GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO 'THE NATION'. I'M LISA OWEN. TODAY ` IS THE GOVERNMENT DELIVERING ON ITS PROMISE TO PRIORITISE OUR POOREST CHILDREN? HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YOUNG PEOPLE ARE LIVING IN POVERTY. WE ASK THE CHILDREN'S COMMISSIONER, JUDGE ANDREW BECROFT, HOW BEST TO HELP THEM. THEN ` OREWA MARK TWO. DON BRASH AND LOUISA WALL DEBATE SO-CALLED MAORI FAVOURITISM. LATER ` NZ GAVE UP MORE SOLDIERS PER CAPITA THAN NEARLY ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN WORLD WAR ONE. WAS THAT SACRIFICE DOWN TO OUR POLITICAL RELATIONSHIP WITH BRITAIN? NZ WAS NO LONGER A COLONY OF BRITAIN BUT IN 1907 IT HAD CHANGED TO DOMINION STATUS. THAT STILL MEANT THAT ITS FOREIGN POLICY WAS DICTATED BY BRITAIN. AND THE POLITICAL WEEK ACCORDING TO OUR PANEL ` DAMON SALESA, TRACY WATKINS AND LLOYD BURR. AND OUR RESIDENT FUNNY GUYS JEREMY CORBETT AND PAUL EGO. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2016 IT'S GREAT TO HAVE YOU WITH US TODAY. WE LOVE HEARING FROM YOU, SO DO GET IN TOUCH. THE DETAILS ARE ON SCREEN NOW. AND IF YOU'RE ON TWITTER, FOLLOW ALONG WITH OUR TWITTER PANEL ` FORMER GREEN PARTY CHIEF OF STAFF ANDREW CAMPBELL, AND FORMER NATIONAL PARTY STAFFER NEIL MILLER. NOW, EVER SINCE THE 2014 ELECTION, PRIME MINISTER JOHN KEY HAS NAMED CHILD POVERTY AS A TOP PRIORITY, BUT HAS THE GOVERNMENT'S STRATEGY OF INCREASING BENEFITS AND CREATING MORE JOBS WORKED? CRITICS SAY THE PROBLEM IS ONLY GETTING WORSE, AND THE GOVERNMENT IS FAILING NZ CHILDREN. WELL, JOINING ME NOW IS CHILDREN'S COMMISSIONER AND FORMER PRINCIPAL YOUTH COURT JUDGE ANDREW BECROFT. THANKS FOR JOINING ME THIS MORNING. NOW, YOU SUPPORT RAISING THE YOUTH COURT AGE SO TEENAGERS UP TO THE AGE OF 18 CAN GO THROUGH THAT SYSTEM. ONE CASE THAT'S GOT A LOT OF ATTENTION THIS WEEK IS LOSI FILIPO. HE WAS 17 AT THE TIME OF HIS OFFENDING. WOULD YOU WANT HIM TO GO THROUGH THE YOUTH COURT? INCLUDING 17-YEAR-OLDS IN THE YOUTH JUSTICE SYSTEM IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. IT'S WHAT THE REST OF THE WORLD DOES. IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE BRAIN SCIENCE, AND, YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC COULD BE REASSURED. ALL THE MOST SERIOUS OFFENDERS NOW WHO GET PRISON WOULD GET IT IF THEY CAME INTO THE YOUTH COURT. YOUTH COURT'S FLEXIBLE. IT'S A WAY OF INVESTING IN, I THINK, OUR MOST CRUCIAL AGE ` THAT 16, 17-YEAR-OLD AGE. IF WE GET IT RIGHT THERE, WE'VE GOT A GREAT CHANCE TO GET PEOPLE OUT OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PIPELINE. YES, LOSI FILIPO WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE YOUTH JUSTICE SYSTEM. HE WAS AT SCHOOL AT THE TIME. HE WOULD HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF INTERVENTIONS. HE'S EXACTLY THE SORT OF PERSON THAT YOU WOULD WANT IN THE YOUTH JUSTICE SYSTEM, BECAUSE I THINK WE COULD DO A VERY GOOD JOB WITH HIM IN ADDRESSING THE UNDERLYING CAUSES, THE REASONS FOR HIS OFFENDING. HE MAY HAVE GOT 12 OR 18 MONTHS' WORTH OF PROGRAMMES, INTERVENTIONS, COUNSELLING, EXPECTATIONS THAT HE HAD TO FULFIL. BUT YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN THE PUBLIC BACKLASH AROUND THAT, SO I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S A POLITICAL WILL TO PUSH FORWARD WITH A CHANGE LIKE THAT, BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IN ITS REPORT TO THE UN COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD SAID THEY HAVE NO PLANS TO CHANGE THAT AGE, AND THE MEETING WAS ONLY A MONTH AGO. IN FACT, AT THAT MEETING, IT WAS ANNOUNCED BY MINISTER TOLLEY THAT THERE IS SUPPORT FOR IT. THERE'S A PAPER GOING BEFORE CABINET. IT WILL BE DECIDED IN THE NEXT MONTH. I HOPE WE GRASP THE OPPORTUNITY. THIS IS A ONCE-IN-A-LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY ` AT LEAST IN MY LIFETIME ` TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND TO PROVIDE REAL HOPE, I THINK, FOR THE NZ YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. THE WHOLE OF THE REST OF THE WORLD DOES IT. WE WILL GET SEVERE INTERNATIONAL CRITICISM IF WE DON'T. WE LEAD THE WORLD IN SO MANY AREAS, BUT IF WE DON'T INCLUDE 17-YEAR-OLDS, IT WILL BE AN ENDURING STAIN ON OUR OTHERWISE GOOD RECORD, FOR WHICH THERE WOULD BE NO EXCUSE. HOW CONFIDENT ARE YOU THAT IT'LL HAPPEN? OH, I'M OPTIMISTIC. I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I THINK MOST POLITICIANS NOW, WHEN THEY UNDERSTAND IT, KNOW THAT IT'S THE RIGHT THING, BUT THE REAL ISSUE WILL BE PUBLIC PERCEPTION. WHEN THE PUBLIC'S PROPERLY INFORMED THAT THERE'S NO NEED TO FEAR, THAT THE MOST VIOLENT OFFENDERS WOULD BE DEALT WITH APPROPRIATELY, THEN I THINK THE PUBLIC WOULD SAY, 'AH.' AND THEN, FOR THE MODERATE TO MINOR OFFENDERS, WE COULD REALLY DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, AND I THINK THE PUBLIC OUGHT TO BE REASSURED. I'M CONFIDENT. EVEN THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THIS, THOUGH, THEY ARE WORRIED THAT IT WON'T BE PROPERLY RESOURCED. I MEAN, WE HAD THE POLICE ASSOCIATION HERE LAST WEEK. THEY SAID OVERNIGHT, THEY WOULD PROBABLY NEED ABOUT 75 MORE YOUTH AID OFFICERS AROUND THE COUNTRY. DO YOU SHARE CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER WE WILL PUT THE MONEY IN TO SUPPORTING A CHANGE LIKE THAT IF IT HAPPENS? FIRST THING TO SAY IS NUMBERS IN THE YOUTH JUSTICE SYSTEM HAVE HALVED IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS. IF WE INCLUDE 17-YEAR-OLDS, WE WOULDN'T EVEN GET THE NUMBERS THAT WE HAD FIVE YEARS AGO. WE COPED THEN. WE HAVEN'T LOST RESOURCES. SO WE JUST NEED TO TAKE A DEEP BREATH AND SAY OF COURSE THERE'LL BE ANXIETY ABOUT ADDING ANOTHER YEAR COHORT INTO THE SYSTEM, BUT WE'VE GOT THE RESOURCES. WE COPED FIVE YEARS AGO WITH THE SAME NUMBERS. I ACCEPT` SO YOU DON'T THINK WE NEED ANY MORE RESOURCES? OH, 17-YEAR-OLDS MAY BE MORE DEMANDING. THEY MAY PRESENT MORE OF A CHALLENGE. OF COURSE, WE MAY NEED SOME MORE, BUT WE JUST HAVE TO STOP AND JUST BE A BIT REALISTIC AND NOT GET INTO A DOOM-AND-GLOOM MENTALITY. WE DID COPE FIVE YEARS AGO. WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO COPE WITH SLIGHT ADJUSTMENTS NOW, BUT OF COURSE, THERE WILL NEED TO BE SOME NEW RESOURCES, BUT TO TALK ABOUT DOUBLING RESOURCES AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS WOULD BE, I THINK, NEEDLESSLY PANICKY AT THIS STAGE. WELL, YOU TALK ABOUT THE PUBLIC BEING FULLY INFORMED, THAT YOU CAN TALK THEM AROUND TO IT IF YOU'VE GOT ALL THE INFORMATION. THE THING IS ONE OF THE INDIAN ASSOCIATIONS IS STRONGLY OPPOSED TO ANY MOVE TO CHANGE THE AGE. THEY FEEL THAT SMALL RETAILERS ARE BEING TARGETED BY YOUNG PEOPLE WHO KNOW THAT THEY'LL GO THROUGH THE YOUTH COURT, AND THEY DON'T THINK THE YOUTH COURT IS A DETERRENT. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO WIN THAT COMMUNITY OVER? AS IT HAPPENS, IN AN HOUR'S TIME, I'M GOING TO THE INDIAN ASSOCIATION TO TALK ABOUT THAT VERY ISSUE, TO TRY AND EXPLAIN THAT THOSE YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN DELIBERATE ARMED GROUP AGGRAVATED ROBBERIES WILL BE IMPRISONED, CAN EXPECT TO BE IMPRISONED, AND ARE IMPRISONED NOW. I'M NOT PROUD OF THE FACT, BUT WE HAVE ABOUT 20 TO 30 UNDER 17-YEAR-OLDS IN NZ IN PRISON NOW. A 14-YEAR-OLD RECEIVED SEVEN YEARS IMPRISONMENT FOR RAPE; A 15-YEAR-OLD FOR VIOLENT ASSAULT. THE SYSTEM CAN DELIVER. I'LL BE TELLING THE INDIAN ASSOCIATION THAT OF COURSE I UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERN. NO ONE WANTS CORNER DIARIES TARGETED. NO ONE WANTS VIOLENT YOUNG PEOPLE. BUT IF THERE ARE VIOLENT INCIDENTS LIKE THAT, THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW WHEN A LINE'S CROSSED, THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES. DO YOU JUST THINK THEY'RE MISINFORMED? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? ESSENTIALLY, I DO. I THINK THERE'S A MISAPPREHENSION THAT SOMEHOW WE'VE GOT A SOFT, KUMBAYA-SINGING, MILO-DRINKING YOUTH COURT THAT WON'T HOLD KIDS TO ACCOUNT. THE LAW REQUIRES THAT WE DO IT. I DIDN'T SPEND 15 YEARS AS PRINCIPAL YOUTH COURT JUDGE FOR A SOFT, INEFFECTUAL SYSTEM. BUT PEOPLE WHO LOOK AT THE LOSI FILIPO CASE WILL THINK IT WAS MILO-DRINKING KUMBAYA. YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN THAT IN THE PUBLIC. YEAH, BUT HE WASN'T IN THE YOUTH COURT. NO. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED HAD HE BEEN IN THE YOUTH COURT. BUT, YES, SOMEONE LIKE THAT, AGE 17, AT SCHOOL, WOULD HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE YOUTH COURT. I LIKE TO THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH EFFECTIVELY AND WITH A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PARADIGM ` FAR MORE RESOURCES AVAILABLE WITH AN IDEA TO TURNING A YOUNG PERSON'S LIFE AROUND, AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND THERE'D BE ASPECTS OF CONSEQUENTIAL PUNISHMENT. CAN'T ESCAPE THAT. OK. I WANT TO MOVE ON TO CHILD POVERTY. IT'S A BIG ISSUE FOR THIS COUNTRY, AND THE CHILD POVERTY MONITOR SAYS THERE'S STILL, LIKE, 305,000 CHILDREN LIVING IN POVERTY. NOW, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD DISPUTE THAT, AND I'M WONDERING IF THAT'S PART OF YOUR PROBLEM. THERE ARE NO DEFINITIONS, NO TARGETS. WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT WE'RE AIMING FOR, DO WE? ABSOLUTELY AGREE. THE DEBATE IS BEDEVILLED BY CROSS-TALKING AND NO AGREEMENT ON A SUITE OF APPROPRIATE MEASUREMENTS. MY PLEA WOULD BE THAT THE GOVERNMENT AND THE COMMUNITY CROSS-PARTY AGREE ON A SERIES OF BASIC MEASUREMENTS. THE 305,000 YOUNG PEOPLE IS INCOME-RELATED RELATIVE POVERTY. SO WE NEED ABSOLUTE FIRM TARGETS? THAT'S ONE MEASUREMENT. THAT'S ONE MEASUREMENT. WE'VE GOT ONE OF ABOUT 149,000 MATERIAL DEPRIVATION. ANOTHER MEASUREMENT ` 99,000 SERIOUS GENUINE LASTING` WHAT DO YOU THINK THE MEASURES SHOULD BE THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD SIGN UP TO? WELL, I HEARD MINISTER TOLLEY SAY THE MATERIAL-DEPRIVATION RATE, 149,000; SERIOUS POVERTY, 99,000. IF ONLY WE COULD AGREE ON A RATE, THEN WE COULD SET A TARGET. I MEAN, IT'S DISINGENUOUS TO SAY, 'WELL, WE DON'T WANT ANY CHILD POVERTY.' THE QUESTION IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET THERE. NEXT YEAR WE NEED A TARGET ` 3% REDUCTION, 5% REDUCTION. WE NEED SOME DOABLE, AGREED POLICIES. I'M CONCERNED THAT THE CHILD-POVERTY DEBATE BECOMES POLITICISED. IT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT. OLD PEOPLE IN NZ, 65-PLUS, HAVE SIX TIMES BETTER SECURITY AND RELATIVE ADVANTAGE THAN YOUNG PEOPLE. WE'VE GOT 1.2 MILLION UNDER-18-YEAR-OLDS IN NZ. WE NEED TO HAVE A CROSS-PARTY DEBATE ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO AT A BASIC LEVEL TO TURN THE FIGURES AROUND. IN FACT, THE- BUT JUDGE BECROFT, SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT I'M JUST INTERESTED THERE. YOU MENTIONED TWO THINGS ` REDUCTION ` 3% AND 5%. SO TELL ME WHAT YOUR AGREED... WHAT YOU THINK THE MEASURE IS AND HOW MUCH THAT WE SHOULD BE AIMING TO LOWER IT BY REALISTICALLY. I THINK THE MEASURE SHOULD BE THE MATERIAL-DEPRIVATION RATE. THERE ARE 17 CRITERIA. IF CHILDREN ARE IN FAMILIES WITH MORE THAN SIX OF THOSE, THEY'RE SAID TO BE MATERIALLY DEPRIVED ` THAT'S 149,000. I'D LIKE TO SEE A 5% TO 10% REDUCTION BY THE END OF NEXT YEAR. BOTH PARTIES PRIOR TO THE ELECTION COULD AGREE TO DO THAT. THAT IS AN AMBITIOUS TARGET, SO HOW DO YOU GET THERE? BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WOULD SAY IT'S DOING ITS BIT. IT'S RAISED BENEFITS BY $25 A WEEK. BUT YOUR PREDECESSOR SAID ON THIS SHOW, ACTUALLY, THAT IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT FAMILIES BEING ABLE TO FEED THEIR KIDS AND JUST SURVIVE; IT'S ABOUT BEING ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN SOCIETY. SO HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH INCOME TO PARTICIPATE IN SOCIETY? DO WE NEED TO LOOK AT TAGGING BENEFITS TO WAGES? THERE WILL BE A NUMBER OF, I THINK, ISSUES THAT WILL NEED TO BE DISCUSSED. WE DO KNOW THAT SIMPLY RAISING BENEFITS, WHILE IT'S A START, IT WILL NEED BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO BRING MASSIVE CHANGES. AND I QUITE AGREE THAT THAT MATERIAL-DEPRIVATION RATE WILL INCLUDE THINGS LIKE ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, ACCESS TO HEALTH, ACCESS TO GOOD SCHOOLS. IF ONLY WE COULD JUST CLICK OUR FINGERS. BUT WE KNOW THAT IN THE EARLY '80S IT WAS ABOUT 6%, AND WE KNOW NOW THAT IT'S RISEN TO UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS ` EITHER 15% IF YOU TAKE THE MATERIAL-RATE; 30% IF YOU TAKE THE INCOME-RELATED POVERTY DEBATE. WELL, ONE THING THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S DOING IS REVAMPING CHILD, YOUTH & FAMILY INTO WHAT IT'S CALLING THE VULNERABLE CHILDREN'S MINISTRY` DASH ` ORANGA TAMARIKI. THAT'S THE FULL NAME, LISA. BETTER GET THAT RIGHT. YEAH. WELL, THE UN HAS EXPRESSED CONCERNS THAT THE FOCUSES MAY BE TOO NARROW. DO YOU SHARE THOSE CONCERNS? ACTUALLY, I WAS THERE IN GENEVA, A VERY REASSURING PROCESS. FIRST OF ALL, THEY SAID THE NAME SEEMS STRANGELY INAPPROPRIATE AND STIGMATISING. WELL, WE'VE HAD THAT DEBATE. IT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN LOST. TO BE FAIR TO THE MINISTER AND THE MINISTRY, THE AIM WAS ALWAYS TO REPLACE THE CHILD, YOUTH & FAMILY FOCUS ON ABUSE AND NEGLECT AND YOUTH OFFENDING WITH THE NEW AGENCY. I THINK THE CHOICE OF THE NAME HAS INADVERTENTLY WIDENED THE SCOPE, AND THE COMMITTEE ASKED, UNDERSTANDABLY, 'WHAT ARE WE DOING FOR DISABLED YOUNG PEOPLE, 'REFUGEE AND MIGRANT YOUNG PEOPLE, OTHERWISE MARGINALISED YOUNG PEOPLE? 'WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF VULNERABILITY?' MINISTER TOLLEY REFLECTED ON THAT AND SAID, 'WELL, MAYBE WE HAVE WIDENED THE SCOPE IN THE PUBLIC MIND. 'THE FOCUS OF THE NEW MINISTRY IS ONLY GOING TO BE THOSE AT RISK OF ABUSE, NEGLECT AND YOUTH OFFENDING,' AND THE COMMITTEE IN GENEVA FAIRLY ASKED, 'WELL, WHAT'S THEN THE OVERARCHING COMPREHENSIVE POLICY FOR ALL UNDER-18-YEAR-OLDS, 'FOR ALL DISADVANTAGED?' NOW, THAT'S STILL NOT ADDRESSED. WELL, THE GOVERNMENT IS FOCUSING, AS YOU'D KNOW, ON SOCIAL-INVESTMENT POLICY, WHICH IS ULTRA-TARGETING BY ANOTHER NAME, SO YOU PUT ALL YOUR RESOURCES INTO CHILDREN WHO YOU IDENTIFY AS BEING THE MOST NEEDY. BUT AREN'T YOU WORRIED ABOUT THE KIDS WHO ARE JUST ABOVE THAT CUT-OFF? IS THAT A POLICY THAT YOU BUY INTO? I MEAN, TWO THINGS YOU CAN SAY ABOUT THAT. IT IS RIGHT, I THINK, TO TARGET THOSE WHO EARLY ON SEEM TO BE MOST AT RISK. WE SHOULD BE PUTTING EMPHASIS THERE. YES, THERE'LL BE SOME FALSE POSITIVES ` NOT EVERYONE IN THAT GROUP WILL TURN OUT TO HAVE ADVERSE LIFE OUTCOMES ` BUT I THINK MOST OF THE COMMUNITY WOULD AGREE, LET'S START BY TARGETING OUR MOST DISADVANTAGED. BUT THE BIGGER QUESTION IS ` WHAT ARE WE DOING IN TERMS OF ALL DISADVANTAGED, VULNERABLE YOUNG PEOPLE WIDER THAN THE CURRENT DEFINITION THAT IS BEING USED? AND THE UNITED NATIONS ASKED VERY CLEARLY, 'WHERE IS THE SENSE OF AN OVERARCHING, JOINED UP, 'COMPREHENSIVE POLICY FOR ALL DISADVANTAGED?' AND THAT IS A FAIR QUESTION, AND THE ANSWER IS AT THIS STAGE, WE DON'T HAVE IT YET. THAT MINISTRY IS GETTING FUNDING THAT'S BEING, IN PART, TAKEN OFF OTHER MINISTRIES. EDUCATION AND HEALTH. YEAH, AND TAKEN FROM CORRECTIONS AND WORK AND INCOME. 100 MILLION REAPPROPRIATED IN THE FIRST YEAR AND 400 MILLION FROM OVER ABOUT FOUR YEARS. STILL TO BE AGREED BY CABINET, I MIGHT SAY. ARE YOU WORRIED IT'S UNDER-RESOURCED? IT'S ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL RIGHT FROM THE GET-GO? TOO EARLY TO SAY. I'M WORRIED AT THIS STAGE THAT SOME OF THE WIDE VISION MIGHT BE BEING CONSTRICTED BY WHAT YOU MIGHT CALL PRAGMATIC REALITIES. DECISIONS HAVEN'T BEEN MADE ON WHAT OTHER GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS ARE GOING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SYSTEM. THAT'LL BE THE BIG BATTLE, I'M SURE, IN CABINET. BUT UNLESS THIS AGENCY IS RESOURCED PROPERLY UPFRONT, UNLESS IT'S WORKING WELL WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS, WE'RE JUST SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR ANOTHER REVIEW IN FIVE-TO-10 YEARS' TIME. THIS IS A ONCE-IN-A-LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY TO GET IT RIGHT. SO YOU'RE SCEPTICAL ABOUT WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE RESOURCED`? NO, I WON'T GO THAT FAR, BUT PART OF MY INDEPENDENT ROLE IS TO LOOK AT IT AND CHALLENGE. WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION ABOUT RESOURCING YET, BUT YOU CAN BE SURE THAT MY OFFICE AND OTHER NGOS WILL BE ABSOLUTELY ADAMANT TO SEE THAT THE PROPER RESOURCING IS PUT IN PLACE, BECAUSE WITHOUT IT, WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER AGENCY FOLLOWING ON FROM CYFS THAT CAN'T QUITE DELIVER AS IT SHOULD. WE'VE GOT TO GET IT RIGHT THIS TIME, LISA. WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME, BUT I WANT TO` YOU TALK ABOUT RESOURCING. I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT YOUR OWN RESOURCING. YOUR OFFICE HASN'T HAD AN INCREASE IN BASELINE FUNDING I THINK IT'S FROM 2008. 