Today on Newshub Nation ` the government says charter schools are a failed ideological experiment. But is the decision to shut them down based on dogma or data? Just what will be under the microscope in the Royal Commission into state abuse? We sit down with the man in charge, Sir Anand Satyanand. Plus, should our professional sports teams be reliant on alcohol sponsorship or is it sending the wrong message to Kiwi kids? Kia ora, good morning. I'm Lisa Owen. Welcome to Newshub Nation. Eleven charter schools have until May the 1st to apply to become a so-called 'special character' school, in order to keep their doors open. Labour pledged to shut down the controversial charter school model if it got into power, but there is growing evidence that these schools are improving educational outcomes for their students. Now Education Minister Chris Hipkins is driving the change. We would love to talk to him about it. In fact, we've asked him to come on the show twice, but he's turned us down both times. Joining us instead are Whetu Cormick from the New Zealand Principals' Federation, Rebecca Dow, academic manager at a South Auckland charter school, and Graeme Osborne from E Tipu e Rea, which is a group that was set up to support charter schools. Good morning to you all. Kia ora. Rebecca, if I can come to you first. Is this a done deal? You either have to adapt to a new model or shut down your school as it is? We have to transition to a new model. So we have got to finish as a charter school, and we have to move on and become part of a different system, a different policy. Graeme, are there any other legal options open to these schools if they want to stay open as a charter school? There's a clause in the contract that provides the Minister with the option to terminate the clause at his convenience, which he will choose to do. So the approach at the moment is the Ministry engages with the schools in an effort to negotiate an early termination of the contract. If that fails, then the Minister has that right to terminate at convenience in his back pocket, so they really have few choices. But they don't just have the option of a designated character school; they are three options included in the Act ` private school, designated character school and state integrated. What about a Treaty of Waitangi claim? Do you think that's possible around this? We're looking at the possibility of that. You are? Yes. It seems to me the regulatory impact statement the Ministry provided and also the Minister's Cabinet paper both alert to the fact that this is not based on data, that the schools haven't been going long enough in their view to get conclusive data ` I'm not sure I agree with that ` that there wasn't enough time given to consultation ` there was no consultation ` so therefore we think that in the spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi, there are some principles that have been clearly run right over there ` I mean, principles of partnership, principles of collaboration, consultation, principles of reciprocation. So, on the face of it, there would seem to be a case for a Treaty claim. And you're seriously looking into that? We're evaluating that possibility. Okay, Whetu, why do a lot of teachers ` and you ` want to get rid of charter schools? Is it dogma over data? Well, I can't speak on behalf of teachers, but for the Principals' Federation, we've been quite clear from the outset when this policy was implemented that we're against it for a number of reasons. We support a publicly funded education system ` a system that is fair and equitable for all young people. And so the model that was put, and is currently running, in these charter schools ` they have the ability to appoint unregistered and untrained teachers, they have the ability to pay teachers at whatever rate they desire, they're not subject to the Official Information Act requests that normal state schools are bound by. So what's wrong with paying teachers differently, according to their skills, to attract the best people? What's wrong with paying them? Well, we know that our young people deserve to have trained, qualified teachers in front of them. And they should be paid very, very well. Our teachers do an amazing job, whether they're in the state system or in private schools or in charter schools, they do an awesome job nurturing, loving and developing our young people. So they all deserve to be paid very, very well. Well, I've looked at some of the statistics for registered teachers in charter schools, and, in fact, 70% to 100% of the curriculum is taught by registered teachers at charter schools. Well, that's heartening to hear, because we know that internationally ` and the model that was proposed ` is that there is the ability for charter schools, the business sponsors, to be able to employ unregistered teachers. And we have a problem with that. So, knowing those figures, do you still have a problem? Well, no, as I said, it's heartening to hear that these schools are employing registered teachers, which is great. Okay, well, you talk about a fair and equitable system, so is mainstream education working for everyone, is it? Well, that's a really good question, and I'm the best person to ask. Our education system has been unkind to a number of young people for some time` Who, specifically? Maori. And I can say, the system now, with our new Minister and, in fact, the previous Minister of Education, Hekia Parata ` she put teachers on notice about five or six years ago and said that we need to get this Maori underachievement sorted. And so there's been great gains happening in mainstream schools right now and also Kura Kaupapa Maori, Kura a Iwi. So there are platforms` I understand what you're saying about progression, but when you look at University Entrance, Maori achieved 31% in 2016 versus` what would it be for Pakeha? Well, we know the stats. Pakeha do much better than Maori. Almost twice as well. So what's happening in our system now, there's a real shift with a focus on engaging Maori whanau. And we know that when Maori whanau are engaged in the system, that the young people are going to be more motivated and, obviously, improve achievement. So do you think that Maori would do better if they go back into` Because a lot of these charter schools are predominantly Maori and Pasifika children, you think they're going to do better if they go back into mainstream schools? What I think is that there's the ability right now. Kura Kaupapa Maori and Kura a Iwi, who are offering a Maori-focused philosophical education based on Tikanga Maori. We have that ability right in the mainstream` in the state system right now. But in the mainstream schools, there are great shifts and moves that are happening right now, where leaders are changing their hearts and