GOOD MORNING, AND WELCOME TO THE NATION. I'M LISA OWEN. IS THE GOVERNMENT'S OBESITY-FIGHTING PLAN A MAGIC PILL OR A MERE PLACEBO? THERE'S A LOT THAT CAN BE DONE WITHOUT BLANKET REGULATION. PATRICK GOWER ASKS HEALTH MINISTER JONATHAN COLEMAN IF HE'S JUST SUGAR-COATING THE TRUTH WHEN IT COMES TO TAXES AND TUCK SHOPS, IF HE'S CUTTING THE HEALTH BUDGET BY STEALTH AND WHAT'S HAPPENED TO TENS OF THOUSANDS WHO'VE MISSED OUT ON SEEING A SPECIALIST. YOU MAY BE SURPRISED. THEN ACCLAIMED CORRESPONDENT CHRISTINA LAMB ON HOW SUCCESS HAS TURNED TO DEFEAT IN AFGHANISTAN, THE ROLE PAKISTAN PLAYED AND IF THE WEST CAN ACTUALLY WIN AGAINST A RESURGENT TALIBAN. LABOUR LEADER ANDREW LITTLE ON WHAT EXACTLY WENT DOWN IN HIS MEETING WITH CHINA'S VICE PRESIDENT. AND SUING ME, SUING YOU ` THE TANGLED LEGAL CONTORTIONS OF COLIN CRAIG AND HIS FOES. PLUS, POLITICS IN 60 SECONDS AND OUR PANEL ` JONATHAN MILNE, JEFF SIMMONS AND JAMIE WHYTE. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2015 KIA ORA, GOOD MORNING. IT'S LOVELY TO HAVE YOU WITH US THIS LONG WEEKEND. IF YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS WITH US TODAY, JUST TEXT 3330 FOR 50C, YOU CAN EMAIL ` THENATION@TV3.CO.NZ ` OR WE'RE ON TWITTER AND FACEBOOK `@THENATIONTV3. AND YOU CAN ALSO FOLLOW ALONG WITH OUR TWITTER PANEL ` ECONOMIST ERIC CRAMPTON AND DR MARIAM PARWAIZ ` AT #NATIONTV3. WELL, WHEN HEALTH MINISTER JONATHAN COLEMAN LAUNCHED HIS PLANS TO COMBAT OBESITY THIS WEEK, WHAT WAS OFF THE FAT-FIGHTING MENU MADE MORE HEADLINES THAN WHAT WAS ON IT. THAT'S RIGHT, NO SOFT DRINK TAX, NO JUNK FOOD BAN IN SCHOOLS AND NO ACTUAL TARGET FOR A DROP IN OBESITY RATES. THE 22 INITIATIVES INCLUDE A REVIEW OF FOOD ADVERTISING TO KIDS AND TARGETS FOR REFERRING OBESE CHILDREN TO SPECIALISTS. BUT HOW EFFECTIVE WILL THESE MEASURES BE? POLITICAL EDITOR PATRICK GOWER SAT DOWN WITH DR COLEMAN AND BEGAN BY ASKING HIM WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS ONCE A CHILD IS IDENTIFIED AS OBESE AT A PRESCHOOL CHECK. THEY WILL THEN GET REFERRED TO APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL ADVICE, SO THAT MAY BE THEIR GP; IT MAY BE A PAEDIATRICIAN, AND THERE WILL THEN BE INTERVENTIONS BASED AROUND THE WHOLE FAMILY, BECAUSE, OF COURSE, A CHILD DOESN'T LIVE IN ISOLATION. A LOT OF THESE ISSUES ARE AROUND FAMILY CULTURE. SO THERE WILL BE INTENSIVE INTERVENTIONS. IT MAY BE INFORMATION, BUT IT MAY ALSO BE SENDING PEOPLE OFF TO PROGRAMMES LIKE HEALTHY FAMILIES, WHICH IS GOING TO COVER A MILLION NZERS, WHERE THEY CAN LEARN ABOUT PRACTICAL COOKING, THEY CAN GET EXPOSURE TO THE TYPE OF EXERCISE INTERVENTIONS THEY NEED. SO, LOOK, THE KEY THING IS IT'S VERY PRACTICAL HELP. IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT GUIDELINES AND REFERRALS; IT'S ABOUT GETTING PEOPLE ACCESS TO THE INTERVENTIONS THEY NEED. AND DON'T FORGET THIS IS ONE OF OUR SIX MAIN HEALTH TARGETS. NO OTHER COUNTRY HAS A NATIONAL-LEVEL HEALTH TARGET AROUND OBESITY. AND IT'S BACKED UP BY A VERY COMPREHENSIVE CROSS-SECTORAL PACKAGE OF INTERVENTIONS. SURE. SO IT'S UP TO THE DOCTOR, THEN, ISN'T IT? BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THEY WILL GO IN THE FIRST INSTANCE ` TO THE GP. WELL, SO, THE BEFORE-SCHOOL CHECK IS GENERALLY DONE BY A NURSE IN THE COMMUNITY. WHEN THESE CHILDREN ARE IDENTIFIED AS BEING OBESE ON THE HEIGHT AND WEIGHT GROWTH CHARTS, THE NURSE WILL THEN MAKE A CALL AS TO WHAT THE APPROPRIATE REFERRAL WILL BE. IT MAY BE THE GP; IT MAY BE MORE SPECIALIST HELP. IT COULD ARGUABLY BE A DIETICIAN. THERE'S QUITE A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY, BUT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THESE CHILDREN GET THE INTERVENTIONS THEY NEED. SURE. THAT TARGET OF OBESITY, IT'S NOT ACTUALLY GETTING OBESITY DOWN, IS IT? THE TARGET IS AROUND REFERRALS. WHY HAVEN'T YOU MADE THE TARGET AROUND OBESITY ITSELF? YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I MEAN, IN THE END, WITH A TARGET, YOU'VE GOT TO LOOK AT WHAT LEVERS YOU'VE GOT TO CONTROL THAT TARGET ` WHAT EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE YOU'VE GOT. NOW, WE COULD HAVE SET AN UNREALISTIC, ASPIRATIONAL TARGET, BUT THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE CONTROL OVER ALL THOSE LEVERS. AND IN THE END, IT COMES BACK TO THIS THING ` THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING. BUT WHAT WE KNEW WE COULD DO` BUT WHY? I JUST WANT TO PICK YOU UP ON THAT, BECAUSE WHY IS REDUCING OBESITY ` WHY IS THAT ASPIRATIONAL? SURELY THAT SHOULD BE THE TARGET. SO, IF WE JUST SAID, 'LOOK, WE'RE GOING TO REDUCE OBESITY BY X%,' WELL, THAT SOUNDS GREAT, WHEREAS WITH THIS TARGET WE'RE SIGNALLING REALLY SERIOUS INTENT. WE KNOW THAT THIS WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO THAT GROUP OF CHILDREN AND THAT WE KNOW THAT BY PUTTING THE EMPHASIS ON WHAT'S REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THAT TARGET, YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE PROGRESS TOWARDS ACHIEVING IT. YEAH, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, YOU'RE ALMOST SAYING THAT REDUCING OBESITY OR ACTUALLY PUTTING A REAL MEASURE THERE ` SOMETHING GENUINE; WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS REDUCE OBESITY ` YOU'RE SORT OF SAYING THAT'S UNREALISTIC. NO, I'M NOT SAYING IT'S UNREALISTIC, BUT, LOOK, ALL THESE THINGS ARE STEPS ALONG THE PATH, RIGHT? WE'RE THE FIRST COUNTRY TO EVER HAVE A NATIONAL-LEVEL TARGET WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMME UNDERPINNING IT. DO YOU THINK THERE IS TOO MUCH SUGAR IN FOOD? I THINK PEOPLE ARE EATING TOO MUCH SUGARY FOOD. SOME FOODS HAVE TOO MUCH SUGAR IN THEM, AND WHAT WE'VE GOT TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT INDUSTRY CONTINUES TO REDUCE SUGAR. SO IT'S A CASE OF EVERYTHING IN MODERATION. LOOK, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE DRINKING, YOU KNOW, FIVE CANS OF COKE A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE GOOD. IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE ON SATURDAY AFTER RUGBY, THAT SOUNDS FINE. YOU'VE JUSTIFIED NOT CONTEMPLATING ANY FORM OF JUNK-FOOD TAX BY SAYING THERE ISN'T ENOUGH EVIDENCE. WELL, YOU'RE SAYING A JUNK-FOOD TAX. YOU MEAN A SUGAR TAX. SUGAR TAX. YEAH, OK. SOFT-DRINK TAX. LOOKING AT A SOFT-DRINK TAX ` WHY NOT? BECAUSE, ACTUALLY, THERE'S NOT THE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, RIGHT? THERE MIGHT BE A CORRELATION IN THOSE MEXICAN STUDIES, SO THEY PUT A 9% TAX ON SOFT DRINKS. AND CONSUMPTION DROPPED. THAT'S EVIDENCE, ISN'T IT? SALES DECREASED, BUT IT'S NOT CLEAR IF THAT'S A CORRELATION OR A CAUSATIVE EFFECT, SO THERE WERE OTHER THINGS GOING ON ` A TANKING MEXICAN ECONOMY, $30 BILLION DRINKING-WATER PROGRAMME. IT'S ALSO NOT CLEAR IF THERE'S SUBSTITUTION TO OTHER BEVERAGES. SO WE'RE SAYING, LOOK, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME EVIDENCE THAT'S BEING ASSESSED ` IT'S GOING TO BE REPORTED ON IN 2017 AT WAIKATO UNIVERSITY AS WELL AS THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA ` BUT THERE ISN'T ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE OF CAUSATION THAT ANYONE CAN POINT TO. WELL, THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, WHICH PUT OUT THAT MAJOR REPORT RECENTLY, LED BY OUR OWN SIR PETER GLUCKMAN, YOU KNOW, THAT HAS SAID, AND I WILL QUOTE IT FOR YOU, 'THE RATIONALE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF TAXATION MEASURES TO INFLUENCE CONSUMPTION 'ARE WELL SUPPORTED BY AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.' WELL, THEY MIGHT BE TALKING ABOUT A DECREASE IN SALES. BUT WHAT WE WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IS ` IS THERE A LINK TO OBESITY DIRECTLY? SO, FOR INSTANCE, THERE MIGHT BE A DECREASE IN CONSUMPTION OF SOFT DRINKS, BUT ARE PEOPLE DRINKING MORE FLAVOURED MILK? ARE THEY DRINKING BEER AS A SUBSTITUTION? WHAT IS SAYS IN THAT REPORT IS THAT, ACTUALLY, THERE ISN'T CLEAR EVIDENCE. ON BALANCE, THEY RECOMMEND IT, BUT, LOOK, THAT'S THE WHO, YOU KNOW? YOU WOULD EXPECT THAT THEY WOULD TAKE A VERY PURIST VIEW. AND I MET WITH THE COMMISSIONERS PERSONALLY. I TALKED TO SIR PETER GLUCKMAN. WHAT ABOUT THIS FOR EVIDENCE? IF A TAX DOESN'T WORK OR THERE'S NO EVIDENCE FOR IT, WHAT ABOUT WITH CIGARETTES? BECAUSE YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT'S PUTTING UP THE PRICE OF CIGARETTES AND SAYING THAT THAT IS WORKING TO STOP SMOKING. WELL, THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE. SO, YES, IF YOU PUT A TAX ON SOMETHING, IT WILL DECREASE CONSUMPTION, BUT WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN IS ` WILL THAT DECREASE OBESITY? SO SAY, FOR INSTANCE, WE TAX SOMETHING. YOU MIGHT DRINK LESS COKE, BUT ARE YOU DRINKING BEER OR FLAVOURED MILK INSTEAD? 