canada in the. It's quite unclear whether the gains were New Zealand's dairy interest will offset the impact on other economic interests. You don't sound that positive on that yourself. I'm reasonably positive about the TPP. It's part of increasing moves towards a regional free trade area in the Asia-Pacific. When the WTO can't make progrees, getting a regional deal up is important. We do have to worry about dairy dominance. How we are advancing. This is about all the nations involved. If the bottom line is not met, we had to walk away. At the moment we have failure from the government on all fronts. We've got failure on issues like farming were it has been drip fed that we'll will face bigger costs. A few months ago the government was seeing this is an issue that people are New Zealand's didn't care about. Without the five conditions, Labour would walk away? Andrew Little said we will leave the options open if we come into government. It's more important that we get it right at this stage. We haven't seen sufficient positioning from the government around those issues until this point. They should be playing a harder card on dairy, farming. They should have been driving a harder bargain. That may have helped us with some of the market access issues. The reason Labour's perspective on this is important is that Labour is the alternative governing party. It negotiated the China FTA. It also kicked off the TPP. Phil Goff has been kept quiet on this. There is a clear position from Labour. You say there is a clear position on these five items. You talk about meaningful gains for dairy. What does that mean? It has to give a tangible economic benefit. The government hasn't convinced asked at this stage or the New Zealand public that It is there. If Phil Goff was in the room in Maui, would he be doing any better? He would take a stronger position on the issues of sovereignty and benefits the New Zealand. We would love to hear your thoughts. AFTER THE BREAK ` WE STAY WITH TRADE AND TALK TO ECONOMIST RODNEY JONES ABOUT THE OUTLOOK FOR NZ BUSINESSES IN CHINA. AND THEN WE'VE GOT AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH JUSTICE MINISTER AMY ADAMS. SHE'S HERE TO TALK ABOUT A BIG SHAKE-UP FOR OUR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAW. SHE WANTS VICTIMS BETTER PROTECTED AND PERPETRATORS HELD TO ACCOUNT. WE'LL FIND OUT HOW - COMING UP. THROUGHOUT THE TPP TALKS, US PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS MADE IT CLEAR THE DEAL IS NOT ONLY ABOUT GROWING PACIFIC RIM TRADE BUT ALSO ABOUT STOPPING CHINA FROM SETTING THE TRADE RULES IN THE REGION. MY NEXT GUEST, RODNEY JONES, IS A NZ ECONOMIST BASED IN BEIJING AND A PRINCIPAL AT WIGRAM CAPITAL ADVISORS. We're seeing the endgame play out here with TPP. What will people in China be thinking about this? China is outside of this. The WTO was a major change for them. In the local press in the last few days it has been positive commentary on the TPP. One day you could see China joining the steel? CORRECTION: this deal? Yes. The USA call this the pivot into Asia. America is the other key trading nation in Asia. This ties it more tightly into Asia. There are other countries lining up to join. Korea would like to join. We need Korea to open up and reform. Part of the next step has to include China. That's important because we are seeing some wobbles in China. Is China slowing too fast? If you talk about Asian trade, Asian trade is in recession. We haven't seen this outside the GFC. We have problems with Asian trade and China is at the centre of that. China growth numbers were underestimated up to 2010, now they are overestimated. It has slowed from as high as 14% in The mid 2000s. They are not growing at 6% to 7%. This is a symptom of a wider problem? It is a symptom that the model that worked for them for 30 years has to undergo a major transition. They recognise that but it is tough to pull off. Do they need to invest in more of a