Today, on Newshub Nation, pay negotiations have soured for teachers and nurses, but the government says there's no more money. So what can be done to avoid further strike action? Plus, new hope for Kiwi patients seeking answers over their faulty hip implants. And why the government's investigating the Niagara wreck 78 years after the ship sank off the coast of Whangarei. 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 Health Minister says there's no more money for nurses despite a 24-hour strike this week that saw them walk off the job for the first time in three decades. It's a similar story for primary school teachers who are planning a three-hour strike next month ` their first in 24 years. I'm joined now by Cee Payne of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, Lynda Stuart of the New Zealand Educational Institute, and Kim Campbell of the Employers and Manufacturers Union. Good morning to you all, thanks for joining us. Cee, can I start with you? You've turned down a package of half a billion dollars, it would have seen an extra 500 nurses added to the workforce. What would you be happy with? Well, I think our members have given a very clear message that what needs to happen is we have to have safety for nurses in our hospitals and safe patient care. Those are the two principles, and to achieve that, there is still, we're saying, additional investment that's required to get that over the line with our members. There is significant concern about the number of nurses on a daily basis, particularly immediately, now, and they don't think it can wait to be resolved. It can't wait two further years for a solution to that critical problem of patient safety. What was the recommendations that were made by the Employment Relations Authority in the facilitation? Those recommendations are confidential to the parties, and it's up to both of the parties. The member of the Authority left it with both parties to determine whether they wanted to make them public. At this stage, the DHBs and ourselves have chosen not to do that, and I think we'll be focused on getting back around the table for bargaining, and if either party wishes to do that, then they'll notify the other. So, at this point in time, we are saying bargaining's continuing and we'll be looking to get dates once we've got a plan and to have sat down and had a rethink and strategizing after the strike. OK. That latest offer ` it had $38 million allocated to extra staff, right? Yes. Some of the nurses that we've spoken to during the week say that safe staffing levels should be dealt with outside of the pay negotiations ` that it should just be a given that you have safe staffing levels. Is it possible that you would look to get some of that money re-allocated to pay? No. Look, staffing's absolutely critical, and that will deliver safe patient care. We've got some appalling statistics in New Zealand around this. We've had 10 years of underfunding. Our nurses are stressed to the hilt, they're fatigued, they're morally distressed, they can't deliver the care they need to deliver. And international research shows that if we continue on like we are with a whole lot of nursing cares, missed cares, care rationing that's going on in this country, then we're going to see a significant increase in numbers of patients having adverse events and dying. I want to talk a bit more about that later, but let's bring Linda in here. Linda, you can only spend a dollar once, right? So are you concerned that the teachers might miss out if the nurses get more? Well, I think we stand with the nurses, we're support the nurses, but actually, in New Zealand, we need to ensure that we've got a high-quality education system, and at the moment, our education system is in crisis, and our members have really spoken to that over the last little while. We've actually had, like the nurses have, nine years, ten years of underfunding, and that has really come to a crisis point in this country now. But you would appreciate that there is a certain pool of money, so what should the government ditch in order to give you more money? Should it be the billion-dollar Provincial Growth Fund? Should it be the money that they're spending on free tertiary education? You've got to find it somewhere. People elect governments in to make these decisions. What we've got at the moment is we've got a crisis in education, we've got a crisis in health, and we would expect our politicians to take that seriously and to be looking at what needs to be prioritised. But we cannot continue to go in the way that we have been going. We cannot continue in situations where we do not have enough teachers in this country for a variety of reasons. We have got 40% less people going in to teacher training, we've got staff cuts at initial teacher education provisions, and we've got a number of things where we're just not meeting the needs of our children in this country. So, Kim, do you think this government has its spending priorities right? Because here, you've got teachers and nurses saying that they want a bigger percentage of that pot. Well, first of all, you've got to ask 'Who owns the problem?' And one wonders why, in fact, the nurses should be concerned about patient safety. I would have thought there was a standard below which you can't fall, and there would be someone to intervene if it was that unsafe, so I think there needs to be some agreement to how unsafe it is, and, unfortunately, the public hasn't seen that. One would hope that would come to the surface. Likewise, if there is a crisis in education, I'm not qualified to argue whether there is or isn't. We should get agreement on that. And then there shouldn't be any argument about what we're going to do about it. In terms of the government dealing with this` So, where does the money come from though, Kim? Well, this is the point, and my sympathy is with the Minister of Finance, his instincts would be to pay as much as he possibly can, but of course he knows, as I know, that there's a raft of industrial relations legislation coming their way. Pay equity is the good one. I mean, we all knew that aged care was what needed attention, and we made a significant adjustment for aged care. Fairly shortly, you're going to have firemen and policemen coming up to say, 'Well, hang on. 