Good morning and welcome to The Nation. I'm Lisa Owen. Today ` are there dark economic clouds on the horizon? Bill English joins me in the studio to discuss what state he left the economy in and whether Labour has enough to pay for its promises. Then a report on child poverty says we're not making big enough gains to reach our targets. We'll ask the children's commissioner what he hopes to see from the new government. What we have seen on the whiteboard looks encouraging, but this government, like any government, has gotta walk the talk, and that's what we're waiting to see. Are male victims of sexual assault treated differently from women? If it was a female rape victim and they had all that evidence, I mean, there's no way they would destroy it. I was home invaded. I was sexually assaulted and God knows what else. Those three people are still walking round over there. We look at the opportunities police lost to properly investigate serious sex allegations. And we wrap up the political week with our panel ` Ella Henry, Guyon Espiner, and Marg Joiner ` and comedians Jeremy Corbett and Paul Ego. Copyright Able 2017 It's great to have you with us today. If you'd like to get in touch, our details are on screen now. And if you're on Twitter, you can follow along with our Twitter panel, former National candidate Nicola Willis and communications consultant Stephanie Rodgers. Use the hashtag #NationNZ. When Winston Peters announced he was going with Labour, he warned there were dark economic clouds on the horizon, and since the government was sworn in, it's been hinting there could be a softening of growth when the half-yearly economic and fiscal update comes out next week. Are they under-promising so they can over-deliver, or has the National government, the previous National government, left them some bad numbers? Well, National's leader, Bill English, joins me now. Mr English, do you agree with some of those dire predictions? And if you do, how long do you think the bad times could last? There's no need for this economy to go off the rails. There'll be events around the world, of course, that make some difference, the cycles in an economy, but this economy is in good shape; it's resilient; it's got some real energy and confidence, and it's up to this government to make sure they keep that on track. And ironically, we in the opposition now have a more positive view about the New Zealand outlook than the government does. OK. Well, where do you think growth is going to go? How low do you think growth will go? Some have estimated about 2.4%. Where do you think would be realistic for it to settle at? Well, as I said, there's no particular reason why it should drop out of the sort of 2.5% to 3% range. It's been running at 3% plus. There's a big construction boom going on out there. In terms of trade, our commodity prices are in pretty good shape. If there's any kind of downturn, then people should be asking the question why that happened rather than going with the softening up the government appears to be doing. OK. So you would accept a growth rate around 2.5%. If it goes below that, then you would be pointing the finger. Well, it's not a matter of what you accept. All I'm saying is it's on a good track, it's in good condition, the economy's going well, and I can't quite understand why the government's talking it down more than the normal economic risk. OK. Well, briefings to incoming ministers were released this week, and some of them raised concerns about our low productivity. Now, that was a problem that was there before Labour got into government, so what responsibility do you take for that? Well, the productivity issue, I think, was clouded with a lot of half-baked information and slogans. And some of it was a by-product of what was the strongest feature of the economy in recent years with the job creation ` 10,000 new jobs a month for the last couple of years ` and when you've got that rate of job creation, you're not going to necessarily have very high productivity, but actually, by international standards, productivity was pretty good. So low-wage economy. So low-wage economy. But in terms of comparisons with OECD, we are low in terms of productivity, and one of the reports released this week says important areas of concern ` and I'm quoting the report ` are that productivity remains well below OECD countries. That just didn't happen in the few weeks that Labour's been in power, so, again, what responsibility do you take for that? Well, look, we were overseeing the economy for the period when we were in the government. The economy grew well. Incomes grew well. There's a few questions about productivity, but by international standards, it's actually reasonably good, and what the new government has to do` So you accept that productivity` So per-hour productivity compared to OECD countries, you can see that we were lacking during your time. No, I don't accept that as a description of the economy, and I would stress again New Zealand's rate of job creation has been amazing. We've got thousands of people came off welfare. We've absorbed thousands of people into the construction industry, for instance. That has some impact on productivity because they're not necessarily high-productivity industries. So I don't make any apology for the performance of the economy over the last wee while, and the government has to get to grips with the idea that its job is to support the confidence in the New Zealand economy, not talk it down. So you don't accept that people working longer hours for less money is a bad thing? Well, they weren't working longer hours for less money. In fact, just yesterday there was a revision of household incomes by Stats, who found out they'd made a mistake, and it turns out that household incomes since 2007 have risen just on 50% ` five-oh . That may be the case` So incomes have been rising, in fact, more consistently in New Zealand than, for instance, in Australia. But you accept productivity per hour` No, it's not. We're doing poorly there compared to other OECD countries, and that was happening on your watch. Well, look, I accept there's arguments around productivity. The point I'm making is that for the measures people have, jobs and incomes, 10,000 new jobs a month, consistent and moderate increases in incomes, and the government is already trying to soften everyone up for that dropping off, and I don't think that is their job; their job is to reinforce confidence in the economy, make the decisions that'll continue the job growth and the income growth. OK. They're forced to work with what they've got, though, aren't they? And elsewhere in the briefing papers that were released, there were some other things that might be regarded as unpleasant surprises ` 72,000 houses short around the country, a prison population blowout on the horizon, a dysfunctional Ministry of Health, and no money for police pay rises. So have you left Labour a disaster zone? No, not at all. None of that is new. They're trying to spin it as some kind of big problem. I mean, the business of government is to deal with the issues that are there, and there's