consumer culture rather than export? Yes. It is tremendously exciting, but there is the old economy, heavy industry, steel, cement that they have to exit from. We have hitched our wagon to China in recent years. Why did Bill English come back and say they have mountains of milk powder in China? Are they trying to control the supply chain? China, an emerging giant, is prone to bubbles. They had a bubble. We rode that wave and we have crashed with them. It will stabilise, and we are in the process of stabilising, but it was stabilising at a lower level than we predicted. Fonterra has made significant mistakes. They were set back by Sanlu, and in some ways they should have sat back in this cycle. They made a major investment last year at the top of the cycle, $1 billion. The risk they took is incomprehensible. Fonterra is in a tough a position. The strategy they have had up till now is too aggressive. The other issue around China is Chinese investment in the New Zealand housing market. Is it a big issue? It is. I would like to group that under spillovers. The financial situation in China is huge. Nearly NZ$50 trillion. As it has slowed, they have looked to invest overseas. Their economy is enormous Compared to ours. The properties situation in Auckland is one aspect of that. Labour pointed the finger at Chinese investors. How was that received in China? It caused a flurry on social media but it came and went. It is not being perceived as Chinese being unfairly targeted? It may have been, but China is a big country and it was just a moment. You have said we should look at stamp duty. Why that rather than a ban? A ban does not work under the FTAs we have signed. A tax is more effective. Singapore has one, Hong Kong. What is the reaction from the Chinese about that? They have done it themselves and their own cities. They had a property bubble and they banned nonresidents. John Key has mentioned this is a potential idea if there is a problem. What would you set a stamp duty at? Hong Kong is 15%. I would suggest a higher rate. 20%. This is our future. We have to develop strategies now to deal with these spillovers. Thank you very much. LET'S GO TO OUR PANEL. "we rode the dairy wave and crashed with it". That shows the risks of putting your eggs in one basket. We need to develop a deeper collaboration with China. If we are just going to ride a commodity wave, that is the inevitable outcome of it. That is the responsibility of industry and government. Rodney said the Fonterra risk was incomprehensible. He also said the word reckless. When you are looking forward to Friday of next week, what is being dubbed Black Friday at Fonterra, to determine what the payout will be, that will come down significantly for farmers, but also discussions around how the shareholders fund will work, and it's inching up on debt level strongly now. It has to take the milk that is Supplied to it. So significant pressure on this company at this time. What I took from Rodney was don't expect that to bounce back to the eight dollars plus level that we saw. That wave is over. The company is still in a vortex, it has some significant decisions to make about strategy, alliances. Whether it goes to the government and says it cannot take everything that is flung at it. What should government be doing about this? Government doesn't run the dairy industry, but it needs to look at a strategy to broaden our economic prospects. We cannot rely on commodity exports. The government needs to control the legislative framework. There is an argument about that and the pricing of that. Is it sensible to rark up supply when there is not enough demand? if something went seriously wrong with Fonterra, if this slump continued, China and elsewhere has to start buying more, this is a big company and I wouldn't be surprised if the government wasn't thinking about how to stabilise this if this gets worse. We will see more capital coming out of China and the Auckland property market will see more Chinese money. It's our future in terms of understanding a different geopolitical economy in our part of the world. You just need a fraction of that investment money spilling over into our country. You can't put your head in the sand and pretend it's not happening. It's getting too hard to rent. It's hard the young people to find accommodation at a level they can afford. Rents have gone up. People arrive, and there are queues oof people ahead of them, and people are bargaining up the price of the property. 