Good morning and welcome to The Nation. I'm Lisa Owen. Today ` what will Winston Peters bring to our next government? Well, we've agreed on the protocols that go forward and how we'll conduct our discussions and our negotiations and what we intend to do about it. All that's been resolved. As he keeps the country guessing, we asked business leaders what employers, unions and sustainable businesses want in the next three years. Then, as the US grapples with the gun control issue yet again, what New Zealand can do to force change. ...stand absolutely stuck in the mud and the blood, then, look out, USA. Life won't be all that simple. And there are things small nations can do to bring some firmer pressure to bear. Former Australian deputy prime minister Tim Fischer on what needs to be done to end mass shootings. Then Timor Leste is running out of money from its oil reserves, and many of its people remain in poverty. Can coffee farming save the fragile economy? And we wrap up the week with our political panel ` Conor English, Laila Harre and Simon Wilson. And comedians Jeremy Corbett and Paul Ego. It's great to have you with us today. If you'd like to get in touch, our details are on the screen now. And if you're on Twitter, you can follow along with our Twitter panel, NBR political reporter Jason Walls and writer Lamia Imam, using the hashtag #NationNZ. Well, Winston Peters has begun negotiations with both Labour and National about forming the next government, but we'll have to wait a few more days at the very least to know which way they'll go. The only thing we do know is that his party, New Zealand First, will be involved in some form. So what will that mean for the economy? Well, joining me now are Kim Campbell from the Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association, Abbie Reynolds from the Sustainable Business Council, and Bill Rosenberg from the Council of Trade Unions. Good morning to you all. Abbie Reynolds, if I can come to you first. Everyone seems to agree that strong, stable government is important, but is it also important to get a government in place in a timely fashion? Look, I think when I'm thinking about what my members are saying to me about what their priorities are, they're really focused on things which are very long-term. So I think this interregnum is, you know, inconvenient, but, actually, mostly where they are is we need these long-term strategies around the things that matter to us ` climate change and making sure no New Zealander is left behind. So they're happy to wait. Well, I don't know that they're happy to wait. They're getting on with things, but the stuff we're thinking about is really long-term, so what we want is really well thought through policy. Yes, there's a sense of urgency, but hurrying these conversations isn't something that we can do. Kim Campbell, how long before business gets a bit spooked? Well, you've got to look at the planning arises, as Abbie says. Somebody's planning a large investment over a long period, a couple of months is neither here nor there. In the short-term, obviously some people are holding on maybe buying a house or a car or going on holiday, and that's always going to happen. But look at overseas. United States, we have an approximation of a presidency; the country just does very well. Some countries, it takes months. Germany, I know, is going to take four or five months, and the country goes on fine. I think we've got to remind ourselves that we've got such strong institutions here. The things that go on in New Zealand keep going on. So I'm quite happy for them to take their time and get it right. But if it was Christmas, I think we'd be worried. Bill Rosenberg, how long before you'd get worried? If it took six months, people might start getting worried. But I think I agree with what Kim and Abbie have said ` that, actually, there are urgent things to get on with, but as much as we need to have a government that's equipped to take those long-term views, that we rush the whole business. If anything urgent comes up in the interregnum, then the caretaker government can get together with the opposition and say, 'Look, hey, we actually have to make these decisions. Let's do it.' But really, the things that are urgent are the things that the outgoing government has left behind, and it's been working on the principal 'don't do today what you can put off until tomorrow.' And we have all these hugs issues that the next government will have to face ` housing and health funding, social welfare and so on. OK. Well, let's look at some possibilities here, because the one thing that we do know, the one thing that is certain, is that Winston Peters and New Zealand First are going to be involved in this new government. So what is the best thing, Kim, that that party and he could do for the economy? Well, the best thing they can do is find places to compromise, because if a business looks at all the parties, if we could cherry-pick, they've all got some policies we like. And... both parties, both Winston and National's, have to curb their most extreme instincts or they're just not going to find a common ground. Winston tends to be rather more interventionist. He has a very conservative social agenda. And so the combination is what counts. Do you see a policy`? You say they've all got policies that you can identify that you'd liked. So if you looked at Winston Peters' arsenal, can you pick one from there that you think would be a good one? He believes in manufacturing, which we obviously believe in, and he's got some ideas there that work. We disagree with the way he wants to go at immigration. But his regional ideas ` we've got lots of businesses in the regions that are struggling; I think it's a good idea. Taking care of places where` Forestry's another one. I think we've left that neglected for too long. So there are lots of places where there's points of contact. OK. Bill, what do you think could be one of the most significant things that New Zealand First could do for the economy? Well, I think New Zealand First does have a relatively long-term view of changing the direction of the economy, which is positive and important, and it also has some quite positive policies in there of wages, pushing up the minimum wage and dealing with the problem of a lot of people of casual employment. So there are some things there that are obviously quite close to what both Labour and the Greens are talking about. And I think, actually, after nine years of a government that has been very focused on business and on reducing government spending, we actually need to move much more to looking after the direct needs of people in New Zealand. And Kim's talked about that, about the need for people, and businesses are starting to