Kia ora and welcome to The Nation. I'm Lisa Owen. And I'm Patrick Gower. Today ` are prisons a moral failure? Bill English said they were, so why are we building more, and how much will it cost us? Louise Upston and Kelvin Davis join our corrections debate. The Maori seats are more crucial than ever in this election. We take a look at how the races are shaping up and what the fallout could be with Te Ururoa Flavell, Marama Davidson and Willie Jackson. Then ` why is money from the Fresh Water Improvement Fund being used to build a dam? I think most people will have seen the Fresh Water Improvement Fund and imagined that it was about improving the quality of fresh water. And, of course, what this project is, the Waimea dam project, is an irrigation project, which, in fact, is likely to deteriorate fresh water quality. And we wrap up the week in politics with our panel, Ben Thomas and Tim Watkin, and comedians Jeremy Corbett and Paul Ego. Copyright Able 2017 OK, great to have you with us today. Great day to be a Kiwi. Great day to be interested in politics. Great day to get out and vote as well. Vote early. Now, we love hearing from you, so do get in touch. Our details are on the screen now, and if you're on Twitter like a lot of people are, you can follow along with our Twitter panel, and it's a belter ` sociologist and old mate Jarrod Gilbert and good man and unionist Morgan Godfery. Use the hashtag #NationNZ. This week the government announced that some low-risk prisoners will be eligible for early release if they complete treatment or training. The announcement comes as New Zealand's prison population reaches its highest ever level far ahead of projections. So why are we locking so many people up? Well, with me now are the Corrections spokespeople ` for National, Louise Upston; and for Labour, Kelvin Davis. Good morning to you both. BOTH: Good morning. If I can start with you, Ms Upston. What is the purpose of prison? So, the purpose of prison, really, first and foremost, is if somebody's committed a crime, it's about keeping our community safe. And National is the law and order party; we're about making sure that our communities are safe. If somebody's convicted of a serious crime, then we expect them to do the time for that. OK. Mr Davis, is it just about locking people up for punishment and keeping the community safe, or is it more than that, prison? No, we need to look at prison as a way to rehabilitate these people. In fact, many of these people actually haven't been habilitated in their lives prior to their crime and prior to getting to prison. So in some cases, we actually have to teach these people how to be contributing members of society whenever their sentence ends. So if you had to put a split on it, what is it? How much is rehab? How much is punishment? Well, punishment is the denial of their liberty, so from the moment they walk through the gate, in my opinion, we need to start training them how to be good, contributing members of society once they're released, whether that sentence is three months or whether it's 15 years. OK. Ms Upston, National ditched its target to reduce recidivism by 25% by 2017. No, we haven't ditched it. You have ditched that particular target. You have. So you've still got this hard-core group of offenders who keep committing crimes. Why are you not making a significant dent in that? So, we still have a reoffending target, and the target is to reduce reoffending by 25%. And the importance of that` By when, though? 2021. In terms of Maori reoffending, we have a cross-justice sector target around reducing Maori reoffending in particular. And the importance of that, and I agree with Kelvin, at the end of the day, every day that someone is in the care of Corrections, we need to ensure that we take that opportunity to give them opportunities to give them a different life when they leave, cos that is how we reduce crime. So our overall target is around reducing the number of serious crimes by 10,000 because that is what we're trying to reduce. So when someone leaves prison, we absolutely want to make sure they're not reoffending, and there is a hard-core group of recidivist reoffenders which we are absolutely focused on working on. Yeah. So how are you going with that target? You're only down about 4%, aren't you? Yeah. So, 4.4%. The important thing is that it's 38,000 fewer victims of crime. And so, yes, we've absolutely got` But it's only 4.4%. It's better than zero. You were looking for a 25% reduction by now. It's 38,000 fewer victims of crime. But your goal was 25% by now, wasn't it? 38,000 fewer victims of crime, so we've absolutely got more work to do, which is why our policy announcement this week is absolutely around focusing on rehabilitation, another 48 million into that. I want to talk a bit more about your policy a bit later, but is that a fail, the rate that you're hitting? Absolutely not. No. Even though you aimed for 25% by now? 38,000 fewer victims of crime is a success, absolutely. What strikes me about the government's target, the low offenders, the people at low risk of offending, is if they're at low risk of offending, why are we focusing on them? Why aren't we focusing on those offenders who are at a higher risk of offending? Because if they're at low risk of offending, chances are they're not going to commit crime. So we actually need to focus on those people that are at a higher risk of offending and work on them so they become low-risk offenders. We're already working with them. We are working with them as well. But that's not what your policy that's come out in the last week has got to say. No, that's an additional policy. So, we are already spending $190 million on rehabilitation. Hang on. Let me finish. But you're addressing low-risk offenders. No, no. You need to be addressing the high-risk offenders so that they become low-risk offenders. OK, well, your policy, Labour's policy, is to cut the number of prisoners in jail by 30% over a period of 15 years. How specifically do you plan to do that while keeping people safe? Yeah, well, we need a paradigm shift in the first instance. So what we're doing in prisons isn't working. The justice sector forecast for 2015 to 2025 said that the prison population is likely to increase to 10,090 by 2025. Well, that actually happened in less than one year after that report came out. So if that trajectory continues, by 2025, we'll have something like 18,000 or 19,000 people in prison. Yeah, but what are you going to do? I've asked you what your policy is to reduce those numbers. The first thing I'm going to do as the Corrections minister is actually get all the other spokespeople from the other parties to come together and say let's de-politicise Corrections. We'll you've never met with me, Kelvin, in my time in office. I have met with your predecessors. But let me finish. Because you're the minister, so you have the ability now to do that. Because what we're talking about is this periphery stuff instead of looking at best practice around` So you're gonna do some more talking? You're gonna get everybody together and talk a bit more? We need to look at the best practice around the world. If you look at Finland, which has got a general population twice that of New Zealand ` 9 million ` they've only got a prison population of some 3000, which is less than a third of what we've got. So we've actually got to see what jurisdictions around the world are doing in the first instance, but we've got to have a plan, we've got to have