Today on Newshub Nation, the government says our welfare system needs an overhaul, so just how far are they prepared to go? We ask Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni. The UN Secretary General says the Cold War is back with a vengeance. We ask British High Commissioner, Laura Clark, about the relationship with Russia. And what happens to a community when the good jobs go away? We talk to author Amy Goldstein who documented the economic fall of one U.S. city. Kia ora, good morning. I'm Lisa Owen, welcome to Newshub Nation. The Prime Minister says our welfare system needs an overhaul and it will happen soon. Her comments came in the same week that the Salvation Army said the cost of living in New Zealand is causing a new wave of poverty and creating a national crisis. Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni joins us now. Good morning, Minister. Good morning, Lisa. What does it mean when you say 'an overhaul'? Okay, well, I guess the first thing ` I just want to say that this will come as no surprise to people, because actually, this was part of our confidence-and-supply agreement with the Greens when we were forming government. There's a whole lot of policies that we had leading into the election that we committed to. You know, those things will be part of the consideration when we're doing this, but actually, we totally realise that we're going to need some expertise help here, and so we have also talked about the need for an expert advisory group. And so without wanting to pre-empt the work that they're going to undertake, already, as I said, there's a whole lot of things that are laid out in our policy and in our confidence-and-supply agreement. So we've seen ads for an expert advisory group for jobs. How many people on this group? And what's your time frame? We'll announce that in the next few weeks, Lisa, so today on the programme, I can give some kind of general details, but I can't pre-empt the announcement. What can you tell us? Well, I can basically tell you what's out there in the public arena that some people may not have seen, like I've been asked what will be taken into consideration. Our public agreement with the Greens states very carefully, very clearly that we will be considering excessive sanctions, that we will be looking at the interaction between the welfare system and Working for Families, that income adequacy is a consideration for us as well. So level of benefit. Income adequacy is a consideration for us as well, so we need to be looking at all of those things. So I can tell you that those things will be part of it. But can I just say? There's been lots of discussions in recent weeks about service delivery and the culture through MSD, and of course that has to be part of it too. Of course we need to be looking to make sure that people are getting access to what they're entitled to, that their rights and dignity are upheld and they're not being treated disrespectfully in any way. Okay, there's a lot in there, so we're going to unpack some of it, but first, what is your time frame to make actual change ` not just talk about it; to make change. So change has already started happening; can I just say that? But it's another committee, Minister, and you know what people are going to say. The National Party put out a press release saying you got 75 committees, and this is another expert panel/committee. National did have an expert panel on this as well. We now have to undo some of the damage that was inflicted on us over the last nine years. So time frame for actual change. So time frame in terms of announcing the actual scope of work that will be undertaken and the advisory group ` well, you can expect that to happen in the next few weeks, and then from there` What about actual change? From there you will see what their programme will be. In terms of actual change, I think, you know, I want to put it out there ` work has already started to be commissioned; changes have already started to happen internally, and that's my expectation. But this is a big piece of work, so can I just say`? Understand that, but you have obviously been nine years in Opposition. You were very vocal about the welfare system. Have you not come to the party ready to go with the changes that you want? There are some things that have already started happening, but this has got to be a comprehensive work plan, and this needs to be something that is enduring. So once we've put the changes into place, we want to make sure that they are enduring. There are things that have started to happen. For instance, when I became the minister and I saw the level of correspondence that was going out to people that were writing to MSD, I was ` quite frankly ` embarrassed at some of the replies that we were giving to New Zealanders who were writing to us with concerns. So there has been a complete shift in the way that we respond to people that have concerns with MSD, and that's been an active directive from me. Okay, well, let's work through some of the things that you've touched on. So you acknowledge that there is a toxic culture, this so-called toxic culture within Work and Income. I am concerned about the culture, but I want to put it down to the fact that we've had nine years under a National government which has basically been steering the welfare system in a particular direction, and I will say this ` the culture under National was to make it as difficult as possible for people to be able to access what they're entitled to at Work and Income New Zealand. And now our job is to turn that around. So single biggest and specific thing that you are going to do to change culture. The single biggest ` if there was one answer to that, Lisa, then the problem wouldn't be as complex as what we're seeing now, but can I say? There's a whole lot of things, and so I don't want to oversimplify it, because that would that would be unfair. Well, just give us one. If there's a ton of things, just give us one thing, because people want specifics. Okay, well, I've give you one thing. Okay, so in our policy leading up to the election, we talked about the need to rewrite the principles of the Social Security Act to ensure that the tone we were setting through the legislation was the tone that we expected to be rolled out on the ground, and so that will happen` So an empathetic and responsive system, as you have used those words before. One that ensures that people get access to what they're entitled to, that the implications for children are taken into consideration for any policies that are rolled out; one that upholds the rights and dignity of New Zealanders ` I think it's really simply. Here's the thing ` we have talked to the Public Service Association; they are concerned about caseloads for Work and Income staff, and some people say that they're between 150 to 200 cases per front-line worker in some situations. So to provide that empathetic and responsive service, are you going to need more front-line workers? How many? That's definitely a conversation that needs to happen with the PSA. There are changes that are being proposed that actually will have implications for staff. So how many more do you think you might need? That's not something that I can answer right now, Lisa, but we do need to take into consideration the staff here. I've met really good case managers across the country who are doing a fantastic