Copyright Able 2018 Today on Newshub Nation ` Climate Change Minister James Shaw on his plans to make New Zealand carbon-neutral by 2050. But experts warn change won't be easy. We find out why an intellectually disabled man was left at an Auckland courthouse by his carers and why he had to spend two nights in a police cell. Plus, plans are being made to welcome the Russian president to the White House. We get reaction from Washington. (INTENSE MUSIC) Kia ora, good morning. I'm Simon Shepherd, and welcome to Newshub Nation. Public submissions closed this week on the government's Zero Carbon Bill. Around 15,000 people had their say on the bill, which will set a target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and establish an independent Climate Change Commission. Well, I'm joined now by Climate Change Minister and Green co-leader James Shaw. Good morning to you. Good morning. Right, so let's get straight into it. Agriculture makes up about half of our greenhouse gas emissions, transport energy another 40%. You've got to tackle those to meet this goal. Where are you going to start? Well, actually, that is kind of the point of the independent Climate Change Commission ` is to give us a sense and to guide Parliament as to what is the first cab off the rank. The UK, when they set this up about 10 years ago, the first thing that they said is that they needed to pay attention to their coal-fired power stations and electrify` electrify their power system. And obviously, that doesn't apply here, because we are 80% renewable on our energy. So there's not a quick, easy fix by cutting out coal. No, there isn't. I think probably... I mean, I want to leave this to the commission, but certainly, one of the things where I think we can make the greatest gain in the shortest period of time would be in the field of transport ` you know, moving to electric vehicles, improving our public transport system, getting those light rail networks going and so on. Yes, but agriculture accounts for 40` No. Yeah, almost half our greenhouse gas emissions. Surely, that is the spot where you have to target first; it's the biggest emitter. Well, no, not necessarily. So, the whole point is you've got a 32-year runway, right, to get to net zero. And I think different gases behave differently. You can curve those down at different rates at different times. All of those choices we've yet to make. I think, you know, they do behave differently, so you've got to take that into account. But that's really the job of the independent Climate Change Commission. OK. Let's talk about the targets, so the possible targets in the bill. There are three zero-carbon targets. One is just get rid of carbon dioxide. The second is get rid of long-life gases like carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, and stabilise others like methane, i.e. from agriculture. And the third one is get rid of all greenhouse gases. Don't worry about the Climate Change Commission ` what is your preferred option? Well... (CLEARS THROAT) Look, I'm not going to tell you what my preferred option is, because it doesn't just come down to me, right? Sure, but you have been campaigning and pushing for this for a long time, and you would, as a party, have created a view on what your preferred option is. I'm sure there will be lots of negotiation about the Climate Change Commission, but what is your preferred option? Well, so my preferred option is ` and we're still getting advice on this, keep in mind ` the one that gets us closest to the Paris Agreement goal of living with a 1�-degree temperature rise. Right. And one of the things I think has kind of been missed in some of the dialogue is that you can have a stabilised flow of methane within a net zero target, all gases target, as well as within the one where you don't. The only real difference between them is ` how much of that do you choose to offset? Do you offset all of it, some of it or none of it? The 'some' or 'none' is that one around option two; offsetting all of it is option three. OK. So it sounds like you're angling towards option two ` stabilising methane. No, look, what I'm saying is you've got to let the process play out. We're about to start sitting down and talking to other parties about where their landing zones are. It's going to take us about a month to process the 15,000 submissions that we had on the bill, so I'm not going to call it until we've done that work. All right. So you can't say individually what those submissions are, but what have people been saying that they want from this? Well, you may have seen a couple of weeks ago ` there was a survey conducted by IAG, the insurance company, about New Zealanders' attitudes. My sense is that the submissions reflect that, which is that New Zealanders do want us to lead on climate change. They think that our response so far has been inadequate. They think that New Zealand should act even if other countries don't. Like, that's the level of concern. And at the same time, they wanna know that we've got a good plan. So, you know, people are nuanced about it; it's not black and white. They really want us to be ambitious and to do the best we can, and they recognise it's a challenge, and they know that we've got to have a plan to get there. Something I recall from that particular survey was that only 10% actually believed anything would be done about it. It was very low. Yeah, so` So there's no faith. Well, no, the faith was in the rest of the world acting, right? So there's a lot of scepticism that the world will actually collectively do what it needs to do in order to get to that temperature goal. But despite that ` and this was the thing that was so fascinating about that ` despite that sense that only one in 10 people believe that actually the rest of the world would act collectively to be able to do this, they still thought, 75% still thought that New Zealand should do the right thing and work to bring down our own greenhouse gas emissions. And the two do play together, right? Because the more we do, the more that encourages other countries to do the same and to follow. OK. First two options as laid out in the Carbon Bill ` getting rid of carbon dioxide or stabilising methane. Do those go far enough to get us to the goals, both the Paris Accord and the 2050 goal? Certainly, the first one does not. So option one gone? Well, the thing is` if the` What the Paris Agreement says is that you've got to get to net zero in all gases in the second half of the century. So if you exclude everything except carbon dioxide from this bill, you have to work out how you're going to get those other gases down to net zero at some point. So you have to pick a date. And in many ways, what we're doing with this piece of legislation is we're actually just putting a date on our Paris Agreement target. So number one is gone? No, what I'm saying` Effectively, number one is gone. What I'm saying is that within this piece of legislation, if you exclude the other gases from this piece of legislation, you would have to, at some point, come up with a plan and a date to manage those other gases. All right, let's talk about option three, then, because getting rid of all greenhouse gases ` if we go for that... We're heavily reliant on agriculture in this country, right? It's $37 billion a year in exports. And farmers say option three will put a real burden on the