targets, and we've got to have a budget. You've had nine years to do that. But it's not working, what you guys are doing. I'm talking about your policy. You're the minister, and your plan isn't working. Like I said, if we follow the trajections` I disagree. But that means that you've got to come up with an alternative, doesn't it? If you say that this side has got a plan that's not working, what is your plan? I've not heard a specific detail in that. Well, that's what I said. We'll draw up the plan; we've got to have a budget and targets. If you look at Tom Hemopo's claim to the tribunal, there was no targets, there was no budget, there was no framework around how they're going to address Maori` Let's talk about the Waitangi Tribunal's comments there that said that we are not doing enough to keep Maori out of jail. So I want to know the one policy that you've got that is going to turn this around and stop Maori ending up in prison. What is that policy, do you think? So, social investment. If you look at what we're doing in the Justice Sector Fund in Nga Hau E Wha marae in Christchurch, there's a specific piece of work that's working with young people to prevent them from entering the justice system. That is one of dozens of initiatives that we have underway. We are absolutely trying new things. That's what the Justice Sector Fund is all about. But in terms of the Watiangi Tribunal report, five of the six recommendations are already underway. So we recognise there's a challenge. We recognise that there are too many Maori in prison, and we're absolutely focused on ensuring that when they leave prison, they don't come back. OK, Mr Davis, your one policy? Look, the big thing is is that we've actually got to stop people getting into prison in the first place, and this is where all the social issues before people even commit crime need to be addressed in the first place. Which is social investment. Yeah, but, again, it's not working because... Well, it's early days. It's early days. ...we've got 10,000 people, and the trajectory is going to be something like 18,000 by 2025, so it's all the social policies before people commit crime. It's as soon as somebody puts their first` you know, breaks the law for the very first time, we need to actually intervene that early. It's before that. It's actually before that. Yeah, but that's what I'm saying. Nobody is arguing about that. What I want to know is what your policy is ` the single policy that Labour has that you think is going to reduce the number of Maori going to jail. OK, one of the first things we need to do is address the culture within Corrections in the first place, because what we're saying is we're putting people in a concrete box for however long it may be, but we're actually not changing the way` But that's dealing with them once they get there. You're giving up if that's where your policy starts. But that's what I'm saying about all the social stuff at the start to prevent people from getting` you know, education, health, housing, all those things. Then when they do commit crime` And the first crime that people commit, their very first step, is often a traffic offence. So we actually need to address things at that stage before they get to the more serious end. Are you convinced that everybody who is in jail now, that is the right place for them to serve their debt to society? Yeah, because we have a graduated system in New Zealand of` So everybody there, you think, that is the right place for them. Absolutely. 71% are violent, sexual offences or serious drug offending charges, so absolutely. Yeah, but 20% are dishonesty offences. We have the right people in prison at the moment. As I said before, there's` No, no, I just want to raise this with you. 20% are dishonesty offences; 13% drug and antisocial behaviour; 5% other, including property damage. So all the people in jail at the moment, that's where they should be? Yup, because they've often had community sentences prior to that. New Zealand has a large number of offenders that are managed in the community, and so that is the step before prison. So it actually takes quite a lot to end up in prison. So, it's not a single offence. It's not a simple place to end up. So absolutely, I'm confident we have the right people in our prisons. If you think they should all be there, why, then, have you announced a policy to let a bunch out early? Yep, so, our policy around early release is about saying when they are there, we absolutely need to ensure each and every day that we are supporting them to get on to another track. So, for example, in the last year, Corrections has supported 2000 offenders into a job, and a job is an absolutely critical part of somebody leading a crime-free life, and that's why that's what we're doing. Mr Davis, would you adopt the policy that National has announced this week? Probably not. Why? Can I just tell you ` the question to Louise was, 'Everybody who's in prison, should they be there?' The answer is no. Who are you going to let out? There's a number of people who are on remand in Mt Eden who have been there for, say, eight or nine months, from up north, and they` These are people who can't get bail, who are waiting. They have said, 'I'm just going to plead guilty because I'm sick and tired. I'm separated from my family; 'my family can't come down and visit me. I'm just going to plead guilty. 'Hopefully I'll get back up to Ngawha.' And so there'll be people on remand who are pleading guilty who may be innocent. And we have to look at that. Why is it that they're languishing on remand for so long and getting to this stage where they plead guilty when they may be innocent? Well, here's a question for you. You would know that one of the reasons the prison population is rising is because of more stringent bail laws and tougher sentencing laws. So are you going to walk back those bail laws? Well, we have to have a look at them, absolutely. That's in the justice side of things. And Corrections is about what's post-prison gate. You are not ruling out loosening bail laws? Well, we have to have a look at them. But there's no doubt that the Sentencing Act in 2002, bail laws, they all contributed to the increased prison muster. So, sentencing laws. No, no. This is really important. You're going to review bail, you say. What about sentencing? Are you going to walk back some of those sentencing laws? So, you know, at the moment you have to serve a third of your` No, I'm not committed to that, Lisa. But bail, yes. We have to have a` Well, I'm not committing that to a review. What I'm saying is that, look, let's just have a look at what is contributing to the prison muster. Just a minute. Ms Upston, Labour is going to look at, review the bail laws and not rule out walking them back. What do you think of that? Well, I don't think there's anything wrong with them, and we don't have any plans to change them. We think, in terms of the bail legislation and sentencing, it's absolutely spot-on. What we want to focus on is actually ensuring when those who have served a prison sentence, that when they leave, they do not come back. And that's why we've had an unrelenting focus on reoffending and actually providing education, drug and alcohol treatment, mental health support. We've got to leave it there, but we'll talk more after the break. We'll be back with Louise Upston and Kelvin Davis after the break. Welcome back to our Corrections debate with National's Louise Upston and Labour's Kelvin Davis. Now, we were talking before