Good morning and welcome to The Nation. I'm Lisa Owen. Today ` a test of friendship. New Zealand and Australia's relationship is much stronger than any political news story of the day. Much, much stronger. So what word would you use? Robust. Political editor Paddy Gower talks trade, refugees and North Korea with the Prime Minister in Manila. Then ` are we doing enough for those displaced in our own backyard? We talk to Amnesty International's Grant Bayldon. And how New Zealand is helping to rebuild in Palestine. Even if the guns have stopped shooting and the bombs have stopped dropping, you still have a very real physical memory of the conflict. And it's very difficult for communities to move on from that psychologically. Later ` do we have a chance at a free-trade deal with the UK? We talk to the outgoing British High Commissioner. And we'll wrap up the week with our panel ` Phil O'Reilly, Marama Fox and Dave Cormack. And comedians Jeremy Corbett and Paul Ego. Copyright Able 2017 It's great to have you with us today. If you've got feedback, do get in touch. Our details are onscreen now. And if you're on Twitter, you can follow along with our Twitter panel ` business consultant Tim McCready and Pantograph Punch editor-in-chief Lana Lopesi. Use the hashtag #nationnz. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has been on the world stage for the first time with a trip to APEC in Vietnam and the ASEAN conference in the Philippines. The main aim of settling the TPP deal wasn't reached, and it's not clear whether a handshake with US president Donald Trump was enough of a consolation prize. Political editor Patrick Gower sat down with Jacinda Ardern in Manila. Prime Minister, thank you so much for joining us. On this trip, refugees have been a very big issue for you, a serious issue, personally. Is it a conviction issue for you? Oh, yes, it is. But also, of course, my job is to advocate on behalf of New Zealanders. And I've certainly sensed a sentiment from New Zealanders that we should make sure that we do our bit. You know, we are in a position to be able to help ` both our neighbour, in Australia, but also to lend assistance to those who are refugees who are currently being held and resident on Manus and on Nauru. Yeah. And on that, there has been some pressure on Australia from you, from New Zealand, essentially. Is that fair, though, given that Australia takes five times more refugees per capita than New Zealand? Is it fair for us to sort of knock them around when we take five times less? My expectation, or what I have undertaken to do here, is certainly not to knock around Australia. I accept that they play a huge role when it comes to their contribution to refugees and taking refugees. What I'm trying to do is make sure that New Zealand takes its share of refugees as well. We're on the back doorstep. We've made an offer; we're here to help. They've been seeking places to resettle those who are on Manus and Nauru, and I saw an opportunity for us to be a part of that solution. So, certainly, I'm not here to knock them around but to at least make the case, on New Zealand's behalf. Yeah, but is it that we need to be more ambitious with our target for refugees? I know that your government will double the quota. But do you now see, five times behind Australia, is there a need to be more aspirational than that? Than doubling the quota? Yes. Look, the doubling of the quota was an important step to take ` it was ` and that was the right thing to do. But do you want to go beyond that is the question. When we made that offer, we looked into what capacity we had ` the ability to make sure that we resettle people properly. And this is a key point as well with Manus and Nauru. People will ask, 'Well, why only 150?' I looked carefully at the capacity we had in our system to make sure that when we take on those refugees, we're able to wrap support around them. We've got to keep in mind these are, in some cases, victims of torture who have gone through an extreme set of circumstances, who we need to make sure that when we take on that responsibility, we do it properly. And that's what we need to do with our quota as well. So do you see a time when you will go beyond doubling the quota? Do you want to do that? For now I think the responsible thing to do is double the quota and see that we're able to do that properly. One other conviction issue for you is obviously climate change, and you've spoken a lot about that. But for the first time, I saw you talk about how you believe that New Zealand's glaciers have been shrinking because of climate change. Is that right? Certainly that's the advice that I've had. And we have been advocates on this issue. I see in part, and I've spoken on this before, that we have two roles` It's costing New Zealanders glaciers ` is that your personal view? Yes. Yes. Well, yes ` it is my personal view. But we have a role here. I use that to illustrate a point. We have a role here not only to lead from the front and to use our voice but to demonstrate we're taking action ourselves. And one of the reasons that we need to do that is because we sit within the Pacific and we see and know that those around us already feeling the effects of this global issue. In fact, Asia-Pacific, where these meetings are being held and where the attendees have been from, will be gravely affected by climate change. Sure. And one thing ` specific thing ` you brought up is climate change refugees. Indeed. You want New Zealand to lead on that, do you? Yeah, I absolutely see a role for us to play in acknowledging that all of us will face climate changes. What are the practical steps to that? One of the things we've already talked about is we, of course, already have a programme within the Pacific where we have seasonal workers coming in directly to work within New Zealand from our Pacific neighbours. Whether or not we can build in, for instance, an element where we target those who might be affected by climate change and potentially be climate refugees as part of that programme. We're in the early days, but we're looking at some options. So you're actually working on that. And is this urgent, actually dealing with climate change refugees? Is this urgent for you or is this a sort of 'off in the future' thing? I think the most important thing is for us to try and slow the trend ` of course, do what we can to make sure that we're not in a position where we see a large-scale refugee situation. But we also need to make sure that we're resilient, that we're also planning, that it's about mitigation and adaptation. And part of that planning is looking around us and saying what might be the needs in our regions as well, and being prepared for that. And specific action has started on that, Prime Minister? Yes. It is very, very early stages. Very early stages. Of course, we've only been in for several weeks, but it's a conversation that we're having. Actually bringing 'climate refugees', so to speak, to New Zealand. But using some of our existing programmes to see how we can accommodate within that those who might be affected by climate change. Okay, I want to move now to North Korea, which has obviously been a subject of lots of discussion with you and the other leaders. Now that you have spoken and interacted with these people, how real is the threat of