22 INITIATIVES. YEAH. WHAT'S ONE THING THAT THE FOOD INDUSTRY HAS GIVEN UP HERE IN ALL OF THIS? BECAUSE I CAN'T SEE ANYTHING. OK, WELL, THE FOOD INDUSTRY INITIATIVES ` FIRST IS THE HEALTH STAR RATING, RIGHT, SO CLEARER INFORMATION ON LABELLING. VOLUNTARY? > YEAH, BUT I THINK THEY'LL FIND INCREASINGLY CONSUMERS ARE GOING TO DEMAND THAT. THE SECOND THING IS THERE'S GOING TO BE INDEPENDENT AUDITING OF THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH THE ASA CODES ON ADVERTISING TO CHILDREN AND FOOD, RIGHT? ONLY NINE COMPLAINTS UNDER THOSE CODES OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS. THE THIRD THING IS THE ASA IS REVIEWING THOSE CODES AS A PRIORITY. FOURTH THING IS I CALLED TOGETHER THE FOOD INDUSTRY, ADDRESSED THEM BY TELECONFERENCE, GOT THEM TO WORK WITH HEALTH OFFICIALS AND SAID, 'LOOK, THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE. 'WE NEED YOU GUYS TO BE PART OF THE SOLUTION.' THEY'VE ACCEPTED THAT. THEY'RE DOING THINGS. COCA-COLA AMATIL ` THEY ARE NOT SUPPLYING THEIR PRODUCTS DIRECTLY INTO SCHOOLS ANY MORE. NEITHER IS FRUCOR. YEAH, BUT... THERE'S BEEN BIG INITIATIVES ON` ...SOFT DRINK IS STILL GETTING INTO SCHOOLS, AND THAT JUST TO ME SEEMS LIKE AN ABSOLUTE NO-BRAINER. WHY DON'T YOU BAN SOFT DRINKS IN SCHOOLS? WELL, BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS ACROSS THE THOUSANDS OF SCHOOLS IN NZ, I WANT TO KNOW WHERE THE PROBLEMS ARE, SO I GO TO MANY MANY SCHOOLS. SOME OF THEM, THERE ARE OBESE CHILDREN. SOME OF THEM, THERE ARE BARELY ANY. SOME OF THEM, THERE ARE VIRTUALLY NONE. SO I THINK IT'S FAR MORE EFFECTIVE TO WORK WITH THOSE SCHOOLS WHERE THE PROBLEM IS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE REACTION TO THE PACKAGE` BUT YOU DON'T KNOW THOSE SCHOOLS. WE'VE GOT TO GET THAT INFORMATION. AND HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET THAT? YEAH, SO IN THE CABINET PAPER, IT DESCRIBES HOW ERO IS GOING TO GO AND GIVE US A REPORT ON THE STATE OF NUTRITION, FOOD AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IN OUR SCHOOLS. WILL THAT GO SCHOOL BY SCHOOL? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S NEEDED. TERMS OF REFERENCE HAVE TO BE DRAWN UP, BUT THAT'S THE INFORMATION I WANT, BECAUSE` YOU WANT TO GO SCHOOL BY SCHOOL, KNOW WHAT THE GOOD SCHOOLS ARE, WHAT THE BAD SCHOOLS ARE? LOOK, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE NAMING AND SHAMING, BUT I WANT TO KNOW, AND BROADLY THERE'S A CORRELATION WITH DEMOGRAPHICS, INCLUDING SOCIO-ECONOMIC LEVELS. I WANT TO KNOW WHERE THE PROBLEMS ARE, WHERE ARE THE SCHOOLS WITH THE OBESE KIDS, WHERE ARE THE KIDS AT THE SCHOOLS THAT DON'T HAVE HEALTHY-EATING POLICIES? THE OTHER THING IS WE'VE GOT THESE HEALTH PROMOTION SCHOOLS` SO YOU WOULD GET A LIST EFFECTIVELY, BY THE SOUNDS OF THINGS? LOOK, WE HAVEN'T DEFINED IT DOWN TO THAT LEVEL, BUT ULTIMATELY I'M VERY INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHICH THOSE SCHOOLS ARE WHICH ARE STRUGGLING. AND, LOOK, I THINK A LOT OF IT'S AROUND WORKING IN SCHOOLS` AND THIS IS THE CRUCIAL BIT HERE ` ONCE YOU GET THAT, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO THOSE SCHOOLS? SO THE FIRST THING IS YOU'VE GOT BOARDS OF TRUSTEES THERE, TALKING TO THEM AROUND WHAT A HEALTHY-FOOD PROGRAMME MIGHT LOOK LIKE, LOOKING AT WHAT SORT OF FOODS THEY'RE SERVING IN SCHOOLS, TRYING TO GET THEM INTO THE HEALTH-PROMOTING SCHOOLS. SO WE'RE EXPANDING THAT. THAT'S ONE OF THE INITIATIVES HERE, WHEREBY THE WHOLE SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT IS FOCUSED AROUND HEALTH. LOOK, THE KEY POINT ABOUT THIS` WOULD YOU BE PREPARED IN THE END`? CAN I JUST SAY THERE'S A LOT THAT CAN BE DONE WITHOUT BLANKET REGULATION. IF YOU GOT THAT LIST AND THERE IS A REPEAT OFFENDER SCHOOL THAT HAS A PROBLEM AND THE BOARD CAN'T SORT IT OUT, WOULD YOU BE PREPARED IN THE END TO SAY, 'LOOK, THIS SCHOOL'S GOT TO BAN JUNK FOOD'? NOW, LOOK, I'M NOT GETTING INTO BANS. I THINK THERE'S A LOT WE CAN DO WORKING WITH PEOPLE IN OBESITY IN THE FIRST PLACE. I WANT TO CHANGE NOW AND ASK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE GET SICK AND NEED TO SEE A SPECIALIST? SURE. YOU'VE BEEN SAYING MORE KIWIS ARE GETTING ELECTIVE SURGERY AND FASTER. YEAH, THEY ARE, ABSOLUTELY. SO WE'RE DOING 50,000 MORE OPERATIONS PER YEAR THAN WHEN WE CAME INTO GOVERNMENT, 60,000 MORE SURGICAL SPECIALIST APPOINTMENTS AND 50,000 MORE GENERAL MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS WITH THE SPECIALISTS, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE. YEAH, BUT WHAT YOU'RE NOT TAKING ACCOUNT OF IN THOSE FIGURES THERE IS WHEN PATIENTS ARE REFERRED TO A SPECIALIST THEN BOUNCED BACK TO A GP FOR WHATEVER REASON, BECAUSE THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENS QUITE A LOT. WE'VE GOT THE FIGURES HERE THAT SHOW 160,000 PEOPLE OVER FIVE YEARS. WELL, NO, THERE ISN'T ANY CLARITY AROUND THE FIGURES, AND WE ARE THE FIRST GOVERNMENT EVER TO START COUNTING THIS, SO LATER NEXT YEAR WE'LL HAVE A TRUE PICTURE OF THE REFERRAL PATHWAY. BUT THE ONLY THING WE CAN SAY WE DO MORE APPOINTMENTS, MORE OPERATIONS. WHAT WE'VE GOT HERE IS AN ADMISSION WE DON'T HAVE A CLEAR PICTURE OF WHAT'S HAPPENED TO 160,000 PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN BOUNCED BACK. AND THAT'S WHY WE'VE GOT THIS MAJOR WORK UNDERWAY COUNTING THAT AND UNDERSTANDING IT. BECAUSE DOESN'T SOMETHING NEED TO BE DONE TO FIX THIS? YOU'VE GOT A 160,000... WHO KNOWS WHAT? NO, ABSOLUTELY, AND SO WHAT WE ARE DOING, WE'RE ACTUALLY GETTING THAT INFORMATION ABOUT IT. LOOK, THAT FIGURE ` WHAT PROPORTION OF THOSE WERE REFERRED INAPPROPRIATELY? WHAT PROPORTION ARE BETTER MANAGED IN PRIMARY CARE? WE'LL HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING. YOU HAVE BEEN PROUD THAT NATIONAL'S BOOSTED MONEY FOR HEALTH, BUT LET'S LOOK AT IT THIS WAY. WHEN YOU ALLOW FOR INFLATION AND POPULATION GROWTH, IS THE BUDGET UNDER NATIONAL HIGHER OR LOWER SINCE YOU CAME INTO POWER? IT'S DEFINITELY HIGHER. WE'VE ADDED $4 BILLION TO IT, SO IT'S GONE FROM 11.9 TO 15.9. OUR OPPONENTS WOULD ARGUE` THEY WANT MORE MONEY IN THERE, RIGHT, BUT THEIR ONLY ANSWER IS PUT MORE MONEY IN, BUT THEY'VE NEVER LOOKED AT HOW THAT MONEY IS BEING SPENT. WE'VE PUT MORE MONEY IN, BUT WE'RE ALSO GETTING BETTER RESULTS, SO FREE DOCTOR'S VISITS, THE A & E TARGETS, THE IMMUNISATION TARGETS, MORE OPERATIONS, FIVE AND A HALF THOUSAND MORE DOCTORS AND NURSES. WE'RE FOCUSED ON RESULTS. AND NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT YOU HAVEN'T PUT MORE MONEY IN. YEAH. BUT WHAT MY QUESTION WAS, WAS WHETHER IF YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT POPULATION GROWTH AND INFLATION ` REAL TERMS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING HERE ` IS WHAT NATIONAL'S PUT INTO HEALTH HIGHER OR LOWER? LOOK, WE'VE KEPT UP WITH POPULATION GROWTH AND MOST INFLATIONARY PRESSURES,... MOST. ...BUT WHAT WE'VE HAD A REAL FOCUS ON, OK,... YES. ...IS THE QUALITY OF THE SPEND, AND THERE WAS A LOT OF MONEY WASTED UNDER LABOUR. AND, AS I SAY, WHEN ANNETTE KING WAS THE MINISTER, THE BUDGET DOUBLED, BUT SHE WAS DOING FEWER OPERATIONS. YEAH, BUT LOOK AT THIS REAL TERMS AGAIN, BECAUSE LABOUR'S INFOMETRICS REPORT, WHICH I'M SURE YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH, WHICH SHOWED, ACTUALLY, WHEN YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT POPULATION GROWTH AND INFLATION, THERE'S A $485 MILLION SHORTFALL. