Today on Newshub Nation ` after a week of bad news for our economy, we ask the finance minister if he's concerned about a downturn. Australia's deportation laws are slammed as illegal and inhumane by the former boss of its Human Rights Commission. We talk to Gillian Triggs. And we get an exclusive look inside the fishing investigation that cost MPI millions and sparked a massive legal battle. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018 Kia ora. Good morning. I'm Simon Shepherd, and welcome to Newshub Nation. Business confidence continues to fall. The New Zealand dollar has plunged to a two-year low against the greenback. Manufacturing activity is down for the third month in a row, and the Reserve Bank is sticking with record-low interest rates. It looks like our economy is loosing its shine, but the Prime Minister and Finance Minister seem convinced there is little to worry about. Finance Minister Grant Robertson joins us now from our Christchurch studio. Good morning, Minister. Thanks for your time. Morning, Simon. Well, you said to me in May we can't transform the economy if we haven't got the foundations right. So are you worried that the foundations are looking a bit shaky right now? No, I'm not. I mean, I think the economic fundamentals for New Zealand are good. The books are in surplus. We've got debt at a relatively low level. Unemployment's around 4.5% and tracking downwards. And the things that make our economy work well ` the fact that our banking system is solid, that, you know, we've got a good reputation for ease of doing business ` all of those things are still there. And I read in the New Zealand Herald this morning Don Braid saying, you know, New Zealand is still a good place to do business, to invest, and I back that judgement. And, yet, you've got the indicators saying other things, like the manufacturing index, which we talked about ` three months where the activity's lessened. And, of course, the ANZ's own activity index has dropped to its lowest level since 2009. Look, and I've never denied the fact that among some in the business community there are issues out there that are concerning them, and I share some of those concerns, particularly around global trade tensions and the potential that that has to impact on the New Zealand economy. And we are in that transition that we talked about the last time I was on the show ` which is that the economy is being propped up by population growth and an overheated housing market. Both of those things are changing. We have to transition to being more productive, more sustainable, a modern 21st-century economy. There'll be one or two bumps in the road on the way to that, but we've got to plan to do it. OK, but are you dismissing this, sort of, lack of business confidence as just perception? I mean, even your Associate Finance Minister David Parker said it was the vibe of a self-selected subset of CEOs. Are you taking them seriously? Oh, look, you know, we take all opinions we get from the business community seriously. And I've been travelling around New Zealand speaking to audiences all over the country and hearing from them, both their concerns but also their excitement about what's possible for them. And, overall, I think business is optimistic about their own future, but there are some issues, and they are, you know, those ones I've just mentioned. The thing that tops the issue is access to skilled staff, actually. And that's something we're working on. We had an announcement this week around the Mana and Mahi Programme. We're getting more people into apprenticeships, more opportunities for training. And, yes, there will be one or two government policies that some members of the business community don't like. But I still continue to believe as a country we're well positioned. Actually, the trend in decline in GDP growth started at the beginning of 2017. The difference now is that we've got a government that has a plan to turn that around into a more productive set of growth numbers. But if growth isn't going to be as good as first forecast by Treasury and as rosy, are you going to make any changes to any of your policies as a result of that and as a result of business feedback? Well, look, you know, we've got a surplus, Simon. I mean, we're in a position now where the books are strong and able to handle the things that come at us. That's one of the reasons why we focused on that and keeping debt relatively low is to give ourselves a buffer. We've got business at the table with us working on the issues that are in this government's programme and the issues that business want us to work on. And, clearly, we'll be listening to the interests and concerns that they bring to the table on those issues. So we've got the programme. We want to work with business and, by and large, the business community has come on board on issues like climate change and even some of those industrial relations issues as well. Well, let's talk about that, because there are concerns about industrial relations issues, especially as, like I say, the 90-day rule. I mean, are you going to just push ahead with those or just haul back and not give so much, sort of, uncertainty to the business community? Well, look, and in terms of the 90-day rule, that's already been altered in the process up to now, and we have listened to the concerns of both our coalition partner, in that case, and the business community. But the direction of travel is one about getting, you know, fairness into workplace relations. We've got working groups set up on fair pay agreements, on the Holidays Act, which the business community are very much part of. We're at the table with them. We'll keep talking, and we'll keep listening, and the outcome will be the result of that. You mentioned the trade war. That's a big concern for businesses. How bad could that actually be for New Zealand? Yeah, look, I think it is important not to overdramatize the current situation. The tit-for-tat tariff exchanges we're seeing between the US and China are bad. But, at the moment, I wouldn't say it's having a huge effect. But as you look ahead, if that escalates and goes into a full-blown trade war, there's no doubt that that's bad for New Zealand. I mean, we're an open economy that relies on our exports to be able to give us the standard of living we all want, and if we've got a global trade war, that potentially leads to countries retrenching. It does lower confidence. It can upset some of the global supply chains that New Zealand relies on. And so I back what both the Reserve Bank Governor and Treasury have said this week, which is that is a potential risk to us. It's the very reason why we've got to make sure we do two things ` firstly, be careful with the finances and keep a buffer there to be able to deal with any impact; but, secondly, diversify our export markets. It's why the EU free trade deal matters. It's why finishing the Pacific Alliance deal matters, and it's why we've got to diversify the exports that we are sending overseas. That's part