North Korea? Oh, look, absolutely it is taken as a genuine and real threat by those in the region. Absolutely. And you, personally, what would you say to New Zealanders? How real is this threat? Oh, you know, we've seen significant increases in testing and the capability of those tests. I think most people would see that and know that it's a genuine threat and that every member of the international community needs to play a role in doing what we can to de-escalate the situation, put pressure on Pyongyang to make sure that they are responding to the sanctions and the message that's coming from the international community. And if they don't, or if there is a need for military action, is your position ` because your position on the record is New Zealand would not join military action against North Korea unless it was backed by the United Nations. Is that still your position? The statement I used today at the East Asia Summit was we should use every tool available to us, bar military action. And one of the reasons we're so firm on that is that we are yet to exhaust all the channels that we have. In fact, we're deploying many of them now, and with some success. So our point is those are the channels and those are the avenues we need to keep pursuing. And that position still stands? Yes. It needs to have the United Nations Security Council resolution? Yes. Even if Japan, the United States, Australia...? Of course. You know, our view has always been multilateral approach is best. We maintain our independent foreign policy, of course, and we'll continually assess every situation. But, as I said today, we need to pursue every available avenue, bar military action. And is there an option ` when you talk about dialogue with North Korea, which is an important way ` is there, in your view, a role, potentially, for Winston Peters, the Foreign Affairs Minister, to play in terms of talking to North Korea? Do you think he is the kind of person that could interact with that regime? Oh, that's happened in the past. And I think it is a good reminder that, actually, there was a direct request made ` a few years ago now, but a direct request made ` by the United States administration for support from Mr Peters in navigating a situation with North Korea in the past. That speaks to the level of diplomacy and the level of relationship that I've seen Mr Peters has with members of the international community. And I've seen it in play during this trip. It is an asset. And do you think it's an asset that could be used with North Korea? To date, we haven't had that request, but we remain absolutely available as a government ` that includes our Minister of Foreign Affairs ` to play whatever role we can in reaching a peaceful resolution. I mean should you put Winston Peters forward? Look, I would certainly be open to a range of options so we can play our role. To date that hasn't risen as a potential possibility, but I'd never be closed off to the option. Now, on the Trans-Pacific Partnership ` and without getting into the detail and the nuts and bolts of it ` your over-arching view on why that's good for New Zealand. What is your over-arching view on why the Trans-Pacific Partnership is good for New Zealand? We had a set of five goals we wanted to reach. We wanted to make sure that, yes, we had some decent outcomes for our exporters. But we also wanted to protect Pharmac, protect the Treaty of Waitangi, protect our right to legislate, protect our right to maintain our housing market` Sure. And you've done that. What's the good bit? If someone's saying to you, 'What's the good bit here?' And the point we make is that we've done that. That therefore enables us to actually place a little more emphasis on the trade deal. Because before, the trade deal was somewhat masked by all of the bits that were much more negative. Now, we haven't reached a perfect agreement. But there's no denying this deal gives us access to Japan, in particular, for our beef, for our kiwifruit, for our wine, in a way that we just did not have before. And what about locking us into the world? Is that important to you? Put the trade to one side; interacting with the world ` is that an important part of the TPP for you? Look, what we have to acknowledge is that when you are a small nation negotiating free-trade agreements, multilateral agreements give you much greater access often in this environment. And so this has been a way that we've been able to access multiple markets. And very quickly on Australia ` I mean, we've got leaks in the Australian media; we've got your threat of retaliation; we've got the Julie Bishop issue; we could go on and on and on. What word would you use to characterise our relationship right now? Because it does not look great to the outside. Oh, look, New Zealand and Australia's relationship is much stronger than any political news story of the day ` much, much stronger. So what word would you use? Robust. Robust. (LAUGHS) Now, speaking of robustness, to look at a robust measure, to look at the way we measure economic growth, GDP, do you think there is time under your government for a different measure, for a different official government measure beyond GDP? I see room for a range, and we've talked about this before. You know, I want to make sure that people have a set of markers that they can measure our success by. Do we need to create a new one ` a new official measure that looks at different elements of human happiness? Yeah, we're very open as a government to exploring markers that sit alongside some of those traditional economic measures. Now, some of them we've already talked about. Let's look at what's happening for kids. Like a happiness index? Well, there have been talks about how you measure well-being, and I think that that's a conversation a lot of developed countries are starting to have, and we should too. Okay, and just finally, how have you found the trip? You used the word 'robust' before; what word would you use to describe your first outing on the international stage? Pretty successful. (CHUCKLES) All right, thank you very much, Prime Minister, for your time. Thank you. Well, Jacinda Ardern spoke there about taking refugees from Manus Island and also taking climate change refugees. Amnesty International has been calling for New Zealand and other countries to resettle all of the men from Manus. Grant Bayldon from Amnesty International New Zealand joins me in the studio now. Good morning. Good morning, Lisa. There have been serious allegations this week that some of the refugees on Manus Island have been sexually assaulting under-age girls. You've had observers on Manus at various points. What do you know about this? The allegations that have come out are exactly that ` they are allegations that a small number of people have been engaged in criminal activity. Now, of course, that is very concerning and should absolutely be investigated. But what we need to remember is that it hasn't been investigated. So the leak that came out from the Australian Government said that locals had made claims, that no complaint had been made to police in that instance. So I think what is important to remember is that everyone deserves to be treated as innocent until found otherwise, and that they need to be investigated properly. But were you aware about these allegations