we went to the break about the size of the prison population. The prison population at the moment is about 10,400, which is blowing out forecasts, obviously. Are you going to expand your prison building programme? We already have plans in place both for some smaller new builds on existing prison sites as well as` I'm talking about in addition to that. No, not in addition to what we've already planned and committed to. OK. Well, the Prime Minister was asked this yesterday, and he said that he's getting advice on whether he needs the extra 500 more beds at Waikeria Prison. Are you aware of that? Yes. So, we're planning for 1500. There's an option for another 500 on top of the 1500, but at this stage, we have committed to and funded the 1500. But it's not ruled out that you're going to need the extra 500. No. The end of the day, my job as the minister of corrections is to ensure that we have capacity in a safe and humane manner for the prisoners to be accommodated. So if we need to build more capacity, that's absolutely what we'll do. So, are prisons still a moral and fiscal failure? So, the Prime Minister said that in 2011, and, yes, I agree with him. That's when we really kicked in all of our investment in reducing reoffending. But you've been here nine years, and you are building more space in prison, and now you've just told me you're looking at whether you need to build even more on top of that. Yep, absolutely. And we are investing 230% more than the previous government ever did in rehabilitation and reintegration. So, absolutely, we are investing in the things that we know will make a difference to the prisoners when they leave. But it's not working fast enough, is it, if you have to keep building. If you have to keep building, it's not working fast enough. At the end of the day, Corrections' job is to accommodate those that are sentenced to spend time in prison. So we need to do that and to ensure the facilities are up to scratch and the prisoners are housed adequately. I just want to check if Labour is going to carry on with this building programme. So 1800 extra spaces have already been committed to and potentially looking at 500 more. Are you going to carry on building at Waikeria? Well, the trouble is that under this regime, the prison population is skyrocketing. It went up 40% in your time. Like I said, by 2025, they were anticipating it to be 10,090. Well, we passed that a year or so ago. Current projections, we're probably going to have 18,000 people in prison. That has to stop. That's why we have to have a paradigm shift in the way Corrections is run. We have to look at reducing the prison population, not by just letting out criminals into society, but we actually have to look at what we're doing and the way we're doing things, and, like I say, let's look at what those jurisdictions around the world are doing that are so successful. Well, then, name me one specific policy that you would bring in that would mean you don't have to build all this bricks and mortar. One of the things that I'd like to see, because the government's introduced working prisons` Every prison's a working prison. ...is actually extend that to educational prisons. And I quite like, actually, the policy from ACT where prisons can reduce their` Is that Labour policy or is that just an idea you're throwing around? That's going to be Labour policy ` that we'll look at educational prisons. You know, if we can` They're already getting education in prison. They're already getting qualifications. Yeah, but you're talking about teaching people how to read. What I'm talking about is` No, no, no. They're doing apprenticeships; they're doing industry training; they're learning how to be builders, plumbers, electricians` Well, it's not working, Louise, because the prison population is going up. It is, because they're getting jobs when they come out. That's the most important thing. In terms of securing their future, we want to make sure we're dealing with literacy, we're dealing with drug and alcohol issues` We've got 10,400 people in prison. ...we're dealing with giving them the skills where employers need them on the other side. We've got 10,400 people in prison. Which is why we've got 2000 former offenders into jobs in primary industries, in beekeeping, in building and construction, in hospitality. If you look at Gate to Plate, there is extraordinary training going on inside our prisons ` technical qualifications that support them getting a job. You have surpassed your 10-year target in one year. You went up 40% in your time. We're going up 30%. I accept it's a challenge, but it's a challenge that we are absolutely confronting. When they leave, we don't want them to come back. Your 10-year target, you surpassed it in one year, Louise. It's not working. Yeah, the forecast absolutely moves around. The reality is we've got to make sure when people come into prison, we deal with the issues that they have, whether it's in education, whether it's a mental health issue, whether it's about getting qualifications to get them ready for a job, because we don't want them coming back. You took one year to surpass your 10-year forecast. All right, I'm going to jump in here. So, you are funding rehabilitation programmes, but, in your own words there, 30% increase in the muster. So can you really say that you're doing enough and it's actually working? Yep, absolutely. Mr Davis is right ` record numbers. Yeah. So, we have the numbers, and, absolutely, that's what we're given. And what we do is then invest more. We have to change lives person by person. That is the only way we're going to actually have an impact and make sure that those offenders don't come back; they go home to their families. We want to make sure that they have a different life when they go home to their families and communities. All right. Part of National's policy is double-bunking to increase capacity. Now, just this year alone, we've seen a number of convictions for the rape and sexual assault of prisoners who were double-bunked. What responsibility do you take for that? So, firstly, it's appalling those incidents have happened in our prisons. And there is a zero tolerance in prisons for doing that. Corrections are now reflecting on the assessment tool that they use for who's suitable for double-bunking. For some prisoners, actually, for those that have some mental health challenges, it actually reduces their risk of self-harm, for example, so for some inmates, it's actually a really important mechanism for their time in prison being more manageable. OK. But for the victims, those victims of rape and sexual assault, should they get compensation? That's a matter for those victims and Corrections, but as I say, it's appalling that that's occurred. What's your personal view on that? Do they deserve to be compensated for what they've suffered? They deserve the same rights as other victims who have been victims of sexual assault. OK. Well, apology will cost you nothing. Do you want to apologise to them now? Well, I don't believe it should ever have happened, and I really feel for those victims. It should never have occurred in the first place. And that's why I've asked Corrections to look at their risk assessment tool` So, do you apologise to them? Yeah. I feel very sorry for those victims, absolutely. OK. Mr Davis, the Australians, in your view, are abusing the human rights ` or ignoring the human rights of New Zealanders by detaining them indefinitely in detention centres with a view to deporting