MORENA AND WELCOME TO 'THE NATION'. I'M LISA OWEN. TODAY ` SHOULD THE MAORI PARTY WALK AWAY FROM THE NATIONAL-LED GOVERNMENT OVER THE KERMADECS OCEAN SANCTUARY? IT'S AN ISSUE OF BROKEN PROMISES, OF PEOPLE NOT ACTING WITH INTEGRITY AND HONESTY AND HONOUR. WE TALK TO THE MAORI FISHERIES TRUST, TE OHU KAIMOANA, AND THE MAORI PARTY CO-LEADER, MARAMA FOX. THEN THE GOVERNMENT LAUNCHES A PLAN TO KEEP AUCKLAND MOVING. THAT IS A QUANTUM STEP FROM WHERE WE WERE 18 MONTHS AGO. THIS IS A BIG STEP FORWARD. THIS HAS GOT TRANSPORT PLANNING IN AUCKLAND OUT OF THE INTENSIVE CARE UNIT AND BACK ON ITS FEET. BUT HOW WILL WE PAY FOR THOSE BIG PLANS AND HAVE WE GOT THE PRIORITIES RIGHT? WE TALK TO THE TRANSPORT MINISTER SIMON BRIDGES. JUSTICE MINISTER AMY ADAMS TELLS US ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT'S PLAN TO TACKLE FAMILY VIOLENCE. AND WE WRAP UP THE WEEK WITH OUR PANEL, JENNA RAEBURN, RUSSELL NORMAN AND MIHI FORBES, AND WITH OUR IN-HOUSE COMEDIANS, JEREMY CORBETT AND PAUL EGO. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2016 IT'S GREAT TO HAVE YOU WITH US TODAY. WE LOVE HEARING FROM YOU, SO GET IN TOUCH ON SOCIAL MEDIA. THE DETAILS ARE ON SCREEN. AND IF YOU'RE ON TWITTER, YOU CAN FOLLOW ALONG WITH OUR TWITTER PANEL, TRANSPORT BLOG'S MATT LOWRIE AND UNIONIST MORGAN GODFERY ON #NATIONTV3. WELL, WHEN JOHN KEY ANNOUNCED PLANS FOR A HUGE OCEAN SANCTUARY SURROUNDING THE KERMADEC ISLANDS, A MEASURE TO PROTECT A RICH MARINE ENVIRONMENT, HE PROBABLY DIDN'T EXPECT TO BE LOCKED IN A LEGAL BATTLE WITH THE MAORI FISHERIES TRUST TE OHU KAIMOANA, OR TO BE STARING DOWN THE BARREL OF A MAORI PARTY DEFECTION. BUT THE DISPUTE SURROUNDING THE SANCTUARY IS NOW BEING LIKENED TO THE FORESHORE AND SEABED ISSUE THAT LED TO THE FORMATION OF THE MAORI PARTY. SO WHERE TO NEXT? I'M JOINED BY THE MAORI PARTY CO-LEADER MARAMA FOX AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF TE OHU KAIMOANA, DION TUUTA. GOOD MORNING TO YOU BOTH. MORNING. KIA ORA. IF I CAN START WITH YOU, MR TUUTA. HOW HAS IT GOT TO THIS? IT'S GOT TO THIS BECAUSE THE CROWN BASICALLY REFUSED TO TALK TO ITS TREATY PARTNER. SOMEBODY CAME UP WITH AN IDEA TO DO SOMETHING WHICH AFFECTED MAORI RIGHTS AND WENT OFF AND DECIDED TO DO IT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THAT THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE A MATERIAL IMPACT ON MAORI. AND WE'VE OBJECTED TO THAT. SO HOW WOULD YOU SAY THAT ENVIRONMENT MINISTER NICK SMITH HAS HANDLED THIS? I'D SAY HE'S HANDLED IT POORLY, YEAH. HE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND TALK TO US BEFORE PROCEEDING DOWN THIS PATH. HE DIDN'T DO THAT. THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD SINCE THAT HAVE NOT RESULTED IN AN OUTCOME THAT WE'D HAVE LIKED, SO` SO WHAT? ARE THEY BULLYING YOU, STEAMROLLING YOU? HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERISE IT? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I WOULD` MINISTER SMITH WANTS WHAT HE WANTS, AND THAT WILL COME AT THE EXPENSE OF MAORI RIGHTS. WE'RE NOT PREPARED TO PUT UP WITH THAT. MRS FOX, DO YOU THINK THAT'S FAIR CRITICISM OF A GOVERNMENT THAT YOU'RE SUPPORTING? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. IF YOU LOOK BACK AT THE HISTORY OF NICK SMITH IN WORKING WITH MAORI RIGHTS, WE'VE HAD TO BRING THIS BACK TO HIS ATTENTION ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. STARTED OFF WITH THE SPECIAL HOUSING AREAS IN AUCKLAND, WHERE WE WERE JUST GOING TO RIDE OVER THE TOP OF MAORI INTERESTS IN THE AREA. THEY THEN GOT TOGETHER BECAUSE OF OUR PRODDING. HERE AGAIN WE'VE GOT TE OHU KAIMOANA RIDING OVER THE INTERESTS OF MAORI, RIDING RIGHT OVER THE TOP OF TREATY RIGHTS, TAKING NO CONSIDERATION OF CONSULTATION. WE BROUGHT IT BACK AGAIN TO THE ATTENTION OF THE GOVERNMENT WHEN THEY FIRST ANNOUNCED IT. HENCE WE'VE GOT THESE GUYS, THE ABILITY TO TRY AND GET ROUND THE TABLE. SO IS THIS ON NICK SMITH? IS THIS BREAKDOWN ON NICK SMITH? I THINK IT SHOWS THE` YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF, 'IS THERE A TREND THERE OF MOVING WITHOUT CONSULTATION, OF THINKING YOU'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING, 'SO THEREFORE CARRY ON WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION FOR OTHER PIECES OF LAW THAT ARE IN THERE?' LOOK, WE VOTED THE FIRST READING WITH THE SANCTUARY BILL ON THE PROVISO THAT THEY GET ROUND THE TABLE WITH TE OHU KAIMOANA. AND BECAUSE TE AUPOURI AND NGATI KURI, WHO ARE THE CLOSEST MANA WHENUA GROUPS TO THE ISLANDS, HAD GOT A COUPLE OF SEATS ON THERE. BUT, YOU KNOW, AS THESE NEGOTIATIONS HAVE UNFOLDED, WE'VE JUST SEEN A STUBBORNNESS BY THE MINISTER THAT IS NOT GOING TO BRING ABOUT A GOOD RESOLUTION. BECAUSE THE THING IS THE MINISTER SAYS THAT YOU'RE OVERSTATING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS SANCTUARY TO MAORI. YEAH, WELL, HE WOULD SAY THAT, WOULDN'T HE? I MEAN, PEOPLE WHO TAKE OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS AWAY WILL ALWAYS SAY NO, THAT THIS DOESN'T AFFECT THEM, THIS IS NOT A` BUT HE SAYS YOU HAVEN'T TAKEN ANY FISH FROM THERE, SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? WELL, THAT'S IRRELEVANT. HE'S RIGHT; WE HAVEN'T FISHED THERE. BUT OUR TREATY RIGHTS ALSO INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP INTO THE FUTURE, SO THE DECISION ABOUT WHETHER WE FISH THERE TODAY, TOMORROW OR A HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW. THAT'S OUR DECISION, NOT TO BE TAMPERED WITH BY NICK SMITH'S OR ANY GOVERNMENT WITHOUT OUR APPROVAL. YEAH, AND WE SUPPORT DION AND TE OHU KAIMOANA OVER THIS, BECAUSE THIS IS ABOUT BASIC TREATY RIGHTS. THAT TREATY SETTLEMENT OF THE FISHERIES, THAT SEALORD DEAL, WAS HARD FOUGHT AND HARD PRESSED; THE FIRST OF ITS KIND. SO YOU DON'T THINK THEY'RE BEING MELODRAMATIC ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES? ABSOLUTELY NOT. IF YOU CAN DO THIS TO A FISHERIES SETTLEMENT OR TO A TREATY SETTLEMENT AT THIS TIME, YOU COULD DO IT TO ANY TREATY SETTLEMENT, AND EVERY MAORI LEADER IN THE COUNTRY WHO IS CURRENTLY NEGOTIATING OR HAS NEGOTIATED TREATY SETTLEMENT IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS, AND IT IS SERIOUS. AND WE SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT TE OHU KAIMOANA REPRESENTS ALL IWI THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY WHO HAVE FISHERIES INTERESTS, AND WE HAVE THE SUPPORT OF ALL IWI, UNANIMOUS SUPPORT. SO HOW BAD IS THIS COMPARED TO THE FORESHORE AND SEABED? BECAUSE THAT'S THE COMPARISON. SO HOW BAD IS IT COMPARED TO THAT? I THINK ON A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, THIS IS WORSE. THE FORESHORE AND SEABED WAS ABOUT THE RIGHT TO GO TO COURT TO TEST YOUR RIGHTS AS TO WHETHER YOU HAD OWNERSHIP INTERESTS. THIS IS ACTUALLY TAKING AWAY A PROPERTY RIGHT THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS. SO THIS IS ACTUALLY A CONFISCATION, IN MY OPINION, OF AN EXISTING RIGHT. IT IS A PROPERTY RIGHT THAT MAORI HAVE WHICH IS ACTUALLY BEING TAKEN AWAY. MRS FOX, THEY THINK IT'S WORSE. THEY THINK IT'S WORSE THAN THE FORESHORE AND SEABED. MAORI MP'S WALKED OVER THAT AND FORMED THE PARTY THAT YOU ARE NOW PART OF. THAT'S RIGHT. SO IF PEOPLE THINK IT'S WORSE, ARE YOU PREPARED TO WALK OVER THIS? SERIOUSLY. HERE'S THE THING THAT YOU NEED TO BE AWARE OF. IN ORDER TO VOTE AGAINST THE FORESHORE AND SEABED, TARIANA HAD TO CROSS THE FLOOR. WE COULD VOTE AGAINST THIS BILL TOMORROW AND NOT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING TO DO THAT. WE HAVE THE INDEPENDENT RIGHT TO DO THAT. BUT THIS IS MORE SERIOUS THAN THAT. WE COULD VOTE AGAINST IT, THEY'D CARRY ON, AND THEY'D RIDE OVER THE TOP OF THE TREATY SETTLEMENT. SO SAYING THAT WE WOULD SERIOUSLY CONSIDER WALKING AWAY FROM A RELATIONSHIP AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT IS A SERIOUS CONSEQUENCE IF WE CAN'T GET BACK TO THE TABLE. BUT WE'RE NOT JUMPING STRAIGHT TO THAT. WE WANT TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH THE STEPS AND SEE IF WE CAN'T GET INTO THE BREACH THAT HAS BEEN CAUSED, THE CHASM BETWEEN TE OHU KAIMOANA AND THE MINISTER AND SEE IF WE CAN'T BRING THEM BACK TO THE TABLE. THEY CAN PASS THIS WITHOUT YOU, BUT THEY STILL NEED YOU, SO ARGUABLY, YOU ARE AT YOUR MOST INFLUENTIAL NOW. YOU ARE AT PEAK INFLUENCE, SO IN ORDER FOR YOU HAVE ANY LEVERAGE, PRESUMABLY, YOU NEED TO WALK AWAY NOW. IN ORDER FOR US TO HAVE ANY LEVERAGE, WE NEED TO GET TO THE TABLE. IF WE WALK AWAY NOW, THERE IS NO LEVERAGE. WE'RE JUST GONE. AND THEN THE GOVERNMENT WILL CARRY ON WITHOUT US, AND IT WILL BE A TENUOUS