Good morning and welcome to The Nation. I'm Lisa Owen. Today ` a new take on the country's numbers. Finance minister Grant Robertson joins me in the studio to explain how the Labour-led government will keep its promises, keep its partners happy, and keep in the black. Then ` how much responsibility do farmers need to take for our environmental problems? It has been a learning curve, and there have been issues, but they are well on the way to being dealt with. Federated Farmers president Katie Milne tells us why her members shouldn't have to pay for water and what they want from the new government. Then ` a working group's been set up to look into issues around the use of surgical mesh, which has left hundreds in permanent pain. A personal apology and an apology from the college to women who've been affected by complications of these surgical procedures. Makes me wanna cry. Disgusting. Has the apology and the working group come too late? And we wrap up the week with our panel ` David Slack, Susie Ferguson and Bernard Hickey ` and comedians Jeremy Corbett and Paul Ego. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2017 It's great to have you with us. If you'd like to send us some feedback, our details are on the screen now. And if you're on Twitter, you can follow along with our Twitter panel ` environmental consultant Megan Hands and unionist and writer Morgan Godfery. You can use the hashtag #NationNZ. So, this week saw the Labour-New Zealand First government sworn in along with their support partners, the Greens. After nine long years in opposition, some senior Labour MPs now have their dream jobs. One of them, with one of the biggest dream jobs of all, is the new finance minister, Grant Robertson. He joins me now. Good morning. Morning, Lisa. The previous government brought us back into surplus, and they presided over pretty strong economic growth. You're an unknown in this job, so what can you tell those people who might be a little bit nervous? What assurances can you give them that you're up for it? Oh, I'm definitely up for it, and I think that they can look at the record of the previous Labour government. We actually delivered nine surpluses in a row, had unemployment near the lowest in the OECD with very strong and solid surpluses, so we are comfortable that, as a party, we've done the work. We've now got alongside our coalition partners. We understand the importance of fiscal responsibility. But that can't be the end in itself, Lisa. And that's going to be the big difference here ` is that we want the economy to have a purpose, and that purpose is improving people's living standards, making sure we include everyone in New Zealand in what's a great country where there's enormous opportunity for prosperity. So you're talking about pairing social justice with capitalism. And the prime minister has said recently that capitalism is a blatant failure. So, as the money guy, how are you going to fix capitalism? What Jacinda Ardern has said is that if you've got the world's worst homelessness, then the form of capitalism that we've seen in New Zealand isn't working for those people. And I'd agree with that. And, in fact, that's the foundation principles of the Labour Party ` is actually that we're a social democratic party; we believe in the fact that there is an obligation on government to help ensure fairness to make sure that everybody gets a chance to achieve their potential. So we'll do that by being an active government, by being there alongside businesses and alongside workers to help grow those higher-wage jobs. Everywhere I went in New Zealand during the election campaign, I had the business community saying to me, 'We want to be in a partnership with you. I absolutely endorse that.' But you know that some people will read the word 'active' as meddling. Yeah. Well, no. I think you've already seen in the agreements that we've signed with both New Zealand First and the Greens that that's about helping to stimulate opportunity. The days of a hands-off laissez-faire government hoping for the best for New Zealand are over. But what we want to replace that with is an active government that partners in the regions with local government, with business, with iwi. That's a different thing entirely from meddling and telling people what to do. We actually want to listen to the regions of New Zealand, as an example, and say, 'What do you need to make sure you can create those decent jobs?' I want to talk about the regions a little later. But you've based your budget on projections of strong economic growth, relatively strong immigration, and Winston Peters has warned that he thinks that there are bad economic times on the way. Now, some economists that we've spoken to think that the budget growth projections are too strong, they're too optimistic, and that we've peaked out in some areas, like tourism and construction. So what do you know that all of those people don't? Well, look, there are mixed views on that, as there often are among economists, it would be fair to say. Certainly if we continued an economy that was just based on increasing population and speculation in the housing market, then I think there would be problems for New Zealand, but I'm extremely optimistic about the future of the New Zealand economy when we invest in skills and training, research and development, improving our regions, getting capital into the infrastructure that we need. If we do those things, I'm absolutely convinced that we can grow sustainably. But you've had me on this show before, Lisa, talking about the fact that if you measure growth on a per-person basis, we have been struggling along over recent years. Mm. We've got to be an active government to change that, and I'm sure we will. So is Winston Peters wrong when he's predicting a downturn in the economic rock star economy? Look, there's a range of views on that, and there are certainly headwinds` No, I'm asking about his, because he stated it very clearly on the day you guys were announced as the winners, per say. He said bad times around the corner. So is he wrong? That is possible. But what we've got to do as a country is ensure that we are in a position to deal with whatever headwinds are out there. And, as I say, I think we've got the policy prescription to do that. If we sat back and let that happen` So enough fat in the system. Enough fat in the system to sustain any fluctuations? We've got to be able to prepare ourselves, and we've been very clear in our budget responsibility rules that we need to pay down debt to make sure that we are in a position, should there be further economic strains and shocks, that we can deal with those. It's part of being a responsible government, but not one that just sees that as the end, but also looks to invest in our future and our people. Okay, because, obviously the budget I'm looking at is the one that you had before you entered into this agreement and agreed to a few other things. So do you expect to unveil a mini budget that lays out your spending plan, that includes these new things that you've signed up for? Well, I'm obliged by law to produce a half-year economic fiscal update before the end of the year, and we'll certainly do that, and that obviously has to reflect the fact that the new government has different priorities than the previous government. There are some things that we want to