Today on Newshub Nation ` Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern tells us why no one's lost their jobs over the poor handling of sexual assault allegations at a Young Labour summer camp. Plus, we ask her about New Zealand's response to the nerve gas attack on a former Russian spy in Britain. And not guilty by reason of insanity ` we look at why victims are calling for a change to how the justice system treats mentally ill offenders. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018 Kia ora, good morning. I'm Lisa Owen. Welcome to Newshub Nation. It's been a tough week for the government, with allegations of sexual assault and underage drinking at a Young Labour summer camp. The prime minister admits a multitude of mistakes were made by Labour party officials, who failed in their duty to protect those involved. So I asked her why no one has lost their job over it. Our focus in the immediate aftermath, of course, has been making sure that we put the right mechanisms in place, but yes, we absolutely accept mistakes have been made and from a range of different people involved. But, look, if everyone who ever made a mistake in their job was sacked, we wouldn't be left with many people left, particularly in politics. So particularly within the party, there's culpability, and that's being accepted, but right now, as I say, our focus is on the young people and getting right the next steps going forward. Mistakes are about size and the ongoing nature of them. Andrew Kirton, the party's general secretary, was involved in this mainly after the fact, so why does he deserve to keep his job? And, look, as we've clearly identified and as Andrew himself accepts, the major mistake on his part was the delay in putting support around those young people. Of course, though, there were elements of this issue that weren't even raised with him directly; they went to other members of Young Labour, and so again, it is complex. That's why we've put in place an inquiry, a piece of work to make sure ` where did we fall down? How do we stop it happening in the future? But he was brought in two or three days after the fact, and he is the one responsible for these young people not getting the help that they needed. Do you think he deserves to stay in the job? Yeah, he sought for contact to be made with those young people and was not made aware when they responded, because that was dealt with by another party. Now, there's` We could, of course, say, 'Look, 'we should've dealt with that from the beginning.' The party should've been involved from the beginning. We've acknowledged all of the places where we have made mistakes, but I think it's only fair that right now, we focus on the young people; secondary consideration for us is then making sure that we take responsibility in all of the areas where mistakes have been made. But you're only taking responsibility in your words, not in your actions. So are you happy to keep him as general secretary of the party? I'm asking you personally ` are you happy with him there? Yes, I am, because mistakes have been made. Andrew accepts the mistakes have been made. I'm sure I will make mistakes in the way that I continue to manage this on an ongoing basis too, but we will do our best. But as I say, I've seen the timeline. I've seen some of the issues at play. Mistakes were made in more than one area. So nobody's going to be held accountable for those mistakes? Sacking isn't the only way someone is held to account. Of course` So what are you going to do to hold them to account? There's a public accountability here, and we're standing up here and saying we've done wrong by these young people, and they are the most important people in this whole issue. So that's it as far as you're concerned? No, Lisa, because as I've said, we haven't finished the work that we're undertaking. We've brought in a barrister who we believe has the expertise to undertake the investigation into what happened ` keeping in mind we also have the police work going on ` but also to look at what happened with the organisation of the camp. The Labour Party itself didn't organise this event, and that was also something that needs to change. They've been running for about, I'd say from my memory, about 15 years. They've always been run by Young Labour, but they've been party-wide, so it's not always just been young people who attend. And I understand all of that, Prime Minister, but if the barrister suggests that Andrew Kirton was lacking in his actions, will you shift on that and see him gone? I need to wait until I see that report. But you're leaving that option open? I've already said that mistakes were made, and I've already said that mistakes were made by Andrew, so that's not in question. But we do need to make sure we do this properly. No, are you leaving the door open to the fact that this report may come back and it may say that he made significant mistakes; are you leaving the door open for him to lose his job? I'm not predetermining that till I see the report, but what I have also seen ` he has, of course, had criticism on a number of areas, but also people who've worked in the sexual-abuse space who've said on some elements, he did absolutely the right thing. So it does go both ways. OK. Cabinet Minister Megan Woods knew about this; Liz Craig was there. Neither of them raised concerns with you, so what do you think that says about their judgement? No, again, actually, when it comes to the message that went to Megan, she did the right thing by going straight to the party to make sure that action was being taken. Didn't mention it to you, though. But again, that's political management. And, look, we can talk about whether or not a no-surprises policy should've kicked in at that point, but actually, the more important point was working alongside the party to get the support for these young people. That was more important than political management. So you think that those two MPs exercised good judgement in their handling of this? What about Liz Craig? Well, again, Liz wasn't aware of the issues at play, so I'm not going to place any culpability there. She was, though, photographed with a group of young people, some of them minors, drinking alcohol. I mean, has she met your expectations of how an MP should act? Again, no one has actually established that that's the case. She was around young people, yes. We haven't established that any of those underage people were in fact consuming. That's for the inquiry to look at. But ultimately` Has she met your expectations for how you expect your MPs to act? I haven't seen any evidence to suggest otherwise. Of course, she retired early to bed, because of what she had to do the next day. There were other supervisors there. All of this actually, though, assumes that things went according to plan. They didn't. Of course they didn't. We have young people who were harmed; we had young people ` even if they weren't consuming alcohol ` who were around it. That's not OK. Do I place blame with one person in attendance? No, I do not. We as a whole have to accept accountability for this and make sure that we don't run events like that in the future. OK, well ` and you've raised this ` your critics would say that your party intentionally insulated you from the political