SITUATION UNTIL THEY GET TO THE NEXT ELECTION. IT'S A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, THOUGH, ISN'T IT, AS WELL? THAT'S RIGHT, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO THROW OURSELVES UNDER THE BUS AT THE VERY FIRST HURDLE. WE NEED TO GO TO THE TABLE AND SEE IF WE CAN'T COME UP WITH A DEAL. NOW, HERE'S THE PRIME MINISTER HIMSELF. JUST HANG ON A MINUTE. I WANT TO KNOW IF YOU'RE HAPPY WITH THAT STANCE. DO YOU THINK THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH? I WANT THE MAORI PARTY TO SUPPORT ITS IWI CONSTITUENTS, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS ALWAYS DONE, ALL RIGHT? IN THIS INSTANCE, TE OHU KAIMOANA, ON BEHALF OF IWI, IS SAYING WE WANT OUR RIGHTS PROTECTED. THE MAORI PARTY IS SAYING THAT THEY'RE WORKING AS HARD AS THEY CAN TO HELP US GET THOSE RIGHTS PROTECTED, RIGHT? YEAH, WALKING OUT OF THE RELATIONSHIP AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT PROTECT THE RIGHTS. THEY'LL GO AND DO IT WITHOUT US. SO HOW CLOSE THIS WEEK WERE YOU TO WALKING AWAY? BECAUSE IT'S BEEN REPORTED THAT YOU WERE OFF TO CONSULT WITH YOUR PARTY MEMBERS UNTIL JOHN KEY CALLED YOU, AND THEN THINGS COOLED. IS THAT RIGHT? WE WERE DEFINITELY READY TO WALK FROM THE RELATIONSHIP AGREEMENT IF WE COULDN'T GET SOME SORT OF` IF HE DIDN'T PUT THE LEGISLATION ON HOLD? IF WE COULDN'T GET SOME SORT OF CONFIRMATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT THAT THERE IS ROOM TO MOVE HERE. SO HANG ON. I WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THIS. BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS PUT THE LEGISLATION ON HOLD. THAT'S RIGHT. SO IS THAT THE CONSEQUENCE OF YOU SAYING 'UNLESS YOU PUT IT ON HOLD, 'WE'RE GOING TO WALK?' ABSOLUTELY. SO YOU LAID THAT DOWN? NO, NO, NO. IT WAS A QUICK MOVING FEAST OF A DAY. SO WE DIDN'T GO TO THE GOVERNMENT AND TRY AND BLACKMAIL THEM OVER THIS; WE SAID IN A PHONE CALL, 'LET'S JUST STEP BACK. WE'LL HOLD THINGS OFF,' ` THAT WAS THEIR OFFER ` 'AND LET'S GET ROUND THE TABLE AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO.' WE'RE WILLING TO DO THAT. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN GET THE RIGHTS PROTECTED. WALKING AWAY FROM THE TABLE WON'T PROTECT THOSE RIGHTS. BUT LET'S BE CLEAR ` WE ABSOLUTELY ARE NOT AGAINST A SANCTUARY. WE ABSOLUTELY PROTECT THE RIGHT FOR KAITIAKITANGA AND CONSERVATION. THIS IS NOT ABOUT NOT HAVING A SANCTUARY. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY, FOR US, ABOUT RIDING OVER THE TOP OF TREATY RIGHTS ALREADY GUARANTEED IN THE SETTLEMENT. OKAY. SO THEN THE QUESTION BECOMES HOW YOU MOVE FORWARD FROM HERE. NOW, YOU OFFERED THE GOVERNMENT, IN ESSENCE, A MORATORIUM ON FISHING IN THAT SANCTUARY FOR TEN YEARS, AND IT WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH FOR THEM, RIGHT? CORRECT. TO BE CLEAR, WHAT WE OFFERED WAS THE ABILITY TO GO BACK TO IWI AND CONSULT WITH THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS, AROUND A VOLUNTARY SHELVING OF THE RIGHT TO GO FISHING, EFFECTIVELY, CALL IT A MORATORIUM, YOU'RE RIGHT. AND THAT WAS REJECTED. WHAT MINISTER SMITH WANTED IS HE WANTED US TO LEGISLATE THAT AWAY, THE INABILITY FOR US TO DO IT. WE'RE NOT GIVING UP OUR RIGHTS. IT'S OUR CHOICE TO VOLUNTARILY SHELVE THEM. SO DID THE GOVERNMENT OFFER TO PAY YOU COMPENSATION AT THAT POINT? WE NEVER SOUGHT COMPENSATION, RIGHT? NO, BUT DID THEY OFFER IT TO YOU? THEY'VE NEVER OFFERED COMPENSATION, BUT WE'VE NEVER ASKED FOR IT. WE DIDN'T NEGOTIATE THIS SETTLEMENT IN 1992 JUST TO SELL OUR RIGHTS AWAY 25 YEARS LATER. SO NO, THEY'VE NEVER OFFERED US ANY OF THAT SORT OF COMPENSATION, BUT WE'VE NEVER SOUGHT IT. SO YOU SAY THAT YOU'RE NOT PREPARED TO SELL YOUR RIGHTS AWAY. WOULD ANY LEVEL OF COMPENSATION BE ENOUGH, OR DO YOU ABSOLUTELY RULE OUT SELLING BACK THAT RIGHT TO THE GOVERNMENT? THAT IDEA HAS NEVER BEEN PUT TO US IN THE PAST. IT'S CERTAINLY NOT A POSITION THAT WE'VE TAKEN IN NEGOTIATIONS TO DATE. WOULD YOU CONSIDER IT, THOUGH? OR WOULD YOU RULE IT OUT TOTALLY? AT THE MOMENT, WHAT WE WANT IS WE WANT THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP OUR FISHERIES IN THE FUTURE IF WE SO DECIDE. AT THE MOMENT, I WOULD RULE THAT OUT. OKAY. AND WHAT ABOUT GIFTING YOUR RIGHTS BACK TO THE GOVERNMENT IN SOME KIND OF ARRANGEMENT? THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT MINISTER SMITH PROPOSED TO US, THAT WE GIFT OUR RIGHTS BACK. AGAIN, WE ACTUALLY WANT OUR RIGHTS. WE WANT THE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO USE THOSE THINGS INTO THE FUTURE IF WE SO DECIDE, RIGHT? THERE IS` SO WHAT IS THE WAY FORWARD? SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S NO WAY FORWARD. AT THE MOMENT, THERE IS NO NEGOTIATIONS. SO AS OF WEDNESDAY, NEGOTIATIONS HAVE COME TO AN END. THE PRIME MINISTER HAS MADE STATEMENTS ABOUT OPPORTUNITIES TO MOVE FORWARD. NOW THE MAORI PARTY IS GOING TO BROKER THAT FOR US, AND PERHAPS WHEN THE PRIME MINISTER GETS BACK, THERE'LL BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET. MARAMA, IS THAT GOOD ENOUGH, JUST FOR THE HANDBRAKE TO GO ON? IS THAT GOOD ENOUGH? I THINK THE HANDBRAKE INDICATES A BACKDOWN BY THE GOVERNMENT. I THINK THE HANDBRAKE ABSOLUTELY INDICATES THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS TOO IMPORTANT OF AN ISSUE TO JUST PLOUGH ON. OR THEY'RE JUST WAITING FOR THE NEXT ELECTION, HOPING FOR A SIMPLE MAJORITY, THEY DON'T NEED YOU, AND THEY GO AHEAD WITH IT. LOOK, WE'RE NOT THAT NAIVE, LISA. WE WOULD GO INTO THIS WITH OUR EYES WIDE OPEN TO TRY AND BROKER A DEAL. THAT THESE TREATY SETTLEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN FOUGHT, ARE LONG, HARD-FOUGHT FOR, BECAUSE IF THEY ARE LESS THAN 1% OF WHAT WAS TAKEN FROM MAORI AT THE BEGINNING THROUGH COLONISATION AND ALL THE EFFECTS OF GOVERNMENTS, LESS THAN 1% OF WHAT THEY SHOULD GET, EVERYBODY WHO THINKS THAT MAORI ARE GETTING RICH OFF TREATY SETTLEMENTS HAS NO IDEA HOW HARD THEY HAVE FOUGHT TO DO THAT, AND ACTUALLY, THIS IS THE GREATEST GIFT AND KOHA TO THE NATION. AND THEN TO HAVE TO, AFTER ALL OF THAT, GO AND THEN GIVE IT BACK AGAIN WITHOUT ANY CONSULTATION, THE GOVERNMENT SIMPLY HAVE NOT LEARNED, HAVE NOT LEARNED FROM THE BAD EXAMPLE OF THE LABOUR GOVERNMENT, AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE BRING THIS BACK TO THE TABLE AND HELP THEM UNDERSTAND. TO DO THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BASICALLY JUST AN ENDORSEMENT OF THE BAD BEHAVIOUR. I MEAN, POOR PROCESS, AND THEN TO TURN AROUND AND FOR MINISTER SMITH TO OFFER US THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIFT IT BACK TO FIX UP HIS ERROR? WE CAN'T GIVE AWAY OUR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS ON IT. SHOULD THE MINISTER LOSE HIS JOB OVER THIS? I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE GOVERNMENT. WHAT'S YOUR VIEW, THOUGH? NO, I THINK THE GOVERNMENT, THAT'S THEIR BUSINESS AND THEIR QUESTION. I HAVE NO VIEW EITHER WAY ON THAT, BECAUSE FOR OTHER THINGS, WE WORK VERY WELL WITH THE MINISTER ON. BUT THIS RIDING OVER THE TOP OF THINGS, TO ME, IT LOOKS LIKE A TREND. IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'VE DONE IT IN THE HOUSING ISSUE LAST WEEK, TAKING AWAY PROPERTY RIGHTS; WHEN WE HAD THE MARATHON 18-HOUR DEBATE EARLIER, OVER THE SPECIAL HOUSING AREAS; HERE AGAIN IN THE KERMADECS. I THINK IF THEY CONTINUE TO DO THIS, THEN DEFINITELY, WE WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT HARDER AND HARDER. MRS FOX, POTENTIALLY, YOU COULD LOSE YOUR JOB OVER THIS, BECAUSE THE LABOUR PARTY BLEW APART OVER THE FORESHORE AND SEABED. ABSOLUTELY. WE'RE ALWAYS STARING DOWN THE BARREL. IF YOU DON'T GET THIS RIGHT. EXACTLY. IF YOU DON'T GET THIS RIGHT, POTENTIALLY, IS THIS NOT THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE YOU MAY HAVE FACED? ACTUALLY, I THINK THE CHALLENGE OF HOUSING, OF HOMELESSNESS, OF POVERTY AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE GREATER CHALLENGES. AS MR TUUTA POINTS OUT, THEY ARE SPEAKING FOR A LOT OF MAORI HERE. AND IF THEY DON'T LIKE HOW YOU DEAL WITH THIS... LISTEN, MY FACEBOOK PAGE IS FLOODED WITH PEOPLE SAYING, 'GO AFTER THEM, MARAMA.' ACTUALLY, LOTS OF PEOPLE GO, 'WALK NOW, WALK NOW. 