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT THAT YOU'RE NOT KEEPING UP WITH INFLATION AND POPULATION IN REAL TERMS? YEAH, NO, IT IS KEEPING UP. YEAH, LOOK, OVERALL IT IS KEEPING UP, RIGHT? SO THAT INFORMATION, THAT` IT'S KEEPING UP WITH DEMOGRAPHICS. THAT INFOMETRICS REPORT IS WRONG? WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THEY WERE EXTRAPOLATING LABOUR'S SPENDING TRACK. NOW, IF WE'D KEPT UP WITH LABOUR'S SPENDING TRACK, YEAH, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MUCH HIGHER LEVELS OF DEBT OVER TIME. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE TOTAL LEVEL OF SPENDING; IT'S ABOUT WHAT YOU SPEND THE MONEY ON. ALL RIGHT, MINISTER, THAT'S A GOOD PLACE TO LEAVE IT. THANKS VERY MUCH, PATRICK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD. YEAH, THANKS. CHEERS. JUST AHEAD ON THE NATION ` AWARD-WINNING WAR CORRESPONDENT CHRISTINA LAMB ON WHAT'S GONE WRONG IN AFGHANISTAN AND IF THE TALIBAN ARE MAKING A COMEBACK. AND IT'S COLIN CRAIG'S PARTY, AND HE'LL SUE IF HE WANTS TO. TORBEN AKEL GETS TO THE BOTTOM OF HIS LEGAL DRAMAS. THIS IS THE NATION, AND IT'S BEEN SAID THAT THE NUMBER ONE RULE OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS IS NEVER INVADE AFGHANISTAN. MORE THAN A DECADE AFTER THE US AND NZ BEGAN THE LONGEST WAR IN THEIR HISTORIES, THAT POINT HAS BEEN RATHER UNDERLINED. MULTI-AWARD-WINNING JOURNALIST CHRISTINA LAMB HAS WATCHED IT UNFOLD ON THE FRONT LINE FROM THE CAVES OF TORA BORA TO THE NOTORIOUS PRISON AT GUANTANAMO BAY AND DETAILS IT IN HER BOOK 'FAREWELL KABUL'. SHE'S IN NZ, AND WHEN I SAT DOWN WITH HER EARLIER, I ASKED ABOUT PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA'S DECISION TO DELAY WITHDRAWING US TROOPS FROM AFGHANISTAN. WELL, I THINK IT'S A RECOGNITION THAT THE SITUATION ISN'T VERY GOOD, WHICH WAS BROUGHT HOME RECENTLY WHEN KUNDUZ IN NORTHERN AFGHANISTAN WAS SUDDENLY CAPTURED BY THE TALIBAN AND WE HAD TALIBAN SELFIES OF THEMSELVES ON TOP OF THE DISTRICT GOVERNMENT BUILDING. AND THAT REALLY SURPRISED A LOT OF PEOPLE BECAUSE THAT WAS IN AN AREA THAT THE TALIBAN WERE NOT THOUGHT TO BE TRADITIONALLY VERY POWERFUL. USUALLY, THEIR STRONGHOLD IS IN THE SOUTH AND THE EAST, SO CAPTURING THIS CITY IN THE NORTH ` IT'S THE FIFTH BIGGEST CITY IN AFGHANISTAN AND VERY STRATEGIC ` WAS A HUGE SHOCK FOR SOME PEOPLE. ACTUALLY, IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN, BUT IT DID COME AS A SHOCK, AND I THINK THAT WAS EXACTLY AT THE TIME WHEN OBAMA WAS LOOKING AT WHAT TO DO AND HOW QUICKLY TO PULL OUT THE REST OF HIS FORCES, AND THAT OBVIOUSLY AFFECTED THE DECISION. WHY SHOULDN'T IT COME AS A SHOCK? BECAUSE IT HAPPENED, REALLY, BECAUSE THE TALIBAN TOOK THE CITY FROM INSIDE. THEY'D BEEN INFILTRATING THE CITY FOR SOME TIME. AND, ACTUALLY, I'VE BEEN COVERING THIS YEAR A LOT OF THE MIGRANTS COMING INTO EUROPE, WHICH IS, AS YOU KNOW, A HUGE ISSUE THERE. AND BACK IN AUGUST, IN BUDAPEST I WAS MEETING AFGHANS WHO SAID THEY WERE FLEEING KUNDUZ BECAUSE THE TALIBAN WERE MOVING INTO THE CITY, AND I WAS A BIT SURPRISED BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT AT THE TIME. AND THEY TALKED ABOUT HOW PEOPLE WERE VERY FED UP IN THE CITY BY THE AFGHAN SECURITY FORCES, AT THE WAY THAT THEY WERE TREATING PEOPLE ` POLICE ABUSING PEOPLE. AND THIS IS A HUGE PROBLEM, I THINK, FOR THE FUTURE OF AFGHANISTAN BECAUSE IF THE SECURITY FORCES WHICH WE IN THE WEST HAVE SPENT A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY CREATING ARE ACTUALLY SEEN AS A PROBLEM BY THE LOCAL PEOPLE,... RATHER THAN PART OF THE SOLUTION AND STEPPING INTO THAT BREACH? ...THEN THE TALIBAN CAN SORT OF MOVE IN QUITE EASILY. WELL, THE THING IS THE UNITED STATES AND NZ HAS SPENT A LOT OF BLOOD AND TREASURE ON RECONSTRUCTION ` YOU KNOW, BUILDING SCHOOLS, BUILDING WELLS, THAT KIND OF STUFF. HAS THAT NOT TAKEN ROOT? WELL, SOME OF IT. I MEAN, SOME THINGS HAVE IMPROVED, FOR EXAMPLE, EDUCATION. THERE'S A LOT MORE CHILDREN AT SCHOOL IN AFGHANISTAN, SO THERE'S ABOUT EIGHT OR NINE MILLION TODAY COMPARED TO ONE OR TWO MILLION WHEN WE WENT IN THERE IN 2001. AND THE HEALTH SYSTEM HAS IMPROVED A LOT. BUT THE REAL PROBLEM, IN MY VIEW, IS AFGHANISTAN IS A VERY YOUNG POPULATION ` 70% UNDER 28 ` AND THERE'S NO WORK FOR PEOPLE. SO IT'S NO GOOD EDUCATING CHILDREN IF THERE'S NOTHING FOR THEM IN THE FUTURE. AND YOU GO TO ANY AFGHAN VILLAGE OR TOWN, AND IT'S JUST FULL OF YOUNG MEN HANGING AROUND WITH NOTHING TO DO. SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A HUGE LEAP FOR THEM TO THEN THINK, 'WELL, THE BEST OPTION IS TO EITHER GO GROW POPPY ` OPIUM POPPY ` OR GO AND JOIN THE TALIBAN.' AND WE, I THINK, REALLY FAILED IN PROVIDING ANY OPTIONS FOR THOSE PEOPLE. THE THING IS, IN YOUR BOOK YOU TALK ABOUT, I THINK, THE NUMBERS ` HOW MUCH AID OR ASSISTANCE WE'VE PUT IN THERE, AND YOU WORKED IT OUT AT ABOUT I THINK IT WAS $20 A HEAD VERSUS PLACES LIKE TIMOR AND KOSOVO, WHERE THE INVESTMENT WAS MUCH HIGHER. IS THAT PART OF THE ISSUE AS WELL? WELL, THAT WAS TRUE EARLY ON THAT WE WEREN'T COMMITTED ENOUGH, PARTICULARLY THE UNITED STATES, THE ESTIMATES ARE A TRILLION DOLLARS HAVE BEEN SPENT IN AFGHANISTAN. IT'S VERY HARD TO SEE WHERE ALL THAT MONEY WENT. I MEAN, YOU'D EXPECT THE COUNTRY TO BE TRANSFORMED FOR THAT KIND OF MONEY. WHERE DO YOU THINK IT WENT? WELL, A LOT OF IT WAS WASTED. A LOT OF IT WENT ON FOREIGN CONSULTANTS WHO WERE PAID HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY TO GO AND WORK IN AFGHANISTAN WHEN THAT MONEY WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH BETTER SPENT TRAINING AFGHANS TO DO THOSE JOBS. A LOT OF IT WAS SPENT ON BUILDINGS, RATHER THAN ACTUALLY... SO, YOU KNOW, YOU BUILT SCHOOLS AND THINGS RATHER THAN ACTUALLY TRAINING PEOPLE TO TEACH. SO I THINK THE PRIORITIES WERE WRONG BUT ALSO THE WAY THAT IT WAS DONE, SO THE AMOUNT THAT WAS SPENT ON SOME OF THESE BUILDINGS WAS ASTRONOMICAL COMPARED TO WHAT REALLY IT SHOULD HAVE COST. SO THERE WAS BASICALLY NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR A LONG TIME. HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY WAS BEING SPENT. SO HOW CAN THE WEST BE` OR HELP OUT PROPERLY OR BE SUCCESSFUL HERE, THEN? WELL, I THINK THAT FIRST OF ALL THE WEST NEEDS TO LISTEN MUCH MORE TO WHAT AFGHANS' PRIORITIES ARE. I MEAN, WE WENT IN THERE TRYING TO TURN AFGHANISTAN INTO SOME KIND OF SWEDEN OR SOMETHING AND FOCUSED A LOT ON ELECTIONS, ON GENDER RIGHTS. AND I DIDN'T MEET ANY AFGHANS WHO SAID TO ME, 'THE REAL PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY IS WE NEED AN ELECTION.' AND, YOU KNOW, WE DO SOME THINGS` THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT MORE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES? YEAH, THEY WANT SECURITY. THEY WANT IT, YOU KNOW, LIKE ANYBODY DOES. I MEAN, IF YOU HAVEN'T GOT SECURITY, YOU HAVEN'T GOT ANYTHING. WELL, I WANT TO LOOK AT SOME OF THE THINGS YOU WRITE ABOUT IN THE BOOK IN MORE DETAIL. YOU TALK ABOUT TORA BORA JUST MONTHS AFTER 9/11 WHEN IT SEEMS LIKE A HUGE OPPORTUNITY WAS MISSED THEN TO GET OSAMA BIN LADEN. NOW, HE WAS HOLED UP IN SOME CAVES THERE. COULD THE US HAVE GOT HIM THEN, AND WHOSE FAULT WAS IT THAT HE WASN'T CAPTURED THEN OR KILLED? I THINK HE COULD HAVE