'We should be paid more than nurses and teachers', and there is an escalation that's going to happen. Inevitably, they're going to run out of money. And that's the real challenge ` what do you do? So one of the things that we know is that, both in education and in health, we've got a significant number of females in those workforces, and, over time, we have seen in this country that issues like pay equity have not been addressed. We've got education support workers who work with our most vulnerable children. They work in our early childhood centres, transition children in to schools. They've been waiting for a pay equity case for over 11 years. It's time to be fair in this country. There's no argument about this, that pay equity is an issue that needs to be dealt with, but the treasury, and particularly the Minister of Finance, has to actually balance the books, and I think that's the issue that sits there, not that it's right or wrong. I don't think anyone argues about the equity ` finding an answer is the problem. But our patients do know the problems. Our patients and their relatives are experiencing the problem every day. They see how busy nurses are on the floor, they know that they're rushing- That's why people are honking in favour! Absolutely, honking continuously all day, and they're seeing our nurses running around, and they're seeing the cares that aren't being provided, and when those cares aren't provided, patients are at risk. So, Cee, I just wondered, do you think that this government has raised your expectations in terms of a pay settlement, or did you just assume that a Labour-led government would be more sympathetic towards you? Look, I don't think it's got anything to do with who's the elected government. We haven't taken industrial action for over 30 years ` we've had a lot of governments come and go. The problem is` But do you expect more from this government? I think we expect more from whoever is the Government, because the last decade has seen a severe crisis in health develop, because of the underfunding of the public health system. That funding hasn't kept up with the increasing acuity. Patients are sicker. It hasn't kept up with the increase in volumes that are going through. And we certainly haven't had the reciprocal number of percentage of nurses to reflect the care that needs to be undertaken. So, why now, though? Why has it all sort of blown apart now? If it has been building for a number of years, why under this government's watch? I think that we've been working really hard to try and address internally the situation around safe staffing with our Care Capacity Demand Programme. DHBs haven't got on and done that work, and I think it's partly because of the fear that it was going to generate figures that are going to show that there's a real gap. One of the DHBs, just recently, that has done some of their data around the gap has shown that they need a million dollars of nursing hours to go into that work place. This work hasn't been done because DHBs clearly over the last three decades haven't been` not three decades sorry, one decade, haven't been able to fund that. So do the data and then what? So the public knows there's a problem. The public actually knows there's a problem, we just need data. It keeps coming back to money. So, Lynda, this Government wants to keep debt down to 20% of GDP ` it wants to get it there in 5 years. Should they ignore that debt cap in order to pay you what you think teachers are worth and what nurses are worth? Well, what we do know is that if something isn't done now, we are going to be in a worse situation. So, actually, yes, they need to take the bull by the horns and absolutely deal with these issues. It's not OK` So, if that means breaching that debt goal, would you say do it? That's one of the things they need to look at. And one of the things that we've been doing is looking at public support for teachers over the last while, and what we've seen is that there are hugely significant amounts of public support. Like, 83% of the public who were surveyed in March agreed that teachers needed a significant pay increase, 86% of them in June. Now, that's not even looking at the workload issues that our people are facing at the moment. Kim, what do you think? So, forget the debt cap, pay these groups what they're worth? Look, nobody's going to pick a fight for the nurses. Everyone supports the nurses. And anyone that's got kids at school knows that this is the most important... But this has always been an issue. And I think probably society has capitalised on that goodwill, and also the sense of calling for people who work in that profession have, who care so much about the kids and their patients. So, I mean, maybe that needs to be addressed. But not through raising the debt cap? But I think in terms of, is it, channelling the minister of finance? I have to say that this debt ceiling is a really important one. We don't know what sits around the corner economically. And we all, well, I was there when we were broke as a country. So being fiscally responsible is very much an important thing to do, and they do have to make choices. And, you know, they chose to support the students, they could've supported the nurses and the teachers. And that was a choice they made. I think what I would do, if I was you guys, to keep the goodwill which you absolutely have, is to get a signal of what lies ahead to make sure that eventually this will be addressed. I know it's been a long time. But there are other groups also that feel terribly disadvantaged. How can you just ignore a problem? I mean, our data... I don't suggest you ignore it. No. But the health quality and safety commission of New Zealand that collects the data demonstrated in 2014, so four years ago, three years ago, a 140% increase in adverse events in health. You can't ignore a problem like that. Yes, the Government does need to` Are you saying that's because of a lack of nursing resources? It's absolutely to do with a lack of staff and being able to attend to those patients. Adverse events are linked very closely to the missed care and the care rationing that goes on in our hospitals. What about the leaky buildings? Nursing being the biggest workforce in there, that is a large contribution. So, nurses do need to be able to deliver the right care at the right time. If we don't deliver the right care at the right time, we have sicker patients. We end up paying more for that as a community and a society. So it's important that the Government does do everything it can, and I believe there is an ability for the Government to make clear decisions around funding. I mean, I don't want to get into an aeroplane dispute. But, you know, there are choices that governments makes. But the one most important case, or the two most important cases right now facing them, one is making sure our patients are safe in our public hospitals and that we've got a workforce that can` But is a half a billion dollars not going to do that? I mean, there's a lot of money going on there. So are you saying half a billion is enough and they should just take it? I'm not in a position to know exactly the numbers. I don't pretend to be qualified to do that. All I know is that it's a big number, and I know that the percentages that the nurses are getting may not redress the total grievance, but compared to what many other people are getting, it's actually pretty generous. And, you know, plenty of companies in the private sector are lucky to get 1%. So they're looking on saying, 'Ooh, wow.' The problem I've got with that, not begrudging nurses one cent of what they get, good on