minds to engage better with Maori. So, Rebecca, that argument that, obviously, Whetu is putting forward here is that the state school can look after these kids. I don't agree. We have a lot of disengaged students within our schools that have been disengaged from their learning for a long time. There's a lot of transience, a lot of disengagement within the state schools. We cater for them, and they are learning well within our system. So you're dealing with children who the state school system has not worked for, you would argue. Yes. Graeme, what do you think? I agree, 100%. These Partnership Schools are established because, in essence, the state system, or mainstream education, wasn't delivering educational success for Maori, Pasifika and low-decile students. Now, that's been a situation that's been chronic or has perpetuated over decades. It's not just a recent phenomenon. So the state system has failed or hasn't proven able to do it. There are kids slipping through the cracks. So Partnership Schools have been established with a clear mandate ` 75% of their students, minimum, must be Maori, Pasifika, decile one to three. In essence, as Whetu said, they are actually public schools; they are publicly funded. And they are free enrolment; there are no enrolment schemes around them. There are no fees charged. Some schools provide meals, some provide uniforms. So they're taking away the barriers to kids attending school, and they're achieving fantastic results, Lisa, so there is no good reason for closing them. Some would argue that by giving children incentives to attend the school, that's propping up the business model. So providing free lunches and uniforms? That, in fact, helps prop up the business profit` We all know that those are barriers to kids attending school. Absolutely. So if they're giving them food, if they're giving them a uniform, a digital device and all their stationery, and it gets them into the school system, why would you have a problem with that? I don't have a problem with that at all, but I think we need to look at the systemic problem. We have a huge problem with poverty and disadvantage in our country. And so what's happened in the past is that teachers have been lumbered with the challenge of meeting all of those needs. Obviously, our job is to meet the achievement needs of young people, but not to meet the needs of poverty and disadvantage. So, there's a bigger conversation that I know that Government is happening across sectors, from health through to MSD, Child, Youth and Family ` Oranga Tamariki ` and also education. Whetu, you've had decades to address this. The mainstream education's had decades to address this and failed to do so. So Partnership Schools are an opportune tool to get that remedy underway. Rebecca, Whetu was saying it's not your job to deal with lunches and paying for school uniforms. They come in our gates; we need to cater for them; we need to break down those barriers; we need to ensure that they actually have a place that they can learn and that they feel safe within. And if that means that we have to provide uniforms and we have to provide food and if we have to provide a different model for them to work in, I think we need to provide that. When you talk about results, Whetu, NCEA ` let's look at it. Because a lot of these Kura Hourua are having excellent results in NCEA ` 80% to 100% pass rates, some of them. How can you argue with those kinds of results for mainly Maori students? We don't know what the focus is around what the credits are, so there are some questions around that. Are you saying they're junk credits? No, no, not at all, but we don't know what the focus has actually been. We know that in some schools it has been acknowledged, and the review of NCEA is going to address that, because credits have been given for credits' sake. We know that there has been an improvement in overall NCEA results, and Minister Parata` But that criticism has been levelled at state schools as well, hasn't it, Whetu? Precisely. We've got a lot more work to do, and I acknowledged that earlier. The system has not been kind to some groups. Priority learners ` those kids who are poor and those kids who have special needs, such as learning and behaviour ` our system needs to do better for them, and I can tell you that the system is working very hard at this present time to address that. So can you say right now that, should those kids be forced to go back into the state school system, you can match the results that I've just said to you are coming through in those schools? Well, if you were to look at the results that are happening in our schools at the moment, there have been great improvements across. Thankfully, National Standards have been removed, because National Standards were introduced by a government who believed that if we measured students' success against narrow measures, we'd see improvements. We haven't seen the gains that the previous government would have hoped. But what we do know is that when we change the culture of a school, that's focused on giving young people ` Maori young students ` the ability to feel safe at their school, then there's going to be achievement levels that are going to be far improved. Rebecca, Whetu was saying that a change of culture means these kids will do just as well in state school. I don't agree at all. Within the policy, we've been able to have a different model ` a model that works ` and that's been` What's different? Why do you think that model works? Well, within our model, we have been able to design a model where we have 15 kids per class. We have mini schools within a large school, so we have mini schools of 60. We have close relationships with the families, as well as the agencies that they work with. We're able to do project-based learning with integrated learning across subjects, which has proven to work for our students who are disengaged with their learning. That's a very good point about the student formula. Yes. So, can I just ask Graeme one thing first, Whetu, before I give you a chance to reply to that? So here's the thing. If the state school was able to give classroom sizes of 15 kids per teacher too, maybe they would deliver the same results as the charter schools. Well, the charter schools have got some underlying benefits in flexibility. So, for example, they receive their funding by way of a bulk fund, and therefore they are able to allocate their spend according to learning priorities, which, as Rebecca just said, they've chosen to opt for smaller class sizes. Now, Partnership Schools get no more money than comparable state schools; it's just that they're choosing to apply it in a different way and to greater effect ` a better effect. So I think that this is an argument about this government walking away