job. Unfortunately, the perception out there is that more often than not, the experience is negative, and we need to turn that around. So you're not ruling out bringing on more case managers so they can spend more quality time working out their clients' needs. I'm not going to give you an answer about that yet` But you're not ruling it out. ...because we're in the process of undergoing the change. Okay, well, you talk about the fact that some cultural changes are underway, that you've told people what your expectations are about this service. I got a copy of a letter written this week by the Auckland DHB. It's about a woman in her 50s who was in hospital with a serious medical condition. She's been living in a cemetery in Auckland, has zero income but was discharged on to the street. This letter states that Work and Income told her that they couldn't give her an appointment for five days. She's homeless; she's just been discharged from hospital, zero income ` is that an empathetic and responsive service? That's unacceptable, and so I'm not going to protect situations where I think they're unacceptable. I think that unacceptable, and so I would expect, in those situations, that if the person is not getting the response that is appropriate, then the ministry needs to be informed; I need to be informed so that we can react. I've told people` This letter was sent to various ministers within the government as well. I've told people on a number of occasions when they raise issues like this with me ` make a complaint. I have no issue with people making a complaint, because we need to know the extent of the damage that we're attempting to fix here. But the question, I suppose, is that you believe you've made your expectations clear about wanting an empathetic and responsive service. You've just said that that doesn't meet your standards. Doesn't meet it. So are they ignoring you, the staff? Or do they just don't get it? I think we've got to put it into context here, Lisa, and I'm not going to be overly protective of the ministry. But the context is that MSD is a huge machine. You know, it's like this massive jumbo jet that's been set on a certain direction for the last nine years, and that direction ` as I said ` is under a government who did everything they could to deny people access to what they're entitled to. But to expect me to be able to put the brake on mid-air and turn that jumbo jet around immediately is a little bit unreasonable. So you're saying you need more time. The wheels are in motion, and we're beginning the work ` well, not 'beginning the work'; the work is well underway. But we want to do it comprehensively` So how long do you need, then, to change the culture? I think it's going to be a work in action for a while. Don't ask me to put a time frame on that, but what I can say are simple things. But people are living in poverty now. I'm sorry to interrupt you, Minister, but people are living in poverty now. Absolutely. They're hungry now, and they're about to get cold soon. Yeah, and, Lisa, if I had it my way, I'd click the fingers and we'd be able to fix it immediately, but unfortunately, it's more complex than that, and so can I say? There are things that have come to my attention, and I'm just like, 'How did we allow this to happen where the checks and balances haven't been in place? How is it that a case manager who's only been in the job for one week has the power to cancel or suspend a benefit?' Yes, so things like that. Okay, well, let's look at some specifics. You say that you want people` You claim that National tried to stop people getting their entitlements, so you want people to get what they're entitled to. Absolutely. Can you afford for that to happen? How much is not being collected that should be in benefits and allowances? Do you know what that figure is? Can we start with the fact that asking if we can afford for that happen is null and void when actually we are legally compelled to make that happen? In the legislation` I know, but you've got it capped` ...we as a state have to give people what they're entitled to, and so that's where our obligation lies. So you've got no idea what that number is? Well, I will tell you this ` like, some of the areas that are most under-accessed are the areas that working families ` so low-income working families ` should be accessing but don't know they're entitled to or, for some reason or another, don't feel comfortable going into a WINZ office. So Childcare Subsidy, OSCAR, Accommodation Supplement ` those areas are actually undersubscribed because people don't know that they are entitled to that support. These are low-income families that could benefit from that additional support, so we should be making it known to them that they are able to access that. Ministry documents released to The Nation under the OIA last year estimated that $592 million is not being collected in Accommodation Supplement, Childcare Assistance, Temporary Additional Support. Have you allowed for that in your Budget figures? If you're going to encourage people to get everything that they're entitled to, you're legally obliged to pay, have you got the money? That money has to be there, because the reality is that you don't say` You will find it. ...'Oh, hang on a second. There's more 65-year-olds than we expected, and so therefore we're overshooting on the Superannuation budget.' But that is a big number, and your Budget is tight. The Social Security Act and the way it works is that if people need access to support and they're entitled to it, then you give it. So the money has to be there. Yeah, so will you raise your debt limit in order to facilitate making all the payments? I don't think it's about raising my debt limit; it's about making sure they give` So you're saying you've already got the money there. This is an important question, Minister, because that is a lot of money that could be paid out. Just want to know that you've accounted for that in your Budget and the money is there. Where are we losing money in other areas because we're not providing the supports that we're supposed to be through MSD, you know? Where are they having to go? So you say you're going to make savings in health and things. You've talked about Salvation Army and the fact that they've had an increase in the number of people ` or we've had that put to us ` who are having to seek support. Well, actually, if they were getting what they were entitled to through MSD, would they be needing to go to Social Services and NGOs to get food parcels and other types of support? You know, those are the questions we have to ask. So the cost is not` The cost has been shifted somewhere because they're not getting the support that they should be through MSD. Okay, we're running out of time, and there's a bunch of things I want to get through, so some things we'll move through quite quickly. You've said that you're going to ditch the sanction against solo parents who won't name the other parents. You've said that will happen at the earliest opportunity. When will that happen? Everything that we put in our policy and that we've announced has to happen in the next three years, and so that's all I can say to you at this stage. It has to happen. So you're telling people that they potentially have to wait three years for you to ditch a sanction that you knew all through the campaign and before that you were going to get rid of. I'm absolutely committed to ditching that sanction, but it would be done within the next three years. Not within six months? I can't tell you that that's the case. It'll be done` The commitment is making sure that anything that we had in our policy is going to happen before the next election. Can you imagine how unsatisfactory that is for people listening to this interview? 