Today on Newshub Nation ` we ask Kelvin Davis how the Government can create a more restorative justice system while our prisons are bursting at the seams. U.S. Ambassador Scott Brown says he'll pick up the phone to President Trump if necessary to help New Zealand get steel tariff exemptions. And we meet the Taranaki woman who spent years struggling to clear her name after the death of her baby girl. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018 Kia ora, good morning, I'm Lisa Owen. Welcome to Newshub Nation. Andrew Little billed this week's Justice Summit as the start to an honest conversation about reforming our criminal justice system based on real evidence. The government's drumming up support for its law reforms aimed at reducing our overflowing prison population by 30% in the next 15 years. But Corrections Ministry Advice notes it will be years before any law change takes effect, and prison overcrowding is already at crisis point. There are currently around 10,200 people locked up in our jails ` over a thousand more than the safe maximum limit. And documents released to Newshub Nation reveal that under current conditions, the prison system will be stretched to failure by 2021. So, what's the government's plan? Well, Corrections Minister Kelvin Davis joins me now. Good morning, Minister. Kia ora. You want to have a conversation that is based on honesty and facts, so there's a few facts that I want to put to you. You are already well over the safe inmate levels in our prison. Justice reform will take some time for the effects to flow on, and you've basically maxed out all our jail space. You're in trouble, aren't you? Well, no, actually, the facts are that the prison forecast had us at about 11,500 by the end of the year. We're now at 10,200. Since March, the prison population has reduced from 10,800. So, there's work that we're doing just to streamline processes within the system that are actually having a positive effect on the prison population. So you're talking about bail ` making sure people are ready for parole hearing, making sure they can get electronic bail if they can. But the advice that we've seen has told you that will only give you savings of prisoners of a couple of hundred, so you still can't make the numbers. Well, we've reduced the prison population by 600 in six months, and we know that those initiatives that we've already started through the High Impact Innovation Programme will start to plateau after time, so I've said to Corrections, 'Look, put your thinking caps on 'and come up with the list of ideas that are going to see the prison population continue to go down.' But we're under no illusion that to reduce the prison population by 30% over 15 years is going to take all of those 15 years, and we've made a really good start. So, the question is, kind of, what happens in the 'in-between' years? And another piece of information` another fact is as recently as March, Cabinet papers reiterated to you that more police ` because you're getting 1800 more police ` would result in 646 more prisoners by 2027. And I'm just wondering, have you factored that in? Because we can't see it in any of your projections. Yeah, so it's been factored in, and as` So you accept there will be an increase of around 627? Well, I've had conversations with my colleague Stuart Nash, the Minister of Police, and if they take a preventative model and look at more educational-type stuff, he's telling me that he doesn't believe that there will be a significant increase in the prison population. But, look, we've had the Justice Summit over this week. You know, 700 people from across the justice system have come together. They've produced tonnes of ideas, basically, and the data needs to be crunched. We'll be going through that over the coming weeks. And we'll be looking at what the people of New Zealand are actually saying that can help us to improve the whole justice system and, of course, Corrections is a major part of that. Nobody is taking away from the noble intention of lowering the prison rate. It's about what we do in the meantime, because as you've acknowledged, it takes a significant amount of time. I just want to go back to these police numbers ` the fact that the increase in police is projected to give you 646 more prisoners. You're saying if you're taking a preventative approach, it's not going to happen. So are you saying that advice is wrong? There aren't going to be any more prisoners as a result of these police? Well, what I'm saying is that Corrections is doing a fantastic job. It has done a fantastic job already. We've only been in government for less than a year, and we've managed to defy the projections, and we're a thousand below where they` where we're told that they would be. But your extra police are coming online, so are you going to get more prisoners out of that? Well, like I'm saying, if there's a preventative approach to policing, then it may not happen. Right. So, look, Corrections have put on their thinking caps. We've already got the High Impact Innovation Programme that is having a significant benefit. It's reducing the prison numbers, and we've got more ideas that we launched at the summit. We're asking people for their feedback on that, because if we can improve them, if they've got other ideas, well, then, we're open to hearing from them. Well, Corrections did have an idea, and it was Waikeria Prison. And, obviously, that was planned as a 1500-bed prison. You actually supported at least 1000 beds in Cabinet papers. And official advice was that was the best option to ease overcrowding. So why did you sign off on 600 when you supported a bigger prison? So, if you look at that advice, that came about six weeks into us becoming a government. You know, good leadership is about taking your time to make decisions. I think we've landed at the right place ` a 500-bed prison; 100 beds for mental health. We know that mental health is a big problem in corrections and in the justice system. So I think we've landed in the right place when it comes to the prison population. We've also got a rapid-build units coming up` But how when you look at all these numbers ` this is the thing ` and all the advice? And you would have seen all the papers that I've got, and they all talk about the fact that you need extra capacity, even if you want to achieve the goals that you do ` better rehabilitation ` that you need more humane spaces in order to do that, and more space to contain prisoners while you work to do that. So how is 500 the right number? Because we've also got other programmes going on, we're going to increase the number of beds by some 1500 over the next 18 months. We're also reducing the prison population. As I've said, we're well below forecast. In fact, we're well below the previous year's forecast as well. So this government is actually on the right path. We're on the right track. Reducing the prison population safely is the right way to go. We're not looking at those forecasts as a target. We're looking at them as a warning, and we're doing something about it. And what we're doing is working at the moment. But there is a significant body of expert advice that says you can't rehabilitate properly in these