BEEN CAPTURED THEN, BUT VERY FEW AMERICAN FORCES WERE SENT IN. THERE WERE MORE JOURNALISTS THERE THAN THERE WERE AMERICAN SOLDIERS. THEY CONTRACTED OUT THE WHOLE ATTEMPT TO CATCH OSAMA BIN LADEN AT THAT TIME TO AFGHAN FORCES AND THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION, SO THEY CONTRACTED IT OUT TO THREE DIFFERENT AFGHAN MILITIA COMMANDERS WHO WERE RIVALS AND WHO WERE ALSO TRYING TO MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE. THEY WERE BEING PAID BY THE AMERICANS, BUT THEY ALSO ` ONE OF THE GROUPS ` THEN GOT PAID BY BIN LADEN AND HIS PEOPLE TO GET THEM OUT OF THE COUNTRY. SO ULTIMATELY WHOSE FAULT WAS THAT? BECAUSE YOU TALK TO PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT PRESIDENT BUSH WAS ASKED FOR MORE TROOPS FOR THAT OPERATION AND HE WOULDN'T GIVE THEM, SO DOES THE BUCK STOP WITH HIM? WELL, I MEAN, IT'S UNCLEAR HOW MUCH INFORMATION HE WAS ACTUALLY GIVEN, BUT CERTAINLY AMERICAN MILITARY LEADERSHIP AT THE TIME, AND WHY? BECAUSE THEY WERE MUCH MORE FOCUSED ALREADY ON ANOTHER COUNTRY, WHICH WAS IRAQ... ALL RIGHT. ...AND ALREADY MAKING PREPARATIONS FOR WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO THERE. THE OTHER THING YOU WRITE ABOUT IN DETAIL IS PAKISTAN, THE FACT THAT HOW DEEPLY IT WAS INVOLVED IN AFGHANISTAN AND TERRORISM, AND THE PRESIDENT MUSHARRAF SAID THAT HE WAS` HE COMMITTED TO CUT TIES WITH TERRORISM GROUPS. BUT THE REALITY WAS HE DIDN'T, DID HE? NO, HE DIDN'T. THEY WERE PLAYING A DOUBLE GAME. THEY WERE TAKING MONEY FROM THE AMERICANS IN THE WEST ` A LOT OF MONEY. THEY WERE PAID $31 BILLION OVER 12 YEARS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THEY WERE USING SOME OF THAT MONEY TO SUPPORT THE VERY PEOPLE, THE TALIBAN, WHO WERE KILLING OUR TROOPS, SO IT WAS ACTUALLY A RIDICULOUS SITUATION. BUT I HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME IN PAKISTAN. I LIVED IN PAKISTAN WHEN THE RUSSIANS WERE IN AFGHANISTAN, BACK IN THE '80S, AND LEFT, AND PAKISTAN FELT THEN THAT THEY HAD BEEN COMPLETELY ABANDONED BY THE WEST, PARTICULARLY BY THE US. LITERALLY OVERNIGHT PEOPLE LOST INTEREST IN PAKISTAN ONCE THE RUSSIANS HAD LEFT AFGHANISTAN, AND I WAS THERE AT THE TIME AND I SAW IT. SO I UNDERSTOOD WHY AFTER 9/11 WHEN THEY WERE ASKED TO HELP AGAIN THAT THEY DIDN'T TRUST THE AMERICANS. BUT ALL THAT AID MONEY, THEN, THAT WAS PAID OVER, WAS THAT FOOL'S PAYMENT, THEN, GIVEN WHAT THEY WERE DOING? I THINK THAT IT WAS VERY CLEAR EARLY ON WHAT PAKISTAN WAS DOING. I WAS IN QUETTA IN 2003 AND COULD SEE THEN THAT THEY WERE ` TALIBAN WERE ` BEING ENCOURAGED TO REGROUP, THAT THERE WAS RECRUITMENT GOING ON AND THAT PAKISTAN'S MILITARY INTELLIGENCE, ISI, WAS COORDINATING ALL OF THIS. SO THAT WAS VERY EARLY ON THAT YOU COULD SEE THEY WERE DOING THAT, AND I THINK AT THAT TIME THE WEST SHOULD'VE PUT A LOT OF PRESSURE ON PAKISTAN. SO COULD AMERICA CLEARLY SEE THAT BUT JUST CHOSE TO IGNORE IT? AND THEY THOUGHT THAT THE TALIBAN HAD GONE. YOU KNOW, THEY'D BEEN TOPPLED VERY QUICKLY AT THE BEGINNING. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK IS A BIG PROBLEM WITH AFGHANISTAN WAS THAT I THINK POLITICAL LEADERS JUST DIDN'T UNDERSTAND OR DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS THEY WERE TRYING TO ACHIEVE IN AFGHANISTAN. THE FIRST BIT, GOING IN AFTER 9/11 AS KIND OF REVENGE AND TRYING TO FIND BIN LADEN, GETTING RID OF THE TALIBAN, WAS STRAIGHTFORWARD AND THEY SUCCEEDED IN DOING THAT WITHIN 60 DAYS. BUT AFTER THAT, THEY DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WHAT IT WAS THEY WERE TRYING TO ACHIEVE, AND WE KEPT BEING GIVEN DIFFERENT VERSIONS. SO IN SAYING THAT, THEN, WAS IT A FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED DECISION TO GO IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE? WHAT IF WE HAD DONE NOTHING, NOT GONE THERE? WELL, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. MAYBE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE IS MUCH MORE EFFORT TO TRY AND PERSUADE THE TALIBAN TO HAND OVER BIN LADEN, BECAUSE LATER ON IT BECAME CLEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY HAD BEEN SORT OF OPEN TO POSSIBLY DOING THAT. BUT BUSH REALLY NEEDED TO BE SEEN AS DOING SOMETHING STRAIGHT AFTER 9/11, AND I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THEY DID THAT. I THINK THE PROBLEM CAME AFTER REMOVING THE TALIBAN AND WITH KNOWING WHAT IT WAS THEY WERE TRYING TO DO, AND WAS IT RECONSTRUCTION? WAS IT JUST TRYING TO KEEP MINIMUM SECURITY? I MEAN, THEY JUST REALLY DIDN'T SEEM TO KNOW WHAT IT WAS THEY WERE TRYING TO GET. WELL, IF WE LOOK NOW AT SYRIA, WHAT'S HAPPENING THERE, IT IS` I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DEBATE THAT IT'S A BIG MESS. YES. AND ARE THERE ONLY WAYS TO FAIL IN THAT KIND OF SITUATION? IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, SHOULD THE WEST EVEN BE WADING IN THERE? OK, I MEAN, I WOULD HATE TO THINK THAT THE LESSON DRAWN FROM AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ IS THAT WE DON'T GET INVOLVED ANYWHERE ANY MORE. AND I CAN SEE WHY PEOPLE MIGHT THINK THAT THAT'S THE LESSON, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AT THE END OF THE DAY, IRAQ IS A MESS. AFGHANISTAN COULD STILL GO EITHER WAY. I DON'T THINK THE TALIBAN IS ABOUT TO RECAPTURE THE WHOLE OF AFGHANISTAN, BUT I THINK WE'VE STILL GOT TO STAY INVOLVED. LIBYA, WHERE WE GOT INVOLVED IN REMOVING GADDAFI ` I'VE BEEN TO RECENTLY ` IS A HUGE MESS. SO IT DOES SEEM ANYWHERE WE'VE GOTTEN INVOLVED HAS NOT ACTUALLY ENDED UP BEING A MORE STABLE SITUATION. IN FACT, IN MANY OF THOSE PLACES, CERTAINLY IRAQ AND LIBYA, I THINK MANY OF THE PEOPLE LIVING THERE WOULD SAY THE SITUATION WAS BETTER UNDER SADDAM OR UNDER GADDAFI. HOWEVER, I THINK THAT, AT THE SAME TIME, MOST PEOPLE WOULD FEEL THAT IT WASN'T THE RIGHT DECISION TO DO NOTHING IN SYRIA. WE ARE SUFFERING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT. I MEAN, IN EUROPE, WE NOW ARE FACED WITH THIS PROBLEM OF MILLIONS OF SYRIANS COMING, AND THE WAR HAS LITERALLY NOW COME TO OUR SHORES. SO SUDDENLY PEOPLE ARE GOING, 'WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT SYRIA.' ALL RIGHT, WE'LL LEAVE IT THERE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US. CHRISTINA LAMB, CORRESPONDENT AND AUTHOR OF THE BOOK 'FAREWELL KABUL'. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, LISA. AND WE'VE GOT THREE COPIES OF CHRISTINA'S BOOK 'FAREWELL KABUL' TO GIVE AWAY. IT'S A GREAT READ, LOTS OF PERSONAL STORIES AND OTHER INTERESTING INSIDER DETAIL. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS JUST TELL US WHO SAID, 'RULE NUMBER ONE IN POLITICS WAS NEVER INVADE AFGHANISTAN'? EMAIL THE ANSWER AND YOUR ADDRESS TO THENATION@TV3.CO.NZ WELL, WE'LL BE CROSSING LIVE SOON TO BEIJING AFTER THE BREAK TO FIND OUT IF THERE WERE ANY AWKWARD MOMENTS DURING LABOUR LEADER ANDREW LITTLE'S MEETING WITH THE CHINESE VICE PRESIDENT. BUT NOW IT'S TIME FOR POLITICS IN 60 SECONDS. THE BIG QUESTION THIS WEEK ` RUSSEL NORMAN BOWING OUT OF PARLIAMENT. WHAT DID YOU THINK OF HIS PARTING SHOT? WELL, THAT DEPENDS. WHAT'D HE GO, THE SAMBUCA OR JAEGERMEISTER? ACTUALLY, HE HAD A GO AT THE STATE OF OUR DEMOCRACY. DID HE? WHAT'S HIS PROBLEM WITH IT? NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE VOTE FOR THE GREENS; SYSTEM'S OBVIOUSLY BROKEN. HE WENT ON TO SAY HE WAS PROUD TO BE AN AGITATOR. YEAH, BUT SO'S MY WASHING MACHINE. LOOK, HE'S HAD A GOOD RUN, BUT POLITICALLY IT'S OVER. I MEAN, MAY HE REST IN GREENPEACE. THE OTHER BIG QUESTION ` WHO PAYS $2000 A NIGHT FOR A HOTEL ROOM? WELL, WE DO, DON'T WE, BUT GERRY BROWNLEE STAYS IN IT. I MEAN, HE'S ALWAYS BEEN QUITE GRAND, BUT THIS TIME HE'S BEEN TOO GRAND. NICE. TIM GROSER, $15 TO HAVE HIS SHIRT SLEEVES SHORTENED. YEAH. I WOULD'VE BEEN HAPPY TO SPEND A BIT MORE AND GET HIS ARMS LENGTHENED, YOU KNOW? I MEAN, THEN AT LEAST WE'D ALL SUFFER. YEAH, AND HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO FINALLY REACH UP ON THE TOP SHELF TO GET THAT TPP DOWN SO WE CAN ALL HAVE A READ. OH. OH. WHAT'S HAPPENING? BOTH: OH! IT'S ANOTHER BLOODY MESSAGE FROM JOHN KEY. ANOTHER FACEBOOK VIDEO. 