them here to New Zealand. So if you get into government, what exactly are you going to do about it? Yeah, in particular, it's the double jeopardy side of things where they've been imprisoned for whatever crime they've committed, and then it may be only 12 months, but they may be three or four years in a detention centre. Well, there has to be high-level engagement around this because human rights are universal; they don't discriminate, and we need to be able to have those hard conversations. Even though the Australians are our allies, we need to be able to say to them, 'Hey, look, what you're doing actually isn't right.' OK. We're almost out of time, so I want a straight answer on this. Your leader's going to go to the mat over education. If she becomes prime minister, and if the Aussies make New Zealanders pay for education, she says she's going to retaliate. So are you going to retaliate over this or not? Like I say, there needs to be high-level conversation. What I'd like to see is that the rights that Australians enjoy in New Zealand are rights that New Zealanders enjoy in Australia. We've got to leave it there. Thank you both for joining me this morning. Thank you. OK. Water ` its quality and who owns it has been one of the critical election issues, and it has come to a head in the Tasman district where money from the government's Freshwater Improvement Fund is being used to help build a dam. Caitlin McGee has this report. The Waimea basin is fed by bountiful aquifers, but it's not enough to quench the region's thirst. It's been over-allocated, which means too much water is being drawn out of it, so the Tasman District Council says it has a choice; claw back the consents or build a dam. We've got a huge problem because we don't have enough water in the Waimea basin and we need a solution. Also, we've got a real problem in the river in the summer months because there's a very low flow when it gets dry. So we have` Doing nothing is not an option, and we have to find a solution. And the dam is the most cost-effective solution that we've got. The Waimea dam project will be built beyond these padlocked gates. Three property owners have taken Tasman District Council to court after it tried to acquire their land under the Public Works Act so it could be part of the dam site. But it's a different issue that's causing controversy downstream. We first realised that there was a problem when the government announced the projects that had been allocated funding from the Freshwater Improvement Fund, which showed that the very biggest grant had gone to the Waimea dam project, which, of course, largely benefits constituents in Nick Smith's electorate. The scheme has received a $7 million grant from the government's Freshwater Improvement Fund. The fund is designed to improve management of our lakes, rivers and streams. So far it's committed $44 million to 33 projects. The Waimea dam project has got the biggest share so far despite not being identified as a vulnerable catchment. I think most people will have seen the Freshwater Improvement Fund and imagined that it was about improving the quality of freshwater, and, of course, what this project does, the Waimea dam project, is an irrigation project, which, in fact, is likely to deteriorate freshwater quality. Forest & Bird says environment minister Nick Smith is too close to the project. Smith is the MP for Nelson, and the dam would be built in Tasman to irrigate the Waimea plains, part of which are in Smith's electorate. Nick Smith has spent years, in fact, advocating for funding for this particular dam, and now he is the person who's made the decision to actually give it funding from the Freshwater Improvement Fund. But the Environment Minister doesn't see a problem. The only region in New Zealand that applied for funding and got none was the Nelson City Council. Every other region in New Zealand was able to access funds where they applied. It's never been the practice in New Zealand whether you are the minister of education in respect of schools in your area, minister of transport with respect to transport projects in your area, or, for that matter, the minister for the environment with projects in the area. In my view, this is just playing politics. He says 12 of the 33 grants under the Freshwater Improvement Fund went to areas not defined as vulnerable, and believes the project is sound. The reports from both the Cawthron Institute and from the Council's own water technical experts show very clearly that the Waimea community dam will result in improved water quantity and quality. Now, the irrigators are being asked to pay for the cost of the water that's to be used for the expansion of crops like apples, kiwifruit, hops and grapes. But the big part of the dam is lifting the minimum flows in the Waimea River by fivefold. That is going to remove the algae blooms that have provided poor water quality in summer in the Waimea and it's a good scheme to invest in. But a former Treasury economist says the scheme doesn't meet the Freshwater Improvement Fund criteria and is a misuse of taxpayer money. In a statement to the Tasman District Council, Peter Fraser says... The dam will cost $82 million, and once complete, will hold 13.5 million cubic metres of water. As well as the $7 million from the Freshwater Improvement Fund, the taxpayer contributes another $10 million in the form of an interest-free loan from the Crown Irrigation Fund. Ratepayers will have to repay that loan and put in another $15 million on top. Other funds may come from the Nelson City Council. Tasman mayor Richard Kempthorne says irrigators will foot the bulk of the bill or the dam won't go ahead. But one irrigator says the project is simply too big and too expensive. Our objection to the scheme is that it's too large, too costly and it's going to be unaffordable to the majority of irrigators and others on the plains. And we're also very fearful of cost overruns, and, unfortunately, the Tasman District Council has a history where it's got involved in commercial projects of having cost overruns of up to 50%. Brian Halstead is a grape grower on the Waimea plains. He's also an accountant and an irrigation consultant, and he says the plan for the dam to convert dry land into pip fruit is flawed. The cost of converting to pip fruit would be around $75,000 to $80,000 per hectare, and there's a waiting time of three years before the pip fruit comes into production. And during that three-year period, the irrigators would have to front with the annual charges. And it would not be possible to have an economic return on that basis. He supports a plan to augment the river but believes a more effective storage scheme could be built for around $35 million. All the irrigators already have their water, and it's only for a 10- to 12-week period that often they go short. So what we're saying to Council is that it's a very expensive insurance policy just for that period of time. And on top of that, we believe the Council has engineered the plan changes that we've been through in the last two years, to the point that it is forcing irrigators to take up shares in the Waimea dam. U.N. research shows by 2030, the world will only have 60% of the water it needs. So water is an increasingly valuable commodity, and as the election draws closer, decisions over how we use and preserve ours are reaching boiling point. Up next, Paddy talks to Te Ururoa Flavell, Marama Davidson and Willie Jackson about the crucial Maori seats. But first, Jeremy