Today on Newshub Nation, we ask the Prime Minister how brave she's willing to be in pursuit of justice reform. And we talk to the Justice Minister, Andrew Little, about what needs to be done to avoid a major crisis in the prison system. Plus is there a toxic culture at Auckland Council? We ask Mayor Phil Goff. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018 Kia ora. Good morning. I'm Lisa Owen. Welcome to Newshub Nation. The Labour-led government is committed to reducing the prison population by 30% in 15 years. But this week its first step towards justice system reform stumbled into` well, it turned into a bit of a stumble, with Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters refusing to back a repeal of the three-strikes law. I asked Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern if she's still confident New Zealand First will support significant reforms. Yes, and as we've reiterated again this week, we are a government who as a whole supports criminal justice reform, and for two important reasons. New Zealanders, I don't think, generally support this idea of an American-style system where we build mega prisons and have low-level offenders going into them, not just because that's not who we are, but because it doesn't work. Ultimately, we want an effective justice system. That means spending much more time on rehabilitation, reintegration, and, as Dr Ian Lambie, one of our science advisors, pointed out this week, much more effort put into younger people and earlier on, because that's how you prevent that life of crime. I just want to explore your confidence in New Zealand First supporting you in this, because Winston Peters has in the past supported cumulative sentencing, which means longer sentences, hard labour for some offenders, reducing benefits for parents of youth offenders, and lowering the age of criminal responsibility. So how does that fit with your goal? And you've been really clear about a less punitive and more compassionate system. We've been really clear about a system that works. Ultimately, we're all united in the fact that we don't want to see more victims, and the best way to prevent people becoming victims is to reduce the number of offenders we have in the first place. And actually, you don't need to ask me. Ask the Deputy Prime Minister himself. He has spoken openly around the fact that some of these things that we have in our system, and the fact that when we came into office, on the current trajectory, we would be building a new prison every three to five years, and yet our criminal offending rate sits at about a pretty constant state. Something is going wrong. He himself has said we need to do things differently. Do you accept that there's going to have to be compromise on both sides? I accept in any coalition government that, of course, you work through these things on the basis of consensus, but, as we've talked about this week, things like three-strikes is only one small part of a much wider agenda that we need to think about, and that includes what we're doing as preventative work, early intervention, and also what we're doing around those alternatives, like, for instance, the use of home detention. But do you think that the compromise will be so great to get you both on the same page that it's not going to achieve what you need, it's not going to be enough? No, I don't believe that, and I actually think that probably the biggest obstacle we have at the moment is making sure that we bring the New Zealand public with us. You know, this is a conversation we need to have together. In the past, you have seen reactions in the criminal justice area as being just that ` reactive. We need to sit down together and say what does it mean to create a safer New Zealand and a more effective criminal justice system. And sometimes, for some offenders ` lower level ` that will mean looking at some of the alternatives that exist. Well, it's interesting that you raised that, because you have said in the past, 'A government respects the will of the majority of the people.' So you are going to try and bring them along with you, but if there is a public outcry about justice reforms, will you give up on those reforms? Well, ultimately, that's what this government actually reflects ` the will of the majority of the people, and there are a diverse range of views in this government. That's what's one of its strengths ` is that we have there the New Zealand Green Party, the New Zealand First Party, and Labour, and I think probably the views we bring to the table will reflect the views of New Zealanders, but actually you even hear from across the other side of the house ` Bill English famously said, 'Prisons are a moral and fiscal failure. 'They demonstrate when we've got things wrong.' What we've been bold enough to say is, 'What does right look like for New Zealand?' Because we are not the US, and yet our numbers look pretty close to the United States'. Okay, so that sounds like you are... Being elected as the mandate you need to make these changes in this term. One of your science advisors, Ian Lambie, who you've mentioned, says the reform you need is going to require strong and courageous leadership. So are these reforms potentially worth being a one-term government? Well, of course, we need to have that conversation with New Zealanders. This is not just something that's happening behind closed doors, and Andrew Little's been very open about the fact that he wants to hold this summit in August, bring people from across the country around the table, because if they're going to last ` and I mean the reforms, not just government ` if they're going to last and won't be a political football, we need to have some consensus. And we've always said we're going to do government differently. We're going to be open about the challenges we face. This is a key example, because criminal justice is a huge challenge. And you understand, from what you've said, it's terribly controversial. We've seen it this week. You've mentioned three-strikes. There are ads, very personal ads, in the newspaper, so are you prepared to risk that this will be it, one term in government, if you push forward the reforms? We need to bring people with us. That's the whole point. If you end up being a one-term government as a consequence of changes you've made, you probably haven't brought people on that journey, and the pitch that we're making, the conversation we need to have with New Zealand is when we have a static crime rate ` one actually we want to bring down ` but when we have a static crime rate but an ever increasing prison population, is that the kind of country we want to be? But that could involve bail law reform. It could involve parole law reform. It could involve` You know how controversial that is. It could involve an improved youth justice system, more investment in education, better transition services, stopping young people becoming NEETs ` 'not in employment, education or training' ` doing more around drug and alcohol issues, and actually having rehabilitation that works. 