17,000 kids are missing out on that money. Oh, look, and I absolutely agree that that sanction needs to be dumped, and so the commitment coming into the election ` we never it would be done in the first six months. Everything in that policy was that it would be done within the next three years. So why is it so hard to do it sooner? I think, you know, Lisa, I'm not saying that it's not being done sooner; I'm just telling you that it's being done within the next three years. And what I will say` Is it money? Because in a letter to an advocacy group, you said the repeal of that piece of legislation will require additional funding. So you must have an idea of how much it's going to cost you. How much is it going to cost you? Yeah, and I do have an idea of how much that's going to cost us. How much? From memory, I think was $280 million. Yes. Right, so do you not have the money to do it immediately? I'm not telling you that I'm not doing it immediately; I'm telling you that we'll do it in the next three years. Can I say, Lisa, though? As part of` The next three years is a long time for people who are living in poverty, Minister. I need to say, Lisa, too that as part of the welfare overhaul, we've said that we will be getting rid of excessive sanctions. There are other areas that we need to look at on top of this, and so` So which other ones will you ditch? I'm not telling you that now` Not turning up to appointments? Okay. because as I said to you before I came on the show, that a lot of this work has to be undertaken by the expert advisory group as part of the welfare overhaul, and so I can't pre-empt that. All I can tell you is that prior to the election` or actually, as part of our agreement with the Greens, we committed to a welfare overhaul that would include some of those things. Here's the thing ` your manifesto says that children have to be at the heart of welfare policy. 60% of all children living in poverty are in benefit-dependent houses. So that is one thing that you could do right now to alleviate some of the pressure on those. And that is one thing we're definitely going to do, Lisa. Can I also say? What was really important was making sure that we had a Families Package that was targeted towards low- to middle-income families and households, and that's exactly what we did. And so some of those changes have already rolled out. More will roll out on July the 1st. Those families that we're talking about that are struggling the most will be the ones that gain most from the Families Package. And we know about that package, so I want to ask you about some things that we don't know about. So the Children's Commissioner has come out and said repeatedly the single most significant thing you could do to raise kids out of poverty would be to tag benefits to the median wage, just like super. Why don't you do that? So part of we expect the welfare advisory group to be looking at as part of the overhaul is income adequacy, and so let me just say that that` If they tell you to do it, will you do it? Let me just say that income adequacy will be a major consideration by that welfare advisory group. So I'm asking you ` if the welfare advisory group agrees with the commissioner that you should tag benefits to the average wage, will you commit to doing it? You're giving me a hypothetical situation that pre-empts the work that the welfare advisory group will be undertaking, and it wouldn't be fair of me to make comment on that now, Lisa. What I'm trying to canvas here is how binding do you regard the recommendations of this advisory group? The advisory group, I'm looking forward to seeing what they come up with. Our commitment is to reducing child poverty. And absolutely, absolutely understand that the welfare system has a part to play in that, and as the Minister for Social Development, I'm looking forward to the recommendations that come out of this and working with the rest of` But you won't be bound by them. ...government to ensure that we are meeting our obligations with regards to reducing child poverty. Okay, nice to talk to you. Clearly, we'll need to follow this up once we know more about the advisory committee. I hope you'll come back. Carmel Sepuloni, thanks for joining us. Thank you. If you've got something to say about what you see on our show, do let us know. We are on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, NewshubNationNz. Or you can email us at... The address is on your screen now. Up next, the head of the United Nations says we're in a new Cold War, and Russia's Foreign Minister agrees. We ask the British High Commissioner about the UK's deteriorating relationship with Russia, and what that means for the rest of us. Plus, journalist Amy Goldstein documents a community's struggle to pick itself up after a major economic blow in her book 'Janesville'. We talk to her ahead of her visit to the Auckland Writers Festival. Britain is set to exit the European Union in March next year. After that, it will be looking to build stronger trade ties with countries like New Zealand. I spoke to the British High Commissioner to New Zealand, Laura Clarke, and began by asking her how a Commonwealth trade agreement could work. Well, I think there are opportunities to really increase trade and business links between Commonwealth countries. You've got what's called the Commonwealth advantage, which is that all these countries have got the same language, similar legal traditions. And I think it's an aspiration of all Commonwealth countries to improve trading links. That said, 53 countries are quite a lot, and so it would definitely be a big piece of work, if you think how long it's taken with CPTPP. But definitely, one of the key outcomes of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting was improving prosperity links between our countries but also a really positive agenda on climate change and oceans and girls' education as well. So in terms of that trade situation with the Commonwealth, obviously, there are some countries that would be excluded from being part of that ` they're still part of the EU. So Cyprus and Malta ` part of the EU. So would it have to be an individually, kind of, negotiated agreement with a collective of some of those countries? I don't know if the thinking has got that far. I mean, frankly, as far as the UK is concerned, what we're focused on right now is making sure that we've got the best possible arrangement with the EU going forward and as we leave the European Union and also really investing in our relationships with other countries. So New Zealand, as you know, is one of the top three for a bilateral trade agreement once we leave the EU. And in fact, just this week, we've had the trade policy dialogue. We've had lots of officials out from the UK talking about that in preparation for the time when the UK is able to negotiate its own trade agreements. Yeah. So we're now one of your top priorities in terms of trade, but do you think it's fair to say that the UK maybe