Today on Newshub Nation ` the billion-dollar boost to grow our provinces. We ask Shane Jones where the money's coming from and who's going to benefit. Plus, our prisons are overflowing, so should we stop sending so many people to jail? We talk to Justice Minister Andrew Little. And a state abuse survivor tells us how crown law used private investigators as part of a bid to quash his compensation claim. Kia ora. Good morning. I'm Lisa Owen. Welcome to Newshub Nation, our very first show for the year. While forestry, tourism, roads and rail are all getting a boost in the first wave of funding from the billion-dollar provincial growth fund, but critics say the announcement was underwhelming and essentially just rebranded existing projects. Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones joins me now. Kia ora. Minister, kia ora. You started handing out your billion bucks. How much of this money will actually be new funding, rather than reprioritised, reshuffled funds? Yeah. Well, the full details will come through the budget, but up to 70% will be capital. The remainder will be operational expenditure, and in all truth, a small part of it will be funds that we are reprioritising, but the vast majority, well in excess of 70%, will be new capital. So guaranteed 70% will be new capital. OK, well, how many of the projects you announced ` because you would have heard the criticism ` how many that you announced were already underway under the National government? Well, the projects are initiatives promoted by the regions, so it's not fair to say completely that they're my ideas or Steven Joyce's ideas, but the regions were expected to meet their commitments and with a small dollop of 44 million dollars from the last government. And they said to me, 'Please don't be capricious, Shane. Don't be petty. 'These projects are regional priorities.' So simply I've gathered them up. The next bunch in early April will be a major announcement, and they'll be projects that have been developed by regions and myself at the moment. OK, so the major announcement, will that be a totally new project, not just a continuation of something that National already had its hand in? Yeah, no, no, the regions had a host of projects that have never ever been referred through to central government. So, the big announcement, what region is that going to be for? The next time round, we're going to focus not only on the four surge areas, but Bay of Plenty ` they're very cross with me that we haven't gone there ` and obviously the South Island. But I would say that big projects are tier one. It will require the entirety of the government. We define big as above $20 million. Mid-level ` Shane Jones, Mr Twyford, David Parker and our Minister of Finance, we have the authority to sign off, and up to $1 million will be signed off by creatures known as SROs. Those are senior bureaucrats in regular contact with the regions. OK, because what you've just announced there sort of sounds like a spaghetti of people getting in on what's going where. And you've got an advisory committee thrown in there as well, that's going to give advice on bigger projects. How are you going to make sure that this is a comprehensive, complementary bag of projects? Well, the projects are mixed and varied. Obviously, there's forestry, but that will stand on its own. There are a bunch of infrastructure projects in the regions. Some do come from the coalition agreements, such as the upgrade of Northland rail, but I think once we gather momentum, each region will be able to define its own priorities. So I'm not afraid that in some way it's going to look like some kind of untidy scrum in a rugby game, but we've got to start somewhere. We've decided to surge in the four key areas. So how do you stop it looking like an untidy scrum? Are you the big-picture person? Are you going to have the umbrella view of everything? Well, the government's got a cabinet committee called the Economic Development Committee, and obviously we have a cabinet priorities committee, and that's chaired by the Prime Minister. So flowing from the four pillars which she's already spoken about this will be a key feature. Now, it depends as well on the pace of which we find regional councils and regional leaders ready to bring projects forward, often with their own funding, but with a willingness on our part to substantially spend. OK, well, to substantially spend, you've kind of set a criteria. These projects are supposed to deliver jobs, sustainable economic growth and inclusion. So how and when are you going to know that the things you have paid for have delivered? We're going to travel, obviously, at great pace, and at key points, no doubt ` every time the departments go through their parliamentary reviews, there's going to be challenges put forward. 'OK, what process did you use to allocate funds, for example for Opotiki wharf, and show us 'your business case.' A lot of infrastructure projects in the regions, they're going to take time. I may be announcing them this year, and in the next year there's no guarantee they're going to come to completion before the next election. So it's making commitments and driving through the execution, and you'll never completely know because it takes a long time for something like the Opotiki wharf to be fully built. So, that's the problem, though, isn't it? Because looking at the cabinet notes, it says that in terms of a review, all the money will be spent, and you won't know how well you have done until after 2020? Well, some of the projects won't take that long. For example, the project in the east coast to do with KiwiRail ` IE, boosting KiwiRail from Wairoa to Napier, taking a lot of trucks off the road. And there's a lot of rubbish about making truck drivers unemployed. There's not enough truck drivers in the country at the moment to deal with the industry. So I think those cases, I think that's exaggerating it. But what will success look like? What's your measure? What will success look like? Success is definitely going to turn around the lives of` obviously me as a Maori, of many of my indigenous nephs getting their arses off the couches, but move on beyond that ` unemployment in key dysfunctional areas coming down, councils committing their own capital, us committing their own capital and a boost in the economic fortunes of certain areas, which will flow after we've fixed up really egregious cases of infrastructure neglect. But are you going to have specific targets that you have to hit ` specific numbers of jobs created, specific rise in economic growth that you need to know are tied back to these projects? Yeah, I would say for each of the regions, they already have their action plans. They have already themselves identified the kinds of jobs they want to create,... Yes, Minister` ...the number of tourists they want to attract. Sorry to interrupt. So it's not just me. It's the regional leaders as well. But you are overseeing this, and it's $3 billion of taxpayer money. It's a big