Today, on Newshub Nation, we talk to Employment Minister Willie Jackson about the government's plans to get more Kiwis into work. Plus, how much privacy do we really have? We ask Commissioner John Edwards about proposed law changes to keep our personal information safe in the digital era. And as the UN condemns Myanmar's persecution of Rohingya people, we talk to a Kiwi woman helping those who managed to escape. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018 Kia ora. Good morning. I'm Lisa Owen. Welcome to Newshub Nation. The government set aside $15 million dollars over four years for a plan to get more young people into work. There are currently 70,000 young people not in employment, education or training, referred to as NEETs. And while overall unemployment figures are coming down, Maori unemployment rates are still twice that of the general population. Employment Minister Willie Jackson joins me now. Good morning, Minister. Good morning. Kia ora. Kia ora, Lisa. So, unemployment ` currently 4.5% or thereabouts. Is the government still aiming to get down to 4% in this first term? Oh, absolutely. That's always been the goal, and we're on track. When I came in, into the portfolio, I inherited 4.9%, so I think we're doing well. What's driving the drop, do you reckon? We're investing in areas that the previous government forgot all about, you know? So when I came in, the employment figures were 4.9%, but the reality was that` They were on a downward trend, though. They were on a downward trend, but there's statistics, and then there's statistics. The reality is you know and I know that the stats for Maori, the stats for Pacific Islanders, the stats for women, were terrible, basically. But we've put some real investment in those areas. I'm really pleased with some of the results we're getting. I've rolled out He Poutama Rangatahi, which we've talked about. And so we've seen some turnaround in terms of youth, in terms of NEETs. We've taken that from 80,000 down to 72,000, and Maori unemployment has come down, and Maori employment has gone up. So in terms of the women's area, things have gone up. So, I mean, I think we're tracking in the right direction. Okay, well, let's look at it in a bit more detail. Maori unemployment, 9.4%. What are you aiming to reduce that to in this term? We haven't` The reality is we are working hard. We haven't come up with a final figure yet. Why no target? Well, it would be great if we could get it down to 5%, 6%, you know, if we could pull it right down. It would be great if we could get it to where the general figure is. But that's going to require targeted funding and targeted resourcing. And we've done pretty well so far. I mean, we've only been in eight or nine months. Okay, we will talk more about in a second. But that 5% or 6%, is that a target? Well, we talk about it, but we know what the general population is, right? Yeah. So we are talking 4.5% right now. If we could get close to that, that would be great. But it's going to require a heck of a lot of work. But we've brought it down. It was nearly triple when I took over. Why don't you set a target, though? Because people will sit there` You've set a target for the general population of 4%. Don't you have the same aspirations for Maori? Absolutely. Why not write them down, make it a target? Absolutely, but, look, the reality, Lisa, is that the resourcing and funding for Maori, over the previous nine years, has been minimal. So we've had governments who have given scraps to Maori. And so what we are doing and what I'm doing in terms of Maori caucus ` and as you know I co-chair that caucus ` we are working on our funding and our resourcing strategy right now. And so we went down a universal strategy in the last budget. But if we can get a more targeted budgeting strategy, then we can work towards the percentages that you are talking about today. But we didn't have a strong targeted funding strategy in the last budget. Right. Okay. Your own Prime Minister has said that everything in coalition is a negotiation, right? Absolutely. So you are making noises there about more targeted funding. Yup. How easy is that going to be to get past your coalition partners? You are saying targeted to Maori. The reality is that we didn't have a strong targeted funding strategy. But, Minister, to be clear, you are talking about targeting specifically for Maori unemployment. That's right. That's right. Okay, so how hard is that going to be to get past the coalition partners? I don't think it's going to be too hard. The Greens have been very supportive, and we have wonderful debates with Winston and Shane Jones, of course. And, look, Winston Peters is very aware of that. He comes from the north. He understood the strategy, in terms of the first budget. The second budget, as Minister Robertson knows, is going to have to target certain groups who may have missed out the first time. So some of our groups did not get funding support in the different areas, however, in the universal area, there was a lot of Maori who benefited from the payments, from the winter payments, from the family benefit payments, so we were really pleased with what Maori got in a general sense. However, to get to some of those hard groups, we are going to require continual targeted funding like we've had from He Poutama Rangatahi in the last nine months. So while previously you may have emphasised universality, you now recognise that that is not going to solve all your problems. I've always recognised universality and targeted funding. You need both strategies. The Labour Party recognises both too. Minister Robertson recognises both too. The emphasis the first time was on universality, because too many Maori were sleeping in cars; too many Maori were dying because of a poor health system; so we had to try and get them the budgets and the funding and the resourcing to the bigger crowd, I suppose. We couldn't just go to our providers. But next time round you're suggesting you're going for more targeted ` that's your aim. So where do you want to see the money go specifically? What projects are you looking for more money for, targeted? For next time, obviously we'll be looking in the Maori health area; it's a huge area. Maori employment, as we've talked about today, is really, really important. Whanau Ora is really, really important. So important that funding's on hold at the moment? Well, I mean, it was a very responsible budget that was rolled out by the Minister of Finance last time, and he had to go through the different areas. Where was the need? The need was in South Auckland, West Auckland, where we had people sleeping in cars. And so enough funding has gone out there so that we can have families looked after, and it's been a reasonable winter for families who have been beneficiaries of the Family Package and the Winter Payment and payments like that. All right. You're talking big picture; let's talk specifics. So, overall, unemployment is tracking downward, right? 