fallout of this. I mean, what other plausible explanation is there for not telling you a dot about it? I don't agree with that. Of course, as Prime Minister, I am advised of issues of a significant magnitude every single day. It's my job to know these things. A decision was made ` and we can debate rightly or wrongly` This is of a significant magnitude. Oh, and I'm not questioning that, but a decision was made around making sure that the young people's interests were put first. There was advice around not widening the circle, and those in senior leadership in the Labour Party` They were giving you plausible deniability. Let me finish. And those who are in senior leadership in the Labour Party all knew about it, and that was correct. So we can have a discussion about whether or not I should've known, but for me, the most important thing was what we were doing for those young people. That's where we failed, and that's a more significant failure than political management. I understand that your primary concern is these young people; nobody is questioning that. What we're asking about is the motivations... No. ...of your party in not telling you. It was to give you plausible deniability, was it not? Absolutely not. I push back on that suggestion very hard. That implies that our number-one concern here was political management. That is not fair, and it is not correct. OK. Since the summer camp and these alleged sexual assaults surfacing, how many other complaints have surfaced related to Labour events or activities? I'm aware of` I believe that I've seen one on social media that's been discussed, and what we're seeking to do is make sure that there's a mechanism for anyone else, regardless of whether it's historic or not, to be able to have the ability to contact someone they feel safe contacting, with experience, to look into that. OK, so in the past 10 years, are you aware of any allegations or predatory or inappropriate sexual behaviour within the Labour Party? I've heard some have been raised, as I say, and the fact that we cannot, hand on heart` Are you personally aware of any situations? Only those that I've seen reported on but not personally. OK. Well, let's move on to an entirely different topic. Britain is out kicking 23 Russian diplomats, aka spies. Now, this is over the nerve-gas attack in Salisbury, and things are really ratcheting up. The US has issued sanctions; this is over interference with elections. So are we going to join any further sanctions in relation to Russia if we are asked? Yeah, and, obviously, we're working very closely with the UK and other partners. We've joined with them in saying these actions are repugnant. We've made strong statements in The Hague over it as well. The use of nerve agents` But what about actual sanctions? The use of nerve agents is an illegal international act. So at the moment, it is a matter of keeping in close contact with our partners to see what actions they're taking. At the moment, they've isolated down in the UK and dealing with them at an individual diplomat level, but it is a matter of making sure that we're in constant contact as those decisions are made. So at the moment, you're not ruling out the possibility of expulsions from New Zealand? We haven't ruled anything in or out at this stage, because, as we say, we're working closely with our partners, and this is an ongoing matter, but we've been very clear this is an illegal act; it is a repugnant act. What would it take for you to expel a Russian diplomat from New Zealand? There is still a bit of process and investigatory work being undertaken by the UK, which is why we're staying in close contact with them, but as I say, I'm not ruling anything in or out at this stage. So, what does this all mean for your government's ambitions of a free-trade deal with Russia? So, what the coalition agreement said was that we would strive to work towards an agreement. There was work being undertaken by the last government. That was suspended in 2014 over the issues in the Ukraine. They have not restarted. What we cannot` I've spoken with the Minister of Foreign Affairs` They haven't restarted? No. Because Winston Peters said he had discussions in Manila with Russian Foreign Affairs officials about this. No, they have not formally restarted. OK. So, I've had a conversation with the Minister of Trade and Export Growth, the Minister of Foreign Affairs; we are all deeply concerned. We all agree that Salisbury changes things, and so it is too early at this point to say when or if those talks will restart. OK, Winston has used this phrase; he said it's 'somewhat complicated'. That does not seem like a definitive ruling-out, and he said past events saw conversations continue. So are you guys on the same page with this? Absolutely. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has also said this act was repugnant, that it was a violation of international law, and he himself has said this week that it is too early to say, under the current circumstances we find ourselves in with Salisbury, to say if and when those negotiations and talks would restart. OK, so you were totally fine with it before the incident of the nerve-gas poisoning, despite the fact that Russia has annexed Crimea, is implicated in downing a plane over the Ukraine? What we'd always talked about was the fact that the EU and the UK have continued to trade... with Russia. Keeping in mind the sanctions, it is possible to trade within them, and that's what they had done. In fact, Boris Johnson was here not so long ago talking about the $5 billion worth of trade that the UK had undertaken in that time as well. So you were fine with it? What the Minister of Foreign Affairs had always raised was that issue ` that you can act within the sanctions, but there were other elements of trading that was going on within the EU and the UK whilst fulfilling the obligations of the sanctions. Right. So you were perfectly fine with it despite Russia's actions in Crimea, despite their human-rights record and despite a missile of theirs being used to shoot down a plane? As I say, what we were proposing was not inconsistent with the UK or the EU. We were not proposing to ignore the sanctions that are in place, and that is a very important point. Understand that, but the British High Commissioner has said that the UK is extremely supportive of free-trade deals between the EU and New Zealand and the UK and New Zealand. But she has said that New Zealand would need to ` and I'm quoting her here ` 'reach conclusions about compatibility and prioritisation with regards to a deal with Russia.' So what do you think that means? Because that sounds like she is sending a diplomatic message that it's an either/or choice. And I'm saying that there's no need to do that, as` But do you accept that that's what that sounds like from her? She's saying that in the context of Salisbury, and as I've said, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Trade and I are deeply concerned. Salisbury changes things. She's not just saying that in the context of Salisbury, because at that same time, she reeled off the list that I've just referred to before. And as I say, Lisa, Salisbury changes things. It is now too early to say if and when. OK, do you think it's embarrassing or potentially