sector; they wouldn't be able to compete internationally. So have you had any advice about the economic impact of that option? Yes, we have. So, shortly after we started the consultation, we released a series of four economic research papers, including two pieces of fairly extensive modelling out to 2050. And what it told us is that all of the target options were achievable ` they are challenging ` and that there are some sectors that will undergo more significant change than others, and that, therefore, the Government has to be proactive in terms of targeting that support and ensuring that we do manage that transition carefully and over time. And so, in particular with agriculture, the farmers are worried that there's not the technology out there to help them reduce their emissions at the moment, and they're going to be forced to comply before they're able to introduce that kind of technology. Are you going to push them too fast? No. No, we're not. In fact, farmers are moving very rapidly on this. You would have seen a few weeks ago, a group of New Zealand farming leaders came out, wrote an op-ed and said that they were committed to net zero emissions from agriculture by 2050. They felt that they could do that in 30 years. Synlait, the... the milk processor, came out about two weeks ago and said they could get a 30% reduction in emissions on their farms just using existing technology and best practice in less than 10 years. Sorry, in 10 years, so before 2030. So if they think that they can get a 30% reduction in a third of the time that we're talking about, then clearly, the options exist, right? And that's not with any kind of new-fangled technology or scientific breakthrough; that's just existing technology and best practice. If farmers are brought into the Emissions Trading Scheme, it'll be a world first. They're worried about that. But your agreement is to only bring them in at a maximum of 5% of the actual gases that are produced. I mean, that doesn't sound like it's going to be enough. Well, we have... So, for example, in steel production or aluminium production, they're only obligated at 10%, right? So we actually give a free allocation up to 90% for what we call 'emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries'. And the reason for that is primarily because currently, competitor countries aren't also applying a price to steel or to aluminium production, and we want to make sure that we're moving broadly in line with the rest of the world. But I was in China last week, and they're about to put in place the world's largest emissions trading scheme across all of China. They've got seven regional schemes currently operating. And they will be bringing steel, aluminium and other sectors into that system. But what about agriculture? Well, they're talking to us about that, because they're interested in that. They know that they're going to have to deal with their agricultural emissions at some point. Because you've got to remember ` every country in the world has got to get all of their gases down to net zero at some point, so everybody is actually on the same path as we are. Sure. Are we going to be first, and would you actually like to see greater than 5% when this kicks off? Well, again, that's the kind of point of the politically independent Climate Change Commission is to say, 'Well, what would the correct policy mix be?' and then to advise the government. The productivity commission says agriculture should be fully included ` transition to that. Well, there's a number of other commentators that have said the same thing. We have set up a... sort of interim climate change committee that will look a little bit like the eventual commission. We've asked them to provide some advice to the government in the middle of next year about that. So that question is, you know, still up for grabs. OK, we'll talk about the Climate Change Commission as it's going to be set up a little bit later, but you mentioned transport at the beginning of this interview. You said, I see, that 90% of our cars need to be electric by 2050 to meet our carbon zero goals. At the moment, we've got 8,700; I've calculated that to be 0.2% of our current fleet. How are we going to reach that target? It seems way off. Well, 30 years is a reasonable amount of time. We do hold on to our cars for quite a long time in New Zealand. So I think the average vehicle we hold on to for about 14 years. So we're talking about two changes between now and then in terms of the average lifespan of a car. It is clear that we are going to need some kind of incentive programme to aid that shift. Right. Countries like Norway, where one in two new vehicles sold as an electric vehicle, have got an extensive support programme in place. And China are putting 200,000 electric vehicles on the road every year in Beijing City alone. So, you know, it's not like we're on our own with this. But we do need to work out ways to incentivise. OK, so you talked about incentives, so let's go through a couple of things here. You are not happy just to wait for the second-hand car market to kick in, the tipping point of fleet cars coming in. We need an incentive, is that right? Yes. I mean, in New Zealand, most cars that people like you and I would get would be second-hand cars. New cars` Generally, about 80% to 90% of new cars sold in New Zealand are actually company fleet vehicles. So in many ways, that's the best point of intervention, because we can use government purchasing power to swap out our own car fleet. We can work with large corporates on their car fleets. And three to five years down the track, those cars end up in the second-hand market. OK, so let's talk about the Government fleet. I mean, the previous National government said one in three government cars by 2021 will be electric. What's your goal? We are hoping to make... We're practical, because there will be some where we actually can't swap them out. But we're practical. We want to make every vehicle a zero-emission vehicle by 2023. 2023, OK. What about the company cars? To incentivise those companies to go electric, why don't you knock out fringe benefits tax? Is that an option? It's one of the options, yes. So that's being considered? Well, frankly, everything is being considered at the moment. Because it's, like you say, it's a pretty challenging goal in the course of the next 32 years to swap out most of your vehicle fleet. So we are considering all the options. All right, so how is the government going to make it possible for... electric vehicle ownership for low-income families? Because these cars are prohibitively expensive at the moment. Well, they're prohibitively expensive at the moment. And you're absolutely right, and that's why we've got to look at all the options. But like I said, most people get their cars in the second-hand market. And so we are trying to work out ` well, how do you incentivise that? So I think it will take` So what does that mean? How do you incentivise it? Is that giving them a rebate on the price of the car at the beginning? Well, like I said, we're considering all the options. Cheaper registration? We are considering all the options. OK. (CHUCKLES) Are you going to make it more costly to own an older high-emissions vehicle? Well, ultimately` Because that might penalise low-income families, because they're the vehicles that they can afford. Yes, that's right. So