'CHECK IT OUT.' ALL RIGHT. BOTH: EW! OH GOD! I THOUGHT HE SAID HE DIDN'T TRIM IT. MUST BE THAT NEW AUCKLAND BYLAW THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO KEEP YOUR BERMS IN CHECK. I REALLY HOPE THAT'S A TREE. WELCOME BACK. LABOUR LEADER ANDREW LITTLE IS VISITING CHINA, WHERE HE'S MEETING NZ BUSINESSPEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. HE'S JUST MET WITH CHINESE VICE-PRESIDENT LI YUANCHAO IN BEIJING, WHERE IT'S VERY EARLY IN THE MORNING. THANKS FOR JOINING US, MR LITTLE. VERY NICE TO BE HERE. I JUST WANT TO ASK WHAT DID YOU TALK ABOUT IN THIS MEETING WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT? WELL, IT WAS QUITE AN EXTENDED MEETING. IT WENT WAY OVER TIME, BUT WE TALKED ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES, TALKED ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LABOUR PARTY AND THE COMMUNIST PARTY, TALKED ABOUT THE FREE-TRADE AGREEMENT BECAUSE WE'VE GOT THE UPGRADE BEING TALKED ABOUT THERE AT THE MOMENT. WE TALKED ABOUT A COUPLE OF SENSITIVE ISSUES. I RAISED THE ISSUE ABOUT LAND SALES, BOTH HOUSE SALES AND FARM SALES AND HOW NZERS ARE FEELING INCREASINGLY SENSITIVE ABOUT THAT, AND ALSO THE ISSUE ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS, AND I RAISED THAT WITH VICE PRESIDENT LI IN THE SAME WAY THAT I RAISED IT WITH PRESIDENT XI JINPING AT THE END OF LAST YEAR IN NZ AND JUST SAY THAT NZ'S EXPECTATION OF COUNTRIES THEY ARE GETTING CLOSER TO IS THAT WE SEE THAT THEIR PEOPLE ARE TREATED FAIRLY AND PROPERLY AND GOOD JUDICIAL SYSTEMS. AND I MADE A COMMENT ABOUT IT WAS INTERESTING SEEING A HUMAN RIGHTS AWARD BEING GIVEN TO ROBERT MUGABE, BECAUSE MOST NZERS WOULD NOT SEE ROBERT MUGABE AS A CHAMPION OF HUMAN RIGHTS BUT QUITE THE OPPOSITE. BUT IT WAS A GOOD DISCUSSION, VERY WARM AND FRIENDLY, AND I WAS VERY PLEASED TO HAVE THE TIME I HAD WITH VICE PRESIDENT LI. WELL, IN TERMS OF THE LAND SALES, THEN, ON THE NATION WE INTERVIEWED RECENTLY A VERY HIGH-UP CHINESE DIPLOMAT, MADAM FU YING, AND SHE SAID THAT SHE WOULD HATE TO SEE CHINESE BUYERS BEING TURNED INTO A POLITICAL TARGET. DID YOU GET THAT SAME IMPRESSION FROM THE VICE PRESIDENT? WE ACTUALLY HAD` ONCE THE FORMALITIES WERE OVER AND WE WERE JUST HAVING A GENERAL CHAT, AND HE RAISED THE LAND SALES ISSUE HIMSELF THEN, AND WE TALKED ABOUT LAND. HE TALKED ABOUT IN CHINA THAT THERE'S SO LITTLE ARABLE LAND AND WHY LAND IS SO VALUABLE AND IMPORTANT TO THE CHINESE. AND WE BOTH AGREED THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE HAVE A VERY EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT TO LAND AS WELL AND IT'S NO DIFFERENT FOR NZ AND NZERS, AND, YOU KNOW, IN NZ WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE PARTICULARLY OF OUR FARMLAND TO THE CONTRIBUTION TO OUR NATIONAL WEALTH, THAT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONTROL THAT AND HOLD ON TO THAT. AND CERTAINLY THE SENSE I HAD WAS THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THAT. DID HE EXPRESS ANY`? WHEN IT CAME TO HOUSE SALES` DID HE EXPRESS ANY CONCERN ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF A BAN, THOUGH? NO CONCERN WAS EXPRESSED AT ALL, BECAUSE I THINK THEY HAVE RESTRICTIONS ON LAND SALES HERE IN CHINA TO NON-RESIDENT FOREIGNERS AND PLENTY OF OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD DO AS WELL, AND IT WASN'T ACTUALLY ABOUT THAT. I TALKED ABOUT THE INVESTMENT FROM CHINA THAT WE DO WELCOME. I LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, COMPANIES LIKE YASHILI AND YILI, WHO ARE INVESTING IN DAIRY PROCESSING, BECAUSE THAT'S GENERATING JOBS IN NZ AND GENERATING WEALTH IN NZ AS WELL AS BENEFITING THE CHINESE OWNERS. AND WE TALKED ABOUT THAT THROUGH A FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT AS SOMETHING THAT'S VERY WELCOME, BUT THERE ARE SENSITIVITIES ABOUT LAND, ESPECIALLY WHEN HOUSE SALES TO A NON-RESIDENT FOREIGNER IS ONE CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO PUSHING UP HOUSE PRICES IN AUCKLAND, AND HE UNDERSTOOD THAT. BUT THE THING IS WITH THE TPP, IF YOU CANNOT BAN FOREIGN BUYERS, WOULD LABOUR THEN LOOK AT BRINGING IN A STAMP DUTY OR SOME OTHER KIND OF TAX THAT WOULD MAKE IT PROHIBITIVE FOR FOREIGN BUYERS? WELL, THAT'S THE SUGGESTION THAT'S BEEN MADE AS SOME SORT OF SIDEWIND AS TO GET AROUND THAT PARTICULAR PROVISION. IN THE END, WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IS THE RIGHT OF A PEOPLE THROUGH THEIR PARLIAMENT AND THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHAT THEY DO IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS, AND WHEN IT COMES TO LAND SALES AND WANTING TO RESTRICT SALES TO NON-RESIDENT FOREIGNERS` BUT DO YOU LIKE THAT IDEA, MR LITTLE? DO YOU LIKE THAT IDEA? THAT'S A DECISION THAT THE POLITICAL SYSTEM HAS TO MAKE. BUT DO YOU LIKE THAT IDEA? WELL, THERE ARE PLENTY OF COUNTRIES THAT HAVE PRETTY... THERE ARE PLENTY OF COUNTRIES THAT HAVE PRETTY HEFTY STAMP DUTIES. THAT HASN'T STOPPED HOUSE PRICES ROCKETING UP, AND WITH THE CONTRIBUTION OF NON-RESIDENT FOREIGN BUYERS, SO I'M NOT SURE THAT'S NECESSARILY AN ANSWER TO THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. OK, WELL, YOU RAISED THE TOPIC OF HUMAN RIGHTS. OBVIOUSLY, THE CHINESE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN IN THE UK. IT'S COME UP THERE AS WELL, AND HE HAS CONCEDED THAT THERE IS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT WHEN IT COMES TO CHINA'S RECORD ON HUMAN RIGHTS. YOU RAISED IT; WHAT RESPONSE DID YOU GET? WELL, IT WAS A SIMILAR RESPONSE. I RAISED IT IN MY MEETING WITH XI JINPING AT THE END OF LAST YEAR, AND HE RESPONDED IN SIMILAR TERMS. YES, HE UNDERSTANDS THAT, UNDERSTANDS THE WEST'S EXPECTATIONS AND THAT THERE IS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT. AND I GOT A SIMILAR RESPONSE WITH VICE PRESIDENT LI YESTERDAY IN MY CONVERSATION WITH HIM. I MEAN, THEY UNDERSTAND, I THINK. HE UNDERSTOOD THERE ARE ISSUES, AND, YOU KNOW, LARGE COUNTRY, A LOT OF ISSUES WITH A RAPID GROWTH AND TRYING TO DEVELOP A MODERN JUDICIAL SYSTEM. THERE ARE ISSUES STILL ONGOING. BUT I CERTAINLY GOT A VERY RESPECTFUL RESPONSE, HAVING RAISED THE ISSUE. ALL RIGHT, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT BACK HOME NOW ` THE DEPUTY LEADERSHIP. SO, ANNETTE KING IS STAYING IN THAT POSITION, BUT IS SHE STICKING WITH LABOUR BEYOND THE NEXT ELECTION? WELL, THAT'S, UH... I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BEYOND THE NEXT ELECTION. IS SHE GOING TO BE STANDING IN THE NEXT ELECTION? WHAT SHE DOES AFTER THAT, LIKE ANY... WELL, THAT CERTAINLY HASN'T BEEN THE SUBJECT OF ANY DISCUSSION BETWEEN US, AND THAT'S A MATTER FOR HER TO DECIDE. LONG-SERVING MPS DO GET TO A POINT EVENTUALLY WHERE, I GUESS, IT'S TIME FOR THEM TO GO. SHE'S NOT EXPRESSING THAT AT THE MOMENT, AND WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT DISCUSSION. NO DOUBT, AT SOME POINT, SHE'LL BE THINKING ABOUT THAT. BUT WHY NOT? BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, THE QUESTION IS SHE'LL BE, WHAT, ABOUT 70 BY THE TIME WE GET TO THE NEXT ELECTION, AND SHE'S HAD 30-ODD YEARS IN PARLIAMENT. IS THAT THE NEW FACE OF LABOUR? WELL, IT'S NOT POLITE TO ASK WOMEN THEIR AGE, BUT I DO KNOW SHE'S BEEN IN PARLIAMENT FOR A LONG TIME, AND WE TALK ABOUT THAT, AND WE ARE... WE HAVE BEEN FOR SOME TIME ON THE PROCESS OF REFRESH AND RENEWAL. WE HAVE A HUGE OPPORTUNITY IN TERMS OF NEW TALENT WE'LL BE RECRUITING IN FOR 2017, SO I'M CONFIDENT WE'LL HAVE A GOOD COMBINATION OF