swirling around? It's a small place and, yes, the leak has come this week, but did you know anything about this behaviour before that? Our investigators have been in Manus over the last couple of weeks and talked to various members of the community, community leaders, and no one raised these allegations. So you have been supporting the resettlement of these men not knowing that potentially some of them are accused of serious sex crimes. I think you have to say here that the accusations are just that they've been mentioned in diplomatic cables. But what's really important to remember is that if people were resettled in New Zealand, that would be people who were deemed to be genuine refugees, and for that you have to have a well-founded fear of persecution or war, and they'd be subject to rigorous screening. And that's not only of their refugee status but also of their character and suitability to be resettled in New Zealand. And there's various layers of that. So that starts with the actual status determination that the overwhelming majority of them have already had, that they are genuine refugees. And then, of course, it also includes security screening by the New Zealand Government, which includes site visits, interviews. So all of that would be taken into account. But you're Amnesty International, so you're concerned about everybody's rights. And presumably if there are victims who are sexually assaulted under the age of 16, you will be worried about this. We absolutely are, and that's why we are saying that needs to be properly investigated. Are you guys going to look into it? That's a matter for the police there. Amnesty International doesn't have a criminal investigation wing. No, but you have, I suppose, an ethical wing and a moral wing. Are you going to check out some of this information in any way? We've already said it needs to be investigated and that the local police are the right people to do that. We're not the right people to investigate that. In all these kinds of cases, we'd say it needs a robust local investigation. But you need to remember that across Manus and Nauru, that's over 2000 people. That's the size of a lot of small New Zealand towns. Kaikoura is about that population. You will always find that there are some people who may be breaking the law. That doesn't mean that you can paint everyone in that same light. You've got professionals, you've got journalists, engineers, tradespeople. You've got a lot of men on Manus; some of the men have families ` wives, children in Australia who they've been separated from. So you accept, on the law of averages, there's potentially bad apples amongst this group? We would never say that everyone there is an absolute angel, of course. And that's why screening is really important. And that's the New Zealand Government's right and obligation to do that well, and we see that they do do that well. What do you think about the timing of that leaked information? I think you need to be very suspicious of it, and that's based on past evidence. So if you go back to the attacks back in April or May, when drunken soldiers went on rampages, fired 100 shots into the detention centre, attacked detainees, the Australian Government at the time put out outrageous allegations about what had led to that that turned out to be completely unfounded afterwards. So do you think they're playing politics with this? I don't know, but it raises that question. What would you suspect? Well, it just raises that question in my mind. The Australian detention of the men on Manus has been going on for four and a half years. It's a legal and international law. People are in very stressful situations there. It's not really on from the Australian Government to keep quiet and then suddenly, when it comes to this point, bring up allegations that are quite old and that the men have had no opportunity to defend. So do you still think we should take 150? Absolutely, yes. If New Zealand and other countries can help, then they should do that. Is that enough, 150? We'd like to see more because it's an absolute crisis situation. So how many more should New Zealand realistically take? That's really a matter for the New Zealand Government. What Amnesty International is saying is there should be the potential for New Zealand to demonstrate its values here, to show that we're prepared to help people out. And we have a very good refugee programme that they would be part of here. But more than 150 you think is realistic? There's certainly the potential for that. New Zealand has taken emergency refugees over and above the quota in the past. The thing is, really, Australia is digging its toes in. Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has said that our $3 million donation is a waste of money ` that's his words ` and he doesn't want any of these men getting the false hope that they will ever be allowed to resettle in New Zealand. That sounds pretty categorical to me. So with Australia not budging, is it time for us to start talking to PNG directly? What we've got to be aware of is that things have moved. We're getting some mixed signals from the Australian Government. Peter Dutton, immigration minister, clearly very hard line on this issue and a lot of bluster going on from him. The prime minister, Turnbull, has indicated a little more willingness to look at this in some of his comments. And that's something that has moved. The key question is the US deal and where that's up to. And it's very hard to know for us, from the outside, exactly what the realities are. It's a year now since that was first negotiated. 50 men have been resettled. Clearly, the New Zealand government has said` Yeah, but my point would be ` and sorry to interrupt you ` that the clock is ticking down. These guys have been without proper supplies for a number of weeks now, and there's reports that their shelters are being destroyed and the water they have is being taken away. There's also the issue of medication and ongoing mental health. So the clock is ticking. Are you suggesting we just keep waiting or should we go to PNG? What's your call? The absolute immediate need is for supplies to get in ` for medicines, for water, for food to get in. The Australian Government and PNG are clearly responsible for that. Even if New Zealand agreed to take people, it would take longer than the water supplies that are there, to get them here under the processes of the New Zealand government` So don't go to PNG at the moment? Don't back-door it yet? No, no, we're not saying that, but we're saying that the New Zealand Government needs to be very strategic in the way that it approaches this. So there's the US deal in play; is that realistic? It needs to be using its channels to promote those. There's no reason that the New Zealand Government can't go to PNG directly. Should they? That's what I'm asking you. Should they, at this point, go to PNG directly? Yeah, they should absolutely be doing whatever they can, including talking to PNG, to try and find a resolution for this, not only about permanent resettlement but also about the emergency needs. That offer from the New Zealand Government to provide financial support for the immediate needs of the men would effectively be run through the PNG Government. It's got to happen in PNG itself. So they are already talking to