this is the other thing about the economic modelling that we've done is it's really clear that we need to make sure that we do target support to people who are more affected by this than others. Things like the investment that we're making in public transport disproportionately support low-income families. But also, we need to make sure that we've got things on the income side of the equation sorted out as well. So that's all part of the work that we're doing through our Just Transitions work that's happening at MBIE and MFE at the moment. So we're looking at not just the actual vehicle but, you know ` what are all the other support systems that need to be in place as well? When? When? I mean, you've got` Julie Anne Genter said earlier this week that you have four ministers working across four different departments on this. Yes. And this is a big bell curve` I think about six different departments, actually. OK, well, that's a big bell curve that you've got to scale. When are you going to do it? It's got to be sooner rather than later. Well, you know, we're hoping to make some decisions in the second half of this year. But as you said, it's a pretty significant challenge. It is complex. There are a lot of options, and so, you know, we're working our way through it fairly thoroughly. To get to carbon zero, the Productivity Commission says the price of carbon's going to have to rise dramatically. And that's from something like $22 a ton at the moment up to between $75 a ton or $200 a ton. So is that what you're anticipating? No, I'm not. So, there's a couple of things in there, one of which is that they talk about the price of carbon ` that's not necessarily the same as a price in the Emissions Trading Scheme. So the way that I talk about that is it's like that is the cost of the transition per ton of carbon, right? And so we know that, yes, that is going to go up. But the way to think about that is it's not a sunk cost; that's an investment in upgrading your economy. And we should be looking for solutions that generate a return, rather than solutions that are literally just a sunk cost. OK. Because what I'm getting at here is that if the price of carbon goes up that far, it directly relates to the amount of taxes in a price per litre of fuel. And so we worked out that if it goes up 200 tonnes, that's an extra $40 a tank, you know? And that's expensive for people. Yeah, so, I mean, what we've done historically ` and I would imagine that... and this is one of the things that we will be consulting on later this year in terms of changes to the Emissions Trading Scheme ` is how you manage the price cap. So you're basically trying to smooth that increase over time to make it affordable, and you plan it in. And when you've got that forward view of things, if you know that 10 years from now or 20 years from now, that petrol prices are going to be high, well, that incentivises the uptake to electric vehicles, for example. Already today, an electric vehicle is only a third of the running costs of a petrol-powered vehicle. The electricity is 30% of the price of petrol per kilometre travelled. So the` Yeah, but you don't have road user charges on those cars at the moment. No, you don't. But... precisely, right? Yeah, but that's going to come in at some stage when everybody goes electric. Well, yeah, but the point` at the moment, it's charged through fuel, right? So tax on fuel. So you do have an incentive to move to electrics, but the difficulty that we've got with electric vehicles is the upfront cost of the vehicle is really prohibitive. That's what we need to tackle. The running costs ` both in terms of the energy` transport energy and also the maintenance costs ` are a fraction of what they are for combustion engine vehicles. All right. It's all about getting this agreement on this. Have you got bipartisan support to pass the Zero Carbon Act? Because otherwise, it's pointless. You won't have the longevity. As you say, it's a 32-year timeline. Yeah, we have, shall I say, bipartisan support to work on the... on the bill. I wouldn't want to ask the National Party to commit to passing a bill that hasn't even been written yet and hasn't been drafted. But we will be working with them on the drafting, and hopefully what that means is that we'll arrive at a consensus decision. And that does increase the chances that you will have unanimous support in the House. And that, really, would be ideal. This whole thing is a big sell. And so do you think people understand the magnitude of the changes that are going to be needed for a carbon-free future? Yes, I do. And I'm encouraged by that survey that IAG commissioned a couple of weeks ago, because it illustrated that people really do understand that challenge; that, actually, they do want to be ambitious; they do want New Zealand to lead; they do think that there are opportunities there economically. But they also understand that it is a significant challenge and that we will need to work together to... Do they understand it's going to have a significant impact on their daily lives? Well, yes. I would argue that that survey illustrated that. But I also would question how much impact on their daily lives, right? I think that the New Zealand of 2050 will look as similar and as different as the New Zealand of today does to the New Zealand that we had 30 years ago. You've got to remember, 30 years ago ` the same period of time we're talking about ` 1988, the internet did not exist. It didn't exist, right? Mm. But you try and run your school or your home or your community group or your business without the internet today? It's unimaginable, right? The internet has had a profound impact on our economy, on our lives. Whole new industries have been built off the back of it. And that is in the same period of time. But the New Zealand of today still feels in many ways a bit like the New Zealand of 1988. OK, but do you think that zero carbon is going to have the same impact as the internet has had on society? Yeah, I do. It's that big a change? Well, yeah, I think it is. I think that... And I think it'll be beneficial, right? I actually think what we're talking about here is a more productive economy with higher-tech, higher-valued, higher-paid jobs. I think that it's clearly a cleaner economy, where you've got lower healthcare costs, people living in warmer homes, congestion-free streets in places like Auckland, which are currently losing $1.5 billion a year in productivity` OK, it all sounds rosy, but there's a big road to get there. Yeah, look, it's... like I keep saying, it's an upgrade to our economy. It's an investment. You've got to put something in in order to generate that return. And if we don't, the clean-up costs from the impacts of climate change will well exceed the costs of the investment that we've got to make to avoid the problem in the first place. OK, thanks very much. James Shaw, Minister for Climate Change. Thanks for your time. Thanks for having me on the show. OK. Well, if you've got something to say about what you see on our show, let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram ` NewshubNationNZ. Our Twitter panel this week is Alexander Bray and Sarah Robson. They'll be using the hashtag #NationNZ. And you can also email us at... But up next ` why a man with an intellectual age of 5 was forced to spend two nights in a police cell because his carers refused to let him back into his home. Plus ` US president Donald Trump's under fire over his private meeting with Russia's Vladimir Putin. But do US voters really care? Welcome back. This week, a review was released calling for improvements to New Zealand's adult disability services following the death of a severely autistic woman. Now Newshub Nation has discovered an intellectually disabled man was held in police custody for two nights because there was nowhere else for him to go. The man has been assessed as having the intellectual age of a 5-year-old. He was taken to an Auckland court after being charged with assaulting a support worker. His carers then left him at court by himself and refused police requests to let him back into the care home he'd been living in. Here's Mike Wesley-Smith. 