recognise that. If you have an economy where a whole lot of people are missing out, where we're neglecting the environment, then, actually, the economy won't function well. But, more importantly, the reason for an economy, which is for people to raise their welfare, their wellbeing, is getting lost, and I think that needs to be the change in focus. OK, you mentioned wages. I want to talk about that in a minute, but I want to give Abbie a change to identify what she thinks could be the thing that Winston Peters and New Zealand First brings to the economy. Oh, look, it might be a bit of a fantasy, but what we would really love him to be able to do is to take that really long-term perspective and build some really cross-party coalition, long-term coalition around what the climate change plan is, how they're going to work with business to figure out what our pathway is to being a net-zero economy and how quickly we can do that. And I think, echoing what these guys have both said about what are we going to do around making sure that no Kiwis get left behind, that's really important to our membership. OK, well, let's talk about wages, then, because that is one thing that you've raised, Bill. Winston Peters does want to raise the minimum wage to $20 from $15.75. How realistic is that, Kim? Why don't we make it 30? I mean, it's pick a number. You need to match the growth in wages with other things in the economy. So you think that's unrealistic? I think $20 is fine, provided we can raise` you know, people don't lose their jobs. Think about this. And you've also got to think about if you put everybody up 25%, what happens to the people who are already on $20 an hour and the ratcheting effect that is going to have? So you actually think people would lose their jobs from that, because there is conflicting evidence about whether raising wages causes job losses. Well, it depends on where and who` it depends where you are in the economy, what you're doing. There's no law that says you can't pay people more money, and we've been quite vocal about this, saying, 'Look, the minimum wage is the absolute rock-bottom.' But this would be a law telling you you have to pay people $20. Our instincts are 'let the market decide that.' So we're not disagreeing on the what; we're disagreeing on the how. OK, so, Bill, what do you think? $20 an hour is his ambition. Do you think that that is realistic, or will it cost us jobs? I think it's ambitious, but it's also realistic. The international evidence on rises in the minimum wage are converging into the very clear view that it causes minimal employment effects. Yes, but we're the highest in the world here. And we've had some of the lowest unemployment in the world with some of those high minimum wages, so it's case in point. But I think also the other way to look at rises in wages is that it actually provides an incentive to employers to raise productivity, and one of the big problems that New Zealand has is very poor productivity ` absolute productivity and very poor rises in productivity, and some stimulus from sensible wage rises, I think, would really help with that. One of the problems with the minimum wage is that it only affects the people right at the bottom, and I conducted a study of this just recently ` there's kind of a hollowing out in the middle there. The next 50% are not getting anything like those wage rises, nothing like what the top 10% are getting. So we actually need to do more than simply raise the minimum wage. Spread it through. Your members, Abbie, one of the things that they have identified as one of their biggest concerns is that people are being left behind. Wages are one of things that you could do to make sure that doesn't happen, but the other thing is that Winston Peters says he would lower the company tax rate to enable this to happen. Is that a realistic trade off? Could you do it without that? Look, I think my members will all be in different places on this. What I can say, though, is that a lot of them have taken steps to raise their minimum wage to about $18.50 because they think that's the wage that allows the people who work for them to live with dignity, so there is a real drive from leading businesses to say, 'What is it we need to be paying people so they can live well?' So I think leading businesses are really clear that they need to look after their people well, so how we transition to what the right minimum wage is will be a really important part of the conversation. Well, Kim, he is saying lower the tax rate to about 25c. That would, some people say, carve out $1 billion of revenue. Can we afford that? Well, you may find` Because that's infrastructure, health, education, isn't it? The counterfactual may be that actually, at that lower tax rate, it'll attract greater investment and the tax tape will stay the same or actually go up. So you'd like to see that? Because remember, we're competing. Always think about competition. Yes. Who else? What are the tax rates elsewhere in the world? And they are round about that level, so I would argue ` stay competitive. Just the same with the wages. The fact is people aren't paying enough, find their organisations hollowed out, people leave and get better jobs. And also to Bill's point, in a way, by raising the wages, you may get greater productivity because people will automate. The sums become better to buy a robot and have people working for you, so the question then arises ` what is the economy going to do to respond to this in terms of either looking after the people that aren't working because of robots or other things that we're doing that give them work to do. And it's a real issue that we need to deal with as a community. But the fact is, as the wages go up, it becomes much more attractive to put in automated equipment. All right, Bill, a recent economic forecast from ANZ and Cameron Bagrie said that we've reached peak tourism, peak immigration, peak construction. Do you think we're there yet and we're about to head down the other side? Well, people have speculated about peak immigration for several years now. Treasury forecasts always say it's gonna fall. It hasn't. So that's speculation. I would hate to see it being peak construction, because there's so much more to do there. And peak immigration? Again, I think this is speculation. We do have significant environmental problems that have to be solved if we continue to increase tourism at the pace we're currently doing it. But if I can just come back to what Kim was saying, the threat of automation, I think, is a very rare one. And even in the United States, full automation is very rare. What may occur is we may get firms buying better machines, get better processes, involving workers more in decision making, so we