figure. Yeah, so` It's a big challenge. So, this is an accountability issue. Mm-hm. How are you going to measure it? Yeah, so the measurements will be related to employment, improvement in productivity and also, when you look at KiwiRail taking trucks off the road, when you look at the port study and opening up Whangarei as an alternative to Auckland. So no specific targets? These are long-term projects` Pardon? No specific targets, like, you know, for every dollar I spend, I need to get this much growth, this many people need to be employed. So let's just look at $60-odd million the other day ` an upside of $360-odd million if the full potential of the partnerships are realised and up to 700 jobs. So, that's just on the first announcement. But what you're really` So that's 80,000 bucks a job, basically? Pardon? That's $80,000 a job? Indeed. In areas` Do you think` Do you think that's a fair return on your investment? In areas that are blighted and have been neglected, I'd do it in a heartbeat. OK, there's also going to be this advisory panel that we've talked about that's going to review regional proposals and give advice. Now, the head of that is one Rodger Finlay. Correct. Isn't he one of your political donors? Yes, when I stood unsuccessfully against David Cunliffe, which proved to be a blessing in disguise, he did provide me with several thousand dollars to be a Labour leadership candidate. OK, so was everybody happy with that choice? Within your coalition party. Were they happy with Rodger Finlay? Yeah, and our chairman went through the process of the cabinet committee. And I mean, the process is designed if you've been in receipt of financial assistance for your politics, you declare it. And just because it's declared should not taint someone who's got a tremendous amount to offer to Aotearoa. So, did anyone have any issues? Within your coalition partners, did anyone have any issues with Rodger Finlay? Well, I backed him. The cabinet has backed him. Obviously, anyone at a time` What about outside cabinet, Minister? What about outside cabinet? At a time of great sensitivity, there's always a lot of`there's always a lot of chatter about anyone who's been in the oil and the gas, but I overlook those things. I'm appointing with the support of the Prime Minister a tremendous New Zealander. So are you saying that the Greens weren't happy? You will have to ask our friends from the Greens, but they're on board with the kaupapa. On board with the kaupapa, that's the big picture. Rodger Finlay, were they on board with him? I don't know of any fatal remarks that they might have made about Rodger. And Rodger has my backing, and I'm the Minister. OK, so what weight are you going to put on that advisory panel? If they tell you that the project, a project, is a potential dud ` is that it? Is it over for that project? Their advice will go through in an unfettered way to the cabinet committee, and there will be some projects that don't see the light of day. You're absolutely right. Sorry, but the thing is you have said, and I'm quoting you here, 'There's no upside unless you 'are willing to be bold and take a punt,' so how brave are you going to be with your funding choices? How much risk are you prepared to take? Well, just creating the $3-billion fund and chewing through it in two and a half years of making commitments, there are risks involved, but what's the point of doing something as bold as this and trying to rewrite history unless you're taking a punt to manage that risk? But it's how big a risk is what I'm trying to measure here. And in the cabinet papers, you say that you will be likely supporting projects with a high risk profile. Mm-hm, well, some would say that breathing life back into KiwiRail in areas where successive governments have wanted to destroy KiwiRail ` and the trucking industry are not supportive or KiwiRail ` or backing coastal shipping, for example; providing financial grants and what not to help grow the port of Gisborne, those are all risks. OK, but the thing is this is supposed to be... transformational is the word and legacy-building, but some people would say you're just plucking the low-hanging fruit at the moment with rail, roundabouts, roads. Let's take an example. Hikurangi Cannabis Company, they've just signed $160-million deal to export medicinal cannabis to America. Why don't you put money into a company like that? They wanted some of your regional money. Are you going to give them any? Yeah, I don't know the details. I know the individual who's in the newspaper. I'm hard-line on drugs, so it will be a bloody big stretch for me to be` It's medicinal cannabis. ...to start popularising cannabis. If medicinal cannabis and legally can go through the hoops, there's no guarantee, however, that I personally am going to commit this fund to a cannabis company. And anyone who's saying that is smoking the stuff. Aren't you letting your personal views get in the way of a valid business project, then, that could create jobs? Cos if that's the criteria, jobs and economic returns, don't you have to put that to one side? No, what I think New Zealanders look for in Maori politicians like myself is to say it as it is. I don't pretend not to have views about how cannabis has wrecked my own society, and now it's P. I'm not going to back away from those views. That does not sound like you're coming to it with an open mind. No, it sounds like a senior Maori politician who's seen the wreckage that dope has wrecked throughout the north and south and the east. This particular proposal` Medicinal cannabis in this proposal. Well, I actually haven't seen the details, but this is not the only proposal. I would say to Manu and others, there are significant proposals floating around in the north about growing electric puha for medicinal purposes. I think it's a big policy decision that the government's got to get its head around. We are going through the legislation. It's nowhere as liberal as the Greens wanted, but it's better, I tell you the truth. I come from an area that's been blighted by the excesses of drug use, and I'm not going to back down from that. All right, well, you have, it seems, convinced your cabinet colleagues that you should have sign-off as Forestry Minister on tree-planting projects up to $10 million. Where's the accountability in that? No, there is an addition. Those amounts of money will go through the conventional budget process, and no singular sign-off will be done by me unless it's agreed to by the Minister of Finance. OK, so then, let's talk about the critics who say that this is a slush fund, this development fund, that it is basically you working your way through a list of New Zealand First policies and winning back Northland ` or attempting to ` with this money. Can you see how some people might get that impression? Yeah, look, I accept that part of what we're doing is going to be stigmatised by the National party, but we're picking up on projects that are action-orientated, that are identified by regions