60% of our prison population are reoffenders. It's going to take a whole suite of measures, and we need to build support for that. How are you going to bring them along with you? It's part of a public conversation, and we're starting that now. Obviously, there are issues where` And as we've seen with three strikes ` particular view on that one ` again, the government represents New Zealand in parliament. That's one where obviously there's a view from New Zealand first, and we've listened to that, but it is only one small part. OK. On a totally different subject, you are about to go off on maternity leave, so what do you think has been the hardest part of having such a high-profile pregnancy? LAUGHS: Still just morning sickness. Really? Yeah, I mean, look, I've had the same experiences that so many women have had. I've just done it in a particularly public role, but actually the challenges I faced aren't unique. They're not new, and probably, I'd say those early days, when we were establishing the coalition government, we just concluded negotiations, I was formally setting ahead the path for us as a government ` that was probably the time I felt the worst. And I just had to get on with it, and I did. Have you packed your hospital bag? Yes. Sort of. Mostly. (LAUGHS) Hmm. That doesn't sound very definitive. Yes. What's in it? Everything that anyone would think to take ` toothbrush, pyjamas, not much more than that. Nutritious snacks for your partner? I've always heard that you can really overdo it with those bags. I've kept mine pretty simple, pretty basic. So, sort of, maybe, yeah, kind of ready to go? LAUGHS: Yeah, pretty much. I've been very careful not to buy into this sense of overdramatisation. Things happen pretty slowly ` well, in some cases. I think I'll be one of those. Famous last words. Thanks for joining us. Appreciate your time. Thank you. If you've got something to say about what you see on the show, let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram ` NewshubNationNZ. Our Twitter panel this week is Graeme Edgeler and Josiah Tualamali'i. They are using the hashtag #NationNZ. You can also email us at... Up next ` Andrew Little on why we need to overhaul our justice system and what could happen if we don't. Plus ` leaked information and allegations of bullying. We ask Auckland mayor Phil Goff if his council is in crisis. Welcome back. The Government must reduce the prison population by the end of next year or face complete failure of the prison system, according to Justice Ministry advice released to Newshub Nation. That advice also says those reductions will require significant reform. Here to discuss just what that means is Justice Minister Andrew Little. Good morning, Minister. Good morning. For clarity's sake, let's start with three-strikes first. Is the repeal of that legislation a possibility still as part of a wider package of changes? Not right now. Our coalition partner, New Zealand First, has made it pretty clear they don't agree with the repeal of three-strikes at this point. They want to see a total package of reform. And it might be something that can be considered further down the track, but it's not on the table right now. How much would that change by itself have lowered the prison population? Look, it could make some difference, but actually there's bigger gains through other changes that need to be made. We're got to have a look at the whole range of things. It's not just what the laws are ` bail laws, parole laws. It's actually what we do in the prisons ` things that don't necessarily require a law change. So what sort of services are we providing prisoners who need help and support, who can be changed and, with a bit of that extra help and support, can be released and not have a high probability of reoffending again? That's where the game is, and that's kind of part of the change process we have. I want to look at the different possibilities of change a bit later, but first let's lay out the situation as it is. Justice Ministry documents ` and we've got a whole big wodge of them here that were released to us under the Official Information Act ` they tell us the prison population is due to hit 13,400 by 2027. You simply don't have the beds for that, so would you be happy with prisoners sleeping on mattresses on the floor? No. Of course you don't want that. And the reality is pretty much the first day we got into government, myself, Corrections Minister Kelvin Davis, we got the advice that, on the current trajectory on prison population growth, if we did nothing, we would be building an extra prison every two to three years. That's kind of how bad it is. And so while we made it` Hang on. Let's not skip over that. If you do not make substantial change, you will be required to decide whether to build a new jail every two to three years. That was the advice we received, and that's why we campaigned about reducing the prison population. Now we're in government we get the opportunity to look at what sits under that. Why is it that we have this massive growth in the prison population? There's a range of factors, but we know, when we look at what we're doing ` or, more importantly, what we're not doing ` and what other countries are doing, there's stuff that we can do that not only reduces the prison population, but achieves what we actually want, which is reducing reoffending, therefore reducing the number of victims of crime, therefore being safer. So this is a programme about` Although extensively we talk about reducing the prison population because we don't have the prisons to accommodate them, it's actually about a criminal justice system that achieves the objective of reducing offending, reducing reoffending, and having fewer victims of crime. OK. The other thing that you have also been told in that advice is that if you wish to avoid a quote 'failure of the prison system', you need to reduce inmate numbers by a specific amount. Now, that specific amount, that figure, has been redacted from the documents released to us. What is that number? I can't recall. That's a report that goes back some months. I can't recall it. Except that what we have done, we have already committed to` OK, but just before we move on from that, will you commit to releasing that figure, making it available to us so that we can put it on the website so people can see where things are at? Look, I need to go back and see what the reason for the redaction was, because the reality is we have two projects for building extra prison accommodation. One is the short-term stuff we're doing, which is due to have 660 extra beds by the end of next year. The other is now the rebuild of Waikeria Prison, which will be ready for 2020, 2021. Often those figures are kept because there are commercial imperatives. When you're going out tendering and contracting, you've got to keep the tendering process` Yeah. This isn't about a tendering process, obviously. This is a vital figure. It is the minimum amount that they feel you need to reduce the prison population by the end of next year ` that's the deadline they've given you ` or face extreme stress on the system and, ultimately, potential failure of the prison system. So will you undertake to go back and consider releasing that number ` look at releasing that number to us so that we can have a full and frank conversation about this? Sure. I'm happy to go back and have a look at it, but I go back to the point we've already made the decision ` we made it pretty early on ` about the extra build, what we're calling the short-term build, of 660 extra beds that will be available at the end of next year. We've had to do that to alleviate the immediate pressure on the prison service. And then we've got the Waikeria build coming on as well. This is the balls that we're juggling. I think the last interview I did with you, we were going through this. The short-term pressure that we've got, in the absence of any other kind of initiatives or law changes