actually get better processes there. What we need to have accompanying that is much better support from the government to help people through those changes, and we need to have government that actually supports the development of new, high-value industry, taking advantage of opportunities like climate change to actually change the direction of the economy to high value. What about immigration in all of this? Because some industries are crying out for more people ` physical people on the ground. So Winston Peters ` we all know very clearly what his position is on immigration, so what would you message from the people you represent be to Winston Peters about that? He'd like to knock it back to around 10,000 people a year. Look, I don't think my members are going to have a particularly aligned point of view on immigration. I think a lot of them are probably employing people from overseas. But, equally, what this record low unemployment is meaning for my members is that we're all having to think about the talent pools that we're not currently recruiting inside New Zealand. So we've got work we're doing around how our members can target the most excluded and disadvantaged young people. So there are these really interesting tensions which are starting to emerge. I think the interesting thing about automation is we're in this great acceleration; part of our challenge as a nation is that there is no more business as usual, and we're not really thinking about how fast these changes are going to happen for us, how we get regulatory and legal resilience for the change that's coming. I mean, I'm thinking about climate change; we're also thinking about automation. How quickly is that stuff going to turn up for us, and how do we get ready for it? And that's going to require a really long-term strategic point of view. Kim, what would your message be to Winston Peters and the parties that need his support? What's your message around immigration to him? I'm going to say to him, Winston doesn't want to be the man that took the bottles away from the party. And the fact is, this party is going to come to a very sharp, grinding halt if he does 10,000 people. I think everyone agrees with` So do you think whoever goes into government with him should not bend on this? What they should do is say, 'Winston, we hear what you say, 'but let's have a look at the harsh reality on the ground, because in this election, 'there's been more smoke and mirrors than anything about immigration.' Look at the numbers. We've got 30,000 Kiwis coming home, and they're bringing their brides from wherever they've been ` or husbands. So it's in the numbers and the detail. What is important is that we get the key people we need to recalibrate our economy, to do all the things to remain competitive. And whatever the number is, it lands where it is. So one of the reasons why we've done so well is we've had a very flexible workforce, we've had great relationships with the workforce across the country, for the most part. We've now got an immigration system that works and responds, and I believe that will continue. And I think Winston understands that. So I think you're gonna find some common ground. Cos nobody` You think he's going to weaken his position on that? I think he'll adapt it to make sense so the economy can grow. We're running out of time, but I quickly want to address this, because the EMA would like a national infrastructure group that sits outside of government to stop political horse-trading and to come up with some more kind of long-term plans, and that kind of aligns with your thinking around climate change. Do you all think that is realistic ` that people will put aside their political leanings and work together in a group like that? Absolutely. Why? Because these investments, all of us are making them. And they are very large, big-ticket items. They affect us all. And once you've decided you're going to do it ` and I think everyone agrees we need to invest in infrastructure for the environment, for tourism, for everything ` and so the only way to do that is by procuring it in a professional way and having a system that actually responds in a way that isn't wasteful. But, Abbie, doesn't that mean people give away their point of difference, they sacrifice their point of difference? The Greens, for example, because that's their political position. Look, I think ` and my members are very clear with me ` that what they're looking for from this government is cross-party working on climate change, and a really key part of how we're going to deliver a low-emissions economy is how we do infrastructure. So it's really clear in our members' minds that actually that's what we need. And if we don't go there, what's the future of our nation going to look like? Bill, do you think it's realistic? It might be for certain parts of infrastructure. I would hate to see it if it's simply another way to bring in more and more PPPs and privatisation of that infrastructure. But I think it is true that a lot of what we call infrastructure is actually quite political, in the sense that you have to make priority decisions. If you look at the` One part of infrastructure is rebuilding some of our hospitals. That's a decision that was one of the points of difference in the election. And I think those issues have to be debated. Whether or not we put money into roads or into better public transport, all those kinds of things, they are inherently political in the sense that, as a society, we have to make priority decisions on them. OK. We're almost out of time. Just a quick answer from you all ` will we have a government by the 12th of October? Kim? Probably. Abbie? Probably. Bill? I doubt it. (LAUGHTER) All right. After the break, how to end mass shootings. They did it in Australia after Port Arthur. One of the most senior politicians involved in that move tells us how. And later ` can coffee come to the rescue of Timor Leste's struggling economy? Welcome back. Gun law reform is back on the minds of many Americans after dozens were killed in the Las Vegas shootings. Despite the fact that 12,000 Americans are killed by guns every year, any move to tighten the rules is held back by a hugely influential gun lobby. But other countries have had success, including Australia after the Port Arthur Massacre. I spoke to Tim Fischer, who was deputy prime minister at the time, about the ways Australia and New Zealand could have an effect on US gun policy through trade and tourism. Look, Lisa, under the current trade deals, there's zero ` zero ` tariffs on legal ammunition being exported from the USA to Australia ` for that matter, New Zealand, and, of course, zero tariffs on the thousands of guns being legally exported from the USA to New Zealand. What