20% stamp duty in New Zealand? Do you agree? I do. But we also need to think about a ban. Rodney said we have to be careful about FTA's but if China can prevent foreigners going into particular cities, I don't see why we can't reciprocate. The band Labour is proposing is more nuanced, more useful. Use the investment to leverage an increase in supply. That has good prospects. Stamp duty is something to look at. THERE'S LOT MORE TO COME. SUSAN WOOD INTERVIEWS TIME EDITOR NANCY GIBBS, AND NEXT, WHILE OVERALL CRIME IS DOWN, WE STILL HAVE SHOCKINGLY HIGH RATES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. JUSTICE MINISTER AMY ADAMS SAYS AN OVERHAUL OF OUR FAMILY VIOLENCE LAW IS NEEDED. THAT'S NEXT. WHILE OVERALL CRIME HAS BEEN STEADILY DROPPING, THERE'S ONE STATISTIC THAT'S REMAINED STUBBORNLY HIGH. LAST YEAR, THERE WERE MORE THAN 100,000 FAMILY VIOLENCE INVESTIGATIONS BY POLICE. THAT'S ONE EVERY SIX MINUTES. THIS WEEK, JUSTICE MINISTER AMY ADAMS WILL RELEASE A DISCUSSION DOCUMENT TO OVERHAUL OUR FAMILY VIOLENCE LAWS. SHE'S HERE TO TELL US WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE. GOOD MORNING, MINISTER. What are we going to see here in terms of concrete changes to the laws that will actually make a difference? We put it out on Wednesday. These figures are too high, and despite a number of initiatives, we are not getting enough changes what are you going to do that is different? Government has to get its own house in order.� we have been dealing with family violence victims in agency lines these are families. We need to get our own system in order and have a government response this piece I am releasing this week will be a look at how the legal framework deals with family violence at the moment when you are convicted of a family violence offence, you are convicted with assault or homicide there is no family violence offence. It is hard to track what is happening and it seems a different signal you are creating a new offence? We need to look at how family violence differs from other offences family violence tends to be a pattern of abuse over a long period of time the law doesn't deal well with patterns of behaviour over time we have to look at the bail act in the sentencing act and look at how the law can support a better practice and outcomes in my view family violence assaults are of a greater level of seriousness in society and will be judged more harshly. It is violence with people you are in a trust it relationship with we have the third highest rate of child abuse and child death in the OECD so tougher penalties and a new type of offence? It's going to go a lot further than that. We will put out on Wednesday what the whole suite of potential changes are we need to look at the system from the ground up and see how we can do this better. A staggering number of breaches of protection orders where people have gone on to kill and do terrible things Will you make it tougher when they are breached? I wouldn't say they aren't working but we need to look at the consequences and how to deal with it what we're seeing is an increasing number of prosecutions for breaches of protection orders, an increasing number of convictions for breaches do you need more of the zero tolerance approach to protection orders? It seems like there is a bit of a warning and nothing much is done after the first breach I think we need very clear expectations that breaches of