'DON'T EVEN GO BACK TO THE TABLE.' BUT WHAT IF YOU DON'T GET A RESULT? OH, WELL, THEN WE WILL CONSIDER THE OPTIONS AT THAT TIME. OUR JOBS ARE ALWAYS AT RISK. WE WORK IN THREE-YEAR CYCLES. HOW IMPORTANT IS THIS FOR THE MAORI PARTY TO GET THIS RIGHT? TO BE FAIR TO MARAMA, THE GETTING THE RESULT IS GETTING THE PRIME MINISTER BACK TO THE TABLE TO MEET WITH TE OHU KAIMOANA, RIGHT? THERE'S ONLY SO FAR THAT THE MAORI PARTY CAN DO THIS. BUT THERE'S NOTHING THE MAORI PARTY CAN PUT TO THEM, IT SEEMS. WELL, THAT'S WHY WE'RE WAITING TO SEE IF THE PRIME MINISTER ACTUALLY HAS ANYTHING. AS YOU'VE HIGHLIGHTED, THIS IS JUST SIMPLY A STALLING TACTIC TO MAKE THINGS GO AWAY. WE'RE NOT GOING AWAY. BUT AREN'T THEY THE ONLY ONES WHO WIN IN THE END OUT OF THE STALLING? NOT AT ALL. YOU KNOW, WHAT DOES THIS LOOK LIKE FOR THE GOVERNMENT, WHO HAVE PLOUGHED ON A PROCESS THAT HAS BEEN POORLY CONCEIVED FOR WHAT SOME PEOPLE HAVE DESCRIBED AS A VANITY OPPORTUNITY ON THE WORLD STAGE, WITHOUT GOING THROUGH DUE PROCESS, WITHOUT GOING TO CONSULTATION? EVERYBODY WANTS A SANCTUARY, BUT WE COULD HAVE DONE THIS SO MUCH BETTER, SO MUCH EASIER IF THEY'D CONSIDERED THE RIGHTS OF KIWIS, OF NEW ZEALANDERS AND OF MAORI IN THIS PROCESS ALONG THE WAY. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LEAVE IT THERE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING ME THIS MORNING. WE'LL KEEP WATCHING WITH INTEREST. A LOT TO TALK ABOUT LATER WITH OUR PANEL. MIHI FORBES FROM THE HUI; FORMER GREEN PARTY LEADER, RUSSELL NORMAN; AND LOBBYIST JENNA RAEBURN. BUT AFTER THE BREAK ` THE GOVERNMENT'S PLAN TO KEEP AUCKLANDERS ON THE MOVE. WE HEAR FROM THE TRANSPORT MINISTER SIMON BRIDGES. WELCOME BACK. AUCKLAND IS HOME TO A THIRD OF OUR POPULATION, AND ALMOST EVERY ONE OF THOSE 1.4 MILLION PEOPLE WOULD LIKELY TELL YOU THAT THE WORST THING ABOUT IT IS THE TRAFFIC. WELL, THIS WEEK THE MAYOR, LEN BROWN, AND THE TRANSPORT MINISTER, SIMON BRIDGES, ANNOUNCED A PLAN TO DEAL WITH THAT ` THE AUCKLAND TRANSPORT ALIGNMENT PROJECT. THE REPORT SUGGESTS THAT THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO CUT CONGESTION IS DECREASING DEMAND WITH ROAD PRICING. SO I ASKED SIMON BRIDGES, WHY WAIT A DECADE TO BRING IT IN? THAT ISN'T ABOUT MAKING MONEY, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE. IT IS ABOUT DEMAND MANAGEMENT. I THINK WHAT THE REPORT SAYS AND WHY THIS IS WORTH TALKING ABOUT AND DOING SOME VERY SERIOUS WORK ON IS THAT EFFECTIVELY ONCE WE'VE DONE THAT INVESTMENT, ONCE WE'VE DONE THE $24 BILLION OR WHATEVER IT WILL TURN OUT TO BE OVER THE NEXT DECADE, WE WOULD HAVE FUNDAMENTALLY BUILT THE NETWORK. AND YOU CAN KEEP DOING MORE AND MORE ROADS. YOU CAN KEEP DOING THESE THINGS, BUT YOU ALSO NEED TO DO SOMETHING ELSE AS WELL. I WANT TO FOCUS IN ON IT, MINISTER, AS TO WHY YOU WON'T BRING THAT IN IN THE FIRST DECADE. BECAUSE YOU SAY IT'S ABOUT MANAGING DEMAND, AND THIS REPORT SAYS THAT PEAK-HOUR CONGESTION ISN'T GOING TO EASE SIGNIFICANTLY UNTIL YOU INTRODUCE THESE KINDS OF CHARGES. SURE. IN FACT, IT SAYS IT'S GOING TO GET WORSE UNTIL YOU DO THAT. SO WHY NOT JUST DO IT NOW? AND I THINK, LOOK, THE REPORT SETS OUT A VERY COGENT, ACTUALLY, I WOULD ARGUE COMPELLING CASE, BUT I THINK THIS SHOULD BE SEEN AS A JOURNEY, IF YOU LIKE, WITH OFF-RAMPS ON IT. AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE IT IS VERY` WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? WELL, WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS IT'S NOT NECESSARILY SO IT WILL HAPPEN. I THINK THERE'S A HUGE ` AND MY OFFICIALS TELL ME ` THERE IS A HUGE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO GET TO A POINT WHERE WE COULD SAY YES. WE COULD LOOK AT SOME TRIALS. WE COULD LOOK AT SORT OF MOVING THIS ALONG. AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE` BUT THIS REPORT THAT YOU AGREE WITH AND PRESENTED THIS WEEK, IT SAYS YOU NEED THOSE THINGS TO EASE CONGESTION AT PEAK TRAVEL TIMES. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO INTRODUCE THEM FOR 10 YEARS AT LEAST. WHY NOT? WHY NOT JUST DO IT NOW? I THINK, LISA, EVEN IF I SAID, AND THIS IS NOT MY POSITION, 'RIGHT, YOU'RE RIGHT. LET'S DO THIS. LET'S DO THIS TODAY,' WE COULDN'T DO THAT. THERE IS NOT THE SOPHISTICATED, WITHOUT GETTING TECHNICAL ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE I'M NOT A TECHNICAL GUY, BUT MODELLING IN PLACE WHERE WE COULD GO OUT AND SAY, 'OK, LET'S JUST SLAP DOWN THIS MODEL.' WE WILL NEED A MULTIAGENCY UNIT OR PROJECT, CALL IT WHATEVER YOU LIKE, THAT I WANT TO DISCUSS WITH THE NEW MAYOR AND COUNCIL TO SET ABOUT DOING THE SERIOUS, SUBSTANTIAL WORK OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. ONE OF THE POTENTIAL CONTENDERS FOR THAT POSITION OF THE NEW MAYOR, PHIL GOFF, THINKS THAT SOME OF THESE THINGS COULD BE BROUGHT IN BETWEEN FOUR AND FIVE YEARS. SO I'M WONDERING IS THE PROBLEM CABINET? IS THAT WHERE YOU'VE GOT A PROBLEM WITH PRICING? NO, I DON'T THINK SO. LOOK, I THINK THE BEST` SO CABINET'S FINE WITH ROAD PRICING? I THINK WE'RE OPEN TO EXPLORE THIS, AND WE'VE GOT A SERIOUS REPORT THAT, AS YOU SAY ` YOU READ OUT SOME OF THE QUOTES THERE ` IT MAKES A COGENT AND COMPELLING CASE. BUT IT'S NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY, AND I THINK BEFORE WE WOULD GET TO THAT POINT ` IN FACT, IT'D BE NEGLIGENT TO BE IN ANY OTHER POSITION ` WE NEED TO SEE THE SIGNIFICANT WORK. WE NEED TO SEE HOW THIS IS GOING TO STACK UP, BECAUSE, AND I'LL MAKE JUST THIS FINAL POINT` THE SIGNIFICANT WORK IS IN HERE, ISN'T IT, MINISTER? IT'S TELLING YOU. IT'S GOT THE FACTS. I'LL MAKE THIS FINAL POINT` IF YOU INTRODUCE THOSE ROAD CHARGES BY 2036, YOU CAN DROP THE AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT IN CONGESTION IN THE MORNING DOWN TO 21%. THERE ARE COUNTRIES IN ASIA, FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK POSSIBLY EUROPE AS WELL WHERE THEY'RE DOWN THE TRACK A BIT ON THIS, BUT THERE IS NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD THAT HAS A FULLY FLEDGED, WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THAT REPORT, VARIABLE NETWORK PRICING SYSTEM. AND SO I'M OPEN TO IT. I ACCEPT THIS, BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS A CASE WHERE, AS I SAY, WE COULD SIMPLY SLAP THIS DOWN AND BE READY TO GO. THERE'S A LOT OF WORK, THERE ARE OFF-RAMPS, AND THERE HAS TO BE BECAUSE DONE BADLY, IT COULD BE AN APPALLING MODEL. DONE WELL, IT COULD REALLY AID, AS THE REPORT SAYS, THE ISSUES THAT AUCKLAND HAS IN RELATION TO CONGESTION. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU COULD GET CONGESTION CHARGING OR ROAD PRICING ACROSS THE LINE WITH CABINET? ARE YOU CONFIDENT YOU COULD DO THAT? WELL, IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT WE SEE IN TERMS OF THE WORK. WE'RE NOT THERE YET. WE'VE GOT THE REPORTS. WE'VE BEEN OPEN TO THAT. IF YOU GO BACK A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, I DON'T THINK THE GOVERNMENT WAS IN A POSITION TO SAY, 'OH, YEAH, WE'D BE OPEN TO THAT.' THAT'S NOT THE HOLD-UP? THAT'S CATEGORICALLY NOT THE HOLD-UP? NO, IT'S NOT THE HOLD-UP. DISSENT IN CABINET? NO. THERE'S A REPORT HERE. WE'RE VERY OPEN TO IT, BUT IT WOULD BE NEGLIGENT TO NOT DO THE SERIOUS WORK IN THIS AREA BEFORE WE SAID, 'RIGHT, THIS IS SOMETHING WE COULD DO.' AND I THINK THE OTHER POINT IS BEFORE YOU DO IT ` AND THIS IS WHY I SAY THERE'S THAT NEED FOR THE ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT ` BEFORE YOU DO IT, YOU DO HAVE TO HAVE PUBLIC TRANSPORT OPTIONS IN PLACE, BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU'RE EFFECTIVELY TAXING PEOPLE WITHOUT HAVING THE OTHER OPTIONS IN PLACE. REGIONAL PETROL TAX ` YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE NECESSARILY OTHER OPTIONS IN PLACE, PUBLIC TRANSPORT? NO, THAT'S RIGHT, BUT I'LL TELL YOU WHY THE GOVERNMENT IS INCREDIBLY LOATH IN RELATION TO A REGIONAL PETROL TAX. IT'S BECAUSE EFFECTIVELY IT WOULD BE AN ENTIRELY NEW TAX YEAR FOR OUR REGIONS. THERE'S A NUMBER OF FISH HOOKS WITH THAT. LET ME GIVE YOU JUST ONE. IT WOULD END UP` BUT IT COULD REPLACE THE LEVY, THE LEVY THAT WILL EXPIRE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS. WELL, IT COULD. COUNCIL'S GOT A RANGE OF OPTIONS THAT IT WILL, I'M SURE, BE LOOKING AT, BUT THE GOVERNMENT'S LOATH. THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE IT IS AN ENTIRELY NEW TAX THAT WE DON'T HAVE. LOOK, AS A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, WE PHILOSOPHICALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE VERY CAUTIOUS BEFORE WE DO THAT. OK, WELL, YOU'VE SAID THAT IS THIS PLAN RESTS ON A CONVERSATION WITH THE NEW MAYOR BUYING INTO IT. NOW, YOU CALLED PHIL GOFF TO TALK THIS THROUGH, DIDN'T YOU? YES. DID YOU RING VIC CRONE? YES. A NUMBER OF THEIR PRIORITIES ARE NOT IN THIS PLAN IN THE TIMEFRAME THAT THEY WANT. AND I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY THE VALUE OF ATAP, BECAUSE WE'RE ALL ENTITLED TO OUR VIEWS. I'VE