Today on Newshub Nation ` is this what generational change looks like? We find out how Simon Bridges plans to freshen up the National. After years of negotiations and protests, the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal will be signed next week. We asked Trade Minister David Parker why he changed his mind. And is New Zealand's economy about to take a dive because of the number eight? Kia ora. Good morning. I'm Lisa Owen. Welcome to Newshub Nation. After fending off four other contenders for the National Party leadership, Simon Bridges is now reshuffling his team. His fellow Westie, Paula Bennett, has kept her deputy's job, but no other roles have been confirmed. Mr Bridges says he's focused on positioning the party as a strong alternative government for 2020, and he joins me now. Good morning, Mr Bridges. Good morning. Now, we understand that the leadership race was very tight, so do you think you have the mandate for change? Yes, I do. I think one of the issues ` there are always a number of things going on in Members of Parliament's heads when they're thinking about this ` was the degree of change that was required. And I think what I would say to you is, you say it's tight; who knows, actually, at the end of the day, but what I can tell you is you think about the context in which this happened with Bill English, after a very long, successful career, standing down, a lot of candidates, I think, showing the strength of the party. We're in really good shape. But with a 44% vote count, that would seem to indicate that you have very little mandate to change, because people liked you how you were. I think that's exactly right. So we don't need to be radical, I don't think, in terms of what we're doing. I think in terms of the economy, people understand that we're the best economic managers, that we've got a very strong platform there to build off. So I accept that. Okay, so what is generational change, then? Look, I think it's two things. Firstly and more superficially, yeah, let's state the bleedingly obvious ` John Key and Bill English are no longer in Parliament, and so the leaders of the National Party aren't there. So that level, going from them to me, is change. But I think it's more than that. I think what I'm talking about is modernisation, that is both in terms of the personnel. It's not about getting rid of experience. You do need heft and experience to make our party and to keep the strength that we've got. But it is also about bringing new talent through. I think even more importantly than that, though, it is in policy setting, and again, I repeat what I've said; we are the strongest in the economy, we are focused on that because that's what give opportunities to New Zealanders. But what is also true is that we aren't the government now. We can't just say to voters in 2020, 'Look, this is how we did things in the past. Stick with us.' We also need to, I think, modernise, put things in context for the 2020s. And if I can just finish on this point; if we have the best policies in 2020 that are looking forward, that are aspirational, we can win. Okay, there's a lot in there, and I want to just delve into a bit of it. First off, I'm still a bit confused. What are the top three things that Simon Bridges' National Party stands for? Top three. Well, one, two and three, if you want to be glib, is the economy, because that's what provides opportunities to New Zealanders. But I made clear through the campaign, if you want to call it that, for the leadership that I do think we also just want to make sure people understand that we have other values and we care about other things. So I did talk about the environment. And we will talk about the environment, but when you say, 'Economy ` one, two and three,' that's no different to John Key or Bill English's National Party. Well, no, I agree, and that's because to your point earlier, 44.5%. We've been the strongest polling party now for a very long time. I'm simply saying to you this. Yes, we stay on that. Yes, we continue to have` So you're going to look different and have a different leader. Sorry, this is really important. So you're just going to look different and have a different leader, but you're going to be the same party? Well, we are the same party, Lisa. I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Well, because you're talking about generational change, and you said policy is important too and having aspirational and forward-thinking policy. But you've just named economy, economy, economy, which seems to reflect the old National Party's views. The values of the National Party around free enterprise, around competition, around law and order and safer communities, around strong families ` they're the same. But I'm making the case that in 2020, rather than 2008 or 2012, of course we need to continue evolving. Society evolves. Things change. Let me give you the example of the environment. The reason I've said there there is a need for some emphasis from us is because I understand that not only is that the right thing to emphasise, I think it's also where New Zealand's at. We're New Zealanders, and we represent nearly one in two of them in Parliament, care passionately about the environment. And so that's something we need to reflect in our policy settings. Okay, before we move on to the environment, given you've said that you were the best economic managers for the country and you've also said that you provided a strong legacy in that respect, does that mean you are happy with the economic direction that you were taking previously? Correct. Okay, so are you going to keep Steven Joyce? Because he was one of the stewards of that. Steven Joyce has undoubted strengths both in the economy, also in terms of running our campaigns. I'm not going to be drawn on what I'm doing in terms of line-up. I've made quite clear, though, now a number of times, he's got a very strong role to play should he want it. Okay, so just to be clear on that, you are happy with the economic direction under the old leadership, you think you're strongest on the economy, but you're not guaranteeing Steven Joyce the finance minister portfolio. Just to go back to your fundamental point on the economy, of course I think it's self-evident. We're third in the OECD, I think, in terms of GDP growth. We created nearly 10,000 jobs ` not nearly, over 10,000 jobs ` a month. So I'm just wondering, I suppose` What I'm wondering is why you would change that person out. Lisa, that doesn't mean that we're not going to have fresh ideas in the economy. Of course we are, because we know that to win in 2020, we need to have the most exciting, refreshed plan for New Zealand. Okay, well, let's move on to the environment. The Green Party ` you've signalled that you could look at working with the Greens. Now, why do you think that is possible? What makes you think it's possible? Firstly, what I've said about emphasising the economy is about the National Party, actually, not the Green Party. It's about the fact that it's right. I believe it's where modern New Zealand's at. I also think it's` Do you mean the environment? Sorry, you just said the economy. I'm sorry, yeah, the environment. And I think that's where modern New Zealand's at. And I think it's where the caucus is at. In terms of the Green Party, because you've asked, I think the situation is pretty much this simple. On genuine environmental issues, I think there is a case for Greens and National working together. I think we do have a difficulty, though, frankly, at the moment, which is it's a Green Party that's red as well. Its default position is to go with the Labour Party. A true Green Party in the middle that could work with both, in my view, would achieve a lot more for the environment. Okay, this is really important, so let's look at your green record in more detail and kind of discuss whether this is actually conceivable. 