SOUND SENIORITY AND EXPERIENCE AND A LOT OF FRESH NEW TALENT, A LOT OF WHICH IS THERE NOW, AND SOME OF WHICH TO COME IN READY FOR 2017. SO, JUST TO BE CLEAR, SHE MAY NOT STAND IN 2017? I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW YOU GET TO THAT CONCLUSION. NO, I EXPECT SHE WILL STAND IN 2017. WELL, YOU CAN'T SAY THAT SHE WILL. YOU CAN'T SAY THAT SHE WILL. WELL, WHAT HAPPENS WITH, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO ARE STANDING IN SEATS AND ON THE LIST IS A DECISION BETWEEN THEM AND THE PARTY. THE PARTY SELECTION PROCESS FOR THAT HASN'T STARTED YET. WE WANT NEXT YEAR TO LOCK DOWN AS MANY OF OUR CANDIDATES FOR 2017 AS WE CAN. RIGHT NOW MY FOCUS HAS BEEN ON THE CAUCUS AND ORGANISING A CAUCUS READY FOR DEVELOPING A SHADOW CABINET THAT WILL TAKE US THROUGH BEYOND 2017. ALL RIGHT, WE'VE GOT TO GO. THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US, LABOUR LEADER ANDREW LITTLE FROM BEIJING. WELL, THE PANEL'S NEXT, BUT HAVE YOU BEEN WONDERING WHERE ALL THE COLIN CRAIG LEGAL ACTION IS UP TO? WELL, WE HAVE. REMEMBER, IT ALL SURROUNDS WHAT HE ADMITTED WAS INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOUR WITH A FORMER STAFFER, THOUGH HE DENIED ANY HARASSMENT. WELL, IT TURNS OUT HE'S MAKING GOOD ON THOSE THREATS TO SUE. PROBLEM IS HE'S BEING SUED BACK AND FACES OTHER LEGAL ISSUES TOO. HERE'S TORBEN AKEL. IT'S ALMOST THREE MONTHS SINCE COLIN CRAIG ANNOUNCED HE WAS TAKING LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THREE MEN HE ALLEGED HAD FALSELY ACCUSED HIM OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT ` RIGHT-WING BLOGGER CAMERON SLATER, FORMER CONSERVATIVE BOARD MEMBER JOHN STRINGER AND POLITICAL LOBBYIST JORDAN WILLIAMS. THIS IS THE DAY WE START TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE 'DIRTY POLITICS' BRIGADE. SINCE THEN, CRAIG HAS INDEED COMMENCED COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SLATER AND STRINGER, SEEKING $600,000 AND $750,000 RESPECTIVELY. WILLIAMS HASN'T BEEN SERVED YET, THOUGH, AND INSTEAD HE IS SUING CRAIG FOR DEFAMING HIM. SLATER HAS LODGED A COUNTER-CLAIM TOO, AS HAS JOHN STRINGER AGAINST CRAIG AND HIS WIFE. AND,ROUNDING IT ALL OFF, CRAIG TOLD THE NATION HE'LL FILE COURT PAPERS AGAINST WILLIAM NEXT WEEK. HE SAYS HE'S CONFIDENT OF WINNING BUT THAT OUT-OF-COURT SOLUTIONS ARE STILL POSSIBLE. OF COURSE, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO NEED TO RETRACT AND APOLOGISE FOR THINGS THAT THEY'VE SAID WHERE THEY'VE GOT IT WRONG. BUT BOTH SLATER AND STRINGER TOLD US THAT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN. I'VE ASKED COLIN FOR AN APOLOGY FOR HIS DEFAMATORY BOOK THAT HE PUBLISHED AND SENT TO EVERY HOME IN THE COUNTRY ABOUT ME. HE'S DECLINED TO APOLOGISE FOR THAT. MEANWHILE, NZ FIRST LEADER WINSTON PETERS WAS IN COURT LAST WEEK CHALLENGING THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION'S LACK OF ACTION OVER A MISLEADING CONSERVATIVE ELECTION PAMPHLET. THE JUDGE IN THAT CASE HAS RESERVED HER DECISION. WHAT'S MORE, POLICE ARE STILL INVESTIGATING THE CONSERVATIVES' ELECTORAL SPENDING, FOLLOWING A COMPLAINT LAID BY STRINGER. AND ALL THIS WHILE THE PARTY PREPARES TO ELECT A NEW BOARD IN A PROCESS STRINGER CLAIMS BREAKS PARTY RULES AND MAY BE LEGALLY CHALLENGED TOO. WE MUST FOLLOW RULES AND PROCEDURES THAT WE PUT IN PLACE FOR OUR OWN GOVERNANCE, CRAIG INSISTS, THOUGH, THAT ALL IS ABOVE BOARD AND THAT HE'S KEEN TO BE PARTY LEADER AGAIN ONCE HE'S NOT SO BUSY FIGHTING COURT CASES. I WOULD PREFER TO SEE THOSE RESOLVED AT LEAST TO SOME EXTENT FIRST BEFORE ANY DECISION OR REQUEST WAS MADE ABOUT WHAT ROLE I PLAY. AND IN ANOTHER BIT OF NEWS, WE ASKED COLIN CRAIG IF HE WAS STANDING FOR THE AUCKLAND MAYORALTY NEXT YEAR. LOOK, I'M NOT. I HAVE BEEN ASKED ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. AT THIS STAGE, I CAN'T SEE MYSELF FINDING IN THE MIDST OF EVERYTHING ELSE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. SO, OUR PANEL IS UP AFTER THE BREAK, BUT LET'S FIND OUT FIRST WHO HAD WHAT TO SAY ON THE POLITICAL TWITTERSPHERE THIS WEEK. FOREIGN MINISTER MURRAY MCCULLY WANTED TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR WHAT THIS MINISTERIAL EXPENSE WAS FOR. THIS PHOTO WAS TAKEN JUST TWO YEARS AGO, BUT JOHN KEY IS NOW THE LAST MAN STANDING AFTER STEPHEN HARPER'S ELECTION LOSS. AND MORE POLICE MIGHT HAVE BEEN CAUGHT SPEEDING, BUT THESE ONES SEEM CONTENT JUST TO STAND IN LINE. YOU'RE BACK WITH 'THE NATION', AND I'M WITH TODAY'S PANEL ` 'MORGAN FOUNDATION' GENERAL MANAGER AND ECONOMIST GEOFF SIMMONS, 'SUNDAY STAR TIMES' AND 'SUNDAY NEWS' EDITOR JONATHAN MILNE, AND FORMER ACT LEADER JAMIE WHYTE. GOOD MORNING TO YOU ALL. LET'S START WITH JONATHAN COLEMAN. 22-POINT PLAN TO HOPEFULLY BRING DOWN CHILD OBESITY. YOU DON'T EVEN THINK WE NEED THAT, DO YOU ` THE PLAN? NO, I DON'T THINK THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD CONCERN ITSELF WITH OUR BODIES. YOU KNOW, WE ALL HAVE CHOICES TO MAKE, AND WE CAN MAKE THEM IF I WANT TO BE FAT, THAT'S UP TO ME. BUT SHOULD THEY CONCERN THEMSELVES ABOUT THE COST, BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, IN 12 MONTHS, THEY THINK BAD FOOD, OVERWEIGHT, THAT'S GOING TO SURPASS TOBACCO IN TERMS OF CAUSING ILLNESSES. YEAH, THAT'S THE ONLY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE GOVERNMENT GETTING INVOLVED IN OBESITY, WHICH IS PEOPLE, WHEN THEY CHOOSE TO EAT TOO MUCH, THEY IMPOSE A COST ON OTHER PEOPLE THROUGH THE HEALTH SYSTEM. BUT THE REMEDY ISN'T TO TAX FOOD OR OTHERWISE TRY TO GET PEOPLE TO CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOUR. THE REMEDY IS TO IMPOSE THAT COST BACK ON THE PEOPLE WHO DO IT ` THAT IS TO SAY, CHARGE THEM FOR THE COST THEY IMPOSE ON THE HEALTH SYSTEM ` WHICH I THINK IS ABOUT $700 A YEAR PER FAT PERSON. SO YOU'RE HAPPY FOR PEOPLE TO KILL THEMSELVES AS LONG AS YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT? ABSOLUTELY, YEAH. FIRSTLY, LET'S POP THIS MYTH OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, BECAUSE SIR PETER GLUCKMAN'S WORKING ON THIS STUFF ` HE'S THE PRIME MINISTER'S CHIEF SCIENCE ADVISOR ` AND THE WORK THAT HE'S DOING SUGGESTS THAT IN BETWEEN GENETICS, EARLY EXPERIENCE, YOU KNOW, THE WAY YOUR BODY IS WIRED, PROCESSES FOOD AND EXERCISE COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY. SO TWO PEOPLE CAN EAT EXACTLY THE SAME STUFF AND END UP VASTLY DIFFERENT WEIGHTS. SO INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY IS A COMPLETE MYTH. AND ALSO` I DON'T SEE HOW THAT FOLLOWS. I MEAN, IF I MAY BE MORE INCLINED TO PUT ON WEIGHT THAN YOU, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I CAN'T IN ANY WAY CONTROL MY OBESITY. IT'S HARDER FOR SOME PEOPLE TO CONTROL THEIR WEIGHT THAN OTHERS. THE SORT OF POLICY YOU'RE SUGGESTING IS AKIN TO SAYING TO HAEMOPHILIACS THAT YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR OWN BLOOD. I MEAN, THAT FUNDAMENTALLY OPPOSES OUR EQUITABLE SOCIETY. SURELY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY HERE, AND FINE, DON'T TELL ME WIFE THIS, BUT ON THE WAY INTO WORK THIS MORNING, I STOPPED IN AT DRIVE-THRU MCDONALDS AND GRABBED SOME BREAKFAST AT 6AM. SO I'M A GROWN-UP. I CAN TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MY OWN LIFE. BUT WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT KIDS HERE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT YOUNG KIDS. AND, LOOK, I BROUGHT A PROP, IF YOU DON'T MIND. LET'S SEE. ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES PICKED THIS UP AT A DAIRY IN GLEN INNES THIS WEEK. THIS IS PACKAGED AS A $2 SCHOOL LUNCH. THEY'RE SOLD IN DAIRIES. SO JUST BRIEFLY, WHAT CAN WE SEE IN THERE? A COUPLE OF SUGARY DRINKS,... I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS, LISA. BUT BASICALLY PRETTY PROCESSED AND FULL OF SUGAR AND FAT. IT'S HORRIBLE, AND HALF THE INFORMATION ON THIS IS IN THAI, WHICH I'M NOT FLUENT IN, SO I DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THE INGREDIENTS ARE. I THINK YOU'VE JUST USED THE KEY WORD THERE, WHICH IS 'PARENTS'. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE PARENT OF MY CHILDREN; I AM. I DON'T WANT MY AUTHORITIES AS A PARENT TO BE USURPED BY THE GOVERNMENT. THE GOVERNMENT'S GOT NO... THIS IS SIMPLY THE BEYOND THE PROPER ROLE OF THE STATE. IT'S NOT THERE TO MAKE YOU LIVE A PARTICULAR WAY. IT'S THERE TO STOP YOU HARMING OTHERS. IT'S NOT THERE TO GUIDE YOUR BEHAVIOUR. SO, JAMIE, THE PARENTS AREN'T THERE AT THE DAIRY WHEN... HOW MUCH WAS THIS? TWO BUCKS. TWO BUCKS. ...WHEN A KID BUYS A TWO-BUCK LUNCH. NO ONE CAN EXPLAIN TO ME WHY, EVEN IF PARENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR KIDS, WHICH I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH, WHY WE STILL ALLOW JUNK-FOOD ADVERTISERS TO TARGET KIDS. THE GOVERNMENT'S DONE NOTHING ABOUT THAT IN THIS PLAN. WHY DO WE ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN? BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A FREE SOCIETY. SO YOU THINK A 6-, A 7-YEAR-OLD HAS FREEDOM OF CHOICE, HAS ALL THE INFORMATION THEY NEED TO MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE ABOUT THEIR $2 LUNCH? I THINK THEY HAVE PARENTS. I COULD RUN THIS ARGUMENT ON ANYTHING. YOU COULD GO THROUGH A LIST OF THINGS THAT YOU DON'T CARE FOR. I MEAN, I LOOK AT THIS, AND I THINK 'YUCK. BAN IT.' BUT I DON'T WANT TO BAN IT; YOU WANT TO BAN IT. I COULD GO THROUGH` WHY DON'T YOU TAKE THIS VIEW TOWARDS ALL SORTS OF PERSONAL CONDUCT THAT YOU DISAPPROVE OF? 'JUST BAN IT.' CAN I SUGGEST A HALFWAY HOUSE BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU? I MEAN, BAN` I DON'T KNOW THE LANGUAGE OF BANS AND BOYCOTTS MYSELF EITHER, BUT COULD WE TAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY? I MEAN, INSTEAD OF WALKING INTO THIS DAIRY IN GLEN INNES OR INSTEAD OF LOCALS ALL BOYCOTTING THIS DAIRY, INSTEAD OF THE GOVERNMENT SLAPPING THEM WITH BANS ON SELLING THIS FOOD, IF ALL OF US ACTUALLY WALKED INTO THIS DAIRY, IF THE LOCALS WALKED IN THERE, BOUGHT A CARTON OF MILK AND HAD A CHAT TO THE DAIRY OWNER ABOUT THIS AND SAID, 'I DON'T LIKE WHAT THIS IS DOING FOR MY COMMUNITY,' I RECKON RETAILERS WOULD BE PRETTY RESPONSIVE TO THAT MYSELF BECAUSE I RECKON WE ALL WANNA BE GOOD CITIZENS. DO YOU? > WE ALL WANNA BE PART` A GOOD PART OF THE COMMUNITY. I DON'T KNOW. AM I NAIVE HERE? WELL, I THINK YOU'RE A THUG. I MEAN, LEAVE THEM ALONE. (LAUGHS) WELL, IF YOU` > WHY? WHAT'S IT`? WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF YOURS? WHY DON'T THE ADVERTISERS LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE? WHY DO THE ADVERTISERS USE CARTOONS AND TV ADS AND SIGNS. YOU SEE COMPULSION WHERE THERE IS NONE. THESE PEOPLE ARE OFFERING GOODS FOR SALE. ADVERTISING INFLUENCES KIDS' DECISIONS. PEOPLE ARE CHOOSING TO BUY THEM. AND YOU WANT TO` YES, BUT WHY SHOULD YOUR PREFERENCES BE IMPOSED BY LAW ON SOCIETY? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. EVERYBODY ELSE IS GOING ABOUT THEIR BUSINESS` WHY SHOULD ADVERTISERS' PREFERENCES BE ENFORCED ON SOCIETY BECAUSE THEY SPEND MONEY ON IT? THEY'RE NOT ENFORCED. I` AN ADVERTISER CANNOT MAKE ME BUY HIS PRODUCT. THE OTHER THING THAT JONATHAN COLEMAN WAS SAYING IN REGARDS TO THE TAX ON FIZZY DRINKS, SUGAR, FAT TAX ` CALL IT WHAT YOU WILL ` HE SAYS THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT THAT WILL ACTUALLY WORK; IT MIGHT CHANGE BUYER BEHAVIOUR, BUT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT YOU MIGHT NOT GO OUT AND BUY SOMETHING EQUALLY AS FATTY. LIKE INSTEAD OF A FIZZY DRINK, YOU MIGHT GO AND BUY FISH AND CHIPS. WELL, THERE'S` THEN YOU'LL WANT TO BAN THAT, WON'T YOU? I DON'T WANNA BAN ANYTHING. I JUST WANNA BAN ADVERTISING. I THINK ADVERTISING TARGETING KIDS IS PERNICIOUS. BUT ABSOLUTELY. EVIDENCE IS NEVER` THERE'S GOING TO BE AN AUDIT` OBVIOUSLY AN AUDIT OF THE ADVERTISING, AND JONATHAN COLEMAN SAYS HE IS WORKING WITH THOSE ORGANISATIONS AND BUSINESSES. INDUSTRY AND VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS WITH INDUSTRY, WHICH HAS NEVER WORKED ANYWHERE AROUND THE WORLD. YOU KNOW, THIS PLAN` ON THE TAX, THERE'S NEVER EVIDENCE THAT 100% THAT ANYTHING WORKS, AND, YES, YOU HAVE TO DESIGN A TAX RIGHT. BUT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF THE 22 POINTS IN COLEMAN'S PACKAGE ARE GONNA SHIFT THE NEEDLE ON CHILDHOOD OBESITY. THE TWO THINGS THAT COME UP TIME AND TIME AGAIN FROM INTERNATIONAL STUDIES ARE TAXING JUNK FOOD, NOT JUST SOFT DRINKS ` TAXING JUNK FOOD ` AND ALSO BANNING ADVERTISING TARGETING KIDS. OK. JONATHAN, I WAS INTERESTED WHEN THE HEALTH MINISTER SAID THERE THAT THEY DIDN'T WANNA SET UNREALISTIC, ASPIRATIONAL TARGETS, WHICH IS WHY THEY DON'T HAVE A TARGET FOR REDUCTION IN OBESITY. HAVE WE ABANDONED ASPIRATION? OH, LOOK, I THINK, UM` I THINK, UM, REGULATION IS PROBABLY NOT NECESSARILY THE WAY TO ENSURE ASPIRATION. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN LEGISLATE TO MAKE PEOPLE ASPIRATIONAL. BUT I THINK AS A COMMUNITY` I'M SORRY. I KNOW I SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD ON THIS, BUT I THINK WE CAN ACTUALLY WORK TOGETHER A LITTLE BIT MORE AS COMMUNITIES TO WORK OUT WHAT WE WANT AND SET OUR GOALS AT THAT LEVEL, RATHER THAN PERHAPS RELYING ON GOVERNMENT TO TELL US WHAT WE SHOULD ASPIRE TO. THE OTHER THING I WANNA TALK ABOUT IS BEER BECAUSE HE SAID THERE IF WE STOP` YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE A TAX, YOU MIGHT NOT BUY A COKE, BUT YOU MIGHT GO AND BUY A BEER. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHILDHOOD OBESITY HERE, THOUGH, JAMIE. I THINK THAT TO BE... SERIOUSLY? ...FAIR ON HIM, HE MEANT THAT WHEN YOU SEE THAT YOU PUT ON A TAX AND THE CONSUMPTION OF THE GOOD YOU'VE TAXED GOES DOWN, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE` WHAT PEOPLE HAVE TRANSFERRED THEIR SPENDING TO. AND OF COURSE HE DIDN'T MEAN CHILDREN, I THINK, WITH THE BEER. BUT IT COULD` WE HOPE. BUT WHEN THE CONSUMPTION OF SUGARY DRINKS GOES DOWN, PEOPLE ARE PROBABLY CONSUMING OTHER THINGS. ACTUALLY, I'VE GOT A GREAT STORY. WHEN THEY BANNED` SOME SCHOOLS HAVE BANNED, UM, JUNK FOOD IN ENGLAND. THERE WAS A KID ` I CAN'T REMEMBER HIS NAME ` WHO SET UP AN NICE LITTLE BUSINESS. ON THE WAY TO SCHOOL, HE'D BUY A WHOLE LOT OF JUNK FOOD AND THEN START SELLING IT AT ELEVATED PRICES IN THE PLAYGROUND, AND THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT'S CALLED IN ECONOMICS IRREPRESSIBLE MARKETS. SO IF YOU TAKE IT AWAY, THEY'LL JUST GET IT SOMEWHERE ELSE? WELL, LOOK AT DRUGS. DRUGS ARE ILLEGAL AND THE PRICE OF THEM IS MUCH HIGHER ON ACCOUNT OF THAT, BUT THERE'S PLENTY OF DRUGS AROUND. ALL RIGHT, WELL, I THINK YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO AGREE TO DISAGREE ON THAT. WE WILL TAKE A QUICK BREAK NOW BUT BE BACK SOON WITH ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT NEXT WEEK'S NEWS. WELCOME BACK. THIS IS 'THE NATION'. LET'S BRING OUR PANEL BACK IN ON THE DISCUSSION. NOW, WE HEARD FROM ANDREW LITTLE THERE ABOUT THE DEPUTY LEADERSHIP, THE RESHUFFLE THAT WASN'T. HE'S STAYING WITH ANNETTE KING. DO YOU READ ANYTHING INTO THAT? FIRST, DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THAT JACINDA DIDN'T WANT THE JOB? SERIOUSLY? SHE DID THE NUMBERS, SURELY, AND WORKED OUT SHE WASN'T GOING TO GET IT, AND SO AT THAT POINT, SHE DECLINED TO PUT HER NAME FORWARD AT THAT POINT, I WOULD ASSUME. BUT SECONDLY, THIS IS A DEAL, ISN'T IT? WE'VE GOT ANNETTE KING, WHO SURELY MUST BE RETIRING 2017 FOR THE 2017 ELECTION, SURELY. SHE'S GOT THE SWEET SEAT OF RONGOTAI IN WELLINGTON ` A LABOUR SAFE SEAT. SHE'S GOT ALL THE SUPPORT BASE