GOT VIEWS ON PROJECTS I THINK PARTICULARLY OR POTENTIALLY COULD BE FORWARD AND SO ON, AND THIS IS NOT A PLAN THAT'S SET IN STONE. BUT WE'VE GOT ONE SERIOUS CANDIDATE WHO WANTS A WAITEMATA HARBOUR CROSSING MUCH EARLIER ` A SEVERAL-BILLION-DOLLAR PROJECT. THE OTHER ONE, OF COURSE, HERE WANTING LIGHT RAIL. ACTUALLY, ATAP IS ABOUT GOING THROUGH THE EVIDENCE, HAVING OFFICIALS DO THAT IN A SERIOUS WAY ON THE BASIS OF VALUE FOR MONEY AND CONGESTION AND NOT JUST SORT OF, 'THIS IS MY PROJECT. THIS IS MY PROJECT.' IT'S ENTIRELY DESIGNED TO CHANGE THE WAY OF THINKING ABOUT THAT. AND TO ALIGN ` THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED THE ALIGNMENT PROJECT ` TO ALIGN BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE AND THEIR THINKING, BUT THE THING IS YOU'RE ALIGNED UNTIL, WHAT, THE LOCAL ELECTIONS, AND THEN YOU COULD BE ON COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PAGES. I DON'T THINK SO. THE IMPORTANT THING WE WANT TO KEEP WITH ATAP IS BASICALLY THAT APPROACH. ACTUALLY, LET'S BE EVIDENCE-BASED. LET'S HAVE OFFICIALS FROM ALL SIDES AND INDEPENDENT EXPERTS DO THE WORK, AND LET'S TRY AND DO THIS ON THE BASIS OF AN INTEGRATED VALUE-FOR-MONEY TYPE APPROACH. MY CONVERSATION WITH PHIL GOFF AND MY CONVERSATION WITH VIC CRONE MAKES IT PRETTY CLEAR TO ME. ACTUALLY, I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT THEY CAN SIGN UP TO THAT SORT OF AN APPROACH. INDEED, THE CURRENT COUNCIL I THINK UNANIMOUSLY SIGNED UP TO THAT APPROACH. THEY CAN SEE THE VALUE FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER OF GOVERNMENT, BOTH CENTRALLY AND LOCALLY, WORKING SO CLOSELY TOGETHER. OK, ANOTHER THING THAT CAUGHT MY EYE IN THIS REPORT WAS RIDE-SHARING AS A CONGESTION SOLUTION. YEAH. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CARPOOLING AND COMMERCIAL OPTIONS LIKE UBER AND INCENTIVISING THAT. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO INCENTIVISE THAT? WELL, LOOK, LET'S SEE, BUT I THINK POTENTIALLY THIS IS A VERY BIG DEAL. LET ME GIVE YOU THE STATS HERE ` 1.2 PEOPLE PER CAR IN AUCKLAND AT THE MOMENT. YOU GET THAT UP TO TWO, YOU'RE MAKING A REALLY BIG DIFFERENCE. I MEAN, YOU RAISE AN INTERESTING` BUT HOW DO YOU DO THAT? THE IMPORTANT POINT HERE IS HOW YOU DO IT, SO HOW ARE YOU GOING TO INCENTIVISE IT? FIRSTLY, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE THE REGULATORY REGIME IN PLACE THAT ENABLES THIS. WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT. WE'VE GOT ONE THAT'S SET BACK IN THE 1980S INTRODUCED TO PARLIAMENT THIS WEEK. BUT HOW DO YOU INCENTIVISE PEOPLE TO SHARE CARS? HOW DO YOU DO THAT? WELL, I THINK, ACTUALLY, WHAT WE'VE SEEN AROUND THE WORLD, MAKE IT LONDON OR MAKE IT A SMALL-TOWN AREA IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PEOPLE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED THE INCENTIVE. THEY WANT TO DO IT BECAUSE THEY KNOW HOW CONVENIENT IT IS. BUT WHY AREN'T THEY DOING IT NOW? IF THEY'RE OPEN TO IT, THEY COULD DO IT NOW. I THINK IT WILL HAPPEN. I THINK THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN. FIRSTLY, I MAKE THE POINT ` THE REGULATORY REGIME NEEDS TO CHANGE. WE WILL HAVE, I THINK, ONE OF THE MOST ENABLING REGIMES IN THE WORLD WHEN THE LAWS THAT I'VE PUT INTO PARLIAMENT THIS WEEK ARE CHANGED. IN FACT, I'VE GOT A LETTER FROM UBER THIS WEEK CONGRATULATING ME BECAUSE THEY SEE THE BENEFITS OF IT. WE CAN HAVE A LOWER-COMPLIANCE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD THAT'S REALLY GOING TO CREATE COMPETITION IN THIS AREA. BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE GAME-CHANGERS. I ACTUALLY THINK THE REFORMS THAT I'VE INTRODUCED TO PARLIAMENT ARE PERHAPS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT THING I'VE DONE IN MY CAREER TO DATE. SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO ASK PEOPLE TO DO THIS, ARE YOU GOING TO LEAD BY EXAMPLE YOURSELF? ARE YOU GOING TO START CARPOOLING WITH CLAYTON MITCHELL? POSSIBLY. IF HE'S UP FOR IT. IS THAT A COMMITMENT? HE LIVES IN A DIFFERENT SIDE OF TOWN, THOUGH, SO TO GET TO THE AIRPORT, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT` YOU NEED AN INCENTIVE. YOU NEED AN INCENTIVE TO CARPOOLING, MINISTER. NO, I DON'T NEED AN INCENTIVE TO DO IT WITH MY NEIGHBOURS, BECAUSE, ACTUALLY, WHAT I KNOW IS THIS` BUT YOU'RE NOT DOING IT NOW. NO, I'M NOT, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A SERVICE IN NZ. ACTUALLY, THE LAW DOESN'T FUNDAMENTALLY ALLOW FOR IT. OK, WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANT TO COVER OFF. THIS WEEK YOU SEALED THE DEAL FOR PAYING HALF OF THE CENTRAL RAIL LINK, BUT HALF HAS GOT A LOT BIGGER THAN BEFORE. ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT THAT? IS THERE A CAP TO THE SPEND FOR YOU? I'M NOT WORRIED. IN A SENSE, THERE ISN'T A CAP, WITHOUT BEING RIDICULOUS ABOUT THIS IN AS MUCH AS WE NOW HAVE AN` SO YOU'LL PAY HALF OF WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET THE CRL? WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT FOR THAT. I MEAN, OF COURSE, IF WE FOUND THAT THIS WAS SO MUCH MORE, AND IT WON'T BE, THAT MIGHT CHANGE THINGS, BUT IN PRINCIPLE` SO HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH, THEN? WELL, I CAN'T SAY. IN PRINCIPLE, WE ARE AT HALF. BEAR THIS IN MIND, THOUGH. THE ULTIMATE` HALF OF NO CAP? WELL, BASICALLY, THE ULTIMATE ARBITER OF THIS IS GOING TO BE THE MARKETPLACE. AND THE COUNCIL AND I ARE JOINED AT THE HIP IN TERMS OF GETTING BEST VALUE FOR MONEY. THERE'S NO QUESTION THIS WILL BE THE MOST EXPENSIVE PUBLIC TRANSPORT PROJECT WE'VE EVER SEEN. PHIL GOFF IS WORRIED ABOUT HOW MUCH THIS IS LOOKING LIKE IT'S GOING TO COST AND THE POTENTIAL BLOWOUT HERE, SO ARE YOU SAYING HALF, NO CAP? YOU'LL PAY FOR HALF? LOOK, WHAT PHIL GOFF HAS ALSO SAID IS HE'S COMMITTED TO THE PROJECT AND HE WANTS TO SEE IT HAPPEN. I SHARE HIS CONCERNS. I'M NOT WORRIED. I WANT THE BEST VALUE FOR MONEY CONTRACT I CAN GET. WE'LL BE GOING OUT TO THE MARKET` MINISTER, YOU'RE UP FOR HALF OF THIS,... CORRECT. ...SO I'M JUST WANTING TO CLARIFY. HALF OF WHATEVER IT COSTS IS BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YEAH, BUT LET'S BE CLEAR. WE'VE GOT A RANGE HERE THAT WE BELIEVE IS REALISTIC ` BETWEEN 2.8 TO 3.4. WE HAVE HAD A VARIETY OF INDEPENDENT` BUT WHAT IF IT'S 4 BILLION OR 4.5 BILLION? WILL YOU PAY HALF OF THAT? WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THOSE SORT OF HYPOTHETICALS. I THINK WE'VE GOT A SITUATION NOW, WE'VE GOT A REALISTIC RANGE` BUT THAT IS REALISTIC GIVEN THAT YOU'VE GOT, WHAT, ALMOST A BILLION-DOLLAR INCREASE IN THE ESTIMATES ALREADY. WE WILL BE WORKING INCREDIBLY HARD, AND, ACTUALLY, I THINK THIS IS A BIG PART OF WHY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DOES NEED TO BE IN THIS PROJECT, BECAUSE WE HAVE GOT THE SKILLS THROUGH THE LIKES OF THE TRANSPORT AGENCY AND OTHERS TO BRING TO BETTER THIS PROJECT, TO GET THE BEST VALUE FOR MONEY WE CAN. AND, LOOK, CLEARLY YOU'VE SEEN IN THE COUNCIL REACTION` BUT YOU CAN'T COMMIT NOW TO HALF IF IT GOES OVER 3.4 BILLION? WELL, LOOK, I CAN. WHAT WE'VE GOT HERE IS A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE SIGNED A LEGALLY BINDING HEADS OF AGREEMENT FOR HALF OF THE SHARE OF THE CRL. OK. BUT CLEARLY, TO YOUR POINT, THERE HAS TO BE SOME REALISM IN THIS. I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU A FIGURE. I DON'T HAVE A FIGURE IN MIND. IF IT GOES OVER A CERTAIN AMOUNT, CLEARLY YOU'D BE WANTING TO WORK OUT WHY THAT WAS AND DO YOUR BEST TO GET THAT DOWN. WHO WILL OWN IT, MINISTER? WE HAVEN'T MADE A DECISION ON THAT. SO IF YOU'RE PAYING 50% AND THE AUCKLAND RATEPAYERS ARE PAYING 50%, WILL IT BE A 50-50 OWNERSHIP DEAL? THAT'S POSSIBLE. THERE'S ARRANGEMENTS IN PLACE AT THE MOMENT. PROBABLE? NO, I WOULDN'T GO THAT FAR. I DON'T THINK, ACTUALLY, THE GOVERNMENT FUNDAMENTALLY HAS THAT BIG AN ISSUE ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP ARRANGEMENT. WHAT WE DO` SO YOU'RE OK WITH AUCKLAND OWNING IT, THE CITY RAIL LINK? WE'VE GOT TO WORK THROUGH THAT. THERE'S, UNDER THE HEADS OF AGREEMENT, GOING TO BE A SPONSORS AGREEMENT THAT WILL GO THROUGH THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL. I THINK WHAT WE DO NEED SEE, THOUGH, IS THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A SAFE, OPERATIONALLY WELL RUN OPERATION, GIVEN THE INVESTMENT. YOU'RE OPEN TO AUCKLAND OWNING THE ASSET 100%? WELL, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A FIXED POSITION AT THIS TIME BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO WORK THROUGH THAT