'It's just before 8pm. We're driving to South Auckland to find out if an intellectually disabled man 'will be allowed home. The man we'll call William spent all day at court 'after being charged with assaulting a care worker. 'After another scuffle, he was left alone at court by his carers from the Forensic Coordination Service. 'Despite being bailed, it's been left to police to drop him home.' The police seem to be talking for some time. It looked like they were trying to call their bosses about what to do. There were two men at the property, standing, talking to them through some iron gates. Yeah. Kind of an odd way for a vulnerable person to be treated, one would think. 'By this point, the care providers had already refused numerous requests 'from court staff, police and the man's lawyer to take him back.' Just trying to call anyone from the service. They first said that they would call me back about... five hours ago, but we've just watched... this gentleman ` who's been assessed at the intellectual age of 5 ` having to be dropped off in a police wagon. 'Refused access by the home and not wanting to simply put him out on the street, 'police had to take William back to police custody. 'I was about to drive off myself 'when someone from the Forensic Coordination Service called me back.' WOMAN: Yeah, I'm not in a position to be talking with you, OK? So you're happy for your clients to be dropped off by police? Is that normal prac`? Like I said, I'm not in a position to be talking to you, so if you want to find that out, then you can speak with our CEO. Thank you. Goodnight. Well, I tried that, and he didn't... - (PHONE HANGS UP, BEEPS) There we go. 'Wednesday afternoon, and William's case before a judge is called at 3.45.' So, it's just coming up 5.30. 'It's been a two-hour hearing to determine what to do with this man. 'We're told he was given some pizza by the police custodial staff, 'who, along with the forensic staff, have done all they can to make this man feel comfortable 'in what is a very uncomfortable setting. 'At the hearing, which was closed to the public, 'William's lawyer told the court he did not want to return to the care residence 'and that another suitable place should be found.' I'm told by two people who were in the hearing that the Ministry of Health lawyer made the rather remarkable submission that they wanted this man to be remanded in police custody for up to a week ` and remembering that this man has been assessed as having the intellectual age of a 5-year-old. 'With no other suitable option, William had to spend another night in custody.' (DOOR CREAKS) 'We approached advocacy group the Disabled Persons Assembly to ask them about William's case.' It is quite shocking, obviously, and... because... I mean, obviously, police cells are not the best place for somebody to be. I think the most important thing, though, is for this particular man to be put somewhere where he can be supported really well. Dr Woodbury points out that clients like William can present many challenges for care workers, and it is therefore vital they are well-trained. It can be very difficult, and it's something that we need to kind of invest and take a lot of care to make sure that people whose job it is are not going to be assaulted. 'On Thursday this week, we received word that William had been moved 'to a mental health facility for a mental health assessment.' William's lawyer says he's extremely disappointed at the treatment his client's received from the Forensic Coordination Centre. He's concerned that his client had to spend two nights in police custody. 'And he questions whether a man with this type of intellectual disability 'should've been charged in the first place. 'Police say there was enough evidence to support a charge of assault against William. 'They say they took into account the views of the victim, 'who was very clear that this matter was to be put before the court. 'Police say the charges "will be withdrawn if the court finds that the man does not '"have the intellectual ability to face the charges." 'We sought answers about William's care from the Forensic Coordination Service 'but were directed to the Ministry of Health. No one from the Ministry would be interviewed, 'but in a statement, it said...' 'We then approached the Human Rights Commission for their view on William's detainment. 'The Disabilities Commissioner told us...' 'An independent review of disability services released this week found 'there are systemic problems with the way adults with disabilities are cared for in New Zealand.' What needs to happen is that disabled people and also their whanau don't reach a crisis point. So ideally, we want all disabled people to be able to live really well in the community. 'Those concerned with William's welfare say that 'if the measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable, well, this time, New Zealand has failed.' Mike Wesley-Smith there. Still to come ` we dissect the week's political news with our panel. Plus ` will we soon see Russia's president in the White House? We get reaction from Washington DC after a rather unusual week in international politics. The White House says Russian president Vladimir Putin is heading to Washington DC for a second meeting with US President Donald Trump, much to the surprise of the US Director of National Intelligence, who found out about it from a reporter on live television. Mr Trump has spent the past few days trying to clarify his position on Russia. The problem is the more he explains, the more confusing it gets. Following his two-hour private meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Mr Trump told reporters he didn't see any reason why it would be Russia behind the US election interference. The next day, he backtracked, saying he meant to say 'wouldn't', not 'would'. Then he said he agreed with US intelligence agencies that Russia was responsible, but it could have been other people also. Later, he answered 'no' when a reporter asked whether Russia was still targeting the US, before the White House said that wasn't what he meant at all ` he'd actually meant 'no more questions'. And then Mr Trump said he holds President Putin personally responsible for Russia interfering in the 2016 US election but blamed the media for trying to create conflict between Russia and the United States. Confused? Well, I am. But anyway, journalist Harry Horton has been covering this all in Washington DC. I began by asking him how people there are reacting to the news the Russian president could soon be visiting the White