that we're doing ` there are more prisoners going into the prison. More are being put on remand. We've got to deal with that. We've got to keep Corrections staff safe. We've got to keep prisoners safe. But we've also got to work on the long-term gain, which is a criminal justice system that reduces offending and reoffending and the numbers of victims of crime. Well, let's break it down. To meet your 30% reduction target, according to all the advice that I've looked at, you will need a suite of changes. Legislative change, operational change, and investment in new services are the three areas that they've specified to you. Do you accept the advice that without law changes, you will simply be looking at a Band-Aid patch-up, that you need law changes to do this job properly? Yes, we do, and we've said that from the outset, and that's why we've also said that pretty much everything is on the table. But what we've also said is we actually need to have a good public debate about the issue. We need to get the facts out about what has happened in the New Zealand criminal justice system over recent years, what is happening now, what the challenges are, and what are ways we can address that challenge, including the experience from overseas jurisdictions that have successfully reduced their prison population over a matter of a small number of years. OK. And we will look at some of that, but in terms of law change, before we move on, putting three-strikes to one side, specifically, what is on the table in terms of laws that are going to be looked at and reviewed? I expect once we get our advisory group in place and we get through the criminal justice summit, we will have to have a look at the Parole Act, the Bail Act; we'll have to look at the sentencing council idea and get some cohesion around our sentencing. There will be those sorts of things. I think the real game changer is going to be what we can do inside our prisons and make it systematic across the prison network, not just leave it up to individual prison managers who, through managing their budgets and tweaking things here and tweaking things there, can do initiatives that have a good impact but a small impact; we need to be doing that stuff network-wide. And we'll get to the rehabilitation side of things first, but you accept that in order to reach these targets, you absolutely will have to have law change, and those are the areas ` bail, sentencing, and parole. As soon as you say those things, you can imagine what the reaction is going to be, and this week, around three-strikes, Mark Mitchell from the National Party put out a press release straight away talking about the fact that everybody in jail needs to be there; 98% of them are high-end offenders ` violence, serious assault, with an average of 46 convictions. They need to be in there. No, because we know that over 50% of prisoners who enter the prison system in any one year are actually there for non-violence offences and what I would characterise as low-level offences. So he's got that figure wrong. When we have a look at those on remand, we know that those who are remanded in custody in the huge numbers who are being remanded at the moment ` 59% end up getting a custodial sentence. 41% do not get a custodial sentence. 9% of that overall figure are acquitted; they don't get a conviction at all. Just the numbers alone tell you we've calibrated our remand decision-making the wrong way. We're remanding too many in custody. We're too severe with remanding people in custody. Is that what you're saying? 41% remanded in custody end up not getting a custodial sentence as a result. It tells you that we've calibrated it too far the other way. OK, let's look at specifics there too. One of the biggest growth areas for remand prisoners is class-A drug offenders awaiting trial. Is jail the best place for a class-A drug offender waiting for trial? This is the problem ` it's hard to make those generalisations. If the drug offending is also leading to standover tactics, violence tactics, then, yeah, to keep other people safe, it probably is. Whether that's the case for every person charged with a class-A drug offence, it's hard to say. But that's the problem, isn't it, Minister? The exception to the rule is always going to be the problem, isn't it? It's not so much about the exception to the rule. It's actually about having a justice system where you say to the judges, 'Your job is to assess every individual person that comes in front of you 'on the circumstances that they are in.' We've spent years trying to be very prescriptive for judges, removing their discretion, so the whole heap of things that they can't take into account, they don't, and so we wind up with more people in prison. And we understand` So are you suggesting legislative change that would allow them more discretion? I guess what I'm suggesting is a criminal justice system that says you've done this offending; you have to be punished, and you may even have to go to prison, but you've got a mental health issue or you're one of the 77% who is themselves a victim of violence ` you grew up with violence in your home. You've got issues that we could help with and turn you around so when you are released you're not part of that 60% ` 60% ` who will reoffend within two years of being released. Two years, yeah. That 60% reoffending figure ` that is a mark of failure of 30 years of criminal justice policy that says we'll lock more people up and we'll lock them up for longer. But the reoffending rate is as high as that. That's what we have to change. You're talking about locking people up for longer there. Inmates are serving longer sentences with extended minimum parole periods. Would you consider dropping minimum non-parole periods and leaving it up to the parole board to decide when it is safe to release people? Look, parole has a very important place for those who, once they're in prison, actually make an effort to do the things that's going to change their behaviours. And I think what I found really encouraging this week was David Seymour, ACT MP, promoting his idea of those who are in prison, if they successfully complete the literacy course, if they successfully complete the addiction therapy or whatever it is that's going to turn them around, they should get credit in terms of, you know, the sentence that they're serving. So you'll consider legislating discounts on sentences for educational achievement? Yeah, that's actually what a parole system is for. There's got to be a way to incentivise inmates, once they are in prison, to do stuff that's going to change them ` change their attitudes, their behaviours, and minimise the risk of them reoffending on release. And if we've got MPs like David Seymour saying that, that, to me, looks like a pretty significant breakthrough. You've touched on this, but 91% of prisoners have a lifetime mental health diagnosis, 65% have low literacy or numeracy, 47% have addiction problems. You have been... Well, people have said that the move to build 100-bed mental health system facility at Waikeria Prison is the right thing to do, but what are you going to do with all the other jails and all the others? Because the numbers are huge with these problems. Specifically, are you going to put those kinds of units everywhere else? Yeah, look, we've done that with Waikeria because we've accepted on the current evidence that actually we need that sort of help and support for people who are in prison with mental health issues. And the same will apply in