PNG on that, and that's really positive. We're almost out of time, but the Prime Minister says she's looking at how we can accommodate climate-change refugees. A couple of things there ` do you think the law should change around refugees to consider environmental factors as well as persecution in their home countries? So, as you know, the refugee definition at the moment doesn't include climate change. You need a well-founded fear of persecution or war. At the moment, countries really aren't stepping up on basic refugee protections for people who meet the current criteria. So the difficulty is if the criteria is widened out, that that's going to be an even bigger challenge. That's not a reason to do nothing. Outside of the refugee system, countries absolutely have an obligation to look after people who mostly have had very little to do with causing climate change. For New Zealand, we're right here in the Pacific. This is our home, this is our area, and this is an issue that's affecting our closest neighbours, so, yes, we absolutely welcome New Zealand taking a positive stand on displacement resettlement. We're out of time. Quick answer. Should it be included in the 1500 quota that this government is aiming for or should it be on top of? It should absolutely be over and above. Thank you so much, Grant Bayldon, for joining us. Later ` how likely is a post-Brext deal with the UK? Well, we'll ask the British High Commissioner about that. And after the break, we're in Gaza and the West Bank to see how they're slowly recovering from years of war. Welcome back. It's been three and a half years since the last war ended in Israel and the Palestinian territories. But leftover explosives still litter Gaza and the West Bank, and many people won't rebuild their homes, fearing they'll just be destroyed again. There's work being done to make those areas safe, and it's being done in part with money from the New Zealand government. Europe corresponded Tova O'Brien and cameraman Simon Morrow went to Israel and Palestine to see what progress is being made. (MUEZZIN SINGS CALL TO PRAYER) Jerusalem is one of the holiest cities in the world and one of the most fought over. Claimed by both Israelis and Palestinians as their capital, it's the crux of the conflict. There's relative calm here for now. Markets sell an odd, contradictory mix of pro-Israeli, pro-US and Free Palestine souvenirs. At Damascus Gate, a flashpoint for violence, the Israeli soldiers are relaxed. There's no hint of past bloodshed. But travel to the occupied territories ` the West Bank and Gaza ` and the scars of war are everywhere. Crossing to Gaza through the heavily fortified checkpoint is like a tunnel to another time,... (ENGINE RUMBLES) ...the high-rises and highways of Israel replaced by bomb-marked buildings and donkey-drawn carts. It's been three and a half years since the last war in Gaza in 2014. (ROCKET WHOOSHES) (EXPLOSION RUMBLES) But the situation is still highly volatile. We travel in an armoured UN truck and can only film in certain areas approved by Gaza's ruling faction, Hamas, avoiding spots where Islamic Jihad tunnels weave underground. This part of the Strip, closest to Israel and used by children on their walk to school, isn't considered worth reconstructing because of the threat of further destruction. And even in homes that have been rebuilt, families live with the expectation that their houses will come down again. (SPEAKS ARABIC) INTERPRETER: For sure, he expect that, because we are living in Gaza, and we expect it any time ` after one hour, two hours, one day, two days ` you never know. This house will be destroyed, the war will come back, and we are not waiting anything from anyone, because this is our situation; this is Gaza. This man was in his bedroom with his five sons when this 130kg Israeli bomb, the GBU-39, came through the ceiling. Me and my kids, we was in the room, actually. (SPEAKS ARABIC) When it happened? Yes. Yes. Oh my gosh. What was that like? (SPEAKS ARABIC) 'He tells me, "Thanks for my God, we were lucky. My five kids were aged 1 to 7 at the time."' They were all in the room? Yeah. (SPEAKS ARABIC) INTERPRETER: I got injured in my hand. Even after the initial shock and injuries faded, the family still had to sleep in a room with an explosive rocket buried deep in the floor. This is the bedroom now. This was during the excavation. Having the legacy of conflict, in the form of explosive remnants of war in your community, even if the guns have stopped shooting and the bombs have stopped dropping, you still have a very real, physical memory of the conflict. And it's very difficult for communities to move on from that, psychologically, living with explosive remnants of war. The United Nations Mine Action Service has cleared 149 large aerial bombs from Gaza, the biggest weighing nearly a ton and containing 500kg of explosives. It destroyed a school, which has since been rebuilt and will soon be running wild with 2000 children. You guys can say hello to New Zealand TV. Over there ` the camera. (TRANSLATES INTO ARABIC) Yes, I'm` No, no. How are you? I am fine. How are you? Fine, thanks. Fine, thanks. How are you? (LAUGHS) Finishing the school depends in big part on building supplies getting through the Israeli blockade. So this is a big problem for you, is getting in materials to Gaza. Yes, materials is the biggest problem here to finish the... all the school. Israel worries that Palestinian children are being taught to hurt and kill Israelis. Safe schools and homes are crucial for children to be given a chance to be children. For too long, war and conflict has forced them to grow up too fast. Days before we came here, Israel had bombed a tunnel coming out of Gaza, killing at least seven Palestinians. That escalated tensions and prompted threats of retaliation, of rocket fire from Gaza into Israel. So Israeli ramped up its surveillance; it's always constant here, but since we arrived, drones have been buzzing overhead at levels not seen since 2014. 2014 was the most recent of three wars fought in Gaza in just six years. Much of the city has been rebuilt, but there's still a long way to go. New Zealand has contributed money to UN Mine Action, but it all went to the West Bank, none to Gaza, where 25,500 Gazans are still displaced after the conflict. The West Bank also has myriad problems with unexploded remnants of war. Jordanian minefields set up to block Israeli advances ahead of the 1967 Six Day War still exist. More than 50 years on, those mines continue to threaten Palestinian limbs and lives. What kind of damage are we talking about? This one will... can stop a tank. And this one will amputee a leg of any adult. And a child? Will chop the leg, and even will kill him. Rohen Shimoni works for HALO, the mine clearance trust once made famous by Princess Diana. Land is at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For Israelis, de-mining helps prevent the harvesting of explosives, which are then used against them in suicide vests and other home-made bombs. And for Palestinians, clearing the land in the West Bank of dangerous mines is about so much more than safety and livelihoods. It's income, but in addition, it's also... some... I don't know how to say, but it means to the people, when they own land, they can return back with their family, they