damaging to our relationship with the EU and the UK to even have this agreement, this FTA in the coalition deal? Is it time to get rid of it? Again, in the coalition deal, it simply makes reference to working towards something. Yeah, but you don't work towards something to not achieve it, do you? The goal is to get it. As I've said, of course, we've got to take into account the circumstances that we're in. The Minister of Foreign Affairs himself has said what's happened here is repugnant. We're responding by saying right now it is too early to say. But the point that he's made historically, prior to these events has simply been that we've had the EU, the UK operating within the sanctions but still trading $5 billion worth of trade, and that was a fairness point he raised. But the more important point here, Lisa, is Salisbury has changed things. We have to, of course, be mindful of the current environment we're in. We are, so you're now asking me historic questions. No, the thing is` what I'm asking you is ` I understand what you're saying about the EU and their trading arrangements, but this all comes down to your ethical and moral radar, does it not? And last week on the show, Mr Peters said a lot of countries that we're dealing with would not survive a serious human-rights issue or gender-equality issue or ethnic issues debate, and we still trade with them, he says. And` And I'll happily repeat for the third time that he has also said that this is a violation of international law, and now as a consequence, Salisbury has changed things, and it is just too` It's changed things for the moment. But surely, that's the most important point. It has fundamentally changed things. It is too early now to have any of these conversations, given the serious international situation that we are in. Yes, but you still haven't taken it off the table altogether. You are saying Salisbury has stalled things for the moment, but it's still there despite this other record of Russia's behaviour. I don't know how I could be more clear than say that it is now too soon to even have that conversation. We are in the middle of a significant international issue. Our focus is on making sure that we respond appropriately to that. What is not appropriate right now is to be having a conversation about potential FTAs in the future. We've said that very clearly. All right, Prime Minister, we're going to take a short break. We'll be back in a moment. Do stay with us. Welcome back. You're with Newshub Nation, and we're talking this morning with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. In a very short period of time, you're gonna have to make some enormous decisions about spending. So let's start with Waikeria Prison. Do you need it? You need it, don't you? Yeah, I actually want to visit Waikeria myself, because, of course, there have been a number of reports of the state of that prison, and what has been raised is whether or not it is possible to bring it up to the standard it needs to be through remedial work or whether or not it needs a replacement. So this is a decision that the government's currently considering. What's your feeling? I do wanna go and see it myself and so that I can get a better grasp of whether or not it is possible to, through that remedial work, make sure it's a place that is adequate, that's able to provide decent rehabilitation. I have visited a number of prisons over my political career, so I hope I have enough context to be able to make that decision. But do you want the extra beds? Well, at the moment, it's not a question of want. You know, when we came into office, we had not only an existing record-high prison population, but a projection for an ongoing increase despite the plateauing of our crime rate. So I'd have to say one of the most difficult issues that I find that we're grappling with is the issue of this out-of-control prison population. So you've got to put them somewhere. Yes. So you might be saying that you're potentially looking at this because of the conditions of the old prison there, but you actually need space. So either way, are you going to have to go ahead and build it? But we have to make a long-run decision as well. Do you wanna be in a position where you're building extra capacity when, as I say, the crime rate tells us that actually we don't have an increasing problem, but we do have an increasing prison population? So that says there are other issues at play. I know, for instance, because I've sat in on parole-board hearings where they have not released prisoners who are ready for release because there's no housing. So there's a whole range of other remedial action we could take that might be able to manage this issue that isn't building an enormous number of extra beds. So I hear what you're saying there, but actually, the lion's share of the prison population increase is related to remand prisoners not getting bail. It is. Yes. So if you don't build this prison, are you going to have to loosen parole and bail laws? Yeah, and I think what I would make sure that everyone's really clear on ` we are not making justice-policy decisions based on bed capacity. We're making justice-policy decisions on what delivers the best outcomes in terms of safety for the community and reducing reoffending and improving rehabilitation. Those are the basis of the decisions. We can't have one drive the other; it needs to be the other way round. On bail, the point that I've certainly tried to raise is ` the last government made changes to our bail laws that they expected would change remand numbers by about 250. It's been over a thousand. So it's done something that they didn't anticipate, so surely we should go back and have a look at what's happened there. Yeah. So, when you say go back and have a look, are you signalling to the New Zealand public that you are going to loosen bail and parole laws? Not yet. We need to make sure that, as I say, we're driven by making decisions that improve outcomes. What Andrew Little wants to do as minister of justice is have that conversation amongst a whole raft of other potential areas of work. Because I think if he had that rational conversation that says, 'Look, this is where crime sits, but this is where our projected prison population is going,' people would say, 'Well, let's look at that and see why that's happening and what all of the drivers are.' Well, here's the thing ` you wanna reduce the prison population 30% in 15 years, so what are your interim targets? How much are you going to reduce the prison population by this term? We haven't set those yet, but we have put in place some of the planning and policy development work we want to do in quite a transparent way as well, but we have not yet set our interim targets, keeping in mind, of course, that any changes that you make, we're having conversations now, but the immediate issue that we faced is what to do about Waikeria, so that's been where a lot of our focus has been. So can you not tell us now whether you're gonna go ahead with it? No, I cannot. We haven't made a final decision yet. But even the fact that you're contemplating building this prison` A replacement. Yeah, well, it's going to be bigger, and it's going to cost a billion dollars-plus. We're still considering all of that. OK. The fact