do immediately that have a fiscal impact. An example of that is we've committed to restarting contributions to the New Zealand Super Fund immediately. So there's a series of things that we've got to do. Whether we end up calling that a mini budget, we're working on that right now. We've only had a couple of days as sworn-in ministers. But when will we see it? You say before the end of the year. We've obviously got to do that before the end of the year. So, well, let's look at the numbers, and I know this is a contentious issue. You've got $10 billion of unallocated spending in the budget that you` Capital spending. Yeah, it's capital spending. Yeah, very important. But you've also got a long list of things that are potentially going to cost you money. So the billion dollars a year for the regions, extra police ` 800 extra police ` forestry service, mental health commission, criminal case review, tax breaks maybe to offset the growth in the minimum wage, the green investment fund. I could keep going. So have you costed all of those, and how much are they going to cost? In the process of the negotiations, we looked very carefully at each of the commitments that we were putting in there and made our best estimate of the costs. Obviously, when you're in opposition, you have only a certain amount of resources to do that. We are absolutely confident that we can meet the expenditure that is in there and actually still meet our budget responsibility rules. Can you give us a number? How much do all the things that you've signed up for cost? We've got estimates, but that's` Oh, come on, what's the estimate? Well, no, because I don't want to do that until we actually` It's the public purse. That's the very point, Lisa, is that it is the public purse, and we now have the ability to work with the public service to refine the estimates that we've made. But I can give you my assurance that it fits within the confines of our budget responsibility rules. But I think this is the time to` No, just before we move on, Mr Robertson. The 10 billion of unallocated capital spending, is that all used up with all of this? Eventually it will all be used up with projects, not necessarily the ones that are just on the table here, because there are some existing pressures out there. But, look, let's take` No, no. It's a four-year budget looking out, forecast, so how much gets sucked up in the first year, second year, third year, fourth year? That's exactly what you'll find when we produce our detailed budget. What we know is that we have the funding to do this. But, Lisa, I think` Are you not confident of the estimates that you've already done? As an opposition party, you've only got so many resources, and we're confident that with the information we had, they're correct. The beauty of now being in government is that we actually get to test those estimates. But I am completely confident. But I do want to make this point, Lisa, which is that we can spend a lot of time talking about the cost of this and the cost of that. We're a government that wants to invest for the long term. The pay-off of spending a billion dollars' worth in the regions on infrastructure will be huge for New Zealand and for those regions. And I think it's time, when we talk about the economy, not just to make the numbers on the sheet but the outcomes for people who live in places like Kaitaia or Gisborne, that their living standards will improve. And when we come to do a budget` And I'm sure people appreciate that. Well, I don't know if they do, necessarily, Lisa, because the questioning is important about the fact that it adds up, and we have to be able to show that. But we equally have to be able to show how New Zealanders' lives are going to improve, and that will be a difference in terms of how we present budgets over time. You've made promises, though, about financial parameters, your fiscal responsibility rules. So I'm just asking how sure you are that this fits. So can you tell me`? You say it's pretty much all used up by the four years. It's unallocated capital. It's there to be used. Yes. It is there to be used. But the thing is when you look at your numbers, and I know Steven Joyce has talked a lot about this, and there's, you know, discrepancies ` appreciate that. But when you look at it overall, your unallocated spending as a percentage of your overall expenditure is, like, about, what, 2%, less than 2%. Yeah, look, we've got about` Hang on. Can I just finish? If someone were to build a house and have a 2% contingency budget, people would think they were crazy. But it's, again, I don't want to get back into the election campaign, because there was a lot of forward expenditure that we had already allocated. So, for instance, health and education, which can take up to 60% or 70% of new funding in most budgets, we had already allocated that. So by using the 2% figure, you're actually not accurately reflecting what we had already put aside. OK, would you agree that it's an accurate reflection to say that your budget is, hmm, tight? Really tight. Look, I've never denied the fact that we're ambitious about what we want to do, and we want to make investments, but, Lisa, if we just look at this in a` So it's tight. I've never denied that. I've never denied that. But` If the economic premises that you've based it on, for example, if growth doesn't peak out at 3.7%, if we have the 10-year downward slump, which some predict for 2018, then you're in trouble, aren't you, with your money? No, I don't think we are, because I believe that we'll see new projections out of Treasury before the end of the year, and people will be able to make their own mind up about that. But I have a very positive view of the New Zealand economy and what will happen when there's a government that's prepared to invest in our people and our regions and growing decent jobs. So I remain very optimistic about what we can do. But we're ambitious because we need to make these investments now. And if we continue just to think of it as spending, then we miss out on the fact that there's a huge pay-off if we're investing in regional development, if we're investing in education and skills and training, then we're actually going to grow a much stronger economy for the future. That's the focus I've got. Let's talk about the regional development fund, then. A billion dollars. Will it be contestable? Who gets to vie for the money, and how are you going to decide who's worthy of it? Yeah, and that's the exact work that's going on now. It certainly will be contestable. We're not just going to be throwing money out there. It has to be about projects that are going to deliver for the regions decent jobs, sustainable employment and sustainable economic development. So will the regions that currently exist, will you be considering them as they are? They can bid as a region. You know, we have 16 regions defined. Yeah. I mean, that's the exact work that's going on now. David Parker as the Economic Development Minister and Shane Jones as the Regional Economic Development Minister will be developing and shaping up the criteria for that programme. But you write the cheques, so you'd be interested in what happens. I most certainly am, and what I was about to say was I look forward to seeing the criteria that they put together. My view is that, you know, we all know about regions like Northland