4.8% at this time last year, now down to 4.5%. But the gap ` the gap between Maori and non-Maori is persistent. Sure. Specifically, what is your plan to close that gap? To have more funding and resources. How much? Well, when you talk about how much` And where? Well, we need more resourcing. And, look, I'll just give you an example. In the last nine months we've poured just over 13 million, 14 million into the regions, into youth, in terms of He Poutama Rangatahi. What have we got from that? We've got some real results. We need some more investment in the regions. In the north, you've got almost third-world conditions. When we go into the communities, they embrace us. I've enjoyed the last nine months, in terms of seeing people smiling and happy that we've gone in. Because, as I say, Poutama Rangatahi has been crucial in turning people's lives around. So you're asking how much ` we've just put 14 million into the regions. That's what you've done. We're talking about what's coming next. So have you got a specific programme in mind with a specific number that you need for it? Yes, it's called He Poutama Rangatahi. And that work's got to continue, in terms of the youth and in terms of Maori and in terms of, also, young Pakeha too. I'm not just the Minister for Maori. I'm the Minister for all peoples. How much more money do you need for that, though? I don't want to, really, because I've got to talk with the Minister of Finance over the next week. Give me a ballpark. Give me a ballpark, Minister. No, no, because the Minister of Finance knows that more funding and resourcing has to go into the regions. Tens of millions? Tens of millions in a project. Obviously there's millions of dollars that need to go back into the regions to support young people. No, but that programme, sorry to interrupt, but that programme specifically, I know you don't want to name an actual number. But, what, more than the 30 million that Winston Peters is going to get for his racing track? You need to do some research on what was budgeted for that programme in previous years. But 13 million has gone out over the last nine months. I've got people queuing at my door in the regions for more funding and more resourcing, and I'm going to have that conversation with the Minister of Finance in the next week` So the budgeted money is 15 million over four years. He's happy. He's happy with the results that are coming back, and we'll talk further. But I'm not going to talk the figures on here, in terms of, you know, us going forward. Because he's a responsible budgeter. All right, let's move on then. In the latest ANZ Business Outlook Survey, businesses across sectors said that they're less likely to hire new people, and, in particular, fewer jobs are expected in agriculture and construction. So how are you going to counter that? Where are the jobs going to come from? We're going to work with agriculture, and we're working with construction right now. I mean, we're working with them in terms of the seasons and what's happening. We had labour shortages in agriculture, in those areas and in the building sector. So we're hoping through our different strategies, like Mana in Mahi and our skills programmes, to generate work, to generate those jobs. And, you know, we're optimistic. There's a group of ministers who work right across the spectrum in terms of employment. We're putting in plans and strategies for all those different areas. But one of the big concerns that ANZ's chief economist said, for these businesses, is meeting growing wage costs. Obviously, you've put up the minimum wage to $16.50, and you've got plans to raise it to $20 by 2021. So how many jobs do you think that that's going to cost you? Well, we always get that response. We always get that response ` how many jobs` It's a legitimate question though, isn't it? The reality is we're going to invest in our young people, and we're going to invest` Mana in Mahi, we think, is going to generate 4000 jobs, for instance, over the next few` You've got 70,000 NEETs. Yeah, but you've got to make a start somewhere. We've got a number of strategies across the spectrum. Now, Mana in Mahi will be fantastic, we think. We're going to start in the building industry, and it's going to roll right across the spectrum in terms of` So, back to the original question, raising the minimum wage is a concern for businesses meeting their costs, so how many jobs do you think it's going to cost to put it up to that 20 bucks an hour by 2021? See, every time we raise the minimum wage ` every time ` it happened with the previous Labour government ` we had this talk about how many jobs is that going to cost. You know, there's always dire predictions that hundreds and thousands of jobs are going to be lost. And what happens at the end of it? Business goes on. You know, you can have all the reports run from` Well, the ministry advice, which you're probably aware of, said 30,000 jobs won't be created as a result of bumping the wage up to $20.20. was the figure they used` That's the living wage you're talking about. Yeah. I suppose the question is ` is the policy counter-productive to legislate a rise in wages so significant? Yeah. I mean, how can you have a more productive economy where people earn better wages and still keep employment at your goal of 4%? Well, the reality is we have to have an economy that works for everyone. That's