other parts of the country, unquestionably. And I think the point that we're at` and one of the objectives of the criminal justice summit at the end of August is exactly to kind of get that social licence to look more creatively at what we can do within the prison system that's going to help people who've done bad things, turn them around, reduce their reoffending, and therefore spare more victims of crime. But that's why we've got to have a good public debate and actually get some good evidence out there about what we can do, what could be done, and what could make a difference. Well, part of the evidence ` 60% of prisoners, as you mentioned, end up back in jail within two years, so our current rehab course is just box-ticking exercises. The ones in the system now, if you've got a 60% bounce-back rate` Yeah, well, I'm not going to characterise it except to say we know what the result is ` 60% are reoffending within two years of release. It's not good enough. Look, if I ran a business where 60% of my customers came back for a refund or an exchange within two years of me selling the service or the good, I wouldn't have a business. But yet we tolerate that in our criminal justice system ` that level of failure. And we shouldn't do anymore. This is what we have to address. OK, so, arguably, one of the best ways to lower the prison population is to stop people going there in the first place, and one of the government's science advisors has said that we really need to intervene with at-risk kids at very early ages, including babies. How comfortable are you with identifying those kids and targeting them with intervention and assistance? You know, we know that there are situations that young people are in ` and, look, it often starts with violence in the home ` that if we do the right interventions, we can change life outcomes way further down the track. And the police are dealing with this all the time. They are piloting this Integrated Safety Response model in Christchurch and in Hamilton that is starting to have some really positive effects about not just keeping people safe, but actually addressing the behaviours that are the source of the violence. That's the sort of stuff that we have to be doing. I think part of the public debate we need to have is ` and I talked about social licence before ` what is it we need to be doing? What is it the public of New Zealand want us to be doing ` without getting too Big Brother-ish about it? What is it that we could be doing, knowing that these things have a long-term effect, that is really going to make the difference? And that is, I think, where the debate has to be. That, in essence, is what could be called 'social investment'. And Treasury has now identified almost 20,000 kids under the age of 5 with high-risk factors, so we know who they are. Why don't you just get on with it and work with those kids? Yeah, we can. And it hasn't just happened under our government. I sat on the select committee that was chaired by Paul Hutchison, former National MP, who has made it his life's work to redress this issue about the first thousand days ` getting that start right for kids in New Zealand. And it was a fantastic piece of work. I wasn't on it for the whole thing. It was a fantastic report,... So you're not adverse to targeting` ...but it was completely ignored by the previous government. But we can pick some stuff out of that, and that's the stuff that will help us make the difference. So you're not opposed to targeting kids of that age with targeted intervention and assistance? Look, everything's got to be on the table ` targeted assistance, whatever. In the end, I think when New Zealanders understand the magnitude of the problem, particularly around family and domestic violence, they understand what can be done` And, look, there will be some kind of encroachment on civil liberties potentially, but if this is about giving young kids a chance to have a decent life so they're not heading on that pipeline to prison, man, we've got to look at it. OK, so when you say everything's on the table, the Children's Commissioner and science advisors have said that evidence shows brain development isn't complete in young people until they're well into their mid-20s. So what about giving judges discretion to refer people to the Youth Court right up to the age of 25? Yeah, that issue has come up for debate, and we have pushed out the jurisdiction for the Youth Court by a year just recently` Under National. Yeah. Yeah, with the support of pretty much everybody, certainly Labour. 'Not far enough', says the Children's Commissioner. I want to explore how far you are prepared to go. Would you push it out to 20? Is that actively under consideration? No, I haven't seen any suggestion along those kinds of lines. Should you look at it? What I am very keen for us to do is to get more evidence and more science into what we do about criminal justice policy. And if the scientists and the specialists are saying, 'Look, this is something we have to look at', let's have that in the debate. Let's put that on the table, and let's have a discussion about that as well. Yeah, so you are prepared to 'go with the data, not with dogma'? That's a very nifty little phrase. I want to see more evidence` It's Sir Peter Gluckman's phrase. Right. And a great Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister and successive prime ministers he's been too. I want to see us being more science-based, more evidence-based than we have been for a long time. Okay, well, you have identified the fact that you need to talk to people about this, members of the public, and Jacinda Ardern has said that the biggest challenge is going to be bringing the public along with you. How are you going to do that? Because a lot of people think 'lock them up, throw away the key'. Yeah, a lot of people do. But it's interesting ` I detect a bit of a change in the debate as I get around. I'm finding fewer people saying, 'You're completely mad, lock them up, forget about them, they're scum' and all the rest of it. Actually, if we're serious about reducing offending, we've got to change what we do with those who have done wrong, who are being punished and being deprived of their liberty. If we want to stop them offending again ` and, look, when we see a 60% reoffending rate, which, in my view, is that mark of failure ` then we have to do things differently. And I think when we get good information out there` The purpose of the criminal justice summit is exactly to do that. We'll have our independent advisory group as well. Part of their role is to be part of leading that public discussion about that sort of stuff, so I'm confident that with good information, with good public debate, actually people will say, 'You know what? We've got to do things differently 'if we want to reduce those numbers, reduce the burden on the rest of the community 'of locking all these people up, and actually not changing the reoffending rate'. Why would we continue doing more of the same? What weight in that discussion are you going to give to victims' views? A significant amount, because I also happen to agree with a lot of the victims' advocates who speak to me that victims are still given a pretty shoddy ride in the criminal justice system. The victims are not part of the criminal justice system because of anything they've done or any choice of theirs; they are there because of things done to them. And yet we still let them down right from the outset, right from their engagement with the