and Paul with their hot takes on the week in politics. The big question this week ` was Labour right to reverse Jacinda Ardern's captain's call? Well, isn't the captain's call usually 'abandon ship'? Bit early for that, I think, Paul. It clears up any vagueness, though, for Labour. No new tax changes until 2021. Well, apart from the water tax, the petrol tax, the tourism tax, reversing any income tax cuts and bringing farming into the ETS. Yes. Apart from those ` speaking of farmers, was it a good idea for National to carve up Landcorp farms and sell them to farmers? Well, it sort of depends. What are the farmers' surnames? Good question, Paul. They're very busy all of a sudden after nine years, aren't they, National? Throwing money at housing, transport, education, tax cuts. Yeah. They sort of remind me of the bloke who sat on the couch watching sport all weekend and then suddenly realises his wife's coming home in an hour, so they're frantically trying to tidy up, make it look good. 150,000 people have already voted. That's amazing. What are they doing? Even before National's finished bribing us! What a pack of idiots! I'm holding out for the pony. And finally, are people putting too much stock in the polls? Well, remember a pole is just a stick with round edges. You just described Colin Craig. I did! Welcome back. The Maori seats are set to be as crucial as ever this election, particularly for the Maori Party. Co-leaders Marama Fox and Te Ururoa Flavell need to win their seats to stay in Parliament. Now, I spoke to Te Ururoa Flavell earlier this morning from Rotorua about what happens after Election Day. Well, we've just got to wait and see what happens after the election, eh? Most of the time, our people have given us a lead. We've always gone back to them after each election and asked the question. But it's based on the fact of whether we get an invitation. I mean, as we've had in the last nine years, we've been at the side of National on the basis of an invitation given to us when the National government never ever needed the Maori Party. So that's a huge plus. On the other side of the coin, traditionally, our people have been with Labour. So what happens is that we get to a point after the election, find out where the cards fall and then basically take a position that we would promote for our people based on how the numbers stack up. But we'd go round the country, check in with everybody, check in with all of our supporters to make sure that they're comfortable with our position, all depending on whether we get an invite. We know that the Nats are prepared to give us an invite. The question is whether Labour's prepared to give us an invite ` and we'll just have to see what happens ` and, in fact, whether they're in a position to give an invite. That's all still to be determined because the polls, as you know, are falling all over the show. So we've just got to wait and see. Yeah, but if it is Labour this time around, Te Ururoa Flavell, if Labour is able to give you that invite to their table, is that where you think your people lie? Is that where your heart sort of tells you that your people lie ` that they would like you to go with Labour if you could? Well, my heart says we want to be ourselves and independent and have an opportunity to go wherever they tell us to go to, so we'll just have to see. Look, I'm comfortable either way. We'll just have to wait and see, but, of course, it all depends on the invitation, Paddy. If we don't get that, it's all over. And I think that our people have sort of talked up the notion of being, you know, with the Greens, certainly, because we have some alignment with their policies. Sometimes with Labour now and again. Yeah, sure. And in terms of Winston Peters, could the Maori Party work in any government where Winston Peters is there with this policy of wanting to have a referendum on the Maori seats? Could you in any way support any government where Winston Peters was involved? That's probably the catch, Paddy, when you ask the question about where we'd lie, because both National and Labour have to stitch up a deal, and possibly New Zealand First would be a part of that scenario. I can tell you my heart says I'd be struggling to sit with New Zealand First. Their policies are divisive. They are actually an anathema to where the Maori Party sits. "We want to get rid of the Maori seats, want no Maori wards, want to get rid of Whanau Ora, "take out treaty wording and any legislation." I mean, it's the exact opposite to where the Maori Party sits right now, and more importantly, in terms of this whole country, it's a divisive campaign that's leading us, I believe, down the wrong pathway. Be that as it may, we have to see where the cards fall. And personally, I'd struggle to sit next to those from New Zealand First against those policies that are absolute opposite to where the Maori Party sits. Yeah, but are you actually ruling that out, Te Ururoa Flavell? Because it sounds as if you'd hate the idea, but you haven't actually ruled out supporting some kind of government with Winston Peters in it. That's right. That's because it's a decision for our people. As I've said before, it would be a little bit crazy for me to tell you that we're going to go back and talk to the people and then basically declare a position on TV in front of you. What I've declared is my personal view about that. But it will be for our supporters and our people to tell us where we're going to go. So your personal view is, "No, I will not support a government with Winston Peters,' but you will give your people the due respect by going back to them on that? I'd definitely give our people the due respect of going back to them, and personally I would struggle very much to be a part of a governing arrangement that had New Zealand First with it. Sure. And just on Marama Fox, she is your moon, she is your stardust in the Maori Party. How worried are you that if you get up in your seat and if Howie Tamati gets up in his, that Marama Fox will miss out altogether? Because it is a very big possibility, as you know. That's right. I'd be hugely disappointed. I mean, Marama and I, I think, are a great combination. We've worked side by side for the last three years. She works very hard and brings that special edge to us. Probably, I'm more established, a little bit more conservative and probably a little bit more older than her. She brings that young energy. She's a huge asset to the Maori Party, no doubt about that. She's the co-leader, for goodness sake. And while it would be great to have our other members in Parliament, all the other members coming through, at the end of the day, she's known all the way that she's got to win that seat, and that's why it's important that everybody thinks carefully about where they place their vote. Here in the studio with me are Labour's Maori campaign director, Willie Jackson, and Green MP Marama Davidson. Thank you for having both of you guys here. And I want to start by saying this is the first time I've actually seen Labour and the Greens doing something together despite this memorandum of understanding. You haven't been looking hard enough! (LAUGHS) Now, I want to start with you, Willie Jackson. And this question will come to you as well, Marama. Winston Peters ` so, say, for instance, we look at some of these polls showing us a government where Labour and the Greens can work together, like you guys are right now, but Uncle Winston has got to be there to get you across the line. Can you