from 1500 students who have got a second chance at education. Their parents have been provided with a choice as to where they send them for schooling, and here's the Ministry now casting these 1500 high-risk, at-risk students back into the wilderness or, even worse than that, maybe, back to mainstream education, which is where they've come from originally. So, from a principal's perspective, we believe in a state-funded system where there's a fair share of the resources for young people. We are state-funded. We have one sandpit. We had one sandpit, where we all played in the same sandpit. So if you liken that metaphor to a group of young people playing in the pit, some of them decided that they wanted to have their own little sandpit on the side, but they had different rules to the larger sandpit. We should all be in the same system. What's wrong with different rules if they work, Whetu? Well, different rules. I think we all need to have the same rules. We're funded by the taxpayer. The taxpayer on the street deserves` Kids have different needs, so why not have different rules for different educational needs? Absolutely. The taxpayer should expect to see some result for the money that they invest. There are over 2500 schools that are doing marvellous jobs for our young people. There are some young people who are disengaged, but there is good work that's happening with special education, Maori education` Can you categorically say charter schools are failing to deliver better education to these 1500 children? Well, to be frank, in the preamble, it's too early to tell. Graeme? I can categorically say they're making a difference. Mm. We've not seen the research. And in terms of accountability, Lisa` Well, then is it too early to be shutting schools down if there's not enough research to make that decision? Well, that's a question you'll have to ask Chris Hipkins. What do you think, personally? They made it quite clear that... In all fairness` ...they would shut them down. Yes, we believe they should be shut down, and they should be merged into and transitioned to the state system. We believe that the time frames are very unfair. The time frames have been very hard to work with. We recently have received some very glowing, positive reports from the Martin Jenkins report. That had proven that our students are flourishing within our model, and we're delighted by that. Now, that Martin Jenkins report, what it does say, though, is that there's very little innovation in the delivery of the curriculum. Isn't that what your whole raison d'etre is ` to be innovative? We absolutely are. We have innovation in the way that we're delivering the curriculum. Yes, we still do the New Zealand curriculum, which it's good for people to understand that and to know that. But also within that, we do project-based learning. We have an integrated curriculum, and our class sizes means that we deliver our curriculum quite differently. Can you understand Whetu's position there? Charter schools have got about $30 million. Why should that money go to you when, arguably, if it's invested into the existing state school system, they can do things differently as well and have smaller class sizes? Sure. It's really important to understand that, actually, our funding model is different, but we get the same level of funding as a school our size with the same setup` But what Whetu is saying ` that should come into the existing school system, all in one pot, all in one sandpit. But it doesn't cater for the children who have been disengaged. And we're saying mainstream education has had decades to get this right, and there are still these kids slipping through the gaps, and therefore you could argue something has to be done. These schools should not be closed. Graeme, I'm wondering, a couple of Labour ministers who have been heavily involved in charter schools have gone a bit quiet as of the last few months. Are you concerned that some schools might be getting preferential treatment, and are you concerned that these ministers aren't speaking out more? I've seen nothing of concern around whether one school or another is getting preferential treatment. I think everyone's been treated reasonably equitably from where I stand. And, yes, I think that there was initial miscommunication, so the Prime Minister, Minister Hipkins, Kelvin Davis, Willie Jackson, they all said these schools would not be closed if they were teaching the New Zealand curriculum, using registered teachers and comparably funded. Well, they're doing all of things, and yet they're still being closed, and these 1500 children at risk that are currently in a state of high potential and likelihood of success, where they haven't been previously, are now being cast adrift. Do you think they're at risk? I think that your business sponsors will work really hard to transition them to special-character schools. Yeah, but why should they have to? If you're as committed at the beginning, then you'll be as committed to transition into the state system. Yes, but they're being transitioned into state schools. That means they're no longer Partnership Schools; they don't have the freedoms and the flexibilities. And, of course, you'll still have your special character. All right. We need to leave it there. Thank you all for joining us this morning. If you've got something to say about what you see on our show, do let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Or you can email at the address that's on your screen now ` nation@mediaworks.co.nz Up next ` the former Russian spy who says he might have been poisoned on Auckland's Queen Street. Plus, does alcohol sponsorship of our top teams send the wrong message to young sports fans? A former Russian KGB spy is warning New Zealanders they aren't safe from a nerve gas agent attack like the one in Salisbury. That's in England. Despite the government saying it couldn't find any Russian spies here. Boris Karpichkov told Newshub political editor Tova O'Brien about his time living in New Zealand, where he says he may have been poisoned but put under state surveillance and assaulted by a police officer. Boris Karpichkov ` a former Russian KGB spy who says he was spied upon while living in New Zealand. And not only that, he was possibly poisoned on Auckland's Queen Street. Karpichkov, who now lives in England, says he was warned of an imminent attack ahead of the nerve agent poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, which the UK blamed on Russia. His warning to New Zealand ` we aren't immune from a similar attack. So you're saying people shouldn't feel safe in New Zealand, given what's happening in the UK. Well, yes. And he says he has first-hand experience; in 2006, Karpichkov was living here, on Anzac Ave in Auckland, and believes his home