or the east coast of the North Island where there has been severe underinvestment. This is the opportunity to correct that and to make sure that people see a future there. And this flows right through. The pressure on Auckland, the congestion in Auckland, we can help ease that if we've got regions that are better connected, that offer a better base for businesses. So will you ring-fence money for particular regions, or is it conceivable that if a couple of regions keeps putting in good proposals, they could get all the money? No, it will be a rigorous process, and, of course, it has to be` So you're saying it's going to be fairly distributed around all the regions? It will be distributed on the basis of the best possible projects that are there that will grow sustainable jobs right throughout New Zealand. Lisa, I take this job incredibly seriously. I know where this money comes from, and I know that we need to use it well to make sure that it actually benefits all New Zealanders. A billion dollars seems like a lot of money, but, actually, a few projects could suck that up in a year. I mean, the Opotiki wharf proposal ` 25 million in one year is kind of what they're looking for from the government. 30 million estimated to get about 12 regional airports up to scratch. Is it enough? Look, it's the amount of money that we've got available to do it, and it's a significant increase in terms of prioritisation for the regions. If we invest properly in regional rail, we can create a network that allows people to get their goods to the ports, to the markets, connect up, have a better port strategy. I'm prepared, as the Minister of Finance, to make those investments because they'll pay off in the future. OK. There's a few things I want to get through quite quickly because we've got a lot to cover. Northport ` you've already done a study on moving Auckland's port. Why are you spending more money on doing another one? I know. There's a lot more work to do there to understand where the Ports of Auckland would best operate. Northport is a potential for that. We want to look deeply into that. We certainly want to do the rail line work there anyway because we think that can improve other economic opportunities in the region. But there's still more to understand. OK. You don't own that port, so when you decide where it should go, what are you going to do? Are you just going to start seizing assets or what? (LAUGHS) No. Or are you going to give them an offer they can't refuse for it? Look, obviously, any decision about the Ports of Auckland requires a strong partnership with Auckland City. I'll be meeting the mayor of Auckland very soon to start discussing some of the economic opportunities with Auckland. So are you expecting them to give it up, then? Oh, look, that's well down the track, Lisa, before we have that discussion. And the money that it might cost to move it, is that in your figures? We've got to do the feasibility study. OK. Minimum wage ` you're going to raise it to 20 bucks an hour by the end of your first term. Are you worried that that's going to put a handbrake on job creation? No, not at all. When Labour was last in government, we were raising the minimum wage by about a dollar a year during that period. In fact, we had some of the best economic growth and the lowest unemployment that we've seen. Bear in mind, the people who will be getting these minimum wage increases will then be spending that money in the economy. It actually stimulates growth. But I'm wondering, if it was such a good idea, why wasn't it your policy? Why did you need New Zealand First to force your hand on it? Well, what we'd promised and what we are actually going to do is increase the minimum wage to $16.50 on the 1st of April 2018, and then we had commit` Yeah, but` Hang on. Let me finish. That's a big gap, though. 16.50 to 20 bucks. No, no. Let me finish the answer. And then what we also said in our policy was that we would continue to increase it after the 1st of April 2018 to get ourselves up to around two-thirds of the average wage. That's close to $20 an hour. So we were heading in the same direction. By having this agreement, we've now put that into our commitment. But isn't that great, Lisa? We've now got a government that actually believes that New Zealanders, when they go to work, should be paid a wage that allows them to be fully included in society. We said we wanted to get on that path. We've now got a firm goal. I think that is a fantastic outcome for working New Zealanders. So in terms of paying for that, the prime minister's indicated that there could be some breaks for small businesses, perhaps, to offset the cost of rising wages. But the thing with that is that will lower your tax take, and don't you need that money? Look, obviously, as Minister of Finance, I'm always keen to see the money that comes in that we can use, but we do have to make sure we're being fair on small businesses. Australia has this ` the idea of potentially a progressive tax rate for small businesses with low turnover. We want to take a look at that and see whether that could work in New Zealand. Well, the other place that you could lose tax take is the bright line test, because you're predicting in your budget predictions more money from the bright line test. You're raising it up to five years. But the ultimate goal is to cut speculators. So if that works, you'll get less money from the bright line test. (CHUCKLES) Yeah. And the` Have you planned for that? Yeah, as I was going to say, the calculations on the bright line test are based on the behavioural assumptions that the Treasury, when they first proposed this idea, came up with. They're the numbers we've used. OK. So this tax working group that's going to decide on these things or make recommendations, the prime minister said earlier that you were going to set it up, so who's going to be on that? (LAUGHS) Still working my way through that. We've committed to making our announcements about the membership of the group and its final terms of reference before the end of the year, within our 100-day plan, and I'll commit to doing that. So give us the general idea, then, if you can't name names. What kind of people, and are they a broad spectrum? Yeah, exactly. And what we're looking for are people who, obviously, understand the tax system, people who understand how the tax system impacts on those in our society. So it won't just be pointy-headed accountants; we need some of them. But it will also be people who understand how the tax system works in practice. So representation from the business community? Absolutely. All right. So, what if that committee makes recommendations that you do not like? Well, we'll have a look at those and consider those. And bear in mind this is not the first ever tax working group. Tax working groups have come up with recommendations before that governments haven't agreed with. I'm wondering how you will handle it, though. Well, we've been very clear, and in writing the terms of reference, we will spell this out exactly ` that our focus has been on the housing market, on how we shift from a speculative economy to a productive economy. We'll make it clear to the tax working group that that's what we want them working on. And I would believe that if we do that, they will be looking at the issues we want. But we need to have views put in front