THERE. THEY DON'T NECESSARILY WANT ANDREW LITTLE, BUT HE WANTS THAT SEAT. THIS IS A DEAL, I RECKON, FOR HER TO GO QUIETLY AT 2017 AND TO HAND OVER HER SUPPORTERS AND HER SAFE ELECTORATE TO ANDREW LITTLE SO HE'S GOT A SAFE ELECTORATE FROM WHICH TO LEAD THE PARTY. BUY INTO THAT, GEOFF? I'M GOING TO DISAGREE A BIT. I ACTUALLY THINK ANNETTE KING HAS` SHE'S STILL GOT IT. SHE'S AN IMPRESSIVE WOMAN AND AN IMPRESSIVE POLITICIAN. I THINK LABOUR'S ACTUALLY GOT QUITE A GOOD FRONT BENCH. THE REAL PROBLEM FOR ME WITH LABOUR IS THE BACK BENCHERS. I JUST DON'T THINK THEY REALLY PULL THEIR WEIGHT. EVERYONE FOCUSES ON THE LEADERSHIP, BECAUSE THEY'RE WAITING FOR SOME JOHN KEY STYLE MESSIAH TO TURN UP, BUT ULTIMATELY, LABOUR NEEDS TO SORT OUT ITS LOWER RANKS, I THINK. I THINK THEY NEED TO SORT OUT WHAT THEY ACTUALLY STAND FOR, YOU KNOW. THEY'VE BEEN THROUGH ALL THESE LEADERS, EXPECTING LEADERS TO FIND THE ANSWER. I THINK THEY ACTUALLY NEED A GRASSROOTS-UP REVIEW TO WORK OUT WHAT LABOUR PARTY IN 2015 STANDS FOR AND ARE THEY A TRADITIONAL WORKING-CLASS UNION-BASED PARTY, OR ARE THEY SOME SORT OF 21ST CENTURY SOCIALLY LIBERAL PARTY? WHAT ARE THEY THESE DAYS? I DON'T KNOW. IF IT HAPPENS THE WAY YOU SAY IT MIGHT WITH ANNETTE KING BOWING OUT AT 2017, DOES THAT LEAVE THE WAY OPEN FOR ANDREW LITTLE TO, IF THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTS ITSELF, OFFER A DEPUTY PRIME MINISTERSHIP TO SOMEONE OUTSIDE OF HIS PARTY? UH, LOOK, CLEARLY THERE MIGHT BE A QUEUE OF POTENTIAL COALITION PARTNERS WHO WOULD LOVE THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTERSHIP. WE'VE SEEN DEPUTY PRIME MINISTERS FROM SMALLER COALITION PARTNERS, LIKE JIM ANDERTON AND WINSTON PETERS, I THINK, IN THE PAST. I DON'T KNOW. I FEEL LIKE THOSE DAYS ARE OVER. I THINK IT'S TOO BIG A TROPHY TO HAND TO SOME SMALL PARTY THAT'S POTENTIALLY GOING TO WAG THE DOG OF GOVERNMENT. ALL RIGHT, WELL, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE, ACTUALLY. SO, THE PRIME MINISTER APPEARED ON COMMERCIAL RADIO. HE DID A 10 QUICK QUESTIONS WHICH ASKED HIM SOME QUITE PERSONAL THINGS. AND THEN OVERSEAS, PICKED UP BY SATIRICAL NEWS SHOWS OVERSEAS. DID HE LOWER THE TONE OF THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE? THERE'S SOME DEBATE OVER WHETHER HE SHOULD'VE GONE ON THERE WITH THESE QUESTIONS. UH, YES, HE DID. YOU THINK SO? YEAH. I MEAN, I'M A LIBERAL CHAP, BUT I DON'T THINK THE PRIME MINISTER OUGHT TO TALK ABOUT HIS PENIS IN A PUBLIC BROADCAST. HE IS VERY KEEN AT REPRESENTING HIMSELF AS AN ORDINARY BLOKE THAT YOU CAN HAVE A CHAT WITH AND SO ON, AND THAT'S FINE UP TO A POINT, RIGHT. I MEAN, THIS IS` HE'S GOT AN IMPORTANT ROLE TO PLAY. HE'S NOT YOUR MATE. HE'S THE PRIME MINISTER. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE IN THESE KINDS OF ROLES DON'T GET CONFUSED ABOUT WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING. AND SO THERE'S A CERTAIN RESTRAINT PLACED ON YOU BY OCCUPYING THAT ROLE, AND I THINK THAT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT YOUR PENIS, YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR. I THINK HE USED EVERY SCHOOLYARD EUPHEMISM EXCEPT 'PENIS' PRETTY MUCH. WHICH ONLY MAKES IT WORSE, REALLY. IT'S CHILDISH. I MEAN, HE MUST SEE SOME VALUE IN IT. OH, I THINK THERE'S NO VALUE IN IT. HE'S AVOIDING TOUGH INTERVIEWS WITH SENIOR POLITICAL JOURNALISTS A LOT OF THE TIME ` YOU KNOW, GOOD, SERIOUS SIT-DOWNS ABOUT SOME OF THE IMPORTANT ISSUES WE WANT TO HEAR THE PRIME MINISTER TALKING ABOUT ` WHILE EVERY DAY` JUST ABOUT EVERY HOUR OF THE DAY, YOU'LL HEAR HIM DOING COMMERCIAL CROSSES WITH SHOCK-JOCK DJS AND SOFT MAGAZINE MORNING-TV HOSTS, TALKING ABOUT NOTHING, TALKING ABOUT CLOTHES AND SHOES... THERE'S THE IRONY, RIGHT? I MEAN, HE WAS MORE FORTHCOMING WITH ANSWERS ABOUT WHETHER HE WEED IN THE SHOWER THAN HE IS ABOUT ANY IMPORTANT ISSUES. BUT I'M SURE IT WORKS. I'M SURE IT'S WORKING FOR HIM, BECAUSE HE'S WOOING THE ELECTORATE, HE'S A REGULAR GUY, HE'S LIKEABLE, HE'S THE BLOKE NEXT DOOR. WELL, LET'S MOVE ON TO A MORE SERIOUS ISSUE OURSELVES, THEN. GUNS WERE IN THE MEDIA THIS WEEK ABOUT HOW IT'S EASY TO PURCHASE A WEAPON, TO GET AROUND SOME OF THE RULES. IT'S RENEWED CALLS FOR GUN REGISTRATION. AND THE POLICE ASSOCIATION CALLING FOR AN INQUIRY. DO WE NEED TO REGISTER ALL WEAPONS HERE IN NZ, JAMIE? CAN I GUESS WHAT YOU'LL SAY? (CHUCKLES) WELL, NO, I MEAN, WEAPONS ARE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT CASE, BECAUSE THEY CAN BE VERY DANGEROUS TO OTHER PEOPLE. IF PEOPLE ONLY EVER SHOT THEMSELVES, I WOULDN'T MIND. BUT PEOPLE DON'T JUST SHOOT THEMSELVES. SO THERE IS A CASE FOR REGISTERING GUNS. I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT TO REGISTER YOUR CAR AND SO ON. YEP, YOUR DOG. > I DON'T THINK THE NEED TO REGISTER GUNS IS A GREAT INFRINGEMENT ON PEOPLE'S LIBERTY, SO I HAVEN'T GOT A PROBLEM WITH IT PARTICULARLY. NOT THAT I THINK IT WILL CHANGE ANYTHING MUCH. JONATHAN, COS THE POLICE SAY THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT REGISTRATION OF INDIVIDUAL GUNS DOES LOWER CRIME INCIDENTS. LOOK, THE POLICE ASSOCIATION, ON THE OTHER HAND, UM, VERY STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THEY'VE WITNESSED QUITE AN INFLUX OF GUNS. THERE'S, UM, SOMEWHAT UNRELIABLE NUMBERS BEING CHUCKED AROUND, LIKE 1.5 MILLION GUNS IN NZ, YOU KNOW, RANGING UP TO SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES. NOW, I KNOW WE'VE GOT A RABBIT PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY. I KNOW WE NEED TO TAKE OUT A FEW RABBITS, BUT DO WE NEED SEMI-AUTOMATICS FOR IT? DO WE NEED 1.5 MILLION GUNS TO CONTROL THE RABBITS. THEY ARE QUITE NIPPY. IT'S A LOT OF GUNS FOR A NATION OF OUR SIZE. IT SEEMED A LOT TO ME. GEOFF, WHAT DO YOU RECKON? WELL, JONATHAN'S HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD THERE WITH THE RABBITS. WE... OUR GUN LEGISLATION HAS SORT OF GROWN OUT OF THIS RURAL CULTURE THAT ACTUALLY NEEDS TO CONTROL THESE ISSUES, BUT WE'RE NOT A RURAL SOCIETY ANY MORE, SO I DO THINK IT DEFINITELY NEEDS ANOTHER LOOK. BUT THE IDEA THAT THE NUMBER OF GUNS IS THE PROBLEM JUST ISN'T TRUE. I MEAN, FOR EXAMPLE, SWITZERLAND ` EVERY ADULT HAS TO HAVE AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON. RIGHT, SO AGAIN YOU PUT IT DOWN TO THE INDIVIDUALS WHO OWN THEM. WELL, THAT'S SIMPLY TRUE. I MEAN, IT'S NOT JUST SOME CRAZY IDEA OF MINE. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL LEAVE` CANADIANS THAT HAVE GUNS, THEY DON'T SHOOT PEOPLE. WE'LL LEAVE IT THERE. SORRY, WE'RE OUT OF TIME. WELL, LET'S HAVE A HEAD START ON WHAT COULD MAKE THE HEADLINES NEXT WEEK. EXPECT AN ANNOUNCEMENT FROM JUSTICE MINISTER AMY ADAMS ABOUT THE MONITORING OF NZERS WHO'VE BEEN DEPORTED FROM AUSTRALIA. ON TUESDAY CAREER CRIMINAL ARTHUR TAYLOR HEADS TO THE HIGH COURT TO CHALLENGE A LAW BANNING PRISONERS FROM VOTING. AND MARKET WATCHERS AREN'T SURE IF THE RESERVE BANK WILL CUT INTEREST RATES OR KEEP THEM ON HOLD, BUT WE'LL FIND OUT, AS THE OFFICIAL CASH RATE REVIEW IS ON THURSDAY. AND A REPORT INTO FIGHT CLUBS AT MT EDEN PRISON WILL BE DONE BY FRIDAY. AND THERE'S WORD TOO THAT THE JUDGE MAY RULE IN THE NEXT SEVEN TO 10 DAYS ON THE LEGALITY OF THE POLICE RAID ON NICKY HAGER'S HOME. CHECK OUT THE SCOOP WEBSITE FOR MORE ON THAT. AND HERE ON THE NATION NEXT WEEK, WE'LL BE BRINGING YOU A TRIFECTA OF MAYORS. LEN BROWN, CELIA WADE-BROWN AND LIANNE DALZIEL WILL BE LIVE IN THE STUDIO TO TALK ABOUT WHAT'S CONFRONTING AUCKLAND, WELLINGTON AND CHRISTCHURCH. WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR COMPANY THEN, BUT THAT'S IT FOR NOW FROM ME AND THE NATION TEAM. HAVE AN ENJOYABLE AND SAFE HOLIDAY WEEKEND. CAPTIONS BY ABLE. WWW.ABLE.CO.NZ CAPTIONS WERE MADE POSSIBLE WITH FUNDING FROM NZ ON AIR. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2015