I'm really about is 'enough is enough'. If I can say one word to the National Rifle Association, it's a great Italian word ` basta; enough. The US Congress has now got to stand up to the NRA ` the US administration, the White House ` because this latest tragedy in Vegas has to be called for what it is ` an avoidable atrocity. I want to talk a little bit more about the NRA in a minute. But in terms of this idea of a massacre tax and also travel advisories to put people off going to America ` those suggestions ` what is your end aim with those suggestions? It's to jolt the USA, jolt Americans and jolt any American I now meet and make them squirm on the matter that they may not own guns; they may fully support Michael Bloomberg and others in the US and their sensible approach to gun-safety measures, but they've got to do more than that; they've actually got to organise against any congressman that allows this dysfunctionality to continue. How far are you prepared to go with that? Are you prepared to call for tourists not to visit America, to boycott America because they're unhappy with or you're unhappy with gun laws? I mean, how far should we push it? Lisa, I think Australians, Kiwis should still proceed to the USA if they have to, but think carefully about it ` more particularly, plan carefully where they go in the USA. New York is actually slightly safer nowadays, thanks... thanks to some of the great work of then-mayor Michael Bloomberg. But Midwestern states, per capita, far worse. And to put it in brutal terms, you are 15 times more likely to be shot dead in the USA than here in Australia per million people. Mm. So you're trying to exert pressure, but I'm wondering ` is it OK to meddle in domestic politics of another country? Yes, it is when it's Australian and New Zealand citizens in danger. Chris Lane was shot dead on a peaceful afternoon in a small country town in the USA, doing nothing else but jogging along, by some bored teenagers. I say again ` it's time. It's time for action. It's not good enough for White House spokesmen to say, 'Now is not the time.' Now is the time, sadly. Do you think you're alone? Are you considered to be a bit of a zealot, or do you think there's a political will to pick up on what you are saying and suggesting, in New Zealand and in your own country? I was taken by an anchor of one of the TV programmes of the US a couple of days ago who called out their congressmen and said, 'Enough of your prayers and thoughts; we need action.' And you're going to see a lot more of that this time around. Orlando last year ` 49 ` I thought would've caused movement in the stations, so to speak. Vegas ` 10/1 ` over 500 casualties, some 59 confirmed dead at this stage. I do allow that the US citizens, in the broad, have common sense. I do allow this time they have the chance to get it right, including President Trump, who does say, most recently, gun laws are a matter to be discussed a little down the track. But the thing is ` you mentioned Orlando there, and there was Sandy Hook as well, where a number of young children were killed in a gun attack. If there is not the will to make change after incidents like that, which there wasn't ` President Obama tried; he couldn't get anything through ` what makes you think it will change now? Because the patience of the free world, the Western world, the mobile world is running out, and... there's a sort of sovereign set of laws for each state, and there's the Second Amendment for the US. But there's also practical steps. I mean, they even allowed the size of magazines ` a limitation on the size of magazines ` provisions to lapse just a few years ago. How absurd was that? The very least, they should be considering taking some minimal steps ` firstly, bring back the limitation on the size of gun magazines; secondly, establish gun background checks, especially for those on the No Fly List. Even that was blocked by the US Senate in the aftermath of Orlando. And there's a number of other small, incremental steps which would show a bit of faith and show a bit of effort is being made. Do none of that, stand absolutely stuck in the mud and the blood, then look out, USA ` life won't be all that simple. And there are things small nations can do to bring some further pressure to bear. And what are you thinking, in terms of bringing that pressure to bear? Other than what you've mentioned, do you have some other thoughts? Let's give them a chance. Yes, I do, but let's give them the chance in this immediate aftermath. But what they above all else need to do is have rational people, like Gabrielle Giffords, the US congresswoman cut down by bullets in 2011, give her a chance to go out into that public square with hundreds of others. Because the polls actually show the NRA does not have a majority lock on these matters, even though through their dollars ` and where do they come from? ` they do have a lock on the congress as we speak. But times are changing. This time around, I think there is a real momentum, following the tragedy that unfolded on a peaceful Sunday night at a country music concert along the Strip in Las Vegas. You mentioned the NRA. So what responsibility do you think that that organisation needs to take for recent events? Their continual steps to veto and block sensible measures before the US congress needs to be called out for what it is ` creating additional mass shootings in the USA. And this business that you need more guns, not less guns, well, John Howard and I proved there is another way. And 21 years later ` I can't rule out that there may not be a mass shooting in the future, but since 1996, since Port Arthur, since the gun laws were changed here in Australia ` and I see some pushback in New Zealand, but some progress being made there ` we have not had one mass shooting in Australia. And I'm very grateful for that. So do you think that the NRA has blood on its hands? That's your terminology, but the NRA is responsible for blocking a series of practical measures, which, because of that, has led to a... number of factors which are contributing to the level of mass shootings. There are over 300 million guns in the USA. There are automatics and semi-automatics around every corner in the USA. We took the arguments to the public square, we mounted a buy-back and we effectively drained not all, but most of the automatics and semi-automatics. And, by the way, if I was a farmer in Napier or Rolleston in New Zealand or in the Riverina in Australia, where I am, I'm not anti-gun; there's a proper role for guns, and owned guns ` and I've owned guns. As an ex-Vietnam veteran, I don't particularly pursue sporting shooting, but I accept and support the need for Olympic shooters, recreational shooters to have a fair access