protection orders are taken seriously the police, courts and judges need to think about how they handle them from the first breach in offender can be liable to 3 years in prison but we need to try to secure the victims protection under the more effectively we need to think about things like where are people going to live, how we can keep them physically safe the goal of this is to start a discussion on how we can do this better there was talked about setting up a nationwide home safety service for victims how is it better than something like woman's refuge? This is about saying to women ` or men ` to leave a violent relationship you don't need to leave your community, your schools you need things like locks on your doors and windows, security systems we have rolled out across the country and I am expecting very good results from that I the going to be changes to the court system? Is domestic violence court an idea that is being considered? We are considering it. There needs to be a lot bigger flow of information any and all changes are being considered. I want to hear from anyone who has an idea for how this could work the focus here is victims and helping them come forward what about the inquisitorial system whereby there is a judge effectively leading the investigation? Actually the focus shouldn't be entirely on victims. It is also holding the perpetrator to account your point about the inquisitorial system ` I have the Law commission now doing a piece of work on how our trial processes deal particularly with sexual violence I haveasked how the processes work so that we are more supportive to victims the enquiry is looking at trial in pre-trial processes and particularly looking at the Dems and vulnerable situations this has been an issue that has come and gone over the years it would be a massive change for any court in New Zealand do you personally favourite? What I don't favour is changing the burden of proof if the defendant had to prove their innocence, I think that goes too far and in inquisitorial system it is a continual and I am interested in a lot of changes the Law commission has proposed what about the police attitude and culture? As Sarah enough if it going in there to ensure that they are properly dealing with domestic violence? The police are putting a lot of emphasis on this and having a fresh look at how they deal with family violence family violence is all most half of the work programme they are trying. What about going even deeper than that? Looking at societal attitudes and gender between men and women and the issue that is this is predominantly mean as perpetrators to see need to be more effort going into addressing that? The Ministry of Justice is not going to be the only agency involved in this there are intergenerational issues, ethnic issues what I'm concerned about from the government perspective is that at the moment we have a number of agencies and we need to think about who was going to be leading that work on Jean the education and making children more resilient helping people to know when to step up we have to stop looking at this through agency lenses and think about this as a family US spending $1.4 billion. Will you spend more on dealing with this issue? $1.4 billion a year is a huge investment we are going to dig into how effectively that is being spent have we got the balance between prevention and response right. I don't think we do at the moment there are probably some low Dell you initiatives being funded we need to find areas where we can spend the money better if we don't tackle this head on and say we need to do better those conversations are never going to happen and they need to AFTER THE BREAK, WE'LL HEAR FROM THE PANEL, AND LATER, COULD DONALD TRUMP BECOME AMERICA'S NEXT PRESIDENT? WE RATE HIS CHANCES WITH VISITING TIME EDITOR NANCY GIBBS. SHE'S INTERVIEWED BY SUSAN WOOD LATER IN THE PROGRAMME. LET'S BRING IN OUR PANEL NOW. If she clearly indicated are