2014, you signed off on mining exploration on DOC conservation land ` Victoria Park Forest. 2017, you opened up part of Maui dolphins' breeding ground for exploration off the Taranaki coast. As minister, you made a statement at a forum for mining; you said, 'Mining has been a mainstay on the West Coast for the last 150 years, 'and long may it continue,' you said. And you're probably familiar with this. This is your energy policy from 2017, and it says, 'Our oil and gas potential is huge. 'We could be the richest little country in the world.' So do you think all of those things are wrong? Those policies that you had before, previously, they're wrong? I think if you look at the speeches that I gave consistently as the Minister of Energy, I made quite clear we need to transition to a lower-carbon economy. And so do I resign for any of those things? No. Because, actually, resources are important, whether it's for cell phones, whether it's in houses and so on. We do need to do that, but we also need to transition. But let me make this point. But just before you move on, you also said that 100% renewable energy, and it says also in this policy from the National Party, that 100% renewable energy is not realistic,... Well, actually, I think... and that you're putting the energy supply at risk when you say it is. ...I'm on record in a variety of speeches saying that we need to do more in renewables, and if you look at my record as Minister of Energy, we went from the 70s in terms of the percentages of renewables in our electricity to well over 80%. I led a very significant push in renewables. I understand what you're saying, but I think, actually, if you talk` What about net greenhouse gas emissions, during the National government's time? Well, no` No, no. What was the situation with net greenhouse gas emissions during National's time? Do you know how much they went up, Mr Bridges? You're effectively saying to me that, 'No, you're bad for the environment, and that's your record.' Actually, if you look across the span of my portfolios and what I did in transport, whether it was the most significant push in history into public transport, whether it was more funding for cycleways than any other minister ever, whether it was a significant push into electric vehicles and to new mobility; in energy, whether it was leading the highest percentage in renewables we've ever seen in New Zealand; my record on the environment is strong. It's about degrees. That's what we're exploring here. So I'll just go back to that question I asked you. Greenhouse gas emissions ` net greenhouse gas emissions ` during a large chunk of National's time in government. You know this figure, don't you? How much did they go up? I couldn't give you a percentage, but what I also know that in terms of intensity of emissions` 20%, I think it was. Right, well, in terms of intensity of emissions in relation to GDP, they've been decreasing. We improved that significantly. Now, I'm not saying to you, Lisa, that in terms of environment and economy, these things are simple. They are not. We do need to continue to have economic growth, because that provides opportunities. We also need to transition. I'm simply saying to you at a really high level, National emphasises the environment, and under me, I think we'll emphasise it a little more, because we understand that that's important to New Zealanders and it's important to me. How will that translate in policy, then, if you're going to pay more emphasis on green issues? Because, to be clear, the Greens' policy is no fracking, no deep-sea drilling, no new coal mines, right? Well, actually, I think you'll find that today in this government, that's not necessarily their policy. Let's see what happens in this government. But that's Greens policy. What the coalition government is a different scenario. They are fully in government. And gas is happening under this government. Oil and gas is happening under this government. Mining in terms of gold and coal is happening under this government. If you are thinking about the prospect of a relationship with the Greens, how is your policy going to change to make that possible? How is the National Party going to look different when it comes to green policy? To be very clear, at the moment, I'm not focused on the Green Party. What I'm saying in relation to the environment is fairly and squarely focused on the National Party, and I come back to that. That's because` You've said you're going to place more emphasis on it. So I'm asking you, 'How will your policy look different under National if you're placing more emphasis on the environment?' We're not going to go there today. I've made quite clear that I'm not going to come out with policies in the next little while. Do you not have fresh policy when it comes to the environment? Yeah, I do have ideas, and it's something I want to talk about in some detail this year. So just give us a taster, then. Give us a taster. No, I can't do that. Is that because you don't have any new environment policy? It's because I've said to you I've signalled that there is a shift that I'm wanting to talk about it, but I do want to do it right. These are complex issues in relation to climate change and so on, and I want to do that in the right way. Imagine you are in government in 2020. What's your time frame to bring in agriculture into an emissions trading scheme or a climate fund? No, I've been really clear, Lisa. I'm going to do that in a speech later this year where we'll talk about some of these issues and what they mean for the National Party. So will you bring agriculture in? Well, as I've said, Lisa, I'm going to make clear our position on some of these things a little later this year. So are you not clear on your position right now? I think I made clear what my position is in terms of those issues. Okay. Let's go on to some quick-fire questions, because people want to learn a bit more about you. So do you want the Maori Party back in Parliament? Yes or no? Well, no, it's very simple in terms of coalitions. At the moment, my focus is on National. We've got two and a half years to run. Can't govern without mates. Do you want them in or out? We have to explore all opportunities. So do you want the Maori Party back in Parliament? Yes or no? I'm not a member of the Maori Party. You're asking a complex question on coalitions, so can I just have a second on this? It's pretty simple. We've got two and a half years to run. I'm not going to give you answers, 'It's going to be X, Y and Z today.' I've got to make sure, though, because it's the same for Labour as well, that my party is strong, that we've got the best offering in 2020 in terms of policies that are modern and fresh. In terms of parties under that, look, clearly, we need to explore our opportunities. Okay, would you keep the Maori seats? At the moment, we've got a pretty clear policy which is that over time they should go, but that's a matter of finding consensus. Do you still agree with that? You're the leader now. Would you keep the Maori seats? That's our policy. Okay, do