to the right-sized guns; totally opposed to machine-guns in the malls of the USA, Australia or New Zealand. So how did you manage to get the momentum to make those changes in Australia? Because there is pushback. How do you get people to come along with you? What enabled you to do that? It was stepping up to the public square and very directly having huge public meetings in places like Wodonga and Gympie in Queensland, where I was hung in effigy one Sunday afternoon. But we stood our ground, and on that occasion, a younger, 12-year-old school prefect stood up and completely changed the atmosphere of the meeting in support of the gun proposals, which every state government signed off on in Australia, including the New South Wales government in Sydney, where I speak. And from time to time, yes, there's been amnesties and there's been further adjustments, but broadly, Australia went one way; the USA, with a false reading of its Second Amendment, continues to go the other way. Well, there are consequences for that, not the least of which are the families ripped apart by over 500 casualties in Las Vegas, 10/1, Sunday night. The thing is ` with gun change,... what do you think it would take to change the NRA's mind? You say they haven't spoken yet, but they obviously have strong views that we're fully aware of. How do you turn around their view of this? It will come when a more sensible level of leadership in the NRA realises that if they don't give some ground, if they don't allow full gun background checks for people on the No Fly List as a very minimum and a restoration of gun magazine limitations, then they may end up losing the lot, so great will be the boil-over if there's another Orlando, another Vegas between now and Easter next year. Well, the New Zealand government, they recently rejected recommendations to register weapons, and we won't have a gun buy-back. Do you think those are mistakes? It's a matter for New Zealand. Your record is different. Your level of gun ownership is a great deal less per capita, and New Zealand and Canada will handle their situation, as will Italy. All of you are way ahead in terms of being much lower in the gun deaths per thousand people ` per million people ` when compared with the USA. So I refer you to good, wise people, like Lockwood Smith and others, to pontificate. As an ex-MP, ex-Minister for Trade, as I am, I must admit, as Lockwood and I went in to bat for free trade across the Pacific, I should've done more work on the small print. I wasn't really fully realising I was letting in with zero tariff ammunition from the gun manufacturers in the USA, who then turn round and give massive donations to the NRA, who then made donations to campaigns here in Australia against gun-law reform. Hmm. Do you think that we're naive if we sit back and think that something like this couldn't happen in New Zealand? And we are naive in Australia. Of course it can happen. There can be a mass shooting ` a major-scale mass shooting ` in Australia, in New Zealand, in Canada. But at least if our Parliaments are making an attempt to reduce the chances of that, then that's a fair cop, and 21 years is a pretty good record to date here in Australia, but no... backing off from the necessary efforts. And to the United States, and to President Trump, I wish you well, sir, as you pick up in your first few months as President of the USA, as the occupant of the White House, but it was about exactly at the same stage ` John Howard had only been a very short time prime minister of this country when Port Arthur unfolded, and we took the steps. Well, here's the opportunity for President Trump to start to take some minimal steps at least. That would be a good thing. Well, after the break, we go to Timor-Leste to look at how the coffee industry could save the struggling economy. But first, Jeremy and Paul appear to have a new appreciation for Winston Peters. (THEME MUSIC) The big question this week ` could there be any more coverage of Winston Peters? I don't know. Personally, I'd like to see more of his lift interviews. I think that's where he really excels. And they are exciting, aren't they? Will he get his answer out before the doors close? Why is he the only one trying to keep the doors open? Exactly. He keeps telling us it's not just about him, that his whole party and caucus makes the decisions, but it looked like it was just him pushing those buttons. Didn't it? What's everyone else in that lift doing, Paul? Oh, trying not to take attention away from the boss, I think. Probably. More importantly, what floor are they going to ` 46% of the way up or 36%? And should they even be starting from the ground floor, given that their vote puts them in the basement somewhere, Jeremy? Mm. Good point. To the negotiating teams. For National, captain English joined by McLay, Brownlee, Eagleson and Joyce. Yeah, strong team. Strong team. McLay, of course, son of Roger McLay, so close ties there. Eagleson ` outgoing chief of staff. Brownlee ` well, he and Winston have a lot of mutual respect. Mm, and of course, Joycey ` one of Winston's besties. Best buds. For New Zealand First, it's Martin, Mark, Broome and Carrad. I dunno. Me neither. Lift fillers? They might be the caterers. WHISPERS: Caterers. Welcome back. New Zealanders are well known for their love of a good flat white, but most don't know where their coffee comes from and might be surprised to hear how often it's from Timor-Leste. It's the one product New Zealand imports from the tiny south-east Asian nation that we use to call East Timor. In the second of our series in association with the Asia New Zealand Foundation, Kaitlyn McGee went to Dili to find out how coffee is providing hope for a nation where doing business is a tough grind. Beneath Timor-Leste's cloud-covered canopies, coffee has been cultivated for centuries. Alex de Costa has spent his life as a coffee farmer, toiling on the forested hillsides. These coffee trees have provided income for decades, but it's only the last two years, he says, he's properly learnt what to do. (SPEAKS LOCAL LANGUAGE) INTERPRETER: 'I've been a coffee farmer for a long time, 'but my ancestors did not know how to prune the coffee. That's why the coffee trees grew so high. 