themselves. What the hell is wrong with a central government politician and a party wanting to work in partnership in areas that have been neglected? I mean, why should areas of provincial New Zealand, Lisa, endure struggler's gully while metropolitan New Zealand has the upper penthouse level? But the thing is if you look at the numbers ` so the announcements you've made yesterday ` Northland gets almost twice as much as the next closest region, and it just so happens that you and Winston both live in Northland, and you probably want it back at the election. Yeah, it also means that` Is this the re-election fund, Mr Jones? Yeah, so`Well, that's up for three years` That's up in three years. But I would say that Northland are highly organised, and these projects have been through not only a regional development process, but they came well prepared. And I acknowledge the chair Bill Bernie and the new board member Murray McCully from the Northland`Far North District council's late` or whatever it's called, and they've put up some good proposals, and they stack up. OK, we're running out of time now. There's a couple of things I want to get to. Given that this fund is a New Zealand First baby. It's a concession you got in the coalition deal, and you personally have taken ownership of it. If it fails, are you going to own that as well? Well, I'm a glass-half-full sort of politician, and I think this notion that before we even start` And the people are saying it's going to fail because of the treacle-riddled bureaucracy, people aren't going to show enough pace. We've got a good board. I've got the support of the ministers. There's a host of very important projects that have been languishing. I'm bringing energy to the table, and the regional leaders will bring, in my view, the right kinds of projects to turn around the fortunes of neglected provinces. While I've got you here, I can't resist. Tuesday, caucus is voting on the deputy leadership. You've said you don't want it, but, really, you had your fingers crossed when you said that, didn't you, behind your back. You're telly porkies. Surely, you must be interested in it. (CHUCKLES) No, no, no, no. At one stage, I wanted to be the minister of finance` minister of forest` foreign affairs, but Winston Peters says to me, 'No, you're going to Murupara in a pre-fab, 'and you're planting a billion trees.' So no way, no how? Just to put it on the record now. On Tuesday, there's no way that I'm going to put up my hand, my ringaringa, to be the deputy leader of New Zealand First. What if your party calls on you? Well, there's nine of us, and I've got no confidence whatsoever that at this stage people want me to park up the trees and to be the deputy leader. So are you lacking in ambition or just holding out for the leadership? Oh, well, it's biblical. There's a time and place for everything. Thank you for joining me this morning, Mr Shane Jones. Now, if you've got something to say about what you've seen in our show, do let us know. We are on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram... or you can email us at the address you can see on your screen now. Up next ` Justice Minister Andrew Little has ordered a review of how the human rights commission handled an in-house sexual harassment claim. Will he ask the chief commissioner to stand down? Plus the High Court accepted this man was sexually abused in state care. So why didn't it order the government to pay him compensation? Welcome back. With the prison muster now at record levels, New Zealand jails are bursting at the seams. Labour's pledged to reduce inmate numbers by 30% over the next 15 years, but right now, there just isn't enough space. I asked Justice Minister Andrew Little if he believes the government should go ahead with a proposed billion-dollar extension to Waikeria Prison. We're going to have to look closely at it. There's no question; the prison system is under huge pressure at the moment, but then, we've had a massive increase in the number of inmates just in the last three or four years alone ` about 3000 now remand prisoners ` and that additional number of prisoners is going up all the time. We are going to have to have a close look at it. The other problem we've got is that Waikeria Prison is 100-odd years old. It is, frankly, unfit for purpose. We've got a number of other prisons around the country that are coming to the end of their natural life, if you could call it that, so we've got a few issues to look at before we make that decision. So are you suggesting that maybe you could bowl the old one, build the new one? There's no question; the existing Waikeria Prison was built for a different age and a different time. I went down there just before Christmas at the suggestion of my colleague Kelvin Davis, because he was stunned when he saw it, and what I saw just frankly horrified me. You think about there are people going in there ` sure, they've committed crimes, they've offended, they've got to atone for what they've done, but then you ask yourself, is this a place where somebody can go from being bad to being good and feeling good about themselves? That is not the place you would go. Okay, so put that to one side. Do we need more beds? Would anything you build be bigger? That's a discussion that the cabinet is going to have to have when Kelvin Davis reports to them, and he's going to have to look not just at Waikeria, but at other prisons that are coming up for rebuild. What's your gut instinct? You've been looking at the numbers, and you know projections are 2026, 12,000 prisoners we're talking here. Even with 1500 extra beds, you're going to be pushing it in terms of capacity. What's your gut feeling? Do we need it? We are. You're absolutely right; we are under a huge pressure right now in the short term. But we have this target that we are very serious about, which is reducing the prison population by 30% over 15 years. And we've got a number of things we're going to have to do to get that underway, but we've got this immediate pressure now. Cabinet is going to have to juggle all those issues and come up with a decision, but that is a few weeks away yet. What's your feeling? You're avoiding the question. What's your feeling on it? Do you want to go ahead with it? But it's not about my feeling on it; it's about the information that Cabinet will have in front of it to make a decision. Kelvin Davis has the job of assembling that information. We're all involved in making sure that a good decision is made, not just about the future of Waikeria, but how we fulfil the obligation we've set ourselves, which is to reduce that prison population. Okay, so you've mentioned the target there ` the aim is a 30% reduction over 15 years. What are your shorter-term goals? How many in your first term? How many in the first year are you going to drop it by? We haven't set those short-term goals because it's impossible to do so. What you have to do is look at all the things that are driving that prison population. You've got to