House. Uh, well, certainly from Democrats and from critics of the President, there's lots of shock and surprise. They are, I mean, to put it mildly, they're outraged that Donald Trump has even dared to invite Vladimir Putin for another meeting. I think the concern is... the growing concern is we still don't know exactly what was discussed between the two leaders when they met in Helsinki on Monday. And the few details that have emerged from the meeting, the private meeting that was held between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, have concerned people here in Washington. And until we get a formal account as to what exactly was discussed and what exactly was agreed between the two leaders, I think, you know, the idea that they're going to hold another summit at the White House later this year, you know, just seems completely baffling to many people. I'll say as well, even people within Donald Trump's own administration seem surprised about that news. The Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coates, was being interviewed when the White House announced that Vladimir Putin would be heading there later this year. And he could barely contain his shock and surprise at that news. So look, this is a truly astonishing announcement that Putin is due to appear later this year. I wouldn't be confident that it's actually going to go ahead at this stage, such is the fallout and the outrage from the summit that happened in Helsinki earlier this week. Well, yes, more than half of US voters seem to disapprove of how President Trump is handling the relationship with Russia ` that's according to a recent Reuters poll. Yet his approval ratings are unchanged. How is that possible? Well, for Trump's core supporters, his base, the people that propelled him into the White House, you know, this, these things on the international stage, however much they might concern US allies in Europe and around the world, however much they might cause outrage amongst the establishment here in Washington, it doesn't bother them one jot, because for them, the things that they're concerned about are the economy and jobs. And they look at the fact that there are still more jobs being created under this president. The unemployment rate is at a very low level, and the economy is doing pretty well. So for them, they say, 'Look, we put this guy in the White House 'to shake things up in Washington and to try and create a bit of a boost for the economy.' They see that he's doing that. So all this other stuff that's going on on the international stage, that's just noise to them, and they're not bothered. I would say that if you look at independent voters ` those swing voters who Donald Trump might need to try and convince and to win over again if he's to be re-elected in 2020 ` they do seem to be slightly concerned about this unorthodox, shoot-from-the-hip foreign policy style that he's got. So perhaps there may need to be some more salesman-like pitches from Donald Trump to convince them that he's on the right track here. Yes, that 'shoot-from-the-hip foreign policy style' and the Helsinki summit. Is anyone actually buying that he merely misspoke afterwards at that press conference? No, I don't think so. I mean, you know, the fact that he says that he misspoke and said one word incorrectly ` I mean, that doesn't account for all the other things that he said during that press conference when he criticised US intelligence agencies, when he praised Vladimir Putin's strong and powerful denial that Russia did not meddle in the 2016 US election. There's a lot more explaining that Donald Trump has got to do. And, quite frankly, over the course of this week, the White House and the Trump administration have really struggled to keep their story on the same page. They seem to be changing their angle on each day. You know, just in the past few days, we've seen them reverse course on whether or not Donald Trump thought that Russia was still a threat to US democracy, whether Russia was planning to meddle in future US elections; Donald Trump first of all said that he didn't think they were going to, and then the White House backtracked and said, actually, he does think that's going to happen. There was some confusion as well about whether Donald Trump had agreed or was considering handing over some US citizens, including the former Ambassador to Moscow, handing those people over for questioning to Vladimir Putin. It's only just in the past few days that the White House has cleared that up and said, 'Look, that's not going to happen at all.' So, you know, there's been an incredible amount of fallout over the course of the week. But, you know, whatever the White House says now, ultimately, the damage is already done, because Donald Trump stood next to Vladimir Putin at that press conference on Monday, the whole world was watching, and he failed to say, unequivocally, that he believed Vladimir Putin and Russia did interfere in the US elections. And he failed to hold Vladimir Putin to account. So that can't be undone now. And that's why the White House has been trying, struggling to contain this story for the past four days. And what about speculation that Donald Trump is actually under Putin's control? That he is working to further Russian interests, not American ones. Is that being taken seriously? Well, it's hard to rule that out; that's the problem, you know? I mean, as outlandish and as incredible as the allegations in that dossier... that came out over 18 months ago, as incredible as the were, it's difficult to rule them out, because Donald Trump continues to defy all expectations, to defy all his advisers, in pursuing this cosying up to Vladimir Putin of Russia. I mean, you know, I can't explain exactly why Donald Trump seeks to have such a close relationship with Vladimir Putin, why he seems to find it so difficult to criticise Vladimir Putin publicly. Now, is it because he's under the thumb of Vladimir Putin? You know, it seems unlikely. But we can't rule that out. Or is it because, you know, he has this irrational fear that if somehow he acknowledges that Russia did interfere in the election and that Vladimir Putin might have played some role in helping him become president, you know, he suddenly feels that he is an illegitimate president and he wasn't elected properly by the American people. So we just don't know why Donald Trump seems to want to have such a close relationship with Vladimir Putin. And Donald Trump doesn't help himself when he does things like he did in Helsinki this week at that press conference. In fact, President Putin says the summit was an overall success and productive. But there was nothing tangible out of it. There was no recording of that meeting. We have no idea what happened. Yeah, absolutely, we have no idea what happened at all. Certainly, from the US side, the only people in that meeting apart from Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin were two translators. Now, we've had some small announcements of agreements that might have been made from the Russian side. They've said that there were possibly some agreements on arms treaties going forward. We know that Vladimir Putin made that proposal to Donald Trump to question some US citizens in return for the US being allowed to question some Russians who've been indicted as part of the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. But