'Now I've learned how to be a good coffee farmer.' The change came when he joined Cafe Cooperativa Timor, or CCT, a coffee-farming cooperative of 20,000 farmers. One of the big projects for CCT has been taming the wild coffee trees that had grown so high. Farmers couldn't reach them, let alone pick the coffee. Some of the trees are decades old, and pruning them can often mean sacrificing a harvest. With help from New Zealand Aid, CCT has a rehabilitation farm, where farmers are taught how to prune the trees into shape. INTERPRETER: 'Our results are much better now than when the coffee trees were still too high, 'because before, the coffee was too high and we couldn't pick enough, and now I can get more.' Starbucks and global consumers are hooked on Timor-Leste's coffee beans, which are an organic Arabica blend. This cash crop brings in about $20 million a year to the Timorese economy. A quarter of the population rely on coffee for their survival and income, but this year, it's been slim pickings. The harvest has been half of what it was in 2016, and when there's little coffee, the farmers and their families suffer. Two years ago, Rosita joined her husband as a coffee farmer. INTERPRETER: 'Compared to being a housewife, it is better being a coffee farmer, 'because working with coffee is more interesting for me. I get a good income from coffee, so it helps.' She made $200 last year, which paid for her five children to go to school, but this year, it could be much less. In the 15 years since Timor-Leste gained independence, it's cobbled together a stable democracy and brought electricity to rural areas. But Timor-Leste is the second-most oil dependent country in the world, and while its reserves are dwindling, it's ploughing billions of its savings into risky and expensive infrastructure projects. A handful of industries could sustain Timor-Leste in the lean years ahead. One of them is coffee. It is already the second-biggest export after oil. Coffee was the biggest trade item until the Indonesian occupation in 1975. The invading army took over the industry, displacing farmers and stealing their crops. Organisations like CCT are doing their best to bring the industry back to full bloom, but it needs more help. (SPEAKS LOCAL LANGUAGE) INTERPRETER: 'I think we still need more investment from the government, 'but we need to focus on farming coffee to improve the coffee farms, improve the quality of coffee.' Three-quarters of Timor-Leste's people scrape together a living from agriculture. Yet it only received 2% of last year's budget. MAN: Coffee is an important crop for Timor-Leste. It is an important product because, firstly, the quality and second, the fact that it's organic. So there is a niche in the global market. So Timor-Leste can afford to focus on coffee... and gain money, or income, from it. Fidelis Magalhaes is from the People's Liberation Party. It gained eight seats in recent parliamentary elections. He says the government's strategy around developing agriculture is wrong. There was an introduction... of new tractors in around 2012. They did it simply out of political interest, so there was no clear policy or intention in mind. There was no rational approach to it, so tractors were given out for free; fuel was given out for free to the people, and, as you know, anyone who studies economics understands that there is a decreasing rate of return, even in capital or in tractors, because you need maintenance. Mm. And if there is no responsibility on the part of the recipients, people tend to be` people would neglect the maintenance and would simply use and abuse the capital they have. Magalhaes is pushing for diversification across the economy. I don't think that coffee alone would be able to provide employment opportunities, so the larger tourism sector agriculture sector, fishery would really hold the key. We are lucky, because in Timor-Leste, it is different from other countries, where... only older people... or people above a certain` above 60s would live in the rural areas. In Timor-Leste, many young people live in rural areas, so there is a clear viable economic opportunity for the country. He says Timor-Leste is missing out on $200m a year from illegal fishing. One answer would be to have a better and more integrated maritime police to control our sea space, because in Timor-Leste, as you know, the maritime space is larger than the land. So all we need is to have that working properly and to continue to aggressively invest in the fishermen and in their capacity to appropriate the resources. The government says it understands the potential of the industries and admits tourism and coffee need more investment. We need to... increase the agriculture, the budget, up to 10% ` at least 10%. But, of course, it will not be done at once, but step by step. But to invest in agriculture, we need to be clear where to do, what to do ` irrigation, agriculture-led industry, partnering with private sector. So all these need to be clearly defined. Half of all Timorese are under 17 years old and will eventually need jobs. If political leaders have squandered all the country's savings over the next 10 years, there's fears there will be no local industries for them to work in. Timor-Leste had endured a lot to become the peaceful, democratic nation it is. The worry is if the economy crashes, then violence could return. After the break, our panel Conor English, Laila Harre and Simon Wilson. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` Agribusiness chairman Conor English, former Cabinet Minister Laila Harre and the Spinoff's Simon Wilson. Good morning to you all. Good morning. Conor, you're in the business world ` is that sector feeling a little bit nervous about the fact that we don't have a government, or is everybody pretty relaxed? Well, I guess everyone wants to see an outcome of the negotiations, but I think there's a recognition that it can just take a bit of time to get there, and we'll get there. Yeah, so what's the right amount of time. Kim Campbell there was saying if it takes until Christmas, people will start to get a bit antsy. What are your thoughts on the time frame, Laila? What's reasonable? I don't see any` I mean, in any real sense, there's no urgency, and in a sense, it will be harder work to get a to get an agreement between National and New Zealand First in that time frame than it would be to get an agreement between Labour, New Zealand First and the Greens, and that's because for New Zealand First to be secure in a deal with National, they really have to tie up the detail of it in that first period, because there is such an ideological gulf for them to manage, whereas with Labour and the Greens, they can take more time once they're in government to analyse, to develop responses and to transform, and I think that weighs in the favour of a deal with the Greens especially ` and Labour ` especially if that's the time frame we've got. But do you really have to weigh up all that stuff? Because you could actually just sit on the outside and vote on every single issue. Maybe you could. You don't have to discuss the detail. Maybe you could. I think Laila's largely right, and we're used to everything being instant. We want everything instant now, and that's just us, that isn't