you believe that there is a gender pay gap? Yes. Okay. Do we need to build a bigger prison in Waikeria? Yes, we do, because the reality is this ` we have some very serious criminals in New Zealand, whether that's taking serious family violence more seriously, which we should; whether that's banditos and gang members coming in from Australia who are doing serious crime in this country, we need to take that seriously. Does that mean that there needs to be a policy around a decrease in crime? Of course there does. And we'll work very hard on that. But simply not having new prisons so there's fewer prisoners but still the same amount of criminals is soft on crime, and I don't agree with it. Are prisons a fiscal and moral failure? Yeah, well, I know` Yes or no. Are they? Of course they are, but is this a complex issue where the answer definitely isn't, Lisa, to shut down prisons and say, 'Criminals out on the street,' so communities aren't safe? That would be the wrong answer. But I fear it's where we're going with this government. So should prisoners be allowed to vote? It depends on the level. I think the answer that we came to in government was under, is it, two or three years, yes. Where they're in for really serious lags and really serious offences, no. Well, none of them can vote at the moment, so would you look at changing that? Well, I thought that was the bill that we had put in place. So you would support prisoners with sentences, what, three years and less voting? Well, no, I support the position we had. I thought I had that right in terms of it's for the more significant offences. At the moment, they don't vote. They can't vote. But let me be clear with you. Is there an issue with prisoners in prison not having the vote? Do I feel prissy about that? Am I worried about the Bill of Rights implications? No, I'm not. I think when they committed serious crimes, and they have to be serious to be in jail, they forewent their right to vote at a general election, while they're in prison, at least. Do we need specific policies targeted at reducing Maori inequality? I think we need to do two things. Good policy is good policy. It should be good for Maori. It should be good for Asian New Zealanders. It should be good for European New Zealanders. So good policy settings across the board. But I think what is also true when you're talking about Maori, sometimes there is a need for specific help in certain areas. So that rules out New Zealand First as a coalition partner? Because they don't agree with targeted laws or policies for Maori. Well, last time I checked, New Zealand First is in coalition with the Greens, and they've got some pretty different policies. Okay, should churches be included in the Royal Commission into state abuse whether or not the state referred people to the church's care? I haven't considered that. I'm not sure. No position on that? Yes. All right, thanks for joining us this morning, Simon Bridges, the new leader of the National Party. Now, if you have got something to say about what you see on our show, do let us know. We are on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram ` NewshubNationNZ. Or you can email us. Up next ` we talk trade with David Parker as he prepares to sign us up to a deal he once opposed. We find out what's changed. Plus ` our economy is chugging along for now, but is 2018 set to bring us another recession? We ask the experts. In five days' time, our trade minister, David Parker, will be in Chile to sign up to a revised version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal ` one of 11 countries to do so. Mr Parker once marched against this deal but says it's now a new and improved version. It's certainly got a longer name ` the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. David Parker joins me now. Minister, from this point onwards, we're just going to refer to it as the agreement. (CHUCKLES) The CPTPP. Yes, exactly. Scale of 1 to 10 ` 10 being out of this galaxy, deal of the century ` what grade do you give it? Probably a 7 ` good, improved access into Japan, where beef exports have been dropping; they've dropped by 38% recently because of Australian competition with lower tariffs. That'll be fixed. Not an especially good deal for dairy but better than nothing, and relatively more important than it was before the attacks on the World Trade Organization architecture that are happening because of some other countries who seem to want to blow the system up. Some people would listen to that and say you've given it a 7, which is kind of OK; it's sort of lukewarm. Why are you signing up to it if it's only a 7? Because the alternative for New Zealand would be worse. I think most New Zealanders know that we're never going to produce computers or cars or cell phones and medicines, so we've got to sell things to the rest of the world in order to buy the things we need to have a good standard of living. So I think it will benefit people throughout society, whether the freezing worker or the farm owner or the computer programmer or the tech entrepreneur. So it's pragmatism, Minister? Pragmatism is suggesting that you should sign this. I think it will be good overall for the country. I don't think it's the best trade agreement; that's why I gave it a 7. Our best trade agreement is with Australia, which you'd give a 10 out of 10, and in comparison to our free trade agreement in CER with Australia, it's not nearly as good, but it is important, particularly into Japan, and that's why we're signing up. OK. Well, the deal, the numbers are that the deal is expected to bump up GDP anything from about 0.3% to 1%. So that could be as little as just over $1 billion a year. So put it in perspective. You are planning to spend $1 billion a year on regional development. Those numbers aren't that flash, some people would argue. I'd say a couple of things about that. One is that does actually translate to thousands of extra jobs in the economy that wouldn't otherwise be there. It's obvious that if we have no tariffs and we face tariffs into other countries, if they drop their tariffs under this agreement and we don't drop ours ` because ours are already essentially at 0 ` that there are economic benefits into New Zealand. In respect of the total of those tariff benefits, the tariff reductions for New Zealand in this are close to twice what they were in the tariff reductions under the Chinese free trade agreement, so the benefits of that, I think, are known to virtually every New Zealander, and I think the benefits from this will be substantial as well. OK, so you have managed to suspend 22 of the most controversial clauses, right? But just suspend them, not ditch them altogether. So what is to stop a future government, in conjunction with those other countries, reinstating those clauses? What's to stop that happening? Well, in theory ` and this isn't in practice, but in theory ` any one of the 11 countries in the new CPTPP can block them being reintroduced. In reality, it's a negotiation. I think it's an absolute certainty that all of those clauses would never come back. You can't know that, though. That's the problem, isn't it? You can't know that. Let's work through` I could give you 99% certainty. That's not 100% certainty, though, Minister. No, it's not, but it's 99. (LAUGHS) That's not bad. And that's the issue, because if America chooses to get back in on this deal, it would want those 22 clauses and then some, probably, put back into that