you. But the problem is the effect that's going to have economically, because everybody else is going to have their hand out. So is that what worries you the most, Kim? Terribly. Not what they're getting. In the private sector, you will be forced to pay more because nurses and teachers are getting more. Yeah, absolutely. That happens` it happens all the time. It already happened with aged care. Isn't that out of self-interest, then? Yes. It's not OK for children in this country to not receive the support that they need to be able to reach their potential as adults. And that's what we're seeing at the moment. We're seeing a lack of teachers because people don't want to go into teaching for the variety of reasons that we've said. Is there agreement from the education people? But also, we are seeing that these children are just not getting the support that they need. Lynda, Kim does raise a good point in the sense that average wage growth is expected to be around 3%. And teachers are looking for 16% over two years ` how do you justify that in comparison to what the average Kiwi would be getting in the private sector? One of the things that our people have said really clearly is that we need to be able to attract people into the profession. Our young people in this country have got many choices that they can make on leaving school. They can go into teaching or they can go into trades, they've got all those choices. They don't go into teaching. Why don't they go into teaching? They don't go into teaching, one, because other professions that they can go into pay more, two, because of the work load and the support that they get as teachers. Those are the real issues that we want to address. Our beginning teachers who are looking at a career framework at the moment are saying, 'Actually, I don't see myself in this role for five years or ten years.' We went into it, I went into teaching, it was something I went into teaching as a vocation. Lifetime career. It was something where I really wanted to make a difference for kids. We just don't have our young people seeing that at the moment, and we need to change that. It's the same for nursing. You know, we've got something like 400, approximately, new trained nurses sitting out there in the ether who need work, can't get work, get no support to come in and have that placement. It's difficult in a crisis because nurses are already stretched, but they need to preceptor these people, so we've got to bring them in. They're an important part of the workforce. We've got people leaving the workforce because they come in and it's so stressful in there, young people, with the stress in the system, can't cope with that. They leave, and we've got a high turnover happening. We've got an aging workforce. We're relying on over 45% of our workforce being over the age of 45, I think it is as well. Similar moves about the same pace` All right` But there's always been turning` But they're reducing hours because of this. They're reducing hours. We don't talk about ` We talk about, DHBs talk about FTE` Full time equivalent` We talk about number of nursing hours, because, in fact, you can have a number of FTE on your book, but nursing hours` Nurses are reducing their hours because it's so stressful in there. And our senior nurses are not there. We've got a nursing crisis. OK. See, that raises` Do the DHBs agree with you? The DHBs know there's a nursing crisis. I mean, they're avoiding wanting to know the problem by not getting on and doing the data. And when they do the data, they find out, yes, there is a huge shortage, and they need to put more staff in, but they can't get them. And that's part of what` Pay's about part of the solution, because we have an exodus of people going overseas to Australia. During the strikes, some nursing staff said that the levels of workers during the strike were better than 'business as usual' levels. And the Health Minister has denied that in part. So what sort of difference are we talking about? Well, I mean, I can only talk anecdotally to some of that. But I had a nurse come off the strike ` she was working as a life preserving service person ` and she came off, and she told everyone that there's three people in there instead of two, which is the normal requirement. Trying to complete the LPS rosters, we put thousands of nurses on for life preserving services over the strike to make sure that patient safety and public safety was paramount. Some of those rosters ` and we did say this to the minister ` we were having difficulty filling them, because normally, they're filled with overtime hours. They're not filled with real people. So it's people working on top of that. So there wasn't the ability to actually fill some of those rosters. We did actually manage to do that, but that's why our members are saying that some of those rosters had more people than normally are on that shift in that unit on that day. Lynda, arguably, no group of workers has as much public sympathy as nurses or as much power to disrupt. So what do you think that half a day of striking is going to realistically achieve for your teachers? Well, it's a signal, really, that` And it may not be half a day, it may be a full day. We're actually having those conversations with our members at the moment. What we know is that the offer that the ministry put to our members was absolutely rejected ` overwhelmingly rejected. It's now the time for the Ministry of Education and the government to actually really look at the crisis that we have in education, take it seriously. We're working with our communities around us` So it's a warning shot. Absolutely is. We want to go back into negotiations. In fact, our primary teachers start negotiations again at the end of next week, and so do our principals. So we want to actually` we want to sort this out, because it's too important for the kids of this country if we don't. All right. So, nurses have gone on strike for the first time in 30 years, Kim. Teachers, as you heard, planning, could even extend it out. Is this the new norm? You know, I have to admit that these disputes have been hovering around for quite a long time. So this hasn't just happened since we've got a Labour government. But one suspects that the argument you've heard about whether the government should be easing the purse strings certainly sits under this. Because the government's made it plain that they want a line in the sand on the debt levels in reducing net debt. And so there's obviously a limit to what they can do. But we have had ` and I can show you the graphs ` quite a long period of industrial harmony in New Zealand. You know, really, by world standards, it's been very, very good. And when we introduce new types of nation-based, what we call, multi-employer collective agreements, we always had industrial disputes. I can show you the graph ` it's a one to one regression. So the question is ` are we going to look forward to the` if we have this new legislation