always challenging issues. Take the police pay rises, for instance. That came up during the election campaign. The government is already scratching round for money because it's spent all the money on the tertiary policy, and it's going to struggle over the next few years to find enough to do things like pay for police pay increases. That's not our problem; that's their problem. But you've just said none of that is new, so if none of it is new, why didn't you fix it when you were in charge? Well, we did. Take the housing numbers` 72,000 short. There is a building pipeline of 100,000 out ahead, which the government acknowledges. That's what the private sector and government are setting out to build over the next four years ` four times the needed number, someone told me. So the construction sector, as everyone acknowledges, is going flat out ` same with infrastructure. All this talk about infrastructure deficit is nonsense. They're building flat-out, and the government, again, has to get on with the job of executing with the confidence and the direction New Zealand has that's so positive. So you take no responsibility for that list of things that I've just given you ` 72,000 houses short, prison projections reaching 12,000 by 2026, and no money for police pay rises. None of it's a surprise, but you don't take any responsibility for any of it. Oh, look, take the prison one, for instance. We spent most of our term in government grappling with the issues around prison numbers. They dropped for a while, then it turned round, and they started rising. That is a big challenge. Its not a new one; everyone's been aware of it for the last few years, and I hope we have the opportunity to make propositions ourselves, but certainly, the government now has the responsibility of dealing with what is a big, challenging issue, and that is the growth in the prison population. We never tried to hide that; it was all published. No. But so that was a moral and fiscal failure on your watch. Well, we didn't get on top of the prison numbers, but there's a pretty basic reason for it ` the courts are locking up more people for longer for serious crimes, and they're putting more people who may be a risk on remand, and the current ministers have explained that's what's driving it. We agree that's what's driving it, and now they're the government, they have to come up with some solutions. But you didn't do anything around the remand thing when you were the government. If you know that that's the issue, you could've done something. No, we did` Well, you talk to anyone in the Corrections sector. We did an enormous amount about reducing the reoffending rates; we've built a whole rehabilitation process within the prisons, and there's now a great deal more understanding of the reasons why people are getting into prison, of the flows of people, of the costs of it. There's a toolkit there to use, but the policy issues, we agree, are challenging, because you've got to have public safety ` public safety is number one ` on the one hand, but it is expensive to have people in prison. OK, well, you've been hypercritical of this government. Your MPs have called them 'hapless' and 'shambolic' ` those are the words they've used, but you would know that the Labour MPs and the Labour Government, they're not stupid. So why is it that you think that they're going to fail? Well, we've just been holding them to account, like you'd expect an opposition to do. You know, they're the government; were the opposition. Really, just in the few months that they've had, the lack of confidence in them is not actually to do with us; it's to do with the fact that they say things and then they say they cant do them. They say it's a billion trees and then half a billion trees. They've senior ministers contradicting each other. That just never used to happen in New Zealand. Willie Jackson and the prime minister just had an argument last week over whether Te Reo will be compulsory. They had a big argument within the government publically about sanctions on beneficiaries. So what's your reason that you think this government will fail? Because, basically, they're keeping the same fiscal responsibility rules as you ` they're going to have a surplus; they're going to keep government spending under 30%; they're going to lower debt to 20% of GDP, all of which was your fiscal parameters as well. So why is this government going to fail? Well, were just pointing out the shambolic start that they've had. In fact, it doesn't need us to point it out ` the public can see it. And you do make a good point, though. The things that are likely to work will be where they pick up the policies in place, whether it's water quality, whether it's the fiscal policy, whether it's social investment. They pick those up and develop them further in line with the positive direction New Zealand's going, then they're succeed in those areas. But the early indications are that they're disorganised and they're relying on the crutch of a big chequebook. OK, well, you've got your criticisms, but other than the ideas that you think that they pinched from you, can you name a good idea that they're pursuing? Oh, we've supported two things ` extension of paid parental leave, and eventually, they'll accept our extra tweak to it` Yeah, but that's one that you would say that they stole from you, so` No, were not complaining about them stealing policies from us; we just want to support things that are good for New Zealand and criticise them where they're going to push New Zealand off-track. The other was the TPP trade agreement, where we offered unconditional support to the government to get that over the line, because these things are good for New Zealand. So your party says it wants to be a strong opposition, but so far you seem to be holding things up, asking excessive amounts of questions just to kind of stir the pot. I put it to you that your guys are being petulant; you're being bad losers. So when are you going to start to cooperate towards doing some good, if you want the best for this country? Look, 44.5% of New Zealand voted for us, and they feel strongly that they want New Zealand to stay on a positive track, so our job is to represent them. Now, the stuff you've seen in Parliament, that's a product of the disorganised shambles of the government getting started up. They're just running it badly. They want to run the country, they should be able to run Parliament, and actually, us putting a bit of pressure on them, that'll make them better at it. So why don't you just get in there and cooperate and do some good around policies like superannuation, child poverty, climate change? Why don't you get some cross-party agreements going in those areas? If you really want the best for this country, you could be a new kind of opposition. Well, the government will probably raise those issues next year; it hasn't this year, and where they have, as I said, put up policies that we believe are good for New Zealand, we have supported them ` the TPP. But were going to oppose things like later this week, right on the eve of Christmas, they're going repeal our tax-cut