of our plan. OK, look, you've talked a lot about transforming the economy. You've mentioned that several times already, and we talked about that in May when you delivered the budget. Nine months in, we're still a bit light on the detail. You've got something like 130 reviews, but business is sort of waiting for that detail ` Carbon Zero detail, areas like tax reform. How long can they wait? Well, you know, this is the transition period. And, actually, again, the business community has been really engaged in the Zero Carbon work to the point that we now have the Climate Leaders Coalition, 60 of New Zealand's biggest businesses, backing the direction that the government's going in, making their commitments on emissions reductions and being held accountable for that. They want us to get that policy right, and rather than clicking our fingers and saying, 'Right, that's what's going to happen there,' we've brought them on board there. It's really important to us that we get the design of our research and development tax credit right. No one would want us to reform the tax system without going through the process we're going now. The direction of travel there is clear, and we're working with all of the people who are engaged in the economy to get those settings right so that we can be more productive and more sustainable. This is the transition period. We've done some things to support the economy through fiscal stimulus with the Families Package and the KiwiBuild programme. They'll help grow the economy. And bear in mind the Reserve Bank's forecast this week is still for 3% growth over the next three years. A little bit of a dip at the moment, but then picking up through 2019 and 2020. That's a good, solid growth outlook for New Zealand. All right. Your employment relation changes ` do they fit with this idea of transforming the economy into something innovative and productive? Because some businesses fear that you're going back to, sort of, an old model. Yeah, look, I think they do, and I think what we are looking at is some changes that were similar to what was in operation 10 years ago, and the economy was humming along there. I don't think there's anything to fear from workers having guaranteed rest and meal breaks. I think that's actually part of a fair society. But the other part of the industrial relations work we're doing is around the issues of High Performance High Engagement. These are the programmes that companies like Air New Zealand and KiwiRail and even Fonterra have done, where they actually are working much more cooperatively between workers and management and seeing big productivity gains. And I had business leaders and union leaders in last week at Parliament talking about how we can push that out further and support small and medium enterprises. So there's a lot of elements to the employment relations agenda. Ultimately, it's about providing balance and fairness and ways of driving higher wages and productivity. I think they're good things to be working on, and I think the business community being at the table is really important. And yet we've seen things like more strikes. We've had the teachers. We've had the nurses and IRD staff. That seems to be a step backwards. Well, I'd say, particularly in terms of those state sector workers, that's really nine years of frustration of the previous government. The offer we put on the table to the nurses was double what the previous government had offered and significantly higher than offers in previous years. We worked our way through that. We stuck to our guns on how much money we had available, but we addressed the issues that the nurses wanted. We'll do the same and work it through with teachers and other staff. But, you know, we can't solve nine years of neglect in nine months, but we're doing our best to set a path forward, where we do properly reward people like nurses and teachers who do such an important job for us. Okay. Let's talk a couple of specifics. You've allocated $42 billion for infrastructure projects over the next five years. Now, given the state of our construction industry, are you confident that you're going to be able to deliver on that? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we need to be careful about the way we talk about the construction industry. If we're talking about residential construction or horizontal infrastructure, things are going well. The pipeline of projects is there. The companies have built in appropriate risk profiles into their costings. We do have an issue with the vertical construction industry in New Zealand, and that's been recognised by the industry itself in the last couple of weeks. And we're sitting down with them, working with them on what we need to do to make sure that the 18% of the vertical construction industry that the government's responsible for, we get our procurement practices right and make sure we're not contributing to the problem, and the industry needs to make sure it's apportioning risk properly. But I'm confident in terms of that big infrastructure spend that we've got planned, we have the ability to deliver that in New Zealand. Let's talk about the government's role in that vertical construction industry, in the 18%. Would you give a guarantee that the government won't lowball all its offers from now on, and that you're going to actually share the risk and make profitable margins for Government` sorry, for that construction industry when it's a Government job? Yeah, look, Minister Jenny Salesa has been really clear. We want our government departments and agencies abiding by the procurement guidelines that the government has. There has been some suggestion that that hasn't been happening, and we've put the word back out to all of our ministries and agencies that they should be abiding by that. The race to the bottom in the vertical construction industry has been clear for everybody to see, but bear in mind we are only 18% of that market. Local government's probably 10%. So you've got 72% of the work coming out of the private sector. So we've all got to share responsibility for making sure that risk falls in the right place. And I think it's in the interest of taxpayers that we make sure that we don't have companies going under, because that actually ends up leading to higher costs. So we're working with the industry on that, but I have a very high expectation of government agencies to have best practice procurement. So you're putting a warning out to the government agencies ` best practice procurement. Would you actually need to regulate the private part of the industry to make sure that there's best practice? Look, no one's suggesting that at the moment. The industry itself is sitting down and saying, 'Well, how do we make sure that our members in the vertical construction industry understand where risk lies and do appropriate contracting?' But we have said that we'll take another look at the Construction Contracts Act to make sure that it's fit for purpose, that it's upholding those high standards. Also, protecting