conditions ` double-bunking, overcrowding, inhumane cells. And in fact, according to Corrections Cabinet papers, that you would need at least 4000 new prison beds just to replace sub-standard, inhumane and double-bunked cells. So how can you create this better justice system, more humane justice system, that you want if you can't get those basics right? Well, we did inherit the situation that we've got, and we're taking steps to improve that situation. The double` There's one thing to double-bunk people, what's also important is them having more time out of their cells, more time in training, more time in education, more time` You know, basically those human needs being looked after. But that's difficult to make happen in over-crowded prisons. Look, it is difficult. This isn't a` So you need more space. ...simple situation. This is a very complex situation that we're having to grapple with, and we're doing a fantastic job in just 10 months of government of actually addressing these issues. Well, in March this year` As recently as March this year, official advice to you was, on current tracking, unless you built new facilities, you could end up triple-bunking and using Corrections vehicles as temporary cells. Can you guarantee that that's still not going to happen on your watch? So, what we're doing is` We're actually defying the odds. We're defying the forecast. We're defying the projections, and the prison population is actually reducing, and we're doing it safely. So, that's what I'm saying, that those projections` But not by the scale that you need based on the beds that you've got. So I'm asking you again, can you guarantee that you will not have to resort to those measures on your watch? Well, the way the prison population is going down now, we won't need those EXTREME measures. Andrew Little has been the minister who has been sort of front-footing this issue so far. You are the Corrections Minister, so I'm wondering, you seem to have been keeping quite a low profile, are you 100` for the record, are you 100% happy with the decisions being made and the direction that you're tracking in? Look, myself, Andrew Little and Stuart Nash, we've been working closely together, as well as Aupito William Sio ` he's the Minister for Youth Justice ` we've all been working together. We're very happy with the way that the Justice Summit has gone. We're very happy with the way we're tracking. We can see that in Corrections, our numbers are tracking down, so, you know, we're confident` look, the other thing is that the government, our whole approach, be it in raising incomes, reducing child poverty, improving the health system, the education system ` all of these things are helping at the front end to prevent people going in to prison in the first place. And so it's a whole of government approach ` stopping people going in to prison in the first place is our priority. Making sure that if they go in to prison, that when they emerge, they're better people, not broken people. We're supporting people when they emerge from prison, wrapping services around them so that there's less chance of them reoffending, so, you know, this is a big package of work we're doing. And people understand the philosophy, but all of those things that you have indicated there, they are things that take time. And 15 years is the time scale, so it's about what you do in the interim. So, again, you are bringing in rapid builds or pop-up cells, right? The first 360 of those cells were commissioned by the previous government ` that was via a tender in 2017. So how many of those pop-ups are on site and operational now? They'll be ready in the` The ones that we've commissioned will be online by 2019. I'm asking about the first lot. The first lot? So you've carried on with this, so there's 360 that were commissioned in 2017. How many of them rapid builds are on site right now? Well, they're being constructed. So none? And look, the way that the prison population is at the moment is that we're` Okay, so none? I just wanna be clear before we carry the conversation. So none of those rapid builds are on site right now? Well, they're being built now. So even the ones that the previous government has commissioned, they're still under construction, but they'll be on site. But the thing is that we're reducing the prison population now, and we've got 1000 spare beds as we speak. Whereas in March this year, we were very close to` Where are those beds? Because you were using some of your emergency beds to house prisoners at the moment. So, if there's an earthquake, you've got a reduced number of emergency beds, don't you? So where are these extra 1000 beds? Because we've reduced the prison population by some 600 in the last six months, we've freed up the space. So it's all around the prison estate. So, you know, like, what we're doing is working and` So the most recent numbers that are in the public domain and in the advice that has gone to you is that you were a thousand over safe maximum capacity. Yeah, but there's still a thousand beds buffer that we` But you're still a thousand over maximum capacity? That's right, and we working to reduce that` So you're still operating in an unsafe environment ` a thousand over safe maximum capacity? We're operating in the environment that we've inherited, and we're improving that environment. Okay. I want to go back to these rapid builds. So none of those original 360 are on site. As I understand it, they're being put together offshore in China, aren't they? So when was the original delivery date for those? Look, I'm not sure of the original delivery date, but the fact of the matter is that` February, I believe, of this year was the delivery date. So none here. Look, the fact of the matter is that we are reducing the prison population, and we're reducing the pressure on the whole system, which is making our prisons safer. In fact, I was talking to Ray Smith last night. I received a text from him saying that he had visited the prisons in Christchurch, and the staff there were reporting how much better it is that the reduction by 600 since March has actually made conditions in prison a lot easier for them. Well, documents released to us under the Official Information Act, which were initially redacted, but just this week, we've received it with the figures visible. You need to reduce the prison population by 1500 by 2019 or else you could face failure of the prison system. Are you going to make that target? Look, like I've said, we've reduced the prison population by 600 since March` The target that you need to make according to that advice is 1500 by 2019 to avoid potential failure of the prison system. Will you reach that target? Well, I'm entirely optimistic, because, like I said, we're defying the forecast; we're defying the projections; and we're making the prison system` So are you betting on optimism? No, you can see the evidence. As I've said, we are actually reducing the prison population ` we've done so by 600 in six months. Now, this time last year under the previous government, there was no way on earth that they would have entertained the thought that it was possible to reduce the prison population. And we've said we'll do it, and we've