can spend their time, and it provides sustainability` (BANG!) A sudden explosion interrupted the interview we were doing right next to the active minefield. Oh, the trailer came off. You don't want to hear explosions when you're on a minefield. Al-Nabi Ilyas was the first minefield cleared by HALO in the West Bank. You were lucky. (SPEAKS ARABIC) 70-year-old Rafe Qatesh, a land-owner, tells us of his desperation to use his land, that despite the mines, he started clearing it himself. (SPEAKS ARABIC) INTERPRETER: Before the clearance, nobody can enter, nobody can farm, nobody can walk beside... All the people fear to enter this... land, and... nobody can touch. It took a year and a half to clear the 62,000m2 centimetre by centimetre. You can see how we crushed the soil. You see ` everything was crushed to the size of 3.5. So if their are mines inside the soil that we crush, they will` inside the crusher, they will get broken, and everything comes out is in the maximum size of 3.5. Really? And this is all this land. So they also got, in return, very fertile... land. Very fertile soil. 30 families are now able to farm the land. New Zealand contributed more than $3 million to HALO in the West Bank, meaning, of the 64 anti-tank mines and 493 antipersonnel mines found at the al-Nabi Ilyas field, 23 anti-tank and 107 antipersonnel mines were found on New Zealand's dime. New Zealand actually played quite a significant part here. Absolutely, yes. And not just with cash, but diplomatic muscle too. As with the United Nations, it's crucial for HALO that its work doesn't take sides in the conflict. Shalom. This minefield, for example, is so close to the separation barrier and checkpoint, so contested, that it's shifted between both Israeli and Palestinian hands. New Zealand also made impartiality a condition of its aid. For example, the Israeli government insists a commercial Israeli company does quality checks on HALO's work. New Zealand refused to pay for that, ensuring our money went strictly on clearing minefields like al-Nabi. A problem that arose after the mine clearance was this road. The Israeli bypass was built using 1000m2 of the minefield. New Zealand was one of the countries that expressed its disappointment to Israel, putting pressure on the government to limit the land used. But as of February this year, New Zealand's money and diplomacy dried up. And there are still four major West Bank minefields to be cleared. You still have a lot of mines to clear, and yet you've run out of` you've got other funding, but you've run out of New Zealand money. Yes. But now would be quite a good time for New Zealand to chip in some more. All donors will be welcome on board, because you saw the results of our work. Work that tries to create safety and normality for people stuck in a seemingly endless cycle of violence and war. After the break, the UK High Commissioner, Jonathan Sinclair, on trade and travel. Do we still have a special relationship with the motherland? But first, Jeremy and Paul's week in international politics. The big question this week ` Jacinda Ardern's first walk on the international stage. How did she go, Paul? Exceptional, Jeremy. She went exceptionally. The TPP was dead in the water until she kayaked out there and sprinkled some of her stardust on it and resurrected the thing. I don't think that she` Yeah, made international news. Eh...? Yeah, New Zealand's international now. I think you're overstating her success a bit. Well, how about her putting pressure on Malcolm Turnbull, then, to get the result over there? Result? Yeah, the gay-marriage thing. The 'yes' vote on Wednesday. I don't know how she does it. Well, she didn't. I will give her this, though, she did say Donald Trump is the same person you see behind the scenes as he is in public. Nice burn. Yes, amazing. That was a good burn. Although he does have quite an orange complexion; I suppose he does burn quite easily. In Manila she met with Rodrigo Duterte, who was surprised to find out we don't have atomic bombs. No, we don't. Not since Jacinda's disarmament programme. She turned them all into cafes and things. I think you've been a bit blinded by Jacinda, Paul. She could cure blindness, I reckon. Well, what she has cured is paid parental leave. Although National want both parents to be able to stay at home. Yeah, great. What every new mother wants ` to have to look after the father as well (!) Just give him some tummy time. Welcome back. When the British High Commissioner, Jonathan Sinclair, arrived here in 2014, the political landscape in both countries was very different. I spoke with him before he heads home, and began by asking whether New Zealand has a shot at a free trade deal with the UK after Brexit. I think the chances are very good. Our secretary of state, Liam Fox, has said two or three times this year that his top priority once the UK can start its independent trade journey, his top priority for free-trade deals are Australia, New Zealand and the USA. Now, we can't negotiate a free-trade agreement with New Zealand until we have formally left the EU. That's because the commission has the competence for free-trade deals. Yeah, so 2019, round about May; you can't even start having casual conversations? Well, we already are, actually. So, last year we started having something called the trade policy dialogue, and our officials have met three times already, just talking. As I say, we can't negotiate, but we can start to have those conversations about the sorts of deal that we both want in the future and look to scope out those areas of common agreement. You named three countries there, so where are we on that list of three? That would be what one of my former bosses used to say 'career limiting'. I'm not in a position to say, and I don't think we actually know yet. But we're small fry on that list, so we must be number three at the very best. I don't think so. I don't think there is a one, a two or a three. I think what you should remember is that those are the top three of all of the countries we don't have one with already, and that's for several reasons, really. If you think about New Zealand's global identity, it is one of the leading, if not the leading, country in terms of quality free-trade agreements. And I think the UK government sees real opportunity, not just in the trade agenda bilaterally with New Zealand, but in finding common cause with New Zealand on the global stage. So are you saying to me that because of the nature of our relationship and because of the quality of our nation, we could actually be the most important country even if we're not the biggest in terms of trade? I certainly think New Zealand has a really global high profile when it comes to quality free-trade deals. We've certainly seen this from a different aspect when we were setting up our department for international trade last year. It was New Zealand that we turned to for advice. So what time frame would you give it before there is a deal? You say there's a good chance. In what time frame? So, we can't start, as I say, negotiating until we leave the EU. We are on track to leave the EU in March 2019. I can't speculate on when things start, but if you look at New Zealand, it's done free-trade deals in anything between nine months and three or four years. So from 2019, that's the