the subcontractors as well. I mean, the sight of subbies not being able to get their tools out of some of the EBIT construction sites is not one that I want to see. And so if we have to revisit some of the changes made by the previous government to the Construction Contracts Act we will, and we're taking another look at those now. And would you introduce something like risk sharing on government projects? Well, that's exactly what the procurement rules need to be about. I'd rather make sure that we set the rules properly so that everybody knows what the highest standards are. And I think that'll avoid some of that race to the bottom. I mean, clearly, issues like fixed-price contracting have been a problem for the industry. And everybody needs to agree on where risk lies and being aware of risk. We'll accept our share of that, as the private contractor needs to as well. You mention this meeting ` this symposium next week. Is this a crisis in the industry? Are these crisis talks? No, they're not. The symposium next week ` the Building Nations one ` has been scheduled for many months, and that's about the infrastructure industry as a whole. And as I say, the horizontal infrastructure industry ` the work that's done to build the pipes and make sure we have what we need to run our cities ` is actually going well, as is residential construction as well. I mean, I know in Auckland, they've got the highest number of building consents granted since 2004. There's 83 cranes across the skyline of Auckland. There's good activity happening in our industry, but where there are difficulties and problems, obviously, we have to address them. Is there a risk here, though, that in the vertical construction industry, if you don't address it quickly, we're going to have more and more overseas players and no industry here? Look, you know, we want a domestic-based vertical construction industry, and there are companies who are doing well. But this is a long-run trend ` we can go back to Mainzeal, and, obviously, we saw Hawkins as well and the problems Fletchers had. So, you know, when there's a trend like that, you've got to deal with them, but equally, we've got to learn the lessons of the companies who have gone well. But, you know, we've got an ambitious programme here, and I'm absolutely certain that New Zealand companies and probably some Australian ones will be involved in that, because we need to get the work done. In a speech this week, talking about that massive infrastructure spend that you've got on the books, you said this week you want to see a greater use of KiwiSaver funds as part of the Welcome Home package infrastructure projects. So, I mean, how would that work? You're asking Kiwis investing into KiwiSaver funds to channel that into infrastructure projects in New Zealand? Well, the fund managers who look after all of our KiwiSaver funds are obviously there to get a decent rate of return for all of us on our savings. At the moment, the vast bulk of that money is invested offshore, because that's where those fund managers can get that rate of return. My view is that if we do a good job of packaging up some of the big infrastructure projects in New Zealand, they'll be attractive to those fund managers. And what I want to see is more of New Zealanders' savings being invested here inside our borders. You know, that's what I think New Zealanders themselves would like. And the New Zealand Super Fund, as an example, have put forward a bid to help build two of the new light rail lines. We're assessing that bid alongside others, but that's a good example of how New Zealanders can see the money that they're putting away also helping build the future of their country. I think that's a great thing. There's a different kind of funding model for this kind of infrastructure. It's not just about the government borrowing to build this stuff any more. It's about dipping into KiwiSaver retirement funds. What it is is about making sure we make the best of the private sector and other public sector investment that's out there. We're coming to the table as government with a significant amount of investment, but when you look at the big urban infrastructure and transport investments around New Zealand, we want to make sure we marshal all of the capital that's out there. And the thing with KiwiSaver and Super Fund is these funds are New Zealanders' money. If we can see that money being invested onshore, I think that's a good thing. But obviously, it's the rate of return that matters to those funds. And it's up to us to put together packages that are attractive for that investment. All right. Just finally, Minister, the first instalment of your transformative budget trilogy was solid, but in your own words, 'underwhelming'. If the economy doesn't improve, how are you going to be able to deliver a hit with your Wellbeing Budget next year? I wouldn't say it was underwhelming. I'd be very surprised if I've ever said that. It was foundational, Simon, and it was important for us to lay the foundations, not only, I might say, for economic growth, but actually rebuilding the public services that have been undermined over the last nine years. Health and education and housing ` they were the foundations of the first budget. The second budget will be the Wellbeing Budget, and we really want to focus on the things that give long-term intergenerational benefit. And that means investing in things like infrastructure, but also the issues that we know make a big difference ` the first 1000 days of a child's life, mental health and issues such as that. So I'm really confident we're in a position to do that. The fundamentals of the economy are strong, and the growth rates over the next three years are still projected to be around 3%, which gives us a solid base. Finance Minister Grant Robertson, thank you for your time this morning. Thanks, Simon. And 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 Eric Crampton and Jason Walls. They're using the hashtag #nationnz. And you can also email us at the address on your screen right now ` nation@mediaworks.co.nz. But, up next, a former human rights boss tells us why she was shocked by the immigration detention centres holding Kiwis in Australia. Plus ` an investigation that cost millions and an unprecedented legal battle. We look at MPI's prosecution of a Hawke's Bay fishing company. Welcome back. Justice Minister Andrew Little recently sparked a war of words with Australia's Immigration Minister when he criticised the detention and deportation of Kiwis there. Now the former president of Australia's Human Rights Commission has backed him up, saying the policy is illegal and inhumane. Professor Gillian Triggs is no stranger to controversy, regularly criticised by politicians during her time at the Commission for her views on the treatment of asylum seekers. Reporter John-Michael Swannix asked her how Australia got to this point with its deportation laws. Well, we had an amendment of the migration act in 2014 ` late in 2014 ` and since