started on it. It's going to take all 15 years to reduce the prison population by 30%, but we've made a great start. And that is why you are needing to bring on some capacity. And I just want to finish this conversation about the rapid builds. My understanding is that the original tender ` these were supposed to be delivered by February 2018; there are none on site at the moment. Is there a problem with the design of these? No, not at all. Look` Okay, so the company had their contract extended ` $125 million contract ` for 600 more, they were ordered under Labour's watch, so was that put to tender? Because none of them are on site at the moment, are they? The thing is, Lisa, we were` we had trouble in March. You know, we were looking really shaky in terms of extra capacity. We've now increased that capacity by` to the state that we've got a thousand spare beds. But we need to be` So you're saying it doesn't matter that these aren't on site yet? Is that what you're saying? Well, what matters is that we're making the prison system safer, better, we're increasing capacity just by doing small things to reduce the bottlenecks in the prison system. We're doing very well, and I think that needs to be recognised. Okay. How much does racism and so-called institutional bias have to do with the very large Maori incarceration rate? It's more than 50%. Yeah, look, 51% of the prison population ` and it's 10,146 as of yesterday, I think ` are Maori. Of those 5000 who are Maori, 2500 are my people of Ngapuhi. So I'm invested. I have a personal interest, as much as any Corrections Minister has ever had in reducing the prison population, because what we're doing is we're locking up people ` teenagers` late teens through to early 30s, which is when you should be finishing off becoming the person you are, and yet they're being finished off inside prison cells. So what role does racism and institutional bias have in that? Yeah, we have to` How significant is it? Well, we have to examine why it is that there are so many Maori In prison. You know, it's not good for New Zealand. If we have fewer Maori in prison, we have Maori be more successful, Maori doing really well, then the whole of the country benefits, so` So we need to have an honest conversation, an open conversation about it? That's right. Well, look, I have to acknowledge Mike Bush, who said that` who acknowledged unconscious bias in the police` Yeah, on this show, he did. I said, good on him.' That's excellent, because if we at least can have those sorts of honest conversations, then we can start looking at the honest solutions. Okay. So in documents released to Newshub Nation under the Official Information Act, the lines referring to the fact that unconscious bias and systemic bias were likely to be contributing to Maori overrepresentation in the justice system ` those were redacted. Are you nervous to put that information out there? No, not at all. I think it's something that we really need to have a conversation about` So why hide it in your official documentation? Why redact it? Well, the thing is that we need to be talking about all the` everything that leads to so many Maori going in to prison and falling in to the justice system. We need to be looking at ways to prevent that from happening. We need to be looking at ways to address Maori offending at the most early stage we can so that they don't end up going in to prison in the first place, because that's the last place we need our people to be. Okay, so the Justice Summit this week. After that summit, about 3500 prison officers received this letter here, and it was from their union. And in this letter, they outlined the fact that they feel let down by the Corrections Minister ` you, Kelvin Davis. They feel that you didn't acknowledge their hard work and difficult conditions, the letter said. And it outlines the fact that over the last six years, Corrections staff have been assaulted by prisoners more than 2000 times. They want to know why you're not talking about that. Look, I acknowledge the hard work that Corrections officers do all the time. In fact, I acknowledged them specifically at the summit, so, look, they're working with` Sorry to interrupt, but 7882 days have been lost due to assaults over the past six years, according to this information here. They support changes, they say, if they can be done safely. And overcrowded prisoners are not safe for everyone. And that's why we're looking to reduce the prison population, and we have started doing it. The safety of our Corrections officers is our number one concern. In fact, safety across the whole` So you're 100% happy with their performance? What do you mean? The prison officers. Because they feel that they weren't acknowledged significantly enough in your Justice Summit and that you didn't defend their work. Oh, I have the utmost admiration for Corrections officers who are working with the most difficult people in New Zealand. In fact, I acknowledge them every time I get up to speak in a corrections situation, be it graduations. It's a fantastically difficult job that they're doing, and they need to be acknowledged. We say it all the time ` myself and Ray Smith. And that's why we're trying to reduce the prison population, because that's the way we can make sure that they are the safest they can be at work. Thanks for joining me this morning, Corrections Minister Kelvin Davis. 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 Sarah Robson and Josiah Tualamali'i and they're using the hashtag #NationNZ, or you can email us at ` the address is on your screen now. And still top come ` we ask the U.S Ambassador if the Trump Administration is in crisis with the threat of impeachment hanging over the president. Plus, her partner confessed to killing their baby daughter. So why is this woman still fighting to clear her name? Welcome back. It's been a tumultuous week in American Politics. President Donald Trump's former Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort was found guilty of bank and tax fraud just before the President's former lawyer Michael Coen pleading guilty to campaign finance violations. Coen's also implicated President Trump saying he told him to pay hush money to two women. U.S. Ambassador to New Zealand Scott Brown is a former Republican senator for Massachusetts. Mike Wesley-Smith began by asking him if this was a crisis for the Trump administration. It's politics as usual, quite frankly. I mean, if you know the history of our country, we have, both parties, ebbs and flows, highs and lows. And our founding fathers wanted democracy to be messy. The good part of it is, we wear it all on our sleeves; it's very transparent. And everybody has an opinion about something. And what the political commentators say, it doesn't affect me or us in this relationship, and, quite frankly, it doesn't affect the President. You have people who will still support him, regardless, and people who will never support him, regardless. And I look at what he's done; and that's obviously dealing with, you know, North Korea, with the problems with China, with addressing our economic needs, making businesses, streamlining and consolidating, and making that economic engine move. That's