apart from that, from the Russian side, we've heard absolutely nothing about what was agreed to in that meeting. And I think that's what has shocked so many people here in Washington ` not just reporters and journalists who are desperate to find out what the two leaders discussed, but many people within Donald Trump's own administration. There are many officials at the State Department who are Russia experts. It's their job to help come up with Russia policy for the United States; they have no idea what was discussed between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. That is absolutely astonishing. You know, and we are four, five days now after this meeting took place. And we still have no account of what took place there. So I think over the next few weeks and months, the calls for trying to get the records of what that translator wrote down, if anything, will only grow. We'll see more and more Democrats come out and try and perhaps subpoena those records, because there is such a lot of concern about what Donald Trump might possibly have agreed to, what he might have conceded to Vladimir Putin. And until we get an official account of what happened, those calls will only continue. All right, but Donald Trump has finally said he holds President Putin responsible for the election interference. He still appears to be undermining his own Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, by saying it could be other people. And Dan Coats has warned that further Russian meddling might happen in the mid-term elections. So are people taking this threat seriously? Or are they being distracted by Donald Trump? Well, you know, the intelligence community is united in their belief that Russia did interfere in the 2016 election, and they have said Dan Coats, the Director of National Intelligence, one of the top spy chiefs here in Washington, has said that, 'Look, the red lights are blinking on this issue.' He has compared the threat that Russia poses to the US to the threats that the US was receiving before the terror attacks on 9/11. So, this is serious stuff as far as the intelligence community is concerned. They are convinced that this is a very serious and real threat that is being posed towards the US elections later this year. The fact that Donald Trump is struggling to acknowledge that threat and has struggled to accept the intelligence community's findings I think will cause great alarm amongst the people here in Washington who are trying to protect American democracy against the threats that Russia poses. And yet, Donald Trump is actually blaming news outlets for distorting what happened at the summit. He is in fact calling the media the real enemy of the people. He has been incredibly effective, Donald Trump, at trying to portray the media's coverage of him, the media's narrative of him as being false. You know, not only is he suggesting that the media is biased against him; he's actually saying what the media are reporting is false, isn't true, you should just not believe them at all. So, you know, that argument, worryingly, is gone amongst many of Donald Trump's supporters. They just do not believe anything that they see on TV or read in the papers any more because Donald Trump has been so effective in persuading that it is, in his words, 'fake news.' And how are journalists reacting to the accusation that it is them trying to incite a war with Russia? Well, I think for journalists in Washington, the majority of journalists in Washington are just trying to get on with their job. I mean, you know, we've all been covering Donald Trump now for, as president, over 18 months, and then almost two years before that when he was a candidate. So, you know, the accusations of fake news and false reporting, I think we're all used to them now. And we just try and get on with our jobs and report the facts as they happen and try and get as much information out of this administration as we can. I mean, it is worrying, it is concerning that the trust in the media here in the United States is so low that people have so little faith in the reporting that goes on. And it's concerning sometimes that when you go to certain parts of America and try and talk to Trump supporters, you know, not only will they not speak to you, but they will sometimes hurl abuse and criticism at you. And that's incredibly disheartening and incredibly disappointing. I don't quite know how we move on from that and get past that other than just carrying on doing our jobs and trying to report what exactly is going on here in Washington. Well, Harry Horton in Washington DC. Thank you. All right, still to come, we dissect the week's political news with our panel ` Former Green MP David Clendon, Sunday Star Times editor Jonathan Milne and former Act MP Heather Roy. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` Sunday Star Times editor Jonathan Milne, former ACT MP Heather Roy and former Green MP David Clendon. Welcome to you all this morning. So, we had James Shaw on this morning talking about climate change. And it seemed, Jonathan, that of the three options that are on the table, the first one ` just getting rid of carbon dioxide only ` isn't on the table any more. Yeah, I think we've essentially moved on from that conversation now. Everyone accepts ` there's really quite a consensus ` that carbon dioxide, we have to zero it, you know? So the conversation really narrows around gases like nitrous oxide, but also particularly around methane, obviously. And that's the big one for New Zealand. This conversation is about farming sector ` that is what we're talking about. Yeah, cars are important, you know? Everything else ` planes are important. But for New Zealand, this is about farming. Yeah. Did he try and avoid the methane issue there by talking about, 'Oh, let's concentrate on transport and things like that.' But methane ` only 5% possibly coming into the ETS, Heather. I mean, are we not doing enough there? Oh, look, I'm not sure. There's no easy answers to this. And that's what I took from his interview. Lots and lots of problems. No clear answers. And each of the initiatives that has been put forward is problematic. So if you take electric vehicles, for example, say the cost was not prohibitive, and everybody could have one, we wouldn't be producing enough electricity to be able to run all of those cars. So that's the first thing. Also, something that we constantly overlook is that the batteries are still problematic. They cost` There's a lot of energy used to produce a battery, and disposal of the batteries is still problematic. So lots and lots of initiatives that we can think about. And he's saying we still need to do all of that thinking. And so, you know, although he was saying he wouldn't commit himself to one particular course of action, at least, you know, this commission is being gathered. And there's general political support for that. So it's not just about the ideology. The politics are important too. All right. Is there enough political support, David Clendon, for this to get through the political process? Or is it just going to be all watered down? No, I think there is. I think James was playing a fairly careful game this morning,... Yeah. ...particularly around methane. Yeah. Because clearly people think methane, cows, agriculture. And that's` We don't want Fed Farmers, the dairy industry, to feel