ask the overarching question ` after 30 years of criminal justice reform that has led to more people being criminalised, more people being sentenced to prison, and people serving longer sentences, is that actually doing us any good? And when you look at it, violent crime is going up, victimisation rates have been going up in the last three or four years; actually, it's not actually making much difference. And the reason might be quite simple, and that is that a large chunk of the people going into prison have got a whole bunch of other problems with them. If we actually fix those problems, we'll stop them going to prison in the first place. So it's about looking at the problems, looking at the real solutions to those problems to work on what is a good criminal justice system. You have indicated that we need a bit of an overhaul. So what would that look like? Briefly, can you sum it up for us? What would it look like? It's going to be good interventions as early as possible. And we're doing some good stuff now. Later this morning, I'm opening the rangatahi court in Whangarei. And those who do go to prison ` making sure that when they get there, if they've got mental health problems, addiction, they've got literacy, numeracy problems, as we do in small ways at the moment, we actually make a systemic response; we fix those problems. For the real hard asses, frankly, actually, they will be going to prison, and we need a prison system that's going to be there to keep the public safe. But for that large chunk of the prison population whose criminal offending is driven by a whole bunch of other causes, we want to address those causes and give them a chance to go back and lead a productive life. Okay, we've talked about bail before. We both know that the tightening up of the bail laws has been one of the biggest drivers of this burgeoning prison population. Labour was among those who voted to toughen up those laws. Were you wrong, and do you need to walk it back? The advice from the government at the time was that the tightening of those bail laws would lead to an additional few hundred people being held on remand in prison. It's now up to 3000 people being held on remand in our prison system; it's way above what anybody predicted. And what it looks like is that whatever was intended for that bail law, actually something unintended is happening, and we are going to have to have a look at it. So accepting that, do you then have to take away this onus on the accused person to prove that they're not a risk? Is that what you would look at? What I said is, and I think people like Kelvin and Stuart Nash who are working` we are working as a team on all of this, we are going to have to have a look at this, because what is happening and the consequences of that change in the bail laws is we're getting way more people banged up in prison ` and they haven't even been convicted yet; they're there on remand ` than was intended when that bail law was first introduced. Now, I have to get advice from officials and experts on that. We haven't got that advice. But that is an area we are clearly going to have to have a look at. So you are looking at softening bail laws? Well, we're looking at a whole range of things that we know have driven the increase in the prison population. Bail laws is one of them. The management of parole, what we're doing with prisoners while they're in prison ` all those sorts of things will come into play. Okay, let's change tact of it here and talk about another issue. You have ordered a review into the way the Human Rights Commission handled a sexual harassment claim against one of its own. Let's just recap it for people. So this was the chief financial officer, who's still employed there ` allegedly sexually harassed an unpaid intern. She was visiting from America. She apparently wasn't represented at mediation. And his punishment was an apology and some counselling, and he sent out an office-wide email where he identified the victim. Yet the chief human rights commissioner, David Rutherford, seems to think they did everything right. Is he wrong? They got an independent barrister who said that the Human Rights Commission had complied with their own procedures, and the reason why I've asked for a review is because if those are their procedures, then there's something hugely flawed about their procedures. And it disturbs me because the Human Rights Commission is our principal human rights body. It's the one that we all look to to say, 'You lead the way. You show us how to do these things properly,' and every other employer in the country, so I need to be sure ` and I think the public of New Zealand needs to know ` that the Human Rights Commission, when it comes to things like sexual harassment grievance complaints, actually gets it right and has world's best practice. Do you think there's a cultural problem within the Commission? Because this is not the first internal complaint that they have had. It's the second sexual harassment complaint in a reasonably short period of time, and then there was a third one a few years ago. Accommodation of that and also looking at the rules that they applied and knowing that there appears to be a flaw in those rules suggests to me that there might be a cultural problem, and that's why, in the terms of reference for the reviewer, Coral Shaw, I've put that issue in there. Okay, well, culture comes from the top, and here's the thing ` if you can't rely on the chief human rights commissioner, David Rutherford, to protect his own staff, how can he be trusted to protect all New Zealanders? Surely he needs to go. That's not an issue I'm looking at at the moment. Why not? Because, as minister, I have a responsibility for the organisation. I'm concerned about the employed staff because they are state sector staff. I have to be very careful about how I go about this because we've signed up to a thing called the Paris Principals that requires our principal human rights body to be independent of the executive. But you have the power to remove him. His employment comes up for review, as indeed others' do, so you look at all those sorts of things at the time. But right now my focus is the way the commission managed an employment issue and left an unpaid intern, in my view, in a vulnerable position in a way that should never have happened. Okay. I want to talk about another sensitive issue that you're dealing with at the moment, which is abortion law reform. So Jacinda Ardern first raised this and said that it needs to be taken out of the Crimes Act. Do you agree with that? Yes. Okay. So what are you looking at changing? We have a referral to the Law Commission that I'll be making early next week that will focus on the way the law deals with abortion ` so the fact that it appears in the Crimes Act, the fact that the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act requires a woman wanting this procedure to go through various hoops. So are you going to change or want to change the approval process, where