kind of what I look at. Because, you're right, politics can be messy. There have, though, been 45 U.S. presidents, only three for whom the word impeachment has been in close proximity. It's dominating the news over there. Do you have a view on how likely it seems that he could be impeached? No, I certainly don't, because I don't get into the 'but's and 'what-if's. I mean I deal in facts, usually. I mean I know we have had, in our country's history, Bill Clinton's an example. There is a process. It's a transparent process. You know, I have always have said publicly, 'Listen, wherever the chips fall, so be it. We have checks and balances. They're meant to be in place for a reason. I find our founding fathers were brilliant in that regard, you know, developing a system that works, notwithstanding some idiosyncrasies. Yeah. So, I mean, do you consider, though, that these legal issues have had any impact whatsoever on his core base? I'm so far removed from it, from politics. I mean, I was in it for 30 years. And being a U.S. Ambassador, as a diplomat, I don't get involved in the politics any more. I just know what I read and I know that when I look at what happened in North Korea, when I look what happened`is happening with our economy, the stock market, the business climate and these amazing successes. I mean, your viewers, and I'd like to remind you, I mean, you don't hear about, like in immigration, you don't hear about the tens and tens of thousands of people who are coming in legally and living the American dream. You don't hear about the businesses that are hiring and growing and expanding. You know, you always hear about the negative thing. I kind of find that a little bit frustrating. Well, moving to a question of international relations, New Zealand still hasn't yet been granted an exemption for the tariffs, why not? First of all, it's not over till it's over. And we've been focussing collectively, Ambassador Grosser and our teams on both sides of the ocean on the KIWI act. Now, just to let your viewers know what that is, it's an investment trader visa which, as I travelled around New Zealand from the day I got here, for the last couple of decades they've been trying to get it. It will open the floodgates, potentially, to billions of dollars of trade back and forth. It's something that we did in 10 months. And with all the craziness back home in the States, it passed through the House and Senate seamlessly and the President signed it immediately. So when you're looking at those types of things, that was a higher priority. When you see a lean, you have to do it. We're also doing a TIFA, which is a Trade Investment Framework Agreement, which is the next step towards a free trade agreement. So we're focussing on these things that are, like, red hot right now. The thing that you are referring to, it's a world-wide issue. Obviously steel is important, and New Zealand has a very diminished role right now. We're still working on it. I'd just like to say everything's moving in a positive direction. So, will the tariffs be removed, yes or no? Do you have an answer to that? I'm not a fortune teller. But I know there's a great effort to make it happen. And if it takes me making a phone call to the president at the appropriate time, I'll do it. But I don't want to, kind of, use that chip now, because the administrative process is moving forward. I believe it should happen, and I've made that very clear. Right. It's obviously happening in the wider context of what's been called, though, a 'trade war'. And the problem with trade wars is that they can spread and take unpredictable courses. New Zealand has been said to be feeling the fallout, at least with respect to dairy prices, it's at an eight month low. Do you consider that anyone is winning in this war? Well, I think you need to step back. And it's kind of like when you're in an argument with your brother or sister or wife, you know? You have the argument and then you get to step back and say, you know, 'Why are we having the argument?' The reason we're in this position is because China's been manipulating their currency, dumping low-cost low-quality steel in the world market and stealing our intellectual property, and the President finally said 'enough'. And as a result of those initial tariffs, which I support him, 100%, because, don't forget, in Hamilton they're ripping the steel out of those highways because it's faulty. Christchurch, Auckland and Wellington, the buildings aren't, the steel isn't up to code. So you need to do something, and the President had the guts to do something. That being said, China retaliated in, I thought, an inappropriate way, going right for the President's base with soybeans. They're basically used to feed the Chinese people. So we're going back and forth. So what's the goal? I think the goal is clearly to get China to the table to just, if they're going to be a world leader, world superpower, they've got to play by the rules. And they're not. Do you consider, though, that you're actually achieving that goal? I mean, what do you point to as tangible? Well, let's take a step back and talk about South Korea for a second. Same situation, but we just renegotiated that trade deal, that's working. These need to be modernised, we're looking at NAFTA, we're close on that as well. We're renegotiating these trade deals that have been in effect for, gosh, so long. And now we're in a situation where China, with respect, and if you don't believe me, you know, listen to President Obama and Secretary Clinton, they've had a free ride for 30 years. And if they're going to be a world leader, would superpower, they've got to start playing by the rules. They can't manipulate the WTO to get a tactical advantage. And when we put a car into China it's, what, 23%? They do it here, it's free for us. So we've got to make it fair, and that's the goal. Well, talking about the rules, obviously the WTO plays a huge role in protecting the interests of smaller nations who need that protection. So we have a great relationship working with New Zealand on those issues, absolutely. Of course. Of course, Trump, though, has assailed the WTO, at least, calling it 'a disaster.' Do you consider it's likely at all that he'll look to pull the United States out of the WTO? Absolutely not. The good news is, one of my best friends is the WTO Ambassador. I speak to him regularly. They want to reboot the WTO, it needs to be modernised. It needs to get back to its original charter and do the things it's supposed to do, do the appeals process in a timely manner, not politicizing decisions which they're not` And the good news is that we have Kiwis right now working with the WTO representative trying to find that solution. So, no, we don't want to destroy it; we don't want to pull out. But we do want to modernise and reboot it. And I think that's critical to that rules-based order that's so important to all of us. Because the WTO's functionality is teetering because of that lack of appointment of judges... No, it's still functioning. But it's never really functioned and done its job in quite a while. They're not hitting that 90-day appeal process and they need to do it better. But blocking judge