police, right through to the point of sentencing and what happens with them. So I am very keen for us to do a lot better for victims to make sure that their voice is heard at the right places throughout the system and make sure the victims get to have a place in what happens with offenders. But in terms of these specific reforms, for example, will Sensible Sentencing have representation on any advisory board? Look, we've approached victims' advocates, victims' advisors, and I'm very confident with the ones we've approached that they bring a very strong and independent voice for victims to the table. Is that a no to Sensible Sentencing having some representation on your advisory board? Because these documents do say that that is a group that you need to bring along with you. The Sensible Sentencing Trust is an interesting organisation, because its putative head ` I forget who is the actual head of it now, because it has chopped and changed so much ` but you've got Garth McVicar, who only a few years ago was publicly backing the 50-year-old white guy who stabbed to death a 15-year-old who had just graffitied his garage. So they're not someone you want on your advisory panel? Is that what you're saying? Well, we don't want nutters on it. We want good victims' advocates who are genuinely about improving the place of victims in our system. Okay, what happens if there is a high-profile crime while you were trying to negotiate these changes? Because, again, the documents tell us you were preparing, messaging, should that happen. Yeah, because we've been told that the thing that kind of skews the public debate and public opinion is a real traumatic, tragic event happens and people want to clamp down on things. And I think the point is this ` the sort of stuff we are talking about are not the offenders who are doing the high-profile days of coverage of their court case and their trial in court, really appalling and egregious stuff. Actually, it's the lower level offenders who've got a whole bunch of other problems going on in their lives, usually that they've inherited, but with a bit of an effort we can turn them around, and we can reduce that offending rate. What is the ultimate objective? We want fewer victims of crime. What we're doing at the moment isn't helping that. Actually, we've added to the prison population, we have more prisoners spending more time in prison, but our reoffending rate is still the same as it was about 15 years ago. So that's not working. If we want to address that reoffending rate, reduce the numbers of victims of crime, we have to change what we're doing, and we've got to talk to the public about what the best way is to do that. Thanks for joining us this morning, Justice Minister Andrew Little. Look forward to you reconsidering the redactions in these documents too. Still to come ` we dissect the week's political news with our panel, plus Auckland Council's airing its problems in public with nine councillors expressing a lack of confidence in mayor Phil Goff. We ask him how bad things are and what he's gonna do about it. Welcome back. This week, allegations have emerged of a toxic culture at Auckland Council, with talk of leaked information, withheld reports, and bullying. Nine out of 19 councillors signed a letter expressing concern over a $930,000 stadium report. They say Mayor Phil Goff kept it from them. I sat down with Mr Goff and asked if he had heard of any issues before he received the letter. Well, first of all, it's not a letter of no confidence. It doesn't say no confidence anywhere. That's the way it was portrayed when it was leaked to the media before I received it. Look, we have disagreements on Council. This disagreement's not on a huge issue, actually. The same group of nine people ` I think all of them supported my mayoral proposal for the ten-year budget the week before. And the 10-year budget is really important on Council. It's our plans for what affects Aucklanders over the next decade. Yeah. But a vote for the 10-year budget is not a vote of confidence in you; that is a vote for the people of Auckland and the budget. You said it is an isolated issue, but they actually say in that letter this behaviour has not been isolated. And people have described you as bullying, chauvinistic, dismissive, and they say that you work by yourself behind closed doors. I wanna give you the right to respond to that. Yeah, well, none of those things are correct. Let me just correct on the budget ` the budget, of course, is a vote of confidence. Not in you though, Mr Mayor. Well it's my proposal, so it is in me. But let's come back to those other things. Look Lisa, I think you're aware I've been in politics for a very long time. I've never been accused of bullying. It's not part of my DNA. I don't like bullying, I don't tolerate bullying. Chauvinistic ` (LAUGHS) I've never actually been accused of being a chauvinist either. I work well with people; I have over my entire political career. I work well across party-lines and I do so on council. And I think if you asked the overwhelming majority of councillors, they would not agree with comments of bullying or chauvinism. So nine Councillors are all wrong about their concerns? No, no, I don't think those nine councillors` Let's keep this absolutely correct, those nine councillors aren't accusing me of bullying. And indeed the one that was quoted as calling me a bully, I asked her to come in and talk to me, and she said she wasn't referring to me at all. That was Councillor Chris Fletcher. So are you absolutely confident in the way you are handling things? Oh look, I always look at ways I can improve my performance and my interaction with people. If you don't do that you're not doing your job properly. You know, I do have an open door policy in my office. People are free to come and talk to me, discuss things with me. Will we always agree? Of course not, that's the nature of human life and of politics. I don't ask people to be clones of me. I simply ask that when we have the discussions and the debates we treat each other with mutual respect. And that's really important if you want the council to operate as it ought. Well, you've said that, in particular, one of your councillors you believe is leaking information which is why you couldn't trust any of them with commercially sensitive documents or details. No, no, no, that's not true to say I couldn't trust any of them. I trust overwhelmingly the majority of my councillors, but regrettably` Then why didn't you give them free access? But they have. Look, every councillor has access to the full copy of that report in their office that they can read. So that's really important to know, because I've seen it referred to a couple of times. So, restricted to in their office, they've got this report and they can read it? What I'm saying is I'm not sending out electronic copies of the report because too often in the past when I've sent something out that's confidential, it's been in the public arena within minutes. OK, and that's a` And that's really sad. That lacks integrity to leak documents in that way. But I'm not saying I don't trust my councillors with it. I'm just saying I've got information from third parties that is commercially sensitive and I've got an obligation to protect that information. And I've told them I'd protect that information. All right. So there are restrictions on the edges, but not about the content. That is a fair issue. But for example, Efeso Collins says, 'The whole class is being punished for the