has taken New Zealand a little bit for granted in the past? Well, I'm not sure that's right. I think, maybe 15, 20 years ago, there was a sense, perhaps, between Australia, New Zealand, Australia ` on all sides ` that, you know, very loyal friends, but perhaps there wasn't enough invested in that. That's really changed, and that pre-dates the Brexit referendum. There's a real sense of how much we can do together with these very old friends. We have shared values, very similar culture, so many people-to-people links. And the trade is a real opportunity for UK and New Zealand, but there's lots more besides. So we have a domestic policy dialogue, where we're learning from each other and how we can deliver best for our citizens, and we're also increasing our cooperation in the Pacific. And in fact, one of the big announcements from the UK side at the Commonwealth Summit last week was that the UK is opening three new posts in the Pacific ` in Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu, and that's a really important` So you don't think historically` I mean, obviously, you joined up to the EU in the '70s. Prior to that, we were sending lots of trade to you, and then, you know, you will remember our butter ` the hassles over our butter and all the rest of it. So you think at no point we've been taken for granted by the UK in terms of trade. Well, things change, don't they? And actually, what New Zealanders say to me is, 'Yes, 1973 was a big moment for New Zealand, 'but actually New Zealand had started diversifying its trade routes around Asia before that. 'And then the 1973 decision, when the UK joined the EEC, accelerated that.' And, actually, most New Zealanders, whether they're farmers or trade policy people, now say to me, 'Look, it was the best thing that happened,' because you can't be in a situation where your major trading partner is on the exact opposite end of the world. But that's not to say that there aren't now opportunities for us going forward. And I think, in a way, one of the most important things about this UK-New Zealand free-trade agreement is that we're able to set a really high-ambition free-trade agreement that's very inclusive, that considers things like indigenous rights, women's rights, environmental issues. And it really sets the tone, then` What difference do you think it would make to that agreement ` the prospect of that agreement ` if we were to restart talks with Russia ` trade talks? Well, your prime minister and deputy prime minister and foreign minister have been very clear that, as far as new trade negotiations are concerned, the EU and the UK are really up there, and they are the top priorities. And they've also been clear that Russia's actions over the past month in the Salisbury poisoning with Novichok, the support for the Syrian regime ` that really changes things` Yeah, but it's not off the table altogether; it remains part of the coalition deal, and it may be taking a hiatus, but there is the prospect, so what would that do? Well, I think it's in everyone's interests, it's in the collective interest to have a Russia that is stable, prosperous and law-abiding. And I think what Winston Peters said when he was in London was, 'Absolutely, it's off the table for now.' You can't do any sort of trade negotiations with a country that violates chemical weapons conventions, but the fundamental point is that we need to keep engaging with all partners. You need to keep engaging and having a dialogue, in the hope that you get to a point that relations can improve. But certainly, as I understand it, from the prime minister and the deputy prime minister, a Russia FTA is not a priority right now. So talking of Russia, the OPCW ` Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ` it has confirmed that a very pure strain of Novichok nerve agent was used in the Salisbury attack, but that report doesn't say where it came from. How are you so sure it is Russia? So it's not the job of the OPCW to trace the source, nor is it the job of our scientists in Porton Down, but they say very clearly this substance is military-grade nerve agent of the sort that can only be produced with state backing. And what we do, and what we have done with international partners and intelligence partners, is piece together the entire picture, which is partly the assessment of what this product is, and the intelligence picture, that tells us quite clearly what Russia has been doing in these areas over the years and, of course, the pattern of behaviour of Russia ` so the poisoning of Litvinenko, other hostile acts. Even so, Teresa May has said ` and these are her words ` it's 'highly likely' Russia was responsible. Is 'highly likely' enough to base punishments and sanctions and expulsions on? We are very, very confident that this was` that whether` that Russia was responsible for this Novichok and either it's lost control of it or it was sanctioned. And we're very clear also that Russia's response to it, to our request for further information, was inadequate. But as I say, we are trying to ensure that we're protecting UK national interests, we're protecting our security; we're also standing up for our values, because actually, what happened in Salisbury is not just a matter for Salisbury; it's not just a matter for the UK; it's a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, it's a violation of international law. And it's actually part of a bigger picture of Russia's attempt to undermine the rules-based order and the rules-based order that we all depend on, particularly New Zealand as an independent trading nation. All right, let's talk a little bit more about that in the context that the UK is also at odds with Russia over Syria. And Russia says the recent air strikes by the US, the UK and France were 'illegal acts of aggression'. Yeah, well` You didn't have a UN mandate, so is that right? We've published our legal advice on that, actually, and the prime minister spent a lot of time, both in parliament and engaging with media talking about it, and there's three parts to the legal advice. Essentially, first of all, it is justified as a humanitarian intervention. And the three things you need to make that justified is, firstly, you need evidence of really bad humanitarian suffering and the need for immediate relief ` that's absolutely the case in Syria; secondly, the fact that diplomatic solutions have not worked and that there's no other option than force, and the third one momentarily eludes me, but I think the point is that what we took was` Oh, the third is, sorry, that it is proportionate, that it is not in any way` that it is simply proportionate, and what we were doing ` and it was proportionate ` we took action to degrade Syria's chemical weapons capability. So it was very targeted. We weren't interfering or intervening in the civil war. OK. We were taking action to protect Syrian citizens who've been` I understand what you're saying there, but again Teresa May said, 'When the global rules and standards that keep us safe come under threat, 'we must take a stand and defend them.' How can you defend global rules by breaking them? Well, I think that's what I'm saying. We weren't breaking global rules` You didn't have a mandate from the UN. We had the` No, but you don't always need a mandate. For this` This was very targeted. The law on humanitarian intervention says that if you reach