appointments means that it's nullified because` No, they're still functioning. Blocking judge appointments to make sure that you can get people to the table, sometimes you have to take a hard approach. And I think it'll be in everybody's best interests to get this issue resolved, because I'm a firm believer in the WTO and the rules-based order. Do you have a time-frame for when you might see? Yeah, I do, and I think it'll be done in a reasonable time. I don't want to disclose too much, and talk about other people's spheres of influence. But they were working together and working diligently on it. Cos there's a timeline looking ahead to next year, I think some commentators are saying that it could stop being able to appeal to the panel. Well, let's hope they work hard and with anything that I can input as I make those calls to that WTO ambassador. You know, I tell him directly - I let him know exactly what Minister Parker told me. And I thought it was well said and well received input. Moving closer to home - our Foreign Minister wants to ramp up New Zealand's influence in the Pacific. How much value does the U.S. place on New Zealand as a security and defence partner? Well, let's talk about the reboot that the Prime Minister and your country have done in the Pacific. I've said publically ` it's off the charts incredible. It's long overdue, because what it does is it forces Australia to do more. It forces Great Britain ` now they're putting embassies around the region. Our secretary in Singapore said, 'Listen, we're putting 113 million as a down payment.' We need to re-engage. Even though we've been here since the Treaty of Waitangi signing for, you know, over 100 plus years, we need to do more. Because this One Belt One Road initiative of China ` where they're basically over-leveraging countries, they're not playing by that rules-based order. We need to have that check and balance, and it's important, and New Zealand is a very, very valuable leader and partner in that effort. So is that strategic reset really seen as a fundamental change from Washington's perspective? No, we've always been here. We've done so much, and we will continue to do much. And we welcome China as a new player, 'great, welcome' ` but just play by the rules. You know, that's all. Just make sure that when you're doing things you're not doing things that don't pass the smell test. We like transparency and sometimes it's not the same way on the other side. What would be an example of that? Well, how about the fact that if you're in the press in China, they don't issue you a visa, so you can't cover it. If you want to have free speech, they don't allow free and open internet. If you want to object to the way the government is doing things, they may put you in a detention camp. If you don't like the way things are politically, you change the rules and become a president for life. I mean, I could go on and on and on, and if you want to be the world leader, world super power ` you got to, as I said, just play by the rules. There may be some critics of Trump who say he's perhaps acting, maybe, in that much less reserved way, you know, taking the free press and looking to rattle institutions. What would you say to that? Full disclosure, my wife was in the press for thirty years doing what you do. And she was a reporter, presenter, so we had this conversation. And I think there is an absolute obligation and right for the press to do their jobs. Let's be very frank on that. I also think they should do their jobs well and do them fairly and make sure they're based on fact and that they're not editorialising, and, if they're meant to just be reporting. And, on the other hand, if you're the subject, some of your viewers may be the subject of some of those stories, you have every right, pursuant to our constitution, freedom of speech, to fight back. And the President's fighting back, because I've said this from the beginning, I don't think he's getting a fair go from day one from the media. And he has that right and obligation. So he's going, using twitter and going right to the people who really have their own opinions about the fairness. Well, Ambassador, thank you. That's all the time we have today. But thank you for joining us. Oh, I'm sorry, we should do it again. This was great, cheers. Absolutely, thank you. Thank you. And still to come ` we dissect the week's political news with our panel. Plus, we meet the woman still fighting to clear her name three decades after being convicted of killing her baby daughter. Welcome back. When Taranaki mother Terri Friesen applies for a job, her criminal record reveals she's been convicted of manslaughter. But she says she's innocent, and the conviction stems from a terrible lie she told police when her baby died nearly 30 years ago. Her partner at the time later confessed to shaking baby Chantelle and was sent to jail, so why does the tag of 'baby killer' still hang over Terri Friesen's head? Melissa Davies reports. This is what being trapped looks like for Terri Friesen. No bars, but the burden of something she told police in 1989. It was a make or break situation, you know? But more` the hardest thing was, um,... knowing that what I'm about to say is a lie, you know? And that my baby and God ` because I believed in God hardcore then ` that they would know that this is going to be a hideous lie to come out of my mouth. A lie that would change the course of Friesen's life and lead her into an unlikely friendship with Canterbury law student Kelly Phillips. Hey. Hello. Hello, Kelly. Oh, (SMOOCHES). Thank you. (CHUCKLES HAPPILY) Good to see you, Terri. Good to see you, mate. Partners in a fight to clear Friesen's police record of a charge of manslaughter. Phillips heard about Friesen's story in an 'I Am Innocent' documentary and contacted her out of the blue. I felt just a connection with her just as a mother. The social stigma of being a single mother and a woman trying to do things on your own really spoke to me. And it was just such a blatant injustice what happened to her. The case now due to be heard by the Court of Appeal. I'm excited. You must be pretty excited. I'm kind of still, like, blown away by it, eh? Yeah. The story that brought them together is what happened to Friesen's baby Chantelle. Born premature, she spent her first two weeks in hospital. Home life was volatile. Chantelle's father, Brownie Broughton, known to police. Anything you can think of, I would have been going through that. One night early in March 1989, Chantelle suffered from a brain haemorrhage and cracked ribs ` injuries, Friesen says, she didn't know about. What she does know is that one night a week later, Chantelle wouldn't stop crying. So Friesen passed her to Broughton and went to sleep. When she woke, Chantelle was dead. The pathologist found she'd died from non-accident injuries ` she'd been shaken. Friesen says she was in shock when she was whisked away to be interrogated by police. As soon as I walked in, hadn't even sat down, there's these dolls sitting on this little bench top thing ` like a set of drawers. And I noticed it, and I went to sit down and then he goes` as soon as I sat down, he picked up the doll, and he goes, 'This is what happened to your baby.' And he picked up the doll, and he just shook the shit out of it so its head was just bouncing all over the place. He said, 'That's what happened to your baby.' And that's when I realised that Brownie... He just told me he shook her, and he thought that was it, and it was. Oh my God. After hours of what Friesen says was relentless questioning, she cracked. She told police she killed Chantelle, thinking it would help her other daughter, Becca. What did they say would happen to Becca if someone didn't confess? Saying Becca was going to a social welfare home. And to me, that was just like signing a death` that was like losing my only child I had left. So what did you think would happen if you did confess? That he would give me time to get hold of Mum, who lived out on the farm and was a good hour-and-a-half drive away. Wait for her to come and pick her up. And she'd be safe. So that's why you decided to confess? No, not just because of that, but that kind of was the ultimate thing. Also, the guy says, you know, 'If Brownie confesses to it, he's going to die. 