going to be some new domestic violence offences and a greater level of culpability this is a positive move? Yes I think it is a positive move. But she could go further owl violence statistics are horrifying. She did it trolled down into what segments of society the violence is occurring and we need some sort of public education to take it further this is a societal issue? This has been a cross party approach there has not been a lot of fighting what I liked is that she said it should be a collaborative approach 35 people killed year. 20,000 referrals to women's refuge we all know horror stories of how these protection orders don't work one of the things that wasn't really delved into too much was the question of resourcing we note with protection orders there is a barrier the which is the cost of seeking a protection order we need to look at these barriers for people she talked about helping people stay in their homes. I think there needs to be more of a trial to help people stay in their families most of the focus is on mean and protection orders is there a way of givingmore help before it gets to that point? Protection orders a very blunt instrument a lot of men will be emotional about losing access to their children I think it is a much more nuanced and difficult then the law would have you say Kelvin Davis have been making the point that men have only had accessed antiviolence programs after it occurs we need to have access to that before we are delivering those programs to fewer people and we need to be role in bed out earlier in the process she avoided answering the question directly on an inquisitorial system I think that is the right thing to look at. I think we need to focus on victims but keep that burden of proof it is a fundamental part of our justice system but we also can't put victims on trial as well you also need to look at the family. The inquisitorial system where you are not backed into a corner guilty or innocent might bring you to a place we can work out resolutions sso men can have access to their children and not have been cut off Amy Adams itself confident, articulate National has a leadership succession issue. The sheer contender? Paula Bennett has a bit of a head start. Some people say she doesn't have the support and cabinet and caucus you do need support to be elected and caucus. Jonathan cole and Simon bridges I think she's more of a contender then others this is starting to become a live discussion. There is clearly positioning within national she's more like the John Key but not quite with John's panache she's out there, she has a back story which is not one of privilege, and that is quite helpful it's a bit early to talk about another Labour leader. We just getting out how sordid out. I think there is a real issue around succession in national WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE US ELECTION AND THE FUTURE OF JOURNALISM AFTER THE BREAK. SUSAN WOOD INTERVIEWS TIME EDITOR NANCY GIBBS. THE US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IS STILL OVER A YEAR AWAY, BUT THE CANDIDATES ARE ALREADY JOSTLING FOR POSITION. DONALD TRUMP HAS EMERGED AS AN EARLY LEADER IN THE REPUBLICAN RACE, WHILE HILLARY CLINTON IS, PREDICTABLY, LOOKING STRONG FOR THE DEMOCRATS. SUSAN WOOD SPOKE TO TIME MAGAZINE EDITOR NANCY GIBBS, WHO IS IN NZ ON THE JOHN F KENNEDY MEMORIAL FELLOWSHIP. SHE ASKED WHETHER DONALD TRUMP COULD WIN THE PRESIDENCY. I MAKE IT A RULE NEVER TO MAKE PREDICTIONS, BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU THAT MAY BE REASSURING TO PEOPLE WHO ARE WONDERING WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD BE LIKE IS THAT AT THIS STAGE IN EVERY PRESIDENTIAL RACE, THERE IS ALWAYS THE SHOOTING STAR OF SUMMERTIME. (LAUGHS) AND LAST TIME AROUND, THERE WAS A DIFFERENT SHOOTING STAR EVERY WEEK. I THINK IN THIS CASE, WHEN IT'S SO EARLY IN THE PROCESS, NAME RECOGNITION REALLY DOES PLAY AN ENORMOUS ROLE. AND SO IF YOU HAVE YOUR NAME