package. That's a tax-cut package that was voted for by Greens and New Zealand First, so a majority, a big majority in the Parliament voted for those tax cuts just five or six months ago. So were going to argue vigorously against them, and we don't owe the government a break over the fact that they're going to get rid of a balanced tax-cut package and misuse the revenue that they get from it. OK, so, I want to talk to you about your leadership of the National Party. What are your top three goals as leader? Oh, to represent the almost one in two New Zealanders who voted for us, who want to keep New Zealand going in a right direction; develop the cohesion of the team in opposition. You know, were out of government ` its quite a different world. We've got to rebuild our skills and get our team cohesive, and we've made a really good start to that. And down the road, look like the alternative government with better ideas for how to run this country, and that's looking, you know, a bit easier than you might've thought. I think it's interesting you keep raising the number of people who voted for you. Are you still sour about the way things worked out? Well, its just a fact. In the Parliament, we have more` But the fact is that is that it's MMP and a government was formed by someone else other than you. Yeah, that's right, but it's an odd government and, basically, a weak one. The fact is` These are facts, Lisa, not assertions. In the Parliament, we have more seats than New Zealand First and Labour put together. The select committees of Parliament, where all the work happens` You couldn't form government, though ` that is the point. I know, and we accept that. We accept that, but that doesn't mean that we pack our bags and go off and cry in our milk for two years. Actually, this is government that needs challenge, because they've inherited a country in great shape, and we intend to argue for that and not let them squander it. All right, so, Andrew Little stood down for the good of his party, and as a consequence of that, Labour won. Do you think he made the right move? Well, obviously. So could that be the right move for you ` to stand down for the good of your party? Well, I suppose if it came to those circumstances, it would be pretty obvious, wouldn't it? But were not in those circumstances. we've got strong public support; we've got a motivated support base; we've got people who want us to represent what's working for New Zealand and make sure the government makes the progress that its promised. Do you accept that some people are better as wingmen than the leader? Well, that's what makes a good team work. So are you a wingman? Well, I'm the leader and probably got stronger support than I've ever had. All right, thanks for joining me this morning, Bill English. After the break ` what the children's commissioner, Judge Andrew Becroft, is expecting from the new government to do about child poverty. And later Mike Wesley-Smith looks into why police destroyed potentially crucial evidence and failed to interview key suspects after a serious rape complaint. Welcome back. A report out this week says the number of Kiwi kids living in poverty has dropped, but the picture is complicated, and the drop was not big. I spoke to Children's Commissioner Judge Andrew Becroft and asked him what the report tells us. Well, I think it is good news. For the first time, the stats are coming down slightly. It's a good basis for future work, but it's too early to say if there's a trend. Mm. In terms of that, when you look at the people surviving on a low income, if you look at the long-term figures, over about a decade, they have only oscillated about 1% up, 1% down in terms of decrease or increase. We are not making a big dent in this. So why hasn't anyone been able to make a significant dent in those figures? Yeah, I mean, you're quite correct. The big increase was late '80's, early '90s, then it has remained, as you say, with oscillations, fairly stable. Mm. I mean, I guess the answer is no one has actively and purposefully targeted the issue. I mean, we do well for the senior group in New Zealand, the over-65s. We do really well, world-leadingly well. Why don't we for our children? In the end, I think it has been a failure to prioritise and to lead, and perhaps it has been slightly bedevilled by political, uh, point-scoring at times. I think we have got a memorable opportunity now that we will never get again to do something quite different. And that is the challenge, I think. And in the lead-up to the election, there was almost, as I said, not quite tongue-in-cheek, the danger of consensus breaking out between the parties. I mean, it was being prioritised, agreed upon. Now is the time for action, and I look forward to that. So basically, we haven't taken it seriously enough. You'd have to say that on the stats, yes. So there are some gains in this report; what do you put it down to? Well, the first thing to say is frustratingly, this report concludes at the 30th of June 2016 period ` such a time lag to get the figures out. Mm. The $25-a-week increase for child benefits that the previous government put in place hadn't really kicked in. The increase in Working For Families package hadn't even started. I think you would say a stronger economy obviously always has some effect and lifts the bottom up slightly. I think we have seen a real rise in the commitment by charities and NGOs and community groups. I think that is one of the untold stories; New Zealand, I think, understands the situation. There is much more of a humanitarian... response. Communities are behind what is going on. Charites are doing good work. I think that is underestimated in all of this in terms of providing shoes, clothing, lunches, breakfast. I think the country as a whole is becoming much more involved, and I am encouraged by that. Well, that is kind of interesting, isn't it? Because if you look at the two different measures, material deprivation is the one. So that is where kids are missing out on having a raincoat or a pair of shoes, these essential items. That is the one where you have actually seen a reasonably significant decrease in the number of kids who are deprived. Correct. So that is charities. That is philanthropy. In terms of income poverty ` barely a change. Charities can only give so much, though, can't they? Yeah, that is true. I think the government has got the ultimate responsibility to put in a strong safety net, but it can't just be the government. Mm. It has got to be a sense of all of us involved. And charities have clearly made a significant contribution over recent years in particular. That's encouraging. It is, as I've said, an untold story. The other thing to say is the material disadvantage measurement is based on household surveys. So you have got to be in a house to be part of a household, so it may not be covering those in the most extreme situations. And it's an art and not a science, and not every household survey` I mean, they don't survey the same households each year. Yes. It depends on their being, for instance, same numbers of beneficiaries, of sole parents and that sort of thing. It may not have been quite the same for this year's survey. So it just shows you it is the trend we need to see, a one-off reduction, is hugely encouraging, but it is not necessarily a trend. Yeah. Well, you have previously stated, and on this show, you said you wanted a 10% year-on-year reduction in the number of children in poverty. So you were meaning both material hardship and income depravation with that measure. In fact, when on this programme, I made that very comment, I was primarily talking about the material depravation. Right. I think I said the list of 17 items and enforced hardship when children live in families without seven of them. And I said it would be good to see a 10% drop. On these figures, that has happened. Yes, but on the income figures, the drop in numbers of kids in those households is only about 1%. 