you have to get two doctors to sign off? Are you going to change that? I've asked the Law Commission to look at the criminal aspects of it and the procedural aspects of it and to give advice to the government on what a modern approach to the abortion procedure might look like. Okay. Will you allow medical abortions outside of a clinic? That's not an issue that I've personally considered, and we'll see what the Law Commission says. But I want the Law Commission to look at and give us guidance on an abortion law that, frankly, fits the 21st century. The thing is this will be a conscience vote, right, and Labour has some very ` as do some of the other parties ` socially conservative MPs. Is there enough support within your own party for this change? Labour, at least, in the election, made a commitment to review the abortion law and to look at the criminalising aspects of it. We're going to follow through on that commitment. We know that it's a conscience issue, but I think is time for the work to be done. Our current law is more than 40 years old. I think New Zealanders are entitled to see that the government does review old laws periodically. And knowing it's a conscience issue, look, who knows which way it will fall? But we will get the work done. How many of your MPs do you think don't agree with this? Look, I haven't tried to do that calculation. I haven't gone round and thought about it ` and likewise with the whole of parliament; there will be a variety of views across all the parties. But I think we owe it to New Zealand to get the work done, to get the Law Commission to do that work, to have a good public debate about it. And any legislation that arises out of it, we'll put it in front of parliament, and parliament will exercise its vote on a conscience basis. Thanks for joining us this morning, Minister. We appreciate your time. Still to come ` we dissect the week's political news with our panel, plus why state abuse victims want the Royal Commission to look into how their compensation claims were handled by previous governments. Welcome back. A Royal Commission of Inquiry was announced this month to look into historical cases of abuse in state care. The inquiry will cover abuses committed from 1950 to 1999 and will include physical, sexual and emotional abuse as well as neglect. But while some survivors are welcoming the news, others have already tried and failed to get justice from the government. Mike Wesley-Smith met one man who says his treatment by Crown law made him feel victimised all over again. It's been 42 years since he was last here. A little bit creepy, but, you know, a few memories are coming back. Back in 1974, this man, we'll call him Earl, was a 12-year-old who'd been told he was going to a holiday camp. It's all pretty much gone. Hokio Beach School burnt to the ground, but the memories remain. So if you had to describe it in a word? A nightmare. The state rescued Earl from his abusive father. Our father used to lay into us with a piece of wood. But it didn't protect him. And when Earl and many others like him spoke out about being abused, the government failed them again. This is mostly people who have been very marginalised, and the state using all its resources to counter their claims. A chance at compensation was offered, but the terms were questionable. Do you think that's evidence that the government is low-balling these claimants? Oh, I think that is, absolutely. That's why I say it's a scandal. Hokio Beach was a social-welfare residence providing 'a programme for disturbed and deprived boys'. We walked past the pool to get to the classrooms. Some staff recall it as fun and full of purposeful activity. But social worker Dennis Smith says Hokio was hell. My view, I think, probably, at that time, was I was visiting a kiddie jail. Hokio Beach was one residence Denis could suggest children be placed. There is one referral Denis made that continues to haunt him. The cook had sodomised the boy, or raped him, and... I was` because I was the field social worker, I had to go and visit the mother, and that's probably the worst experience I've had in my life. That offender was Michael Ansell, a cook that was employed here at Hokio in the early 1970s but in a time before police checks and unknown to social welfare at the time. In 1969, Mr Ansell had been investigated by police for sexually molesting a boy in Wellington. He would never be convicted and instead would end up here working in the kitchen, where Earl would eventually arrive to clean dishes. He would get me in the store room in the kitchen or take you into the bedroom and molest you. Earl told no one of the abuse that carried on for months. If you did inform, you'd end up getting beaten up. Ansell was finally caught abusing other boys and forced to resign. He was convicted of six charges of indecent assault against three different boys, not including Earl. His sentence ` a $400 fine. I thought it was disgusting. You get more than a $400 for an unsafe vehicle on the road. Michael Ansell died in 1982. He was never charged for molesting Earl. Earl eventually left state care in 1976. I ended up getting kicked out and living in the shop doorways up Cuba Street. And from there, I just went on a crime spree which continued right through till I was 50 years old. Earl, like many of the abused children, grew up trying to forget. But as an adult, he decided to take action. After receiving my file, I decided to go and see a lawyer. Earl was one of the first, but more came. In response, the Ministry of Social Development established a team to investigate abuse claims made against it and to offer settlement payments. They weren't independent. MSD ` this was the same agency that had been responsible for what had happened to them. Ros Noonan was then Human Rights Commissioner. She said the settlement offers averaging around $19,000 were far from adequate. And in my view, a lot of the settlements were done just because people didn't think there was going to be any other option. And with claim numbers climbing, in 2007, Helen Clark's government reconsidered its historical abuse strategy. An option floated in this cabinet paper was a public inquiry. However, ministers decided against it because... The government instead established a panel headed by Judge Carolyn Henwood to listen to survivors' stories, but crucially, it couldn't offer compensation. Earl decided to start legal action against the government for his abuse, and officials at the Beehive realised a government-wide response was required. As his cabinet paper recorded... Government officials met to consider those claims in November 2006, and the many notes record what was discussed. It included the need to be fair to ex-employees, the potential for collusion amongst claimants, and that psychiatric evidence could be arguable; for example, in some cases, state wards were damaged before the alleged abuse, so it wasn't clear that bad outcomes in their lives could be attributed to the claimed abuse. This argument would form a central part of the Crown's defence to Earl's case when it eventually reached court in 2007. And early on, Earl's legal team expressed concern that Crown lawyers were using private investigators to look into Earl's past. I still couldn't figure out why they wanted to spy on us, because all I'd done was what I'm entitled to do, and that was seek justice. The Crown says it did hire a private investigator in Earl's case, but there was nothing inappropriate about it. Keith Wiffen was a witness for Earl in his case. He claims he came across men who had been watching his home for days. Yeah, it was one lunchtime I came home from work, and there they were. And... (CHUCKLES WRYLY) I just tapped on the window and said, um, 'Are you watching me?' And he nodded his head and went, 'Yeah.' And I said, 'Are you... 