and his movements were being watched. He says they were still watching as he set off down Queen Street, where he was attacked. Walking down the road, he started feeling sick and dizzy. And you think you were poisoned. But now? He lost at least 20 kilos in the following months and thinks it was someone with links to Russia who attached him. Karpichkov recorded details of the cars he believes were from New Zealand agencies watching on to see what the Russians would do, using him as human bait. But Warren Tucker, the then head of the SIS, wrote to Karpichkov, saying the spy agency was aware he was in New Zealand at the time, that it knew he was ex-KGB, but it never had him watched or under surveillance. As for police, it told Newshub there was a surveillance operation, but Karpichkov wasn't the target; it was a local crime gang thought to be operating in his area with no links to Russia. Police also confirmed that an officer who was physically aggressive to Karpichkov was involved in that surveillance operation. Medical reports show Boris was left with bruises and abrasion and scratches on his hand when the officer tried to grab his phone. So a former Russian spy, ex-KGB, with allegations of poisoning and assault by a police officer and state surveillance ` all in New Zealand. It sounds far-fetched, but so does a chemical weapons attack against a former Russian spy in Salisbury, England. After that Salisbury attack last month, governments around the world supported Britain, kicking out Russian spies and diplomats. New Zealand was the UK's only close ally who couldn't find any to expel, but Karpichkov says Russian spies are definitely in New Zealand, and he uses himself as an example of the weaknesses in our system. This is the passport which I used to come to New Zealand. A former KGB agent using a fake Lithuanian passport with no issues at the border or beyond. A couple months later, from my solicitor... Just like that? Yes. So you came into New Zealand on a fake passport, sent it off, got a work permit. The government confirmed to Newshub... ...allowing him to leave New Zealand after his asylum claim was rejected on the same fake identity documents to live in England, where he still fears for his life and family's safety every day. The Royal Commission into historical state abuse is currently taking public submissions on its draft terms of reference. There's already been plenty of debate over the time period the inquiry will cover, whether churches should be involved, and the question of compensation. Mike Wesley-Smith sat down with inquiry head Sir Anand Satyanand and started by asking what ideas he's received so far. They include very specific things. It's something of a surprise, and it's come up at every hui I've been to ` 20 clauses, couple of thousand words, no individual reference to the Treaty of Waitangi, which, in 2018, is a bit surprising. So I think the drafted terms of reference will find the Treaty in the preamble or somewhere near to the front. We can't lose focus on that, right? There was clearly, it would seem, institutional racism towards Maori ` that the overrepresentation can't be, it seemed, explained away in any kind of fair way. It's clear as we start that the number of Maori people who have been the subject of state care is considerable, and we will need to work our way through how come ` why ` and the answers will be illuminating for everyone. You're obviously, by statute, independent, but for the layperson, can you describe how that independence works in practice? The big thing with a Royal Commission is that it is independent. It has a life of his own, and the state, if you like ` the government ` is the respondent. It's different from an ordinary inquiry where a minister may require an inquiry be done, reporting back to the minister, so the inquiry is the handmaiden of the minister. A Royal Commission is different. It has its own life. It's fed and watered by one of the departments of state ` the Department of Internal Affairs ` but the Commission has a life of its own and it operates in an independent fashion. The other subject of discussion has been the time window that the Commission will cover. How open is the Commission to potentially there being no particular time window that it covers ` that it's open to all? I don't know the answer to that at the moment, but I do know that the main topic to be picked up are the years between 1950 and 2000. After 2000, people were not in institutional care, by and large; people were in the community, and New Zealanders had available to them a number of mechanisms ` Human Rights Commission, Health and Disability Commission, ombudsmen, etc ` so there were mechanisms available to people after that, which is the reason that the 2000 line has been drawn. But there were institutions, like the psychopaedic hospital in Levin, near Palmerston North, which was open after 2000, so there will be good reason to have a soft door there, so to speak, so that if people come forward with material relating after 2000, we, of course, will listen to it. Obviously, the other recent issue has been to involve the church or not. Some churches have expressed a willingness to be involved. What is your position currently, from what you know, as to whether you would see the churches being involved in the Commission's scope? I've thought about this and had discussions. I've actually had a discussion with the country's senior Anglican and Catholic bishops meeting together, and I raised with them the prospect that the churches could use their combined resources to mount a commission of their own and deal with issues in a tailor-made fashion so far as the churches are concerned. There would be obvious strands of similarity between the work that the Royal Commission is doing and the work that a churches commission might be doing. There could be capacity for exchange of... not necessarily information, of course, because that would be confidential and we will have a big store on confidentiality, but there could be processes, there could be headings, there could be issues which the two commissions might share. Did they express a willingness to do that? The churches have expressed a willingness to be engaged with, so there's a little time yet for all of this to work itself out. But in the end, I also have to stress, I think, that the decision about what this Royal Commission will do, whatever I recommend, at the other end, it will be a political decision made by the Cabinet based on the information available to it. What is the Commission's position on compensation? The question of compensation is one of the matters that the Royal Commission will come to at the end of its... hearing, assessment, analysis, investigation, and adjudication, if you like. All the way through, there will be a restorative approach taken, and when we get to the crucial point of what you're asking, the Royal Commission will be asked to look at the question of what can be called atonement, subheadings of which are 'is it appropriate for the government to consider making an apology?', 'what territory should that apology cover?', 'what are the pathways for considering the question of compensation?'