1.7%, it is around about that. So what do you think the goal should be for reducing income poverty? Should that be around 10% year on year too? Just before I answer that, let us remember there is two or three measurements for income poverty. Yeah. The measurement in our annual review is the after-housing costs, 60% less than the median income. Yeah. You could take 50%, you could take 40%; all those are measurements that no doubt this government and previous governments will consider. But the after-housing costs, 60% below median income is the hardest to shift. That is the one that is on our monitor. Yes. If you took the 50% or the 40%, certainly you would be looking at 10%. But the after-housing 60% is a harder group to shift. OK. So what do you think it should be? What should the decrease be in that group, then, if we are going to use that measure? I would like to think at least 5% per year. And I hope that in the new legislation, that is foreshadowed as being part of the hundred-days package. I hope there will be an obligation on all governments to... publish targets ` Maybe every year or two or three years and report on them. It would be great, in fact, if this child-poverty monitor was not required every year, that there was government transparent reporting. That is what I look forward to. So on those two targets that you have said there, the 10% and the 5%, if the government set targets that do not equal that, would you be disappointed if they are less ambitious than that? Yeah, I think it is crucial that we set targets. I mean, this is a marathon and not a sprint. But those targets. Yeah, well, I mean, I am not going to die in a ditch over exact numbers. I have probably made that mistake with you before about 18 months ago. (BOTH CHUCKLE GENTLY) But, I mean, I want to see targets that are clear. And do not forget, we are heading towards 2030. 2030 is a sustainable development goal time frame, which we have talked about, halving child poverty by 2030. Now, we need targets that are going to get us there. Yes, and the thing is, though ` if you look at those ones that you have just talked about, if you set targets that are any less than that, we will struggle to halve poverty by 2030, won't we, if we do not set the ones that you've just mentioned ` 10% and 5%? Absolutely. Yeah. In fact, we could get there quicker if we set them slightly higher, which would be exciting too. But I agree ` substantially, what you are saying is correct. All I want to avoid is saying it has got to be exactly this percentage figure. So you have kind of touched on this. Those people who are hovering just below the poverty line, the so-called low-hanging fruit, it is easier to help them get over that line. The people who are way below the poverty line, what is the single biggest thing we could do, the most significant thing we could do to help them? Single biggest thing? Yeah. Very tempting, and I mean, it is a seductively easy question, but I would say this in answer to your question ` I would love to see child benefits linked to wages and prices. So we avoid the occasional increase, and then a gradual decrease. But we have a continual linking... to economic growth. And I think that is the single best thing that we could do. So just to be clear, Judge, you are saying that in households where there are children that the benefit should be indexed to the average wage in exactly the same way as super is? Same sorta` I mean, it would probably be harder, because there is complicated factors in terms of number of children, that sort of thing. But yes, in principle, that is right. We have to get off the system we have used at the moment of one-off single initiatives every six or seven years, where we see an uptake, then a spike down, and then up again. We have got to have parity, I think, and relativity. We can't leave benefits just to one side. Have you talked to the government about that? Will you talk to the government about it? Yes and yes. (CHUCKLES SOFTLY) And what has been the response? Well, I mean, it is early days, isn't it? Yeah. I think we are seeing a package released next week. We will see, I hope, draft legislation as part of the hundred-day package within the second of February, is it? So all will be revealed. But I mean, this government` But you don't think that is an unrealistic goal? Are you hopeful that you might make some headway with this government around that indexing issue? Yeah, I am hopeful. I don't think that would be, for any government, top of their list. But if you asked me what I thought would make the biggest difference, that would be it. I hope we can make headway on that. What I would like to see in the meantime ` increases in the benefit in the Working For Families package and to see legislation that commits us to targets, because we have to put behind us... the three-yearly election promises and then nothing. Mm. We need sustained, continual committed effort. And nothing less than that will do now. OK. Well, let's talk about a couple of other potential options. Do you think that money collected ` so this is child support collected from estranged parents or wayward parents ` should`? That goes to the state at the moment; should that be filtered back to the household with the child in it? Yeah, that was the recommendation of the Expert Group on Poverty. Yeah. I think yes. I think it would give men in particular a much` I think they'd be much more willing and a much greater stake in what's collected if they know it is going back to their child. Yes is the answer to that. So you would be encouraging this government to make that change. Have done. And what was the response? Well, we will see, won't we? (BOTH CHUCKLE) But were you hopeful about that as well? Yes. I mean, I am hopeful. The door was left open. Yeah. I mean, we have put what we think are doable policies on the table for the previous government and this government. Yeah. I mean, it is clear where we stand. And the Expert Advisory Group on poverty, that way pre-dates me. In a sense, I am just a custodian for this. Yes. It was started by the previous Children's Commissioner, Dr Russell Wills. It is his legacy, really, that we are talking about now. Yeah. And the point is that you do have a new government, so you can try again with