agreement. They might want to ditch other clauses completely that we want to get rid of, like the ISDS clauses, which we sort of succeeded halfway in getting rid of for the benefit of New Zealand in this agreement, not completely. Now, America is against ISDS clauses, so that could be an outcome too. And we're going to talk about that in a little bit, but the thing is if America wants to get back in on this deal and it says it wants those clauses, it wants life breathed back into them, is a future government`? You can't guarantee a future government or even your government is going to have the courage to resist that powerful country and the lure of a deal with the US. In a democracy, you can never buy into future government, and they could always do something different, so I don't think I should be blamed for that. But I'll give you a real example. One of the things that we've improved in this version is that we've cut out the extension to what's called data-exclusivity for new drugs called biologics. What that means, in effect, is that Pharmac, who buys drugs on behalf of the New Zealand public, won't face extended periods where they're tied to a patented drug, and they can go to generic so we can afford more medicines in New Zealand. I think it's very, very unlikely that any of the other countries in that agreement would agree to America reversing that change. OK. Well, let's look at what the five bottom lines were that you laid out that Labour said if you didn't get those five bottom lines, you didn't want a bar of this deal. You talked about Pharmac there. You admit that it was the National Party that took care of Pharmac, actually. You said the Pharmac model's been well-protected by the prior government in their negotiations. So that's credit to them. That's true. In terms of the Pharmac model, that's correct. In respect of those additional costs, we've protected that in this new version. Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi ` it's exactly the same text, is it not, as the deal that National was signing up for, word for word, the clause about protecting the Treaty? It's the same one that's in all of our trade agreements, and that's probably the best` So it's no different. Nothing changed. Correct. OK. So, meaningful gains in tariff reductions and market access ` America's not in the deal and it's of less value than it was, so did you meet that criteria, you think? Well, yes, we did, and we actually had attempts right throughout to prune us back on the market access that we had into both Japan and Canada, but we managed to parry those attempts. As I said, it's a 7 out of 10 agreement in respect of that, but it's still meaningful gains. You did restrict foreign home ownership of our houses, but number five of your bottom lines` No, let's just talk about that, because I think that's the most significant change, because we were told by the` But you didn't say, 'If I get one of these, I'll sign up.' You said, 'If I got five of these ` five.' We've got four-and-a-half out of five, but don't gloss over` That's not five. That's not five, Mr Parker. Don't gloss over the most important one, please, Lisa. It is a matter of personal concern to me and, I think, most New Zealanders that future governments should have the right to control who buys our houses. The last government said we'd either have to throw away our free trade agreements or throw away our right to control who buys our homes. We found a route through that, and I think that most New Zealanders are persuaded that that's a very, very important thing. Yes, and a lot of people would say well done to you, but you still did not get to five out of five, because the number five of your bottom line was the investor state dispute clause. You said it had to go; you didn't want companies having the ability to sue New Zealand. But the clause is still in there, so how, in good faith, can you sign on to something that you said five bottom lines? Actually, our bottom line, if you read it, said that we wanted to protect the right to regulate it. It actually didn't name ISDS clauses, but I'm happy to concede that we promised we'd try and get rid of them. We've protected the right to regulate across environment, public health, public hospitals, public education systems, right to fund SOEs, climate change, tobacco plain packaging ` you name it, we've got the right to do that. We've narrowed the effect of ISDS clauses in a number of ways. We've excluded investment contracts. Someone builds Waterview Tunnel or a multinational ` they used to be able to sue the government. They now no longer can. They've got to just sue it in New Zealand courts. It no longer applies to investment screening. So you've narrowed the scope. You've absolutely narrowed the scope, but you haven't got rid of it. Please let me finish the explanation. We've narrowed the effectiveness of it by more than 80%, because it only applies to foreign direct investment into New Zealand, and more that 80% of the foreign direct investment into New Zealand is carved out from these clauses, with side leaders. We are left with a residue. We wanted to get rid of the residue. And you didn't, but you are still going to sign up. That's true. But you know, we got four and a half out of five. That's 90%. You set yourself five. I'll tell you what, that's damn sight better than I got in school cert. OK, if we accept that you met all the benchmarks` And your critics would say you did not. They wouldn't give you four and a half out of five. They'd probably give you two. Oh, you've got to be joking. No, no, no. That's absolutely clear that we've met four and a half out of five. OK, still not five. And you said to sign-up you were after five. So these carve-outs, with the carve-out with Australia, which means they can't sue us, you're working on other suspensions, which you've talked about. How many, and with what countries? I can't say that, for reasons of agreement with those other countries. And here's the thing with that, though. Because you criticised the other government for doing this deal in the dark, and in fact, Andrew Little ` I'm quoting him here ` 'Kiwis are in the dark about which of their sovereign rights are being gambled away.' How is what you are doing behind closed doors different? Well, we've disclosed the text of the whole agreement. We have had public meetings up and down the country before the agreement was signed. We've had a debate in parliament before we signed. But no debate on these suspension clauses that you're discussing with other countries that people will not see until you sign up. They're identical to the form, which we have disclosed in respect of Australia, which accounts for 80%. These are all additional to that, but they're the same in principle. That will become clear next week when it's signed, which is not the date when it comes into effect. So between that date and the date it comes into effect, that will also be out there transparently. Before we move on, your partners in government, the Greens, believe in essence that this deal is a dog. So who is ill-informed ` you or them? Them. Your partners in government are ill-informed, the Greens? They're wrong on this, yes. OK. Have you told them that recently? Yes. They know my opinion, just as I know theirs. They disagree, but it's a democracy; we're free to disagree. So are you comfortable having to rely on National then to get this business through? The other thing here is that I don't actually expect everyone in