guys work with Winston Peters if he brings this policy with him of a referendum on the Maori seats? We can work with Winston. We've made that very clear. Our first obligation is to the Greens, though. That's a commitment that we're following through with. We'll be ringing their co-leader. And we hope they do well next week, because we are a bloc; we represent left wing and a lot of Maori and working class interests. But Winston is someone` Of course we can work with him. He's worked well with Labour in the past. He's talked about this Maori seats referendum. Everything is negotiable. We'll see what the numbers bring us. But I don't think he's going to die over one particular thing. He's got a number of bottom lines. But would you die over it? Would you say, 'No way. No way, Jose, can we go in if that referendum's there'? No need to take that position. In coalition negotiations, negotiations are quite different. When you get there` Look, the Maori Party went and had a cup of tea and breakfast with Don Brash the day after Brash had just finished the most racist campaign in the history of New Zealand politics. So of course we can talk with Uncle Winston. Not a problem. We're not going to die in a ditch over anything. He's a senior politician. Done a lot for working class people. We'll talk with him. But this is what my question is ` you should be saying, shouldn't you, that you would die in a ditch over those Maori seats and a referendum on them. Well, Labour have already made it clear there'll be no referendum under our watch. Absolutely. But that doesn't mean we won't talk with Winston. Marama Davidson, can the Greens, in this kind of situation we're talking about where you're in with your brothers and sisters from Labour and then there's Uncle Winston that's needed to come around the table, can the Greens work with Winston Peters if he tries to bring this Maori seats referendum to the table or on anything else as well? Okay, so we have worked with Uncle Winston in the past. I was really happy that he supported our feed the kids bill, and that is currently my bill in the Member's Ballot at the moment. On the referendum, the Greens have been really clear. Already Maori have the agency to vote on the general or the Maori roll. We already have that agency. We already are able to make that decision. Our opposition to Winston Peters' policies, we've been very clear and up front about that. We have been very clear that we won't put up with some of his attitudes and policies and approaches that pull on that populous racism stuff that we need to actually be resisting. But, yes, we have worked with Winston on issues. What we're concentrating on is getting as much of a party vote as possible for the Greens so that Labour and Greens don't need to consider anyone else. Yeah, well, that is a situation that's arisen recently as well. Which is Labour and the Greens and maybe, just maybe, to get across the line, you could get in with the Maori Party if they get one or two seats. Yeah, absolutely. So how do you feel about that kind of government? That seems to be exciting. That's our preference for a truly progressive government for a government that's going to help the Green Party get our priorities over the line, which are to end poverty, to clean up our awa, to take real action on climate change, and to get te reo Maori universally in all schools. That's the government that we know we have the best shot at being truly progressive for our country. But as you know, we're going to get the reo in the schools five years before the Greens. They haven't yet put out a proper plan yet, Willie, but, yes, we can work with you; we can help you out with that. We'll help you out with that. But this is right, isn't it? So that's the preference for the Greens ` a progressive government, Labour, Maori, Green. Is that your preference too, Willie Jackson? No, it's not. We want to work with the Greens. We may work with the Maori Party. We'll just see how the numbers` You are trying to destroy the Maori Party. You'd like to wipe them out. That's you and Duncan Garner. You know how you get carried away, Paddy. This is a political election, after all. We want to take them out; they want to take us out. That's the nature of the game. It doesn't mean I want to destroy them. I love their whanau and their friends and whanaunga. No, we just want to take them out. If they came up on Election Day, we'll talk with them. But they're not my dream sort of view. Look, under the Maori Party, things have never been worse for Maori. 43% of our people are waiting for state rentals. 43% of our people. We're only 14%. Half of the prison population are Maori. Unemployment ` 11%. So we've never been worse off. And suicide ` we're killing ourselves at double the rate of Pakeha. All under the Maori Party watch. Paddy. Come in, Marama. Come in, then. Paddy, what I know is that Maori across Aotearoa actually want to see us working together. The Greens are very clear that we can work together and work on those common ground areas that we have. And I know that Maori want to see us doing that, and the Greens are happy to play a leadership role in bringing our politics together. Do you guys reckon that there's a bit of a split in the Maori Party and that Te Ururoa is more keen on the National and Marama Fox is more keen on you guys? There's no doubt about the guy. Well, Paddy, this is a general election. Every single party, all of us are going to be having our own campaign. We all want to get as many party votes as we can. There's no doubt about that. Do you feel that there's split in the Maori Party that Te Ururoa's more on the National side? Oh, no doubt about it. He's put out blogs to say he wants to go down the National track. Marama Fox has talked about Labour. Then every second day she` She wants the Greens too. She wants the Greens. She keeps putting the boot in. I disagree a little bit with Marama over here that Maori want` I'm shocked (!) I know you're shocked. (LAUGHS) No, but I think some Maori want us to go with the Maori Party, but a heck of a lot of us want us just to work with the Greens, because they're irritated and angry with the way that the Maori Party have worked with National. Things have never been worse in terms of our people, Marama. And this I know. And what I also know is our people want to be clear on what they're voting for. It is the Greens and the Labour Party who are saying we'll change the government. That is a vote of change, whereas the Maori Party is a vote of chance. And so we do have to be clear about that. I would love to work with the Maori Party, but I would like them to commit to getting rid of the very government that has made things worse for our people, our awa and our climate. I don't understand why you want to work` Look, I'm happy to work with them. I work with them now. I work with them every day in Whanau Ora, Maori radio, Maori TV, but I'm confident of her. She's been a defender of Maori rights for many years. I'm confident of our caucus ` Nania Mahuta, Kelvin Davis, Adrian Rurawhe, all the way through. It's a good plug. We've only got a few seconds left. When are we going to get compulsory te reo Maori in schools so all kids can learn it if you guys get into government? We've got the most comprehensive plan, much better than the Greens. 2025. You haven't got a date on yours. 