these things. So you have obviously been through the list of most of those prime recommendations with this new government. Well, we have talked. Yeah. OK. So the other thing is ` this government had said that it is not keen to keep the previous government's social investment policy. Are you concerned a little bit that ideology might get in the way of some good ideas? I mean, social investment is a buzzword that is so value-laden now that it turns people off, but I think it should mean two things. It must mean helping those most need assistance, but it can't just be an individualised approach, because we have got to be turning the tap off to the process that causes individuals to be disadvantaged too. So a much wider conception of social investment is to look at those factors that mean too many New Zealand children are disadvantaged. So I don't see it as an either/or; I see it as a both/and, and I think we need to keep that clearly in mind. Benefit cuts, other than the benefit cuts in the '90s, the other sort of seemingly single biggest factor in all of this is the cost of housing, right? It has gone up exponentially. Is it the biggest hurdle that we face in terms of making real progress with this issue? Yeah, I think that is a fair thing to say. That is the crucial issue. As is well known, for the 20% most disadvantaged families in the late '80s, about a quarter of their income was spent on accommodation; now for those same families, it's 52%, 53% of their income. So it is the single biggest driver, as it were, I think, that creates disadvantage, and that is where we should focus. I agree. And so where is the policy out for that, then? What can we do? Well, we have got the part of the hundred days. I mean, we were strong in the EAG report, the Expert Report. We've said it in recent months that the accommodation supplement, for instance ` which is quite a complex benefit to understand ` could be rationalised and simplified. It could also be linked to the costs relative to the different regions. And that could be made clearer, and I think, uh... What would be the word? It could be more sophisticated in terms of relating to where people live. See, I think there is work to be done there in particular. And are you confident that this government is going to do that work? Well, you ask me lots of things; am I confident? I mean, I am not a politician. No. What we have seen on the whiteboard looks encouraging, but this government, like any government, has got to walk the talk. And that is what we are waiting to see. Judge Becroft, always a pleasure to talk to you. Thank you. Well, there's lots to talk about with our panel later in the programme, but right now, Jeremy and Paul continue their 2017 political highlights. Welcome. This week we continue our big recap of political shenanigans in 2017, but first, some highlights from last weeks show. April. May. What about in June? July? Actually, that's like, is it, that one? July. Yeah, that's live. We start with July this weekend. July ` Metiria Turei confessed to benefit fraud. Yes, nice to see a politician being honest for once ` good move there form Metiria. In August, Metiria was forced to resign. Yeah, bad move, confessing to fraud, it turns out. Don't be honest ` I mean, that's politics 101. Jacinda became Labour Party leader and was immediately asked inappropriate questions about having a baby. Yes, and she delivered her answers with honesty ` I mean, that's politics 101, Jeremy, being honest. Isn't it just? What about September? Did anything happen in September or...? Only the election, Paul ` biggest decision of the year. I'm pretty sure the biggest decision was a few weeks later in October, wasn't it? Yes, Winston choosing his government. Actually, I was thinking more Lose Yourself than Choose Yourself. Oh, right, a judge handing down the decision ordering National to give $600,000 to Eminem. Yeah, what is he, a Nigerian prince? Which brings us to November. I think you mean Jacinda-vember, Jeremy ` the 13-most powerful women in global politics, Turnbull-fighter, Lorde hugger. She is amazing. Finally, the big event of the end of the year we just can't ignore ` the royal wedding. Yeah, beautiful news. I love weddings ` so beautiful. Jacinda and Justin Trudeau will be very, very happy together, I think. Just like us. Yeah, but with less kissing, hopefully. Welcome back. A dilemma that faces many sexual assault victims is whether they will be believed, and that's what faced the man in our next story who says police mishandled his 2013 rape complaint, destroyed potentially crucial evidence and missed key opportunities to catch the offenders. A warning ` some viewers may find details in Mike Wesley Smith's story confronting. LOW-PITCHED MALE VOICE: It was early hours of the morning. The events you are about to witness are based on this complainant's account, a man we will refer to as Jeff. I heard the doors pop open, and the next minute I was jumped upon. And so you recognised them? Yes. The suspects identified by Jeff firmly deny any involvement in this crime. And then I started struggling. And cos he told (BLEEP) to go to the toilet and grab a toilet brush. And then I was struggling, and then they knocked me unconscious. They rammed that inside of me. Jeff says when he awoke, the men were gone and he was naked. I ran outside then ran up the road and sat in a ditch. He says he eventually returned to his house and saw liquid on his bed sheets. And why did you hang on to them? Cos I wanted the evidence. I had them tied up in a Pak'nSave bag. We will return to the sheets later on. But as for why Jeff would have been subjected to such a serious assault... I was sleeping with a couple of women over there, and they said to me that they didn't want me to sleep with their women. OK. He didn't immediately report the assault to police. I didn't know what to do. And a day or so later, Jeff says he saw one of the men he thought instigated the attack at a local tavern and confronted him with a hammer. Then they got me on the ground cos I wouldn't let go of the hammer, and he was saying how he'd snap my thumb and I still won't let go of it. And then they kicked me round the floor with their boots on and jumped all over me to get me to let go of the hammer. And the police were called? Yup, the police were called. He was then arrested and taken to a patrol car. I said, 'Do you wanna know why I was running around the pub with a hammer? 