DETAIL. OK, FINALLY, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT USE OF TECHNOLOGY TO EASE CONGESTION, AND ONE EXAMPLE THAT YOU'VE MENTIONED IS DRONES. YEAH. I MEAN, HOW'S THAT GOING TO WORK, REALISTICALLY? LET'S BE CLEAR BEFORE I GET CARTOONS AND CARICATURED ABOUT THIS ` THIS IS NOT SOME SERIOUS PART OF OUR STRATEGY FOR CONGESTION IN AUCKLAND. BUT WHAT I WILL SAY, SEEING AS YOU'VE ASKED, IS THIS. WE'VE NOW GOT, A BIT LIKE I'M TRYING TO DO IN THE UBER SPACE, THE MOST ENABLING RULES, I THINK, IN THE WORLD. WE'VE SEEN 50, 60, ABOUT 70, I THINK, APPLICATIONS IN THIS AREA TO DO NEW THINGS IN NZ. WE'RE SEEING GREAT INNOVATION IN CINEMA AND A RANGE OF AREAS. ACTUALLY IN AUCKLAND, WE WILL HAVE THE FIRST COMMERCIAL ONGOING TRIAL OF DRONE TECHNOLOGY WITH CARGO IN THE WORLD. I'M TOLD WE'RE ONE TO TWO YEARS` SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT COURIER PACKAGES, MAIL? THAT'S RIGHT. THIS KIND OF STUFF? AND LET'S` BUT AT THE MOMENT THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS ABOUT FLYING OVER PEOPLE'S HOUSES AND ALL THE REST OF IT. REALISTICALLY... THAT'S NOT REALISTIC, IS IT? WELL, THERE'S A COMPLICATED SET OF RULES HERE, BUT WE HAVE A POSITION IN NZ WHERE IF THE RISKS CAN BE MANAGED, ANYTHING CAN BE DONE. AND OF COURSE WE'VE GOT TO TAKE SAFETY VERY SERIOUSLY. BECAUSE YOUR CRITICS WOULD SAY YOU'RE IGNORING THE STRAIGHTFORWARD ANSWERS TO THIS PROBLEM ` GET PEOPLE OUT OF CARS, INTO TRAINS AND BUSES, INVEST IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND APPLY ROAD PRICING, FORGET YOUR DRONES. $1.7 BILLION INTO CRL, 1.7 BILLION TO THE ELECTRIFICATION OF RAIL IN THE LAST LITTLE WHILE ` A VERY SIGNIFICANT PACKAGE HERE OF $24 BILLION WORTH OF INVESTMENT I THINK PROVES THOSE CRITICS WRONG. THANKS FOR JOINING US THIS MORNING, MINISTER. MUCH APPRECIATED. THANK YOU. WE'LL BE BACK AFTER THE BREAK WITH AMY ADAMS. THE GOVERNMENT'S ANNOUNCED A $130 MILLION PACKAGE TO REDUCE FAMILY VIOLENCE, BUT WILL IT MEAN MORE MONEY FOR THOSE FIGHTING IT ON THE FRONT LINE? FIRST, THOUGH, JEREMY CORBETT AND PAUL EGO PROVE JUST HOW MUCH THEY KNOW ABOUT OUR POLITICIANS. THE BIG QUESTION THIS WEEK ` HAS WINSTON PETERS STUMBLED ACROSS SOME COMMON SENSE? HE SAYS INSTEAD OF SPENDING MILLIONS ON A NEW OFFICE BLOCK, JUST CUT THE NUMBER OF MPS TO 100. 100? MM. HOW MANY ARE THERE AT THE MOMENT? 121. 121? YES. GOOD GRACIOUS. I CAN ONLY NAME ABOUT SEVEN. GO ON, THEN. WHAT, NOW? YEAH. UH, WINSTON. WELL, I ALREADY MENTIONED HIM, BUT, YEAH. UH, JOHN KEY. YES. AND HE'LL BE AROUND FOR A WHILE. PASSED HIS MEDICAL. HE'S IN RUDE HEALTH. YEAH, PERFECT NICK. NICK SMITH. YOU GOT THREE SO FAR. UH, THE LEADER OF THE LABOUR PARTY. NAME HIM. A-A-ANDREW LITTLE. YOU SOUND UNSURE. OH, I'M SURE OF HIS NAME. JUST NOT SURE IF HE'S STILL THE LEADER. YOU KNOW, NOT AFTER THE, SORT OF, CARPET PORNGATE THING. YEAH, HIM AND THE SEA SLUG. UH, HE IS STILL LEADER. IN FACT, THIS WEEK LABOUR RELEASED ITS OWN INTERNAL POLLING TO DEFEND HIS LEADERSHIP, WHICH WAS WEIRD. WAS IT A GOOD MOVE? I DUNNO. SORT OF REMINDS ME OF THE SAYING, IT'S BETTER TO KEEP YOUR POLL CLOSED THAN LET PEOPLE THINK YOU'RE DELUDING YOURSELF RATHER THAN OPEN IT AND REMOVE ALL DOUBT, YOU KNOW. ALL RIGHT, THREE TO GO, PAUL. OH, UH,... TIM SHADBOLT. NOT AN MP. MAYOR OF INVERCARGILL. ALTHOUGH SOME ARE PREDICTING HIS TIME IS UP AFTER THREE DECADES AS MAYOR. YEAH, THAT'D BE A SHAME. HE'S PROBABLY ONLY JUST FIGURED OUT WHERE HIS OFFICE IS. I IMAGINE. OH, THE WOMAN IN CHARGE OF CLOSING SCHOOLS. YES. UH, HAKUNA MATATA. HEKIA PARATA. CLOSE ENOUGH. TWO TO GO. UH, PAULA BENNETT. MM-HM. AND? AND,... UH, CRUSHER. JUDITH COLLINS. OH, HER AS WELL. YES. THAT'S EIGHT. I SMASHED IT. HA-HA! WELCOME BACK. ON TUESDAY, THE GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCED A $130M PACKAGE OF MEASURES TO TACKLE FAMILY VIOLENCE. IT INCLUDES MAKING PROTECTION ORDERS EASIER TO APPLY FOR, HELPING PERPETRATORS ACCESS SERVICES AND CREATING NEW OFFENCES OF NON-FATAL STRANGULATION AND COERCION TO MARRY. BUT WITH WOMEN'S REFUGES AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS AROUND THE COUNTRY HAVING TO FUNDRAISE TO MAKE ENDS MEET, HOW MUCH OF THAT MONEY WILL HEAD TO FRONT-LINE SERVICES? THE JUSTICE MINISTER, AMY ADAMS IS WITH ME FROM CHRISTCHURCH NOW. GOOD MORNING, MINISTER. GOOD MORNING, LISA. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT WE HAVE ONE OF THE HIGHEST RATES OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN THE WORLD? YEAH, THAT'S CERTAINLY A REALLY TOUGH QUESTION TO ANSWER. WE KNOW THAT IT'S A SIGNIFICANTLY INTERGENERATIONAL ISSUE, AND FOR MANY OF THESE FAMILIES, THIS IS WHAT THEY KNOW, THIS IS HOW THEY GREW UP, IT'S WHAT THEY SEE IN THEIR COMMUNITY. AND CHANGING EXPECTATIONS ABOUT HOW RELATIONSHIPS WORK, WHAT IT MEANS TO SHOW LOVE AND RESPECT TO FAMILY MEMBERS IS A VERY DIFFICULT AND LONG-TERM PIECE OF WORK. SO $130M ANNOUNCED THIS WEEK IN THESE INITIATIVES. YOU DID GO TO CABINET ASKING, I THINK, FIRST OFF FOR $168M. SO HAVE YOU GOT ENOUGH MONEY? YEAH, LOOK, THE MONEY IS NOT THE ISSUE. THE MONEY IS SIMPLY A REFLECTION OF THE PACKAGE THAT WE PUT TOGETHER IN TERMS OF WHERE WE THOUGHT THE OFFENCES SHOULD BE SET, AND CABINET HAS MADE THOSE DECISIONS. AND ACTUALLY, I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING TO REALLY UNDERSTAND IS THAT THIS IS THE FIRST PART OF RESETTING THE WHOLE WAY WE RESPOND TO FAMILY VIOLENCE. SO THIS SETS UP THE LAW, CREATES THE LEGAL FRAMEWORKS, CREATES THE WAY THE SYSTEM CAN RESPOND. IT IS NOT THE END OF IT. THERE IS ANOTHER MUCH WIDER PIECE OF WORK UNDERWAY NOW, RIGHT ACROSS THE MINISTERIAL GROUP, LED BY ANNE TOLLEY AND MYSELF, LOOKING AT HOW WE GET THE RIGHT SERVICES TO THE RIGHT PEOPLE, HOW WE FUND THEM, HOW WE BUILD THE CAPACITY, BECAUSE THERE'S NO DOUBT CAPACITY IS AN ISSUE TO RESPOND. BUT, YOU KNOW, THE VIOLENCE ISN'T GONNA GO AWAY, AND IF WE WANNA MAKE A DIFFERENCE, WE HAVE TO BE PREPARED TO DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY. SO IF WE LOOK AT THIS PACKAGE, THEN, AND THE MONEY BEING SPENT HERE, HOW MUCH OF THAT IS NEW MONEY AND HOW MUCH OF IT IS REDIRECTED OR RE-PRIORITISED MONEY? SO, THE PRIME MINISTER CONFIRMED ON TUESDAY THAT IT'S ALL NEW MONEY. SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS SET UP, AS I SAY, THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK, AND WE'VE WORKED UP THE IMPACT OF THOSE CHANGES RIGHT ACROSS THE SYSTEM ` ON POLICING, ON COURTS, ON THE CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, OBVIOUSLY. BUT ALSO SET UP THE FUNDING FOR THE NEW INITIATIVES THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE, LIKE THE INDEPENDENT RISK AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT HUB; LIKE THE FUNDED SUPPORT SERVICES FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GET PROTECTION ORDERS; LIKE A SUPERVISED HAND-OVER SERVICE, SO ALL OF THAT IS FUNDED IN THE PACKAGE. THE NEXT WAVE IS LOOKING AT HOW WE REALLY ENHANCE THOSE TARGETED SERVICES THAT WE HAVE TO GET TO FAMILIES IN TROUBLE MUCH, MUCH EARLIER IN THIS CONTINUUM OF VIOLENCE. SO, HOW MUCH OF IT'S GOING TO GO TO FRONT LINE SERVICES, YOU KNOW, LIKE WOMEN'S REFUGE? WELL, I'LL BE VERY HONEST ` THE MOST PART OF THIS PACKAGE IS AROUND RESPONDING TO, AS I SAY, THE NEW OFFENCES, THE TOUGHER LINE ON PROTECTION ORDERS, THE TOUGHER LINE ON BAIL, KEEPING PEOPLE IN PRISON WHEN THEY NEED TO BE IN PRISON LONGER. THAT'S THE BIGGEST PART OF THE COST. THERE'S COST IN THERE FOR POLICE OFFICERS TO ENSURE THAT THEY CAN RESPOND. BUT THERE IS COST, AS I SAY, ALTHOUGH IT'S A SMALLER PART OF THE PACKAGE, AROUND THAT RISK AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT HUB, AROUND THE FUNDED SUPPORT FOR PROTECTION ORDERS AND AROUND THE SUPERVISED TRIAL HANDOVERS. THE BIGGER PART OF FUNDING THE ACTUAL SERVICES IS WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY WORKING ON NOW THROUGH THE MINISTERIAL GROUP. WE'VE MADE IT QUITE CLEAR THIS IS NOT THE END OF OUR SOLUTION; THIS IS THE FIRST PART OF IT. BUT TO BE CLEAR, MINISTER, SO NONE FROM THIS PACKAGE GOING TO THOSE FRONT LINE AGENCIES LIKE WOMEN'S REFUGE? NO, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY FUNDING IN THERE FOR NGOS, BUT IT'S ABSOLUTELY THE SMALLER PART OF THE PACKAGE. THE BIGGER PART IS HOW WE FUND THE RIGHT SERVICES. CAN YOU PUT ON A FIGURE ON THAT FOR US? OH, LOOK, I WOULDN'T WANT AN ESTIMATED FIGURE. I HAVEN'T TOTALLED IT UP, BUT IT WOULD BE 10%, 15%. IT'S NOT THE BIGGEST PART OF THE PACKAGE BY ANY SENSE. IT MIGHT BE LOWER. THE BIGGEST PART OF HOW WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THE