what we have to do. We can't just have a group of people who do well off the economy. We've had thousands of New Zealanders who have missed out through this economy over the previous nine years. What we're trying to do is rebalance things; we're trying to rebalance things. So you've heard the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Transport. We're going to invest in infrastructure. We're going to invest in housing. There's regional investment. So we've got investment everywhere. And through that, what's going to come off that is more employment, more support. There's obviously going to be some flow-on effects from all the investments that we're making, and there's going to be more and more jobs. So you're asking how we're going to go forward. We're going to go forward by investing in these major projects and working with employers all the time. And we're looking at business. We bring big business into the Parliament, and we're working with them closely, so we're a government who want to invest in opportunity. You've heard all the talk. So all this dire talk about us not getting to 4%, I don't` I think we'll get very close to it with the type of investment that is being made at the moment and, of course, the investment that we're making in terms of the regions, which I'm really looking forward to. Does quality of job matter? Because if you're looking at productivity, 117,000 people are considered to be underemployed, meaning that they're working less than 30 hours a week and they want to work more. So is quality of work important, or is it just getting them off your statistics and getting them into employment? This is not a National Party government. This is a government that cares about workers' dignity. This is a government` a passionate government, a caring government, as our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has said all the time. So it's not just about throwing them the broom and saying, 'There's your job.' We want jobs with dignity. We want people to know that they've got certainty of contract. We're trying to rebalance the workplace. Iain Lees-Galloway is doing some terrific work in that area. We're trying to get some equity in there. Now, that doesn't mean to say that we want to stamp all over employers. We want to work with employers. But we want them to work closely with us. We want them to provide opportunities. We want them to listen to workers. We want workers to have a voice too. So it's about getting the balance right, and it's just going to take a little while. We've got a bit to get through, so a couple of things I'd like a few quick answers. Mana in Mahi ` how much do you think that programme's going to cost overall? Well, it's going to cost 13 million in terms of the pastoral care ` that was what we talked about. You guys ran a stupid story` 13 million in pastoral care. Okay, so` ...in pastoral care, but we're 15 million to 16 million overall. But it's a zero budget transfer, because basically they were` Money coming from the dole payments` That's right, but you guys made a big fuss about it and got the whole story wrong, yeah? I don't think you found that on Newshub Nation. The Mana in Mahi pilot at the moment ` 150 people. You want to get up to 4000 by next year. Seriously, how are you going to ramp it up that quickly? Well, we have a big PR campaign. That's happening right now. It's going to start very shortly. We want to bring small` to medium-term employers on. We want` How confident are you that you can meet that target by the end of 2019? We're going to give it a great shot, the Prime Minister's said. Would you stake your job on it? Well, we don't want to get carried away, Lisa, right? But we'll give it a good shot. And we've had great reaction, great response. Even the National Party, I think, are supporting us on this. We've had four emergency labour shortages in the past 10 months. That's for seasonal work. How many workers short are we going to be this spring/summer? Well, hopefully, not as many as we had last summer. Do you have a number, though? Well, no, because you'll have to ask them, but what we do want to do is work with those employers. We don't want seasonal workers to be treated like nobodies. We don't want` Here, we had the labour shortages in the Hawke's Bay and East Coast, right? And we had an industry crying out for workers in those areas to come and pick the fruit off their trees, and the workers were sitting right on their doorsteps. Those workers have to be treated with respect. They have to be looked after. They have to be given transport allowances. You know, the key to solving the seasonal problems and the seasonal crisis is not by opening up the visa and by bringing in more and more immigrants. So don't bring in any more, you're saying? No, I'm not saying that` 11,100 on those visas ` no, just very quickly ` 11,100 capped on those RSE visas. The growers reckon they could do with 13,100, so` but what? Don't put it up? No, we'll work with the growers in terms of developing a work strategy where we can bring local people in, look after New Zealanders, and, obviously, if we have to fill a hole, we'll bring immigrants in. But we're about supporting New Zealanders and New Zealand workers who have been shut out, and you just can't have a crisis when you've got workers sitting on your doorstep down there. All right. Let's move on. It's been a tough fortnight for the Labour caucus. Meka Whaitiri ` is she still the co-chair of the Labour Maori caucus? Yes. Is that appropriate? Yes. Why? Well, in this country` She stood down ` serious allegations here. In this country, we go through certain processes, and she's got to go through a process, so she's still a Member of Parliament. But she's been stood down from her portfolios, so is there a different standard for the Maori caucus? No. Not at all. What we believe in is justice, and I won't be commenting on the process, but she is still the MP for Ikaroa-Rawhiti; she is still the co-chair, along with myself, for the Maori caucus, and I think all New Zealanders would think that there's got to be an investigation and a process to go through before we try and shut Meka Whaitiri down, who's made a