'investigators?' And they said, 'Yeah.' And then the window went up, and that was it. The Crown says it didn't know about any surveillance of witnesses and wouldn't instruct its investigators to do that. The Crown also tried to deny Earl had been abused by convicted sex offender Michael Ansell, the cook at Hokio Beach. Pretty much saying all along that I was lying. The court transcript shows Earl was cross-examined by Crown lawyers about the abuse. We have recreated some of that questioning. And later on in the hearing... I was only a child, and I had no knowledge of anything of that nature. The Crown says it accepts cross-examination can be upsetting for witnesses and that the questioning was intended to test for inconsistencies in Earl's evidence. But Earl says the final indignity was hearing evidence from psychiatrists that his sexual abuse had been... It was evidence the judge accepted. It was pretty hard for me to accept that, um, somebody who had done say that everything happened to me didn't affect the outcome of my life. It's a scandal, that. I think a complete lack of understanding the reality that that man is facing. Dr Werner Tschan specialises in treating abuse survivors, and he has reviewed the evidence outlined in the court decision. I think there's no question that the main issue here is the trauma that man has suffered. The Crown says it was up to Earl to prove the sexual abuse had damaged him and for the court to decide whether that was true. In the end, the judge found Earl had been sexually abused but couldn't be awarded compensation because he'd waited too long to bring his case. They answered it with a technicality to... override a case that was proved on all its facts. In the years that followed, claims filed in court fell drastically. And with National's election in 2008, it fell to new Attorney General Chris Finlayson to outline his government's approach. If their claims are shown to have merit, they'll get some compensation, and that system is working. There is no need for them to go to court. But there was to be no public inquiry and no apology from the Prime Minister. I don't believe that a universal apology from government is necessary. And compensation payments remained at similar levels. According to this 2013 cabinet paper, officials were spending on average $19,870 in settling each claim ` only $10 more than their average operational costs involved in resolving the claim. In comparison, the Crown spent almost $2 million defending Earl's case. $20,000 is not much to make up for a life when you've been treated really badly and ended up with all sorts of difficulties. It's very little. Mark Henaghan is dean of Otago Law School and a child law expert. These were children who have grown up in circumstances which they should never have had to face. But the Crown maintains its settlement offers are fair, reasonable and principled. This is most of the paperwork from Earl's case, and it's what's contained in these pages that Earl wants a Royal Commission of Inquiry to examine. And that is the Crown handling of his case. Because although the Crown investigated Earl, other prolific sex offenders who preyed on children in state care have escaped justice. Social welfare files indicate they include a man who offended against 15 alleged victims. He died in 2007. There is also a man with multiple alleged victims at three separate facilities. He died in 1991. The Royal Commission overall is trying to make sure that the state doesn't repeat any of the mistakes that it's made in the past. And while the Prime Minister says the new inquiry will be given full access to records from the time, crucial information has already been lost. A 2006 Ministry of Social Development review found for some of its institutions... And the notes made by the only independent reviewers of the homes in the 1970s and 1980s had been subject to... you glad to see it gone? It's a relief to know that it's not here no more, affecting other people's lives and that. Earl did eventually get a modest settlement payment from the government but still feels he's been denied justice. Something that does bring him peace, though, is knowing he's broken the intergenerational cycle of abuse. I take my grandson to school every day, pick him up and make sure he's not going through what I went through when I was a child. Producer Aaron Smale helped Mike Wesley-Smith with that story. Well, as you heard there, Sir Michael Cullen was the Attorney General at the time Earl made his compensation claim. In a lengthy written statement, Sir Michael denied responsibility for Crown law's strategy in Earl's case, saying... He also said that the government was concerned about the costs of litigation in terms of lawyers' fees, 'not just the uncertainty of the final total level of compensation'. His successor, National's Chris Finlayson, said his government paid... and... Still to come ` we look at what to expect from politics in 2018. It could be an interesting year ahead. But first we catch up with our panel ` former National Party general manager Chris Simpson, Stuff political editor Tracy Watkins, and political commentator David Slack. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` Chris Simpson, Tracy Watkins, and David Slack. So, the billion-dollar Provincial Fund there ` Shane Jones has started handing out the money. Is it a well thought-out policy, Tracy, or is it pork-barrel politics, as some people are saying? Well, I think we have to accept that the reason NZ First got this portfolio is they needed something to make themselves strong in the regions. Pork-barrel politics, absolutely. For the next three years, they're going to go out there and dole out the cash and get the regions noticing them. Interesting ` one of the announcements the other day was this $9 million roundabout, Yes. (CHUCKLES) Shane Jones said to me, 'Actually it's down the road to my place.' So, I mean, these are itches that they're gonna scratch in provincial regional New Zealand. Does that mean it's not going to do some legitimately good work? It will. But at the same time, I don't think that we should be obscuring the fact that it is there to support NZ First and help them get back in after. The thing that occurred to me as I was watching it was that, in many senses, he's moved directly from what he was doing all around the South Pacific into the regions, and he is actually quite skilful at finding people, putting them in the right places, marrying them up, and turning what might, to other people, look like a spaghetti into actual functioning layers of accountability. Because I think, actually, there was just something a little different about his tone today that told me that he actually really cares about this; he's not just phoning it in. He can see that this potentially does good things in the regions, and he wants to make it work. Now, we know, historically, these things are fraught, and they can go wrong in 40 different ways. But we also know that if you do get it right and if, say, the regions have been looking at a thing for a long time and their leaders come and say, 'Hey, we really want to do this,' and they say, 'Oh, OK. Here's some money. Let's have a go,' it might work. And I just put it in this context ` you know, we burn almost $2 billion a year in the accommodation supplement every year, and arguably we could have a much better housing market if we didn't burn any of that money. Now, $3 million once, I would suggest, is possible not as bad a risk or as large a roll of the dice as the accommodation supplement. OK, but the thing is even if he wants it to succeed, Chris, he seemed to be pretty light on details for what measures will indicate success. I mean, is there enough accountability here? With regards to pork-barrel politics, you look at what National is doing with promising lots of bridges, so you go back to that. Coming back to what are the key successes, well, you look at New Zealand's trade with regards to the amount of tonnage of transport that we're going to need is going to increase by about 40% over the next 20, 30 years. So you kind of look north and you look at where Whangarei Port is and you look at Tauranga Port; you've got some real things need to happen for NZ Inc. So coming back to what are the measures with the accountability, that's what all the department and all the officials will now be working to. But the pressure's there. The pressure's there, so pork-barrel politics or not. And it just seems nuts that we have that possibility all across the country of being productive, and it's not happening. God knows we've talked about it long enough. Try something, you know. And I think that's the thing ` we have talked about it for years. And I think, you know, we saw in the Northland by-election when Winston Peters won that seat, that was very much about neglect of that region, and I think National came to that party very late. Because of Christchurch, because of the pressures in Auckland, so much focus of central government has been on the main centres for so long, and regional New Zealand has been hurting. But you get something like the Opotiki Wharf that Shane was talking about, and you are sort of winning friends and influence in that regional New Zealand. A lot of the projects that have been named so far, to be fair, are roading and rail. They seem not to be nothing terribly exciting and new. When I asked him about a project on the east coast, which is medicinal cannabis, he basically reared up in his seat and said no way, no how. Is he letting his personal views on cannabis get in the way of a potentially viable, very strong business possibility? Yeah. Well, I don't even know if it's personal views so much as the Shane Jones brand. You know, he slapped that down really fast. He's talked a lot about cannabis and gangs and young people. There is, I think, as he pointed out, layers of accountability, so depending on the cost, it would go up to a committee with him and Parker and Grant Robertson, so it would depend on how much is being sought. But yeah, that's the danger of it ` we don't know to what extent Shane Jones is gonna be the spending czar who decides what passes. Yeah, and playing favourites. But he did say earlier on, 'I will not be capricious,' and it is entirely in his nature that he will say that and then` In certain respects, as you say, his brand requires that he be it. But if he's only that a little, then it's not necessarily fatal to the cause, I suspect. We're running out of time, but he also mentioned Rodger Finlay, who's going to be heading up this advisory council, couldn't help himself with having just a little nudge at the Greens there, Chris. Yeah, as you expect with that, and again, that's just brand politics, which MMP's now delivering us. It's total brand politics. So as you start to see Shane positioning himself and starting to deliver, you'll just see more and more Shane, which then begs a different question about leadership. And do you think he's disinterested in the deputy leadership, just on that note, Tracy? He's not going to go for it, and I suspect that's because he would not want to lose it. I think we are going to see a change in deputy leader. That's going to be Fletcher Tabuteau. And Shane Jones, with the amount he's got on his plate at the moment, he probably doesn't need that deputy leadership. All right, watch this space. Stay with us. We'll be back after the break. Welcome back. You're with Newshub Nation and our panel. We were talking there to Andrew Little, Justice Minister. Waikeria Prison ` this is the big prison that National had committed to build. He's kind of hedging his bets there. Are they gonna need to do this? Yeah, they have to. There is no alternative. To use a Treasury phrase, they have to do it, because they've got 2500 extra prisoners arriving, and that can only accommodate another 2000, so... But the question is ` who's going to build it? Company-wise? You mean actual labour, hammer and nails. Company-wise. Fletcher's not taking on any new projects, so all of a sudden you've got the question of, well, who's going to be there on a scale to deliver this at a time when Auckland needs a lot of growth and a lot of support construction-wise? So where's everyone coming from? Tracy, they'll be worried about the optics, won't they? Because they've come out strong saying they're going to lower the prison population by 30% and then you turn around and build a jail, if it does happen. Yeah, and that would give them a problem with the Greens. But I actually think by the end of the three years, we're going to see prison sentences longer than they are now, because, basically, Labour's got a problem. New Zealand First is going to support, like they are with the synthetic cannabis bill put up by National that increases the penalties for synthetic cannabis suppliers. New Zealand First` Well, National is going to wedge Labour on this issue constantly by getting New Zealand First to back its bills. So I don't think they can do anything at this stage unless they really do some fancy footwork with New Zealand First. But never underestimate the doggedness of Andrew Little. Yeah. Well, he's still around. I love that he's taking this tack and