'You know that, eh? He's going to die in prison. 'But the jury and the judges, everybody's sympathetic towards women, 'so you'll probably get let off.' Tim McKinnel says the interrogation tactics have shades of those also used against Teina Pora. The former police officer turned private investigator fought to secure Pora's release from prison and has since taken on Friesen's case too. One of the things that's understood now that wasn't understood in the` certainly in the late '80s is the impact of psychological vulnerabilities on a person, so a person in an interview situation with police can be vulnerable for a whole variety of reasons. Police noted that Friesen was emotionless and hardened. I think that weight was put on that. We now know that that shouldn't be the case. She broke down when she told them she'd done it. Just to even have those words come out my mouth, you know, about baby, that was just the hardest. And that's why I cried when I said it, because it was just so ugly` such a ugly thing to say, knowing the truth. And, um,... even to just know that that had happened to baby. The November 1989 trial saw Friesen plead not guilty to manslaughter with the defence of infanticide, which is available to women who can prove their minds were temporarily disturbed. The Crown case against her included that she hadn't visited Chantelle as a prem baby in hospital as often as was expected. And that neighbours had reported Friesen swearing at Chantelle the night she died, which she admits did happen. I wondered if she gave up because of that, because I said that, you know? (EMOTIONALLY) Experiencing that, like, ugly talk, you know? And she's already beaten one brain haemorrhage, so I thought, 'Well, after that one, maybe she just decided to give up.' Friesen was found guilty of manslaughter. Having already spent six weeks in remand, she was released on supervised detention. A letter from Friesen's mother had been submitted to Justice Tompkins, detailing allegations of Broughton's abuse and threats from inmates. In solitary, while pregnant again to Broughton. Still together in 1991, Broughton went to New Plymouth Police Station saying he was making a new life as a born-again Christian and wanted to confess. In a statement to detectives ` The detective wrote ` Friesen eventually left Broughton, and in 2011, he went to Christchurch Police to confess for a second time. This time, it was referred to New Plymouth to Grant Coward, who was the senior sergeant at the time. I'd dealt with him previously, and I found him to be quite a likeable rogue, to be honest. And when he made his confession, it seemed, uh,... accurate, it seemed honest and it seemed like it was factual. In sentencing Broughton to three years jail for manslaughter in 2002, the late Sir Robert Chambers said ` But if Friesen had nothing to do with Chantelle's death, why did the conviction remain on her record? Brownie Broughton doesn't want to appear on camera, but in a phone call told me that when he went to confess, he recalls asking if Friesen's name would be cleared. He says that's why he did it, and he supports her appeal against conviction now. New Zealand has no automatic system to review alleged miscarriages of justice, and while Teina Pora's case did prompt the government to promise a Criminal Cases Review Commission, its set-up has faced delays. If a facility or an institution like the Criminal Case Review Commission existed now, it would make all the difference in the world to somebody like Terri, who really had no knowledge of the system or how it operated. The Crown says their case at the time was that Broughton was the principal offender. Friesen thought her name would be cleared as soon as he was convicted. I thought that would be just it, because` well, that's what a normal person would think, (LAUGHS) I thought. Did you think you had to do anything about it yourself? No. I did not know I had to do anything. And when I found out years later` Cos I didn't know it was still on there, assuming, you know... And then I found out years later, I found out what I had to do, I'd been to lawyers all over the country, and no one wanted a bar of it. (SPOON RATTLES) That's when a new friend turned up. Friesen took up Kelly Phillips' offer to help her connect with a legal team. I love talking to you, too, because it was like` I felt like, instantly, I had known you for a long time, and I was like, 'Yeah, I get you. I get what you're saying.' Probably old soul buddies. Yeah, yeah. Phillips has also helped honour Chantelle's memory. For years, the grave went unmarked, until she gifted a headstone ` a place to mourn the death of her child and reflect on the way her life has changed since. How do you think your life would have been different if you didn't have the conviction? I think that in every way, in every way, it would be different. You know, I was quite into accounting. I loved that. I wanted to do that and just be successful for the kids, (SNIFFS) give them a good incentive, you know? The dream? They've all got a computer by the time they're 10, 12, and they're all doing really well, but (TAKES DEEP BREATH) because of the conviction, I can't get a job. Because of it being so bad, I can't even really go and apply for a job, because they read your record, and so they are going to be telling everyone around them, you know, that, 'Oh, this woman is down for manslaughter. 