that you're considering it, doesn't that fly in the face of everything you've said publically? No. Your commitment to Maori at Waitangi ` even considering it, are you not betraying your ideals? No, because that's the point that I'm making is that Waikeria, as it's been set out to me, is a prison that's not in a fit state to continue running. So the question we have in front of us is a replacement prison. So if we were talking about building an extra one that was in addition to Waikeria, of course, but actually, what we have here is the question of A ` do we need a replacement, and then B, of course, the last government wanted a huge expansion on the top of that. Those are all issues that at the moment we are grappling with. But what I wanna be really clear on, do I wanna build another prison? No. Do I want extra bed capacity? No. But am I being told that if we had an earthquake tomorrow, we wouldn't have a place to put prisoners? Those are all the things that we're having to grapple with, and that's what government has to face. OK. Well, the Finance Minister has indicated that it's time for the likes of teachers and nurses to be paid more. Now, teachers are asking for about 16% over two years. How much would that cost us? Well, that's a negotiation that's underway. No, but the 16% ` how much would that cost us? I haven't costed that; nor have I costed the 3%, the 5% ` the multitude of options that may generate from that negotiation. It is a negotiation, and so I'm not going to hold it publically here, but what we are very aware of as a government is we're facing that with, obviously, negotiations with midwives, nurses, teachers, police, and we are having to try and factor that in in the budgeting that we're doing. So my point is, can we afford that big, long list? That's what the budget process is for, and that's what we're trying to prepare for now. But can you afford to give all of those groups something? There's no doubt that we are in a constrained environment. We are. You know, we did say that we wanted to make sure that we had enough resources for the people in those sectors as well, so not only do we have the cost pressure of wages, but we have nurses working within DHBs who are facing significant deficit. So we have to deal with both, and that's what we're doing through the budget process. So who are your priorities? Of course, if you ask me who's more important, a nurse or a teacher, all of them, of course, Lisa. But at the moment, as I say, we're having to deal with that through the budget process. But the point is ` and I understand what you're saying, that they're both important, but you have a limited pool of money, and much has been made of that. So I'm trying to get an idea of where your priorities lie. So of those areas, where do your priorities lie? Services, and we did say that we wanted to rebuild health and education ` you know, the fact that we're not even meeting cost pressures. And so this budget, what I can tell you you'll see is us trying to rebuild services. So instead of large new policy announcements, it will be us trying to make sure that actually, the hospitals have what they need to perform the services people expect, that schools are actually being funded for the students in their doors. That's the kind of rebuilding we're having to do, and that's what the focus of the budget will be, keeping in mind we have those extra pay and wage rounds coming down the track as well. OK. You've made it a top priority to reduce child poverty; you wanna take it down from 15% to 5% in the next 10 years. And you've said that your families' package would be a major step towards that. You obviously know that Treasury has revised its calculations, yeah? Yeah, $88,000 was what we were thinking it was gonna help; now it's down to $64,000. So are you gonna have to stick more money into this? At this stage, that $5.5 billion over four years is the focus of that package. That will not change, and what doesn't change is that 384,000 families end up being on average $75 better off. That doesn't change. But your numbers aren't as good as they were before. Treasury's numbers tell us that it's not as good as they were before. And you've got goals of things that you wanna achieve, so how much focus is there going to be in the budget on this? What extra money have you got to throw it at? Because it looks like you're gonna need it. We don't. And I'll be very upfront and honest about that. We've put $5.5 billion into that families' package over four years. We did that early so it would come into place in July. But for now, that is the centrepiece of what we're doing. And as I say, it is the most significant boost to families on lower middle incomes that we will have seen in a decade. But at the same time, we also need to make sure that those families can access doctors' visits, they can access their schools, so we have to look at other services that aren't just about their wages. But there's no more money at the moment for that? This budget, you'll see the biggest focus was in that mini budget for families. Mm. So by the measures that you've set out, spending what you're spending, are you confident that you're still gonna meet these goals? I'm still focused on them, and they're not changing. Are you confident? I know you're still focused on it, but are you confident you're gonna reach them? Yes. They're 10-year goals, and they are ambitious, but yes. Yes, in this first round, we have an impact on child poverty. That's just one of the measures ` we have a few. But for housing cost, we will lift $64,000 according to Treasury. OK. But actually, what it's shown us is we have a lot of data issues we need to resolve. Right, which is obviously a separate issue. In terms of your debt levels, the government's debt levels, you're focused on lowering debt to 20% of GDP within five years of taking office. So would you be prepared to breach that limit in order to make your child-poverty targets? Again, I'm ambitious about reaching them without having to do that. It is a matter of priority. Yeah, but if it comes down to it ` and again, I'm trying to get a gauge of what your priorities are ` is it more important for you to be fiscally responsible or socially responsible? You're trying to imply that you can't do both, and that's something Labour's always pushed back against. For instance, when Labour was last in office, when we saw the biggest dent then in child poverty rates through Working For Families, we also had a really solid economic record. We have to be able to make sure we balance the books so that we have an economy that delivers for families as well. So these things aren't mutually exclusive. You have just said that you've got no more money at the moment to throw at child poverty. No, I'm gonna correct you there, because income is one measure; the work that we do around housing, health and education also affects child poverty. So that is unfair. OK. We're focused on incomes in the first package; next ` housing, health and education, which also has a significant impact on child poverty. So those are all still focuses for us. I go back to my original question ` would you be prepared to breach that cap in order to achieve the social policies that you feel are most important? We have already increased the amount