those three criteria of suffering needing relief, no other option and proportionate, then that actually was the case with these strikes. And we took action to degrade Syria's chemical weapons capability, because there's a pattern of attacks here and you have children dying in the most terrible situations. And, yes, we would have all liked a diplomatic solution, but Russia at the UN was constantly and consistently vetoing any attempt to have a formal investigation or do anything else. And if Russia vetoes a UN diplomatic solution, I don't think the answer is sit back and say, 'Oh, sorry,' you know, to the children who are suffering, 'there's nothing we can do.' Sometimes you need to take action. And as I say, we've published the legal advice. And that's available online for anyone to look at. So, the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, said recently that Russia is 'losing the last remnants of trust in Western powers', and he said that the current situation is worse than it was during the Cold War. How worried should we be about that in the context of international security? I think we're in a quite interesting and scary time in terms of international security, and I think that you've got all sorts of new threats that you didn't have during the Cold War ` you've got hostile cyber; you've got hybrid threats. And I think that what we want to do is make sure that we are working with likeminded partners like New Zealand ` part of the Five Eyes ` with NATO, with our European partners, with the US to really shore up this international system, because if we don't have laws and rules and a structure that works globally, then it becomes a much more dangerous place. So do you agree that we're on the same kind of footing we were during the Cold War? I don't know. I wasn't... Mm. I wasn't` It wasn't` I think it's a different situation. I think there is a lack of trust, but what I think is really important is that we keep channels open. We've kept diplomatic channels open with Russia. So, yes, we've expelled a lot of undeclared intelligence officials, but we've kept diplomatic channels open, and our hope is that we get to a point where relations are better and there is increased trust, but that requires Russia to actually play by the rules. And right now, it's not. So for example, the Council of Europe, which is the big democracy and human-rights organisation in Europe, Russia's withholding funding from that and really trying to hold it ransom. OK, so is Russia a rogue state, then? Russia is trying to chart its own path, and is` and is` it's a disrupter. It's an absolute disrupter, and I think what we saw in Salisbury, what we saw was a very clear 'I'm going to send this in, lob in and see how the UK and its partners respond', because it's constantly testing and pushing at the boundaries. And actually, with our very united, coordinated response and this mass expulsion of undeclared intelligence officers, we said very clearly, we and all our partners said very clearly that the breaking of international law, the breaking of the Chemical Weapons Convention, the murder or attempted murder of people on another country's territory is not acceptable. Doesn't that make them a rogue state, then, by your calculations? I don't know if those terms are helpful, because ultimately, as I say, we want to get to a position where Russia is prosperous and stable and abides by the rules, so I'm not sure that labels like that are particularly helpful. OK, you mentioned before about innocent children getting killed in Syria's civil war and the fact that you didn't want to meddle in that, but it is estimated that the UK has sold between �4 billion and �6 billion of weapons to Saudi Arabia, which is bombing in Yemen. And there are hundreds of children that are being killed there. Are you happy to meddle in that situation? We're not meddling; we're providing a lot of humanitarian aid to Yemen, and it's a devastating situation. And I've got to say, I'm not cited sufficiently on that side of things, but all I would say is that... All I would say is that we have very clear export controls on when we export weapons, and those are very, very carefully scrutinised. That's a legal question, though. I'm asking you, probably, a moral and ethical question. Are you happy with the amount of collateral damage that is occurring in Yemen? I don't think anyone is happy with the Yemen war that's been going on for a very long time. It's devastating, and the humanitarian impact is huge, and it is a very, very... difficult situation there. So... The UN has asked the countries involved there to cease hostilities so that a political solution can be negotiated. And` Will the UK cease selling weapons to Saudi Arabia? That's not something I can comment on. As I say, we've got very strong export controls, and we are working very closely on the humanitarian response to this awful crisis. And still to come ` we dissect the week's political news with our panel. Plus, what happens to a community when the industry driving its economy goes away? We talk to author Amy Goldstein about her book Janesville. What happens to a community when good work goes away? That's the question Washington Post reporter Amy Goldstein set out to answer with her book, Janesville: An American Story. The Wisconsin city was the home of America's oldest General Motors assembly plant. That's until it closed down in 2008. In a city of 63,000 people, it had directly employed almost 5000 of them. I spoke to Miss Goldstein ahead of her visit here for the upcoming Writers Festival and started by asking her if the plant's closure had destroyed Janesville. Well, General Motors doesn't destroy Janesville, but it certainly was a big economic blow. Janesville, Wisconsin, was a city that had a long, proud industrial past. It had the oldest operating General Motors plant in the whole company, starting just after World War I, until it closed down two days before Christmas of 2008. And thousands of people who had very good working-class jobs ` wages of $28 an hour if they worked for General Motors ` lost that work during this time, and this was the kind of blow that Janesville had never had before. What did that do socially to the structure of the families, to the city itself? Well, Janesville turns out to be a pretty resilient place. This was not a community that I knew when I decided I wanted to find a place to write about to illustrate close up what really happens to people and families and the texture of a community when good work goes away. But over the years that I spent getting to know Janesville, I found that people had very, very hard decisions to face. People made different kinds of choices. Some people recovered; some people had a harder time getting back up. The community itself, as I said, is very resilient. All kinds of local non-profits were trying to help people who were suddenly falling out of the middle class and kind of shell-shocked that that had happened to them. But the town is still going. The thing is, some people would argue that the demise of cities like Janesville is what handed Donald Trump the presidency. Do you think that is too simple an explanation? I think it is a little bit too facile an explanation. Janesville is an old union town, and it leans Democratic in its voting. It's the home town of Paul Ryan, who now is the Speaker of the US House of Representative, and