'You don't want a bar of her.' When they look, they see that you are a baby killer` Yeah. ...on paper. You know, there's no words for that. I can't really put that into words. That's just... the worst. It's like your nightmare that you're living every day, living a nightmare every day. And still to come ` former National Party leader Don Brash sits in the 'Ask Me Anything' chair. But first we catch up with our panel ` RNZ Morning Report presenter Susie Ferguson, Jason Walls from interest.co.nz and Mihingarangi Forbes from The Hui. Welcome back, I'm joined now by our panel ` journalist Suzy Ferguson, Jason Walls, Mihingarangi Forbes. Kia ora to you all. Kia ora. Suzy, if I can start with you first. Andrew Little's been the government's frontman on justice reforms. We heard from the Corrections Minister today, Kelvin Davis, how do you think he did? I think Kelvin Davis put in a more assured performance than he has done in some more recent interviews. There were a few things that stuck out to me. One was around the institutional racism, how that seems to be a very hard thing for him to say regarding Corrections. I'm not quite sure why that's a hard thing for him to say. He's a Maori figurehead. He's a Maori minister. Why would those be such difficult words for him to utter? Especially when he talks about his people, Ngapuhi, being the most incarcerated indigenous people in the world. That seems odd. He says it's personal, doesn't he, Mihi? But the documents that we got had some comments on institutional racism redacted. They want an honest conversation. Are we having an honest conversation? I think that Maori, in particular, deserve for a Minister ` who is Maori ` of Corrections to be honest about the situation. And as Suzy said, I don't know what his issue is with admitting or acknowledging that the system doesn't work for Maori. In a way, you know, you can say 'unconscious bias', I think Marama Fox used to say that's racism when you're asleep, or you can say 'racism'. And when you look at the incarceration rates for Maori, which are 51% at 15% of the population, there's 35% there unaccounted for. so as Tariana Turia used to say, if you target those people and look at the reasons why they're in there, then you will solve the whole issue. Jason, he's saying that they have lowered the numbers ` they're 600 fewer inmates below the projections ` so they're tracking OK in his view. Their goal, though, is a 15 year goal. Are still going to face crunch time? It's always going to be difficult for the government to get to that level, because on the one hand you've got a Labour Government who are looking to be all about prevention, on the other hand you've got a National Government who are looking to be tough on crime. And of course the wild card in that is New Zealand First, which often stray towards tough on crime. So whatever target that you're going to have to meet, it's going to have to have some sort of consensus over the years. And of course they had the Justice Summit this week` Yeah. ...which was great to have all those people together talking, but at the end of the day, it's great to get these things in foundation now, but there needs to be a lot more consensus going forward, when it comes to both governing parties over the next 15 years time. Although he'd love to be in government for the next 15 years time ` let's face it, it's not going to be a Labour-led government until 2030. So is he being over-optimistic, Suzy, in terms of those goals ` given the capacity constraints that they've got in the jails at the moment. Well, the constraints are hard and they're uncompromising. When you start looking at the possibility of triple-bunking, that becomes something which a lot of people are going to find very hard to swallow. And he wouldn't guarantee that wasn't going to happen on the spot. He wouldn't guarantee that. The other thing is, where are these prefabs? First lot were ordered under National, why aren't they here yet? Is there a problem with them? Because Kelvin Davis was trying to say, 'Oh, we don't need them right now. The population is going down.' And if it continues to track down, indeed they won't need them, but nonetheless, if the government of New Zealand has paid for something you would imagine when it was meant to be here six months ago, they should at least have arrived. So it would seem that that is a bit of a black hole, because in case you do ever need to draw on them, they're actually not here. Do you think he's being high-profile enough, Mihi? Oh, I just wanted to touch on that, because I think that ` talking about prefabs and all those kinds of things is important, but I think that this is meant to be an honest conversation about the situation that our prisons are in. We need to look at the other end, and there was no solutions in that` When you were talking to him about how he's going to reduce those numbers, what about the starting end? What about how people are getting into prisons? I saw the Cecelia Lashlie documentary just recently, and in her last couple of years she was doing some amazing work with people who probably shouldn't be in prison but were going into prison and that's with domestic violence and the lower end of the scale. So where is Orenga Tamariki at that Summit? Where's housing? Where's WINZ? Where's all of those other ministries working together to prevent people getting into prisons in the first place? Yeah, he talks big picture, but is there enough detail? I didn't think there was enough detail on some things. For example, he mentioned education and that was one of the main ways that they would look into prevention, but there was no detail around what that education might look like, any case studies about what's happened overseas. Can you even get education inside? Well, that's the thing. It's a very hard thing to be able to quantify and to say, 'This is how we educate people to stop committing crimes.' It's a very abstract concept, and it would be great if we could have something laid out on paper to say, 'This is exactly how we're going to do it. This is the answer to the question.' But at this stage I don't think we have it. I think we have to give a little bit of credit to the government for having the Summit where they can address some of these questions and say, 'This is what we want to do. How are we going to get to this point?' But it will take time. 80% of people inside suffer some kind of mental health issue. Where's the mental health services? Where's the billions, millions of dollars being poured in there, so we're preventing people from being in there? And the other side of that, then, is if you put all of this together both National and Labour have both said prisons are a fiscal and moral failure. So, if that is the endpoint and that is a failure, then that tells you that there needs to be a huge societal change, which effects education, mental health ` it's literally cradle to grave, and is this the hangover from colonisation? Well, I was also interested in the letter that the prison officers union sent out to its membership, it wasn't particularly enamoured with how Kelvin Davis spoke of them ` or didn't ` at the Summit. Whether they're right or not, put that aside for one minute, does he have a problem if he's not onside with that workforce? Well, if they're the ones that are in the prison, and they're the ones that are actually, it sounds like quite a tough and dangerous job, if they're not happy the government's got a problem at the end of the day. And if they're coming out, and you've obtained a copy of this letter, they're not happy. It seems to be quite a problem. He's got a problem either way, though, because he's from Ngapuhi and Labour's last move on prisons was to build Ngawha Prison up there, in Kaikohe's backyard. And they built a prison and they promised jobs, but they didn't build one playground or any infrastructure in that town, and all that town does is cope with families and children in their