great contribution, not just to the Maori caucus over the years, but to the Labour Party. So how is morale in the Labour caucus? Fantastic. What? With two cabinet ministers side-lined in two weeks? Really? Is morale fantastic? Well, look, as the Prime Minister said, that's government. That's politics. These things happen, but what you and Duncan Garner might perceive as a big crisis and catastrophe happening is not the reality out on the streets. I've been in the regions over the last couple of weeks with people like Shane Jones. People have been embracing us. They can see that we've got a plan. But Meka Whaitiri wasn't stood down at that point. No, hang on. But things happen. That's politics, and we'll work through that, but our people on the streets ` I live in South Auckland and` Should things like this happen, though? Should thing like this happen, Minister, where you get two ministers stood down within two weeks ` one for a serious misstep, and another for an extremely serious allegation? Well, allegations are allegations, and you've still got to go through that process. Both those ministers are big contributors to the Labour Party, and we should just let the process run its course and not try and say that the Labour Party's falling apart, because the Labour Party's never been stronger, and there's some inspirational leadership that's coming from, not just our leader, but from our senior ministers like Twyford, Robertson, Parker, you know, are doing some great work. Well, we're talking about Meka Whaitiri here. So if Meka Whaitiri, if the allegations against her are proven, should she go from Parliament all together? I'm not prepared to talk about that. You won't tell us what your standards are? Well, our standards` No, you personally. Do you think, if the allegations against her are proven, that she should go` No, I don't think it's right to speculate about Meka at this time. She needs to be given some respect that there's an investigation in place, so it's inappropriate for me to comment. All right. Let me put it another way ` as Minister of Employment, in your view, is there ever any excuse for bullying or physical violence in the workplace? Well, of course not. Of course not, and I have a high standard there, as does Meka Whaitiri. But you shouldn't try and insinuate that she's guilty already. I'm not; I'm just asking you the basic question. Yes, but the way you're asking it, Lisa, is that she's gone. You know, just because the allegation has been made, doesn't mean it's true. There's still a process to go through. Thank you for joining me this morning. That is our Minister of Employment Willie Jackson. Now, if you've got something to say about what you see on our show, let us know. You can join the conversation on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Our Twitter panel this week is Kate Davis and Morgan Godfrey, and they're using the hashtag #nationnz. Or you can just email us at... The address is on your screen now. And up next ` how much privacy do we really have when so much of our personal information is online? We talk to Privacy Commissioner John Edwards. Plus, we meet the Kiwi mum working to help Rohingya Muslims in the world's biggest refugee camp, as the UN slams Myanmar's military leaders for crimes against humanity. Welcome back. Privacy Commissioner John Edwards has a simple way to assess the risk of your personal information being collected and shared online. He says, 'If you're not paying, you're the product.' He deleted his own Facebook account earlier this year after a run-in with the social media giant. Now, he's pushing the government to tighten up our privacy laws to keep pace with technology. I began by asking him if there's such a thing as privacy in the modern, digital world. Yeah, there is. It's obviously an idea that's changing, but all around the world, we're seeing, rather than the diminution of privacy, which some in big data industries are kind of promoting, we're seeing a further demand for privacy. And we're seeing regulation increasing all around the world, outpacing where New Zealand's got to. Do you actually think it is being promoted by big data companies ` forget it, don't worry, there is no privacy any more, everybody's an open book? Yeah. I keep a folio of magazine covers and headlines heralding the death of privacy, and it's been going since the 1950s. You know, 1970s with Newsweek; we've seen Time Magazine. Just recently, I saw an article titled, 'Getting by in a post-privacy world.' We're not in that world. The concepts of privacy are changing. What we are increasingly seeing consumers and citizens demanding is greater transparency. Not 'don't tell anyone anything', but 'tell us what you're going to do with our information 'when you collect it.' I want to talk about how we keep pace a little later, but you have said in the past that it is a fundamental human right, privacy. But say, unlike the rights to food or shelter, privacy is an incredibly subjective thing, you could argue. So how much privacy do we have a right to? Sure. Well, you're right, Lisa ` it is subjective, but it's also highly contextual. You know, when you go to the doctor, you think, 'this is about as private as it gets', right? But within that ecosystem, there are reports to laboratories, to pharmacies, to funders, to insurers, to employers. All around, you know, that information follows. Privacy is not necessarily about restricting the flow or putting up the gates; it's about ensuring people have some autonomy, so that they can retain some element of control over what happens to their information. Do you think, though, that we assume that we have more privacy than we actually do? Possibly, that's true for some. I mean, we do see ` our survey results, which we conduct every two years, indicate a high level of concern about diminution of privacy. We see, actually, growing levels of trust in government's ability to manage privacy, so that's a good thing. But we see increasing levels of concern about how industry handles our personal information. We see high levels of concern about privacy of young people. Yeah. So do you think that there is a generation of young people who have unwittingly