of the timeframe to getting down to 20% longer than the last government so we could have a housing plan. So, Kiwibuild was one of the reasons we've said, 'Look, it's actually gonna take us longer to reduce our debt levels.' So you still would be prepared to push it out further if you need to? We already were pushing it out when we set the 20% at five years. We're confident we can do both. So that's a no, then ` you won't raise that debt level? You're asking me if I'll breach, and I'm saying no. Because we believe that we can do what we've set out to do. So you would ` I know you say you think you can achieve those things, but if you can't, then the debt cap is more important? No, keeping in mind we've made other choices, we canned tax cuts. You know, we've made decisions around the way that we orientate our spending that says, 'Actually, these things are priorities.' But so, at the same time, New Zealanders expect us to keep the books in balance too. So our belief is that we can do both of those things. OK. GDP growth for the last quarter 0.6% and for the year, 2.9%, but growth has still been driven by service industries and wholesale and retail trade, so consumption, and consumption fuelled by immigration, cos the immigration figures for the year ending January, we're still up there ` 70,000-plus net migration. So do you still plan to turn the tap down on migration, and when are you gonna do that? Of course, we were driven by whether or not we had the right policies on immigration. That was our starting point. It wasn't about setting a target, and then altering everything around that; it was about making sure` Well, Andrew Little did express a target at the time ` he said to drop it by 20,000 to 30,000 people. It is always an estimate of our policies. Our policies are still our policies on immigration. It's about matching skills. It's about making sure that students aren't exploited when they're here. We're working on it as we speak. When do you expect to make an announcement? Last time I spoke to our minister about it was probably a couple of weeks ago, and he was working hard on the policies there. Keeping in mind this has been a pretty busy government over the last four months, but he is working on those as we speak. So, are you prepared to sacrifice economic growth in order to cut immigration numbers? I don't agree that that will be the consequences of our policies at all. So, are you staking your reputation on the fact that our economic growth will remain stable even if you cut by the numbers that you're talking about? Yes, I am. Because when you think about some of the things we wanted to do, for instance, we acknowledged in the regions, they're saying that they're having difficulty matching labour and skills with the jobs that are available there. We're being responsive to that. They've said, for instance, that they had the risk of fruit dying on the ground, so we've increased the seasonal workers scheme to match that. We want to create a regionalised skills category so that we don't have this national blunt instrument that doesn't service their needs. If there is a genuine gap, we will fill it, but we also wanna train our domestic workforce. All right. I wanna move on to climate change ` your generation's nuclear-free moment, you said ` but the Climate Change Commission that's being set up, it's not binding. So isn't that a contradiction to your commitment to this issue? No, because we're legislating what we intend to do. Winston Peters' coalition deal already ties your hands about agriculture and the ETS, though, doesn't it? In terms of? The amount that that they would have to pay. Yes. Bringing in agriculture would make us a world first. You know, I don't shy away at all from the commitments that we made. They're bold. But being a world first is a good thing, isn't it? Absolutely. Absolutely, and as I say, that's why I think we should be proud of that. What we're saying is that we were going to rely on the Climate Commission to phase that in for us. So the goals that we've set around being carbon-neutral, those will be legislated. The Climate Commission helps us budget out what it would take and make sure we're tracking towards the goals that we have and set interim goals along the way. But the commitment is clear. Are you committed to implementing whatever their recommendations are? Well, the point is, making sure that they give us external advice so that we know. But it's not mandatory for you to take things up, is it? We know we won't make our targets unless we do. So are you giving us a commitment that you would implement recommendations made by the Climate Commission? Certainly, they will be taken seriously, because they'll be public ` they're transparent. Seriously, but that's not a commitment. Lisa, I don't know if we could be more committed to this if we were trying. We've said that we want to be carbon-neutral, the first in the world to bring agriculture in, have renewable energy 100% by 2035. We're investing in the Pacific to try and support their climate commitments as well. Whether or not the Climate Commission put forward their recommendations, those are things there to help us get to our goal so that we don't fail. We're almost out of time. Can you give me a quick yes or no on this ` are you still going to be granting permits for oil and gas exploration? That's something that we're working on right now. I'm not gonna pre-empt that decision, but we're working on it. OK. Winston Peters is going to be prime minister soon. What's your key piece of advice for him as he steps into your shoes? Oh, look, Winston Peters does not need advice from me. But how closely do you expect to be consulted by him during this period? Well, we actually already have a very close consultative relationship, and I imagine that will just simply continue. Cos he said to us last week on the programme that he's taking over the job of prime minister; the decisions he makes will be based on the coalition agreement, fundamental understandings of those principles ` it shouldn't be difficult, he says. No, it won't be difficult, because as I say, we're in close contact already. So he's gonna make the serious calls on his own? We make serious calls together as it is, and I imagine that that will keep going. I think what Winston Peters is being mindful of is that I'll be on maternity leave and probably juggling a few things, but there's no doubt we'll stay in touch. All right. Thank you so much for joining us this morning, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. Thank you. And if you've got something to say about what you see on our show, let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram ` Or you can email us. The address is... And still to come ` we dissect the week's political news with our expert guests on today's panel. Plus ` why victims are calling for a change to insanity verdicts, saying the current law unfairly favours the offender. Every year in New Zealand, around two dozen people are found not guilty of crimes by reason of insanity. Their victims say that makes them feel like there's no real acknowledgement of the harm they've suffered, and they want to see the verdict changed. A warning ` this story from Mike Wesley-Smith contains some graphic images of injuries sustained in a