of us. We may not agree with all of those. What if they tell you to do nothing? But if we give them a clear direction of travel` I don't think they'll do that. OK. You've guaranteed that you're going to run surpluses. So if economic conditions change, will you cut spending to keep the surplus or will you forgo the surplus to spend on the things that you believe we need? Look, I came in to politics to make sure that we provided better opportunities for New Zealanders, that we protected our most vulnerable. I will never compromise on that. We saw when John Key and the National Party faced the global financial crisis, which I don't believe we're heading in that direction, but when they did, they made sure that those core areas of spending carried on. That's what responsible governments would do, and I certainly wouldn't back away from that. So you're telling us now that you would forgo the surplus in order to keep spending if it came to it? There are certain areas of spending that we must do to be a decent society, to care for other people. I would never compromise on that. But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, Lisa. And I don't think we're going to need to have that conversation. But what I'm telling you is I'm a Labour Party minister of finance; I will always make sure that the most vulnerable in our communities are protected and that we make sure that we have the services, like health and education, that we need. And as a result of that, you're flexible on surplus? We have a set of budget responsibility rules that I'm committed to. But sometimes you won't be able to have both those things; you won't necessarily be able to have surplus and spend on what you want. And when we wrote the budget responsibility rules, we wrote into them the fact that if there was an economic shock, we would look to have surplus across an economic cycle. It wouldn't necessarily be in every year if there was an economic shock. All right. We are out of time, but something close to my heart, sports minister. Yes. Should the Black Ferns get paid the same as the All Blacks? I will be looking forward to a conversation with New Zealand Rugby about how they will achieve the government's goal of pay equity. So you would support that? I certainly believe that the Black Ferns should be paid better. They're a world champion team. Women's rugby is now one of the most competitive parts of rugby in the world, and I'd love to see the Black Ferns` Got to go, but thanks for joining us this morning. Lots to talk about with our panel later in the programme. After the break, we'll hear from Federated Farmers president Katie Milne, and later, a working group has started looking into issues around the use of surgical mesh. But is it too little, too late? Welcome back. The regions will be big winners under the new government, but farmers have also felt under fire recently, with threats of a water tax and agriculture being brought into the emissions trading scheme. Dairy farmers in particular have got a bit of a bad rep these days, and I asked Federated Farmers president Katie Milne if they have some work to do to put that right. Absolutely. There have been issues, and there are some places that still have hotspots and so on that are being addressed, and the farmers are engaging with that, doing lots of catchment-by-catchment mitigations, whether it's planting... And we're learning more about farming systems and changing those as we go. We're attacking it from a lot of different angles. But one of the things also about it is that it's more of a realisation time too in that it's taken 150 years to get here ` to where we are ` and things have changed. Yes, we have grown our businesses and all those things. We were sheep farming, mainly, in New Zealand in the '50s. That's moved through to beef farming, and now more recently, it's moved through to dairy. So it has been a learning curve, and there have been issues, but they are well on the way to being dealt with. And I think that's the thing that's really stood out to farmers this time round that it's come up again is that there's a lot being done that people obviously aren't aware of already. Well, it looks like under this new government that you won't have to pay a water tax. But some people would argue part of the mitigation is making farmers pay for water. Why shouldn't you pay for water? Well, the other side to that was that they were going to use that to clean up the waterways. And, actually, irrigation in those areas, if you look through, hasn't actually... Irrigation and effluent and poor water quality don't go hand in hand, necessarily, at all. Those waterways in that area are actually not, as it's been reported, anywhere near the levels that some people have said. It's not as big an issue as it has been made out to be. So also what irrigation does is it enables you to grow something. And everyone has assumed that if you're going to carry on with more irrigation anywhere, it's going to be about cows. And that's a real problem for farmers in that with the disruption that we're looking at in the near future, where they're talking about plant proteins and so on, we actually have to be able to grow something, and irrigation will enable that. And it doesn't mean that it's going to be more cows. While you might not face a water tax per se, in terms of the irrigation schemes, the National government has put in about 400 million from asset sales ` 90 million in the last Budget. Why shouldn't Labour stop spending money on irrigation systems like that, and what if they do? What if this government does? It's going to be really sad, actually, if they do, and I know they're talking about that pretty heavily ` looking at unbundling it, unwinding it. But it sets you up for infrastructure and ability to do things in the future. And, as I said before, with the disruption that agriculture is facing in general, where people are saying, 'Look, we've found some ways to use other protein sources ` 'plant protein and so on ` and you won't know the difference; it'll taste like meat,' if we don't set up to be able to grow that ` and there's other areas that we could irrigate, as we've seen ` Ruataniwha and so on ` we will be behind the eight ball. And things are going to change in agriculture going forward, and I say to people, 'I don't know what I'll be growing in five or 10 years. I may have less cows.' So the rest of the world will pick it up and will be able to be ahead of the game on us on that one. And we won't be able to fit in and continue to actually have an export` So you're saying you won't be able to compete on the world stage in terms of exporting without that irrigation and without subsidised irrigation. Well, it's an infrastructure thing. It is about actually enabling New Zealand to have options, optionality going forward. Isn't that corporate welfare, though? Government paying for an irrigation system that benefits private businesses, which farmers are ` private businesses. It's setting up options for whatever type of business the nation wants to have later. Look, roads and so on like that, they are paid for by the government, and all private businesses and so on benefit from that, as well as the general public. So I think it's something that could be talked out, but it's definitely not just for private benefit. It enables communities to grow and thrive and