LITERALLY ON HALF THE OFFICE TOWERS IN MANHATTAN AND HAVE HAD YOUR OWN REALITY TV SHOW AND HAVE BEEN DOING THE KIND OF PERFORMANCE ART THAT DONALD TRUMP HAS BEEN DOING IN AMERICAN PUBLIC LIFE FOR SO LONG, IT ISN'T AT ALL SURPRISING TO ME THAT HE WOULD BE WHERE HE IS IN THE POLLS. HE IS RIDING HIGH IN THE POLLS AT THE MOMENT ` THAT IS, DONALD TRUMP. WHAT KIND OF VOTERS ARE SUPPORTING HIM, AND WHAT ARE THEY TELLING US ABOUT US POLITICS? SO, YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THE POLLS RIGHT NOW ARE OF ` BECAUSE THIS IS ALL ABOUT THE PRIMARIES ` THESE ARE POLLS OF PEOPLE WHO IDENTIFY AS REPUBLICANS, WHICH IS ALREADY LESS THAN HALF OF THE ELECTORATE. AND SO WHEN YOU'RE GETTING 20%, WHICH IS THE MOST RECENT, THE QUINNIPIAC POLL, 20% OF LESS THAN HALF THE ELECTORATE. AND WHEN YOU DO NATIONAL POLLS, WE'VE SEEN LARGE MAJORITIES OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE SAID THEY WOULD NEVER EVER VOTE FOR HIM AS PRESIDENT. SO IT'S ONE THING FOR HIM TO BE AT THE TOP OF A REPUBLICAN FIELD WHERE YOU'VE GOT 16 CANDIDATES SPLITTING IT UP. IN A WAY, AGAIN, THAT'S NOT AT ALL SURPRISING. I THINK WHAT HE IS APPEALING TO, THOUGH ` AND IT IS RELEVANT FOR THE OTHER CANDIDATES, AND I THINK IT IS A SERVICE I WOULD ARGUE HE IS PERHAPS PROVIDING TO THOSE WHO WILL END UP GOING ON THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS ` IS I THINK PEOPLE RESPONDING TO THE FACT THAT HE WILL CLEARLY SAY ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING, AND DOES NOT SOUND LIKE A POLITICIAN. AND THAT HAS BEEN HORRIFYING TO SOME VOTERS AND ENTERTAINING TO THE COMMENTARIAT, BUT I THINK THE MESSAGE, IN A WAY, THAT COMES THROUGH IS THAT VOTERS ARE REALLY LOOKING TO CUT THROUGH SOME OF THE FILTERS AND THE FOCUS GROUPING AND POLITICIANS THAT FEEL EXCRUCIATINGLY SCRIPTED. DO THOSE SORT OF COMMENTS STOP HIM OR DOES HE GO FURTHER? WHAT DO YOU THINK? I THINK THE REAL FUN IS GOING TO BE NEXT WEEK WHEN THERE'S THE FIRST REPUBLICAN DEBATE. AND ONE OF THE ADVISORS TO ONE OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES SAID THAT THIS IS LIKE ENTERING A NASCAR RACE KNOWING THAT ONE OF THE DRIVERS IS GOING TO BE DRUNK. I THINK WHAT'S GOING TO MAKE THAT DEBATE SO FUN ` AND THIS IS, AGAIN, WHERE HE'S PERFORMING A SERVICE TO HIS FELLOW CANDIDATES ` IS IT'S VERY LIKELY THAT PEOPLE WHO WOULD NOT BE INCLINED TO WATCH, OR NOT BE INCLINED TO CARE PARTICULARLY AT THIS STAGE OF THE RACE OF WHO IS LEADING I THE REPUBLICAN FIELD ARE GOING TO TUNE IN SIMPLY FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT VALUE. DONALD TRUMP VIOLATES RONALD REAGAN'S LAW ` THE 11TH COMMANDMENT IS THOU SHALT NOT SPEAK ILL OF ANOTHER REPUBLICAN. HE HAS BEEN WHACKING THE OTHER REPUBLICANS IN THE RACE ALL ALONG IN A WAY THAT WE'RE JUST NOT AT ALL ACCUSTOMED TO. AND SO I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE WATCHING JUST TO SEE WHAT IT IS THAT HE SAYS AND HOW NIMBLE SOME OF THE OTHERS ARE IN REACTING TO IT. ALL RIGHT. HILLARY CLINTON. WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT HER OVER THIS. WHAT ARE HER CHANCES AT THE MOMENT? WELL, HER CHANCES FOR THE NOMINATION ARE VERY GOOD. SHE'S WAY, WAY AHEAD` SHE'S A LONG WAY AHEAD AT THE MOMENT. AND THAT'S NOT AN ACCIDENT. SHE WORKED VERY HARD TO CLEAR THE FIELD IN ADVANCE OF THIS RACE, AND HER FUNDRAISING PROCESS, HER POLITICAL NETWORK IS EXTRAORDINARY. I HAD A GREAT TIME FOR THIS WEEK'S ISSUE OF TIME TO SIT DOWN WITH HER HUSBAND AND WITH GEORGE W. BUSH TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IT IS LIKE FOR THE TWO OF THEM TO HAVE A BROTHER AND A WIFE POTENTIALLY RUNNING FOR THE OFFICE THAT THEY BOTH HELD. AND BILL CLINTON TOLD A FASCINATING STORY ABOUT WHEN HE WAS FIRST` YEARS AGO, WHEN HE FIRST PROPOSING TO HER, TRYING TO GET HER TO GO INTO POLITICS, AND HER SAYING, 'NO, NO, NO, I COULD NEVER RUN FOR OFFICE. 