. In other words, the Royal Commission does not end up providing compensation for individuals, but it will cover the territory, and it will provide pathways... whereby the government will be able to consider undertaking these things. But that's a good question to raise, because no individual should be in the false state of thinking, 'I'm going to go to the Royal Commission, and they're going to provide me with compensation.' What can the Commission do if it does find evidence that there had been a cover-up of sexual abuse by institutions? Well, there will be the primary thing ` to state it and to state how widespread it was and what effects there were. In other words, the Royal Commission will need to receive the information, to verify it, and to have it investigated and then, in the end, come to a decision. Do you see it, though, Sir Anand, as being potentially one of the most crucial questions the Commission can seek to answer ` is the reason why it has taken so long, why the state seemingly has been incapable of holding itself to the same standards as it would an individual, that the notion of there having been a lot of abuse in state care has really been there, known about for many years? The really important thing is that eventually the government has decided to undertake a Royal Commission, and they've provided a group of people who have the appropriate background to examine what has occurred and the reasons for it, and in the course of that, maybe the question that you ask will be addressed. I can't give you any answer to it at the moment. For those New Zealanders who've been, thankfully, untouched by these experiences, why should they care about the work that your Commission is about to undertake? In world terms, New Zealanders are well educated, well nourished, rights-conscious, and we are regarded as a tolerant and fair society. Now, the subject matter of this Royal Commission questions... one or more of those pillars. And this Royal Commission is a mechanism which will enable thorough investigation... of those items, and hopefully the general community will say the problems... were unearthed and were addressed in the Royal Commission's report. Still to come, we dissect the week's political news with out panel ` Ella Henry, Simon Wilson, and Heather Roy. Plus ` a 2014 report recommended alcohol sponsorship be pulled from sport, so why was that advice ignored? Watch any professional sporting event in New Zealand, and you're likely to be exposed to a bevy of alcohol advertising, whether you're inside the stadium or watching on TV. So is alcohol sponsorship propping up professional sport in this country, or is it a health hazard we could do without? John-Michael Swannix reports. Sport ` it's part of our national identity. The flags go up! We play it; we talk about it; we devote a chunk of most of our news bulletins to reporting on it. Watching a big game is a big social event, and it seems most Kiwis prefer to do so while enjoying a few drinks ` (CHEERS) Come on! so much so that when Joseph Parker's recent heavyweight title fight fell on Easter Sunday, it prompted calls for a law change so that bars and pubs could serve alcohol to boxing fans. You can't have a situation where you have televised fights, you have rugby games, and then basically say, 'Actually, we're closed for business.' Professional sport in this country appears to be soaked in alcohol. Look at those Steinlagers. Don't they look good? From branding on the players' jerseys to signage at the stadium, it appears that when it comes to watching sport, you just can't escape exposure to New Zealand's most popular legal drug. It's an easy way to get through to a huge number of people, and it's about maintaining our drinking culture; it's about keeping that sponsorship there; it's making it harder for people to reduce their consumption; and it perpetuates this relationship between drinking and sport. All of New Zealand's main professional sporting teams, except for the Breakers basketball side, have alcohol sponsors or partners. The All Blacks have had a commercial relationship with Steinlager, a Lion Nathan product, for over three decades. All Kiwi super rugby teams have a beer partner. The Warriors are currently sponsored by Independent Liquor's Woodstock Bourbon and have had alcohol sponsorship since the club formed in 1995. The Black Caps enjoy the investment of Dominion Breweries, who call its Tui products the official beer of New Zealand cricket. And the Silver Ferns take to the court in partnership with champagne Veuve Du Vernay. So is all that booze branding a bit of conflict with the idea of sport as a healthy national pastime? It wouldn't be for us to say, really. It would be for sport to answer that question. What I would say is I think that alcohol sponsorship and support helps sport at all levels in New Zealand. Nick Leggett represents the Alcohol Beverages Council and says the industry plays a vital role in funding sport. This hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to run sport in New Zealand at all levels and across all codes, and the industry, the alcohol sector, can play a part in supporting that, and it does so, and what we see is spectacular enjoyment by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Kiwis, both as spectators and also as active players. Tim Chambers led a major study into alcohol sponsorship in New Zealand sport and says the alcohol industry funnels just $23 million into sport here, of which $14 million is in indirect cash. And to put that in perspective, the Health Promotion Agency ` that puts a levy on alcohol products ` is around 1.6 cents per beer, and they generation $11 million per year. So if you were to double or put the tax up to around 5 cents per beer, you could completely remove alcohol sponsorship of sport and fund sports with the replacement revenue. Dr Nicki Jackson from Alcohol Health Watch believes that, just like tobacco sponsorship, alcohol sponsorship will eventually come to an end. We're hearing these myths that it's going to destroy sport. That hasn't been the case in relation to tobacco removal of sponsorship. We didn't see that. The world didn't end. The tobacco industry used to be a big part of Kiwi and Aussie sport ` remember the Winfield or Benson & Hedges Cups. Tobacco sponsorship ended in the 1990s. The sky did not fall in. And, in fact, we see when tobacco sponsorship was