New Zealand to agree with me just because I'm in government. I do try to deal with the individual arguments. You know, people who say we've lost the right to regulate in respect of climate change. Well, I think they're wrong, and I'm happy to take them through the individual clauses in the agreement that protect our rights on that. But at the end of it, there will still be some people who I can never convince. And that doesn't make them bad people; that just means that they've got a different opinion on that, and we're free to disagree. Well, let's move on to a totally different topic. This week, Labour has signalled it's going to take a stronger stance around protecting people's human rights. You want to give the senior courts the power to force parliament to review laws if they conflict with our human rights. So what court should have that power? What are you classifying as senior courts here? Well, that's being worked through by Andrew Little, in terms of the change of legislation. But the senior courts are essentially what we mean as High Court and above. And we've got a problem in New Zealand that it's a little bit easy in our system, which only has one house of parliament, to somewhat rashly override the Bill of Rights. At present we haven't got a route back to fix it. No, only a voluntary route. Because if the court were to tell or make a declaration, which it has, that the law is inconsistent, parliament could, of its own bat, revisit that. It could, but it sometimes gets tied up in politics. And we think it would be a good idea ` this was recommended by the Constitutional Review Committee ` to actually create a process within parliament to look at it, to take breath and say, 'Hey, look, the courts have told us we've got this a bit wrong.' But if you're going to do that, it's important that you preserve the sovereignty of parliament. And so parliament would, yes, have to look at it again, but it could either affirm, amend or change the law that was criticised by the courts. Are you going to adopt one of Geoffrey Palmer's recommendations, which was that if you want to affirm that law, you've got to get a 75-vote majority, to keep a law that is inconsistent with the Bill of Right? No. No, I don't think so, no. So will they just be required to look at it and nothing more? Is it going far enough, then? You know, some of the problems you see oversees, like America not being able to change their gun laws or their campaign financing laws, or Australia being able to fix their problems with this ancient citizenship of some of the parents of the MPs, meaning they've got to resign, we don't have those problems in New Zealand. Our system is actually working very, very well in New Zealand at the moment. But it's a bit easy to overrule the Bill of Rights, so this is intended to fix that. I didn't know that this issue was going to be raised, but I'm happy to talk further about it. So given this is a priority for your government, why is Crown law seemingly throwing its weight and considerable resources into fighting human rights cases through the courts? Now, an example of that is this battle over prisoners' right, or not, to vote. It's in the Supreme Court this coming week. Every other court has already said that a blanket ban on prisoners voting is inconsistent with Bill of Rights obligations. So why keep going and spending all that money and fighting up to that level? Well, one, in the scheme of things, it's actually not a lot of money. It's just about all the way through the courts system. And the issue at large in the court is whether the court already has the jurisdiction to do it or whether it has to be given it by parliament. And that's an important point of principle. Now, that's a matter before the courts, so I don't really want to go into that too much today, because I'll be seen to be criticising the courts in the middle of the process, and that wouldn't be right. Let me put it another way. Are you going to give Crown law any particular instruction around pursuing cases like that? Well, I believe in the rule of law. So take it right to the Supreme Court? Where there's an important point of principle, yes. That's what the Supreme Court's for, and I think they would agree that that's what they're there for too. But do you think that puts an overly large burden on the other side of the argument, the other people pursuing the other side of the argument, to fund their case to that level? No, I don't. No. If you think that's the problem, you should do away with having Courts of Appeal or the Supreme Court. So, no, I don't think that's an issue. What do you think ` should prisoners get the right to vote? Well, I voted against the legislation. Yeah. So? I mean, the reason I voted against that was that it's arbitrary that if someone's in prison for six months ` if they're there during the period when the election's held ` they can't vote; it they're there in the six months before then, they can. So despite the fact that they've not done anything differently to the other person, they're being treated differently, which is why the courts, and indeed the then Attorney General, found that that was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. But actually that's less important than the wider point that is where parliament perhaps has a rush of blood to the head, as I think parliament did on that occasion when the National Party pushed that through. Actually, Simon Bridges had that wrong in your last interview. Yes. Sometimes it's worth parliament, after hearing from the courts, to say, 'Well, look, you know, we should look at this again.' So that's all this is saying. This week Judge Becroft, the Children's Commissioner, suggested that 16-year-olds should get to vote. What do you think? Well, that's not my portfolio responsibility, so I won't express an opinion on that. It wasn't our policy in the last election. OK. You will probably be aware that there's a current case in the high court where a woman is trying to get her New Zealand passport back under the 1992 Passports Act. She's not allowed to be in court; she's not even allowed a lawyer there, and no members of the public or the media can be there to see and report what's going on. Does that seem consistent with our Bill of Rights Act? Well, again I won't comment on the detail of that case. And I've probably been briefed on it. But in principle? If not that case, in principle? Shouldn't we have transparency and accountability? It's one of the issues that's left hanging by the review of the Security Agencies Law a couple of years ago that the Law Commission is looking into and reporting back to parliament. Because you're right; you've got to get that balance right. On the one hand, you've got duties to some of our security agencies that we get this information from overseas; on the other hand, you have to be fair in the process. Have you got the balance right, currently? I think the Law Commission will come back with suggested amendments. No, I don't think the balance is quite right at the moment. Thanks for joining me this morning, Minister. Much appreciated. Still to come ` we dissect the week's political news with our panel. Plus we look at the year of eights rule and why it could mean our economy is set to take a tumble. on the back of the biggest single-day loss in Wall Street in almost eight years. And while our economy quickly recovered and continues to chug along, we could be in for a shock, thanks to the 10-year Kiwi economic cycle and the number eight. Tony Wright explains. # Oh! Holy moly, eight balls of fur! # 2018 is here, and you'd have to be a bit of a muppet to think New Zealand's surging economy will last forever. (FUNKY ROCK MUSIC) Like most first world capitalist economies, the Kiwi economy goes around in a cycle, recovering from a recession, such as we had in 2008 to producing growth and wealth before another slowdown, usually over a time frame of about a decade. 