provide jobs and so on through having businesses there that function well. From a different angle, though, this is also related to preserving the environment and climate change. And the other thing that farmers do not pay for at the moment is animal emissions. So why do you think that you should get a free pass on that? Well, no one in the world charges for animal emissions. That's the first part. Doesn't mean that we can't. Yeah, no, that's right. But I guess the thing is that we're working on mitigations there. There's the Biological Emissions Research Group; there's the Greenhouse Gas Consortium. We're spending a lot of money in that area to find what we can do that will help to mitigate that. And we've always said, 'Keep us out unless there's mitigations.' But Federated Farmers has acknowledged that that is about a decade away ` so injections for cows and things like that. That's a decade away. People would argue that's too far into the distance, so why should you get a free pass on it now? Well, again, we're not on a level playing field in our international` with other competitors anyway when we export. No one else is doing it. So if you add that impediment in the meantime... We want it, because the thing is it'll make us more efficient too. So, I want to move on to politics. The only party that has committed to not putting a charge on emissions for farmers is National and not putting a charge on water for farmers is National. So is National still the party of farmers? Well, actually, New Zealand First is not big on the emissions trading for farmers either ` the biological part ` because they know, too, until the mitigation's there, it's not` Yeah, but they'd set up a climate commission and do some other things. Yeah, which` But, still, they have pretty fundamental things that they realise that, yeah, until there's something there, it's not going to achieve what you actually want. So is New Zealand First the party for farmers now? Or do you still think National is the predominant party for farmers? Well, I hope that all parties would be the parties for farmers, because we're a part of the economy that is crucial. 80% of New Zealanders still think that agricultural has a place to play in our future. And so we need that to be supported through being able to learn these new ways, get these mitigations in, support the science that'll help us be better and do things in a new way, because it is a key part to our economy. So, election figures show that, in fact, the South Island in rural areas swung more to Labour than the northern urban areas. So why do you think that there was that bit of a shift? I do think that that was the political football that farming became, and the rivers ` you know, everyone talking about the degradation and so on ` people firmly believing that, basically, they're all buggered. And that's not true. We have areas where there has been decline. And in the towns as well, we do have issues, and we know that, and we're all trying to work towards making that better and doing our part where we can. And so I think it's things like that that are fundamentals for people. If they haven't gone out an experienced themselves and had a look and talked to people on what is actually happening and checked some of the websites for validity, because there's some out there that have got skull and crossbones on every river in Canterbury, which is` So you think the swing in vote was due to misinformation about quality of water? Well, no. Part... And a whole lot of policies where, you know, people cling on to parts of it and the full story is not necessarily fully understood. Yeah, so, look, that's just my opinion of what the swing was about, and I think that that was more of an urban-rural disconnect a little bit. Okay. Well, we're running out of time. Just before we go, on the show recently, we've been talking about the gender pay gap. Is there a gender pay gap in farming? How does women's pay stack up with men's in the farming industry? As far as I'm aware, there's not, because if you come in and you apply for a job, your skill set is your skill set, and we just pay what the going rate is. So, actually, it's a good question. I'm not 100% sure, but my experience is that whoever comes through my door, they get the hourly rate they get, and it doesn't matter what sex they are. And speaking of pay, is there any justification where anyone should get 8 million bucks in the pay packet? I don't supply Fonterra, so I'm glad I don't have to answer that one. Hey, look, but as people have said, look, it's right out there, and it seems pretty ostentatious, but if he's producing the results under those parameters that those directors set up as KPIs for him, then he's earnt it. All right. Hey, thanks for joining us this morning. Much appreciated. You're welcome. Stick around. After the break, Mike Wesley-Smith talks to some of the hundreds of women trying to get answers about a surgical procedure that's left them in permanent pain. But first, Jeremy and Paul, who are just trying not to get done for copyright. The big question this week on Politics in 60 Seconds` Whoa-ho! Steady, Jeremy, steady. I think we'd best cover ourselves here and call it Politics in 60 Seconds-esque. Ah, yeah, good call. Jacinda Ardern sworn in as Prime Minister on Thursday. Well, Ardern-esque. Yeah, on the same day her sister had a baby boy. Yes, that was nice, wasn't it? They were both in labour on the same day. But didn't her sister only get married, like, three months ago? Esque. You know these Arderns, though. Let's just do it. And straight to work for Labour, immediately embarking on their ambitious 100 days to upset all Aucklanders. Yes, 10c petrol tax. I'm leaving Auckland! Well, it is to fund light rail to the airport. All right, I'll stay. But for 10c, I don't want light rail. What's that? 2.5%. I'll only use light rail if I'm driving. I want full-strength rail, thanks. Understandable. Well, they're both low car, so good for you either way. OK. Jacinda taking on the child poverty reduction portfolio. Nice to see the PM in charge of looking after the poor. Yes, and, of course, Andrew Little looking after the Pora. All in all, pretty good day at the office for Labour. Yes, or as it's officially known, Auntie Cinda's Lady Party. Esque. Esque, yes. Welcome back. A government working group has started looking into issues around the use of surgical mesh, which has left hundreds of New Zealand men and women in extreme pain. 800 patients are receiving ACC compensation for health complications caused by the mesh, which is used to treat incontinence, organ prolapse and hernias. Many say they weren't told all the risks of the mesh or weren't told at all that it would be implanted. Mike Wesley-Smith reports. Chrissy Williams is on her way to her car. I'm in pain all the time. But she is not going for a long drive. (CAR ENGINE STARTS) I haven't been out for four years to dinner or movies or gone anywhere. No, Chrissy's using her car to drive to her letterbox a few hundred metres away. A steep walk she can't take because of searing pain in her groin caused by surgical mesh. We first met Chrissy a year ago to speak to her about the mesh implanted to treat her incontinence in 2013. Things went wrong when the polypropylene device started to erode inside her. So, Chrissy, how are you one year on? Worse off. The mesh in my groin