coming, that's what we're going to get. So you get used to this. And in a way, I have to admit, by having a strike, it does draw a lot of attention to the issue. But the reason they're striking now is arguably because they got a bad deal for a decade before, as both the teachers and the nurses have said. But what I'm struggling with here is trying to understand, is it the conditions of work we're complaining about or is it the pay or is it both? I think it's a bit of both, but, I mean, there is` the difference is that in that 10 years, things have got a lot harder. Patients are sicker. What we saw in one study was that patient acuity had increased by 16%, but nursing only by 4%` Technology has improved though. We've got better gear now. Yeah, but people are having to use that equipment, so it doesn't change it. At the end of the day, we've got a much sicker community in our public hospitals. I mean, you go back 20 years, and it's vastly different, where more and more people were ambulant, stayed in hospital for maybe five or six days. Now, they're in hospital for 48. For that 48, they need a lot more nursing care hours. And that's the difference, I think. And that decade makes a difference, but while that decade was happening, it was also being underfunded, so we had two problems going on ` one, increasing acuity sickness in our hospitals` Are you suggesting that the DHBs weren't paying attention? I don't think the DHBs weren't paying attention. They didn't get the funding. They didn't get the funding. We would say the same in education. We would say that children with needs ` that's grown exponentially. And, actually, the workload of teachers has grown exponentially as well. All right. We're almost out of time. Cee, before we go, do you believe there's no more money? No, I don't believe there's no more money. And I actually think that nurses have told the public how bad it is and made this invisible problem visible. And something needs to be done about it. And is there an appetite for more industrial action? We will be considering whether that's what our members want to do. That will be a decision our members make. All right. Thank you all for joining us this morning. If you've got something to say about what you see on our show, let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, Newshub Nation NZ. Now, our Twitter panel this week is Marianne Elliott and Kate Davis. They're using #NationNZ. You can also email us at nation@mediaworks.co.nz Up next, how hundreds of Kiwis ended up with faulty hip implants, and why the company responsible is profiting from the replacements. Plus, the treasure once stashed on the Niagara might be long gone, but what could still be in the wreck that has Northland locals worried? Welcome back. Since 2016, we've been following the story of people given a faulty hip implant, produced by DePuy International. 400 Kiwis got the defective implant, and now some of them are fighting back. They've filed complaints with the Commerce Commission, claiming they were misled over the safety of the hip replacement, and, as a result of the investigation that you're about to see, our regulator, Medsafe, is also demanding answers from DePuy. Here's Mike Wesley-Smith. Walking was meant to get easier for Joy Palaskas. At least, that's what the surgeon said her new hip would do. Jokingly, he said to me, 'You'll be able to leap over high buildings with no pain', and I thought 'Ooh, wow!' But the artificial hip, called the ASR, didn't bestow super powers. It actually made things worse. The worst times, I have to revert to a walking stick, actually. Um,... and it was just this horrible groin pain. Joy had another procedure to replace the hip, known as a revision surgery, but more than 10 years later, she still feels the effects. My walking ability ` I still walk with a limp, and quite slow walking. Older people pass me, and they're on Zimmer frames! People on Zimmer frames walk past me! LAUGHING: That's how slow I am! Joy was one of 400 Kiwis who received a metal-on-metal hip replacement called the ASR between 2004 and 2010. It was produced by medical device maker DePuy, a subsidiary of the company Johnson & Johnson. MAN: We run these machines for up to 10 million steps to simulate 5, 10 years of use in the body. But there were major problems. According to ACC, one quarter of the 400 Kiwis who got the implant later filed injury claims, and they weren't alone. Growing concerns about a defective medical device` Implants routinely used by the NHS for hip replacement may be leaking metal fragments in to their host. WOMAN: One campaigning group is calling it a large, uncontrolled experiment. They release metal in the patient, and that causes tissue destruction. It was found that chromium and cobalt was present in the blood to levels that were 10 times, or more, higher than generally accepted as being safe. Wal Britten is another Kiwi who received the ASR, which is made from chromium and cobalt. And that's when the surgeon said 'You've got no choice ` you've got to have it replaced.' This animation, prepared by US attorneys suing DePuy, shows experts found the ASR's metal cup was too thin and shallow, and the gap between the cup and socket was too small. This caused the ball of the implant to rub against the edge of the cup, causing metal debris to enter the surrounding tissue. Was it a possible outcome that you had been made aware of before the implant went in? No, absolutely not. I was horrified. Health regulators say metal particles are reported to be associated with effects on the heart and nervous system. Wal's doctor's advice left him no wiser. 'We don't know what sort of damage chromium and cobalt will have in your blood.' These risks hadn't been identified by our medical device regulator Medsafe because, as they told me, that's not what they do. I think it's important that everybody realises that, in New Zealand, you do not require pre-market testing in this country in order to be able to market a device. Well, you're the first person to tell me that, and I'm absolutely stunned, yes. Instead, Medsafe relied on the approval of overseas regulators in Australia, Europe and the United States. But some questions have surfaced over those safety clearances. In 2013, the New England Journal of Medicine examined the FDA's approval of hip devices. It found manufacturers like DePuy were allowed to use a fast-tracked pathway to skip clinical trials on humans for metal-on-metal implants like the ASR. That was provided companies could show the FDA the implants were substantially similar to hips already in use. The authors concluded that the FDA loophole... So the company, to a large degree, self-polices, and that's to everybody's detriment when the company doesn't do so responsibly. US Attorney Mark Lanier has secured millions in damages from DePuy in lawsuits for patients relating to metal-on-metal hip devices like the ASR. It wound up not working, and the company's laughed all the way to the