like they're in the crosshairs. There is a political consensus that's been around for at least a couple of years. GLOBE New Zealand, which is a parliamentary group with representation from every party, that said, 'Yeah, we have a problem here.' Awful lot of moving parts to try and deal with all at once, so I think that going fairly light on methane, particularly before we've even read the submissions, before the commission is established, is the right way to go. We need to deal with it. But let's not scare the horses while we're doing it. OK. (CHUCKLES) You raise a point there. Jonathan, what do you think? Do you think that people actually understand the ramifications, the level of change, that's going on here? Yeah, as big a change as the internet, apparently. Yes, that's right. That's what he said. That was one of James' bigger calls when he was being very diplomatic on everything else. Look, I think, certainly. And, I mean, David just said that he doesn't want to make farmers feel like they're in the crosshairs, but right now farmers are feeling like they're in the crosshairs. And you know what? They're right. They are. They have to be. Because the only way we are going to achieve these targets is with real leadership from within the agriculture, dairy, horticultural sectors. And the interesting thing is ` and James knows this ` he can't bring them along. He can't bring those guys to the table. He's doing everything right. He's having the conversation. But he hasn't got the personal clout in that sector to bring them to the table. What he needs is people like the National Party and Simon Bridges to step up. And the signs are really good at present. I think we're seeing some great leadership from the Nats. They're talking. James just told me outside that, yes, he has sat down with Simon Bridges and talked about this. And there's every sign that for the first time in parliament since, probably, Kyoto, we have a consensus across the house that we need to act; we need to act fast. And the Nats are going to do their best to bring along the more conservative sectors, who might have been a bit scared. OK. I'm just going to move on to Andrew Little, the Justice Minister, this week, and his comments on Australian media that` you know, criticising the Australian deportation laws. And he has defended those. But Australia, Heather, hasn't reacted very well to this, have they? No, and we shouldn't really be surprised by that. I mean, politics in Australia is different from politics in New Zealand. When I was a minister, we used to have six monthly meetings with our counterparts; those meetings still happen. And I would have thought that those forums are much more productive places to be having these sorts of discussions, rather than airing all of that dirty laundry in public. You know, Australia and New Zealand do have a lot in common. We need to get on. We sit in this part of the world and are seen as leaders there. And that's the place for discussions, not for the sorts that we've seen this week. He says, he's just sticking up for humans rights though. But should he have done it in a different forum? Oh, I'm not saying he did the wrong thing. I think that when the Australian's come out hard, then he needs to respond to that. But there's a lot of work that needs to go on behind the scenes to actually get some accommodations and the right behaviours happening. Australia's Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton said` you know, he was the one that came out and said, 'Look, you shouldn't criticise the Aussies, cos they do all the heavy lifting in the trans-Tasman relationship, especially in terms of refugees'. What shall we make of that? Oh, I mean, there is some truth in that. Obviously, they have the so-called 'boat people', and the impact has been felt much more. Obviously, the domestic politics in Australia's very different to what we're experiencing here. And I think that's, perhaps, what we're seeing the by-blow of that. New Zealanders ` I think, rightfully ` don't understand why a person who went to Australia when they were three years old, and now they've got 30 years of offending behind them, and suddenly they're our problem. Can't Australia take responsibility for that person who grew up in their society? But from the Australian point of view, these people` 'Oh, they're ratbags. Let's boot them back to New Zealand.' Well, are they just playing to the Australian domestic political market there, John? Absolutely. Yes. And so is Andrew Little. You know what? Foreign Affairs Minister ` easiest job in Cabinet. Easiest job. Cos all you have to do is represent New Zealand to the world. You're the good guy, you know? It's us against the world. Every other minister, they have to play off the competing interests within the New Zealand constituency. Foreign Minister just has to go around the world, follow the aid budget, be the good guy. So it should be his job? (ALL LAUGH) He should be sticking up for New Zealand. But what New Zealand is doing right now` I mean, we're stalling on increasing the refugee quota. We're being two-faced here. On the one hand, we're demanding of Australia that they be more open to New Zealanders, and yet we're excluding people from overseas. Despite the promises and the rhetoric. Yes. I don't believe for a moment that housing is holding up this issue. I think the Greens have missed an opportunity there with that announcement that they` there's a backpedalling or a slowing down at least of the refugee` ...of the refugee quota. Yeah. You know, the Greens have got the backstory of the first refugee MP in parliament in New Zealand. It was a big deal for the Greens. And I don't know why` It seems a good opportunity to differentiate that has been perhaps missed or` Right. Especially with Andrew Little coming out and saying those kinds of things and then slowing down. Yeah, two-faced. Mm, mm. OK. All right. Thanks very much for the panel ` Jonathan Milne, Heather Roy and David Clendon. And stay with us. We're back after the break. Welcome back. And we're back with our panel. Now, the US Director of National Intelligence found out about plans for Vladimir Putin to visit the White House from a reporter live on TV. Quite some theatre there. Is that a White House stuff-up? Or are they trying to calculate a plan to make him look bad? What do you think, Jonathan? Uh, look, (CHUCKLES) first thing I would say is it actually doesn't matter what we say or what we think, cos as we just heard from Harry Horton, those who support Trump don't believe us anyway. (CHUCKLES) That's right. And those who don't support Trump agree with us. So opinion is almost irrelevant. But, look, I think it's a brilliant political strategy by Trump. I think he's one of the smartest political strategists we've seen for some time. Because every time we think he can't go any further, every time we, you know` he invites Putin to the White House. (LAUGHS) Whips the carpet out from under the critics' feet. And suddenly, we're all left with our jaws hanging. And he moves on to his next thing. But why? Why, Heather? Does Putin have some sort of control over Trump? I mean, what's going on here? Oh, I don't know. I mean, Trump just keeps changing his story, doesn't he? Most recently, he said, 'Well, it's much better that we're talking to these people than we're not. 