thrown open a door to their private information without realising it? I think that young people are more canny than we give them credit for. You know, I often speak to groups who say, 'Young people don't care about their privacy ` look what they're posting on Facebook.' Well, you know, you tell that to a parent who's teenager has blocked them on Facebook. You know, these kids are making privacy choices. They're using pseudonyms; they're using technology like Snapchat, which erases the record. They are being very selective, in fact, about what they post. So yeah, again, I come back to my theme ` privacy is changing, but it does remain a fundamental human right. OK. So with privacy changing, then, presumably, the laws need to change as well, and we are currently reviewing the Privacy Act. How can you actually make the law keep pace with technology that seems to be changing constantly? You'll be outdated by the time your law stamped off. Well, that's right. And if you do regulate with reference to specific technologies, that's the exact risk. What we've found is that our privacy law is principle-based, so it's actually managed to stand these changes in technology reasonably well. But what we have not kept pace with is the globalisation of personal information. You know, data knows no borders. And so there's a real pressure, I think, to make sure that we have compatible laws with the nations that we're trading with and that we compare ourselves with. We've just seen, for example, California pass one of the most progressive privacy laws in the world. And that, I think, has surprised everyone in this area of business. So what do you think our biggest challenge is here in New Zealand when it comes to privacy? I think it's a question of scale. I mean, we are net contributors of personal data. Very many of the organisations that we are giving our data to are based offshore. So we've got those challenges of the networked data economy. And you've obviously faced one of those challenges in the sense of the borders with Facebook, who said, 'Nah, go away. We're not based there in New Zealand.' So you're powerless in that respect. Well, there is a real issue there. There's an imbalance. You know, Facebook is an enormously powerful empire, literally. It's an economy in itself. It's an entity with a population of 2.5 billion people and huge financial resources. We say to Facebook, when you are collecting the information of 2.5 million New Zealanders, when you are collecting revenue from advertisers, when you are directing people who land in New Plymouth to the places, the businesses where all their friends have visited, you are doing business in this country, and you're subject to New Zealand's laws. Now, they have a different approach to jurisdiction. You have said 'if you are not paying for a service, you're the product.' So what do you mean by that? Yeah, it's become a bit of, almost, a cliche in our world that when you're offered something online that is free, that is attractive to you, you are actually contributing your data. Your personal information, Lisa, in this economy, is currency. This is the trade. You get the service, you exchange your personal information for that. Now, in that, it's incumbent on that organisation to be open with you about why they're collecting the information and to restrict the information to those purposes. Well, because that's the thing ` it's really about where the line in the sand is. Because if you look at the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which is an example of that, where people's data was being harvested via Facebook and used for targeted electoral campaigning, right? Can we be sure that there are no other companies doing that kind of thing in New Zealand? Well, we can't be sure, because we don't go out and positively audit every entity. You know, the Privacy Act in New Zealand covers almost every conceivable enterprise in the economy. And that's the problem, isn't it? Because you don't know until you know. That's right. Yeah, that is a real problem. I guess a lot of our laws act in that way. You know, if somebody's breaching a Fair Trading Act, you don't know about it until somebody makes a complaint and says, 'You know, I asked for this thing. It doesn't have the features I expected to see in it.' Yeah, of course, but this is not just social media. So you sign up for loyalty cards, like for the shopping, for the supermarket, you sign on for logins for entertainment sites. A lot of them, even if they're free, make you create a login; there's cookies. Where do you draw the line at what is acceptable use of information? When does it become an issue? So Cambridge Analytica was hoovering up all this information. Lots of other companies are as well. That's why when I look at a dress online, they keep bombing me with more dresses or clothes that look like the one I've looked at. So where is the line? Sure. Yeah. I mean, we would draw the line at misleading conduct, unlawful collection of information. But in New Zealand, we have a particular cultural legal approach to enforcement of this law. We say the law sets out these principles which businesses are supposed to comply with, but they're not enforceable until someone suffers some actual harm. So you getting an advertisement for a dress and saying, 'Well, that's creepy. 