10 years would be a pretty good cycle. We've had some shorter ones, more like seven years; the US at the moment is having one of their longest economic expansions in history; so the business cycle can be of different lengths, but a decade seems to be about par for New Zealand. Money maestro Sharon Zollner believes the Kiwi rock star should keep producing the hits, unless it's forced to quit the stage, due to international pressure. Typically, the New Zealand business cycle doesn't actually die of old age; it gets killed off by some sort of negative shock, typically from offshore. (BELL CLANGS REPEATEDLY) Such a dire even threatened an early February this year as Wall Street got the wobbles, and so too, Kiwi economists. Certainly it caught everybody's attention. I guess in January we saw a lot of exuberance in 'global equities', I think would be the word. They started going exponential. And whenever you see that in equities, you've got to worry about the potential for a pullback, and that did arrive. Zollner says she's surprised how well the volatility has settled back down again. I thought, having woken up, that dragon might keep breathing fire for a while yet. But could it have been just a financial foreshock to a much larger quake, with the number eight of 2018 pulling the strings? # Holy moly, eight balls of fur! # There is some evidence to suggest that the number eight is indeed an unlucky one for the New Zealand economy. Since World War II, economic downturns have struck on years with eights on them, in each decade, except the 1950s. There have been recessions in 1948 that saw a 15.6% loss in GDP; 1968; a 12% loss in 1978; the stock market crash in 1987; 1998; and the Global Financial Crisis in 2008. So, 10 years on from our last recession, the question must be asked. Are we due? There are imbalances in the New Zealand economy at the moment. In many ways the economy is in better position than it was 10 years ago, say in 2007, where we really had gone on a bit of a bender in terms of borrowing ` households and firms ` and we saw the current account deficit had blown out to over 8% of GDP. But there is something else to be fearful of ` something banking giant Goldman Sachs calls 'the world's most overvalued'. The housing market is New Zealand's key vulnerability, and we can't deny that. House price-to-incomes are very very high, in Auckland in particular, and household debt is at record highs, as the proportion of household disposable income. So even in the best-case scenario, that means we have actually brought forward some consumption from the future and that we will have to pull our heads in a bit. So what does Zollner make of the hateful eight? I think it is coincidence. As I mentioned earlier, the New Zealand cycle tends to last about 10 years. The number eight is actually supposed to be a lucky one; it hasn't been for the last 20 years; but if we were going to follow that pattern this year, then things would have to turn around pretty rapidly, cos at the moment, things are actually looking pretty good. But as we've seen in the past, things can turn to custard quickly, leaving our economy's fate seemingly in the lap of the gods. (PIANO KEYS CLATTER) And still to come, we put your questions to David Seymour in our Ask Me Anything segment, and you really did ask him some strange ones. But first our panel ` trade expert and lobbyist, Charles Finney from Saunders Unsworth; Maori Party co-leader Marama Fox; and the head of Greenpeace New Zealand, Russel Norman. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` Charles Finny, a trade expert and a partner at government relations firm Saunders Unsworth; Maori Party co-leader Marama Fox; and Russel Norman, executive director of Greenpeace and, of course, former Green Party co-leader. Good morning to you all. Kia ora. Can I start with you, Charles? David Parker gave the new version of the TPP ` too many letters to remember ` a 7 out of 10. Is he right with that score? I think he's perhaps being a little hard on himself. I think the actual agreement was a good agreement for New Zealand. Obviously the value of it has diminished a little bit with the United States not being part of the new deal, but we have preserved fully all the market access commitments to the remaining 10 other parties than New Zealand. It's particularly important for us in Japan, where we were losing market share because Australia negotiated a free trade agreement. We're able to move to a position of parity with Australia, and the other threat there, of course, is the EU has negotiated with Japan as well. So, no, we've got a good deal there, and obviously there are some people concerned about elements like the investor state dispute settlement and that's been sort of watered down. And I think he's done a very good job talking to his caucus, and also he's brought New Zealand First on-board, which is quite an achievement. Marama, he still didn't meet, by his own count` Even by his own count, he says he met 4.5 out of five of his bottom-line benchmarks for signing this deal. So is he selling it politically? Is it a backtrack, or...? Oh, absolutely. It's a flip-flop on the Labour Party to turn around and then say, 'Here is a wonderful deal now,' when, essentially, the changes that have been made have been brought in by Canada, not by us, and that the changes are merely an appendix to what was there originally. So I don't see that there are any significant changes that now makes this the great thing that they say it is when New Zealand First hated it and we hated it. I sat on all of the protest marches and debates about it, right alongside them. But to get it across the line, they have completely flip-flopped, and it feels quite hypocritical. Why are they doing it, then? Because, as they say, they never really believed that they were ever going to stand up against it. They had a few people within their party who hated it and jumped up and down to get votes, but all the while they secretly believed that they should have gone ahead with it, and now they're in government, they are. Russel, he was really unequivocal on the Greens. The Greens' position is they still do not support this agreement, despite the changes; they're still concerned about whether it's good for our sovereignty and also control of our natural resources. David Parker unequivocal ` they're ill-informed about it. I mean, he was saying he disagreed, to be generous to him. He was saying that he had a different opinion about it, right? And so the difference of opinion is this. Investor state dispute settlement clauses are still there. They are watered down, I agree. The right to sue the government. For private corporations to sue the government if the government does something that private corporations ` foreign private corporations ` don't like. And we know that in Germany, which was the initiator of these clauses globally, the German government now has turned against these clauses, and the reason is that they got sued by a coal-fired power station-owning company because