violent assault. At the time of the attack, I was working as a psychiatric nurse in the community. It was New Year's Eve 2009, and this woman we'll call Sarah is visiting a patient in a community care facility. He met me at the door with a smile on his face, welcomed me in. She just had time to notice that the curtains had been drawn. Then a full-on, frenetic attack followed. He just pummelled my face until it was unrecognisable. He leant in close to me when I was doing that, and he said to me, 'I'm going to kill you, 'and I'll get off on psychiatric defence.' During the brutal attack lasting more 30 minutes, Sarah's eye socket was fractured. She was stabbed three times before the man threw a jug of boiling water over her. I sustained 30% burns down my face, neck, chest area, down my back and actually even on my legs. Sarah eventually managed to escape, and police soon arrived after being called to the scene. Her attacker was initially assessed as sane by a psychiatrist and held in custody. He was charged with attempted murder. The following court-ordered reports from three psychiatrists ` the man was found not guilty by reason of insanity and detained at a secure unit. Sarah says she never felt listened to through the court process. There's a lack of voice in being heard ` insignificant survivors. And it impacts really significantly on your ability to move through this and get well again. Sarah's experience as a survivor of feeling unrecognised by the legal system and by her attacker's verdict is not unique. The first two words are the words that stick in your mind, and that's 'not guilty'. Survivors say the system also fails to keep them adequately informed on the movements of people that killed their loved ones. No. We've had no official notification of any of his movements. It's trying to get blood out of a stone when you deal with mental health anyway. But as with many things in the justice system, those in power say it is a question of balance. We'll have to weigh up the individual's rights against what is needed for community safety. The main aim, of course, is treatment and the rehabilitation rather than their punishment. If there is one thing most people can agree on, it is this ` the insanity defence is complicated. So we asked Professor John Dawson, a mental health law expert, to explain what it involves. It has to be shown that the person has performed the relevant act, so attacking their victim. Then there is the mental element. It has to be shown that they intended to attack that particular person. And then, thirdly, there is the possibility that that person can make out a special insanity defence, to show that due to 'a disease of the mind, a recognised mental illness or intellectual disability, 'they did not understand the nature and quality of the act, 'or they did not understand that what they were doing was wrong.' If a person is acquitted on these grounds, they are sent to hospital. It depends on their clinical progress. They can be kept under very strict conditions, and sometimes for very lengthy periods of time. Now, it's important to realise that insanity acquittals make up a very small proportion of overall crime statistics. Between 2007 and 2017, 1324 people were charged with homicides, including murder and manslaughter. Of those, 21, or 1%, were ruled insane. But such numbers really mean nothing to people like Graham Moyle, whose brother Colin was killed in 2007 by a psychiatric patient called Matthew Ahlquist. WOMAN: His killer poured boiling water over him, bludgeoned him with a spade, then doused him with a flammable liquid and set him ablaze. And the offender, who had camouflaged himself in mud, sat on the step and waited for the police to arrive. Authorities later found Ahlquist had been released from a mental health facility without proper checks before he came into contact with Colin. Ahlquist was found not guilty on insanity grounds, a verdict Graham didn't understand. So he asked a detective for help. He told me to go and get Adam's 'On Law,' and look up the insanity defence, which I didn't find very useful. But since his brother's death, Graham's got to know the law very well, advising other families and campaigning for the reform of the current verdict wording ` 'not guilty by reason of insanity.' That verdict only works in favour of the offender. And it is completely abhorrent for a victim to have to listen to that. Graham wants the verdict changed to 'proven, but insane', which he says recognises the fact the defendant's physical actions caused the offence. I think it's a good compromise. It's a change supported by Sarah. To be attacked in that way, know someone wanted to take your life from you, and then to be acquitted? So that then sounds like it didn't exist. John Dawson, though, prefers the wording used in Canada. In Canada, they use the formulation, 'not criminally responsible due to mental illness.' That's a good formulation. He says this could be an additional verdict ` neither guilty nor not guilty, but one that addresses some concerns of survivors while ensuring a person receives the medical treatment they need. We asked the Justice Minister for his view. He says the proposed changes are worth looking at for survivors. Who will be grieving for that person and will feel that loss acutely for the rest of their lives. And you've got to get a balance that means that the person who has committed the offence, caused the death, if their health recovers, is able to get on with their lives as well. Another concern expressed by survivors is the information they're provided with about decisions to release people from mental health facilities. We are only entitled to know when he's on unescorted leave out of the facility that he's in. Tracey and Brian Marceau's daughter Christie was killed in 2011 by Ashkay Chand. A well-publicised case, Chand was acquitted on insanity grounds and is now a patient at the Auckland Mason Clinic. We found out last year... that he was on escorted leave. We had not been informed. He was allowed to go to the library, access the internet, which I find... not appropriate. Bryan Marceau says that they were especially concerned because their other daughter still lives in Auckland. She was really quite upset at the prospect that he could well be out. New Zealand's Director of Mental Health, Dr John Crawshaw, says a person's... He says decisions on leave have to be granted by either him or the minister of health. Under the current law, victims of certain offences have to be notified if a patient dies, escapes, is granted their first period of overnight unescorted leave, and when they are finally discharged from hospital. Dr Crawshaw also points out that serious reoffending by people acquitted on insanity grounds is rare. But Graham believes survivors should be notified every time a person is given leave and told the general area where they are released to. OK, this is the letter, Mike, that I received from the Mason Clinic in 2010 informing me that Mr Ahlquist had been granted unescorted leave. This is a result of him achieving and maintaining a level of stability. No... information about... what the unescorted leave means, where he's allowed to go. I found out that just months after he was acquitted, he was on escorted leave in a major city that