SERVICES, HOW WE FUND THEM, HOW WE BUILD THAT CAPACITY IS, AS I SAY, THE WORK THAT THE MINISTERIAL WORK GROUP IS WORKING ON RIGHT NOW. WE'VE BEEN QUITE CLEAR THAT THAT PIECE OF WORK IS STILL OCCURRING. WHAT WE'VE FOUND IS THAT UNTIL WE GET THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK RIGHT, IT'D BE VERY DIFFICULT TO GET THOSE SERVICES TO PERPETRATORS EARLIER AS WE REALLY NEED IT TO DO. SO THAT WORK IS STILL COMING. WE'VE NEVER SUGGESTED THAT THIS IS THE WHOLE OF IT. BECAUSE MINISTER, THE THING IS ` IF I CAN JUST INTERRUPT YOU THERE ` BECAUSE THE THING IS IN 2011, YOUR GOVERNMENT CUT FUNDING TO WOMEN'S REFUGE BY $700,000. I JUST WANT TO READ OUT A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF WHAT THEY'RE STRUGGLING WITH HERE. TAURANGA WOMEN'S REFUGE FUNDED FOR 320 CRISIS CALLS IN 2014. THEY GOT 1878, SO THEY FUNDRAISE ABOUT 10 GRAND A MONTH TO COVER THAT. WAIKATO WOMEN'S REFUGE CONTRACTED FOR 1600 CASES A YEAR, BUT THEY TELL US THEY DEAL WITH BETWEEN 4000 AND 6000. SO ISN'T THIS WHERE YOU ALSO NEED A BIG INJECTION OF MONEY? WELL, I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH YOU THAT WE NEED TO DO A LOT MORE IN BUILDING THE CAPACITY AND THE AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES IF WE'RE GONNA MAKE THE DIFFERENCE, AND THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ` THAT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE MINISTERIAL WORK GROUP IS LOOKING AT NOW. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE MONEY THAT'S CURRENTLY GOING IN; WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT THE CAPACITY IS. THE REALITY IS, LISA, THAT AT THE MOMENT, WE NEED TO GET FAR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT WHERE THE DEMAND IS, WHAT ARE THE SERVICES THAT ARE NEEDED. SO WE KNOW ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF VOLUME. WHAT WE DON'T HAVE A REALLY CLEAR STEER ON IS HOW MUCH NEEDS TO BE TARGETED TOWARDS ALCOHOL AND DRUG SUPPORT, HOW MUCH NEEDS TO BE TARGETED TO MENTAL HEALTH; HOW MUCH NEEDS TO BE TARGETED TO HOUSING AND JOB ASSISTANCE AND BUDGETING SERVICES. IT'S NOT AS SIMPLY A MATTER OF HAVING A ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL SUPPORT FUNDING PROGRAMME. AND ACTUALLY, THE CHANGES THAT I'VE ANNOUNCED THIS WEEK ARE AROUND PUTTING IN PLACE THE SYSTEMS SO THAT WE CAN FAR BETTER ASSESS WHAT IS NEEDED, WHAT SUPPORT IS GONNA MAKE A DIFFERENCE, KNOWING THAT WE CAN GET IT MUCH EARLIER IN THE SYSTEM, AND BUILDING THE CAPACITY. COS IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT FUNDING ` ACTUALLY, THERE ARE REAL WORKFORCE CHALLENGES RIGHT ACROSS THE COUNTRY, ORGANISATIONS LIKE WOMEN'S REFUGE, WHY THEY WELCOME ALL OF THESE CHANGES, POTENTIALLY THEY'RE GONNA HAVE MORE RESPONSIBILITY WITH THESE CHANGES, APPLYING FOR PROTECTION ORDERS TOO ON BEHALF OF WOMEN, AREN'T THEY? SO WILL THEY GET SPECIFIC FUNDING TO ASSIST THEM TO DO THAT? WELL, AS I'VE SAID, TO THE EXTENT THAT THESE CHANGES CREATE NEW ROLES FOR NGOS LIKE REFUGE, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY FUNDED IN THE PACKAGE. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT, QUITE APART FROM THAT, WE DO RECOGNISE THAT THERE IS A CAPACITY CHALLENGE THAT WE NEED TO MEET, AND THAT IS THE ISSUE WE'RE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW. BUT MY CLEAR VIEW IS THAT YOU HAVE TO GET THE LEGAL PLATFORM RIGHT FIRST. I'M THE JUSTICE MINISTER, THAT'S THE PIECE THAT I'M DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR, AND WHILE WE'RE LEGISLATING THOSE CHANGES RIGHT ACROSS GOVERNMENT, ACROSS MINISTERS REPRESENTING 16 PORTFOLIOS, WE ARE DESIGNING EXACTLY WHAT THAT LEVEL OF CAPACITY LOOKS LIKE, HOW WE GET THERE. WILL THOSE NGOS BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR LEGAL AID IN ORDER TO PURSUE PROTECTION ORDERS? YES. SO UNDER THE PACKAGE, WE'VE SET UP A SYSTEM WHEREBY IF AN NGO WANTS TO BE APPLYING ON BEHALF OF VICTIMS, THEY CAN THROUGH A PROCESS TO GET APPROVED, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE GOTTA MAKE SURE THEY'VE GOT THE RIGHT STRUCTURES IN PLACE. AND THEN THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WE'LL BE ASSISTING THEM OBVIOUSLY WITH THE COSTINGS. OK. SO IT'S 110,000 POLICE CALLOUTS A YEAR TO FAMILY VIOLENCE. BUT 80% OF CASES, THEY SAY, ARE UNREPORTED, SO THAT'S MORE THAN 400,000 MORE CASES. WHAT'S YOUR TARGET IN TERMS OF REDUCING THOSE NUMBERS? YEAH. AND LOOK, THAT'S A REALLY GOOD POINT, BECAUSE I THINK ONE THING THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT IF WE DO OUR JOB WELL, IF THIS PACKAGE STARTS TO MAKE REAL INROADS, YOU'RE ACTUALLY GONNA SEE THOSE NUMBERS GOING UP. BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT ` OUR BEST GUESS AT THE MOMENT IS ONLY ABOUT 20% IS REPORTED. SO WE FULLY EXPECT THAT WE'RE GONNA SEE MORE REPORTING OF FAMILY VIOLENCE OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS, AND STRANGELY ENOUGH, THAT'S A GOOD THING. WHAT WE NEED TO SEE IS PEOPLE REACHING OUT FOR HELP FAR EARLIER IN THIS CYCLE OF VIOLENCE. WE WANNA SEE A BIG REDUCTION, OBVIOUSLY, IN FAMILY VIOLENCE HOMICIDES. HALF OF THE HOMICIDES IN THE COUNTRY AT THE MOMENT ARE FAMILY VIOLENCE. THEN HOW WILL YOU MEASURE SUCCESS, MINISTER? COS YOU DON'T HAVE A NUMBER, HOW DO YOU KNOW IF YOUR PROGRAMME HAS ACHIEVED WHAT YOU WANT IT TO? SO, SUCCESS FOR ME IS A REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF UNREPORTED FAMILY VIOLENCE, SO AN INCREASE IN THE REPORTED VOLUMES, BUT ALSO A REDUCTION IN THE HARM THAT'S CAUSED BY FAMILY VIOLENCE. SO WE'RE WORKING ON BUILDING A HARM MEASURE THAT MEASURES NOT JUST THE VOLUME, BUT THE SEVERITY. SO IF WE'RE SEEING A LOT MORE REPORTING AT A LOWER LEVEL OF HARM, THAT'S A GOOD THING. WHAT I WANNA SEE IS A DROP IN HOMICIDES AND DROP IN SERIOUS ASSAULTS. BUT HOW WILL YOU KNOW REGARDING THOSE FIGURES IN TERMS OF UNREPORTED? COS YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW. SO, WE HAVE THE SURVEY CALLED THE NZ CRIME AND SAFETY SURVEY, WHICH IS OUR BEST WAY OF ASSESSING WHAT THE UNREPORTED LEVEL OF FAMILY VIOLENCE IS. SO WE DO THAT SURVEY ON A REGULAR BASIS. AND, LOOK, IT'S NOT A PERFECT MEASURE ` WE ACCEPT THAT ` BUT IT IS OUR BEST ESTIMATE AND BEST WAY OF ASSESSING WHAT WE THINK IS THE UNREPORTED VOLUME. SO IF WE SEE AN INCREASE IN REPORTING, I THINK WE CAN SAFELY ASSUME THAT THAT IS CUTTING INTO THAT UNREPORTED AREA. BUT WHAT WE ABSOLUTELY COULD MEASURE IS ` ARE WE SEEING A DROP IN HOMICIDES, ARE WE SEEING A DROP IN SERIOUS VIOLENT ASSAULTS? AND THAT, TO ME, IS WHAT SUCCESS LOOKS LIKE. IT MEANS FAR LESS SERIOUS VIOLENCE BEING CAUSED ACROSS NZ. AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO AIM FOR. IT'S NOT GONNA BE EASY, BUT I'M NOT GONNA ACCEPT THAT WE CAN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US THIS MORNING, MINISTER. YOU'RE WELCOME. AND WE WILL BE BACK AFTER THE BREAK WITH OUR PANEL, RUSSEL NORMAN, JENNA RAEBURN AND MIHINGARANGI FORBES. WELCOME BACK. I'M JOINED NOW BY OUR PANEL, FORMER GREEN PARTY CO-LEADER RUSSEL NORMAN, NOW HEAD OF GREENPEACE; JENNA RAEBURN FROM THE GOVERNMENT RELATIONS COMPANY BARTON DEAKIN; AND MIHINGARANGI FORBES FROM THE HUI AND RNZ. GOOD MORNING TO YOU ALL. ALL GREET MIHI, WE HEARD THERE FROM THE MAOR PARTY TRYING TO BROKER A DEAL HERE BUT THEY'RE IN BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE. ARE THEY GOING TO BE FORCED TO WALK AWAY FROM THIS? WELL, YEAH, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF WIGGLE ROOM THERE. IT'S ALMOST LIKE MARAMA FOX HAS ALREADY STATED HER POSITION. THIS IS A TREATY RIGHT AND TE OHU KAIMOANA SAID IT'S NON-NEGOTIABLE, SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU WOULD GO WITH THAT. NICK SMITH HAS ALREADY SAID THAT IF IT'S GOING TO BE A PURE SANCTUARY THEN IT CAN'T HAVE ANY RIGHTS IN IT, SO, UH, YEAH, THEY WERE IN A VERY INTERESTING PLACE. BUT IF YOU LISTEN TO THE WORDS TE OHU KAIMOANA AND THE REACTIONS THAT WE'VE HEARD THIS WEEK THAT YOU MIGHT'VE BEEN ABLE TO TREAT THE TREATY IN A DIFFERENT WAY 175 YEARS AGO, BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT TODAY, AND THEY WILL FEEL THE FORCE OF MAORIDOM AND TE OHU KAIMOANA AND THOSE IWI LETTERS AT LEAST IF IT DOESN'T WORK OUT. AND THE MAORI PARTY POTENTIALLY AT THE NEXT ELECTION WILL FEEL THE FORCE AS WELL. WELL, THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, I RECKON, TO RIDE THIS WAVE IF THEY PICK IT RIGHT. YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT THEY WERE BORN FROM IN 2000` OVER THE SEABED AND FORESHORE, SO THEY HAVE