the reason to form a government quickly at all. I think there's another factor in play. It is quite possible, if you look at both sides, they have good reasons to be the government ` of course, they both want to be the government, but they don't want ` I assume ` don't want to be the government at any cost. So it is quite reasonable to assume that they may not be in a budding war in the conventional sense. They may both be trying to say, 'This is the way in which we think we could work with New Zealand First 'to make a government that we would be proud of, that would let us do the things we want, 'and will not compromise us unduly.' Winston Peters might find that actually, what he's got to decide is that they're not throwing everything at him, and he's not getting all that he wants, and therefore, the negotiations could take quite a while because` not because it's tying down the details so much as actually Peters has to rethink how powerful he is. He isn't as powerful as people keep saying he is. What do you think, Conor? Well, I think if James Shaw actually gets a bit of a spine and starts showing some leadership, there will be longer negotiations. (CHUCKLES) You're still on that. No, but the reality is, for the` No, but are you just dreaming when you say that? Because isn't it pretty clear that the Greens have said, you know, 'OK, the door's open for further down the track, but we went to this election telling our people 'that we wouldn't do it.' It's not reasonable to assume that any party will destroy itself for the good of another party. That's an unreasonable thing to assume. I think that if the Greens go in with New Zealand First and Labour, and are not in Cabinet, they are going to destroy themselves. You've got to remember that it's Labour that destroyed the Maori Party, and they've worked very hard to try and destroy the Green Party. They've come within 0.9 of a percent, and who knows, with the specials today, the Greens may be gone by this afternoon. Labour did destroy the Maori Party in some ways, because they went hard after them. They took all their seats. Yeah, yeah, yeah. National didn't take one seat off them. But National in nine years of working with the Maori Party was not able to deliver to the Maori Party` achieve the real goals on poverty, on a range of other issues that the Maori Party could then turn around and say, 'We have made these things better for Maori.' Well, that's exactly what the Maori Party said,... That is the issue. ...but the media didn't cover it, and Labour said it wasn't` No, that's the issue for the Greens now. They fought against them all the time. It's not about what James Shaw's going to do. The issue for the Greens is how's the National Party going to come to the table on proper Green policies, climate change? Exactly, but the National Party being the most` and I'm not a spokesperson for the National Party, but they have been the greenest government this country's had in 100 years. That is nonsense. They absolutely have. The changes they've made in water have been draconian, if you talk to someone in the agriculture sector. They're doing pest-free, they've locked up more of the ocean than any other country has done. There's been some things they've lagged a bit behind ` climate change would be one of those. There is a consensus on climate change in this country that the National government is not part of. That is the extraordinary thing. Well, they haven't had agriculture in the ETS, and that's because to solve climate change, putting taxes on farmers isn't going to do that. Just about that, Conor, about the fact that this keeps coming up, the Green Party and National ` that's just a bargaining chip, isn't it? Isn't that about sort of muddying the waters and making Winston Peters feel like there's someone else in the competition? Well, if I was running the Green Party, I would say, 'Here's an opportunity to progress the policies 'that I profess to advance.' And what they run a very real risk of is not being in the next government at all. OK. Well, one person we know who is going to be there in some form is New Zealand First and Winston Peters. The discussion there with our business panel around some of his policies ` raising the minimum wage to $20. Kim Campbell was clearly saying that could end in job losses and let the market decide. You've run a business that has paid the living wage, haven't you? So what are the advantages of that? Well, and it was a business we couldn't actually substitute people with robots, because we're a restaurant, we're cooking and serving people, and actually, we found that introducing the living wage had a significant increase on productivity. Not just in the sense that the people who worked there felt more valued and contributed more, but also because it put the acid on us as the owners and managers of the business to run it more efficiently and to provide` to make ends meet with those sort of higher hourly wage costs. I just want to say something about the conversation the gentlemen on my left and right had here earlier. And that is that the Greens are not in a position with no power, and it's got nothing to do with the fact that they've ruled out discussions with National. I don't think they have ruled that out, really. And that's all been complete, sort of, silly right-wing nonsense over the last couple of weeks, but it's kept us all vaguely entertained. Well, it's just the maths. It's because` Nothing to do with right-wing, it's just maths. Could I get a word in here? We'll let Laila go because we're running out of time. Go Laila. The reason is that Winston Peters knows, Labour know and the Greens know that for this to work, there has to be a true partnership. And therefore, standing back at this point for them has been very wise. The last thing they can afford to be is the people who disrupted the possibility of a Labour-New Zealand First relationship. But no fool is going to believe that it is possible for this government to be sustainable if the Greens aren't absolutely behind agreements between New Zealand First and Labour, and I think the most sustainable way for that to be achieved is the three-way coalition. All right. We've got to leave it there for the moment, but stick around. After the break, some of the things that could be making the news next week. Welcome back. You're with The Nation and our panel. Conor, this terrible, terrible situation in Las Vegas with this massacre ` we heard there from Tim Fischer, who is saying that countries like New Zealand can actually do stuff to bring pressure to bear on America. A massacre tax, he says. You know, guns and ammunition are coming in here without tariffs. Do you think that's something we should look at? Do we have a responsibility? Well, our