bank, because all it means is everybody who bought one where it failed had to buy another hip! So we got to sell two for every one that failed! That's great math for the company! Mark Lanier argued at trial that DePuy had known since at least 1995 that metal-on-metal implants could be dangerous. He produced this 1995 memo from a DePuy engineer, examining rival companies' devices. The company knew at the end of 1995 that metal-on-metal was a failed technology, and that even the latest generation of metal-on-metal had no indications that it would be any better. They knew that, not only would it fail, but when it failed, it could lead to catastrophic health consequences for the people who had the implants. DePuy only recalled the ASR in New Zealand in 2010 ` a process overseen by Medsafe. And Mark Lanier says company documents he discovered raise questions about DePuy's response to the ASR's problems. This is a 2008 DePuy presentation to staff about responding to complaints about revision surgeries, with one option discussed... Let's just train our sales force not to report the revisions. It will make our product look like it's safer and better. At trial, DePuy said this option wasn't taken seriously. But Mark Lanier says emails showed one company executive relished the sales opportunities revision surgeries provided, saying... ...and the firm should dominate the market for revision surgery... ...or initial hip replacement operations. It's absolutely appalling, isn't it? That's disgusting. It really is. We asked DePuy about the information contained in the company's documents. A spokesperson said that they would address questions and present evidence in the appropriate forum as part of legal proceedings. They say they're committed to the well-being of their patients, and believe that the full history of the ASR hip system shows that they've worked properly and responsibly to improve patient lives through innovation. Joy Palaskas isn't convinced. They don't care about what they do, how it affects people. Lab rats, is what it is. Joy's also angry at what she believes is inaction from our regulator Medsafe, which cannot investigate companies like DePuy once a device is recalled. If negligence was proven, it would. I do not believe that the Ministry of Health has any power under the Medicines Act to take a court case against a company. That's that. You know, New Zealand is known as a soft touch now. Medsafe said it expected companies like DePuy to act responsibly. Medsafe said it had not previously seen the evidence discovered by Mark Lanier, and has told us it's now written to DePuy requesting an assurance any issues have been addressed. If needed, Mark Lanier is happy to help. I'll bring a briefcase of documents and testimony that will make their eyes bulge out, because they will be flabbergasted to see what's really there. Joy, Wal, and other New Zealand patients sued DePuy for compensation in 2016. DePuy had paid for revision surgeries for patients, but Joy felt that wasn't enough. I felt like they should be held accountable. But in April, the Court of Appeal ruled the ACC scheme prevented compensation, despite Joy's lawyer arguing DePuy made no contributions to the ACC scheme. That meant Kiwi taxpayers were left with a $2.5 million bill for the recovery of ASR patients. I think the whole thing is abhorrent. And, to date, the only government agency to take court action in relation to the ASR was ACC. But it didn't take action against DePuy. It instead went against the patients. The ACC going against us, sending their own lawyer, it's incredible. In a statement, ACC said... But there is one possible avenue left for patients that want answers. The Commerce Commission told us that it might be able to investigate under the Fair Trading Act to see if patients were given false or misleading information about the safety of the DePuy hip implant. They said people could lay a complaint, so Joy Palaskas did just that. They have nice music. (LAUGHS) I was just wanting to make a complaint against DePuy International Limited. 'She has made a report, we have a reference number, she will investigate.' Very hopeful, yes. Joy still doesn't have any answers, but for now, there's at least some hope. And, still to come, we discuss the week's political news with our panel. Plus, is the 78-year old wreck of the Niagara a disaster waiting to happen? The government begins work to assess the risk of a major oil spill. Welcome back. It sounds like the plot of a Hollywood movie ` a luxury passenger ship carrying secret treasure sunk by a mine during World War II. But that's the true story of the Niagara ` a trans-Pacific liner that lies on the seabed off the coast of Whangarei. Now, after 78 years, the government is checking to see how much oil remains in the ship's tanks, and if there's a risk of a major spill. John-Michael Swannix reports. (MYSTERIOUS MUSIC) She was known as the Titanic of the South Pacific ` a picture of splendour, class and wealth. But after 78 years on the sea floor, it's feared the true tragedy of the Niagara is still to come. It could be a ticking time bomb out there ` an ecological time bomb ` that, in time, is gonna create a lot of problems. The Niagara is lying under 120m of water, about 48km off Bream Head. Her tanks were capable of holding more than 4000 tons of oil, and most of them would have been full, as the luxury liner set sail from Auckland for North America. Keith Gordon has written a book on the Niagara and believes thousands of tons of oil would've escaped when the ship went down. The old records show that the beaches, like Ocean Beach, were thick with oil, and it did a lot of damage. Newspaper reports from the 1940 sinking reveal a black tide coated the Whangarei coastline in heavy bumper oil up to 7cm thick. The ship has been leaking oil ever since. These pictures were taken during a dive in 2016. Taking the previous spills and the small leaks into account, Keith estimates there's still more than 1000 tons of oil in the ship's tanks. It's pretty well intact back here. The ship is lying on its side, so those tanks there, they would still contain oil. That much oil would result in a spill three times larger than the Rena, which ran aground on Tauranga's Astrolabe Reef in 2011. The Niagara would have far more than that still. But there's never been a survey done to try and estimate what exactly is there. Best case scenario ` the oil is already gone or it's so completely degraded that it wouldn't pose a risk. But we need to find out. The possibility of such a big oil spill has Whangarei residents and iwi concerned. I think we saw first-hand with the Rena, it's a massive impact. We just` We don't seem to be well enough equipped here in Aotearoa to deal with it. To raise awareness of the danger, Mangawhai artist Nicky Everett held an exhibition in February. More than 1500 people passed through in just two weeks. So many people had absolutely no idea. Even people who were born and raised