OPTIONS IN TERMS OF THEIR NEXT MOVE. RUSSEL, HOW ARE THE MAORI MP'S AND THE GREEN PARTY GOING TO BE RECONCILING THIS WHOLE JUGGLING THING WHERE POTENTIALLY THEY WANT A SANCTUARY, AND ON THE OTHER HAND YOU'VE GOT PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUES? IT'S NOT UNUSUAL TO DEAL WITH PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUES AROUND THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT. SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT A QUOTA, YOU'VE GOT A QUOTA, SO YOU'VE GOT 20% OF A PARTICULAR KIND OF CATCH, RIGHT? NOW, THE GOVERNMENT MOVES THAT CATCH UP AND DOWN ALL THE TIME. SO AFTER THE FISHING INDUSTRY COLLAPSED THE ORANGE ROUGHY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE QUOTA WENT TO ZERO. SO YOU HAD 20% OF ZERO, COS YOU COLLAPSED THE STOCK. THAT'S NOT A BREACH OF THE TREATY, BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT. NO. ANOTHER PART OF SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT IS THAT YOU NEED TO PUT CERTAIN AREAS ASIDE WITHIN THE EEZ WHERE YOU HAVE NO TAKE. IT'S A PART OF OUR INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATION; IN FACT, IT'S PART OF UNCLOS, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE THE EEZ ` WE'VE GOT TO PROTECT, WE'VE GOT TO PUT IN PLACE MARINE SANCTUARIES OVER PART OF THE EEZ. AND THAT MEANS THAT THE TOTAL ALLOWABLE COMMERCIAL CATCH IS ZERO, SO YOU'VE GOT 20% OF ZERO, AND THAT APPLIES TO THE FISHING INDUSTRY ACROSS THE BOARD. SO THAT'S REALLY THE ISSUE. THE QUESTION IS ` IF YOU REDUCE THE TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCH TO ZERO, DOES THAT BREACH A PROPERTY RIGHT? NO, IT BREACHES THE TREATY RIGHT. THE TREATY RIGHT. SO THE DIFFERENCE IN THIS SITUATION AND THE UNIQUENESS HERE IN AOTEAROA IS THAT THERE ARE TWO TREATY PARTNERS. SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT QUOTA RIGHTS, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A GROUP OF PEOPLE. THEY'RE NOT JUST FISHERS; THEY MAORI, AND THEY ARE A TREATY PARTNERSHIP AND THEY SHOULD'VE BEEN CONSULTED OR THEY SHOULD BE COMPENSATED, PERHAPS. THAT'S WHAT THEY'D SAY. THE COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY WOULD SAY THAT. THEY WOULD SAY EXACTLY THE SAME THING. THEY THINK THEY SHOULD BE COMPENSATED FOR THE FACT THAT THERE IS A MARINE SANCTUARY. YEAH BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE CONSULTED UNDER THE TREATY OF WAITANGI. BUT THEY WANT TO BE COMPENSATED. YEAH, BUT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN` THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE CONSULTED AND MAORI DO, AND THAT HASN'T HAPPENED. SO THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. FROM A PUBLIC RELATIONS POINT OF VIEW, HOW MUCH OF AN EMBARRASSMENT IS THIS FOR THE GOVERNMENT? WE HAVE JOHN KEY WANTING TO PUSH AHEAD WITH THIS. HE'S ANNOUNCED IT ALREADY AND THEN 'WHOOPS, OK, ALL BETS ARE OFF.' WELL, THEY'RE TAKING A BIT OF A DEEP BREATH NOW AND STEPPING BACK AND TRYING TO FIND A WAY THROUGH IT. AND HOPEFULLY THERE IS SOME KIND OF COMPROMISE TO BE REACHED, BUT IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE WHERE THAT IS, BECAUSE THE PERSPECTIVE THE GOVERNMENT'S COMING FROM IS THEY WANT A GOLD-STANDARD MARINE SANCTUARY, AND THERE'S NO POINT HAVING A SANCTUARY IF IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, GOLD-STANDARD AND IF YOU CAN STILL FISH THERE. AND THEN ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU HAVE TE OHU KAIMOANA SAYING FISHING RIGHTS NEED TO BE PRESERVED. UM, SO HOW YOU FIND A WAY THROUGH THAT, IT'S GOING TO BE VERY COMPLICATED. AND DION SAID THEY'RE NOT PREPARED TO TAKE ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR COMPENSATION. WELL, THEY'RE SAYING IT'S NON-NEGOTIABLE. BUT I THINK AN INTERESTING THING IS TO LOOK AT WHAT CONSERVATION MEANS TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE MEANING THAT YOU PUT` THAT'S A NO GO ZONE UNTIL THE FISH STOCKS HAVE COME BACK, AND THEN THEY GO AND FISH IT AGAIN. SO CONSERVATION IN TERMS OF INDIGENOUS IDEALS IS THAT IT'S NOT FOREVER, AND I THINK THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE HERE. THE THING IS THERE'S NO CUSTOMARY TAKE, OF COURSE, BECAUSE IT'S UP IN THE KERMADECS, SO NO ONE WAS FISHING THAT AREA, SO THAT'S WHY IT'S DIFFERENT. YEAH, BUT THE 1992 SETTLEMENT GAVE MAORI` SO THAT'S WHY IT'S DIFFERENT TO THE EXISTING` SO CURRENTLY, WE HAVE RECREATIONAL FISHERS, WE HAVE COMMERCIAL FISHERS AND CUSTOMARY FISHING AROUND NZ. UP IN THE KERMADECS, THAT'S NOT THE CASE BECAUSE NO ONE WAS DOING CUSTOMARY FISHING. THERE ARE MANY RIGHTS UP THERE. THAT IS TRUE. I AGREE WITH THAT. PRIOR TO THE 1992 SETTLEMENT, MAORI WERE LOCKED OUT OF THE FISHING INDUSTRY, SO THAT'S NOT EVEN` THAT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE 1992 FISHERIES SETTLEMENT WAS ABOUT, WAS INCLUDING MAORI IN THE FISHING INDUSTRY. BUT THAT'S NOT ABOUT CUSTOMARY RIGHTS. CUSTOMARY RIGHTS PREDATES THE SETTLEMENT. NO, BUT IT'S A RIGHT. IT'S A TREATY RIGHT. THEY OFFERED THAT UP AS COMPENSATION FOR WHAT THEY HAD BEEN LOCKED OUT OF. I MEAN, THIS IS` SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE'RE` THAT MAORI AREN'T FISHING UP THERE, SO IT'S NOT AN ISSUE. NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IF ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS, WHICH IS AN INTERESTING ARGUMENT, IS THAT OTHER MARINE SANCTUARIES PUT ASIDE SOME OTHER AREAS FOR CUSTOMARY TAKE. AND WITHIN THE NZ SYSTEM, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE DO. BUT THAT DOESN'T APPLY IN THE KERMADECS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO CUSTOMARY TAKE, SO IT'S A DIFFERENT SITUATION AROUND THE ISLANDS. DOESN'T TE AUPOURI AND NGATI KURI HAVE CUSTOMARY TAKE UP THERE? THEY'VE` THEY` WELL, NGATI KURI'S INTERESTING, BECAUSE THEY SUPPORT THE SANCTUARY. BUT THEY DON'T SUPPORT A TREATY RIGHT BEING EXTINGUISHED. AND THAT'S THE DEBATE. 'IS A TREATY RIGHT BEING EXTINGUISHED?' IS EXACTLY THE DEBATE, AND IT'S A FAIR DEBATE TO HAVE. THE OTHER ISSUE IS, I MEAN, JENNA, THIS HAS BEEN BOILING AWAY FOUR MONTHS. WE SAW TE OHU KAIMOANA GOING TO COURT IN MARCH, YET THERE'S BEEN ALL THIS TIME WHERE PRESUMABLY THERE COULD'VE BEEN CONSULTATION, COULD'VE BEEN AN ARRANGEMENT, SOMETHING COULD'VE BEEN SORTED. YOU HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION ` HOW HAS IT COME TO THIS NOW AT THIS POINT IN TIME? AND I THINK EVEN THE SELECT COMMITTEE PROCESS OVER THE LEGISLATION WAS RELATIVELY EASY. AND THERE WASN'T AN AWFUL LOT OF CONFLICT. AND ALL OF A SUDDEN IT'S JUST COME TO A HEAD. SO WHOSE FAULT'S THAT? NICK` THERE WAS TALK ABOUT NICK SMITH, THE WAY HE'S HANDLED IT. THERE IS WITHOUT A DOUBT A FAILURE OF CONSULTATION. BUT YOU HAVE TO ASK ` IF THERE HAD BEEN CONSULTATION EARLIER IN THE PIECE, WOULDN'T WE HAVE JUST BUTTED UP AGAINST THE EXACT SAME ISSUE NOW? YOU HAVE TWO PARTIES WITH COMPLETELY OPPOSITE VIEW POINTS, AND IT'S HARD TO SEE HOW EARLY A CONSULTATION WOULD'VE OVERCOME THAT. THE THING IS, THERE WERE PLANS TO` DION TUUTA AND JAMIE TUUTA SAY THAT IF THERE HAD HAVE BEEN CONSULTATION, IF THE GOVERNMENT HAD HAVE COME TO THEM EARLIER, WELL, THAT HASN'T BEEN TESTED, SO IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE CASE. BECAUSE THERE WAS NO CONSULTATION SO THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT TO HAPPEN. BUT WHAT WE DO KNOW` ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU HAVE DION TUUTA SAYING, 'FISHING RIGHTS ABSOLUTELY NEED TO BE PRESERVED 'AND WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO EXERCISE THOSE RIGHTS INTO THE FUTURE.' YEAH. SO HE'S PRETTY CLEAR, HE WANTS TO PROTECT HIS RIGHT TO FISH UP THERE, AND THE NZ FISHING INDUSTRY IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT THEY OPPOSE THESE KINDS OF SANCTUARIES, AND ACROSS THE BOARD, WHETHER IT'S MAORI FISHERIES OR PAKEHA FISHERIES OR FOREIGN FISHERIES, THEY'VE GOT ALL THE SAME VIEW ` THEY'RE OPPOSED TO IT. BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO PROTECT OUR MARINE ECOSYSTEMS, WE NEED THESE KIND OF SANCTUARIES. THIS IS AN AMAZING PLACE. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF SEABIRDS, THERE ARE DOZENS OF MARINE MAMMALS, WHALES, THE WHOLE THING. HOW DO YOU SEE IT BEING RESOLVED, THEN? BECAUSE THERE WAS A PLAN TO ANNOUNCE THIS, UNVEIL IT, IN NOVEMBER. IT SEEMS INCONCEIVABLE THAT THAT WOULD HAPPEN NOW. WELL, OBVIOUSLY IT'S ALREADY BEEN ANNOUNCED IN THE SENSE THAT KEY'S ALREADY ANNOUNCED IT. AS INFORMED, BROUGHT INTO BEING. SO NOW THERE'S GOING TO BE ONGOING NEGOTIATIONS, NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S A REALLY CRITICAL ISSUE BECAUSE THIS IS ABOUT PROTECTING THE MARINE ECOSYSTEM WHICH IS BEING DESTROYED. ARE YOU HAPPY? REALISTICALLY IS IT GOING TO HAPPEN? YEAH, I THINK IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. MIHI? I DON'T KNOW. (LAUGHS) I'M GOING TO BE WATCHING CLOSELY WITH WHAT HAPPENS NEXT BETWEEN TE OHU KAIMOANA. I MEAN, IF IT DOES HAPPEN AT THE COST OF TE OHU KAIMOANA LOSING, OR MAORIDOM LOSING, THEIR TREATY RIGHT, WHO KNOWS WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT? VERY QUICKLY, JENNA, DO YOU THINK IT'LL HAPPEN? IT WILL HAPPEN ONLY IF IT'S A GOLD-STANDARD MARINE SANCTUARY WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, BECAUSE OTHERWISE THERE'S NO POINT IN THE GOVERNMENT DOING IT. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL LEAVE IT THERE. WE WILL BE BACK IN A MOMENT AFTER THE BREAK WITH WHAT WILL BE MAKING THE NEWS NEXT WEEK. WELCOME BACK. YOU'RE WITH 'THE NATION' AND OUR PANEL. RUSSEL, THIS WEEK THERE'S A REPORT SLAMMING THE MINISTRY OF PRIMARY INDUSTRY'S HANDLING OF ILLEGAL DUMPING OF FISH. DO YOU THINK THERE SHOULD'VE BEEN SOME MORE ACCOUNTABILITY, THOUGH? THEY WON'T SAY IF HEADS ROLLED OR WHAT HAPPENED AS A CONSEQUENCE. YEAH, I MEAN, IT'S PRETTY SERIOUS STUFF. I MEAN, THE SENIOR MANAGERS INTERVENED TO STOP A PROSECUTION THAT WAS INITIATED BY THE COMPLIANCE DIVISION. THEY HAD VIDEO EVIDENCE OF ILLEGAL DUMPING, SYSTEMIC. 20% TO 100% OF ALL THE FISH THEY CAUGHT THEY WERE CHUCKING OVER THE SIDE ON VIDEO. AND THEN THE SENIOR MANAGERS AT THE FISHERIES DIVISION OF MPI STEPPED IN TO STOP THE PROSECUTION, WHICH IS PRETTY INCREDIBLE. THERE'S ANOTHER DIMENSION TO THAT REPORT WHICH IS REALLY VERY INTERESTING, WHICH IS WHERE ONE OF THE SENIOR MANAGERS ADMITS THAT THE QUOTA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM HAS THIS SYSTEMIC PROBLEM WITH DUMPING, OR DISCARDS, AS THEY CALL IT, AND IT'S BEEN THERE FROM THE BEGINNING. THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO HAVE AN EXTERNAL REVIEW OF THE QMS, BECAUSE THIS SYSTEM IS NOT WORKING. JENNA, DO YOU FIND IT INTERESTING THAT YOU HAVE HERE DUMPING OF FISH THAT THEY'RE NOT PROSECUTING FOR AND THEN ON THE OTHER HAND GOVERNMENT'S PUSHING TO SET UP A SANCTUARY IN THE KERMADECS? IT KIND OF SEEMS... DOESN'T MARRY UP. YEAH, WELL, I MEAN, THE TWO ISSUES ARE ONLY VERY BROADLY RELATED. BUT, LOOK, FROM THE REPORT, IT'S OBVIOUS THAT SOMETHING WENT VERY WRONG AT THE TIME, AND I THINK MPI'S TAKING THAT SERIOUSLY NOW AND DOING EVERYTHING THAT THEY CAN TO ADDRESS IT. MIHI? IF YOU THINK THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FISH AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A KERMADECS SANCTUARY WHICH IS GOING TO PRESERVE THE STOCKS OF FISH AND THEN ON THE OTHER HAND WE'RE THROWING` DUMPING FISH OVERBOARD, THEN I THINK IT IS THE SAME ISSUE. I MEAN, BUT FOR ME, I JUST THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN THAT ARE LIVING IN POVERTY IN NZ, AND YOU JUST MUST THROW YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR AND THINK THAT WE'RE THROWING GOOD FOOD AWAY. WHAT ELSE COULD WE BE DOING WITH THAT FISH BY-PRODUCT? OTHER BIG STORY THIS WEEK, RUSSEL, WAS THE AUCKLAND TRANSPORT ALIGNMENT PROJECT. HAVE THEY GOT THE MIX RIGHT? WERE YOU PLEASED WITH WHAT YOU SAW? I THINK THEY'RE HEADING IN THE RIGHT GENERAL DIRECTION. MUCH BETTER THAN THEY WERE EIGHT YEARS AGO WHEN THEY STARTED. THEY ADMITTED, BASICALLY, THAT THEY CAN'T BUILD MORE ROADS TO SOLVE CONGESTION. THEY PUT SOME PROPOSALS FORWARD FOR A SOUTH-WEST BUSWAY, WHICH I THINK WILL BE GOOD. UH, NORTH-WEST BUSWAY, RATHER, IN AUCKLAND. THERE'S STILL AN OVEREMPHASIS ON ROADS, BUT I DO THINK THAT THEY'RE FINALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THIS CONGESTION PROBLEM IN AUCKLAND CAN'T BE SOLVED BY BUILDING MORE AND MORE MOTORWAYS. SO THAT'S REAL PROGRESS. AND THE TRANSPORT MINISTER DOESN'T SEEM TO BE OVERLY WORRIED ABOUT THAT, BUT WHERE'S THE MONEY GONNA COME FROM? MM. I THINK HE'S REASONABLY RELAXED ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT'S OVER 10 YEARS. IT'S A SMALL PART OF THE OVERALL PROGRAMME. BUT LOOK, THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF WAYS THAT YOU CAN FUND TRANSPORT PROJECTS, WHETHER THAT'S THROUGH PPPs OR NEW CHARGES AND EXCISE TAXES OR EVEN SOMETHING LIKE THE CROSS RAIL PROJECT IN LONDON, WHICH IS PARTIALLY FUNDED BY PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPERS, WHO ARE GOING TO DIRECTLY BENEFIT FROM THOSE NEW TRANSPORT LINKS CLOSE TO THE PROJECTS THEY'RE INVOLVED IN. SO THERE ARE INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS THERE AVAILABLE, AND THOSE WILL BE WORKED THROUGH. BUT THE PRICING, THE PROSPECT OF A CONGESTION CHARGE OR ROAD PRICING, NOT FOR 10 YEARS ` DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT, RUSSEL, TO PUT IT OFF THAT LONG? WELL, I MEAN, I THINK CONGESTION PRICING IS PART OF THE PICTURE, BUT WE DO NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT OPTIONS, SO THAT PEOPLE HAVE GOT DECENT, AFFORDABLE PUBLIC TRANSPORT, REALISTIC PUBLIC TRANSPORT OPTIONS. I MEAN, I DO THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE PART OF THE PICTURE BEFORE YOU PUT CONGESTION PRICING IN PLACE. THE CRL ` I MEAN, THE GOVERNMENT FINALLY ROLLED ON THE CRL, THAT CITY RAIL LINK, IT FINALLY GOT THERE. AND ONCE THAT'S BUILT, WE'LL GET A MUCH BETTER HEAVY RAIL NETWORK. THAT WILL HELP A LOT. SO WE ARE PUTTING THE PIECES IN PLACE, BUT YOU DON'T WANNA RUSH TO PRICING BEFORE YOU GIVE PEOPLE CHOICE ABOUT HOW ELSE TO GET AROUND. MINISTER WANTS YOU TO CARPOOL, MIHI. ARE YOU THERE WITH HIM? I'VE GOT FOUR KIDS, SO IF ANYONE WANTS TO HOP IN AND SIT ON OUR KNEES, THEN YEAH, GO FOR IT. BUT YEAH, I CAN'T. BUT, I MEAN, YEAH, I WOULD. I TOTALLY WOULD. YEAH. ONCE MY KIDS HAVE GROWN UP, I'LL BE CATCHING THE BUS. ALL RIGHT. HEY, LABOUR RELEASED ITS OWN INTERNAL POLL RESULTS THIS WEEK. WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF THAT, MIHI ` SMART MOVE OR...? OH, I THINK THAT THEY'VE JUST OPENED THE DOOR NOW, AND I'D LIKE TO SEE THE MAORI SEATS, PLEASE, IF YOU COULD SEND ME A LITTLE EMAIL THERE. I'D BE INTERESTED TO SEE WHAT THEIR POLLING RESULTS ARE IN THEIR MAORI SEATS. AND I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, DID YOU DO THAT? WOULD YOU HAVE DONE THAT IN YOUR TIME? WE MIGHT HAVE. I CAN'T REMEMBER, TO BE HONEST. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, THEY DID IT BECAUSE THEY'RE IN A TIGHT SPOT. I MEAN, YOU KNOW? AND THEY WERE UNHAPPY WITH THE OTHER POLLS. WELL, EXACTLY. SO IT TAKES A SPECIAL KIND OF WILFUL BLINDNESS, I THINK, TO SAY THIS IS THE ONE POLL THAT WE'RE GOING TO BELIEVE, BECAUSE IT'S SLIGHTLY MORE POSITIVE FOR US THAN ANY OF THE PUBLIC POLLS THAT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED. BUT WHAT COULD ANDREW LITTLE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO ACHIEVE WITH THAT, GIVEN WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID? WELL, I MEAN, IF YOU BELIEVE HIS POLL, THEN IT WOULD HAVE SHOWN THAT THE NATIONAL PARTY WAS ON SLIGHTLY LESS SUPPORT THAN IN THE PUBLISHED POLLS. BUT IT CERTAINLY DIDN'T PAINT A GOOD PICTURE FOR LABOUR OR FOR ANDREW LITTLE'S CHANCES OF FORMING A GOVERNMENT ANY TIME SOON. DID IT MAKE IT A BIGGER STORY THAN WHAT IT WAS? ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY. I MEAN, I THINK IN THOSE ONES, IT'S LIKE TELEVISION ` YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT RATINGS WHEN THEY'RE GOOD, AND WHEN THEY'RE NOT, WE JUST IGNORE THEM. SO HE SHOULD HAVE KEPT HIS HEAD DOWN, KEEP THAT PANDORA'S BOX CLOSED, YOU THINK? YEAH. ALL RIGHT. HEY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US THIS MORNING. SO, TIME NOW FOR A LOOK AT WHAT COULD BE MAKING THE NEWS NEXT WEEK. THE PRIME MINISTER, JOHN KEY, SPEAKS TO THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON WEDNESDAY, AND THEN CHAIRS THE SECURITY COUNCIL THURSDAY. THE MAORI PARTY AND TE OHU KAIMOANA MEET TOMORROW TO DISCUSS WHERE TO NOW AFTER THE BREAKDOWN IN TALKS OVER THE KERMADEC ISLAND SANCTUARY. AND GREEN MP KEVIN HAGUE DELIVERS HIS VALEDICTORY SPEECH IN PARLIAMENT. THAT'S ON TUESDAY. BUT THAT'S ALL FROM US FOR NOW. SEE YOU AGAIN NEXT WEEK. THANKS FOR JOINING US. Captions by Jake Ebdale, Desney Shaw and Faith Hamblyn. www.able.co.nz Captions were made possible with funding from NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2016 THIS PROGRAMME WAS MADE WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE NZ ON AIR PLATINUM FUND.