sort of time frame we should be looking at. So four years plus, potentially? Starting from now, yes. You're looking at 18 months to March 2019, and then two to three, four years after that. Well, the other thing that they've said is they're going to work towards a free-trade deal with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. So what effect would that have on parallel negotiations? Is the UK OK with that, if we go with a deal with them? What you'll see, I think, and certainly looking at New Zealand's experience, is that many times they're concluding or negotiating several deals all at the same time. So you've had Korea, you've had China, you've had India, GCC. This is a bloc` Sorry to interrupt you, but this is a bloc that has` there are sanctions against them, I mean, over the annexation of Crimea. There are human rights issues there, and they're an existing policy in Europe in regard to this. So if we were to forge ahead with a deal, how would that look to the international community? How would it look to the UK? I'll separate these into two. One is our own policy ` the UK's policy ` towards Russia. The prime minister just this week gave a very forceful speech where she pointed out that Russia is the only country since World War II to have redrawn the boundaries in Europe by its invasion of Crimea. It is fomenting conflict in Donbass, that's eastern Ukraine. It's regularly violating the airspace of several European countries, and it has carried out hacking and cyber-espionage campaign, including hacking the Ministry of Defence in Denmark and the Bundestag in Berlin. So there's a problem there. That's just a bilateral perspective we have with Russia. Now, it's up to the New Zealand government how it prioritises its free-trade deals. All I can really say is that the UK won't be rushing to one with Russia. We do want one with New Zealand. OK. Let's talk about the movement of Kiwis, because this is something that everybody gets excited about whenever there's changes. So, Brexit has obviously raised concerns for Kiwis about whether we're still going to be able live and work in the UK in the same way we do now. What guarantees can you give us that our rights won't be eroded? Sure. So, as we leave the EU, we're going to have to create a new independent immigration policy because, as you're well aware, at the moment free movement of people allows anyone from around the EU to move into` Yes. There are no plans whatsoever at the present time to change Kiwis' rights in the UK. What do you define as present time? How long can we rely on having these rights? I can't tell you that. What I can tell you is that` So no guarantees? No, it's not that. It's not no guarantees. We've had ministers absolutely certain that the current situation when it comes to` For instance, the youth mobility scheme. 10 years ago, an 18- to 30-year-old Kiwi who wanted to come to the UK could work for one year and travel for one year. Now that's a two-year work visa. We've actually liberalised that. We made it better for Kiwis. There are 13,000 places for Kiwis every year. That's more places in the UK than it is in the rest of Europe put together. Now, only` But you can't say how long we're going to keep those rights? All I can say is there's absolutely no plans to change them. OK. And so, yeah, if I said one year, two years, it would look as if we were just about to give it away. It's not the case. There are absolutely no plans to change it. What about a free travel arrangement between the UK and New Zealand? Well, look, we're going to have two or three different avenues of conversation over the next two years. We've got the` So that's not necessarily off the table? Well, look, we've got the trade policy dialogue, and we have something that we just created this year called the people dialogue. We're looking to find ways to make sure that we do future-proof the relationship ` exactly that point you make about making sure that we have the best possible connections between our people. There are 260,000 people in New Zealand who have a British passport. And those connections continue to grow. All right. We're almost out of time, but you are also the governor of Pitcairn Island. I think it's fair to say that nothing good is coming from that colony. There's a lot of resource going into it, a lot of money from the UK and New Zealand resource. Where do you see as its future? So, first of all, I have to completely disagree with the premise of that question. Right now the situation on the island is better than it has been for 25 or 30 years. It's well led, it's got a great government there, and, actually, just this year, we've embarked on a reconciliation process which has really tried to tackle some of the issues of the past. And I'm really delighted about the progress it's made. It's out of the headlines, but that has fundamentally changed the tone of what goes on in the islands and the relationship between the island and the rest of us. Are you basically waiting for this colony to die out? No. You're supporting it 100%? Absolutely. I'm the governor. I think they have had their problems, of course, and they've got phenomenal challenges facing them. I mean, there's no doubt the isolation, the connectivity` It's incredibly hard to have a really flourishing economy because it is so far away from anywhere. But what's happened in the last three years is really encouraging, and they are making a real effort. They know there are demographic challenges. They know there are economic challenges. But they have strong rights, they're very resilient, and I think that they have as good a chance as they had in the last 20 years. Thanks for joining us this morning. It's great to talk to you. You're very welcome. After the break, our panel ` Marama Fox, Phil O'Reilly and Dave Cormack. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` former MP Marama Fox, business consultant Phil O'Reilly and PR consultant Dave Cormack. Good morning to you all. Jacinda Ardern this morning talked a lot about refugees, Dave, and also that she is working already on a category for climate change refugees. What do you make of that? Well, it's great to see a government that seems to be paying more than just lip service to what is actually a really serious issue. And she seems genuinely concerned about climate change ` made it a cornerstone of her campaign, obviously with the Greens in coalition as well, it's important. And National were frankly rubbish on climate change. So for her to even come out and talk about it publicly, I think, is a really positive sign. Phil, she was saying, it seemed to be suggesting that in some way they're gonna work it around the seasonal worker scheme. But those schemes are temporary ` people come temporarily here. Can you see that working? Well, it might work in the early days. It's a very successful scheme, that they come from near islands, often, and they work in fruit picking and stuff like that. And they take back some skills, so it's very popular both in the Islands and in New Zealand, the RSE scheme. So you can see that working for a little while as you build the capability of those people and send them home for a while, because it's not as though they're about to lose their island all of a sudden. And then you think about their further connectedness to New Zealand. So