that time, the minister and ministerial delegates in the department have had the power to cancel visas for non-citizens at the minister's discretion on character grounds as well as on the grounds of having committed criminal offences that add up to 12 months. And what we see and what we've seen over the last few years is from an average of about 80-something visa cancellations a year from people across the globe, we've now got something like 1300 ` massive numbers, actually escalating dramatically, where 50% of those deportations are now New Zealanders. So it's happened very quickly, and I think was really a quite clear policy of the government to give the minister this really extraordinary discretion ` executive discretion without supervision by the courts. Our Justice Minister Andrew Little says Australia's deportation laws 'lack humanitarian ideals'. Is he right? I believe he is. One of the particularly troubling aspects of this visa cancellation process has been that people who've lived for many, many years, in fact, most of their lives in Australia, are having their visas cancelled and then deported to New Zealand and separated from their partners and children who have Australian citizenship. And I think that that is a breach of international law ` indeed, the Human Rights Committee in Geneva has already determined in similar deportation cases that this is a breach of international law. But putting it more broadly, as your Minister Little has done, I think one does respond by saying this is deeply inhumane, particularly when it affects youths. Does Australia need a charter of human rights? Would that go some way to solving this problem? Well, it could do. The reality is that Australia's the only democracy in the world that does not have a charter, and there are very, very few protections for common-law freedoms in the constitution. And that has meant that across the field of asylum seeker laws, counter-terrorism laws, anti-bikie association laws, all of these laws are going through, many of them dependent on ministerial discretions that are not being checked by the courts. If we had a charter of rights, broadly along the lines that you've adopted here in New Zealand, there would be a better opportunity for the courts to benchmark and to assess whether or not these laws comply with fundamental common-law freedoms articulated in a charter. So I think` I can't predict in the future just which way a court will go and how they would interpret these rights, but I think we could say it's highly probable that they would question the mandatory detention of New Zealanders and other non-citizens without charge or trial. The judges don't deal with these cases. That would very likely be one that were the court to have a charter, they would be inclined to say, 'These are in breach of law.' Why a charter rather than a constitutional amendment? Well, just by way of illustration, it's been proved impossible to get proper constitutional recognition of our indigenous peoples, and we still have a race clause in the constitution, which would allow negative legislation against our indigenous peoples. So if we can't get reform in that area, the chance of getting a constitutionally entrenched bill of rights is very, very little, very, very low, and certainly I wouldn't expect to see it for many, many years. But a legislated charter along the lines that you have in New Zealand would be much more achievable. Now, they're weak; they're not particularly strong, but they do have an impact on the way in which civil servants, government officials, law makers apply laws. They are inclined to say, 'We've got a charter. Does this law comply with that charter? 'Or what we're proposing, does it comply with common-law freedoms?' And I think that that's the impact it has on the lives of ordinary people. Let's turn to your time as president of the Human Rights Commission. You said your visit to the Villawood Detention Centre in Sydney was one of the most distressing of your tenure. Why is that? Initially, I suppose, I have to say the most distressing of everything I've seen is hundreds of children held on Christmas Island for more than a year, with no education, in appalling physical and mental state. So I was pretty hardened to just what goes on in these detention centres. But Blaxland, which is the high-security detention facility at the Villawood prison, about an hour out of Sydney, was the one that particularly shocked me, because when I went into that part of the prison to see the immigration detainees, I was very surprised at that stage to realise that most were New Zealanders and most, in fact, were Maori or Islanders. And I saw six men to a bunk room, cramped quarters and in a concrete compound with 14ft wire walls. They were quite literally like caged animals. Big, strong men, some of them with mental illness, clearly deeply distressed, with virtually nothing to do, except I think there was a billiard table and a television set. But they were distraught beyond measure and with virtually no hope for their futures. All done ` and I would say this as a lawyer, but it's critical ` all without a charge or trial by a court or jury. 60% of deportees back to New Zealand are Maori or Pasifika from Australia. Is there institutional racism at play here? Well, I'd hesitate to go quite that far. I don't believe that it's intended to have a racist purpose, but there's no doubt at all that not only what I saw, but from my research in relation to the publicly available facts, the impact of this deportation policy is profoundly discriminatory and racist. 50% of detainees from Australia are New Zealanders, and 60% of those are Maori and Pacific Islanders. So, if Labor wins the election next year in Australia, do you believe that these policies will change? I think that the Labor Party, were it to win, would be extremely cautious before it significantly alters any aspects of asylum seeker refugee policy or this deportation policy. I would imagine that Labor would quite quietly go about getting a more rule-of-law-based process and ensure that when a minister exercises a discretion to cancel a visa, that would be done according to a proper rule of law judicial process. But I can only hope that will be the case with regard to New Zealand. This is a situation that really is best, and probably will be, resolved diplomatically. You have a new, and I think open-minded prime minister. If we were to have a change of government, I think it would be much more possible for those two prime ministers and their respective officials to negotiate a more humane outcome for New Zealanders being deported in a way that most particularly respects their families and respects the fact that they've been long-term residents in Australia and should be accorded a more rule-of-law-based, humane approach. What gives you hope that things will change? Well, I think we've been in a dark place in Australia for the last few years. We've adopted a really inhumane and illegal policy in relation to non-citizens, most particularly