'NO ONE WOULD EVER VOTE FOR ME. I'M WAY TOO AGGRESSIVE.' AND I THINK IT'S JUST FASCINATING THAT SHE NOW IS AT THE STAGE WHERE IT'S VERY EASY FOR ANYONE TO SEE HER GETTING THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION. IN A WAY, IT MAY BE THAT HER PROBLEM IS NOT HAVING A SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH CHALLENGE. PRIMARY CHALLENGES TEND TO MAKE PEOPLE BETTER CANDIDATES. AND SO, IN A WAY, IT'S GOOD FOR HER IF SOME OF THESE OTHERS, LIKE BERNIE SANDERS OR IF MARTIN O'MALLEY, OR IF JIM WEBB ACTUALLY GIVE HER A RUN FOR THE MONEY. IT WILL MAKE HER A BETTER CANDIDATE. BUT WE'RE NOT SEEING IT AT THE MOMENT, ARE WE? NOT YET. NO, SHE STILL IS` HER POLL NUMBERS HAVE GOTTEN A LITTLE SOFTER, BUT AGAIN, AT THIS STAGE, THOSE POLLS REALLY JUST MEAN SO LITTLE. BARACK OBAMA, 18 MONTHS OF LESS, REALLY, GOING FOR HIM. WHAT WILL BE HIS LEGACY? WELL, THIS HAS BEEN AN EXTRAORDINARY YEAR FOR HIM. IT'LL BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH TPP. THE IRAN DEAL, OBVIOUSLY, IS A SIGNIFICANT GOAL OF HIS IN FOREIGN POLICY. IRONICALLY, IT MAY BE THAT THE SINGLE EVENT OF THIS YEAR THAT'S REMEMBERED IS MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN THE SUPREME COURT RULING, AND MARRIAGE EQUALITY IS SOMETHING THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA INITIALLY WAS NOT IN SUPPORT OF WHEN HE WAS FIRST RUNNING FOR OFFICE. AND ALSO, MOST IMPORTANTLY, HIS HEALTHCARE REFORM WAS ALSO UPHELD BY THE SUPREME COURT. AND SO IT'S MUCH MORE LIKELY THAT THAT PART OF HIS LEGACY, WHICH REALLY IS COMPLETING THE VISION OF THE WELFARE STATE THAT FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT BEGAN, THAT LYNDON JOHNSON PURSUED, THAT OBAMA HAS NOW PUT THE LAST PIECE IN PLACE. AND I SUSPECT THAT THOSE ARE FACTORS THAT, LOOKING BACK, HISTORIANS WILL CONSIDER THE MOST SIGNIFICANT OF HIS PRESIDENCY. ALL RIGHT. YOUR TIME MAGAZINE AT THE MOMENT ` IT'S A GREAT MAGAZINE BY ALL ACCOUNTS, BUT IS IT ALSO AN ENDANGERED SPECIES TO SOME EXTENT? YOU KNOW, I HAVE READ THE OBITUARIES OF TIME ALMOST EVERY YEAR SINCE I CAME TO TIME, WHICH IS 30 YEARS AGO, AND ` IT'S VERY FUNNY ` ABOUT ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE MEANT TO DO US IN. 24 HOUR CABLE NEWS WAS MEANT TO DO US IN, THE INTERNET WAS MEANT TO DO US IN, AND WHAT HAS HAPPENED AS SOURCES OF INFORMATION HAVE SO PROLIFERATED THAT THE NEED FOR MEDIA ORGANISATIONS WHO CAN HELP MAKE SENSE OF EVENTS AND SENSE OF THE NEWS, THE DEMAND FOR THAT IS ONLY GROWING. SO OUR AUDIENCE NOW IS ACTUALLY BIGGER THAN IT HAS EVER BEEN IN TIME'S HISTORY. AND A LOT OF THAT IS BECAUSE, EVEN AS THE TRADITIONAL PRINT AUDIENCE THAT WE'VE ALWAYS HAD STAYS STABLE, OUR DIGITAL AUDIENCE HAS DOUBLED THIS YEAR. AND IT'S A WONDERFUL THING FOR JOURNALISTS. WHAT DO YOU WANT MOST? YOU WANT PEOPLE TO READ YOUR STORIES. YOU WANT TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON EVENTS. AND SO THE FACT THAT WE'RE ABLE TO REACH SUCH A GLOBAL AUDIENCE ON SO MANY PLATFORMS NOW, I THINK, SORT OF MAKES THIS A GOLDEN AGE. SO CAN YOU MAKE IT PAY? I THINK WE CAN. I THINK THE AMAZING THING, AS I SIT HERE IN A TELEVISION STUDIO WITH YOU, IS HOW IMPORTANT VIDEO HAS BECOME TO US. AND WHAT'S GREAT FUN IS WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, IF YOU'RE A STORYTELLER, IS TO BE HANDED NEW TOOLS FOR STORYTELLING. SO MY STAFF NOW IS INCREDIBLY EXCITED ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE NOW ALL GET TO GO THINK ABOUT WAYS THAT WE CAN COMMIT JOURNALISM IN VIDEO OR INTERACTIVE GRAPHICS OR DATA VISUALISATION OR ALL OF THESE NEW WAYS OF TELLING STORIES THAT WE THINK ARE IMPORTANT. AND THERE'S ABSOLUTELY` THERE ARE NEW REVENUE MODELS BEING CREATED ALL THE TIME. EVEN AS OLD ONES ARE THREATENED, WHICH THEY ABSOLUTELY ARE, THERE ARE NEW ONES THAT WE'RE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT I THINK MAKE OUR FUTURE EXTREMELY BRIGHT. WAKA HUIA IS NEXT. 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 TRACEY DAWSON AND ASHLEE SCHOLEFIELD. CAPTIONS WERE MADE POSSIBLE WITH FUNDING FROM NZ ON AIR. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2015