'Why are they doing that?' You know, that's annoying, but it hasn't caused you harm to the threshold that gives you access to the remedies under the Privacy Act. It can get even more creepy. With the Cambridge Analytica kind of thing, that was misleading, it was misrepresenting, it undermined some of the democratic institutions. And, you know, that is a wider societal harm rather than a harm to a particular individual. Right. You would like to see` Well, there is no mandatory reporting requirement at the moment if someone breaches your privacy. You want that to change. Yes. Yeah. How so? Well, we've slipped way behind most of the countries that we compare ourselves to in the world in this regard. There's no obligation on a company that you have entrusted your personal information to who loses it or compromises it to tell you about it. We're very happy that that is included in the bill that parliament is currently looking at. The Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, introduced that as one of his first, kind of, legislative reforms, and that is going to catch us up in that regard. So what level of breach would you need to notify someone of? That's something that the Select Committee is actually working on. Because it's quite tricky. But in your view. In my view, well, I'm happy with the threshold of something that is likely to cause serious harm. So if there is information that's compromised that could be exploited by someone to do you harm, such as to allow them to impersonate you online, such as to access credit-card details, to access online accounts, you should be told so you can take steps to protect yourself. OK. Well, let's talk about punishments, then, because at the moment, well, you want to see civil fines of up to a million dollars for serious breaches or people who are repeat offenders. Won't a company like Facebook just refuse to pay, because they'll say, 'We're based offshore'? Well, actually, since we had that issue with Facebook earlier in the year, they have even changed their terms and conditions. They have said to New Zealand Facebook users, 'We will comply with the laws of your country.' I think that's quite significant, and I think that's partly about` It's yet to be tested, isn't it? It is yet to be tested, but if you look at all those big data companies, they tend not to respond to regulators like me unless there is a court backing for it. Is a million dollars enough, then? Well, I think it's still an amount that makes a company sit up and take notice. That's not in the bill we've submitted. We've said to Select Committee that we think that should be there. We've said to the Minister of Justice that we think that should be there. Because would you say that it is toothless without that level of punishment? I think this is, yeah, a singular opportunity we have to upgrade that part of our law. You know, if you send a spam message, the dress one that you mentioned, you can be subject to civil penalties ` the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act has that in it. If you breach the Fair Trading Act and misrepresent the quality of your product, you can be subject to prosecution by the Commerce Commission. If you do either of those things in breach of the Privacy Act ` no consequence. Thank you for joining us this morning, John Edwards, Privacy Commissioner. Thank you, Lisa. And, still to come, we dissect the week's political news with our panel. Plus, what does the future hold for Rohingya Muslims forced to flee Myanmar? We speak to a kiwi aid worker in the world's largest refugee camp. Welcome back. The United Nations said this week it wants to prosecute Myanmar's military leaders for committing genocide and war crimes against Rohingya Muslims. Close to a million Rohingya have fled to refugee camps in Bangladesh after a campaign of brutality in Myanmar where they are not recognised as citizens. Helen Manson is a Kiwi photographer and mother of three from Auckland who now works for the agency Tearfund. Michael Mora asked her how this crisis compares to other humanitarian emergencies she's witnessed around the world. Yeah, so, I would say in all the places I've been, this is definitely one of the worst ` in the top two. Just because of the scale of this crisis ` so we're talking about just under a million refugees in 10km2, so... And when you see how cramped the conditions are. You know, other refugee camps are so spread out. This one is just, like, really tight. What's the most challenging issue for people who are living here, on a day-to-day basis? Yeah, at the moment, one year on, we're looking at two things ` it's around protection. So not only protection from monsoon, but protection from trafficking and exploitation. So, in regards to protection from the monsoon, we're right in the middle of monsoon season. And it might look glorious now, but you and I know today it's been intermittently raining. We've got sandbags everywhere. This area is on steep hillsides, so it's very precarious, in terms of the risk of flooding and huge mudslides. When you talk about exploitation and trafficking, what do you mean there? What's the risk for those who are in here, in relative safety? Yeah, so although they are in relative safety, there's a really real risk of trafficking and exploitation. And that comes across in the fact that people are living in extreme poverty. So they're at risk of` they're extremely vulnerable. They're so vulnerable. And so you've got people that are wanting to take advantage of that vulnerability and use them for labour trafficking. There's been reported cases of child trafficking, potentially sex trafficking as well. Because people are desperate for money, they're desperate to keep their families alive. Some of that's voluntary. Some of that's coerced. How would you describe what the Rohingya people have been through? You know what? When I think about what these people have gone through, it brings tears to my eyes. Because it is so horrendous. These people have fled extreme persecution. Persecuted for generations, but that really stepped up on August 25th, 2017. And so these people have seen their houses burnt down. They've seen loved ones killed in front of them, people's, you know, very lives taken ` children ` awful things done to children, things we can't even say on camera. They've seen the loss of all of their properties. And then they've had to get into the bush and run for their lives with the clothes on their back as their only possessions. When they come here, what an unknown future. You know? They're arriving into a place where they've got to build themselves a shelter with few materials. They're living on very small amounts of food. Water is scarce. Sickness is rampant. And these are the situations that these people have come from ` extremely traumatised, dehydrated, terrified for their very lives. Is a resolution possible, then, whereby these people would feel comfortable to return to Myanmar? Yeah, you know, I think most people here would say that they would like to return to Myanmar, but