and internally is all bent and buckled. Chrissy underwent surgery twice in 2015 to have the mesh removed, but it didn't go well. Only some mesh could be taken out, and her organs were further damaged, rendering her permanently incontinent. So it's soul destroying. The devastating legacy of a medical device Chrissy says she never consented to having implanted inside her, let alone being advised of potential complications. And she is not alone This is what I told my surgeon. It feels like you have left me inside the plastic bit wrapped around newspapers and that is how uncomfortable it felt. Patient advocates Charlotte Korte and Carmel Berry have been fighting for mesh-injured patients for five years. Alongside their colleague Patricia Sullivan, they have setup a group called Mesh Down Under. According to a 2016 survey they conducted on 60 patients, almost 90% said they were not advised of potential mesh risks. Different clinics and different hospitals use different information. Almost 92% of respondents said they weren't told about alternative treatments to mesh such as repairs with native tissue. The fact of the matter is that you may come out of surgery completely disabled. In female patients mesh is now mostly used to treat incontinence. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, or RANZCOG as it's known, supports mesh use for the right patients. And we know that they are very effective and in the great majority of cases produce a good result and are very safe. RANZCOG says mesh for incontinence procedures remains the gold standard with rates of complete cure or significant improvement of 80% to 90%. If selected appropriately and women are made aware of the risk and benefits of the procedure and they are placed well, that they give really, really good results. Dr Stewart Jessamine is a director at New Zealand's medical device regulator, Medsafe. When used appropriately by skilled surgeons for some conditions, the benefits of use of mesh outweigh the risks. And he says for mesh procedures, informed consent is paramount, as required by law. The Health and Disability Code, which sets out patient rights, says... And with mesh, you would want to know all the risks. ACC specialist lawyer John Miller has represented mesh-injured women and says information provided to his clients has often been inadequate. From about 2011 on, there were real problems with this. But I don't think all the risks have been explained to the women concerned. I performed the trans-vaginal mesh procedure for incontinence and prolapse. Scottish uro-gynaecologist Dr Wael Agur has done hundreds of mesh surgeries. In 2014 when his patients started experiencing serious mesh complications, he stopped using it for organ prolapse and for the type of incontinence procedure Chrissy underwent. The most serious complication that could happen is disability, inability to walk, having to use crutches and wheelchair. Chronic pain is the second most serious complication. And he says it is vital patients are told that risks of mesh can be irreversible. If an adverse event because of the permanent mesh device took place, the mesh device in the majority of patients cannot be taken out completely safely. It's a warning given to patients in the United Kingdom considering mesh for incontinence. They are told.... It's information Chrissy says she was never provided with before her surgery. Nobody that was reading that document would ever go ahead and have the surgery ` ever. RANZCOG says most mesh complications for incontinence are relatively minor and in some rare cases, as with Chrissy, will require further surgery. We're constantly re-evaluating the evidence that is available to guide surgeons and to help women and their families make decisions about surgery. But patients like Chrissy believe there is still insufficient data available to guarantee the long-term safety of mesh devices. Dr Stephen Robson, who wasn't available for an interview, told us in a statement that mesh was like any new surgical device that had the potential to develop long-term adverse consequences that were never anticipated by those that developed the product. I feel like we've been used as guinea pigs, really. The evidence would suggest for this and for some of the hips that the number of clinical trials or patients in clinical trials that received this wasn't enough. There is a growing concern about what information has been provided to mesh patients in the past. So a working group, including RANZCOG, Charlotte, Carmel, Patricia and medical device regulator Medsafe are now co-designing information pamphlets provided to patients. It's incorporating the needs of the community of people who have had experience and negative experiences with mesh to inform what's the best information. Dr Jessamine estimates the new information pamphlets could be ready within six months and says Charlotte, Patricia and Carmel's work has been instrumental. We're feeling very positive moving forward, because we are now in a working group with the medical professionals. We couldn't do it on our own. We needed that support. It's a significantly positive development in what has been a long road for the many mesh patients. In the end it is a journey they walk together but also alone as individuals as well. Especially those in the small percentage of patients who suffered the most serious harm, for whom RANZCOG had this apology. A personal apology and an apology from the college to women who have been affected by complications of these surgical procedures. It makes me want to cry. It's disgusting. Chrissy has tried to seek help. I have been told by several surgeons in the last six weeks that New Zealand does not have the expertise to remove my mesh for at least five years. Here she is speaking to former Health Minister Jonathan Coleman about boosting surgical training. If you write to me again, I am quite happy to reconsider these issues to see if there is any new information there. Forced to lie down for up to 20 hours a day, Chrissy has done a lot of writing. In 2014 she complained to the Health and Disability Commissioner about the lack of informed consent for her mesh surgery. The commissioner found... Chrissy now says her only option is to travel to the United States to see a specialist surgeon in the hope her mesh can be fully removed ` a cost ACC won't cover. My daughter started a Give a Little page for me in September of last year, and to date we have managed to raise 9300, and its seems like a huge amount, but I need about 70,000 to go to America. It will be difficult, but then anything is easier than the life Chrissy has to live at the moment. I don't know what to do with my life, basically. I mean, there's only so much you can do laying down. And,... yeah, I don't know what I'll do. If you would like to donate to Chrissy's Give A Little page, the details are on our website and on our Twitter and Facebook. And the new health minister, David Clark, has commented on this story, saying he wants an explanation from the ministry for the time it's taken to form a surgical mesh registry. After the break, we're joined by our panel, Bernard Hickey, Susie Ferguson and David Slack. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` Radio New Zealand presenter Susie Ferguson, Bernard Hickey from newsroom.co.nz and political commentator David Slack. Good morning to you all. So, the new money man, Grant Robertson. Has he got enough money to do what he wants, Bernard? Because there's a huge list of new things now. He's got new friends in government. That's right. And when he asks his officials for the new numbers, they may be slightly bigger numbers, particularly with Kiwibuild. There is enough money. This is a government that has plenty of room. It has a 23% debt to GDP ratio, which is way below those of other countries around the world, which are closer to 100%. And it's interesting ` the reaction after the election result. There was quite a bit of moves on the currency. But in the bond markets, which are the world's most liquid, they're not worried about this at all, and that's because New Zealand's finances are in such good shape. But he's set himself some quite tight fiscal constraints in the sense that he says he wants to keep surplus ` they've made that undertaking to keep surplus ` and debt. Well, there is that big caveat ` 'over the economic cycle'. So he can say, 'Yes, well, we've got a deficit, as the previous government did,' during some sort of recession, 'but then we have bigger surpluses through the growth.' So he has left himself plenty of room to have a deficit and not break that rule. Susie, he's talking about the fact, as Bernard says, that he's going to get some new numbers. They did some estimates, but they don't have all the tools. How eagerly awaited and picked over do you think those costings are going to be? Oh, there will be, because we saw what happened with the budget when they put out their full costing of the Labour Budget in the election run-up. And this is where it becomes real. This is where, actually, you start seeing exactly how the money's going to be spent, where it works and where it might have some problems and some pitfalls. So I guess those numbers are going to be the things that everyone will be waiting for. You had an interesting conversation with Steven Joyce this week. Because obviously still talking about the fiscal hole and then talking about tight spending constraints. So are we any clearer about who's right on that, do you think? I think the $11.7 billion hole has been pretty widely debunked. The only people that I think are still clinging on to that are Steven Joyce and possibly Bill English. It seemed strange that the numbers still don't seem to add up for Steven Joyce and he didn't seem to be able to tell us whether it was an $11.7 billion hole or I think a $4 billion hole seemed to be the other one that he was now going for. So there's an awful lot of dollars in between those two figures, and it wasn't clear to me, certainly, which one of those was right, if indeed either of them were. David, we talked to Grant Robertson about the minimum wage, raising the minimum wage. Labour's policy was $16.50 in the first 100 days. And it's New Zealand First that is pushing them up to that, even though Mr Robertson says they were tracking there anyway. He's aiming for about 4% unemployment. We were tracking in that direction anyway. Are they going to be a transformational government, do you think? Yeah, they can be, and I think there is a clear intention there, and you heard him talking about how he wants to invest in skills and training and regional development and that kind of thing and that what he measures, what happens in an economy, is a question of outcome rather than simply how the budget looks at the end of the year And he's right about all of that. The difficulty for him is that you don't get those things paying off quickly. You will get transformation out of those things in the long-run. We know that in the reverse direction, we've suffered because we didn't do enough skills training right through the 90s, for example. Actually, perversely, it may be some of the little things that have the bigger effect, I suspect. And this is potentially Green's policy ` the cycling, the switching from East-West link in Auckland to trams to the airport. Those kinds of things ` not actually huge, but actually they change the way people live their lives, and that does become transformational. That and also some culture, which I think last time around we saw was very beneficial and arguably transformational to the economy when the prime minister was in charge of arts and culture. Well, we got that again. Could be good. The irony is that the whole investment approach, which is putting that $10 billion worth of capital, the benefits of that won't really accrue and start generating improved productivity and economic growth per person or per hour worked, probably, for five or 10 years. It might just come in as they get kicked out again. Yeah, that's right. Cos he was talking about the $1 billion regional development fund there, Susie, and we kind of got a few details out of him in terms of he says that it's going to be contestable and that every region will get some kind of slice of the pie. $1 billion seems like a lot of money, but... When you break it down, it's not that much money at the end of the day, is it? And I thought it was interesting that Grant Robertson was talking about it being contestable but also not that it was going to be a case of the people who were really good at putting the bids together were going to be the regions that ended up getting the bulk of that funding. So, I suppose, how do you balance that? Because the best projects ` but all over the country ` may not actually be how the money falls. It will be an interesting one to see and how big those projects end up being. Because the bigger the project, the more of that $1 billion slice they take. And interesting too, he was talking about those projects also growing sustainable jobs. It's not just about dropping money in; it seems to be about a genuine regeneration. There has to be, in essence, some kind of payback for it. He's also the minster of sport, so we took the opportunity to ask him about equal pay there ` the Black Ferns. What did you make of his answer, Susie? I thought it seemed very fair. It's 2017. The Equal Pay Act is older than I am. (LAUGHS) And they're a great team. I mean, I don't know if you've watched any of the games lately, but they're fantastic ` and getting bigger crowds too, so you know. That's sort of a National Party argument, merit performance, isn't it? Exactly. (LAUGHS) But that's going to be an interesting conversation with New Zealand Rugby, I would think. Well, for sure. And I can see that he might be very keen to have it. And we learned, actually, in the green room, that they've been inundated with invitations from all the sports organisations for Grant Robertson to come, much more than in his role as minister of finance. So I suspect the exchange will be fruitful and many. And it does matter for the sports organisations because there is this threat, although not in their coalition agreements, about moving sport into free-to-air, which is something this government might be interested in. Well, it's a New Zealand... ...First policy. New Zealand First policy. ...First policy. Yeah, well, watch this space. All right. We will be back after the break when we'll take a look at some of the things that will be making the news next week. Welcome back. You're with The Nation and our panel. Interesting week this week. These portfolios were carved up and handed out. Jacinda Ardern has taken responsibility for child poverty. Mm. What