behaviour of one of the naughty kids.' So why don't you address that person's issues? Well, I would if I knew and had evidence about the person that was leaking those documents. You may in the media because you received the leaks. But I don't know who that is. Mr Mayor, are you seriously saying you don't know who that person is? Oh look, if I had evidence of the person who leaked, then I would be confronting that person right now on it, and rightly so. But it's not a case of punishing everybody else; it's simply a case of taking reasonable precautions to protect sensitive commercial information that has been given to Council in confidence. You see them as reasonable precautions. Obviously` Oh, so does The Ombudsman, because he agrees with me. Well, the complaint is current. There are two current complaints under way. So we can't draw that conclusion just yet, Mr Goff. So, you do have an issue though, don't you? You have an issue if this is being played out in the media. You have an issue. Well, of course it's played out in the media, because we are in politics and issues in politics are played out in the media and I'm not resentful of that. I think there are other ways in which people can raise issues with me. I'm very comfortable with Councillors saying they've got a concern with this or that. But the perception is that you are a mayor who has got a crisis on his hands now, that you've got dissent in your council, that people are leaking and you're publicly dressing each other down. No, well let's go over those things. For a start, as long as we've had an Auckland Council there's been dissent. The 10-year budget last time went around with a majority of one. This one went through unanimously. This is not a council... Still another vote to come on that one, isn't there Mr Goff? Yeah, there is another vote to come. And but, you know, I've worked collectively with Councillors to get a document that I think addresses the needs of Auckland, and they have worked collectively with me on it and agree. So I'm not expecting that councillors will vote against that document to make a political point. If they support the content of the document, $26 billion going into investment in infrastructure in Auckland in the next 10 years, and some really good things happening with improving the quality of the environment, I think Council is actually achieving some really good things and we're doing it together. All right, well let's move on to something totally different. We've been talking about justice reform today and you are using prisoners or prisoners are involved in your million-tree scheme. What role do they play? They propagate the seeds into seedlings, they grow the seedlings, and some of the people in community corrections are out there planting. And I really welcome that, and so too do the prisoners and the corrections system. This is giving prisoners really useful work, a way of repaying their debt to society, and we're getting, probably, 500,000-600,000 seedlings free, not a charge to the ratepayer, they're doing something for the community, and the community ` we had 400 volunteers out yesterday with me planting trees, greening Auckland, making it more beautiful. And guess what? I announced that programme on your programme two years ago and we're doing it. And we'll plant, by the end of this year, 638,000 native trees across Auckland, making our city greener, more beautiful, absorbing carbon emissions, stopping erosion. Well, on that point, how much will these trees reduce Auckland's net carbon emissions? Oh, I can't give you the details on that. But a million trees are a million trees and they are permanent trees. They're not to be logged; they are native trees and shrubs. And the idea was so attractive, apparently, that the government has picked it up and says, 'Yes, we're doing this right across the country. But it is, I know you said there that you're getting a bunch of free trees, obviously. It's costing about a million dollars a year for three years, this programme. Do you reckon that is the best use of that ratepayer money given that people will look at this city and say, 'It's got so many problems; do we want to be spending that money on trees? Well, let's look at that in context. I think you need to do that. $1 million a year, I've just mentioned, that we're spending $26 billion in the next 10 years on transport infrastructure to try to relieve congestion, on infrastructure for housing to deal with unaffordability and shortages, and for cleaning up our environment. $6 million, $7 million of that is going into making sure that our beaches are safe to swim on. That's fundamental. And on the issue of trees, overwhelmingly, councillors and the Auckland public have been incredibly positive about that. We had schools out yesterday. We have service clubs. We had ethnic groups. We had mana whenua ` people coming together to say, 'We could make a real difference to Auckland; we can make it a better place to live.' I think that's fantastic. We're almost out of time, but I want to get through two other things very quickly. 10-year budget ` you set aside $311 million for pest and disease control. How much do you reckon kauri dieback is going to cost you as a council? I'd be guessing, but I'd be saying that we're looking in the vicinity in the next few years of $10 million, $20 million at least. We can stop kauri dieback I hope because it's not transmitted by the wind, which makes it hard to stop, like myrtle rust; it's transmitted by mud on boots. And that's why we're having to close off some areas. That's why we're upgrading the tracks. That's why we're putting in sanitary provisions. All of those things are important. Could it cost you upwards of that $20 million? Oh, look, it could well cost much more than that, yeah, but this is an iconic plant. Do we want to leave to our children, our grandchildren, Lisa, a city where people say, 'Do you remember the old kauri tree, you know, before they died out?' This is iconic. We have an obligation to protect and enhance that tree as a critical tree for our city and our country. You've got a matter of seconds, I'm sorry, but Aucklanders have been hit by rates rises, regional fuel taxes in the Budget; are you making this city too expensive for people? Are you pricing people out of Auckland? On your programme, I said I'd keep average general rate increases to 2.5%. I will over the three years. Compare that to Tauranga or Hamilton ` equally great cities, like Auckland ` their rate increases will be closer to 10%. Yes, there is a regional fuel tax. I promised that on your programme as well. I said to Aucklanders, 'We want to decongest our city. We want a transport system that works for us as Aucklanders. Do we have to make a contribution towards that? Of course you do. And the Government is making an equal contribution. We'll get $4.3 billion by leveraging off that 10 cents a litre with government subsidies, one-to-one subsidies, and development contributions. We will transform Auckland. That's my job; that's council's job, and we'll do it for Aucklanders. Thanks for joining us this morning. I know you need to go and plant trees, so appreciate your time. Thank you, Lisa. It's a pleasure. Still to come, we put your questions to National MP Nikki Kaye in this week's Facebook Live. But first we catch up with our panel, Mike Williams from The Howard League For Penal Reform, RNZ presenter Guyon Espiner, and Jenna Raeburn from government relations consultancy Barton Deakin. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` former Labour Party president Mike Williams, lobbyist Jenna Raeburn and RNZ presenter Guyon Espiner. Welcome to you all. Jenna, if I can come to you first there. The theme this morning obviously being these justice reforms that the Government is looking at. The Prime Minister seems pretty clear, says that the Government has the mandate, they were elected as a collective, they are pushing ahead. Is she right that they have the mandate? The reality is that a majority of people voted for parties who do not want a relaxation of sentencing laws. So there is no mandate for some of the policies that Labour supports. That's simply the reality. There's no mandate for them to make changes to three strikes legislation, and there's not going to be a mandate for a lot of the other stuff that they want to do. So, I think, the most interesting thing that the Prime Minister's said they want to look at is moving more people to home detention. Well, what that means is more lenient sentences ` moving people to home detention, rather than keeping them in prison. And I just can't see a world where New Zealand First supports a policy like that. Do you think that reform is leniency, Mike? No, it's not. No, what Jenna just said is total nonsense. She's trying to appeal to the sort of knuckle-dragger vote, which is what Simon Bridges is doing. No, we can do a lot of things without changing the law at all. Our prison system is congested ` it's congested at both ends. The remand system is not working. There's 1500 prisoners on remand. Some of them will not even get a prison sentence. Why don't we hurry that up? There are prisoners waiting for parole hearings. And one we know about in Mount Eden jail has had his parole hearing put off by about a year. Now, I know this person. He learnt how to read and write while he was in jail. He's done the drug and alcohol course. He will be let out. He's occupying a bed for a year more than he needs to because of inefficient administration. Those are the easy, low-fruit ways` Yes, but the Minister acknowledges that it's three planks to the reform, and legislative law change has to be part of it. Well, I was going to say, he said exactly that to you. And while Mike Williams may be right about a number of those reforms, and I'm sure there are a lot of good programmes that people would get behind, the rubber hits the road` it's no use talking about mandate and talking about a moral mandate. The mandate is actually what's tested. It's easy. It's just maths ` have I got the numbers to pass it? And we saw this week` Well, even when you wanted to repeal what Andrew Little calls the 'high point of policy stupidity' ` three strikes ` he gets gazumped by New Zealand First, so Jenna's point is very valid too. If you can't get your mates to back up your policy, well, it just doesn't go through. And New Zealand First is very tough on law and order policy. It set up the trust fund for Susan Couch, you might remember. Yes. You know, this is a party that really does believe its base is going to reward it for tough law and order policies. The challenge will be ` and I'm not saying it will be impossible` The challenge will be to try to get the numbers through with New Zealand First to do this reform. Has National seen an opportunity, Jenna, and are they seizing it with both hands? If you looked at Mark Mitchell's press releases this week, saying '98% of them are doing incredibly 'bad things, that's why they're in jail, and they've committed at least 46 crimes before they get there'. Are they playing dogma for politics with this? Well, I don't think so necessarily. He has a good point. 98% of people who are in prison are there for crimes which attract a minimum sentence of more than two years, so we're not talking about low-level criminals like Andrew Little would have us believe. And I think it was really telling in the House this week when the Minister was asked to give an example of a non-violent crime, and he described an indecent assault. I think if a National Party Minister had said something like that in Parliament, then they would have had Labour and the Greens probably walking out of the house ` describing an indecent assault as a low-level crime. So, to give that context, you're talking about the prison officer who had her backside groped and grabbed by an inmate. Yep, that's right. And that was the best example the Minister could come up with in Parliament this week. Well, he should have come up with something like driving without a license. There are people in jail for driving without a license. Well, not if that's their sole offence. I mean, this is dog-whistle nonsense you are talking. Nobody is in jail for driving without a license if that is the only offence they've ever committed. I'm sorry, I believe you're wrong. I just cannot possibly believe that's true. It's hard to believe, but it's true. In cases like that, it's almost always because that offence comes at the end of a long line` I'm told there are people there for purely driving without a license. OK, Guyon` If you do it enough and often enough, you will go to jail. ...this conversation here, is that not an example of the challenge that Andrew Little is facing with the public? Well, absolutely. And you're going to have to convince the public to go along with this, when these two arouse real passion. Two things that I haven't heard mentioned in this debate which are blindingly obvious ` there's about 11,000 New Zealanders in jail, right? About 10,000 of them are men. About 700 are women. Are we looking at why that is and what we can do about that? The other blindingly obvious statistic is about half the prison population are Maori. Now, what is being done about that in an environment where you're mainstreaming policy there? Now, hoea te waka on that, you take your own thing ` that might be fine, you do your own thing on that ` but they're not divorced as arguments, so those are two things that I think really need to be put on the table and looked at very strongly. And I haven't seen that raised yet. Well, interestingly, Mike, the Minister said that` about targeting young kids who have risk factors ` children as young as babies. He actually said, 'Yeah, it might encroach on civil rights 'at some point, but we still need to think about it.' So if we're going into territory that before they would not have? Look, I think one of the best things that` policies that is going to impact on the number of prisoners is an attack on child poverty. The prisoners I talk to got off to a really bad start in life. And that's the bulk of your young Maori prisoners. And this is what I wonder` A lot of this is going to take quite a long time, isn't it? That's right. To actually come through. So it doesn't help you with the immediate pressures on the prison population or any of those issues. All right. We will be back shortly. Stay with us. Welcome back to Newshub Nation and our Panel. Well, Guyon, Winston Peters is waiting in the wing to become acting Prime Minister. I mean, he's had the job before. But is it different this time? Well, it is different in some ways because he's never had an extended period. I mean, this is six weeks worth, right? So this is a big deal. Yeah, he's been acting PM for Bolger in the past, as Jim Anderton was for Helen Clarke. So... Don't think he was suing the government, suing members of government at that point. No, that was the thing. So, constitutionally, no problem. This is the obvious situation. I am a little bit surprised about the