I visit quite often. I know my recovery would have been really impacted if I'd run into him. But I had no right to know that. Look, I've heard examples of cases where victims, or families of victims, have found a person who caused the death of their loved one in the street. They didn't know about it. That is wrong. That shouldn't be happening. The Ministry of Health says the law will have to change before more information can be provided to survivors. They only just need to have a bit of compassion and a bit of empathy. I mean, the information that we want to know has got nothing to do with his privacy. No. It's just that we would like to know where this very, very dangerous individual is. Graham says that the changes he seeks aren't motivated by revenge or a desire for greater punishment. It changes nothing for the offender. The offender is still treated the same. They still have access to the same treatment they would have got. These survivors say they just want recognition of the harm that occurred and to prevent anyone else from getting hurt. The rights of both are important here. He has a right to recovery; so do I. But I haven't experienced much in the way of supporting mine. A lot for his. You know? So what I'm asking for is balance. Still to come ` Labour MP Louisa Wall delivers up a musical treat in our weekly Ask Me Anything session. But first, we catch up with our panel ` Ben Thomas, Susie Fergusson and Dave Cormack. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` RNZ's Morning Report presenter Susie Ferguson, PR consultant and former National Party press secretary Ben Thomas and former Green Party policy director Dave Cormack. Welcome to you all. Ben, we heard there from Jacinda Ardern. She has had, well, some issues this week with the Labour Party summer camps. Is it the first test of her leadership, really, and how has she done? It is a big test of her leadership, but I don't think that we should go down this path that she did in the interview where you try and divorce the substantive issue of what happened at those Young Labour camps, and in the aftermath, from what she called the 'political management'. I mean, political management conjures up this idea of House of Cards, blackmailing, cover-ups, manipulation. But really, political management is just making sure that everyone in an issue is taken care of, feels like they're being heard, looked after and supported so that nobody has a grievance coming out of it. Now, obviously, there was a big failure in that regard. That wasn't a failure of Jacinda Ardern's; that was a failure of Labour Party officials. And they very carefully tried to keep her out of it and inoculated and, as you said, with some plausible deniability. Which she denies categorically. She says that's not their motivation. Well, of course it's their motivation. I mean, as a high-ranking official or as a staff member or a government figure, you have a lot of power. You kind of speak with the voice of God, so to speak, and` and you don't keep your boss informed of everything that you're doing, and the trade-off for that is that they trust that you'll take care of issues like this, and the party has really fallen down for their leader in this respect. So, can I just jump in? I spoke to some people at the Sexual Abuse Prevention Network about this issue, cos I'm not comfortable talking about it; I don't know enough about it. And one of the things they said about telling the Prime Minister is this idea ` and the Prime Minister actually spoke about it ` of keeping the circle tight when it comes to these situations. Yes. And I'm not sure that Ben and I saw the same interview, because I don't think the Prime Minister did try to divorce the political management from the substantive issue. I think she exactly pointed out the point you just made, Ben, which I agree with, which is that people were the victims of sexual harassment and assault at these camps. And I think that the reporting has focused all on the political management, and we've lost sight of the fact that human beings were victims of a crime. But doesn't there come an inevitability, though, that because it was something that happened within a political party at a political event, there has to be political management as a result? It's not the only focus, but it is an inevitable part of this picture. But it's happening across industries. We're seeing it in the legal industry as well. And so it's not a political issue; it's an issue around men. It's predominantly men thinking that it seems to be OK to sexually harass people at various different events. But... But at the same time, so, if you look at` You're talking about the Russell McVeagh issue. That's an issue where, you know, what's happening is blood is being shed on predatory, largely older men and a kind of old boys network and holding those in power to account. But what we're actually seeing is a bit of a diversion into a kind of moral panic about young people drinking and maybe, you know` and having parties, which is what a lot of this is now focused on in terms of that political management. Because there's allegations of underage drinking. Should there have been kids drinking at a Young Labour camp? I think that's entirely the wrong thing to focus on. If there was mismanagement here, it happened at the point at which the victims came forward to Andrew Kirton of the Labour Party, and their concerns weren't adequately dealt with. They weren't given the support they needed, which seems increasingly to be the case ` albeit we're operating with imperfect information. Let's move on. Russia and Winston Peters, this idea of a free trade agreement ` I didn't hear the prime minister rule it out categorically there, Susie. She said many times ` it's too early at this point to say when or if those talks will restart. Is she hedging her bets? I was about to say it sounds like she's hedging her bets, to me. It seems like when you've got something that is as serious as the situation in Salisbury, which appears to be all the fingers of all the people, who are pointing in one direction, it does seem to be towards Russia. Interesting, of course, too, that it's the Russian presidential election this weekend. The timing is pretty critical. 