'Because I was sexually assaulted.' And I was begging them to take me to the hospital cos my thumb was snapped, and they said they were gonna dump me off. Police deny Jeff ever told them about the sexual assault when he was picked up, and an investigation by the Independent Police Conduct Authority found no evidence to back up Jeff's claim. But what Jeff and police do both agree on is that officers eventually dropped him off on the side of the road. (CONTEMPLATIVE MUSIC) I arrived at the hospital at about 6 o'clock in the morning, and, um` cos it was so far to walk and I was so sore. Jeff's medical notes confirm he was treated for his thumb injury and that he relayed on Saturday that he was raped. Did they ask to examine you? No. The medical notes do not indicate Jeff was ever examined for sexual assault injuries. Would you have let them examine you? Yes, I would've. When we approached the Canterbury District Health Board about Jeff's treatment, they declined to comment to us on Jeff's specific concerns. My assumption would be if someone presents with a complaint that action would be taken. Forensic scientist Paige McElhinney helped develop the medical examination kit used nationwide in sex assault examinations. We asked her about the normal course of action to be taken with patients who disclose a sex attack. That he'd be put in contact with the doctor that could assist and take appropriate samples with the police officers that specialise in sexual assault that could take his clothing, take the relevant statements, seize the items of relevance from the scene as well. In distress, Jeff was transferred from the emergency department to Hillmorton Hospital for mental health treatment. While here, staff reported that Jeff had told them he wanted to shoot his attackers. Police were again called. It was May 2011, three weeks after the assault. Uh, all they did was come to Hillmorton Hospital and ask me about a gun, and I told them to piss off because that's all they were concerned about, not what happened to me. Police documents show Jeff was spoken to by officers about making a statement in both May and July 2011. But he didn't, saying he didn't think police would take him seriously. There was also witness evidence gathered at this time that Jeff had named different men as being involved in the attack. I've never mentioned that at all. That's a lie. At that point, police enquiries into Jeff's attack appear to have stopped. All the while, he says he was still recovering from injuries sustained in the assault. Finally, his social worker would encourage him to go see a doctor at the end of 2011. Because they didn't like seeing me hardly walk. Yeah. And then that's how I found out what was wrong with me. A subsequent examination revealed Jeff had contracted a sexually transmitted disease. Yeah, said I had, um, some growth things inside of me ` polyps or something. And that I had, um, uh, some wart virus thing. He would continue to receive treatment over the following months, with memories of the attack never far from his mind. Then in May 2013, he was encouraged by counsellor Ken Clearwater to give a formal statement to police. I know that he wasn't happy with the way he had been treated. During the interview, Jeff told police officers about the sheets he had kept from the attack for two years. He knew that something had gone on. He knew there was a reason he'd kept those. A police job sheet shows when they were given the sheets, an officer noted ` They went on to note a... We asked Paige McElhinney what type of evidence could be found on such exhibits. It could be biological material such as blood or even semen. Equally, there may have been nothing, but you don't know until you actually look at the sheets. A thought initially shared by detectives investigating Jeff's complaint, who wrote that whatever the recommended outcome of the investigation in terms of prosecution,... But police decided to postpone testing until after they had spoken to the suspects Jeff had named. Those three men were eventually interviewed by police on separate occasions in December 2013 and January 2014. They all denied the offending, and Jeff was later advised police had insufficient evidence to prosecute. At that point, did anyone bring up the sheets? No. What Jeff says police omitted to tell him was that the sheets were never sent for testing and, in fact, had been destroyed. Did they ever seek your permission to destroy them? No. So what should officers have done with this evidence? We asked former senior detective Dave Pazzini to review the investigation of Jeff's complaint. My overall assessment ` I thought the police had done a thorough investigation in many respects. And he says a problem confronting detectives was a witness statement that Jeff had described different suspects to what he told police. He told her that, um` that he was raped at a party by named people who were different people... Yeah. ...with a broomstick. Jeff disputes the witness account of this conversation, saying it didn't happen. In any event, Dave Pazzini says Jeff's vulnerability, background and credibility issues as perceived by police meant all reasonable steps to obtain independent cooperation of his complaint should have been exhausted. Offenders will profile and attack vulnerable complainers. Mm. (BLEEP) was vulnerable due to his credibility issues. There really needed to be independent cooperation of his evidence. He says the first such opportunity was when police confirmed they were first made aware of the sexual assault allegation. That was May 2011, three weeks after the attack. And I think the police had enough information at that stage to at least refer (BLEEP) and his case to specialist ASA investigators. The other opportunity missed, he cites, was the police's interviewing of the suspects without first having tested the sheets. The way in which the offenders were approached and the interviews conducted suggests to me that there may have been a predetermination of the end result, and that was that unless one of the suspects confesses, the prosecution probably will not follow. Dave Pazzini also questions the police interview the suspects many days apart. Best practise is always to have unannounced simultaneous interviews to mitigate opportunities for offenders warning each other about police interest in them. But in his assessment, perhaps the most crucial opportunity missed was the failure to do a simple screening test of the sheets for the presence of semen. Well, it is significant, because there may well have been that important or critical corroborative evidence... Mm. ...in the form of semen or staining on the sheets. But now we'll never know. It would've significantly increased the chances of it being prosecuted. Mm. Paige McElhinney and Ken Clearwater agree. I am surprised that you can close an investigation without having done that forensic testing. If it was a female rape victim and they had all that evidence, I mean, there's no way they would destroy it. I was home invaded. I was sexually assaulted. Those three people are still walking round over there. One can never be certain what really happened the night Jeff says he was sexually assaulted. But serious questions remain whether all opportunities were taken to best ensure the rest of us knew what the truth really was. Well, police say they're satisfied their investigation was thorough, based on the information they had at the time. They did not find sufficient evidence to prosecute, but would revisit that decision if new information came to light. The IPCA told Jeff the investigation was satisfactory. They said because the sheets were handed to police two years after the alleged incident, the likelihood of cross contamination was very high and the evidential value very low. Stay with us for our panel ` Guyon Espiner, Ella Henry and Marg Joiner. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel, RNZ presenter Guyon Espiner; Dr Ella Henry from AUT; and PR consultant Marg Joiner. Good morning to you all. Good morning. So, Bill English ` the first opportunity I've had to talk to him and sit down as leader of the Opposition. Yeah. I thought it was a really good interview, and I thought he performed pretty well too. I saw a relaxed, confident Bill English who was even prepared to make a bit of a joke about his leadership. That to me, when he said, 'I guess I'd resign if I got into that Andrew Little position,' and to me, that spoke of confidence that he was in that position to actually joke about it. I thought he performed very strongly this morning. But I thought it was interesting that he did concede if things dropped below a certain line that he would step down. Yeah, and, look, there's this huge tide of optimism coming with the new government, and, in a way, by staying on, it's a selfless move in that he is protecting any future leader from any fallout from that type of optimism. What do you think, Ella? Is he gonna be around in 2020? I think a lot hinges on how well the coalition performs over the next year. Obviously some of your more negative pundits believe that it could implode. And if it does, we've got the steady hand of English and Bennett ready to swoop in and save the country, so I think it would be sensible of his party to keep a team with a proven track record as a wait-and-see. But if this government does well, then his job could be in jeopardy before the next election. Although I think he will go on his own terms. He's a thoroughly decent guy. He's been a stable rock for that party for decades. He's well respected, well liked, and I think he will go on his own terms. Yeah, I would agree with that and especially what Ella's saying there about the performance of the coalition. I think they see there's enough happening for` they've got a glint in their eye that it's possible. Some of them seem pretty excited about being in opposition in some ways. Yeah. And they've made a few hits early on, and the government has had some times where things have been a bit shambolic. Now, they may settle down into being a strong, effective and popular government. I think National thinks there's a big enough chances that things will turn a little bit sour because of the competing interest, and he was playing up the differences in opinion over things like work for the dole, and having this three-way coalition which is a little bit unusual in this respect. And we know we've had previous coalitions with multiple parties, but it is a little bit different, and i think there's enough going on there to give national and Bill English some hope that they can get in there and actually propel that sense of chaos. Yeah. But, Marg, how long can they rely on stirring the pot, as such? Because, you know, putting in excessive numbers and written questions, he said there that their putting the pressure on Labour is going to make them perform better. But at what point does the public get sick of that niggle, niggle, niggle? Yeah, and he also pointed out they've got a pretty strong majority on a lot of those select committees which gives them the power, in some cases, to grind things to a halt. And it's good to have a strong opposition. Not long ago, we were lamenting a very weak opposition and what that meant for our democracy. However, with that strength comes a responsibility. So we need a strong opposition, not an obstructive one. It will be interesting to see how that falls. This week, Ella, we got a look into these briefings that go to the new ministers ` you get a look under the bonnet, so to speak. Bill English says there was no surprises in there. We all knew that stuff was in there ` 72,000 houses short; a burgeoning prison population; no pay put aside for the police. Is he right that we knew all of that, or has...? I think they nit-picked over numbers like housing. Nick Smith clearly refuted the idea of 72,000 houses, so I think his attitude actually covered up some disagreements within his own community of Opposition spokespeople. But the problems around prisons and housing, which I think are linked intimately in terms of underdevelopment and poverty, I don't think that they've done as well as they could have, and this new government is there because of the promises they've made on those very issues. So we're all gonna be watching for the next little while. I mean, he did concede that they hadn't managed to shift the prison population, that that was a tough one. And he's interesting on that, isn't he? You picked up that quote, 'the moral and fiscal failure', and he made it in 2010 or 2011. And he feels very deeply about this, and they were getting the prison population down for a while. And then it grew really out of control. And then they weren't. I agree with that they lost the plot on that, and they lost the plot on housing. Let's face it. There's just no way to spin that. They are that many houses short. I think there is a degree of a new government wants to come in and say, 'Gee, things are absolutely terrible. Watch me fix it.' So there's a bit of spinning on both sides of this, and so Labour's hamming that up. But I think there's no real way to spin the housing problem. How long can you spin 'this is problems that you have inherited rather than problems that you haven't fixed'? Yeah, to be fair, this is something that we've been walking blind into. We're a small country. We've had significant growth over a small period of time. With that comes demand for more services, more housing, more transport, and quite frankly we're behind the 8-ball on all of them. Yeah. So is Labour managing our expectations when they say stuff like, 'We've inherited a train wreck'? I think so, to a degree. You saw that in health this week as well, where you call a crisis advisory group together, and... I mean, national did it as well when they came into power, as Labour did when they came in in 1999. They said, 'Oh look, we've opened this cupboard and this terrible skeleton has fallen out.' Look, no one would argue that there aren't problems in all those sectors. But of course a new government would want to say, 'We've inherited this,' and set a baseline for how terrible it is and then try and prove things from there. These are entrenched problems, though, Ella, and even Bill English admits around the prison thing it's hard to move it; housing, it's not easy. So Labour's gonna face those same challenges. Here's the thing ` I'm part of the building challenge, looking at housing. And we've been doing some work with Te Puea marae. Now, they've developed an extraordinary model around providing not just a place to sleep but a whole healthcare package. So if there had been a strategic thrust towards ensuring that every marae had that kind of program instead of putting people in crappy little motels and paying half a million dollars. If that had gone into providing that model across Auckland, then thousands of the homeless could've been given not just a home but hope. And