in Mangawhai. The Niagara was the first vessel sunk in the Pacific due to enemy action during World War II. The week before, a Nazi navy ship had laid 228 contact mines along the Hauraki shipping route. John Thompson was 14 at the time and says the sinking brought the reality of war closer to home. I know that there was a shock. The Orion ` the German boat ` had sown mines in the Hauraki Gulf. How the hell dare it? Where had it come from, you know? A German boat sowing mines. All 349 passengers and crew survived. And the main concern for authorities was retrieving the Niagara's hidden cargo. British authorities had secretly loaded 590 golden bars on board to buy weapons from the Americans. To get to the treasure, salvagers blew apart sections of the ship, likely releasing more oil into the water. Back then, it either come up in great big gushes and oil comes up. I don't think it would have impacted and made` wouldn't have created too much of a problem. I mean, there would have been oil on the beaches, but I don't think an oil spill of that magnitude would've mattered much in those days. After two successful salvage operations, just five of the original 590 gold bars are believed to remain in the hull. But that's not why locals like Nicky want the government to revisit the wreck. I have children, and I'd like to think that their children will be able to enjoy the beach as well. And I think that we've been a lucky generation, but I think we'd better get our act together, actually. Nicky and other local residents have set up petitioning campaigns calling on the government and local politicians to do something about the Niagara. It's a cause that's been taken up by Auckland councillor Mike Lee. The consequences of this act of war is a clear and present danger to New Zealand ` and, I would say, a growing danger. A pattern emerges when you go through official documents and correspondence about the Niagara over the past 70 years. Officials tend to forget about the wreck until a large spill or a media report brings it back into focus. First, they panic. Then they realise the difficulty of doing anything, before putting it in the 'too hard' basket to be forgotten about again. The Northland and Auckland Conservation Boards brought their concerns to the government last year, but were met with little enthusiasm by then Transport Minister Simon Bridges. In a letter, he says that official advice is that any oil in the wreck is likely to have dispersed or solidified by now. There's often the assumption that it's so cold down there that the oil is in a solid state and that, and that it's not doing any harm. Well, we know that's not right. Our divers have been down on the wreck, and the temperatures there are certainly no less than, say, 15, 16 degrees; summer time, you're talking a lot higher. And we've seen the oil coming up. Clive Sharp has recovered oil from ships before, including the Prestige, which sunk off the coast of Spain in 2003. That was in 3800m of water at the deepest part. And that was oil that was still free-flowing at zero degrees. There are around 8500 oil-laden wrecks around the world in similar situations to the Niagara. And Sharp says the technology to assess and remove the fuel has improved considerably, but it's still expensive. The initial survey would be around about $2 million and to actually carry on afterwards and do the extraction would be a total of around about $10 million. That's a fraction of what it would cost to clean up a major spill. The Rena cost taxpayers almost $50 million. And time may be running out for the Niagara. The wreck is corroding away, and there are fears it may collapse in the next decade. It's too early for me to commit to a particular time frame, other than we've asked the officials to go away and do work on the risk assessment as soon as possible. And that should give us a better idea both of what our options are, what the cost may be, and what the time frames are. On Julie Anne Genter's instruction, Maritime New Zealand is now following the UK's wreck management programme. The agency is currently at the first step ` completing a detailed desktop analysis. This is due to be finished by next month. If officials find there is sufficient risk, the second step will be to do an on-site survey using cameras and sonar. If that survey finds a spill is likely, the third step will be to extract the oil. Normally, the owner of the wreck would fund this type of recovery. But it's been such a long time, there's really no way to recover the costs from the original owners. But what about the five gold bars that haven't been found? Is there a case where we could use that gold to pay for the oil extraction? It's a good idea ` going for a treasure hunt. But actually, if there is gold remaining on the ship, technically it belongs to the UK Treasury. And it's not clear that it hasn't been recovered by some intrepid divers. Whatever the cost, local residents want the oil gone. The alternative is unthinkable. They need to really look at extracting the oil and preventing a major catastrophe. And coming up, we're joined by our panel ` public relations expert Trish Sherson, AUT senior lecturer Ella Henry and Fairfax political editor Tracy Watkins. Plus, new hope for Kiwi patients seeking answers over their faulty hip implants. And welcome back. Now I'm joined by our panel, senior AUT lecturer Dr Ella Henry, Fairfax Political Editor Tracey Watkins and PR expert Trish Sherson from Sherson Willis. Thanks for joining us this morning. So, pay disputes, there are many and more coming here. So, Cee Payne from the New Zealand Nurses Organization says she doesn't believe there's no more money. Do you think she's right, Ella? I think any country makes a political decision about what it can and cannot afford. So clearly there's more money. That's... It's about where it's being spent? It's about where it's being spent and how it's being invested and how strategically this government feels that it needs to be applied to this particular situation. So I think she's quite right; there's more money. It's whether or not this government this government is going to be forthright with it. What do you think, Trish? I think this is actually about infrastructure planning. It's like we would do with roads or whatever else. Once again we're back in a debate about what's happening this year or in the next two years. What has interested me this morning, this has been the liveliest debate I have ever seen in the green room. No one has stopped talking about this because we all think health and education, fundamentally as a country, it's gotta be the number one priority. If everyone from the top down is making the decision, it's going to change the way we think about it. And I think it was Cee who coined the phrase that because woman and led education and health we have expected their goodwill to keep holding it up, right? And finally they're saying we can't do this any more. And they're making the point as