can we read into that? Well, I guess it shows that she's really serious about this. It's something that was talked an awful lot during the campaign about lifting children out of poverty. In the past, the children portfolio was hers, so I guess, to some extent, it makes an awful lot of sense for that to be the extension. I think it actually gives her quite a lot of weight and depth politically as well, because it's a serious portfolio. And one she'll be judged by. She's really putting her head on the block on this one. You know, to some extent the government will stand and fall with a lot of its promises around exactly that, and she's the one carrying the can. And because it covers so many areas. You're talking about health, education, housing. And if she can coordinate that and make a difference, that's a huge one. Alongside climate change and housing, of course, those are the three things that the government needs to get right and have some achievements if it's gonna get re-elected more than once. It is the curse of the three-year term. There is only so far you can go with this kind of audacious proposition. But it's gotta happen, and clearly, she's going to be working on policies that are both big and small to demonstrate movement. I suspect that you'll get enough specific things that say, 'This is part of our track towards achieving this.' I suspect. Yeah. There are a couple of ministers there that seem to have monster responsibilities. Andrew Little ` Minister for Justice, Minister for Courts, responsible for GCSB, NZSIS, Treaty Negotiations. He's the minister of everything, David. Yeah, well, he's a very able guy, just not such a great frontman. Yeah. Is this his reward, then, for stepping down? Or you might say an acknowledgement of where his real strengths are. You know, he will be very valuable in this. There is a sort of a risk there with Treaty Negotiations that he's offside a little with certain players. But I've heard` Philip Lyth, actually ` interesting commentator on this ` suggested possibly they might be able to persuade Chris Finlayson if he should be thinking of leaving to become their treaty negotiator, because he's been really good, really effective in that role, and it'd be great to have` and has a long history of it beforehand. That would be great. You were going to talk about David Parker. Yeah, he's one you're watching, isn't he? He's a wonderful future-thinker. You'll have had the same experience, no doubt, but if you're ever wanting to get somebody on to interview about our economy and where it's going and what possibilities are ` apart from Bernard, of course ` he's great. And he's thought deeply, he has great ideas. He will be the person who's looking at this investment ` the regional billions being invested, which, God knows, could go haywire in all sorts of ways. He will be great at assessing whether they have legs or not. And he's in some hot areas ` Economic Development. They're gonna have to decide what to do with that monster that is MBIE. And Trade ` there's gonna be some really tough decisions to be made there around the TPP and these free-trade agreements with the foreign buyers ban. So he's the heaviest lifter of the big policy ministers. He's a bit of a linchpin too, I think, with the government and the three parties within the government, which is an area that is going to have to be kept reasonably under control, to some extent, by Labour, because they're not gonna want to have their partners in government, you know, shooting their mouth off left, right and centre. So to some extent David Parker's gonna be the one holding that line together too. Yeah, because a lot of his portfolios cross over into ones that the Greens have or New Zealand First and is apparently highly respected by Winston Peters. From the others, are there any ministers that you'll be watching for good or bad reasons? You might be prone, you know. You've gotta say Shane Jones. (LAUGHS) On form, I suppose, on a good day, he is an extraordinary communicator, but he has other days where he can go down whole series of other tracks. He'd certainly be one to watch. The other one that is gonna have some of the biggest and most politically sensitive areas to touch is Phil Twyford with Transport and Housing. Really, it is a story about building those 100,000 houses in 10 years and getting Auckland's transport right. The numbers are huge. The potential to get it wrong, for delays and problems, that's gonna be the pointiest end of the policy. Well, it's kind of interesting, isn't it? You're in opposition for ages, and you're criticising the government. And I know some people have said first 100 days to upset Auckland. (PANELLIST CHUCKLE) Do you think that's kind of quite a fair assessment of it, maybe? Politically, one of the first things people heard about this week was the 10c fuel levy. Now, it's not a surprise. It was in the policy, and we knew it was coming. And a lot of people like the idea that we'll have the extra money to pay for public transport and take some of those cars off the road. But, you know, it's one of those first political, you know, areas where the government could be surprising a few people in Auckland who weren't perhaps expecting the first thing to be announced was a 10c fuel duty. Yeah. Susie, 100 days programme is pretty packed. Too packed? It's gonna be busy. Because we've got the tax commission as well as setting up regional development committee, however that's gonna work. Not quite clear yet, I think, when the 100 days actually starts, which is` you know, at some point it will have to start. I'm looking forward to Patrick Gower having a 100-day countdown. (ALL LAUGH) But, you know, it's going to be a pretty swift-moving agenda so one assumes that a lot of things are ready to go and the button simply has to be pressed. Or not. We will wait` But there's always unintended consequences and ministerial advice. Suddenly you'll get in there, and then the quirky bits come out. You know, 'If you do that, then you have to fix that.' So this is all the information that the ministers get. They get these briefing papers. So you're thinking that there'll be some things in there that they totally weren't aware of. Well, when they open the hood, they'll find some dead rats under the engine, I'm sure, and they'll parade them for everyone to see. But also the bits that they wanted to bolt on to the engine, they'll discover that, you know, they have to come up with some new bits to make them work or that it might not make the engine work. So there usually is some sort of problem or quirk, particularly, for example, the foreign buyers ban. They're obviously having to have another look at exactly how to do that. OK, we'll keep watching. And also, APEC coming up, so we'll see the Prime Minister on the world stage for the first time. Time now for a look at some of what will be making the news next week. The new government holds its first regular cabinet meeting on Tuesday. Also on Tuesday, Statistics New Zealand releases the latest building consents. And looking further ahead, Parliament is expected to resume sitting on November the 7th. But that's all from us for this weekend. We will catch you again at the same time next week. Thanks for joining us. Captions by Madison Batten and Desney Shaw. 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 NZ On Air Platinum Fund.