2009, I THINK. YOU'RE WELL RESEARCHED, LISA. SO YOU CAN'T MEET YOUR TARGET OF ANNUAL INSPECTIONS OF YOUTH RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES. IS THAT PUTTING VULNERABLE CHILDREN AT RISK? WE'VE GOT A STAFF OF 12, NINE OF WHOM ARE ACTIVE IN THE FIELD. WE'VE GOT A WIDE RANGE OF STATUTORY IMPERATIVES. IT DOES A FANTASTIC JOB, THAT OFFICE, AND IT BOXES ABOVE ITS WEIGHT. BUT THE QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING IS ` IN MY VIEW, WE ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY RESOURCED. I'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH THE MINISTER, WITH THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF MSD. I'M OPTIMISTIC THAT WE'LL BE HEARD AND THAT WE'LL BE LISTENED TO. I DON'T THINK I CAN SAY MORE THAN THAT WITHOUT HAVING A DEBATE ON THAT. WITHOUT THAT EXTRA MONEY, THOUGH, ARE VULNERABLE CHILDREN AT RISK BECAUSE YOU CAN'T CARRY OUT YOUR DUTIES OF MONITORING PROPERLY? THOSE IN RESIDENCES IN PARTICULAR WE SHOULD BE DOING BETTER FOR, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE THE DEBATE, AS MUCH AS I'D LIKE TO, WITH THE MINISTER THROUGH YOU, LISA, ON NATIONAL TV. I'M OPTIMISTIC THAT SHE'LL HEAR WHAT I'M SAYING AND SHE'LL RESPOND, BUT, YES, WE NEED EXTRA MONEY, AND THERE'S NO GETTING AROUND THAT. ALL RIGHT. JUDGE BECROFT, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING ME THIS MORNING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL TALK ABOUT ALL OF THAT LATER WITH OUR PANEL. BUT AFTER THE BREAK, DON BRASH AND LOUISA WALL ABOUT WHETHER THERE IS MAORI FAVOURITISM IN NZ. AND NEITHER HILLARY CLINTON NOR DONALD TRUMP SUPPORT THE TPP, SO WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE THE TRADE DEAL? WELCOME BACK. WELL, IT'S BEEN MORE THAN A DECADE SINCE THE SINCE THE FORMER NATIONAL PARTY LEADER DON BRASH MADE HIS INFAMOUS OREWA SPEECH CALLING OUT WHAT HE CALLED RACE-BASED PRIVILEGE. NOW HE'S BACK WITH A NEW GROUP CALLED HOBSON'S PLEDGE, AND THEY SEEM TO BE CALLING FOR, WELL, THE SAME THING. HE JOINS ME NOW ALONG WITH LABOUR MP LOUISA WALL. WELCOME TO YOU BOTH. MR BRASH, IF I CAN START WITH YOU, YOU WERE REJECTED AT THE POLLS 10 YEARS AGO WHEN YOU WERE TOUTING THESE IDEAS, SO I'M WONDERING WHAT'S CHANGED. HOLD ON A SECOND. IN 2005, THE NATIONAL PARTY GOT ITS HIGHEST SHARE OF THE VOTE IN ANY ELECTION SINCE 1990, AND WE WON THE PARTY VOTE IN ALMOST EVERY SINGLE PROVINCIAL ELECTORATE, BECAUSE PEOPLE RELATED TO WHAT I SAID IN 2004. SO IT WAS A POPULAR POLICY THEN, AND IT'S STILL A POPULAR POLICY. BUT WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THIS GOVERNMENT, AND INDEED BOTH LABOUR AND NATIONAL, PARTICULARLY THIS GOVERNMENT, HAVE BEEN CREATING CO-GOVERNANCE ALL OVER THE PLACE. THE GOOD EXAMPLE RIGHT NOW IS THE RESOURCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ` THE BILL TO CHANGE THE RMA ` WHICH WOULD REQUIRE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITHIN 30 DAYS OF ELECTION TO INVITE ALL THE TRIBES IN THEIR AREA INTO SO-CALLED IWI PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS. NOW, WE THINK THAT'S NUTS. WHY GIVE A SPECIAL PREFERENCE` SPECIAL LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS TO THOSE WHO HAPPEN TO HAVE A MAORI ANCESTOR? IS THAT THE WORST EXAMPLE THAT YOU BELIEVE IS`? NO, THERE ARE LOTS OF THEM. TAKE THE TARANAKI BILL, WHICH IS BEFORE THE HOUSE RIGHT NOW, WHICH WILL REQUIRE THE TARANAKI REGIONAL COUNCIL TO APPOINT SIX IWI REPRESENTATIVES TO VOTING POSITIONS ON THE COUNCIL UNELECTED. HAWKE'S BAY'S DONE THE SAME. HAURAKI GULF FORUM PROPOSES A STRUCTURE WHERE EIGHT OF THE 16 MEMBERS OF THAT FORUM WOULD BE IWI APPOINTEES. NOW, THAT'S ENTIRELY UNDEMOCRATIC AND INCONSISTENT WITH A COLOUR-BLIND SOCIETY WHICH MOST NZERS WANT. RIGHT, LET'S BRING LOUISA WALL IN HERE. IS HE RIGHT? IS IT PRIVILEGE ENSHRINED IN LEGISLATION, AND IS HE RIGHT THAT HE'S GOT THE SUPPORT? I THINK HE'S RIGHT THAT IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, AND I THINK THAT THE TREATY SETTLEMENT PROCESS HAS, IN FACT, ENDOWED MAORI BECAUSE OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND THEIR STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TREATY OF WAITANGI ON TO CERTAIN COMMITTEES, BUT THOSE COMMITTEES AREN'T FOR MAORI; THEY'RE FOR SPECIFIC IWI GROUPS. IT'S ACTUALLY ABOUT THE STATUS AS MANA WHENUA. AND IF WE BRING UP TARANAKI, FOR EXAMPLE, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A THIRD READING TO BE HAD, THAT WOULD HAVE ENABLED, AS YOU'VE SAID, SIX IWI TO BE REPRESENTED ON THE TARANAKI REGIONAL COUNCIL AND TO JOIN FEDERATED FARMERS IN TERMS OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE RESOURCES, THE LAND. SINCE 2009, IN FACT, THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT HAS TRIED TO BRING ALL THE NECESSARY PLAYERS AROUND THE TABLE TO STOP LITIGATION, BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE GOING TO THE ENVIRONMENT COURT. SO, YOU KNOW, MAORI NOW ARE A $40 BILLION CONTRIBUTOR TO OUR ECONOMY, AND I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT EVERYBODY IS AROUND THE TABLE SO THAT WE CAN MAKE PRAGMATIC DECISIONS FOR OUR COUNTRY. SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS ABOUT GOING FORWARD. THAT'S WHAT THE TREATY SETTLEMENT PROCESS IS ALL ABOUT ` OUR TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION. SO TO DENY OUR HISTORY AND TO DENY THE STATUS OF MAORI AS OUR INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, AS TANGATA WHENUA, I THINK IS INCREDIBLY REGRESSIVE, AND WE NEED TO BE FUTURE FOCUSED. THE TREATY SETTLEMENT PROCESS, WE HAVE NEVER OBJECTED TO. THAT'S ABOUT RIGHTING PERCEIVED WRONGS IN THE PAST, OK? ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S RIGHT. WE AGREE WITH THAT. BUT THE TREATY SAYS, AND GOVERNOR HOBSON SAID WHEN MAORI CHIEFS SIGNED THAT TREATY, WE ARE NOW ONE PEOPLE. THERE'S NO JUSTIFICATION AT ALL FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL PREFERENCE FOR THOSE WITH A MAORI ANCESTOR. BUT THAT'S WHERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS HAVE EMANATED FROM. IT IS IN FACT THE RESOLUTION OF THE TREATY SETTLEMENTS, BECAUSE AS YOU WILL KNOW, MAORI WERE THE ORIGINAL SOVEREIGN OF THE LAND. WE ARE THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE` AND THEY SURRENDERED THAT SOVEREIGNTY IN 1840, AND IN RETURN GOVERNOR HOBSON SAID, THE TREATY SAYS, WE WILL GUARANTEE YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS` EXACTLY. AND THEN WE KNOW THEY WERE ALL TAKEN AWAY FROM US. OUR LANDS WERE STRIPPED FROM US. OUR LANGUAGE, OUR CULTURE. MOST OF THE LAND WAS SOLD, AND WE ARE NOW` NO. CONFISCATED. RAUPATU. MOST OF THE LAND WAS SOLD, AND THAT WHICH WAS CONFISCATED, COMPENSATION HAS BEEN PAID. IT'S BEING PAID. SO 50 IWI HAVE NOW` 50-PLUS IWI HAVE NOW BEEN THROUGH A SETTLEMENT PROCESS` I'M NOT CONTESTING THAT. MR BRASH, I'M JUST WONDERING, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A COLOUR-BLIND SOCIETY `YOU REPEAT THAT PHRASE ` AND YOU WANT EQUALITY, BUT I'VE LOOKED AT YOUR WEBSITE EXTENSIVELY. IT ONLY SINGLES OUR MAORI. WELL, IT'S ONLY MAORI THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS GIVING A CONSTITUTIONAL PREFERENCE TO. THEY'RE NOT GIVING IT TO PACIFIC ISLANDERS OR ASIANS OR ANYONE ELSE. THEY'RE SAYING MAORI WILL HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL PREFERENCE. LET'S TAKE THE MAORI ELECTORATES FOR A SECOND. SO IT IS ABOUT MAORI, THEN, ISN'T IT? YOU SAY IT'S NOT ABOUT MAORI ON THE ONE HAND, BUT IT IS. IT IS ABOUT MAORI, OF COURSE, BUT NOT ABOUT SOME KIND OF FAVOURITISM. I'M SAYING THERE'S A CONSTITUTIONAL PREFERENCE BEING WRITTEN IN TO THE LAW ALL OVER THE PLACE. LET'S JUST GOT BACK TO` AND, ACTUALLY, I'M AGREEING WITH YOU, BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT THE STATUS OF MAORI AS THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF AOTEAROA. THE SEATS THAT WERE CREATED IN 1867 WERE SPECIFIC TO MAORI. CORRECT. THEY LIMITED OUR ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE DEMOCRATICALLY BY GIVING US FOUR SEATS. BUT NOW THAT'S GONE. NO, BUT WE HAVE A MAORI ELECTORAL OPTION. SO MAORI GET TO CHOOSE NOW WHETHER THEY ARE ON THE MAORI ROLL OR ON THE GENERAL ROLL. DO YOU THINK THESE IDEAS THAT HOBSON'S PLEDGE ARE PROMOTING, DO YOU THINK THEY'RE RACIST? HE IWI KOTAHI TATOU ` WE ARE ONE PEOPLE. ABSOLUTELY NOT. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO BE, GOING FORWARD AS EQUAL NZERS. I MEAN HOBSON'S PLEDGE AS IN THIS GROUP. OH, AS IN WHAT THIS GROUP'S TRYING TO DO? IT'S ABSOLUTELY ANTI-MAORI. IT'S TRYING TO NEGATE HISTORY. YOU'RE ACTUALLY IN DENIAL OF OUR HISTORY. RACISM MEANS A PERSON WHO WANTS TO PREFER THEIR STATUS. THAT'S WHAT MAORI PEOPLE ARE ARGUING FOR ` A PREFERRED STATUS. NO, WE'RE ACTUALLY FIGHTING FOR OUR RIGHTFUL PLACE AS THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF AOTEAROA. WE ARE THE MANA WHENUA. YOU SIGNED AWAY THOSE RIGHTS IN THE TREATY OF WAITANGI. BUT THOSE RIGHTS WERE THEN BREACHED. THAT'S WHAT THE TREATY SETTLEMENT PROCESS IS ALL ABOUT. CAN I JUST INTERRUPT HERE? LET'S LOOK AT EQUALITY IN THIS COUNTRY, OR INEQUALITY IN THIS COUNTRY. WHY DO YOU THINK, MR BRASH, THAT MAORI ARE OVER-REPRESENTED IN POOR HEALTH, EDUCATION, LIFE EXPECTANCY AND WEALTH STATISTICS? WELL, THERE ARE A RANGE OF REASONS FOR THAT. UNDOUBTEDLY APIRANA NGATA SAID THE WELFARE STATE WOULD PRODUCE THIS OUTCOME, AND HE WAS RIGHT. BUT WE'RE NOT DEBATING THAT QUESTION. IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN EQUALITY, MR BRASH, YOU'VE GOT TO BE INTERESTED IN THAT TOO, DON'T YOU? WE'RE SAYING THE STATE SHOULD ASSIST PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF THEIR NEED. IT'S PATRONISING TO SAY ALL MAORI NEED SOME SPECIAL PREFERENCE. BUT MAORI ARE OVER-REPRESENTED. IF WE'RE ADDRESSING NEED, MAORI ARE OVER-REPRESENTED IN THOSE STATISTICS, AREN'T THEY? BUT YOU STILL LOOK AFTER PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR NEED, NOT BECAUSE OF THEIR ANCESTOR. IT'S PATRONISING TO SUGGEST THAT IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE A MAORI ANCESTOR, YOU SOMEHOW BY DEFINITION NEED SOME SPECIAL ASSISTANCE. NO, BUT IT'S ALSO PATRONISING TO DENY THAT THE RESULTS THAT WE'RE SEEING AND THE OUTCOMES FOR MAORI TODAY AREN'T RELATED TO THE FACT THAT OUR LANDS WERE TAKEN FROM US AND THAT THERE WERE` THEY WERE MAINLY SOLD. NO, IT WAS NOT. THE RAUPATU IN THE WAIKATO WAS NOT ABOUT LAND BEING SOLD. THE CROWN ACTIVELY TOOK THE LAND. THAT'S CORRECT. BY TAKING THE LAND, THEY ALSO TOOK OUR OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE COMMUNALLY, SO WE LOST OUR LANGUAGE, WE LOST OUR CULTURE. SO THE TREATY SETTLEMENT PROCESS IS ABOUT RESOLVING THOSE. IN THE 1860S REBELLION RESULTED IN LAND BEING CONFISCATED. IN THE 1860S THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT. SO HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO`? TAINUI'S BEEN PAID COMPENSATION. THEY HAVE, AND NOW TAINUI'S A BILLION-DOLLAR TRIBE CONTRIBUTING INCREDIBLY WELL TO OUR ECONOMY. HAVE YOU HEARD ME OBJECTING TO THAT? NO. I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THIS FINANCIAL OFFER THAT YOU'RE MAKING TO SUPPORT POLITICAL PARTIES, BECAUSE WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME. SO IF A POLITICAL PARTY SUPPORTS THIS POLICY, YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM SOME CASH. WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO DO TO QUALIFY FOR THAT? WELL, THAT'S A QUESTION TO BE JUDGED IN THE FUTURE. WE DON'T KNOW THAT. BUT A PARTY WHICH IS COMMITTED TO TREATY` YOU DON'T KNOW THAT? YOU'RE OFFERING THAT, THOUGH. GENERAL PARAMETERS ` WHAT ARE YOU EXPECTING? A PARTY WHICH IS COMMITTED, FOR EXAMPLE, TO SCRAPPING SEPARATE MAORI ELECTORATES ` THERE'S NO LONGER LOGIC FOR THOSE AT ALL. MORE THAN` WE HAVE A MECHANISM FOR THAT, MR BRASH. I WAS ASKED A QUESTION. THERE ARE MORE THAN 23 MAORI IN PARLIAMENT. ONLY SEVEN ELECTED MAORI ELECTORATES. MAORI HAVE PROVED AGAIN AND AGAIN PERFECTLY ABLE TO WIN IN GENERAL ELECTORATES. WE DON'T NEED SEPARATE` YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT. THE POINT IS WE HAVE A SPECIFIC MAORI VOICE. THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MAORI ELECTORATES HAVE CONNECTIONS TO IWI AND HAPU. IF YOU LOOK ON THE PARLIAMENTARY WEBSITE, THERE ARE ACTUALLY 14 MPS THAT OFFICIALLY IDENTIFY AS MAORI. ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE. THE DEFINITION OF MAORI` I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEFINITION IS THERE. THAT'S SELF-SELECTING. THEY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS THAT. 23 OF THEM HAVE MAORI ANCESTRY. OK, WELL, BACK TO THIS FINANCIAL OFFER. HOW MUCH ARE YOU OFFERING? WE CERTAINLY CAN'T SPECIFY THAT AT THIS POINT. WE DON'T KNOW. WE DON'T KNOW YET WHAT KIND OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT WE WILL ATTRACT. DO YOU THINK THERE WILL BE ANY TAKERS, LOUISA, OF THAT? ANY OF THE PARTIES? POSSIBLY. BUT MY QUESTION TO YOU, MR BRASH ` ARE YOU GOING TO FIGHT FOR FEDERATED FARMERS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE POLICY AND PLANNING COMMITTEE OF TARANAKI REGIONAL COUNCIL, GIVEN THAT THEY'RE NOT ELECTED MEMBERS? AND IF YOU'RE NOT, WHY NOT? WHY ARE YOU SPECIFICALLY DENYING THE RIGHT OF TARANAKI IWI TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF IWI ON THAT PARTICULAR COMMITTEE? I WANT NOTHING BASED ON RACE. JUST BEFORE WE GO, I WANT TO KNOW ` THIS IDEA WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY A FRIEND. WHO WAS THAT FRIEND? I'M NOT PREPARED TO NAME HIM. WHY? WHY NOT? IS HE ASHAMED OR EMBARRASSED BY THESE IDEAS? HE'S NOT. BUT IT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PUBLIC AT ALL. WELL, IT IS. YOU'RE MOUNTING A PUBLIC CAMPAIGN, MR BRASH. THERE ARE 15 PEOPLE WHO HAVE IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES AS SUPPORTING, INCLUDING, I MIGHT SAY, TWO MAORI ` TWO MAORI! THAT INDIVIDUAL PERSON IS TOO, WHAT, ASHAMED OR EMBARRASSED TO COME FORWARD? I'M NOT EXPLAINING WHY HE'S NOT WILLING TO SIGN UP TO IT, BUT HE IS VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS ORGANISATION AND IS VERY HAPPY WITH ITS PERFORMANCE TO DATE. BUT NOT PREPARED TO BE NAMED IN PUBLIC. OK. WELL, SIX MONTHS AFTER THE BIGGEST TRADE DEAL IN HISTORY WAS SIGNED AND THE FUTURE OF THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP IS LOOKING UNCERTAIN. THE LARGEST OF THE SIGNATORIES, THE UNITED STATES, IS JUST WEEKS AWAY FROM AN ELECTION, AND NEITHER OF THE FRONTRUNNERS SUPPORT THE DEAL. CAITLIN MCGEE TAKES A LOOK AT WHAT THAT COULD MEAN FOR NZ. THEY'RE ENEMIES IN POLITICS AND OPPOSED ON ALMOST EVERY FRONT EXCEPT ONE. I WILL STOP ANY TRADE DEAL THAT KILLS JOBS OR HOLDS DOWN WAGES, INCLUDING THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP. I AM GOING TO WITHDRAW THE UNITED STATES FROM THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP, WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN RATIFIED. APPLAUSE BOTH HILLARY CLINTON AND DONALD TRUMP HAVE FOUND THEMSELVES UNITED AGAINST THE OBAMA-LED TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP. BUT NZ HAS ALREADY STARTED THE PROCESS OF RATIFYING THE DEAL, AND KIWI WINEMAKER TONY SOLJUN STILL HOPES THE TPP WILL OPEN DOORS TO NEW EXPORT OPPORTUNITIES. IT'S VITAL TO GET GROWTH. I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE UNITED STATES, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, THE UNITED STATES DOESN'T NEED NZ, BUT NZ NEEDS THE UNITED STATES AS A MARKET. THE US, THOUGH, HAS NOT BEGUN RATIFYING THE DEAL. AT THE MOMENT I HAVE TO SAY THE FUTURE'S NOT LOOKING TOO BRIGHT. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF UNKNOWNS, A LOT OF RISK. SOMETHING WILL EMERGE BECAUSE THE THINGS THAT ARE BEHIND TPP ARE GOING TO NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. BUT WHERE NZ POSITIONS ITSELF IN ALL OF THIS IS GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF THINKING ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, BUSINESS AND OUR PARTNERS AROUND THE WORLD. PEOPLE CHANT: TPPA, NO WAY! THE TRADE DEAL HAS BEEN CONTROVERSIAL, AND THERE WERE PROTESTS IN MANY COUNTRIES AHEAD OF ITS SIGNING. DR ERIC MONASTERIO HAS BEEN AN OUTSPOKEN CRITIC. HE SAYS CLINTON AND TRUMP HEADING ANTI-TPP CALLS PRESENTS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO WALK AWAY FROM A BAD DEAL. I THINK THIS WILL BE TERRIBLY GOOD FORTUNE NOT JUST FOR NZERS BUT ALSO FOR GENERAL POPULATION OF ALL OF THE PACIFIC NATIONS INVOLVED IN THIS TRADE DEAL. THE DEAL AS IT STANDS WILL SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT EQUITY AND ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE, AND IT WILL PROVIDE CORPORATIONS WITH ABILITIES TO SUE THE GOVERNMENT IN EXTRAJUDICIAL COURTS, WHICH WILL IMPAIR GOVERNMENTS' FLEXIBILITIES IN DEALING WITH A WHOLE RANGE OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. OBAMA MADE THE TPP THE CENTREPIECE OF HIS DIPLOMATIC PIVOT TOWARDS ASIA. HE COULD PUSH FOR TPP LEGISLATION TO BE PASSED BY THE EXISTING CONGRESS IN THE SO-CALLED 'LAME DUCK' SESSION AFTER THE NOVEMBER ELECTION. THAT WOULD MEAN SNEAKING IT THROUGH BEFORE A NEW CONGRESS AND NEW ADMINISTRATION TAKES OVER IN JANUARY NEXT YEAR. HE'S TAKEN THE FIRST STEP IN THAT PROCESS. A DRAFT STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION ACTION HAS ALREADY BEEN SENT TO CONGRESS. AS A PREREQUISITE, THE PRESIDENT MUST GIVE AT LEAST 30 DAYS' NOTICE TO CONGRESS OF HIS INTENTION TO SUBMIT A TREATY TEXT LIKE THE TPP FOR A VOTE IN BOTH HOUSES. ONCE THE PRESIDENT HAS DECIDED TO SEND THE TREATY TEXT TO CONGRESS, THE SENATE MUST SCHEDULE THE VOTE WITHIN 90 DAYS. WELL, WE ARE STILL HOPING AGAINST HOPE THAT THE PRESIDENT WILL SEND THE TPP TEXT TO CONGRESS AND IT WILL BE PASSED IN THE LAME DUCK SESSION BEFORE THE NEW CONGRESS AND THE NEW PRESIDENT TAKE OFFICE. I THINK HE'D BE DOING HILLARY CLINTON A BIG FAVOUR IN THE EVENT SHE BECAME THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE'LL BE TAKING OFF THE AGENDA SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR HER TO DEAL WITH. BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE OBAMA HAS THE NUMBERS IN CONGRESS YET. IF HE CAN'T PUSH IT THROUGH, STEPHEN JACOBI SAYS IT'S UNLIKELY TO PROCEED. INSTEAD NZ WILL HAVE TO HUNT NEW TRADE PARTNERS, AND THE US WILL HAVE TO RESTORE ITS CREDIBILITY. IT'S A DISASTER FOR US TRADE POLICY OR IT WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR US TRADE POLICY FOR GENERATIONS OF US LEADERSHIP ON TRADE. IT WILL NOT EASILY BE RECOVERED. WHO IS GOING TO WANT TO DEAL WITH THE UNITED STATES ON A TRADE NEGOTIATION AFTER THIS? I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR THEM. NZ THOUGHT ABOUT TPP. IT WAS OUR IDEA. WE GOT EVERYBODY ELSE TO AGREE TO IT BECAUSE WE KNEW THAT NEGOTIATING BY OURSELVES WAS TOO HARD. WHILE NZ COULD BE LEFT ISOLATED AND BACK AT SQUARE ONE, MONASTERIO BELIEVES THE GOVERNMENT WILL ALSO BE LEFT EMBARRASSED. BECAUSE THEY'VE INVESTED THEIR POLITICAL CREDIBILITY IN THIS DEAL, AND THEY HAVE DONE SO BY NEGOTIATING BEHIND MOST NZERS' BACKS. THEY HAVE NOT INCLUDED SPECIALIST GROUPS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE HEALTH SECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL SECTOR IN THE NEGOTIATING PROCESS. SO I THINK NZ HAS LEVERAGED ITSELF SIGNIFICANTLY IN THIS DEAL. FAILURE FOR IT TO BE RATIFIED WILL BE DEEPLY EMBARRASSING BECAUSE IT LOST CREDIBILITY WITH THE NZ POPULATION. LET'S REMIND OURSELVES THAT THIS DEAL IS FALLING APART BECAUSE MOST OF THE US ARE OPPOSED TO IT. AND THE REASON THEY'RE OPPOSED TO IT IS BECAUSE THEY'VE HAD SIMILAR DEALS IN PLAY FOR SEVERAL DECADES AND THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING FOR THE AVERAGE US PERSON. APPLAUSE IT WAS ALL SMILES FOR THESE MINISTERS DURING THE TPP SIGNING IN AUCKLAND EARLIER THIS YEAR. THE CEREMONY BROUGHT THE HUGE TRADE PACT THAT WAS FIVE YEARS IN THE MAKING A STEP CLOSER TO REALITY. BUT NOW IT'S ON THE BRINK OF BEING BROUGHT DOWN BY ITS BIGGEST MEMBER, AND ALL THE NZ GOVERNMENT CAN DO IS WATCH AND WAIT. AFTER THE BREAK ` NZ SENT 10% OF ITS POPULATION TO THE GREAT WAR 100 YEARS AGO. WAS THE EXTENT OF OUR SACRIFICE DOWN TO THE POLITICAL RELATIONSHIP WITH BRITAIN? BUT FIRST, JEREMY CORBETT AND PAUL EGO GIVE THEIR VERDICT ON THE BIG POLITICAL STORIES OF THE WEEK. THE BIG QUESTION THIS WEEK ` WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF DON BRASH'S LATEST CAMPAIGN, PAUL? OH, HOBSON'S CHOICE. WELL, I THINK IN THIS, UH, TAKE-IT-OR-LEAVE-IT SITUATION, WE'LL LEAVE IT, THANKS, DON. HOBSON'S PLEDGE, ACTUALLY, BASED ON WILLIAM HOBSON'S STATEMENT AFTER THE SIGNING OF THE TREATY OF WAITANGI, 'WE ARE ONE PEOPLE'. YEAH, BUT 'SOME PEOPLE ARE MORE PEOPLE THAN OTHER PEOPLE', AREN'T THEY, TO QUOTE THE WHOLE THING. INDEED. DON'S IDEA IS TO AVOID A SLIDE INTO SEPARATISM IN NZ BY ENDING ALL THOSE RACE-BASED STRUCTURES WE HAVE. YEAH, ALL THE STUFF THAT GIVES PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT,... EXACTLY, PAUL. ...LIKE ALL THAT ENGLISH LEGISLATION THEY INTRODUCED. BACK IN THE 1840S. YEP. GET RID OF THAT. WELL, I DON'T DON WILL FIND A LIFE THAT COMFORTABLE IF WE WENT BACK TO MAORI LAW. HE MIGHT STRUGGLE WITH THE OLD RANGATIRATANGA, MIGHTN'T HE? MM. BUT HE SAYS THEY'RE NOT IN ANY WAY ANTI-MAORI, HE'S NOT RACIST. AND HOW CAN HE BE ` I MEAN, HE WAS ONCE MARRIED TO AN ASIAN (!) OH, THAT'S TRUE. MIND YOU, ELTON JOHN WAS ONCE MARRIED TO A WOMAN. THE OTHER BIG QUESTION THIS WEEK ` WHO WON THE CLINTON-TRUMP DEBATE ON TUESDAY? OH, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. UM... OOH. I THINK THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DON BRASH AS WELL. MIGHT BE. YEAH. HE SEEMS ALMOST REASONABLE IN COMPARISON. WELCOME BACK. 100 YEARS AGO, THOUSANDS OF NZ SOLDIERS WERE FIGHTING AND DYING IN ONE WWI'S BLOODIEST BATTLES ` THE FIVE-MONTH-LONG SOMME OFFENSIVE IN NORTHERN FRANCE. 10% OF OUR POPULATION WENT TO WAR, AND THE POLITICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NZ AND BRITAIN MAY HAVE BEEN BEHIND THAT. A WARNING ` TONY WRIGHT'S REPORT CONTAINS SOME GRAPHIC IMAGES. SHUFFLING ROCK MUSIC BUGLE MUSIC JANGLY ROCK MUSIC IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE TODAY, BUT 100 YEARS AGO, NZ WAS ONE OF THE MOST MILITARISED NATIONS ON THE PLANET. FROM A POPULATION OF JUST OVER 1 MILLION, 100,000 KIWIS WERE SENT OVERSEAS TO FIGHT FOR BRITAIN IN WHAT WAS SIMPLY KNOWN THEN AS THE GREAT WAR. ONLY A FRACTION LANDED AT GALLIPOLI. THE MAJORITY, 80% OF THEM, FOUGHT AND DIED HERE AGAINST THE GERMAN EMPIRE AND NORTHERN FRANCE AND BELGIUM. MILITARY HISTORIAN DR ANDREW MACDONALD HAS SPENT MUCH OF HIS CAREER WALKING THE OLD SOMME BATTLEFIELDS AND STUDYING WHAT HAPPENED HERE A CENTURY AGO. HE BEGAN HIS WWI JOURNEY BY INTERVIEWING THOSE NZ SOLDIERS WHO WERE STILL ALIVE IN THE 1980S. IT'S A REALLY VERY SOBERING, MOVING EXPERIENCE FOR SOMEONE WHO WAS THEN 18, AS I WAS, TO SIT WITH SOMEONE WHO'S NEARLY 100 AND WHOSE HAND STILL VISIBLY TREMBLED, OR EYES WELL UP, WHEN TALKING ABOUT THEIR ORDEAL ON THE SOMME BATTLEFIELD OR ANY OTHER NZ BATTLEFIELD, FOR THAT MATTER. YOU KNOW, THE TRAUMA IS WITH THEM EVEN SEVEN DECADES LATER, AND THE EVENTS ARE VERY DEFINITELY SEARED INTO THEIR MEMORIES. BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! ALMOST 14,000 NZERS DIED HERE BETWEEN 1916, UNTIL THE WAR'S END IN LATE 1918, WHILST THREE TIMES THAT NUMBER WERE WOUNDED, MANY SUFFERING HORRIFIC DISFIGUREMENT AND AMPUTATIONS. SO, WHY DID ALL THESE NZERS DIE? WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF ALL THIS DEATH AND MUTILATION? WERE THEY SACRIFICED FOR THE VALUES OF FREEDOM AND HONOUR, AS WE'RE TOLD EACH ANZAC DAY, OR WAS IT FOR SOMETHING ELSE, SOMETHING POLITICALLY MOTIVATED BY A YOUNG AND INSECURE NATION? PROFESSOR LINDA BRYDER HAS EXTENSIVELY STUDIED NZ SOCIETY DURING THE WAR YEARS AND BELIEVES THE GOVERNMENT THEN HAD LITTLE CHOICE IN SENDING WHAT TURNED OUT TO BE 10% OF THE KIWI POPULATION TO FIGHT BRITAIN'S WAR. NZ WAS NO LONGER A COLONY OF BRITAIN, BUT IN 1907 IT HAD CHANGED TO DOMINION STATUS. THAT STILL MEANT THAT ITS FOREIGN POLICY WAS DICTATED BY BRITAIN, SO WE DIDN'T HAVE A MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS UNTIL THE SECOND WORLD WAR. AFTER THE SLAUGHTER OF GALLIPOLI, THE FLOOD OF PATRIOTIC KIWIS WANTING TO FIGHT FOR KING AND COUNTRY DRIED UP CONSIDERABLY. SO IN 1916, THE NZ GOVERNMENT TOOK A DRASTIC AND CONTROVERSIAL STEP TO MEET BRITAIN'S DEMANDS, BY INTRODUCING