2025. So, we're not going to promise things earlier than we can realistically achieve them. We've got an actual plan. We have said we have to get a taskforce up and running where we will work with the curriculum and the Ministry of Education. We will increase the incentives and scholarships and have a targeted market programme for that. We'll help you out, Labour. We'll help you out. Greens have got a plan, and Labour haven't, but they're going to work together on it. That's a summary here. Thank you very much for your time, guys. Kia ora. Kia ora. Good luck out there. All right, stay with us. After the break, our panel and anything could happen, really. (LAUGHTER) Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` Tim Watkin from RNZ; Ben Thomas from Exceltium PR; and our political editor Patrick Gower. Well, Corrections debate this morning ` Kelvin Davis, Louise Upston. Both agreed the population in prison is too high. It's all about rehab. But did you get an idea that anyone had a clear plan on how to fix the problem? I was trying to figure out which party staffer out there pulled the fire alarm. I couldn't tell which party would've been better off getting out of there. You had one party that is failing to meet its targets in government and can't figure` and on one hand is trying to say that prisons are a moral and fiscal failure and yet we wanna build more; and another party who don't have a target and don't have a plan. So they both probably were quite happy for that fire alarm to go off and get outta there. Yeah. I mean, Louise Upston confirmed that` we know that they're expanding the prison building programme. They're building 1500 beds at Waikeria. But it was confirmed this morning they're looking at another 1500 on top of that. Will that work for or against National? Does it sort of indicate, ooh, we're tough on crime, or B, we're failing? Yeah, so, that's two strands of National kind of colliding ` the first is Bill English's social investment approach, you know, where you target those most in need of government services. Where are they? we know where they are. They're in prisons. Mm. That's where you should be putting resources. Then the other strain, which has really reared up again, is National's been in trouble in the polls, has been tough on crime, boot camps, cracking down on gangs, and this kind of rhetoric about more prison beds will kind of feed into that narrative as well. Even though, you know, these plans have been in train for a while. Yeah. Either party have a clear vision there? No. And I'll tell you what, it's two weeks in a row ` and thank you so much for all the research and the debate that you did on Corrections, cos it's such an important issue ` but two weeks in a row that a Labour spokesperson has come in there and doesn't really look like they've done the thinking, the work, the plan that's needed for if they're taking ministerial seats. Last week with Social Development, we didn't see a whole lot of new ideas coming out there. Mm. And again with Kelvin Davis. You know, that guy could be Minister of Corrections in a week. And where's the big plan, where's the big difference to National? There really isn't one. Neither party is wrestling with the fundamental question, which there are some hard choices here ` politically unpalatable choices; that's why they're not saying anything. Because either you've got to build more prisons, or you've got to change the sentencing laws. Or bail, as Kelvin alluded to. Yeah, or the bail laws. Kelvin Davis there was saying that he would review bail. How's that gonna go down with voters? Well, it's gonna be` Terribly. Terribly, is the short answer. Yeah, terribly. That's the simple fact. But it's also realistic. How else do you actually stop building another 2000 cells? Well, I think he kind of walked it back a little bit as the interview went on. Quickly. And didn't really commit. Until his spin doctor rang the fire alarm. (LAUGHTER) That's a joke, by the way. But I think that's an important point, which is that actually, you know, even though you have a Corrections debate, you know, what's driving prison numbers is, you know, when you go far back into it, social policy and societal outcomes. And then right at the beginning of prison sentences, it's the courts, it's the sentencing laws. And so in terms of prison itself, there's not much you can really do about the prison numbers. Yeah, I mean, it's a Pandora's box, and, you know, when Labour got voted out in 2008, Corrections had actually become a really, really big issue. National's managed to get law and order quite a lot lower down people's priority lists, and it doesn't sort of have that fire; we don't have the hardliners or anything in and around either. They've got it off the agenda, which is where they wanted it to be, but it doesn't mean there's not big problems. We're just gonna take a quick break. Back shortly. Welcome back. You're with The Nation and our panel. Well, the Maori seats are so important this election, and we've heard from Te Ururoa Flavell on Winston Peters. Now, I found this really interesting. He said he would struggle to work with Winston. That's his personal view. But he would take it to his people, and he needs an invite ` and invite ` from the left if he's going to be at the table. What do you make of that? Well, I think this shows how important it is that Marama Fox gets back for the Maori Party, because she wouldn't wait for an invitation. She would just barge through the door. And I think, you know, that's actually a serious point about how much, sort of, backbone and spine she's brought to the Maori Party in government and also campaigning. You know, she's the one who's really, kind of, gone to the wall with the government over things like the Kermadecs and the Resource Management Act. And so in terms of the make-up of the Maori caucus after the election, that will be very important. I mean, Paddy, you kind of asked him about whether there was a split ` you know, whether Marama curves to the left and he curves to the right. And he said, basically, no split, didn't he? Yeah, he did, but he also said, 'I'm the more conservative,' and 'conservative' we really do need to attach to the right, even though he maybe wasn't quite meaning it that way. But I think he likes National, and she doesn't. She's been pretty open that she likes the idea of a Labour-Greens thing. In fact, she has said it's pretty much the best thing. Marama Davidson thinks it's the best thing as well. Willie Jackson doesn't really, but it's the next best thing. And they will have an invite. If their seats are needed, they will have the fastest invite that is ever spread through Maoridom. It will go through the flax roots quicker than anything else. So they will have an invite if they need it. We heard from the other two parties ` the Greens and Labour there. Willie Jackson says he's not gonna die in a ditch. These were his words ` 'I'm not gonna die in a ditch over anything.' And he was talking about cuddling up with Winston Peters. And then second breath was, 'Oh, yeah, but we're not doing the referendum.' No, no. He was trying to cut his cloth every way, which is what he does. Willie does not want to do deals with the Maori Party. He's not a fan. There's no love lost there. But with Flavell, there might not be an invitation. I mean, one of Winston's bottom lines is no race-based parties as part of any coalition. So he cannot work with the Maori Party, so this idea when we see on the polls that you say National plus New Zealand First plus Maori Party plus ACT, it's just not gonna happen. Winston's not gonna work with ACT or Maori Party. It's not gonna happen. Hey, well, let's