those arriving without a visa by sea. But that has trickled down, if you like, to this rather inhumane policy in relation to New Zealanders. I don't think Australians have ever been concerned about this. We have freedom of movement through our close economic relations with New Zealand. I think Australians are enormously fond of New Zealanders, and there's never been, to my knowledge, any sense that we had to deport them in the numbers that we're currently deporting. So I do have hope for the future, because this is not Australian; it's not the values that we have espoused and developed in what is a multicultural and relatively successful migrant nation. I think the ship will right itself, but in the meantime, a great deal of harm is being done. Let's turn to free speech. That's been a real hot topic of debate here in New Zealand over the past few weeks. You won a freedom of speech award last year for speaking truth to power. Is free speech an absolute right? Definitely not. And that is the point that perhaps people don't always understand. There is a right to freedom of speech as a constitutional matter, and in many countries, as a matter of common law and protected by legislation. I'd have to say it's been one of the biggest views of my presidency of the Human Rights Commission being a provision in the racial discrimination act that prohibits offending, insulting, intimidating and humiliating somebody because of their race in the public arena. And that's been very controversial, despite attempts by two prime ministers and one attorney general. The multicultural community in Australia rose up as one ` the Jews, the Muslims, the Vietnamese, the Confucians, the Quakers all rose up and said, 'We need that line in the sand.' Freedom of speech is not absolute. You can pass a line that becomes racist and unacceptable in the public arena. Now, you can say what you like in the privacy of your own home, you can think what you like, but in the public arena, public transport, in your factory, workplace, in a hospital waiting room, you may not abuse somebody else because of their race. And Australia's held on to that limitation on the right to freedom of speech. There are exceptions, and exceptions lie for journalism, for political debate and for good faith, factually-based debate. All right. Still to come ` we dissect the week's political news with our panel. Plus ` a tale of trickery at sea and lengthy wrangling in court. We look inside the MPI investigation into a Hawke's Bay fishing company. Welcome back. It's the longest running District Court case ever, costing millions of dollars in court time and government investigative resources, the dispute related to fish that was caught but not reported and then sold at fish markets in Australia. In one corner a well-known Hawke's Bay fishing family and in the other investigators from the Ministry for Primary Industries. The family's lawyer says the case has been a waste of money but the Ministry says they've done what the New Zealand public expects of them. Michael Mora has the story. (WHISTLES) It's February 2014 and this is official investigation footage filmed by Fisheries officers as they inspect the factory and chillers of Hawke's Bay Seafoods in Napier. It was the beginning of what would be a highly complex, lengthy investigation which also involved raids on company vessels and properties. And it was one which would ultimately land the company's owners in court. Oh, I don't want to talk at the moment. Just want to get it over with. Thanks. Company Director Nino D'Esposito, his brother Joe and son Marcus have pleaded guilty to a total of 130 charges. The charges relate to making false statements and selling fish they failed to report. This is a tale of trickery on the high seas. And an unprecedented legal battle. This wasn't personal. It's more about us holding them to account for offences that were committed by them. Steve Ham is Investigations Manager for the Ministry for Primary Industries. I think this investigation was necessary and it's something we owe the public and New Zealand to investigate this and uncover the sustained underreporting of this fish species. This was by New Zealanders against New Zealanders. The species misreported was bluenose, a valuable mid-water fish already under significant pressure from fishing. Part of MPI's investigation focused on what was going on here at the wharf in Napier. It was identified that the weight of bluenose recorded in documents differed from the actual amount being sent overseas. In total, 27 tonnes of fish was unaccounted for ` bluenose that was misreported and then sold in Australia, fetching just over $253,000. MPI secretly tracked bluenose caught by Seafoods' vessels as it left the shores here. They enlisted their Aussie counterparts to take photos of the catch as it landed at airports in Sydney and Melbourne. It wasn't as straightforward investigation. Detailed analysis of export documentation and weight declarations was required and MPI seized 220,000 documents as part of Operation Marquis. One weight is being recorded in the documents but was turning up in Australia was different, right? Yes, was different, that's right. In total, there were 20 separate occasions where illegal exports were identified. The trial dragged its way through the court system. But not all the charges brought against the D'Espositos would stick. In fact, a deal struck during the seven-month trial saw two thirds of the initial 380 charges being dropped. My clients are normal business people in a normal business environment. They're not black market poachers, they're not criminals, they're simply people who failed to meet a requisite standard required by the law. It's not like a murder case or anything along those lines. It's more a case of ` this is a regulatory environment in which certain standards are imposed on people participating in the industry and they failed to meet those standards. MPI says its investigation and prosecution has cost around 2.5 million dollars. Lawyer Mike Sullivan says the D'Espositos have spent well over a million defending the case. My personal view is this an awful, great big waste of taxpayer's money and that there are better ways of dealing with this level of offending and this type of failure to comply with regulatory requirements that are for more sensible and this country would be better off pursuing. So 2.5 million dollars, was it worth it? Absolutely. And why do you think its worth that amount of taxpayers money? Just, there's a cost associated with everything that we do, whether we're looking at all the other sectors that MPI administer but it was worthy for this investigation to be conducted to unearth this type of offending and hold those to account. And, further to that, what's the cost of not doing the investigating. We've got rules for a reason so rules have to be upheld or we might as well get rid of them. Karl Warr is a commercial fisherman in Napier. So how long have you been fishing for? Oh, about 15 years. He says misreporting