schools of prisoners. So, he knows that building a new prison and putting it into Maori communities is going to be tough. Yep. Stay with us. We'll be back after the break. Welcome back. You're with Newshub Nation and our panel. So, Clare Curran has been demoted ` kicked out of Cabinet, Jason, and this is over an undeclared meeting. It's not the first time she's had an undeclared meeting. Has this gone far enough? Should she be keeping two portfolios? Well, that's the thing that's going to be debated a lot over the next coming weeks, and I'm sure the National party ` they already have come out and said she needed to be sacked, she needed to be shown the door, basically, and this shows weakness from the Prime Minister, that she didn't do so. So that's going to be something interesting to watch over the coming weeks. I think the big thing that I'm looking at in this whole thing is the idea of perception and the fact that the first time she had this meeting it wasn't the fact that she had the meeting, because there's, let's face it, a 200m radius outside of the Beehive that actually care about an undisclosed meeting. All it is about the perception of a cover up. So, it happened once ` yeah, that's a bad look. Happened twice ` that's a really bad look. But the thing that I find kind of ironic is when the Prime Minister has decided to come out and say that she is going to be demoting her ` 4pm on a recess week, on a Friday an hour after we had a leadership change in Australia. I mean, if we're talking about perception that's a bad look. Mihi? Plus a former Cabinet minister might have said that a demotion from Cabinet is a demotion without a demotion, because you get to keep the car and you get the salary, and you just don't have the checks and balances that go with it. And she'll be in Cabinet for the portfolios that she still holds on to, Suzy, so what do you think of the way the Prime Minister's handled it? Jacinda Adern was walking a fine line on this one, because, I guess, it's the first significant time that she's really been tested on this kind of thing. She doesn't want to go too hard, because then that sets the bar too low. She doesn't want to be too soft ` and setting the bar is the hard thing she's trying to do. However, it seems like an odd, kind of, middle way to be outside Cabinet but to keep some of your portfolios. And then what's the kick on for whoever may get this technology job, that this meeting was all about in the first place, does that cast doubt on whoever may get that? Whether it be Derek Handley or somebody else? Yeah, so, there is the potential that ` and they've stated ` that Derek Handley, who is a tech entrepreneur is still in the running, but the Prime Minister said it's not his problem or wrongdoing, but do you think it will reflect badly if he does get the job, Mihi? Yeah, I'm not sure. There will definitely be lots to talk around that appointment, if he does get the appointment` Gives the opposition an opportunity. ...as to why you would have a meeting at 8 o'clock at night in the Beehive when there's so many people watching. If you were wanting to have a private meeting. Yeah, that's right. All right, let's move on to the National party. So, this was an interesting development, also on a Friday, where we learnt that the person who leaked Simon Bridges expense details had texted ` said that they were in the National caucus, and said that they had mental health issues, and implied that if the inquiry carried on it would have implications for their health. Trevor Mallard has dropped the inquiry ` Simon Bridges, not so happy. Mihi, what do you reckon? I think that whenever mental health is talked about it's such a tapu subject, that it's really difficult to navigate around the issue of mental health. So, it was pretty straight forward before that, and I guess it was all fun and games for you guys in the gallery, watching how it was all unfolding, but as soon as that text came out, then all of a sudden people didn't quite know how to` You know, it's a double-edged sword. You want to be firm, and at the same time you want to be sensitive and respectful of that person. You just hope that we are genuinely talking about mental health here. So, Simon Bridges said he hasn't ruled out the possibility that this isn't just an attempt to get the inquiry closed down. Do you think he's taking the right tone, Jason? I think that on the outset he was wrong in coming out so firmly and saying, 'I am sure that this isn't somebody from the National party.' In fact, he came out and unequivocally said, 'It's not one of us. It's not one of us.' And we asked him in one of the stand ups, 'How do you know it's not one of you?' And he just said, 'Listen, just trust me. It's not one of us.' And now it's come out and it's really backfired, and it's something that probably would've been in the news for a day, a day and a half, but now it's dragged on for so long. It's a really interesting position for the National party to be in, because that is the story, rather than the actual leak itself. What do you think of the political implications, if indeed Trevor Mallard is right? He put out a press statement saying, 'It's almost certainly someone from within National.' Where does it leave Simon Bridges, Suzy? Well, Simon Bridges, I guess, has to pick up the inquiry, Trevor Mallard says he's going to continue no further with that. So if Simon Bridges is looking for transparency here, I suppose National has to look within itself. But he seemed fairly unequivocal on Friday morning when he was talking, that he was still saying, 'Well, it could be Parliamentary Services. It could be MBIE. It could be from all sides.' In terms of his leadership, it leaves him in a really sticky spot, because he's got at least one leaker. If you believe that there are mental health issues, you have to believe the full text. In which case, it is someone from within National. All right, we've got to go ` but just before we go, Scott Morrison, the new Prime Minister of Australia, did you know did name before he became the new Prime Minister of Australia? I just know this other broadcaster called Scott Morrison. (LAUGHS) Good place to leave it. Well, former National party leader Don Brash joined us on Facebook live this week to discuss his thoughts on the Leadership's bill in Australia, our own current government and the line between free speech and hate speech. We also asked how he feels about being branded a racist by some of his critics. Angry, because I regard myself as the very opposite of racist. A racist is someone who sees one race as inherently superior to another race, or argues for special privileges based on ethnicity. I'm the very opposite of that. I want everybody treated the same, irrespective of their race. You may need to help them because they've got some kind of disability, or because they are impoverished for some reason ` you help them because they're impoverished or have a disability. You don't help them because of their ethnicity, in my view. And that is all from us for now. We'll see you again next weekend. Thanks for watching. Captions by Ella Wheeler, John Gibbs and Elizabeth Welsh. Www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018.