in that context, there's an economic payback to New Zealand in the early days. So it's easier to sell to people ` is that what you're saying? Potentially, yes. And there's later on a move towards some more permanence, maybe. So that's probably a sensible place to start, so long as she doesn't make a mess of the RSE scheme, which has been so helpful to everybody over the last few years. Can we stop thinking about this in economic terms? These are human beings who are actually losing their countries, and we need to start talking about them as human beings. There's a lot of dehumanising language that's used around this. You look at Kiribati, where parts of the island are underwater for parts of the year. And all the language ` 'This is good for the economy,' and, 'There's good reasons to sell it to the country 'through economic means.' Human beings. Yes but, Marama ` and you would appreciate this, given the fact that the Maori Party's no longer in Parliament ` is that you also have to sell it to a constituency, don't you? You do have to sell it, and it's a hard sell, to people who live in their cars, people who are burdened under poverty and hardship. To say we're gonna bring 1500 people, plus a few more, into our country, we're gonna give them a house, we're gonna give them a job, we're gonna give them support, and yet we can't do that for our own people. Look, I think that we should do more, on a global sense, to bring refugees to our nation, for the mere fact that I can't stand watching the extreme circumstances that they're living in ` it seems with no care from the Australian Government ` who have put them there on an island, never to be seen or heard of again. But then, how do you sell that to South Auckland, Glen Innes, to East Coast, to Northland, to people who still don't have jobs or homes and can't afford to buy food? So we have to have an 'and-and' in this nation ` we have to do both. Yeah. On the subject of Australia ` and Jacinda Ardern has been giving it a good, hard nudge on Manus Island ` are we starting to annoy them? Clearly a humanitarian crisis. We should all be concerned about that, of course. The little issue with rehousing Manus Island refugees or others in New Zealand is, of course, they get immediate access to Australia. And Australian policy for years has been that none of those people will ever settle in Australia. Hence the special nature of the conversation that's going on with us. So I think it's absolutely right for the Prime Minister to forcefully push this. But if she carries on with it too much, it starts to look less like humanitarianism and more like politics, and that's the danger she's running into. So I think widening out the conversation with Australia about what else we can do to help in Manus and elsewhere is, I think, a very sensible thing to do. But care needed now, I think, in terms of the overall relationship. Do you think she's starting to cross over to the line where`? I think she's at risk of doing that, if you look at some of the reactions from some of the Australian politicians over the last few days. What's the counterfactual, though? Do we just let it happen ` let what's going on in Manus happen? No, I think we've been having conversations about taken 150 for quite a while. We've offered assistance; that's fine. It's the style in which that is offered. If you start demonising Australia over this, that's the danger that you run into ` that you demonise the entire relationship. But it's almost like we are the paternalistic big brother to the Pacific Islands, and Australia somehow is that to us. I mean, our relationship with Australia has been a fractious one for a number of years, ever since they changed the law to stop people coming in the back door, having come to New Zealand first. But that's meant that we have been unfairly penalised in Australia, which I think actually breaches human rights. When you've finished your sentence and you're getting deported, you get put into a detention centre again, having already finished your sentence ` and sometimes for nothing worse than having 'bad character'. So you ` what ` think she should ramp it up a bit more? I don't think that we should be worried too much about what Australia thinks about our new prime minister pushing them on a human rights issue. Because they have neglected Kiwis living in their own country for a good decade and a half, now, at least. I was really interested ` she talked to Paddy there about how she's going to measure the success of our country; not just GDP. And the issue of, perhaps, a happiness index was raised with her. And she said, 'Yeah, other countries look at those things. We're open to it. We're gonna look at it.' How realistic, do you think, Phil? We've had one since 2014. It's called the Treasure Living Standards Framework. It exists, it's uncontroversial, and in fact it was world-leading at the time John Whitehead and his team at the Treasury put it in place. It's now become common practice at the OECD. So to call it a happiness index rather is poking the borax out of it. It's a much more serious thing than that. And it actually takes account of what you and I would define as happiness. It defines it as things like connectivity, human capital and so on ` the dry Treasury language. So if the government uses that, it's actually very mainstream to use it, and I think business would welcome it. But perhaps calling it a happiness index makes it more consumable and understandable for people ` gets them interested. For everyday New Zealanders. I think you're right. You're right that we've had this for a long time, and it's determined by bureaucratic language. But actually that's half the problem of why we don't get people coming out to vote, is because they don't see the relationship between the bureaucracy and themselves. And if we just use simple language to describe the things and the tools that we currently use, then actually New Zealanders might take more of an interest. Public policy is a serious thing, and I don't think belittling it by calling it a happiness index will actually help much at all. If you go and look at the Living Standards Framework, anybody can read it; it's in readable language, and it does talk about the sorts of things that you and I would think makes us happy. How is calling it a happiness index belittling it? What's wrong with being happy? It's a bit of vox pop, isn't it? Is it really? We've gotta go to the break. They can continue arguing while we're on the break. Stay with us. After the break, we'll look at some of what will be making the news next week. Welcome back. You're with The Nation and our panel. The UK High Commissioner seems to be saying that we're kind of in the top three for a free trade deal. But I'm wondering is he just being nice to us publicly? No, I think he's being pretty serious, actually. Bear in mind there's two people in that trade piece that he talked about that are Kiwis ` Crawford Falconer and a guy you've probably heard of if you're long in the tooth called Simon Walker, who used to be in Lange's office and used to run the IOD in London. I'm pushing it very hard with UK business; I know it's been pushed very hard in the government. What's likely is they'll practise on us, like China did. We're small, we're good at what they do and they can practise on us. So