talk about events earlier in the week. Labour's U-turn, right, on tax, where they said that they were just going to implement... they'd have their tax commission and then run with it. Now they've put it off. It'll get a mandate by taking to the electorate again. Is that embarrassing, Paddy? Will it hurt them in any way, or do people just not care? Uh, I think it's gonna hurt them. I think it may make them a bit safer. It may think that some people can come back to them. But ultimately, they opened the door for Steven Joyce to come charging through with the most sustained political attack that I have seen in my time in this job. Every time you open Facebook, listen to the radio, turn on the television, see anything, it's tax, tax, tax, tax, tax. And they don't actually care. They're putting out so much misinformation, that they probably don't even care that they've backed off it, because it's just created more mystique around it. I think it came too late. Jacinda Ardern did that U-turn too late. Tim, what do you reckon? Cos the polls were already open. This is the interesting thing. Because we've got early voting now. So people got a two-week period to cast their vote. It was madness to ever go down that path. Andrew Little had carefully put tax off the agenda, especially capital gains tax, for Labour, and Jacinda Ardern took it back out again. It was one of the dumbest things I've seen for a long time. But putting it back in the box was the right thing to do. I'm not sure if it is gonna hurt that much. I think now that they've put it back in, they need to keep hammering, they need to be relentlessly taxish for the next few days and say, 'We are safe, we are safe, we are safe.' Cos that then allows people to buy into the hope and change message. If they're not too scared of that, they then go, 'OK, hope and change.' Cos that's what it's down to now, right? National ` safe, secure. Labour ` hope and change. But you don't take hope and change if you don't feel` If you think you're gonna get a new tax. ...out of your hip pocket, exactly. Do you think National will be pleased how that has played out? I think National would've been more pleased if Labour had doubled down. I'm not even sure that you can call it a U-turn, because they didn't even have a policy that they were going to the election with. Good point. I mean, to go in with that level of vagueness and ambiguity and just ask the voters to go on trust, I think was a huge mistake to begin with. And I think Paddy's right. The only mistake that they made in reversing it was not doing it sooner. Yeah, and on it, it's energised National's base. You know, there's this rural revolt going on which is actually quite organised, and people say, 'Oh, well, farmers were always gonna vote National.' But we haven't seen farmers energised. And where it's gonna help National is if the farmers are energising the rural centres and the people that work in there and that kind of thing, and then if the tax thing is scaring the crucial centre voters that have got the assets, the money and the ones that get out, it's energised National's base. And it might not be as cool as Jacinda-mania, but it's its own form of blue-mania from the farmers to all the rich dudes in Parnell, and it's giving them energy, and that's what you need in campaigns is energy. But that crucial urban vote, especially the key women and those middle class women in the mainstream middle classes who can move between National and Labour, had been given permission to have a look at Labour again by Jacinda. What they started to see was starting to worry them. Now they can walk away from that and go, 'You know what? If they're not gonna tax me in the first term, 'then maybe I can start thinking about health and housing and about...' You know, they might like te reo. They might like all kinds of little bits and pieces and go, 'Yep.' And it goes back to that thing ` nine years of this lot; is it time for a turn? So that's the decision people will be weighing up now, I think, for those swing voters. I want to, Paddy, very quickly just talk about the polls, because obviously we had two polls in the week, and they showed different things, and everybody will be going, 'Eh, what?' you know. So what's your take on it? Yeah. I mean, only one of those polls can be right because they are actually quite divergent, and the margin of error is not actually marrying up between the two of them. So unless we see the polls converge this week on the final polls, one of them is going to be out of whack, and I hope it's not my one. (LAUGHTER) I'm not asking for predictions, but were you surprised by that, then? What do you think? Is National ahead or is Labour ahead? Cos you can take your pick from those polls, can't you? Yeah, and we do have fewer polls in this election. Yeah, we do. The newspapers have stopped putting the money into polling. So we have less information to work with. There's a lot more whispering going on about, sort of, internal polling. You know, it's hard to tell how reliable that is. But it really does seem like it's neck-and-neck right now, maybe with National a point ahead. There's no clear trend. It's just blimmin' close. I want to jump in cos I want to talk about this before we go. The Saudi sheep deal ` the never-ending story. Well, I want to say also that Murray McCully came on The Nation and told us that there was legal advice that New Zealand would be sued for $20 million to $30 million if we didn't stump up the money for a farm in the middle of the desert. Now, he stuck to his guns about that, Tim, didn't he, and said there was advice. He said it was a very experienced legal team at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and there was that advice, but he wasn't going to give it to us. Repeatedly. And you chased it down. That was two years ago. So, he said it's the ministry's advice and if they want to hand it out, they can. So I went to the ministry and asked for it. That was two years ago. I've been asking for it ever since. This week I got a letter from MFAT thanks to the ombudsman in which they said they're still not gonna release the advice that they have got because there is some legal advice on the whole issue, but on the question of whether we would be sued or not, no advice was ever sought or provided. So all of those comments that the ministry` Hang on. Just before you move on. So there was no advice. There was no advice. (CHUCKLES) When McCully said he wouldn't release the advice, when MFAT said they would not release the advice, there was no advice to release, and they knew it. Hey, then, so ghost legal advice, right? Ghost legal advice that doesn't exist. But the thing is Murray McCully is gone, and John Key is gone, who was around at that time. Who takes responsibility for it, or is that it? Yeah, that's right. Unfortunately, the people who mislead Cabinet, the people who covered it up, I think, in the case of John Key, are out of politics now, and so it's hard to see who we can hold to account for this. Yeah, I've got two words to say on this. Two ` that's all we've got time for. Classic McCully. What a way to go. LAUGHS: All right. That's all from us for now. We will see you on election night. Paddy and I will be here in the studio with all the results and analysis. And then we'll be back with a Nation special on Sunday morning 10AM. Can't wait. Captions by Anne Langford, Ashlee Scholefield, Desney Shaw and Madison Batten. www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2017