brought out, we actually see an increase in other sponsors stepping up to fill the gap. And smoking continued to help fund sport thanks to a levy on the excise tax from cigarette sales, but Nick Leggett says it's not right to compare alcohol and tobacco, as moderate drinking can be part of a healthy diet. The old adage that every cigarette does you damage, that can't be claimed about alcohol, and I think to demonise something that 80% of New Zealanders enjoy ` and the majority of those people do so very responsibly ` is unfair. Chambers is frustrated that alcohol sponsorship is still so common in Kiwi sport. I think it's the normalisation. I think it's also the exposure to the marketing associated with sponsorship, both of which are linked with increased drinking and alcohol-related harm. According to Alcohol Healthwatch, alcohol-related problems cost Kiwi taxpayers $5 billion a year and suck up a fifth of New Zealand's police budget. However, the government's tax take from alcohol is only $1 billion. None of these major sporting codes want a ban on alcohol sponsorship. New Zealand Rugby told Newshub Nation it would suffer all the way from a local club level to a professional level were such a ban put in place. The Warriors say the funding is critical to their survival. Cricket benefits from its partnership with Tui but didn't say whether it could survive without the money. Netball is unlikely to be as affected. However, all four organisations prefer the status quo. Bans are in place in some countries, including France, and if you tuned in to watch the Warriors' opening match of the season in Perth, you might have noticed something missing, because alcohol sponsorship of sport has recently been restricted in Western Australia. Out towards the wing. The Warriors with Kata. And Bunty Afoa! The advertising hoardings were alcohol-free. The only booze branding was on the Warriors' playing strip and the logo of one of the NRL's main sponsors painted on the field. So if the Aussies can do it, why can't we? I think we need political leadership, and I think we need to see it urgently. So we need the government to really take some leadership, like they did with tobacco, and introduce a number of strategies to really change the direction that we're moving in. We've been increasing our drinking. We can't keep going in this direction. We actually need the government to take strong measures to turn the ship around and start reducing our consumption. So what is the new government's stance on banning booze sponsorship of sport? We haven't got any plans at this stage to ban alcohol from professional sport. It plays a much stronger role at local-level sport, and I'm aware that there was a ministerial forum in 2014 which looked at this issue, and the previous government rejected the advice that they saw. They did nothing anyway. I'm interested in taking further advice on that and having that updated. National's health spokesperson, Michael Woodhouse, says it's unfair of the Health Minister to point the finger of blame at them. I think that's a bit rich, because he's not going to commit to taking them on himself. I think we took a sensible approach to finding out what the evidence was. It was equivocal, and that was` As a consequence of that, we decided just to leave things as they are for the meantime. Rugby league icon Graham Lowe chaired that ministerial forum on alcohol in sponsorship in 2014. It made 14 recommendations, including banning alcohol sponsorship of all streamed and broadcast sports in the short-term and banning alcohol sponsorship of all sport in the long-term. However, Lowe claims all that advice was swept under the rug. I felt let down. I felt really let down. And I know my colleagues on the panel with me, they felt the same. He's worried the constant bombardment of alcohol advertising is brainwashing children who just want to watch their heroes on TV. That's what their dream is ` to be able to kick the ball like that or pass the ball or catch the ball or hit the ball or whatever it might be. It's their dream to be able to do that. When the television comes on with this professional sport, they're glued to it. The kids, the youth, they're glued to it. Studies have shown that exposure to alcohol marketing through sponsorship increases their likelihood of drinking and the age at which they start to drink. One such study put cameras on 160 12-year-olds over four days. The cameras automatically snapped photos every seven seconds, and Professor Signal says it showed alcohol advertising even made its way into kids' bedrooms. For example, we've got a photograph of a 12-year-old boy pinning up his Hurricanes poster with the Tui advertising on that poster. However, the findings of these studies are disputed by the alcohol industry. It's one thing to leap to connecting advertising to consumption. It's a stratospheric leap to say that harm has increased because of advertising. But whether you believe the research or not, Lowe says it comes down to a simple decision. Forget the academic side of it. Forget all those professors that are coming in and telling you about their research. Is it right, or is it wrong? Do you want your children exposed to alcohol advertising or don't you? It's as simple as that. And if you think that alcohol advertising is not going to affect the children, I think you're mad. Still to come ` we put your questions to Housing Minister Phil Twyford in this week's Ask Me Anything, but first we catch up with our panel ` former deputy ACT leader Heather Roy, senior AUT lecturer Ella Henry, and New Zealand Herald senior writer Simon Wilson. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel, former ACT Party Deputy Leader Heather Roy; AUT senior lecturer Ella Henry; and New Zealand Herald senior writer Simon Wilson. Good morning to you all. Kia ora. Ella, we were having a korero this morning about charter schools, and it seems like that a group are looking at whether they should take a Treaty of Waitangi case over the pending closure of charter schools. Do you think that's got legs? Most of these students are Maori and Pasifika. Well, first and foremost, I want to congratulate the panellists this morning, because I learnt things I did not know about charter schools, and it was great and enlightening. And I did not know that there was a proposed Treaty claim possible, which I think is actually an excellent idea, because part of the process of a Treaty claim is in-depth research from both sides and a finding that has a historical account that's really comprehensive. That worked very well for Maori broadcasting and for the Wananga claim and could work extremely well here if, as they argue, these schools are having the profoundly positive impact they are on Maori communities. Is it too early to