Germany tried to take action on climate change, so that, in fall, sued the German government. The German government doesn't like ISDS clauses any more because they realise it's a restriction on their right to regulate on climate change. Now David Parker would argue that he's done as much as he can to water down the clauses. I just say let's get rid of these clauses; they are so outdated, they are so antidemocratic, and they are big problems if you need to regulate. So he shouldn't be signing something with this clause still in it? No. I mean, my view is that while you've got ISDS in there, it is a huge problem in terms of the right to regulate. He was one of Labour's MPs` I mean, Marama has touched on it. He's one of Labour's MPs who protested about the TPP in the lead-up to the election. How comfortable do you think he looks selling this deal that he's gonna sign to the public, Charles? I think he has looked at all the advice from officials, and I think he has been reassured by what they have advised. Also he's been able to pull off this really heavy restriction on the right to buy existing houses for foreigners. That was a real issue of concern. He's come up with a very smart fix in that space. Just on that, Charles, do you think that shows that there was more negotiating space to begin with than what the previous government claimed? Because they said, 'Oh, no, this is impossible.' I mean, David made that point, right? It turns out it was possible. So what do you make of that? It's like, there was a lot more negotiating space than we were being told. The previous government did actually put a clause in the New Zealand position to allow a restriction. What Labour was saying towards the election campaign was they want a ban. What we've got right now is something that is actually not a ban, because it can still apply, but it all depends on what ministers decide at the end of the day, so it's quite a smart fix, but both sides were actually saying the same thing. Whether National actually had thought about being able to use the same mechanism, I don't know. On a different subject, with his other hat on, we talked about laws that are in breach or conflict with our human rights there. He's going to work on a provision to send that legislation back to parliament. Going far enough, Russel, do you think? I don't think so. I really do think that the courts should be able to strike down legislation which is a fundamental breach of our fundamental rights. All it's going to do is go back to parliament, and parliament will go, 'Yeah, we passed it and we still support it' ` taking votes away from prisoners. Surely there should be someone that can say, 'There are some fundamental human rights which parliament can't overturn.' That's right. I mean, why do we have the Human Rights Commission? Why do we have a court system if it can't debate the veracity of the law? We've got Maori seats that can be turned over with a vote of 50% of parliament, but a general seat can only be turned over with a vote of 75%. Is that a human rights breach? Are we going to test that? We've got so many little laws in our system that breach human rights, and we should be able to just go and say, 'That's enough,' and, actually, a government who comes in should accept that that's wrong and change it without having to go to the court. But I don't think it goes far enough at all. All right. We need to leave it there, but do stay with us. We'll be back after the break. Welcome back. You're with Newshub Nation and our panel. We spoke to Simon Bridges, new leader of the National, there. He talks about generational change. Is it really generational change? I didn't think I heard anything that suggested any kind of radical change. Well, he did seem to emphasise an increasing focus on environmental issues. That was a really strong theme to what he was saying. And I guess he is, what, 41 or... 41, 42. ...and Bill's about my age, so there is a bit of a gap there. So there is definitely change. There is a difference between age and being modern, though, isn't there? Being young and being modern. But let's see his reshuffle. I think that's going to be quite telling. I do think Simon has been playing the long game, though, too. He's been a great support to Bill and John and the team. And he's not ever questioned or debated or pushed things along on his own agenda too harshly. He's endeared himself to the new, incoming backbenchers, or at least that's what I observed when I was there. And it's that new, big influx of backbench movement coming into the National Party that actually do want to see a change. I think Mark Mitchell might have been a step too far. But I think Simon Bridges is that happy medium for the caucus, and remember that it's the caucus that choose. Well, we talked about green issues, and he has signalled that it's a possibility that he would explore working with the Greens. Has he got the cred, Russel? I found it very interesting. I mean, I can't` He's talking about being forward-looking and modern. I mean, he is New Zealand's leading advocate for the oil industry. Essentially, I mean, when he was in government, he was their champion, right? And so assuming this government ends Simon Bridges' oil exploration programme, right, then is he going to go into the next election saying, 'I'm going to restart the oil exploration programme?' He said, 'Environment and climate change is my issue. I'm forward-looking, 'but I want to go back to the 19th and 20th century and start looking for oil,' right. It just doesn't make any sense. That's a big leap, though, because you're assuming that this government will end it, and they've clearly indicated that they're not going to end it. They're gonna continue exploration. They're gonna continue drilling and mining and all those things. So I don't think that it's a great big step. Well, we'll see. If they do, right, and this is our nuclear-free moment, so obviously there's a lot of political pressure around this at the moment ` it's a big deal ` and if it were to happen, then where does Simon Bridges sit, then? Cos he is the oil guy, right? So how can he be forward-looking on the central issue of the new generation which is climate change if he's the oil guy? It's a great theoretical question, but we're losing the debate with France and the steps that they've made. They're banning plastic cups, banning plastic plates. And oil exploration. Yeah, and oil exploration. A sunset clause on petrol and diesel, and only electric cars by 2030. I mean, we are well losing this debate, and I would hold the Greens, New Zealand First and Labour to account first, because he'll never go back if they make the brave change to take us forward. I think that's true. I agree with that. And if they do that, then that will change the direction of this country and will provide global leadership on climate change, which we desperately need right now. Let's go. Charles, his point there` Yeah, I'm with you. (CHUCKLES) The point that Simon Bridges makes is that the Greens and Labour are apart in their environmental policies, yet they still manage to work together. He points out that there is still drilling under this government despite what the Greens feel and think about that. So is it possible that you could have those two ` National and the Greens ` finding some middle ground? Well, yeah, there's huge crossover in places like Auckland and Wellington between people deciding to vote National or Green. They often don't go Labour. So in