first responsibility is to our own citizens, isn't it? And the reality is the more guns you have, the more deaths you have. You know, guns kill people, and people using guns kill people. And I think one of the things that hasn't been raised at all in this whole discussion is the news media coverage in the news in America ` and I don't know if you've seen Michael Moore's movie,... Yes, I have. ...'Bowling for Columbine'. That was a fascinating insight into how the media operates there and why people in America feel they need to have a gun. So I think there's a sort of cultural issue there as well as organisations like the NRA, who have a very firm view on it and throw a lot of resources at keeping... A financial hold on politicians. ...the availability of guns as high as they possibly can. Yeah. I wondered, you know, do we even think that his suggestion is possible? Because he was saying in there ` wasn't he, Laila ` how now, upon reflection, he's negotiated these trade deals not realising that weaponry's coming in tariff-free and then also there'd be a responsibility not to be slapping tariffs on to people. It's a really important warning to us to take care and be open to the critiques of these trade negotiations. Because, as you said, he was the trade minister; he didn't look at the fine print of the Australian-US free trade agreement. I don't know whether the same provision exists within the TPP draft that I assume that it does, and that certainly under the ratcheting provisions of trade agreements would apply in any case between them. So I think that's a really important warning to us because so many of these agreements prevent you from rolling back or increasing the regulatory control, but I do think also, you know, just on the broader issue of people's reaction to the Las Vegas massacre, it's really crystallised a very deep discomfort with the position that the US is playing in relation to global politics as well as domestic politics. And I think they really are risk of a cultural alienation of the world. I mean, we know the kind of` the wars that they've been in, but, you know, when you hear people like that calling, effectively, for people to boycott the US, and... Yeah. that sort of advocacy is highly unusual. Observing this from afar, Simon, do you actually think that anything is going to change? Anything significant? Because obviously the NRA has come out since that interview and said, 'Oh, yeah, maybe you shouldn't be able to attach a modification where you fire 800 bullets a minute.' It's incredibly difficult to see how that will happen, but this is not` America only 150 years ago, an awful lot of people carried guns and wore guns you know, I'm talking about the age of the Wild West. The society can develop, and you kind of, in a way, have to think of America as being a contemporary version of that; they're just back where they were, and they have to develop again. It is a weird issue for us. What Conor said is our government has to think of our people first. That is true. The culture of America becomes the culture of New Zealand in many ways, and the culture of America right now is that an awful lot of people go` people who are sick or lonely or distorted in whatever ways, their minds go to, 'I'm going to pick up a gun and go and kill a lot of people.' And we have popular culture from America here that gets into our heads all the time. We don't want to see that happening here. It is important for us. And the biggest thing we've got is ` I don't think it's tariffs necessarily; that's all part of it ` but I think it's been part of we, the world, morally treating America as a pariah in relationship to its attitude to guns. One of the things on their attitude to guns is they're sort of proving to themselves that they're slow learners. How many massacres do they have to have before they go, 'More guns means more dead people'? And, you know, I've got a lot of faith in the American people. and I think they will get there, and there will be change, but it's not gonna be fast enough for the people that are dead. Yeah, exactly. Let's talk about something totally different. Phil Goff ` Auckland mayor. One year in the job. So what's the most significant thing he's done so far, Simon? Is there something? I actually don't think there is one significant thing. Phil Goff is a manager. He's an extremely competent manager. But he's not the visionary leader who's going, 'OK, now we do this, and now we do this, and now we now we do this.' He doesn't have a City Rail Link type project on his agenda ` which was Len Brown. Yep. He is a much more competent manager than people often give him credit for. When I interviewed him this week at the end of his first year, I asked him what his biggest problem was, and he said he didn't have a caucus to push around, to get the easy votes. In fact, Phil's been very good at getting the centre of council to support him on most things he wants to do, and he's made that work skilfully. He has also used his own office to call to account a number of different parts of council. Some of it he is doing well; some of he's doing not so well. But he is doing those things. He's got no money, though, Conor. And so he says he doesn't care particularly which government he'll work with, either. But will he not be wanting one on the left? Because he's already asked for levers to get money, and he's not getting much help from National. Well, he has got money. His revenue's a bit over $4 billion a year, and $1.6 billion of that comes from the ratepayers. So he's got an increasing rate base. Where he's constrained himself a bit is by promising on only increase rates by 2.5%. So use his money better, is what you're saying? Well, that's $40 million. When he went into the election, he promised to only charge $40 million. And now he's talking about $1.8 to $2 billion for sewage. And Auckland needs to pay attention to its sewage, because its water pollution is so bad ` that's one of the misnomers of the water-quality thing... OK. We've gotta go, Conor. He just needs to do his numbers a bit better, you reckon. OK, time now for a look at some of what could be making the news next week. Thursday is the deadline New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has given for announcing which party he will go into coalition government with. We wait. And also on Thursday, a national ceremony will be held in Wellington marking the centenary of the Battle of Passchendaele. But that's all from us this weekend. We'll see you again same time next week. Captions by Imogen Staines, Madison Batten, Julie Taylor and James Brown. www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2017 This programme was made with the assistance of the New Zealand On Air Platinum Fund.