'We can do some good there.' But, look, what a managerial nightmare he is. (ALL LAUGH) What do you do with him? Got nothing but sympathy for the poor people in the White House trying to actually get on and do the business of government. That whole week, David, of conflicting statements, really. And if you're working with somebody like that, what do you do? Well, life would never be dull. (ALL LAUGH) I think with Reagan` Reagan was an actor. You know, people didn't really see him having any intellectual horsepower to be a president, but you felt there was a team of grown-ups who were kind of keeping him on track. With Trump, there doesn't seem to be that. It just seems to be whatever pops into his mind. I guess what does concern me a bit, at the time he was elected, there was a bit of a move to challenge the American electoral system to say, 'Hey, if these are the best two candidates we can produce, and if this is the outcome ` 'a Trump presidency ` maybe there's something fundamentally wrong with our electoral system.' And that seems to have gone away. And I do regret that. Because it's an electoral system that's way past its use-by date, I'd argue. But as Jonathan says, 'Whatever we think, whatever we apply about it, it doesn't really matter, 'because Trump's support base is rock solid.' Yeah, well, it seems to be. The big problem for the US, internationally, is reputation, isn't it? And we need the big countries, the big players in the world, who are instrumental in trade and security issues, particularly, actually stepping up to the mark and doing the right things. And I think that's the big problem for the world, if you're looking globally. Yeah, and he just doesn't care about that, because` No. No, he doesn't. No, because he said, 'Make America great again.' He said, 'Put Americans first.' And actually, you know what? He's going to get to the end of his first term ` and it will be his first of two terms in office, you heard it here first` (ALL LAUGH) He's going to get the end of his first term, employment is going to be up in America. You know, the Rust Belt in regional, central America is going to be feeling better than they were four years ago, who cares what the rest of the world thinks from his point of view at that point? An isolationist US is not good for the world. Of course not. OK, well, let's wait till the second-term elections. Let's just touch on the mental health story that we ran by Mike Wesley-Smith, where a man with an intellectual age of five was kept in police cells. It's come at the same time that the dropping of this initiative of having someone intellectually disabled advice alongside the police. What do you make of that, Heather? Oh, I thought that was a terrible mistake by David Clark, Minister of Health, to drop that mental health initiative. It was only worth $8 million ` that's not much in the greater scheme of things for government. And what would have happened is a mental health case worker would have gone out with police on calls like that. And I think if that had been in place, we would have seen quite a different scenario there. But there were 17 initiatives put in place by the former government. There's a real feel of 'this was just dropped because it was somebody else's idea'. And yet, the Mental Health Inquiry Chair has said, 'Just get on with these initiatives. 'Don't wait for us to make decisions. There's a crisis now. It needs to be addressed.' And I think that that was a very bad call by David Clark. Jonathan, you actually have a particular example coming up, don't you? Yeah. And I mean, we saw Mike's example of William up in court. And the sad thing is there are a lot of these examples. We've done investigation this week into Alo Ngata, which is in this morning's paper. And he was the guy who died after being tasered by police. And police said, 'Look, we've got no knowledge of this guy. We don't know anything about him, 'about his back story.' Well, you know what? We talked to his family. He was in residential mental health care. They were so concerned about` He was actually an upstanding young leader of his community and his sports community. And things went badly wrong for him ` there was some drugs, but there was also mental health issues. Police were just utterly unaware of it. They should have been aware. He should have been on their radar. And they should have had exactly this kind of support there when they went to confront him. Instead, he died. But this is a conversation, David, that's been going on for ages. It has. It's been going on for far too long. And I agree ` it was a very poor move to drop that trial. Look, everybody can see it's not a perfect model or design yet, but they won't know how to make it better until you try it. There's so much police time that's chewed up dealing with people that have mental health problems. They're not only a lot of those calls; they are long calls. A couple of officers go there and can be tied up for several hours trying to deal with someone, trying to find someone` some way of managing that person away from a potentially violent or at least disruptive environment and getting them somewhere they'll be safe and the community's going to be safe. And to take away an initiative that could've advanced that cause, I think was a really shabby way to try and save a few million dollars. OK, so, we're going to see more of these examples come up until something else is brought in. There is the inquiry, though, into mental health coming up. And I think we have to pin a lot of hope on that, because that will look into some of these issues in real depth. And, you know, credit where credit is due ` hopefully, coming out of that, the government will find some really serious solutions and do the hard yards for them. But there's a gap, you know? I mean, we've got problems now; we've had problems for a long time. That is going to take some time. You know, when there's things that could be done immediately, let's just get on and do them. OK. So thank you very much for our panel ` Jonathan Milne, Heather Roy and David Clendon. Well, the Minister for Women, Julie Anne Genter, joined us on Facebook Live this week to discuss how she deals with trolls on social media and what she finds most challenging about being pregnant in the public eye. She also explained why it's still important in 2018 to have a Minister for Women. Well, the position goes back a long time, right? So people started talking about this in the '70s. There are other ministers for women ` there's a Minister for Women in Australia. There are similar roles in other countries. And it came out of, you know, concern in, as I said, the 1970s. The role of Minister for Women in the ministry, I believe, in New Zealand was established around 1984. So it was about 35 years ago. I was about 4 years old at the time. There's been a Minister for Women under every government ` all of that time. And the reason we still have the role is because we still don't have equal representation of women in politics, especially not in local government. We're getting there. We've gotten up from 32%, 33% to now 40% women in parliament, which that's good, but, hey, it's 2018. Come on. Surely, you would expect that we would have reached gender equality in representation by this point. And that's all from us for now. Thank you for watching, and we'll see you again next weekend. www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018