being the new Martyn Finlay. Good luck to him. Hey, let's talk about something else ` National Party leadership. Wow. Tracy, you walked the corridors this week. What's going on? Huge hive of activity. And I think this weekend they're all driving around, phoning, texting each other, collecting pledges. If you're asking me who's gonna win,... Yeah. ...look, it depends on who you ask. And we talked about this before, Chris, saying, they lie. About who they're voting for? They lie about who they're voting for. The various camps lie about the level of support they've got, because they're trying to, sort of, like, freak out their opponents. So, yeah, with five candidates` Do you think it's any person's game still? Well, what I keep hearing is that Simon Bridges is still ahead, but then Chris is hearing different. Yeah, hearing Amy, so... So, yes. I should say that Newshub Nation did invite all the National Party leadership candidates on the show. Only one would come on, and that was Judith Collins. They didn't want to be in the studio together. So do you think they need generational change, Chris? Absolutely. So MMP's completely changed it. National hasn't caught up to what MMP now means. The old days of in-depth policy manifestos have gone out the window. It now is based on what the coalition document is. So it really is about that personality politics. So does that mean someone like Steven Joyce is toast if he doesn't actually come through and win this? And Judith Collins. What happens to all these people who want it if they don't get it? I do like the idea that this is the first time Steven Joyce is actually running for office (CHUCKLES) after all those years in politics. I suspect that you get, um, Judith Collins running pretty fatal interference if she doesn't get it, and that causes difficulty. But, of course, you also get difficulty if she does get it. I think` I agree entirely with Chris. I think they have this quite profound existential problem now of not having mates and wondering how they're going to get themselves back over the line, because for the parties that are now in power, the frustration for them forever was that everybody has to fight for oxygen and there was National sort of doing a first past the post arrangement and managing to sustain it. But they are potentially now locked out and locked out and locked out. And I just wonder, maybe, whether things are going to evolve in a way that we have less emphasis on party in the longer run and more on the particular politicians who coalesce in different arrangements. Like you were talking about Shane Jones' brand before. More brand politicians of their own actually are adaptable to that. On that note, we've had a new poll; we had the Colmar poll this week. And National are still holding well into the 40s on its vote, but the problem for them is, as you say, no friends. So, Chris, is there room on the right for another party? Where does it come from? ACT tried it, and, hm, it's not doing so well. Yeah, New Zealand's very middle, so the opportunity is actually a technical green party ` one that's actually more around the focus of what we need for a modern city, what we need for our environment from a technical perspective. A very focused on green. That's very focused on green and not so much on the social. Wasn't that TOP? TOP never came through that way, though. TOP came from Gareth Morgan. Yeah, and it got a bit confused around cats and things, I think, so... (LAUGHS) So, yeah, I think after the last election, you could really see that from a lot of conservative supporters. There was a real push on for a Green-National deal. National and the Greens could never actually coalesce, because the Green Party is more than just a technical green party, as Chris says. But that's the big problem for them. One of the biggest tactical blunders of the last election was not being able to do a deal with NZ First even thought National had the most votes. And that came down to their strategy, which was basically a first-past-the-post style strategy. And they're gonna have to think about whether they can genuinely run that strategy again. And that depends on who your leader is. It does. To loop back to the Steven Joyce question, everybody seems to bring in their last job, and he's brought his in because he talks endlessly about increasing market share. Yeah. You know? It's how he sees it. And that's just not how it can work for them here. We'll leave it there. Thanks to our panel for joining us this morning. Well, 2018 is already shaping up to be an interesting year in politics. Decisions will be made that will not only affect us here in the South Pacific, but in all corners of the globe and beyond. Here's Tony Wright with your year in preview. They weren't allowed to compete for Russia at the Winter Olympics, but on March 18, Russians will officially participate in something ` Vladimir Putin's probably re-election as president for a fourth term. (SPEAKS RUSSIAN, CHUCKLES) Mr Putin's unlikely to be invited to this year's most anticipated event, though ` the royal wedding. On May 19, Prince Harry, AKA 'the wild one', will marry American actress Meghan Markle of Suits fame. Will you be my girlfriend? Our prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, will get her chance to mix with royalty at Buckingham Palace for the 25th Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in late April ` likely her final appearance on the world stage before New Zealand's first baby arrives in June. That's when Winston Peters will take charge of the country for what could be a very interesting six weeks in New Zealand politics. I get on with everybody fine. But Ms Ardern should be back on board to see for herself how Australia's asylum seekers are being treated in Nauru, when the Pacific Island Forum is held in the tiny island in September. She'll also attend November's APEC Forum in Papua New Guinea where she'll catch up with her new bestie, Justin Trudeau, and probably bump into old mate Donald Trump. Don't worry about that baby. I love babies. I love babies. I hear that baby crying; I like it. New Zealand joined the space race this year. But it's a Silicone Valley start-up Moon Express that plans to put a man back on the moon in 2018 and then mine it. Meanwhile, back on Earth, our climate will come under huge scrutiny in December at the COP24 Environmental Summit in Poland. Key decisions are expected on the implementation of the Paris Climate Accords without American influence. That could have some far-reaching consequences for New Zealand's 10 million flagellating cows. So watch this space. It's said to be an explosive year ahead. And that is all from us for now. If you didn't catch all of the show, you can watch now on ThreePlus1. But we will see you again next weekend ` same time, same place. Captions by Antony Vlug, Desney Shaw, and Madison Batten. www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018 This programme was made with the assistance of the New Zealand On Air Platinum Fund.