tell, though, Simon? And it's a small pool of research, because there's only 11 schools. Well, it is perhaps too early to tell, but what's not too early to tell and what is so hard to tell in this whole debate is ` what is it, actually, that charter schools are doing that the state schools aren't doing? We had an explanation from Rebecca on the panel, when she said class sizes are much lower ` 15. Makes no difference if you take a class size from 30 to 27 or 25, say, but it does make a difference if you cut it down to 15. They do that. I asked her after the panel how they do that, and she said they do that because they coordinate among themselves, so their administration costs are way down, and that principals are teaching as well, and they're able to put more teachers into classrooms. Choosing how they spend their money, mm. If it's possible for them to do it, it should be possible for other schools to do it as well. They do that. She talked about project-based learning. A lot of state schools do project-based learning. It is a good approach. You integrate different subject areas together. There's no reason at all why that has to be a charter school thing. And they talked about the most important thing of all ` she said the relationship with the families. In my experience ` and I've looked at schools for years and years ` every good school has a good relationship with families, and that is one of the defining characteristics of a good school. Now, you need that in state schools. You need all of those things. So the really big issue here is ` what are charter schools doing that state schools can't do? It's very hard to see. And therefore, why aren't more of those things more actively introduced into state schools? So, to me, the issue is not ` let's clobber charter schools; the issue out to be ` let's learn from them and make sure that those lessons are taken back into the wider system. Learn from them but still close them, Heather, or change their character? Learn from them and let them do what they're doing really well. The initial indications are very positive, and maybe it is too early to say, 'Yes, let's put more effort and funding into these schools,' but the initial indications are very positive, and they're catering for a group of students who have been let down by the state system. And my question to Chris Hipkins, if I could ask that, would be, 'What is the problem that you're trying to solve?' We know that this is ideologically driven. Labour have never liked charter schools. They opposed them vociferously when they were introduced. They said in Opposition they were going to abandon them; they've gone ahead and done that. But we've got 75 working groups happening now and no consultation around the closing of these schools. But in fairness, it's ideologically driven both ways, isn't it? Yes, but it` If you go right down to the pedagogy, it's hard to see the difference` If you've got an ideology that's actually working and picking up these children that have failed in the state system, why would you not allow that continue? For any government` And let's see further down the track if that continues to work. For any government, the most important thing must be ` how do we take what works and make it apply to everybody who needs it? Because that long tail of underachievement isn't just the kids who are now in charter schools; it's much bigger. But I would contend that if things are working really well the way they are, we shouldn't be changing that formula. And, actually, does it matter who is doing the nuts-and-bolts stuff? Isn't the important thing that we've got children that need to be educated and let's go with the model that works best? Ella, you're in the education system. Do you have faith that if these kids are absorbed back into so-called state schools or schools of a different character to what they're at now, that they can still achieve at the same level? I work in a faculty ` the Maori faculty ` that often attracts students from some of the lowest-decile schools in the region, so I see first-hand the impacts of Maori going to schools that do not equip them well for tertiary study. Though they might be trying as hard as they possibly can, they simply don't ` the level of pastoral care that has to go into the success of those students. So if we are now seeing students coming from schools that are actually working for them, I would be profoundly disappointed in any government that undermined any strategy that was working ` actually working ` for Maori achievement in education. I would be so disappointed. Simon, just before we go to the break, I wanna ask you ` obviously there were a number of ministers within the Labour government who were supportive of charter schools. Where do you think this whole process leaves them? Well, I think it leaves them in a very difficult situation, and this, actually, I think, is a test for this government. They need to be flexible enough to understand that what works needs to be supported, as Heather says. It is certainly true that if registration of teachers is of value ` and I think it is of value ` then there have to be ways in which you reinforce that, in which you support that. But closing charter schools is going to be a retrograde step in this country, and the government needs to be flexible enough to learn the good stuff, apply it more widely and be open-minded about it. Mm. Do you have an issue with unregistered teachers at these schools? Well, I mean, I'm Maori. I come from a community where people are selected for leadership roles because of their expertise, not their qualifications. OK. All right, we'll leave it there. Stay with us. We'll be back after the break. Welcome back. You're with Newshub Nation and our panel. Well, Simon, six months ` it's gone fast. The government has been in power for six months. Report card ` what do you give them? Well, I think they're doing pretty well. My interest is not really in the things that a lot of commentators will focus on, which is the slip-ups by ministers. Some of them have been particularly egregious. Some of them have been very minor. But you will expect that to happen. My interest is much more in measuring the government against the goal it set for itself. Jacinda Ardern, I think pretty famously, went to Waitangi and said, 'I believe in change.' She wanted to be the head of a transformational government. It's very hard to do transformation in a hurry. It takes a long time. But you've also got to make sure that you're doing the things that will get you re-elected and re-elected again, because otherwise you can't fulfil your policy. And are they? I think on the whole, they are. I think there are a number of areas in climate change where they are moving towards building a big nationwide coalition of people who are