'Election'. But I think it's one of those situations that you have to look at, and it is possible to do more than one thing at once. You don't have to say we have to wait and see what happens ` you can make decisions as they roll along. And I think that's a thing that is not happening in this situation that perhaps should be, when it appears to be the situation that it is. I'm wondering who's calling the shots here, because Winston Peters is the one who made all the comments to start with and kind of set the agenda, and then it seems the Prime Minister has come along afterwards to do damage control or manage the comments. So who's leading the charge, Dave? Well, I think you answered your own question ` the Prime Minister's got the final say. She is the ultimate boss, and she is in charge. And to me, the question is why it was even in the coalition agreement to begin with. Like, it seems a bizarre thing, to really ram home that you want a free trade agreement with Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus, given that they've sanctions from Europe and the rest of the world since 2014, when they annexed the Crimean Peninsula. And that, to me, is really baffling. And I think the Prime Minister has tried to take a firm stance on it, but obviously, it's in the coalition agreement, so that's a pretty tense topic. And it's also curious coming from New Zealand First, which has been traditionally very much more protectionist than it would appear to be now. Yep. We need to leave it there. Stay with us, though ` we'll be back after the break. Welcome back. You're with Newshub Nation and our panel. So, we had the Prime Minister on this morning, Ben, and I was asking her about whether she's prepared to spend more money to achieve social policies that she thinks are important, specifically whether she would breach that self-imposed cap of debt being 20% of GDP. And she was kind of saying, 'No, people expect the books to be balanced, 'that she still has to focus on that' ` right answer, do you think? Absolutely the right answer; not necessarily what would happen over the next three years. I mean, Labour absolutely want to spend more money. We heard Grant Robertson the other day talking about how, you know, we were billions short for the infrastructure we needed. And so you've got two options. One is to raise tax, which with the Tax Working Group year to report and given Sir Michael Cullen's recent comments, you wouldn't rule out. The other option is to borrow more and to break the debt ceiling of 20% that they've set themselves. Now, they won't happen in this budget. I suspect it will happen at some point. So things will get a bit elastic over time, you reckon? After you've spent a couple of years talking about your fiscal responsibility, it's kind of lodged in the public's mind. And then if you, sort of, gently, kind of, breach that, as long as the public is happy with what you're spending the money on, they'll pretty much give you a free pass there. We saw that with the National government talking about their fiscally neutral tax adjustments, which actually cost about a billion dollars a year, and there wasn't any kind of real furore about that. So, also, have they got enough money, Susie? Obviously, Steven Joyce previously had said there was an $11 billion hole, and Amy Adams doesn't seem to be backing away from that, although she doesn't put a number on it. That's a long list of things that the Prime Minister has to achieve ` nurses, teachers' pay, mental-health workers. Do the numbers add up? Well, some of those increases that people seem to be going for, like the teachers and 16% that was talked about in the interview ` that's a pretty big increase for a pretty large workforce. It'll be really interesting to see where they do finally settle at ` not just the teachers, but all of the other people that are going for the various increases. Mm. It felt to me a little bit like this was trying to do a balancing act between having your cake and eating it, and at the same time, trying to kick it down the road a little bit so that you don't have to actually have to deal with it right now. They might have to deal with some of it in May, and like Ben was saying, they'll deal with it across the years, rather than dealing with it all right now. Because you do have to give that sense of that fiscal responsibility, which they made a great lot of talk about in their campaign. Why do you have to give that sense of fiscally responsibility if teachers and nurses aren't getting paid enough? Because they said that they were going to be fiscally responsible. So, do you think ` because that's one of the arguments, that money is the cheapest it's ever been for them to borrow ` should they borrow, build infrastructure and pay people what you think they're worth? Absolutely. I think that these are human beings we're talking about, not figures in a ledger. And so teachers should be getting paid what they're actually worth. Nurses should be getting paid what they're actually worth. These are human beings that need enough money to live a life. How does that go down politically, though? Well, I think that if people have enough money in their pocket to live and their kids have shoes to wear, then people are gonna be OK with that, as Ben was saying. But what's the situation if you've promised to be fiscally responsible, and that's the platform that you've then been elected on ` don't you have to keep that promise to the electorate? Well, they're also elected on a platform to reduce child poverty and a platform to build more houses, and so if you have to choose one or the other, to me, it's looking after the people, every time. I mean, if you go back, probably the greatest legacy in terms of our democracy ` from Helen Clark over nine years, John Key over eight years ` was restoring faith in the idea that politicians would keep their promises. You know, after the debacle of the '80s, the Bolger government, these unexpected crises which, you know, either forced or allowed parties to really go back on their platforms immediately following elections, the last 17, 18 years has actually really restored a bit of faith in that process. So I think it would be extremely unwise for the prime minister, in the first budget, to then say, 'Oh, actually, no.' Right. Hey, I just wanna move on to a lighter story of the week, which is ` well, is it? ` Ron Mark's helicopter use. Obviously, Mark Mitchell, National Party MP, has said that Ron Mark is using defence helicopters like a personal Uber service, because they were picking him up from near his home, near his home. So do you think it's a genuine story, Ben, or a good PR sell from Mark Mitchell? It's an irresistible story. There's something about helicopters which just captures the public mood. It doesn't matter how legitimate your use is. Anne Tolley got into a lot of trouble by taking a helicopter to survey all of the education land in Auckland, and that was a scandal for about a week. There is no way that` unless you're on an overseas military trip, there is no way any politician should set foot in a helicopter ever in New Zealand. (LAUGHS) If they don't want it to come back to haunt them! That's right. And Ron Mark might be right; it might actually be the cheapest option. But it doesn't matter. He just should've never done it. And we just need to leave it there. So, Louisa Wall, the MP, fronted up for our weekly Facebook live Ask Me Anything session this week, and she told Mike Wesley-Smith about the song she used to listen to when she was getting ready for her Black Ferns matches ` Moana and the Moa Hunters' 'Warriors'. SINGS: # We are... # warriors. # (HUMS) Warriors. # The Maori nation # across a wide, wide creation. # We won't kneel down. We won't kneel down # upon the ground, upon the ground. # Oh, how I love to hear them say # my Maori name. # There you go. Wow. So, that was just like a... (APPLAUSE) Oh, thank you! And you can see more highlights from that Facebook live on our website. And next week, we'll have broadcaster-turned- New Zealand First MP Jenny Marcroft in the hot seat. Do send us your questions via Facebook, Twitter or email. But that's all from us for now. We will see you again next weekend. Thanks for joining us. Captions by Able. 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 NZ On Air Platinum Fund.