skews fisheries' population data and that could ultimately lead to declines in fish numbers. It frustrates me because, you know, like, a lot of the fishery science is based on catch per unit effort. So if we've got fish coming out that's not being recorded then, in terms of the fishery science picture, it tips that upside down. Hawkes Bay Seafoods is the dominant player on the docks in Napier. Most of the boats here are theirs. The D'Esposito family has been involved in fishing in New Zealand since migrating her from Italy in 1918. They own 14 vessels, they process fish, export it and sell it from retail shops and online. They're a big employer in the region. But it's not the first time they've squared off in court against the ministry. So, historically, there are offences that have been committed by this company before. They were unrelated to the bluenose fishery but there is propensity from this company to offend. We delved into the court files and went through Operation Roundup ` a covert Ministry investigation which found Joe And Nino D'Esposito were behind one of the biggest illegal fishing conspiracies ever uncovered. It was in the early nineties when they fished out of Wellington. The case summary says ` and ` a fish of lesser value. Over several weeks, the D'Esposito Brothers' company paid cash for illegal hauls of fish. No landing returns were submitted. They were fined close to a million dollars which at the time was the biggest fine ever dished out by the District Court. It is, as far as I am aware, the most serious offending ever to come before the New Zealand courts in relation to the fisheries. So that doesn't bode well for your clients who are now up on further charges, does it? Only in the sense that they have that prior history. But in the sense that there's been 24 years difference between then and now, we all do things when we're young which we wouldn't do when we're older. There's a vast difference between what was involved there and what's involved here. It was after that case the D'Espositos left Wellington and headed for the harbours of Hawke's Bay. Then, in 2009, they were caught misreporting again. This time at least 900 kilos of moki was landed from their vessel Trial B and falsely reported as blue warehou, another lesser value fish. When fisheries officers couldn't locate the warehou catch the manager of one of the company's fish shops claimed more than $1000 worth of fillets had been purchased by an unidentified Maori male that morning for a Tangi but EFTPOS transactions revealed the biggest transaction for that morning had just been $14. Some would say that, given their history, they should be banned from fishing in New Zealand. Why hasn't MPI done that? We're bound by the court process and we're bound by statute and we're bound in what we can do. It's not a matter of purely MPI placing banning conditions on a person, we have to follow due process. MPI says the previous offending has some comparisons to the case they're prosecuting now. Technically, they were gaining a market advantage across other legally operating operators in New Zealand who were fishing in the same fishery. That's ripping off the system, isn't it? That is rorting the system, you could say, to their advantage. But Sullivan says there was never any deliberate intent. There's another scenario which is not in play in this courtroom which is that a person sets out to deliberately misreport fish for pecuniary gain, right? That is not the scenario that is before this court. Marquise D'Esposito the company's General Manager has identified as the most culpable as he knew of the misreporting and didn't stop it. Joe and Nino didn't know of the offending, but because they're company directors, they bear some responsibility for what happened. They own that responsibility for that offending and they have subsequently taken steps to ensure that they are in a position to ensure that that doesn't happen again. Hawke's Bay Iwi Ngati Kahungunu leases quota to Hawkes Bay Seafoods and in return, it trains and employs young Maori. We visited the Iwi headquarters, but no one was willing to talk at length about the current case. So I've just spoken briefly to the Iwi Chairman Ngahiwi Tomoana and he politely declined to comment, saying he would rather wait until the court case is all over. But there's little doubt that Iwi remains firmly in the corner of Hawke's Bay Seafoods. In fact, it appears the business relationship with local Maori is only going to expand. They are all looking to explore better angles of delivering better product and quality fish in an environment that is, perhaps, even closer with the Iwi. So this guy's a pretty common sight here in Napier? He's just turned up in the last few weeks. Yeah, he seems to be enjoying hanging out here. Hoping to get a feed? Yeah. (LAUGHS) Back on the wharf in Napier, Karl Warr says the convictions for Hawke's Bay Seafoods are a bad look for the industry. We as commercial fishers have been given the privilege of managing the surplus stock for the benefit of the economy and the well-being of the country. So we've got a duty of care to do that well. And, you know, offending in those areas does not bode well for a good public image. MPI has been criticized for not prosecuting in other cases like, for example, Operation Bronto in 2011 when hundreds of tonnes of Hoki was underreported by some of our biggest fishing companies. The D'Espositos say that MPI has deliberately targeted them, singled them out. Is that the case? No. And I think we need to make the point here that if this offending had occurred elsewhere with any other company, we still would have taken this case and we still would investigate it to the full extent. They're by no means special. The judge in this case has reserved his decision on sentencing. The Crown has signalled it wants up to $1.5 million in fines. As for the four offending vessels, they're technically now the property of the Crown and there will be fines to get them back but they haven't been stopped from going fishing. All right, still to come, National MP fronts up for our weekly Facebook Live question session. But first, we catch up with our panel, Stuff Business Correspondent Hamish Rutherford, Iron Duke founder and CEO Phil O'Reilly and Maxine Gay, Regional Manager for the charity Pillars. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` journalist Hamish Rutherford, businessman Phil O'Reilly and trade unionist Maxine Gay. Thanks for your time this morning. Hamish, first to you, Grant Robertson's playing down talk of an economic downturn. Is he right? I don't think we're in an economic downturn yet. The economy's definitely cooling. The housing market's slowing down a bit. Immigration's coming off. Business confidence has fallen quite sharply though. So there is a risk that if` well, if business confidence doesn't return, then there is a real possibility that we would head into crisis. OK, all right. So, Phil, is this just the usual business reaction to a new Labour Government? No, quite a bit are subjective, of course. You look at the Trump trade wars. You look at what's going on in the domestic economy, as Hamish says. Just to give you a simple example of that ` house prices cooling in Auckland mean that small business people will feel much less confident in Auckland, because, of course, a lot of their business is based on being backed by the mortgage on their house, right? So a lot of that's just subjective stuff going on. Some of it is about public policy though, because business looks at governments. Our particular policies might be one thing, but more generally business says, 'Does the Government have our back on this as the economy turns down?' And they're not sure about that, I suspect. They think, 'maybe they do, maybe they don't'. The confusion about this and some of the statements Government's making are probably not helping that certainty about whether Government has their back. So the job for Government is to really reach out to business now to say, 'No, we do have your back. 'We are going to make sure that the economy works as well as it can do over the next year or two.' One of the things that is creating uncertainty to the business people we've talked about is this Employment Relations Bill, Maxine. Do you think businesses have a right to be concerned about the changes that are being implemented? Oh, I think they are really totally overreacting completely. It's really quite ironic, isn't it, that over the plastic bags, one of the major reasons the retailers were saying they were supporting it was that they wanted a level playing field. So they want a level playing field for the cost of producing single-use plastic bags. Why not a level playing field when it comes to industrial relations and paying for wages? So I don't think they can have it, really, both ways. But I actually think the whole business confidence thing is, actually, we've been here before, haven't we, when you had the Labour Government` the Clark Labour Government, right? GDP growth around 3.2% 82 out of 92 months, business confidence was low. And then you do the reverse over the nine years, 1.9% for the National Government, and you've got high business confidence, and yet it was only 1.9. And yet, Helen Clark went on a charm offensive, didn't she? Even though the figures were good. Also, I think you've got to be very cautious about saying this is all political; it's not. Well, I think you get in some trouble if you think` It may not be all, but I think it's a real false economy. And business confidence has been built on false promises if we're really saying that low wages, immigration and house prices is what really is important about fuelling the economy. That is a false promise that's always going to actually end up being really problematic for business. I'm not surprised, actually, that business have got a bit of pessimism. They're probably feeling a little bit of wage justice creeping up` (CHUCKLES) ...on the back of them. No wonder they're feeling a little bit worried about that, because look at what's happened since the '80s for Labour's share of business profits ` it was at 60%. Since the mid '80s, it has dropped down to 50%. Max Rashbrook says that's about costing families about $11,500 a year. You're right, Phil ` it is about signalling. This government` this Labour coalition government ` has signalled that they actually want to start to see something happen about that, right? So of course, they've got a little bit of fear, because it's going to be painful giving up` OK, if we are going to see a bit of a cooling off in the economy, Hamish, does that mean that the Government's actually going to have to scale back its ambitions? I don't think` Possibly. I think, you know, Jacinda Ardern has made the speech at the end of the month, you know, quite a crucial event to try and restore confidence in the economy. And I think she may have to give some sort of acknowledgement to business that confidence is important. But back to Maxine's point, I don't think it's necessarily about the wage justice that is upsetting business. I think it's more about areas that they don't know what's coming ` around fair pay agreements` So it's the uncertainty that you think that`? So this week, Jacinda Ardern has tried to talk through the programme and tried to explain how strong the economy is, but there's areas that they haven't been able to explain. And so until they really start to fill in some of the gaps, I think that the uncertainty will keep business confidence low. OK, all right. Can I just move on to construction? We've seen a lot of problems in the vertical construction industry, Phil. The Government says it's going to lead by example in terms of when it's trying to procure, when it goes out to tender. And will that be enough to help the wallets? Well, it'll certainly help. One of the main reasons` I mean, I saw the Minister talk about the Government only having 18% of vertical construction. Well, of course, they're a very big sole contractor of that` a big sole purchaser of that 18. And often the very big buildings ` Christchurch Health Precinct and Justice Precinct, for example ` are theirs. So they really are in quite a dominant position in vertical construction. The Minister's absolutely right ` risk had been misallocated in the vertical construction sector for years by successive governments, and that has caused enormous difficulties. So Government does need to lead by example; it does need to work out what risk it's prepared to take. And by doing so, I think you'll see not just international players entering the market, but more New Zealand players entering the market too. So I think the Government's on absolutely the right track here. OK. Phil O'Reilly, thanks, mate, very much for that. Stay with us. We're going to be back after the break. Welcome back. And we're back with our panel. Now, Gillian Triggs said on the programme she agreed with Andrew Little, Australia's deportation laws are inhumane. She said that diplomacy is our best chance of getting the laws changed. So are comments like this helpful, Maxine? Well, I think they're both helpful and accurate. I think it's appalling the treatment that's been meted out to New Zealanders or anybody, in fact, in terms of Australia's deportation policies. We all were outraged with what was happening at the Mexican border in the United States. And yet, something not so very different is happening just across the Tasman. So we all agree that there's outrage about it, but, you know, diplomacy? Is that the only way that we're going to fix this, Phil? Well, the Government hasn't tried much diplomacy yet, have they? It's been part of the problem. They've tried some loud words, which is the opposite of diplomacy. The real challenge any government's going to have is this is just not in the Australian political interest to do much about it. Plays well at home. Why would you give the Kiwis something? So you've got to hope for long, slow, patient diplomacy getting an answer here. And that is the best option for