CONSCRIPTION. THIS FORCED ALL NZ MEN BETWEEN THE AGES OF 20 AND 46 TO GO TO WAR IF CALLED UP. NON-CONFORMITY MEANT IMPRISONMENT. BUT PROFESSOR BRYDER BELIEVES THE RANKS COULD STILL HAVE FILLED PURELY BY VOLUNTEERS IF THE NEWLY FORMED LABOUR PARTY HAD GOT ITS WAY. THEY COULD HAVE SUSTAINED IT AS A VOLUNTARY FORCE. AND CERTAINLY, THE LABOUR PARTY ` THE PARTY THAT WAS SET UP DURING, YOU KNOW, THE POLITICAL PARTY DURING THE FIRST WORLD WAR ` ARGUED THAT ALL YOU REALLY NEEDED TO DO WAS RAISE THE PAY OF THE TROOPS AND IMPROVE THEIR CONDITIONS; YOU DIDN'T NEED TO MAKE IT COMPULSORY. AND THERE WAS ANOTHER REASON FOR KIWIS TO JOIN THE RANKS TO FACE LIKELY DEATH OR MUTILATION ` THE PRESSURE FROM WITHIN NZ SOCIETY ITSELF. YOU KNOW, THE MOTHERS WERE SAYING, 'WELL, IF MY SONS WENT AND FOUGHT, SO SHOULD YOURS.' THERE WAS A SENSE THAT EVERYONE SHOULD TAKE THEIR PART AND PLAY THEIR PART, AND THIS WAS QUITE PERVASIVE. MANY OF THOSE CONSCRIPTED MEN ALSO FOUGHT AND DIED ON THE SOMME, BUT IN THE ALMOST-FORGOTTEN BATTLES OF 1918. YOU CAN FIND PLENTY OF THEIR GRAVES HERE NEAR BAPAUME. KIWI CITIZEN SOLDIERS WHO DIED IN THAT BLOODY BATTLE WERE WELL INTO THEIR LATE 30S; MANY WERE IN THEIR 40S. WELL, I THINK AS THE WAR PROGRESSED, THERE BECAME A SHORTAGE OF MANPOWER, AND THAT NECESSITATED OLDER SOLDIERS ENLISTING ` SOME OF THEM, OF COURSE, MARRIED MEN WITH FAMILIES; OTHERS NOT. BUT IF YOU WALK AMONGST THE HEADSTONES HERE AT GREVILLERS, YOU SEE SOLDIERS AS YOUNG AS 21 AND WELL INTO THEIR 40S. IT REALLY SHOWS THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS WASN'T A DIVISION OF 20-SOMETHING SOLDIERS. IN FACT, IT WAS YOUNG AND MIDDLE-AGED MEN, WHICH PERHAPS GIVES IT A GREATER REPRESENTATION OF NZ SOCIETY AT THE TIME. AND THE NZ DIVISION WAS INDEED A SUCCESSFUL ONE IN FRANCE, BECOMING AN ELITE FIGHTING FORCE WITHIN THE BRITISH ARMY. SO IS THE REPUTATION OF THE NATURAL NZ SOLDIER, ITSELF AN ENDURING MYTH FROM THE OLD ANZAC LEGEND, JUSTIFIED? I'M NOT 100% SURE HOW I FEEL ABOUT THAT. ON ONE HAND, A LOT OF NZ MEN OF MILITARY AGE WERE WORKING IN A RURAL AREA, WHICH MEANT THAT THEY WERE USED TO THE OUTDOORS LIFESTYLE AND ALL OF THE RIGOURS THAT THAT PROVIDED. MANY OF THEM HAD ALSO SEEN TERRITORIAL MILITARY SERVICE, SO THEY HAD AN UNDERLYING FOUNDATION OF MILITARY KNOWLEDGE. ON THE OTHER HAND, I'D BE TELLING AN OUTRIGHT LIE IF I SAID THESE GUYS WEREN'T TROUBLE, THAT IT WASN'T ALWAYS EASY FOR THEM TO TAKE THESE TACTICS ON AND LEARN. YOU KNOW, THERE WERE CERTAINLY TEETHING PROBLEMS THROUGHOUT THE WAR. BUT ULTIMATELY, THE NZ DIVISION WAS VERY WELL REGARDED BY THE END OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR. AND I THINK IT'S FAR TO SAY IT WAS CERTAINLY AMONGST THE VANGUARD OF DOMINION AND BRITISH DIVISIONS THAT WERE LEADING THE LAST HUNDRED-DAYS' ASSAULT TO VICTORY. BUT FOR EVERY KIWI KILLED ON THE BATTLEFIELD, THERE WERE ANOTHER THREE WHO WERE WOUNDED. THEY FACED YEARS OF RECOVERY, AND SOME WERE NEVER ABLE TO LEAD A NORMAL LIFE AGAIN. SO WHAT GOOD IF ANY CAME OUT OF THE WAR, THE SO-CALLED GREAT WAR THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO END ALL WARS? THESE PHOTOS OF NZ SOLDIERS WHO SUFFERED HEAD WOUNDS IN 1918 SHOW THE TRUE FACE OF INDUSTRIALISED WARFARE, BUT THEY WERE ABLE TO BE REPAIRED SOMEWHAT, THANKS TO THE WORK OF A PIONEERING KIWI SURGEON. RECONSTRUCTIVE AND PLASTIC SURGERY IN THE WORK OF OUR GREAT FAMOUS DR HAROLD GILLIES, WHO STARTED OFF AS WORKING WITH A DENTIST` HE'S A MEDICALLY QUALIFIED DOCTOR BUT WAS WORKING WITH A DENTIST ON JAW INJURIES AND THEN REALISED THAT THERE WAS A REAL NEED FOR FACIAL RECONSTRUCTION AND ENDED UP SETTING UP A WARD IN THE MILITARY HOSPITAL AND THEN HIS OWN HOSPITAL AND DOING 11,000 OPERATIONS. IN TOTAL 60,000 NZERS, ALMOST 6% OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION, WERE KILLED OR WOUNDED DURING THE WAR. IT WAS A HEAVY PRICE TO PAY SO NZERS COULD ALSO CALL THEMSELVES BRITISH 100 YEARS AGO. AFTER THE BREAK, WE'RE BACK WITH OUR PANEL ` FAIRFAX JOURNALIST TRACY WATKINS, LLOYD BURR FROM NEWSHUB AND DAMON SALESA FROM AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY. WELCOME BACK. I'M JOINED NOW BY OUR PANEL ` FAIRFAX POLITICAL EDITOR TRACY WATKINS, NEWSHUB POLITICAL REPORT LLOYD BURR AND AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PACIFIC STUDIES, DAMON SALESA. GOOD MORNING TO YOU ALL. UM, JUDGE BECROFT THERE, THE CHILDREN'S COMMISSIONER ` CAN I START WITH YOU, DAMON ` HE'S THROWN DOWN THE GAUNTLET, REALLY, HE'S SAID HIS MEASURE OF CHILD POVERTY WOULD BE THE 140,000 KIDS IN MATERIAL DEPRIVATION. HE'D LIKE THE GOVERNMENT TO ADOPT IT, AND HE WANTS A 5% TO 10% REDUCTION IN THOSE NUMBERS BY THE END OF NEXT YEAR. AMBITIOUS. IT'S AMBITIOUS, BUT WHAT I THINK IT ALSO IS IT'S REALLY CLEAR. I THINK PICKING` AGREEING TO BOTH A MEASURE AND A TARGET IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO DO INTERNATIONALLY. IT'S TO FIND NOT JUST A POLICY AND FUNDING, BUT ACTUALLY PRODUCING RESULTS, AND THAT KIND OF RESULTS FOCUS IS PROBABLY WHAT'S NEEDED, BUT AS WE CAN ALL UNDERSTAND, THIS HAS SO MUCH POLITICAL CAPITAL IN IT, THAT IT'S UNLIKELY TO REALLY FALL DOWN ON EITHER SIDE OF THE POLITICAL AISLE. TRACY, IT IS CLEAR. WE DON'T HAVE THESE TARGETS. THE GOVERNMENT'S BEEN SO RELUCTANT TO SET TARGETS. DO YOU THINK THEY'LL BUY INTO THIS? I DUNNO IF THEY'LL SET A TARGET, BUT I THINK WE'LL CERTAINLY SEE SOMETHING, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE AN ELECTION-YEAR ISSUE. THE WHOLE DEBATE AROUND INEQUALITY AND CHILD POVERTY AND THE VULNERABLE CHILDREN ` YOU'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE MINISTRY THERE. IT HAS REALLY GOT SOME TRACTION, I THINK WITH PEOPLE. THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERN OUT THERE, AND YOU SAW THAT THERE WAS A MOOD WITH THE BOARDROOM SURVEY DONE BY THE HERALD OVER THE WEEK, AND EVEN TOP CEO'S ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS, SO IT IS A REAL ISSUE. I THINK THEY WILL COME UP WITH SOMETHING. THEY DID IN THE LAST BUDGET. THEY ADDRESSED THAT THROUGH RAISING THE BENEFIT RATES, AND I THINK WE WILL SEE FURTHER MEASURES, GIVEN THAT THERE'S AN ELECTION YEAR COMING. WHETHER THEY'LL COMMIT TO A TARGET ` COS THAT'S A BIG NUMBER FOR THEM TO COMMIT TO LOWERING, YOU KNOW. BUT THEY'VE SET OTHER PUBLIC SERVICE TARGETS THAT ARE MEASURABLE AND THAT THEY CAN BE HELD TO ACCOUNT FOR. YEAH. WHY IS THIS ONE ONE THAT THEY DON'T WANT A BAR OF? BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT MEASURES FOR A START, YOU KNOW. THIS IS A RELATIVELY CONSERVATIVE MEASURE, YOU KNOW. THE MEASURES THEMSELVES ARE HIGHLY CONTENTIOUS. IT IS THE SMALLER ONE. IT IS THE ONE THAT, PEOPLE WHO RESPOND, 'THERE'S NO CHILD POVERTY' OR 'IT'S NOT REAL POVERTY LIKE IT IS OVERSEAS.' THIS IS, SORT OF, FINDING A WAY IN THE MIDDLE. I DO THINK THAT MANY OF THOSE PUBLIC SERVICE TARGETS ARE OVER MANY YEARS, AND SO PICKING ONE THAT IS ANNUALISED IS A REAL CHALLENGE. AND GIVEN OUR INABILITY TO SHIFT CHILD POVERTY OVER DECADES, THAT WOULD BE A TRULY AMBITIOUS TARGET. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS LIKE IT'S A NEW ISSUE. IT'S NOT. WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR SO LONG, AND THE CHILDREN'S COMMISSIONER AND HIS PREDECESSOR BEFORE HIM, HE'S BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR A LONG TIME. I MEAN, WHEN IS THE GOVERNMENT GONNA LISTEN TO THE CHILDREN'S COMMISSIONER? WHAT'S THE POINT IN HAVING HIS JOB? HE WAS SAYING THERE THAT HE THINKS IT'S TOO POLITICISED, THAT THE PARTY SHOULD ALL GET TOGETHER, BUT I'M WONDERING IF YOU THINK THEY CAN DO THAT, BECAUSE THERE IS POLITICAL CAPITAL IN THIS TOPIC AND IN HOUSING. ARE THEY PREPARED TO PUSH THAT TO ONE SIDE, GET ROUND THE TABLE AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING TOGETHER? WELL, NO, I HAVEN'T SEEN A HISTORY OF THEM DOING THAT ON ANYTHING. (ALL LAUGH) SO I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY'D START ON THIS ONE, WHEN, AS YOU SAY, IT IS AN ISSUE OF HUGE POLITICAL CAPITAL. I MEAN, IT SHOULD BE ABOVE THAT, BUT THEN SO SHOULD MOST ISSUES, AND THERE'S NO REALLY GREAT TRADITION OF, UM, THEM HAVING` IT'S ALSO JOINED UP TO THESE THIRD RAILS ` THINGS LIKE HOUSING, YOU KNOW, WELFARE AND OTHER KINDS OF ENTITLEMENT. YOU CAN'T SEPARATE IT OUT AS A DIFFERENT POLITICAL ISSUE. AND THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT EVEN A FEW YEARS AGO TO HAVE CROSS-PARTY ACCORD ON CHILD ABUSE AND CHILD VIOLENCE, AND THAT SORT OF DISINTEGRATED. THERE'LL NEVER BE A BIG MOVE HERE. I THINK THERE'LL ALWAYS BE THIS MIDDLE OF THE ROAD, PRAGMATIC APPROACH FROM NATIONAL, ANYWAY, TOWARDS THIS ISSUE. JUDGE BECROFT RAISED HIS OWN FUNDING FOR HIS OFFICE ` WHEN YOU SAY WHY EVEN HAVE HIS OFFICE ` HE GETS, WHAT, 2.2M A YEAR. WE WORKED IT OUT. THAT'S ABOUT TWO LOAVES OF BREAD FOR EVERY VULNERABLE CHILD. HE IS WORRIED ABOUT THAT MONEY, CLEARLY, AND ALSO INDICATING THAT HE WANTS TO SEE HOW WELL RESOURCED ORANGA TAMARIKI IS. WE PUT ALL THIS MONEY INTO THE CHILDREN'S COMMISSION AND THE CHILDREN'S COMMISSIONER TO DO THIS JOB, TO MAKE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. HE MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS, HE MAKES THESE PLEAS TO THE GOVERNMENT, AND WE DON'T EVEN LISTEN TO HIM. THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T EVEN LISTEN TO HIM. HE COMES ON THIS SHOW AND TALKS ABOUT HOW HE HASN'T GOT ENOUGH FUNDING TO DO THE JOB THAT THEY'RE TASKED TO DO. WHAT'S THE POINT? THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD JUST GET RID OF THE OFFICE IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LISTEN TO HIM. AT THE SAME TIME, YOU'VE GOTTA HAVE SOMEONE WHO'S PREPARED TO STAND UP, DON'T YOU? ABSOLUTELY, BUT IT HAS TO BE AN AUTHENTIC AND INDEPENDENT VOICE. AND I THINK IT'S A DIFFICULT THING TO ASK FOR MORE MONEY WHEN IT'S ABOUT DELIVERING RESOURCES FOR CHILDREN. AND YOU DON'T WANT TO POLITICISE THE OFFICE. SO IT'S A DIFFICULT POSITION TO HAVE. A FINE LINE TO WALK. WHAT WE SAW WAS AN ATTEMPT TO TALK WHAT IS A REALLY CHALLENGING POSITION, BUT I THINK IT'S NOT JUST THESE BIG INTERVENTIONS WHERE THE CHILDREN'S COMMISSIONER HAS BEEN EFFECTIVE IN THE PAST. IT'S THROUGH INTERNAL POLICY THINGS, BRINGING INFORMATION TOGETHER, NEW MODELS OF CHILD SERVICES, WHICH I THINK HAVE HAD REAL ON-THE-GROUND IMPACT. THE OTHER THING HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THERE ` INTERESTED IN HIS THOUGHTS ON YOUTH COURT, COS HE IS OBVIOUSLY SUPPORTING ALLOWING OLDER TEENAGERS TO GO TO THE YOUTH COURT UP TO THE AGE OF 18. AND HE HAS SAID THERE THAT HE THOUGHT LOSI FILIPO SHOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH, WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH THE YOUTH COURT UNDER THE NEW SYSTEM. GIVEN THE PUBLICITY THIS WEEK, THAT IDEA'S GONNA GET A BIG PUSH-BACK, ISN'T IT? THAT'S WHERE` THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN CONSIDERING THIS ISSUE OF RAISING THE AGE, AND THIS PROBABLY HAS COME ABOUT THE WORST TIME. I HAVE TO ADMIT, IT DID CHANGE MY THINKING ABOUT THE LOSI FILIPO CASE WHEN I FOUND OUT HIS AGE. I SORT OF FELT 17 IS AN AGE AT WHICH ANY YOUNG GUY WHO HAS GOT NO PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS DESERVES SOME SORT OF SECOND CHANCE, IF YOU LIKE, AND THAT PROBABLY WILL PUT ME IN THE WRONG CAMP. EVERYONE'S SAYING BECAUSE OF HIS RUGBY BACKGROUND, HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN LET OFF. BUT I THINK IT'S MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT. AT THE SAME TIME ` COS I LOOKED AT THE JUDGE'S NOTES ` IS HE BEING TREATED MORE` IS HE BEING TREATED MORE HARSHLY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, THIS KID, COS HE WAS A KID AT THE TIME, BECAUSE HE IS A RUGBY PLAYER? THE JUDGE SAID, 'YOU GOTTA TREAT IT AT THE SAME VALUE AS IF HE WAS A DOCTOR; IF HE WAS IN ANOTHER PROFESSIONAL LINE OF WORK. RUGBY IS PROFESSIONAL, THE JUDGE SAID. I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE JUDGES NOTES SHOW A VERY REASONED AND REASONABLE DECISION. I THINK THE FACT THAT YOU COULD TAKE THIS TO A MEDIA COURT AND FIND AN AUDIENCE HAS OBVIOUSLY SHAPED IT. FOR INSTANCE` I THINK THE FACT IT WAS RUGBY MATTERS. I CAN THINK OF A RECENT HIGH-PROFILE CASE OF A CRICKETER ` ADMITTEDLY, IT WAS A HUNG JURY ` BUT THAT CRICKETER IS STILL ELIGIBLE TO PLAY CRICKET AND MAY EVEN BE PICKED FOR THE SILVER FERNS` THE BLACKCAPS. YOU KNOW, WE ARE SEEING` THE HERALD CAME UP WITH A LIST OF 15 RUGBY PLAYERS WHO HAVE HAD SUPPOSED PRIVILEGE, BUT THE FACT THAT THEY WERE ON A PUBLIC LIST CIRCULATING THE MEDIA IS A REAL TROUBLE, AND HE'S 17 YEARS OLD. I WORRY` I'M WORRIED FOR THOSE VICTIMS, BUT I'M ALSO WORRIED FOR HIM. I MEAN, TO BE SUBJECTED TO THIS KIND OF SCRUTINY ` IF SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN TO HIM ` AND WE HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF PACIFIC RUGBY PLAYERS WHO HAVE DONE SELF-HARM AND HAVE HAD ALL SORTS OF THREATS TO THEIR OWN WELL-BEING. THEIR SELF-IDENTITY IS SO WRAPPED UP IN RUGBY, AND THAT'S WHERE ALL THE INVESTMENT IN THEIR LIFE HAS GONE, AND THEN TO HAVE THIS TAKEN AWAY. AT THE SAME TIME, I MEAN, JUDGE BECROFT THERE ACKNOWLEDGED THE FACT THAT HE'S GONNA HAVE TO TURN AROUND SOME PUBLIC OPINION, AND, IN FACT, THIS WEEKEND, HE'S OFF TO TALK TO THE INDIAN ASSOCIATION. A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH SMALL BUSINESS ARE SICK OF YOUNG PEOPLE TURNING UP WITH A BASEBALL BAT AND A HAMMER AND DOING OVER THEIR BUSINESS. HAS HE GOT HIS WORK CUT OUT FOR HIM THERE? HE DOES, ESPECIALLY WITH THE MYTH-BUSTING THING. COS THERE WAS A QUOTE FROM HIM ` 'EVERYONE THINGS THE YOUTH JUSTICE SYSTEM IS A KUMBAYA, MILO-DRINKING SOFT SYSTEM,' AND IT'S NOT. YOU CAN STILL SEND PEOPLE TO PRISON. PEOPLE HAND DOWN TOUGH PENALTIES, SO HE'S GOT A POINT, AND MOST PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT THAT'S WHAT THE YOUTH JUSTICE SYSTEM CAN DO. THEY THINK THAT PEOPLE CAN GO IN THERE, THEY GET AUTOMATIC NAME SUPPRESSION, AND THEY CAN GET OFF WITH REALLY LIGHT SENTENCES OR DISCHARGED WITHOUT CONVICTION, BUT THERE IS TEETH IN THE YOUTH JUSTICE SYSTEM, AND THAT IS THE POINT THAT HE NEEDS TO MAKE. JUST BEFORE WE GO TO THE BREAK ` COLIN CRAIG. IT AIN'T OVER. THE LEGAL BATTLE STILL RAGES ON, BUT THE JURY FOUND THAT HE DID DEFAME, DID COMMIT DEFAMATION. $1.27M IS THE FIGURE THAT POTENTIALLY HE'S GONNA HAVE TO PAY UP. IS IT OVER FOR HIM? NOT IN A LEGAL SENSE ` IN A POLITICAL SENSE. IS THERE COMEBACK, TRACY? THERE'S NO COMEBACK FROM THAT. I MEAN, IT WAS TERRIBLE. IT WAS EXCRUCIATING, THAT TRIAL. THE WHOLE THING, THREE WEEKS, IT WAS JUST SO LURID, AND I THINK EVERYONE WAS JUST 'OH MY GOD.' BUT THIS WILL KEEP GOING ON AND ON, BECAUSE COLIN CRAIG DOES NOT GIVE UP LEGAL BATTLES EASILY. HE WILL TAKE THIS THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS, I IMAGINE, AND SO IT COULD BE GOING ON FOREVER, BUT IN TERMS OF HIS POLITICAL FUTURE, IT'S DEAD. LITIGIOUS IS HIS MIDDLE NAME, PRETTY MUCH, ISN'T IT? WITH COLIN CRAIG, HE'LL APPEAL AND APPEAL AND APPEAL THIS. KEEP YOUR VOICE DOWN. (LAUGHS) (LAUGHS) DON'T WE KNOW IT? (LAUGHS) > POLITICALLY? OH, POLITICALLY, HE'S GONE. THERE'S NO CHANCE. I MEAN, HE'LL PROBABLY GIVE IT A GO. HE'LL PROBABLY TRY AND BECOME THE LEADER OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY, BUT HIS CAREER IS OVER. COLIN CRAIG, YOU'RE GONE. AND HE TOOK THE PARTY WITH HIM. I WONDER IF THEY COULD FIND THOSE VOTERS FROM LAST TIME FESSING UP TO THEIR VOTE THIS TIME. DO YOU RECKON IT'LL MAKE PEOPLE ZIP IT, THOUGH? THIS RULING WILL MAKE PEOPLE THINK TWICE ABOUT SPEAKING THEIR MINDS? IT'S A HUGE AWARD. I WASN'T SURPRISED BY THE VERDICT, NECESSARILY, BUT I WAS SURPRISED BY THE SIZE OF THE AWARD. IT'S MASSIVE. WE WILL BE BACK AFTER THE BREAK WITH WHAT'S GOING TO BE MAKING HEADLINES NEXT WEEK. WELCOME BACK. YOU'RE WITH 'THE NATION' AND OUR PANEL. WE HEARD FROM DON BRASH THERE. HE'S PUSHING THIS HOBSON'S PLEDGE GROUP, SAYING HE WANTS EQUALITY FOR ALL NZERS, SINGLING OUT MAORI, THOUGH, AS THE ONES THAT ARE BEING OFFERED PRIVILEGE. IS THERE GOING TO BE BUY-IN FOR THIS, LLOYD? (YAWNS) YOU KNOW, IT'S THE SAME OLD STUFF FROM 2004, 2005, AND FROM WHEN HE BECAME THE ACT PARTY LEADER AND WAS UNSUCCESSFUL. BUT HE SAYS PEOPLE BACKED HIM BACK THEN WITH THIS IDEA. YEAH, I KNOW. I THINK WE'VE MOVED ON. THERE'S ONE THING THAT I THINK I NEED TO TELL DON BRASH ABOUT. IT'S CALLED THE TREATY OF WAITANGI. HE NEEDS A HISTORY LESSON ON WHY WE HAVE ALL OF THESE ISSUES AT THE MOMENT. I MEAN, THE CROWN HAS DONE SOME HORRIFIC THINGS IN THE 1800S AND IN THE 1900S ` GETTING RID OF THE MAORI LANGUAGE, THE MAORI LAND WARS. THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS ` PARIHAKA. I MEAN, THE LIST IS HUGE. AND, I MEAN, THE CROWN DID THOSE THINGS, AND WE'VE GOT TO FIX THEM. AND HE'S JUST IGNORING ALL OF THOSE ISSUES. WHEN I PUT IT TO HIM ABOUT SOCIAL INEQUALITY ` IF YOU LOOK AT THE STATISTICS THAT MAORI ARE POORLY REPRESENTED IN ` HE DOESN'T SEE HOW THAT KIND OF MARRIES UP, DOES HE, DAMON? I THINK` YEAH, EXACTLY. HE WILL ADMIT A CORRELATION BUT NOT A CAUSATION. AND I GUESS YOU CAN'T REALLY REASON PEOPLE OUT OF THINGS THEY WEREN'T TOTALLY REASONED INTO. AND THAT'S WHAT WE SEE GOING ON HERE. AND EVEN THE CLAIM OF HE IWI KOTAHI TATOU. YOU TAKE WHAT HOBSON SAID, AND YOU HAVE A LEGAL ARGUMENT, BUT THEN YOU TOTALLY IGNORE THE LEGAL DOCUMENT THAT PRECEDED IT AND THAT THEY SIGNED. AND THAT'S THE BIT THAT IS IN NZ LAW. THERE'S NOT AN ARGUMENT ABOUT WHETHER THAT'S RELEVANT. THAT IS STATUTE LAW IN NZ IN ALL THESE DIMENSIONS. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE IS, OBVIOUSLY, AN AUDIENCE TO THIS. BUT THAT AUDIENCE, YOU KNOW, HAS AGED 10 YEARS, AND SO NOW PROBABLY AVERAGE AGE OF 65. IT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT THAT NZERS ON THE WHOLE WILL ADMIT GOING FORWARD, AND THERE'S NOT A LOT OF POLITICAL WINS HERE. BUT THE THING IS, TRACY, HE IS OFFERING MONEY. THAT GROUP IS OFFERING MONEY TO A PARTY THAT SUPPORTS THAT POLICY. IS HE GOING TO GET ANY TAKERS? COS A LOT OF THE PARTIES ` LABOUR, GREENS, EVEN ACT HAVE COME OUT GOING, 'WHOA, NO, THANKS.' YEAH. I MEAN THE ONLY PARTY, AND I THINK HE SAID THIS PUBLICLY, THAT SO FAR IS SORT OF PREPARED TO PROMOTE POLICIES THAT THIS GROUP WOULD FUND IS NZ FIRST. AND IF YOU LOOK AT IT, NZ FIRST IS THE ONLY PARTY THAT WANTS TO ABOLISH THE MAORI SEATS, I THINK. AND PARTICULARLY ON THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT, THEY'RE IN SYMPATHY WITH THAT. WILL WINSTON TAKE THE MONEY? I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, HIM AND BRASH HAVE A HISTORY GOING BACK A LONG WAY. BUT THEY ARE IN ACCORD ON SOME THINGS LATELY. IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT GETS TRACTION, I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST ` SORRY, NOT THE LAST ELECTION ` WHEN DON BRASH HAD HIS BRIEF FATAL CAREER AS THE ACT PARTY LEADER, IT JUST BOMBED, YOU KNOW, AND IT WAS ON THIS WHOLE ISSUE. IT WAS BASICALLY WHAT HE TRIED TO RESURRECT ACT ON THE BACK OF THIS ISSUE, AND IT FAILED DISMALLY. IT CERTAINLY DID WORK FOR HIM IN 2004, BUT I THINK THAT WAS ALMOST LIKE IT UNLEASHED A DEBATE THAT HAD BEEN BUBBLING BENEATH THE SURFACE FOR A VERY LONG TIME AND HADN'T HAD AN OUTLET. IT HAD AN OUTLET, AND PEOPLE TALKED THEMSELVES ` IT WAS VENTING. YEAH, IT WAS VENTING ` AND PEOPLE TALKED THEMSELVES HOARSE ON IT, AND THEN I THINK IT WAS LIKE, 'RIGHT, OK, I'VE BEEN HEARD ON THIS ISSUE.' I GUESS THERE'S ONE OTHER PARTY THAT MIGHT THINK ABOUT IT NOW, AND THAT COULD BE THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY. (CHUCKLES) < WELL, WHO KNOWS? ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON FROM IT. THE MT ROSKILL DEAL. IS IT A DEAL? IS IT HYPOCRITICAL, AS DAVID SEYMOUR, SAYS? THIS IS THE GREENS AND LABOUR COMING TO AN ARRANGEMENT. IF THERE IS A BY-ELECTION IN MT ROSKILL, GREENS ARE NOT GOING TO STAND A CANDIDATE. WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF IT? IT'S A GOOD MOVE. IT REALLY IS A GOOD MOVE FOR LABOUR HERE. DON'T SPLIT THE LEFT VOTE. AND THEY SHOULD'VE DONE IT SOONER. BUT THE FACT IS IT IS HYPOCRITICAL. THEY'VE DONE THIS DEAL, THEY'VE CRITICISED THESE TYPES OF DEALS IN THE PAST, AND NOW THEY'RE FAILING TO IDENTIFY OR EVEN ADMIT THAT IT'S A DEAL, THAT IT'S A DIRTY DEAL THAT THEY ONCE CRITICISED SO MUCH. METIRIA TUREI SAYS NOT A DIRTY DEAL AT ALL BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN OPEN ABOUT IT AND WE SIGNED A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, SO WE LAID OUR CARDS ON THE TABLE. IT DOESN'T MATTER. I MEAN, SO DID THE OTHER DIRTY DEALS. THE EPSOM DIRTY DEAL, THEY LAID THEIR CARDS ON THE TABLE. THEY HAD THE CUP OF TEA. UM, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T` JUST BECAUSE SHE'S ADMITTED THAT SHE'S DOING THIS AND THAT SHE'S NOT STANDING A CANDIDATE, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S NOT A DEAL. LET'S ASK DAMON ABOUT THIS, AND WE NEED TO SAY ` DECLARING INTEREST HERE ` HUSBAND OF JENNY SALESA, THE LABOUR MP. SO, WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF IT? WELL, I AGREE. YOU KNOW, IT'S OBVIOUSLY A STRATEGIC DECISION. THIS IS` IT SENDS A VERY CLEAR SIGNAL THAT THIS IS A SERIOUS ARRANGEMENT, BUT THERE IS THAT UNFORTUNATE, UM, HISTORY OF CRITICISING THESE KINDS OF ARRANGEMENTS. BUT THIS` THIS IS ALSO ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH A GREEN PARTY PLATFORM, WHICH IS BASED AROUND PARTY-VOTE ONLY, RUNNING LOCAL` THE LOCAL MPS PURELY TO RAISE THE PROFILE OF THE PARTY AND GENERATE, UM, LIST VOTES, AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE PROBLEM IS ACTUALLY A SYMPTOM OF THE SERIOUSNESS THAT THEY'RE APPROACHING THIS NEXT ELECTION. WELL, IF YOU LISTEN TO THE NATIONAL PARTY, IF YOU LISTEN TO STEPHEN JOYCE, THAT'S A JUMP TO THE LEFT FOR LABOUR, IS WHAT HE'S SAYING, AND ALSO THAT, UM, THIS WAS` THIS ELECTORATE WAS OBVIOUSLY ONE ON GOFF'S PERSONAL POPULARITY. THE` THE PARTY` THE PARTY WAS STRONG NATIONAL PARTY VOTE. THAT'S REALLY INTERESTING, ISN'T IT, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT WAS CLOSE CALL IF YOU TAKE THE GREENS AND PUT THEM ON A LEFT BLOCK, BUT I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, ONE COULD ARGUE IT'S A SHIFT TO THE CENTRE FOR THE GREENS, AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, POTATO, PO-TAH-TO. OUTSIDE OF THE COURT. YEAH. BUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IT IS IS THIS IS ACTUALLY A VIABLE DEAL, AND I THINK THAT THE FACT THAT THEY'RE PREPARED TO DO THIS IN PUBLIC` I THINK IT IS TESTING THE WATER, COS THAT'S NOT THE ONLY SEAT IN WHICH THIS IS` YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE CASE WHERE THERE'S A VERY STRONG NATIONAL PARTY VOTE BUT THE LOCAL MP WINS, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, HUTT SOUTH, WHERE I LIVE, THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER ONE. TREVOR MALLARD WON THAT SEAT. I'D SAY IT WAS LARGELY A PERSONAL VOTE. THE PARTY VOTE WENT VERY MUCH THE OTHER WAY. I THINK IT IS DEFINITELY HYPOCRITICAL, GIVEN WHAT LABOUR'S SAID ABOUT, YOU KNOW, DEALS IN EPSOM. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE, I THINK, IS THAT IN EPSOM, ACT DOES NOT SURVIVE WITHOUT EPSOM. UM, THE GREEN PARTY AND` AND LABOUR, THEY DO SURVIVE WITHOUT THIS DEAL. WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO SOON. I JUST WANNA QUICKLY ASK YOU ALL ` TRUMP V CLINTON ` QUICK WORD FROM EACH OF YOU ON THE DEBATE. YEAH, I THOUGHT CLINTON DID A GOOD JOB. I MEAN, I WAS A BIT IFFY ABOUT CLINTON ` I MEAN, I'VE ALWAYS BEEN IFFY ABOUT TRUMP ` BUT I THINK CLINTON CAME OUT PRETTY WELL. I` I THINK IT'S JUST BEEN EXTRAORDINARY WHEN YOU SEE THE FLOOD OF REPUBLICANS COMING OUT ENDORSING CLINTON, NOT JUST BEFORE THAT DEBATE BUT ESPECIALLY AFTER IT. I MEAN, UM, YOU KNOW, YEAH, FASCINATING STUFF. DAMON. YEAH. IT'S INTERESTING ` WE'VE GOT TWO DONS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS WEEK. UH, (CHUCKLES) BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE IDEA THAT EVIDENCE AND REALITY IS GOING TO INFLUENCE HOW PEOPLE READ THAT IS` IS MISTAKEN. OK. WE'LL` WE'LL LEAVE IT THERE. THANK YOU. IT'S TIME NOW FOR A QUICK LOOK AT SOME OF, UH, WHAT COULD BE MAKING THE HEADLINES NEXT WEEK. TOMORROW WE'LL FIND OUT IF JUNIOR DOCTORS HAVE VOTED TO GO ON STRIKE OVER A DISPUTE ABOUT LONG WORKING HOURS. THAT COULD CAUSE A MAJOR DESTRUCTION TO HOSPITALS. THE FIFTH STRAW POLL FOR THE NEXT UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY GENERAL IS ON ON THURSDAY, AND FOR THE FIRST TIME, IT WILL BE CLEAR WHICH OF THE PERMANENT FIVE COUNTRIES, THOSE WHO HAVE THE VETO POWER, HAVE VOTED. AND VOTING IN THE LOCAL-BODY ELECTIONS CLOSES AT MIDDAY ON SATURDAY. THE RESULTS WILL COME IN FROM MID-AFTERNOON. AND THAT'S IT FROM US THIS WEEK. SEE YOU NEXT TIME. WWW.ABLE.CO.NZ CAPTIONS WERE MADE POSSIBLE WITH FUNDING FROM NZ ON AIR. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2016