Oriental Bay, there are a lot of people who would normally be National voters who vote Green cos they're concerned about the environment, and National knows that, and there is something that can be done there. It surprised me that we actually didn't see more of a discussion prior to the formation of this government between National and the Greens, because there were things that could be done. The Kermadec ocean sanctuary is an example. National and Green had the numbers and have the numbers to get that sanctuary through if they want to. On a different topic, Marama, he didn't want to say` well, he was hedging his bets about whether the Maori Party` he'd like to see the Maori Party come back into the Parliament. Well, we saw Bill English in his valedictory speech, he went out saying that he thought it was a mistake that the Maori Party had been kicked out. I don't whether it's just Simon Bridges saw you in the green room or what the situation was, but he still wants to phase out Maori seats. Um, well, I did have a word with Simon in the green room after he came off, and I said, 'Simon, you could've said at least bring Marama Fox back in.' (CHUCKLES) I was joking. The thing is` But they need friends. Well, they do, but it's like the Greens. The Greens could go with National or they could go with Labour if they don't go out campaigning saying, 'We're never gonna do it.' The Maori Party have never said we're going to be linked to National forever but I do think that Bill was right in saying that it is a loss to our politics, and, actually, in his valedictory, I think the thing that he achieved most was bringing the Maori Party into government and Whanau Ora. It was a new way of looking at things about having a voice that's not hamstrung inside the policies of your own party, and I think Simon will know that that's the right direction, but he's just not gonna go out there two and a half years out from the election and tell us who his coalition potential partners are gonna be. OK, let's do a round robin. Who thinks he's going to be the leader post 2020 election? (CHUCKLES) Depends on the result. Marama? I think the potential for him to be the leader post 2020 is there. But there is definitely a new way and a new` Even if he loses? Mm, probably not. But there is a new wave of Nats coming in who like to have` to speak te reo, who like a green environment and want to have a bigger heart in their party. Very quickly, Russel ` yes or no? Will he be there post 2020? I agree with Charles. It totally depends on the result. Right. Let's go now to the leader of the ACT Party, who is a budding dancer, apparently, David Seymour. Well, he sat down to answer your questions in our Facebook Live Ask Me Anything session this week. We had a huge number of questions submitted for him, and our digital reporter Finn Hogan asked as many of them as he could. He began by asking Mr Seymour why he hadn't been more vocal about his views on medical marijuana. I think the number one issue with cannabis law reform is ` how do you stop really young people from smoking it? Because, you know, if you're into science, then, actually, it can really destroy your brain development as you're younger. Older people, it's less harmful than alcohol. I think the right position to take is to follow what Canada and Colorado and California are doing and just ask ourselves some hard questions. Say, well, you know, if they have less crime, fewer people in prison, less young people getting access to it because legitimate businesses have an incentive not to sell to minors, you know, if all of that turns out to be true, then I think New Zealand should follow suit and legalise. So let's put a stake in the ground and say, 'We're going to do this on the evidence, 'and we're going to watch what our friends around the world in Canada, Colorado, California ` 'all the C places ` Washington, Oregon, let's watch what they do, 'and if they get better outcomes, then we've got to overcome any prejudices people may have 'and follow the evidence.' In the meantime, I voted for the government's medical marijuana bill even though I think it's a cop-out. It's a step. And I voted for the Green Party bill. It's just a pity Chloe Swarbrick didn't work harder on getting the votes for that, cos I think it could've been a really good bill. From our illustrious host, Lisa Owen, she wants to know ` would you trade 10% of your intelligence for 20% better looks? (LAUGHS) Well, I don't know. I would never ask that question of Lisa, cos I think she's already perfect. OK, so what ratio would work for you? 10% trading for 30%, 40%, 50%? Oh, well, look, I mean, with the looks, you're starting on such a low base. You'd basically have to double it. OK, 100%. So you'd trade 10% of your intelligence for 100% better looks? Oh, no, cos then I'd be really dumb and still not that good looking. So, no, it's just not a good deal for me. Do you describe yourself as a feminist? Yeah, absolutely. I think we should have equality of the sexes. I don't know many people who are against that. I think what's happened with feminism is that it's sort of taken a few other strains that not everyone wants to sign up to. OK, so follow on from that, Freddie wants to know ` why do you think it's OK to wear a shirt that likens women to cattle? Well, I actually don't, but I don't think that's the point. I can understand people say, 'OK, you're a politician, you get your picture taken 'with a woman's body with a cow head on it, therefore you're degrading women, 'you're comparing women to meat, etc, and it's sexist.' But there are a couple of points about that. Number one ` this is the Meat Club; they idolise meat. They don't see it as demeaning to compare a person to meat. So that's point number one. Point number two is that they have a male version of the T-shirt. And so people say to me, 'Oh, it's demeaning,' then I say, 'It's not demeaning 'because, actually, they worship meat, they see it is a positive thing.' Then they say, 'Oh, well, it's sexist, cos you're only choosing women.' And then I say, 'Well, yeah, but they've got a man one too.' And they say, 'Oh, but you shouldn't demean men either.' And I'm like, 'Yeah, but it wasn't demeaning, right.' So people get really haired up in this, but at the end of the day, the Meat Club has the right to make their T-shirts. I as a politician am never gonna refrain from going out in the community and getting my picture taken with people that are doing stuff. And, you know, I'm not gonna cower in fear because some people are gonna wildly misinterpret the whole situation and then try and beat me up with it. Right, but can you understand that how someone, particularly a woman, would find that shirt offensive? Oh, absolutely. I think people, you know, if they take it out of context, they can find it offensive. But I don't think we can all go through our lives trying to avoid doing anything that might remotely offend people. Actually at some point, you've gotta live. Well, next week we'll have National MP and one-time leadership hopeful Mark Mitchell in the hot seat. Do send us your questions via Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or email. The info is on your screen right now. But that is all from us for now. If you didn't catch all of the show, you can watch now on Three+1, and we will see you again next weekend. Thanks for joining us. Captions by Desney Shaw, Glenna Casalme and Madison Batten. www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018