us, but I'm not hopeful it will work, regrettably. It's a bit of a balancing act, though, cos Winston Peters is promoting a trans-Tasman relationship and pushing for closer ties, Hamish. So is that going to be possible while we have these laws? It seems difficult. I mean, it is a real sticking point in the relationship, and it does seem to be getting worse. I'm a bit more confident that there could be a diplomatic solution, because it's not making Australia look good. It's playing out in the international media increasingly; the New York Times has picked up this issue. So I suspect that loud words may eventually have an impact, but that won't help the trading relationship. All right. Well, let's talk about loud words and free speech ` it's been in the spotlight this week. Don Brash said protesters are trying to stop him from speaking at a free speech debate at Auckland University this week proved that political correctness is limiting free speech. Is he right, Phil? Well, it is, to some extent, actually. There's limitations on free speech, of course. As the Australian Human Rights Commissioner said earlier on the show, there's always been limitations on this. What we need to do as a nation though is to be cautious about just putting our value set on what we want to hear. The best free speech is free speech that makes you feel uncomfortable, even offended. So with the Canadians, should we have abandoned them? I think we shouldn't have. I think the right decision was made there, because what they said was boring and hateful. And it was useful to hear that. So we go, 'Well, nobody agrees with that. We'll move on.' So I think we should set the boundaries, but we should set them with a caution about saying` a big presumption towards free speech. But that's exactly right, actually, cos the Canadians were about hate plus fake speech masquerading as free speech. It's the antithesis of free speech. What they were pedalling was the absolute antithesis of free speech. And it's quite galling` And yet they got free speech, didn't they, Hamish? Because, you know, even though they didn't have their event, they had the internet, they had the social media, they had TV interviews` They're the most famous speakers in New Zealand right now. It's completely turned on its head. Don Brash has become, you know, a spokesman for free speech. It's made him a household name. It's tremendous for him. But it seems like an extraordinary miscalculation by Massey University to` Well, so, the Free Speech Coalition is taking on Massey University. They're going to take them to court for stopping Don Brash speaking there. What is the point of that, Phil? There's no point. I mean, just let him get on and speak. I mean, if he says something that's interesting, that's great. He could say something boring. Good for him. You know, it's a crazy situation that we're getting ourselves into here where we say, 'We should just stop that stuff because we happen not to agree with it.' And somebody sort of threatens a bit of stuff at a campus. Campus' should be the absolute epitome of open and free speech. Oh, look, I agree. But what we've really got to get clear out there is that there's this big difference between free speech and fake news. And that's the real problem. When you get people like Judith Collins doubling down on defending her miscalculation in terms of retweeting what she knew to be fake news and trying to defend that, that's actually really dangerous for the body politic. Yeah, but it's a different debate, isn't it, where you're trying to decipher misinformation` But even she was trying to use a free speech argument. That, you know, she had the right to do that, basically, under free speech. And that, you know, is where the real danger is ` that anybody who calls people out on fake speech is actually accused of limiting free speech. And I think that's the cleverness of the nastiness of the Canadians. They have managed to kind of unite this neo-liberal view with a fascist view, which is quite alarming. I'm not aware of any fascists in this debate. No. (LAUGHS) Let's just move on. Right, one last quick topic... We're all on the same side. The Government's announced a Mana and Mahi ` that's a dole for apprenticeship scheme announced on Thursday this week. Mixed reaction, Hamish, do you think business owners will take on more apprentices if there's sort of a` if they're subsidised? I suspect they will, I mean, it just makes taking on someone new cheaper. Um, yeah, I think` But Phil, are there any concerns that this is cheap labour? Just be cautious about this, employers don't generally hire these young kids because its cheaper. They'll hire them because they want good employees and they're gonna be good employees. So the biggest the Government announced was not the wage subsidy, it was the pastoral care. If you've been unemployed for six months, there's something else going on in your life. You might be on drugs, you might have family issues. They need to be sorted out, then the employer would be happy to pay a fair wage, I suspect. So, if it was me, I'd turn the numbers round. I'd say give the employer only a little bit of money and spend a lot more money on pastoral care getting these kids off drugs, ready to work, trained and so on. That's what employers will actually` And that's where we're gonna have to leave it. Phil O'Reilly, thank you very much, Maxine Gay and Hamish Rutherford, thanks for your time on the panel this morning. All right, National's Nicola Willis joined us on Facebook Live this week and was quizzed about her views on a number of conscience issues. We asked her if she was in favour of banning gay conversion therapy. Yeah, so this is an interesting issue. There's been a petition on it. I wasn't even aware that it was happening in New Zealand. It just seems like such a crazy thing to be happening. But I'm not sure how widespread it is and I guess the key question is how do you know if it's gay conversion therapy or if its just, actually, counselling? Because, of course, coming out is a big deal, and people going through that often do need support. But would you be in favour of seeing it banned? Of seeing it banned? Well, I suppose so. But the question would be how do you actually do that? What would the law look like? And if it would stop people having freedoms in other areas, then I'd be pretty uncomfortable. Right, well, how do you think it could impinge on other people's freedoms? Well, because there's the question of what counts as gay conversion therapy? And what situations are we going to have someone walking into the room between two people and saying, 'Well, that's gay conversion therapy; you're not allowed to do that.' There are some questions, I think, about how you would regulate it and the control that would be required in order to enforce it. And that is all from us for now. Thank you for watching, and we will see you again next weekend. Captions by Chelsea Brady, Elizabeth Welsh and John Gibbs. www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018