instead of having a prime minister that denied there was a housing crisis, who criticised Te Puea, I'm hoping that this new government actually looks at some of these innovative models and says, 'Hey, how can we implement them?' All right. We'll leave it there for the moment. Stick around. After the break, we'll look at some of the things that could be making the news next week. Welcome back. You're with The Nation and our panel. Talking to the children's commissioner there, Ella, and obviously there has been some movement in these poverty statistics, but are we really doing that well, do you think? Look, the community that I work and interact with is often the most disadvantaged ` the Maori community that are homeless and jobless and are in despair ` and so I would say no because I've been around that community a lot in the last 10 years. But I'm heartened that there is movement on any fronts around increased income for the lowest paid in the country, around some kind of thought about how do we provide social housing and affordable housing for that population who live in garages and cars. So whilst on the one hand we've done some things well, I think that that impoverished Maori community and Pacific and migrant is intractable and requires a bigger thought around how we address their needs. Guyon, will the National Party be disappointed that they didn't get the opportunity to crow about those figures? I think they will be, because, as Judge Becroft said himself, there were some quite significant drops ` close to 20% in some measures. And we berated John Key for not signing up to a 10% reduction. And, look, it depends how you cut these numbers up. You can cut them up in a number of ways. I think there was some significant movement down, and that is before the benefit increase actually cut in, because these numbers go back to, what, is it May 2016? Yeah. So the 25 bucks that National increased benefits by, we haven't fully seen the effect of that. And Working For Families increases. Look, yeah, there are massive problems, aren't there? Let's not kid ourselves. But it's heartening that we are making some progress. And having a prime minister now who's taken on that portfolio, I think that they cannot afford to fail on this, and I don't think they will; she will not let herself fail on this respect. And it's exciting that we are going to make some inroads into this problem, because no one can live an accept that. A lot of pressure, Marg. Yeah, there's a lot of pressure, and Judge Becroft certainly put the challenge down. He also said there's no room for political point scoring, and I think that's a critical point; in this issue, there is no room for hollow actions or promises or insincerity. I'm sure we all remember when John Key launched the 2008 campaign by picking a few streets in Mt Albert as a symbol of poverty. That's right. He said he was going to address the underclass. Correct. And the issue ` there was no follow-through from John Key. Instead he left it to, as we've seen, Bill English, who has managed to make some progress. But I think Jacinda Ardern putting her hand up for this portfolio says a lot about her and a lot about where her heart is. And she's not coming in from it cold; she's had a private members bill on the table for over six years, so I think that is promising. Yeah. I talked to Judge Becroft about what some of the possibilities are. The single biggest thing he thinks would make a difference was indexing benefits to the average wage in the same way we do with superannuitants. Do you think that that would be politically palatable? I hope it would, because I think it's a laudable idea and will actually make a difference in a number of those most disadvantaged and vulnerable communities to be able to guarantee that there's going to be some increase. Yeah. You know. I mean, the difference that will make. Even the harshest beneficiary bashers argue that there needs to be a gap between work and welfare` To incentivise people, basically. That's what the harshest believe. But even from what he's saying, that would still exist, so why wouldn't you index wages to benefits. If wages are going up and people are enjoying slightly higher standards of living, then why shouldn't that also be enjoyed by people who can't get a job? So it does seem to make some sense. Yes, but it raises the questions about whether we view superannuitants collecting a benefit in a different way than we view unemployed people or solo parents collecting a benefit. Are they all beneficiaries? Yeah, and that's the thing, and I think the sector in particular is looking for certainty here, and hopefully we'll see that this week with the Child Poverty Reduction Bill being introduced and some detail being put on this. It's a good mind to take the politics out of it, though, isn't it, as he said, to actually link it to the average wage because then it just happens. Like, most people don't even recognise on April 1 when super goes up a little bit because it just happens; there's no even real news story about it. And wouldn't it be a nice way to take the politics out of that ` if you just linked it and the benefits just went up automatically. I know they'll adjust it for CPI but not for wages. I was a solo mother on a benefit in the 1980s who was able to change my life and transform my whanau's life by the Training Incentive Allowance that was made to beneficiaries back then when we invested in beneficiaries, not saw them as a drain on the economy. That Training Incentive Allowance got me through my first degree. Two degrees later, I pay more in taxes now than I ever got in a year of being a beneficiary. We have to invest in these people, not see them as a liability. Did you think, Marg, that Judge Becroft sounded like he was expecting some movement from the government this week? He did, didn't he? Yes, I think he did. I think he's very optimistic. But I also thought it was very interesting and positive to see how much credit he gave to this sector, to the NGOs and to the kind of collective effort here, so it's not just a government problem. Yeah, cos he has always said philanthropy does have a role. Correct, yeah. And I also think we need to take that a step further and make it more of a consensus, a political consensus, picking up again on his point about the point scoring. Yeah. All right. Well, let's take a look now about what could be making the news headlines next week. Well, on Thursday the Half-Yearly Economic and Fiscal Update from Treasury is released. And, as we've discussed, the government will outline details of its families package. And also on Thursday ` a report on hosting the America's Cup, including location and costings, goes to the Auckland Council. But that's all from us for now. Next weekend it's our final programme for 2017. We will see you then. They're letting us outside of the studio. Who knows what could happen? Thanks for watching. Captions by Madison Batten, Jake Ebdale, and Shrutika Gunanayagam. www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2017 This programme was made with the assistance of the New Zealand On Air Platinum Fund.