well that at home they can't hold their families together any more because the stresses on them are so huge in their profession, so, yeah. But then that leaves the question of where you get the money from. Yeah. So, both of them, nurses and teachers represented here today, said, 'Yeah, you've gotta look at that debt cap.' Tracey. Well, um, yeah. I mean this comes down to, as Alice says, it's all about priorities. We saw the Government amount something like two billion dollars the other day on new planes. Now, I'm not disputing the need for those new planes, we had the two billion dollar plus on fees free. Was that the priority this year when we knew what pressures were coming up in health and education? Labour had talked about health and education and the building pressures in those sectors and then still announced things like the winter energy payment, which, I actually agree, anyone who's on a pension needs that winter energy payment. There are a lot of people who don't need it, who will quite happily admit that. So again, is there the money? One billion dollar provincial growth fund, was that the priority for this year when you've been talking for nine years about pressures in education and health? Again, I think it's, sort of, is this poor management of looking ahead and seeing where the most pressure is gonna come from? Kim Campbell there, clearly one of his concerns is, Ella, that if teachers get 16% over two years, and nurses get upwards of 9%, people working in the private sector are going to have their expectations raised. Does the government need to be mindful of that? I think that is an issue. But at the moment, we're enjoying a very low unemployment rate, and that always puts pressure on wages, anyway. So, regardless of what's happening in health and education, there's going to be pressure on employers to find the best employees. And that's gonna mean boosting salaries and boosting the kinds of perks that provide you with the best and most loyal staff. So, whatever happens, employers are going to be facing wage pressure anyway because of the marketplace. But I think the other pressure will come on the public sector. There's an awful lot of other pay rounds coming up in the public sector. But I guess what the nurses and teachers are saying is that they're not looking at this as their annual pay round, they're looking at this as an investment addressing years of underpayment, really. And let's look at the words that we are now using around this debate. So, in our hospitals, we now know we have a thing called care rationing. Yes. Is that something we actually want in New Zealand? Because there's really no excuse for that. And I think that these points are really good. And I take Kim's point about worries in the private sector. But this is an employment market that is not about public and private. Every profession is in an competitive market now to attract the right people that it needs. And that's where I think nurses and teachers, they are critical skills if New Zealand is going to get where it needs to get in the next, particularly, 20 years with rapid change. And if we keep treating them like a second-rate, you know, that's something that people over there will do. Cheap labour. Cheap labour. We are not going to get to where we need to be. But it's also about patients and children, you know, and about the level of teaching that children get and care in hospitals that people are receiving. So that's where the public sympathy comes in, right? Because everyone knows someone who's used the hospital system, they need it themselves, they've got a child, a sister, a niece, whatever, at school. But at what point does that good will run out? Because we've seen one lot of industrial action, they are gearing up, it seems like, for the possibility of going again. They are. Who that effects directly are people who are having their elective surgery cancelled, I guess. And if you are that person, your goodwill will run out. But actually, the strike did actually go ahead without too much disruption. Can they have rolling stoppages for the next 12 months? Yeah, public goodwill probably would die out. But I don't think the government is gonna allow it to get there. I guess the point is, what is the compromise? I guess, what kind of compromise they can reach? And we're not quite sure yet what that might look like. No, and that is the mystery. We had Winston Peters, who's about halfway through his role as acting prime minister, he dealt with the nurses issues this week, Ella. He seemed to be, well, trying not to antagonise them. He was quite measured. What did you think about the way he's dealt with it? I agree, I thought he was being very, you know, senatorial. However, I do think if you're in the midst of a negotiation for one party to come out and say, that's it, does set up a psychological block, which I think was unfortunate. And he categorically said, 'this is it.' And he categorically said there's no more money. And I think that that is where the Government showed an unnecessary, over-wielding exercise of power. Which in any negotiation is problematic. The other side's gonna immediately have their hackles up. But, at the end of the day, I think the bigger issue here is not about what New Zealand can afford right now but what we cannot afford going into the future. We have an ageing population, of which I'm a part. You know, we're all about to start falling apart in the next 10 years, the baby boomers. So we need a healthcare system that's going to be able to cope with that growth. And if we aren't strategic now, then we are going to have real huge problems. And here's the rub about political capital and who's got the most, right? Is it the nurses and the teachers and the Government. The issue for the Government is actually because it's a Labour government who has talked about underfunding for so long, built up expectations, this would actually be much easier if it was a National government, right? But because it's the nurses and Labour, if it doesn't go well, that is going to be a much harder and more entrenched, I guess, anger and positions of both sides than if it were National and the nurses and teachers. And, ironically, I think, National could have actually given them a bigger pay rise at this point. You know, if they'd still been in Government. And, politically, it would have worked for them. Labours dilemma is that they don't know if they will work for them, politically. All right, well, we'll leave it there for the moment. Do stay with us, we'll be back after the break. Welcome back. You're with The Nation and our panel. Let's talk about Winston Peters. He's halfway through his time, as mentioned, as acting prime minister. Is he enjoying it, do you reckon, Tracy? Oh yeah, he's loving it. He's absolutely` The first press conference that he gave, it was like, you know, he'd come down to and done a Winston Churchill announcement or something. It started off very sombre, and then it