I think there's every chance we're right up there and early doors to getting a deal. I was really interested in his reaction when I brought up the clause in the Coalition deal about working towards a free trade deal with Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus. He went right to the line and listed what the UK thinks is wrong with Russia at the moment. Do you think a deal like that would put us in a bad light on the international stage? Without question. Without question it would absolutely damage our free trade credentials. These guys shot planes out of the sky full of civilians. And there are lots of sanctions on them in Europe right now. To do a deal with them right now would send incredibly bad signals not just about our trade credentials but about our human rights credentials. Shall we put a line through that one in the Coalition deal, then? Absolutely, for the time being. I want to talk about the week that the government has had this week, because arguably some people would say it's a bit of a hot mess ` some people. Stuart Nash had to backtrack on GST on online goods, and Grant Robertson waded in to his rescue; we had the paid parental leave, where National challenged them over the father and the mother having leave; Reserve Bank and Treasury say KiwiBuild probably won't deliver; and then the Greens were at odds with Labour over waka-jumping legislation. And we had Kelvin Davis as the prime minister. Yes. So the week. How do you review it? It was a hot mess, a bit of a train wreck. And, yep, Kelvin didn't perform very well in the House. He kept turning to his side to get suggestions of what to answer from the people around him. But the next day, on the Wednesday, he walked, himself, on to the tiles and had no backup, found he was without the answers, and had to admit he actually just didn't know. But what I'm more concerned about is why are Labour throwing him to the wolves like that? Where is Grant Robertson, where is Chris Hipkins, where is David Parker in making sure that he has the support? Or is he just not... able to do it? And if that's the case, as has been suggested in the media this week, do we just make Grant the acting prime minister whenever Jacinda and Winston are out of the country? But Kelvin had the potential for Maori to be deputy prime minister. That didn't happen. He's now the deputy leader. And having the opportunity to be the acting prime minister is huge, but it looks like a weight that's too heavy to bear. Or, as you say, they're not supporting him. That's right. Where is the support? He needs some better support. It is a tough job. And he's walked straight into it, he's first off the bat. And the National Party bloc Opposition are strong and huge. They've all just finished being the ministers of all of these positions; they know exactly what questions to be throwing out there to anybody who seems a little bit tenuous on their feet. And so he should have been supported; he is the acting prime minister, and I'm disappointed that Labour, New Zealand First and other more senior members have not put the support around him. OK, the other one where they got the speed wobbles was the Greens at odds with Labour over waka-jumping legislation. And there were leaked emails that seemed to suggest that the Greens were trying to leverage a national Parihaka Day out of support for the waka-jumping. What did you make of that, Dave? Yeah, that was not great. It was a pretty politically naive sort of thing to do. And I think that when you're a first-termer like Golriz is, you probably should think about more being put your head down and not be seen or heard for a while until you've figured out the lay of the land. The Greens, I think, are actually learning really quickly. I think they're looking sharp. I think New Zealand First is looking surprisingly sharp as well and steady at the moment. Julie Anne Genter, I think, is performing really well in the House. But I think there is some teething problems with the government. Obviously, they're new; they've spent nine years in opposition, as National kept saying. And so they're going to figure it out eventually, and I think these issues that have bubbled up to the surface are really insider issues that I don't think people are actually terribly concerned with. The things that they are seeing are Jacinda getting the foreign buyers thing through, getting the paid parental leave thing through. These are things that actually do affect New Zealanders that they're more interested in than shambles in the House and that sort of thing. Phil, a lack of discipline or teething problems? Cos you had the walk-back from Stuart Nash as well. Yeah, new governments always make lots of mistakes, and this particular one, being out of power for so long and a three-headed thing, it's gonna make a lot of mistakes. I think the public will just look through that. I think most people are getting on, looking forward to Christmas. So where there'll be more of an issue is if they keep on making those mistakes in April next year and it starts to look like it's part of what this government's all about. Where do you reckon the honeymoon period is? Does it finish after the Christmas break? I think it does. And at the moment, there's lots of other mistakes down in the beltway. There's office staffers not returning calls, and there's a bunch of stuff going on like that. But that's just new government stuff. And I just think the public will look through that, they'll give Jacinda and the team a chance. Jacinda's gone really well globally in the last little while. So I think the public will be quite supportive of Labour, see through these mistakes but won't tolerate them forever. I think the honeymoon ends when Simon Bridges challenges for the leadership, doesn't it? (LAUGHTER) Simon Bridges performed very well in the House in the first few days, and he did take advantage of every opportunity he got. I am disappointed that Labour did not adopt National's stance about the split in paid parental leave, because if you're gonna get real gender equality, then a woman who has to take time off throughout her career to have a family, if that's what she wants to do, is always seen as being a disadvantage, which shouldn't be but is. But if a man was equally able to do that, then we're levelling out the playing field, and at least for gender equality, that should've been a must. But to have dads at home when you have a newborn, brand new baby, there is nothing better than that. They do it in Australia. You can have shared paid parental leave. So they got outdone by National. Before we go, do you think they should've split it, Phil? Yes. Dave? Yes. OK, there we go. Consensus. Time now for a look at some of what will be making the news next week. Today marks the seventh anniversary of the Pike River tragedy. A number of ministers, including Andrew Little and Damien O'Connor, are taking part in a public memorial. And Parliament is in recess next week. The House will resume sitting on the 28th for four weeks up until Christmas. But that's all from us for now. Next weekend, we're coming to you from Kaitaia for a special programme on what the regions want from the new government. We will see you then. Thanks for joining us. Captions by James Brown, Tracey Dawson 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.