lead-up to this. We saw the rug pulled from Labour over three-strikes. And we saw the re-ignition of the legal action including some top public servants. So the timing of that I don't think would have been welcome. They're playing it down in Labour, as they would. I can't see that that would have been welcome, as, Jacinda Adern told you, she was packing her bag to take maternity leave. So pretty extraordinary timing from Winston Peters. But he's in charge of that timing, and you know, he's a master of it. Jenna, what do you reckon? Because also they've had some discipline problems arguably within Labour. They had Phil Twyford, Claire Curran, Kelvin Davis had to apologise for making comments about hysterical behaviour by women and they had three strikes as Guyon has said. Are they gonna be able to hold it together for six weeks? Well it's difficult, not just for discipline but for messaging as well. National used to find this when John Key was away for extended periods of time, not six weeks, but for a week. Mm. Having the Prime Minister there just to smooth things over and to provide the comforting face and to do what Jacinda Adern does really well, which is to be reassuring and sound reasonable and put the lid on issues ` I think they're really going to miss having her there in that role. I think the other question is, who's going to be in charge of the Labour Party caucus while the Prime Minister is away? Cos everyone's talking about Winston Peters leading the Government, but who's gonna be leading the Labour Caucus? Is it Kelvin Davis the Deputy Leader? Like, really? Is he the guy who's going to be holding it all together for them? Mike, is he the guy who's going to be holding it all together, do you reckon? Of course, obviously. I mean` Is he up to it? That's going to be very interesting. No, absolutely, yeah. I shoulder-tapped Kelvin to become an MP some years ago. He's definitely up to it. But I think we're all missing` Is he just failing to fire publicly though, Mike? Because obviously this week he was at the Waikeria Prison announcement, he didn't know some of the basic facts, he obviously got a dressing down for his language at a select committee. And he's had other quite significant stumbles and really an absence from his portfolio in some ways. Look, I think the tourism announcement was very well handled. I think he's learning. But I would make the point that seems to be eluding everybody, the star of the show for the next six weeks is not going to be Winston Peters, it's gonna be a baby. (LISA AND JENNA LAUGH) Very true. Do you think that's gonna be a distraction? Absolutely, watch this space. All right, hey, another one who's been getting a lot of attention this week is Shane Jones when he came out attacking Fonterra, where he said that the Chairman should get in the first cab out of town. Has he gone rogue, Jenna? Or do you think that this was in some way, kind of, planned? I think Shane Jones likes saying what he thinks and no one's ever been able to really keep a lid on him. It doesn't go badly for New Zealand First. Usually, when he does say things like that he finds himself on the right side of popular opinion more often than not. So is it a cheap opinion poll, Guyon? I think it's the obvious` I think it is strategic. It seems pretty obvious, he's attacking big corporate players and positioning yourself as the champion of the underdog and of the regions. I think he runs into a position of crying wolf potentially. Because he's done it before? Air New Zealand? Well, let's remember he went for the supermarkets back in the day. Nothing really came of it. He's gone for Air New Zealand. Well, I don't know, have you seen change in personnel or company strategy from Air New Zealand? I haven't. And now he's gone after Fonterra. If that doesn't do anything, what's his next target, and are people going to listen? So, yeah, good politics, and a lot of people will support him, but he does run the risk, I think, if there's no follow-through, of just being the guy who cried wolf and complained about companies and nothing happened. Well, Jacinda Ardern, she was saying nothing to see here at Fieldays when she was asked about Shane Jones' comments. Is there nothing to see there, or should he just quieten down? Look, no, no. It puts New Zealand First and Shane Jones on the front page of the paper and on leading news; why not do it? From Labour's point of view, maybe they would like the headline. Well, no, I think they're quite happy to let their support parties get some of the limelight. That's what Jacinda's been very good at doing. But I would say there is a strategy here, and the strategy is to build New Zealand First vote in the regions. And we'll find out on election day 2020 whether that's worked or not. All right. Let's go local politics. Phil Goff, Auckland mayor, seems to be under attack or not, Guyon? He says that they all voted for his plan, his 10-year plan and budget, and that's a vote of confidence in him and it's all sweet. Yeah. And he did get that budget through, but it was quite funny; he was asked about whether he trusted his councillors. He said he trusted most of them, but he didn't trust all of them and he didn't trust them enough to send them electronic copies of that report that he commissioned, so he's just finding it's a bit different. Phil Goff ` very disciplined and, in my view, was a very successful minister of the Crown and very disciplined and he liked to keep people under control, finding it a little bit harder to marshal these people and the council, right? It's a bit different, and I think he's running into some issues there. He almost seemed a little bit offended by the things that people were saying about him, cos they're quite strong, some of the things that they're saying. Yeah, and you watch him in an interview like that and he seems to reasonable and energised and like a good mayor, which I think he is, so you sit there and wonder how it's all come to this. And Guyon's right; being a mayor is one of the most difficult jobs in the country. You don't have a caucus to lead. You don't have people there from the same party as you, so you're stitching together the numbers one by one every time you do something. And he's finding the challenges. Right. We will have a look now at National MP Nikki Kaye, who says she is a closet hippie. Now, she revealed this little fact to us and a few more other things when she joined us on Facebook live this week. We even have a clip that Ms Kaye said she would pay money to make sure it never sees the light of day. Expand` Like, build out the bivouac, make sure it's completely tied down and get more branches. I am a bit worried about food, though. Gotta get out there fishing. Trina's had enough for two days. I'm the only one that will get in there. It was pretty much like Lord of the Flies, but I've often said to people if there is any way for me to pay someone to get rid of this clip or this footage... And if we can pay anyone to make sure that it exists always and forever, we will do that. And there were some really awesome people on the island, but they probably got portrayed` I learned about the media probably at a very young age. And, look, it's definitely been training for parliament. And that is all from us for now. If you didn't catch all of the show, you can watch now on Three Plus One. We will see you again next weekend. Thanks for joining us. Captions Elizabeth Welsh, John Gibbs, and Madison Batten. www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018