going to attack it together ` town and country. We're not seeing a lot of that up front at the moment, but I think we are going to. I think the Treasury's four capital principles, which will I hope be rolled out into the government's way of accounting. Yeah, so not just counting money. Counting well-being in other various ways. A, B, C, or D, Simon? I'm putting you on the spot. I'd give them a B, definitely. OK. Heather, what do you reckon? I'm taking a slightly different tact from Simon. I think it's a very interesting coalition we've got with New Zealand First on one side of the Labour Party and the Greens on the other ` one formal coalition, one support-and-confidence arrangement. But we've already seen some of those parties having to swallow dead rats so that the Labour Party can side with one or the other, and I think that, looking forward, that's going to be increasingly problematic for them. There's been a lot of talk so far, not so much action. So I would give them probably a C. Ella? I'm just really coming from the perspective of what I feel Maori have been expecting, which is perhaps more movement on some issues. We're coming into winter soon, when homelessness and poverty become very much more an issue. That was one of their primary planks ` or a couple of them ` so we are still waiting in the community I am part of to see what the rhetoric looks like as policy and strategy. But having said that, I know that the Maori MPs in particular have been very present in the communities. They've gone out extensively and met with and talked to a wide range, and so from a perspective of Maori talking to Maori, I think they're doing extremely well. From an expectation perspective, I think we're still in wait-and-see mode. So I'd be more inclined to be... In my view, the issue of poverty among Maori and others comes down to two things. One of them is family incomes, and the minimum wage has risen and is going to continue to rise. We don't yet know how the Labour-led government is going to roll out its approach to a higher-wage economy more generally; they're still to announce on that. And the other one is housing, and there are two factors there, and one of them is, I think, pretty positive ` they have announced, they have declared, and intention to build a lot of houses. They're going to use prefabrication and other mechanisms to do it. I think that's going to work well. In that sense, that's quantity, but quality is another issue. The government has not yet shown that it is committed to quality housing that will be environmentally sustainable, that will really build communities ` in a place like Unitec, where they've really got to get it right or they will create a slum ` to build proper communities that are viable over a long term. So it's not just the quantity measure; the quality measure is particularly important. And I think the jury is out on that. There's always fish hooks too` Oh, by the way, a B-plus. (CHUCKLES) A B-plus, OK. If I come back to things like the minimum wage, it's easy to say we're going to raise the minimum wage, but there's a whole lot of flow-on effects, and we've already seen that some schools are going to have to lose teacher aids because those that they already fund are going to cost more but no more funding has been allocated to education, so there's a whole lot of flow-on effects that we've yet to see with those sorts of initiatives. The flow-on effects of raising the minimum wage are less poverty and more income in the hands of people who really need it. I think the jury is out on that yet. (CHUCKLES) I think that we need to wait and see where that goes to, because there are all sorts of other effects that if the government isn't going to dedicate additional resource to then some areas, like education, are going to suffer ` with the teacher aids. OK, the other side of this equation is the National Party and Simon Bridges. We had a 1 News Colmar poll this week which showed only 10% to Simon Bridges in the preferred prime minister stakes, and Jacinda Ardern was about three times that. Has he got the recognition, Ella? Do people think they know him? I think he is probably being advised by some very good people in the area of media representation, because it's a specialist field. I mean, it took Helen a few years before she blossomed into what she became. We were lucky that Jacinda came with this extraordinary cultural capital because she is fantastic in front of a camera. Simon, I think, probably has to do a bit more work in that field because he still kind of comes across as a country lawyer sometimes. I think he has another problem. I had an extraordinary experience last Sunday. I was at the National Party's Northcote by-election candidate selection meeting. When I attend those meetings, historically, almost invariably, National Party members would come up to me and say, 'Isn't the leader doing well?' whether it was Bill English or John Key before him, and you'd get that said from the stage all the time as well ` reinforcement of the leader and how well we think he's doing. Nobody talked about Simon Bridges to me or from the stage at that meeting. It was a really different vibe. So it's not clear to me yet that he's got the party behind him. We're out of time. A quick grade, Heather. That's all we've got time` Simon Bridges. Oh, I think that it's very early days, and it's too hard to say yet. Too hard to call. OK. Well, Housing Minister Phil Twyford answered your questions on our Facebook live this week and explained how prefabricated homes will play a key role in reaching KiwiBuild's goals. The really big priority is actually to get banks lending to prefabricated homes. Off-site manufacturing of homes can deliver a lot of volume, high-quality homes at a better cost, and we've got to make sure that banks are willing to stump up with the cash to lend for those homes, so that's my big priority at the moment. We'd like to see thousands of homes every year being built in new, high-tech factories. That will shake up the construction industry, inject a lot of competition, and deliver high-quality homes, and it also helps us get around some of the problems we've got with the workforce at the moment. The last government didn't invest properly in the trade training and building the workforce that we need to build the houses. When you build homes in a factory, you need fewer workers ` just cos of automation and technology. Well, that's all from us for now. If you didn't catch all of the show, you can watch now on ThreePlus1. Thanks for joining us, and we'll see you again next weekend. Captions by Madison Batten, Imogen Staines, and Elizabeth Welsh. www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018 This programme was made with the assistance of the New Zealand On Air Platinum Fund.