turned into the usual baiting with journalists and everything, but it did start off very statesman-like, and I think, Ella's word, 'senatorial' is quite adequate. But actually, I mean, he has fronted on these big issues and has handled them extremely well. I think, you know, we can criticise what he said about the nurses strike, but he has been, sort of, quite, you know, calm and unflustered and quite reasonable and actually made some good points about how sympathetic the government is to the case of the nurses and not having the money. Yeah, he got into a bit of a throw-down with China though, didn't he, Trish? And, um,... has stood by his words. Yeah, it seemed a bit messy and potentially unnecessary. Um,... I think, though, overall, if you were a New Zealand First voter, you would think this is the best that that party has ever done in government. And man, have they, you know, put their arms out and circled a whole lot of cash. This is Winston's moment, right? How long has he been waiting for this six weeks of his life to be the prime minister? And probably in the back end, I would imagine since Jacinda found out that she was pregnant, they would have been planning for almost a slowdown over this time. They haven't got a lot of big stuff on the go, so that he can quietly manage it through without too many issues. And that's the thing, because they have been filling up, even the recesses have been a bit manic with announcements and everything. This one has slowed down. There was the big defence announcement, but actually that was fronted by Ron Mark. And apart from that, there's really only been the day-to-day stuff and things like the nurses strike. Yeah. One thing they did announce this week, Ella, was this justice committee, basically, to review our justice system and the huge incarceration rates. And they've appointed Chester Borrows to the head of that advisory committee. Now, he is, obviously, the former National Party MP, the former police officer, former lawyer, former everything, it seems. Was that a good move on their part choosing him? I think it's politically astute. Yeah. I mean, whatever comes at` you know, because this government does have a fairly wafer-thin majority, so if they do want to make strategic, bold changes, it would help if they have some support from across the parties. So I think that that was quite smart and strategic. And, I mean, he does have to have experience. But also, the other thing around` I just wanted to add, around Winston is I felt his body language throughout this term has been very much that this is his legacy` this is his legacy term. His body language is much more gentle than it has been, for me, watching him. And he's been very careful and circumspect in his dealings with Jacinda. I think he's actually reached a place where he's saying, 'I'm going to give the best that I've got to this term.' And I think that's good for the nation. To someone who's body language might not be as easy to read ` Donald Trump, President of the United States. He is cutting a path through Europe at the moment. (CHUCKLES) There are no rules left, are there? You know, you go to dinner with Theresa May, and you talk about Boris Johnson being a great future prime minister and probably better in the job. He's just cut a wrecking ball through all those relationships. The whole NATO thing is quite interesting. It seems, though, that the other NATO leaders are coming out and saying, 'No, no, it's all fine. We didn't change anything.' Yeah, the whole thing has just been` But he's playing to his domestic audience. This is him. You know, he's never going to lose any support in the States by going over there and kicking some butt in Europe and saying, 'You're not pulling your weight. We're carrying you all.' That's going to play well at home. Trish, though, isn't there an unspoken rule that you don't go charging into other people's domestic politics, do you think? There are no rules or lines that Trump won't cross. And one of the best bits of Trump that I have seen since his inauguration ` and there have been many high points in a terrible way ` go and have a look at the press conference he held after the NATO summit, which, I understand, was a bit of a surprise to everyone. It runs to some 30 minutes long. Now, as we all know, no political press conference can do good past about five minutes. Yes. It was the most remarkable thing, where Trump literally is not in command of anything but his own ego and what he wants to say. And, again, repeated the 'stable genius' line. Now, how that has any place in a NATO post-press conference, I don't know. And in terms of body language, look at Mike Pence, standing to the side of him, right? You can see by their hands, the tension and just the gut-churning fear of what this guy is going to say next. Well, speaking of what people are going to say next ` free speech, Ella. So there's been a bit of a kerfuffle this week. This is about the two controversial Canadian speakers ` alt-right speakers. Phil Goff said, 'Nah, you can't come and talk in council venues.' Now, there is a group ` a free speech coalition ` who says that they are going to raise some money and take them to court. What do you make of all of that? Oh, it's just folly and great free marketing, quite frankly, as far as I can see. Because Phil Goff didn't say, 'Don't come to New Zealand. Don't speak.' But I will not allow hate speech to be promoted in a publicly owned building, which I think is perfectly appropriate for a mayor. Nobody has stopped them from coming or talking. It's a piece of folly litigation, as far as I'm concerned. All right. We'll leave it there. And National Party MP Chris Bishop joined us on Facebook Live this week to discuss whether he's a better debater than Jacinda Ardern and what it's like to captain the worst sports team in Parliament. He also told us about being given extra supplementary questions by Speaker Trevor Mallard for a very unusual reason. Supplementary. Does he agree with the comments` Order. Order. I'm just going to interrupt the member and indicate to the Opposition that they have an extra three free supplementaries as a result of the animal noises from my right. (ALL LAUGH) Well, we don't know who was making them. (LAUGHS) But they sort of sounded a bit like a hyena. Someone was sort of snorting, and, you know, I think they were trying to giggle. I think` I mean, I don't want to` Like, I have suspicions who it was, but I worry that I would give the game away. Oh, come on, please` Well, it was someone from New Zealand First, because it happened to the Speaker's right. And I was a bit` furthest away as is possible to get, so I couldn't exactly see, but... someone from New Zealand First, like Shane Jones or Ron Mark or Tracey Martin, my old nemesis. And that's all from us for now. I'm off for a couple of weeks, but Simon Shephard will be here to keep you company. Thanks for watching. www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018