he's obviously a Republican, Conservative guy who has been Janesville's congressman since he was 28 years old ` it's 20 years by now. But the town itself has held onto its Democratic identity longer than its union jobs have lasted. So in the 2016 presidential election that brought Donald Trump into office ` while Wisconsin as a state voted Republican, voted for Trump, for the first time since the 1980s ` Janesville itself voted narrowly for Hillary Clinton, the Democrat. Do you think, though, it's an example of what some people have called the 'evisceration' of America's working class, within this city, this town? Well, I can tell you that the industry in this town has not recovered. It's been nearly a decade. And while the unemployment rate has fallen dramatically from its height of over 13% in early 2009, just after thousands of these well-paid working class jobs vanished; while the unemployment rate has come down, industry has not come back, and wages are a lot lower. So, you know, people are making do, but they are not making do as well as they used to, for the most part. How prepared were they for other jobs when they were forced to look for other jobs? One of the reasons I chose Janesville, among many reasons, was that it has a small technical college that let me look at job retraining ` one of the things I was very interested in. You know, when working-class jobs, good jobs go away, what do people of the United States, and what does the government recommend people, do to recover? And training for a new job is a very popular idea. So I was really interested in how well this worked in Janesville. And does it work well or not? Well, I found that a lot of people went back to school; not all of them finished. And I did a little statistical analysis with some academics who helped me, looking at people who had and had not gone back to retrain after they had lost work in this part of Wisconsin. And it turned out to be very sobering findings ` that people who had not gone back to school actually did better than those who did. We have a pretty well-known economist here in New Zealand who talks about a thing called 'zombie towns' ` towns whose economic glory days are over. And he believes that, basically, some things can't be saved. You should just turn out the lights on some towns and walk away. What are your thoughts, having spent a lot of time with these people from Janesville? Well, I know that that is a school of thought and that may be true of some communities. I can also tell you that the people of Janesville would very much resent being told that they're a zombie town. They have been trying incredibly hard in two ways ` one, to try to rebuild their local economy; and secondly, there are a lot of home-grown non-profits that have done a lot of fundraising, especially when this job loss was so new, to provide various kinds of help for people whose livelihoods have just disappeared. So Janesville has been really trying not to become a zombie town. Very, very recently, General Motors sold this huge tract of land on which the factory sat, and a new company is trying to clean it up environmentally and is hoping to redevelop it. What ultimately happens with that property is completely unknown. There's no specific redevelopment plan yet, but people in Janesville are hoping that something will come along that will prevent them from becoming a zombie town. Well, Janesville, as you mentioned, it's the hometown of Paul Ryan, who is now the retiring Speaker of the House. Both he and President Obama, well, they talked quite a big game around resurrecting the auto industry in places like Janesville. Did they give people false hope, do you think? Well, I think that one of the lessons that I learned by spending several years getting to know people in Janesville and looking at both the local and state and federal policies ` both Democrat and Republican ` in the United States that are meant to help communities when work goes away is that rebuilding a local economy is really hard to do. So, President Obama, in fact, gave a very important economic speech right inside the Janesville assembly plant when he wasn't yet president, when he was Senator Obama from Illinois, running for president for the first time, trying to win the Wisconsin primary in the winter of 2008. And he said in this speech, in which he's laying out his economic agenda for his campaign, 'The promise of Janesville is the promise of America.' And he said in this speech that if the country basically agreed with his economic policies and supported him, he said, 'This plant is going to last for another hundred years.' It closed that winter, that December. Well, is President Trump continuing to give false hope to these kind of workers and these kinds of industries? He's talking about making America great again; he's introducing tariffs; he's saying he's going bring back jobs from Mexico. But can you actually go backwards? Do you need to just look at going forwards? Well, I think it's too soon to know what the current administration's policies are going to yield. President Trump has been in office for a year, he's talking now about tariffs or not tariffs, and time will tell. I think it's completely impossible that the Janesville assembly plant is going to reopen. It's been sold. How well other parts of the country fare is yet to be seen. Some people here would argue that we could be on the cusp of a Janesville moment. Some of our regions rely on coal and gas businesses for their wealth. Now, our government is phasing out those industries over 20 to 30 years, maybe even longer. But knowing what you know, what advice would you give us? Well, let me say first of all that I wrote this book so that it would be relevant to people who knew nothing about the US auto industry and nothing about Wisconsin or the American Midwest ` new communities, like Janesville, that have suffered hard times or the older Rust Belt parts of the American Midwest ` but really to show what happens when work goes away in any community in any part of the globe. So the kinds of things that people in Janesville went through, I think, are very relevant lessons for people in your country. So I'm delighted that I'm going to be coming to Auckland to talk about this book at a writers festival, because I think that it's got, you know, broad meaning. You know, I think that for the communities of yours that are about to lose coal jobs or other kinds of coal jobs, people should be prepared that it takes a lot of resilience ` both personally and at the community level ` to figure out, as I came to think of it while doing this work, what kinds of choices people make when there are no good choices left, because, eventually, people do have to figure out something. And it may not be the same level of income; it may not be the same kind of work. There are people in my story who took auto jobs within the General Motors firmament hundreds of miles away from Janesville in order to keep their family's income up and commute just great distances every week or every month to keep their lives in Janesville, but they work somewhere they can keep their old General Motors pay. So there are lots of choices that can be made, but they're all hard ones. And you can see Amy Goldstein at the Auckland Writers Festival on May 18th. Still to come ` we put your questions to National MP Judith Collins in this week's 'Ask me Anything'. But first, we catch up with our panel ` Tim Watkin from Radio New Zealand, Matthew Hooton from Exceltium PR and former Green MP Sue Bradford. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` Radio New Zealand's Tim Watkin, former Green MP Sue Bradford and PR consultant Matthew Hooton. Good morning to you all. Morning. Hey we heard there from Minister for Social Development. We're expecting another committee, Tim, 'a' expert panel or a committee ` call it what you will` (CHUCKLES GENTLY) Did you say there were 80 of them now? There's 80. Yeah. (CHUCKLES GENTLY) Yeah. So... Mm. Is that the kinda action you were expecting? Well, yeah, frankly, because` No, to be fair, overhauls of the kinda` What was interesting is they're suggesting significant overhaul. If it wasn't significant, if it was actually cute politics, they wouldn't need to go into the kinda big think. It's always disappointing that oppositions that have been there for nine years haven't done the work in advance, but to me, I actually that means that there could be significant changes, and the breadcrumbs she laid out for you there ` that phrase 'income adequacy', which she kept coming back to ` that's really interesting. Benefit levels. Benefit levels. Whether that's through abatements or just increasing benefits or whether, as you said, you know, tying it to wage rates, those would be significant changes, and that's what she was hinting at. But here's the thing, Matthew ` if you get your prime minister coming out and saying change is imminent and then what you announce is a committee, are you setting people up for disappointment? Look, it's quite obvious what a Labour government wants. It wants to raise benefits ` or at least the value of benefits, and it wants to have fewer penalties; it wants less stick. So it wants people to have to do less to prove that they're seeking work and declare less to the state. And I can't see why a Labour government that believes in those two things ` less stick and higher benefits ` doesn't get on with it in the Budget, and I hope that` for her sake, that that interview with Carmel Sepuloni was just an example of a minister in a difficult position before a Budget and not being to say much, because if they think that's an election-winning programme ` to be talking about committees ` they're wrong. Sue Bradford, she talked about the one sanction that they have committed to get rid of, and this is the one where one parent won't name the other parent. She's previously said ` and I'm quoting her when I say that ` that she would get rid of it at the earliest opportunity. Up to three years, she said to us ` sometime this term. Yes, it's really disappointing that she's still saying it even many months after Labour came to power and that it's still very unclear as to whether it'll happen until right near the end of this term of government, because as she says, 17,000 children roughly are affected every single day. Women, mainly, are coming desperately to advocacy groups for help every day. They're losing that money every day, ending up homeless, partly because of this lack of income. Their already low benefits are even lower as a result of this sanction. So you don't think she can afford to wait. She shouldn't be waiting. There's no need to wait. She could do an amendment to the Social Security Act very, very quickly on this one matter alone. The government has every capacity to do that. If they did it under urgency, it would take weeks. There's no reason to hold back, I can think of. Except that $250,000 million. No, I think their figure is wildly out. Well, that's what she says. I think it's insane, that figure she used. It bears no relation. In terms of government budgets, it's a very small amount of money. I know... Well, I'm just going along with what she says. It's $250,000 million` No, I don't think` ...and this government` It can't be right. ...did not properly prepare itself. Well` Steven Joyce tried to highlight prior to the election ` there is a fiscal hole. Steven Joyce mucked up the PR around that, but this government and Grant Robertson, in my view, didn't make an accounting error; they cynically did not provide increases in funding in these areas, and they're stuck with that. OK, well, here's the thing, Tim ` whether that figure is right or wrong, let's just put that to one side for a moment. We have documents that say up to almost $600 million is in some uncollected allowances. That's not all the allowances; that's just some of them, and that's a year. So is Matthew right? Have they embarked on this not realising how much it's gonna cost and they don't have the money? So the Budget is set, and there is no way that there is a budget line in there saying, '500 million, $600 million in case people come and ask for more from WINZ.' So, no, they haven't allowed for that; I don't think for a second they have. And having said that, one of their clearly stated policies is to make sure people get what they're entitled to. So there could well be some money around ` tryin' to make it clear, you know, charters within WINZ about bein' able to declare fully exactly what your entitlements are ` and some money wrapped around makin' that happen. But, no, I don't think they've got that kinda money involved in this. One of their clearly stated policies, though, is their debt ceiling. Yeah. So is`? Look, they don't have enough money to do what they need to do. Look` I mean, you asked about case loads, and that's critical, right? If you had more staff in there actually able to sit down and plan careers and work readiness and help people coming into WINZ, then that would change the culture. That would change the culture more than anything, but where's the money for that? We gotta go to the break soon, but I wanna hear from you on culture, Sue. She says it's like turning a jumbo jet around mid-flight. Yes, but it's not happening anywhere near fast enough. I mean, cases, like you mentioned, are happening every single day of people ending up in the most desperate circumstances, because of how they're treated at the front line of Work and Income offices. I believe that change should be happening much more quickly. It should be happening now. For a start, they could look at this whole situation where offices are patrolled by security guards. Even if they wish to maintain them, how about using them in a completely different way ` in a compassionate and caring way? How about the most elementary training for staff about how using common sense, kindness, empathy? The things she's talking about` She says she's made her view clear. I mean, this is stuff` So are they ignoring her or they're just not hearing the message? Well, from outside, we can't see what's happening inside, but I do not understand ` with many months they've had already to begin to shift this culture; her commitment to it from the time she signed the agreement with the Greens ` why this should not be happening a lot more quickly, because people are being damaged; people are being made homeless. Families and children are suffering, and many thousands of people are suffering every day, because how they're treated. OK. This is urgent. We gotta go to the break, Sue. So urgent in your view. Do stay with us. We'll be back after the break. (INTRIGUING THEME MUSIC) Welcome back. You're with Newshub Nation and our panel. We heard there from Laura Clarke, Matthew, who's the British High Commissioner to New Zealand. We're looking for trade deals. A Commonwealth trade deal, though? What do you make of that? Well, it's not as important or as urgent as the UK or EU deals, because they have a timeline to them. And it would be very, very difficult to negotiate, because of the number of countries, if you compare it with the Trans-pacific Partnership. But, look, it's a way that, potentially, it would create a dialogue to get better access into India and parts of Africa, where New Zealand doesn't have good access now or much presence at all. It is` Most importantly, it's in the coalition agreement. Winston Peters' New Zealand First party campaigned on this initiative` He also campaigned on a Russia deal as well. Well, he did, but it's in the coalition agreement. It hasn't been ruled out. He's made progresses on London. So, that's` In the end, I think, what's interesting is the bureaucracy is not taking it seriously. I understand that nobody has been allocated, really, to work on the Closer Commonwealth Economic Relations deal. Instead, the foreign policy establishment continues to massively invest in things like the Dubai Expo, which budget is coming up to about $100 million ` it's going over budget. But that is not the government's priority. The government's priority is the EU, Europe and the Commonwealth deal. So, that brings us to bureaucrats, right? So, there has been discussion this week raised by Shane Jones, who would like to be able to appoint some public servants, he says, at the apex of the triangle ` just the top ones. An independent public service is one of the great legacies of the British Empire, of which there weren't that many great legacies. The independence of the public service is so critical. I'd hate to see the politicisation of those kind of` the further politicisation of those kind of appointments. But he's absolutely right that the public service has a lot of power these days, and a lot of that power is used for apathy and status quo, right? Just doing as little as` They don't have a driving energy. So I can understand how frustrated you would be, as a minister coming in, trying to get things going. But how do you balance that against the politicisation and the urge to get where you want to go quick? Because then you're just getting the advice that you want if you put in the people you want. Absolutely. Yes, Tim's right, you turn it round, absolutely oppose any politicisation or further politicisation of the public service, but what we really need to have a conversation about, and where the government really needs to act, is about turning our public service back into the kind of public service we once believed in decades ago, which is, if not being politically partisan, is of high competence` competence and capacity being your highest goals so that the public service, both in terms of policy advice and implementation, can act quickly on the sort of things that Minister Sepuloni's trying to do. I think there are deep` Generations of neglect and of semi-politicisation have left the public service quite incapacitated ` and frustrating for the public servants themselves; I'm not trying to put them down. But the whole culture of public service needs to change, I think, back to one where you're there to serve the people. Matthew's right, right? You know, governments should be able to act on their mandate. Yeah, so, are you saying, though, that we're devoid of public servants who have the expertise and knowledge required to implement` ...the welfare policy` No, well, it doesn't matter what it is. It could be trade policy; it could be welfare policy. No, I think they have the expertise, but I think that they are highly invested in whatever the status quo is. I don't think the public service is politicised, in the sense of being Labour or National. I just think they just wish to do as little as possible and generate as little risk to their own careers. And the easiest way to avoid risk to your career in the public sector is just to roughly leave things as they are and don't look to innovate, whether it's in welfare or trade or whatever it is. In the media, we deal with public agencies all the time. The risk-averse culture is stultifying. However, I'd also say to the media, if we want to change this culture, the media will often run stories` it used to be the media would run a story which would say, 'Minister overrules officials and implements election policy.' And that would be good news. All too often, journalists present these stories now as, 'Oh, our A paper show that the minister refused 'to follow the advice of their officials.' Well, that second story, in my view, is stupid; it shouldn't be run. Because what it says to ministers is if they implement their policies and not the Treasury's or whoever's policies, they're going to be beaten up in the media. And that's wrong. So, if public servants are invested in whatever government is there of the day, when the government changes, should that top tier change? No, I mean, it shouldn't be politicised in that sense. But I think, any government, whatever stripe, should be aiming` should revert to a clear culture. And Matthew said, right ` sometimes we do agree` (LAUGHS) You're lovely. (ALL LAUGH) ...that the public service does need to become less risk-averse and more able to act in itself, have the competence to do that, be strengthened, not constantly undermined, internally and externally. I think that concept of true public service is what would help us do that. And there's things like pay and conditions and training. And who's at the top` It's not that it should be politicised in the sense of a National- or Labour-led government politicisation` And I agree with that. ...at all, which Shane Jones, unfortunately, is saying. It's a matter of governments of all stripes` Actually, we want a quality public service that has good leadership` The consensus of our panel is he's got some bits of it right, but some bits of it wrong` Yeah, shake it up, shake it up. Yep, all right. Well, we'll leave it there. And National Party MP Judith Collins joined us for our weekly Facebook Live and answered questions on everything from KiwiBuild to whether she still harbours leadership aspirations. She even told us how she really feels about being called 'Crusher'. When I first heard it, I thought, 'Oh my God, no. That's awful.' But my press security at the time, who was a bloke, said, 'It's great. It's great. 'At least you've got a nickname. No one else has got a nickname.' Well, hardly anyone had. And, you know, I thought, well, at least people know who you are. In my business, if people don't know who you are, well, you're dead, really, aren't you? I never use it myself, but it is a better nickname than 'Wimp', you know? No one says, 'Judith Wimpy Collins', do they? That's very true. I don't think anyone would ever accuse you` And who do you want on your side? Do you want wimpy on your side or do you want me? Yep. Do you want 'Crusher' or do you want 'Wimp'? Fair enough. Well, see, I can say it. (BOTH LAUGH) Well, that's all from us for now. The panel are still chatting and carrying on their conversation, but if didn't catch all of the show, you can watch now on ThreePlus1. You can see us again next weekend ` same time, same place. Thanks for watching. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018