only if they can go in a voluntary way, and it's safe for them, and it's a dignified re-entry, so they're actually given rights as citizens of Myanmar. And that's what Tearfund is really calling on the government to do, is to give these people the full rights they deserve as Myanmar citizens. What's the way forward, then? Is this issue front of mind enough for change to occur? I mean, it's an issue that we're constantly grappling with, right? Because we're NGOs, so our main concern right now is on the people in the refugee camps. But for the people that are here, one of the key roles has got to be advocating for their safe, voluntary, dignified return. And right now, there is some pressure being put on the Myanmar government, but there hasn't been much success. Even though there was a resolution to return people, people, don't want to go back. The conditions there are not very favourable. I mean, I've been speaking to so many people in this camp, sitting with them in their homes, and one of the things they've been telling me is that, 'How could I ever go back? 'I would look at the place where my husband was murdered. 'I don't even have a house. My land was taken from me. 'I have no crops. I have no livestock. There is nothing left for me there.' How sustainable is this camp ` in continuing this camp, in terms of NGO work and funding? Oh, look, it's one of the biggest challenges we're facing right now. You know, when a crisis starts, no matter what crisis that is, all around the world, you've got a great amount of public interest in those first few months, in those first few weeks, and everyone wants to get involved, and everyone donates. But the problem we're looking at now, a year in, is that that support starts to dwindle. People don't` It falls off the radar. And so one of the greatest challenges we have is, in a protracted crisis, containing that` sustaining that level of funding so that these people continue to get the help that they need. What personal struggles do you think some of the staff that you work with face here on a day-to-day basis? I mean, it must be pretty hard work. It must be, at times, difficult and seem a bit hopeless. Yeah, for sure. I know that some of the struggles our team face are physical struggles. The heat is pretty intolerable. The secondary struggle they would face is the constant trauma of hearing these people's stories ` the vicarious trauma of such horrendous, horrendous stories. Some of the worst stuff that humanity can throw up ` they are listening to that and trying to help these people along. And then, of course, the work we're doing, we're doing the best we can with the funding we've got, but it's never enough. There's a million people in this camp. We're serving a small part of that, but we're really trying the best we can. Is there any one particular story that, during your time here, has really stood out for you and affected you, as a mother? Oh, absolutely. I was here in April, actually, about six months ago, and I met a mother called Begum. She's got four little girls about 8 to 2 years old. And she told me that they were at home in Myanmar, and they heard that the military was coming. And they knew that they were after the men, so they went into their home and they hid her husband, hid the dad. The military bashed in the doors, found the dad ` he was underneath the table ` and they killed him in front of her four girls. Well, the very next thing that happened is that they took her outside and raped her in front of her children. And as I sat in her tent and I was looking at her girls, and,... yeah just reflecting on the fact that that could have been me. And one of the things she said to me was, 'I just wish I could give them snacks.' She said, 'They're so hungry, and... 'in the afternoon time they ask me for snacks, and I don't have anything to give them.' How do you comprehend that level of violence and inhumanity towards another person? It's incomprehensible. It is completely incomprehensible to me. But you must have encountered it a lot in your work and your travels. Yeah, and actually there's a really scary phenomenon that I'm seeing taking place, where it's happening more and on a greater level. So when I first started this work about eight years ago, you would hear stories about people being murdered and people being raped, and now it's gone to a whole new level ` a level of extreme violence, extreme sexual violence towards people, and just things you and I would never normally think of in our human minds; we could never even dream up the things that people could do to one another ` are now happening, and I'm seeing it not just here in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh, but I'm seeing it in Syria and in Iraq and in Congo and in South Sudan, and it's quite frightening, actually. The people here, they've suffered the worst of humanity, haven't they? Absolutely. These people have suffered incomprehensibly. They have suffered extremely. Yeah, they really have. Is there a future for them? I believe there is. It's really our hope that these people would find their way back to Myanmar, to a place where they are given full rights as citizens, and if not that, then they're given full rights as refugees here in Bangladesh. And we'd really call on the government of Bangladesh to do that for these people. And if you'd like to support the people there, you can donate to Tearfund's Rohingya crisis appeal by visiting tearfund.org.nz or calling 0800 800 777. And, still to come, Green MP Jan Logie answers your questions in this weeks Facebook Live. But first, we catch up with our panel, Former National Party General Manager Chris Simpson, AUT Senior Lecturer Dr Ella Henry and business consultant Vernon Tarver. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` Waikato Chamber of Commerce CEO Chris Simpson, business consultant Vernon Tava and AUT senior lecturer Dr Ella Henry. Good morning to you all. Been talking with Willie Jackson this morning, the Employment Minister. But before we move on to employment issues, the other big story this week ` Meka Whaitiri stood down from Cabinet, Vernon. He was saying there` Willie's saying that caucus morale is still great, even though Clare Curran has lost some of her portfolios, and Meka Whaitiri has been stood down. Do you believe that morale would be great? Of course, he was going to say that. It would be most remiss of him not to, but it is a little hard to buy. To have two ministers stood down in as many weeks for, in one case, repeated missteps; another case is really quite a shocking accusation if there has been any kind of physical manhandling of a staff member, that's not something that's acceptable in any workplace, let alone from a Minister of the Crown. So, yeah, morale would have to be taking a bit of a hit. Yeah, and as he's right to point out, these are just allegations at this point, Ella. She stood down` Meka Whaitiri stood down from her portfolios, but she's still co-chair of the Maori caucus. Is that appropriate? Absolutely, because the allegations haven't been proved. I mean, obviously, this stepping down is right and proper until the allegations are investigated in a vigorous and robust way, but the reality is the Maori caucus within the Labour Party is a very strong community, and I can't imagine why they would want to act hastily without full and appropriate evidence. But she should be stepping aside from that role and showing some leadership there while she's under investigation. Surely, that's what you'd do as a leader yourself. So you see it more as an issue of she's in a leadership role in both of those positions. She's a minister. She's a minister under investigation, so she should take a leadership role and say, 'I will step back from this until such time as a decision is made.' But that's a mea culpa position, surely. No, that's a leadership` that's a leadership` Well, I don't` If she genuinely believes that she is not guilty, then to act in any way that foreshadows that undermines the` But it's not about guilt or not. It's not about guilt or not; it's about leadership. And if Jacinda wants a strong leadership, and she wants to show a very strong caucus, then leaders should step aside. And that's what's happened in the past. They will at least offer the resignation from that for the time being` That's right. And it was good form of Willie Jackson to show solidarity towards her, but it puts him and others in this difficult position of having to continue to defend someone who should've voluntarily stepped aside. She may well have offered to. But they seemed quite comfortable at the Maori caucus, because it is a subunit; it's not a senior leadership role or ministerial role. But we should see her saying that. We should hear her saying, 'Actually, I'm going to stand down until such time as this is cleared.' I assume that she's been asked. This is quite a serious allegation being made. Not to make a public statement. Yeah, well, that's on leadership. Let's move on to employment matters. So no target for Maori specifically. The Labour Government wants to get unemployment` general unemployment down to 4%. But Willie Jackson seemed to be articulating an informal target there, Ella, of about 5% to 6%. Do they need to actually make it official? The difficulty about unemployment is that it's so regionally focused. If you go to some places in the North, it's probably 40% of the local Maori population are on some kind of benefit. You go to other places like central Auckland, and it's probably 2%. So to have some kind of global, you know, figure I think would undermine what needs to be done differently in the different regional areas. What do you reckon, Chris? No, I disagree in the sense that you've got to have target. Why? Well, cos if you don't have a target you're not measuring against anything, and then you can sit on here and say to you, 'Oh, no, we're going to get there. We're still focused on it.' Whereas you can't ask the question, 'Why isn't it at this level?' So you need that focused target. It's just like productivity. You need a productivity target of what you're working to. That's really, vitally important to hold government and ministers to account. Vernon, he had a target for Mana and Mahi, 4000, but he seemed slightly` He said they'd give it a good nudge in trying to reach it. Well, look, first of all if it is geographically based then surely the provincial development fund is a good place to start. And yet we're seeing, what is it? 15 million dollars going on three race tracks and less money being targeted towards Mana for Mahi. Look, overall, that's a great scheme. It's a good idea to be encouraging people into work and assisting them off the dole and offering a transition. That's a great idea. And I think there's a pretty broad consensus across parliamentary parties for that. What we are seeing, though, and this is a bit of a recurring theme, is there is a lack of detail. And it's quite clear that there's no clarity around, well, what will be the nature of sanctions? And look, I'm not saying there should be a punitive approach. But what will happen if people don't follow their obligations under that programme, there are no answers there. How much money is being allocated on an ongoing basis? There are no clear answers there. What are the targets you're going for? Definitely no answers. So if you can't measure it, you can't manage it. You know, so we've got a real lack of clarity. Another concern though, too, is that we're legislating higher wages. I mean, look, if only we could legislate our way to higher incomes for everybody. But if there isn't an underlying increase in productivity then you've got a problem there. It ends up just being inflationary and in real terms no-one's making more money. Intake of breath from Ella, what were you thinking? Look, I applaud anything that's bringing young, particularly Maori into the workforce. I think that a number of them are badly served by the lack of resources. So many parts of this country it's difficult to get around if you don't have a car. You know, if you live in the far North or the West or the East and you don't have a vehicle to get to the nearest town, there's no amount of services that are going to get you into a job unless it takes care of the kind of pastoral care. So I really applaud the fact that there is pastoral care attached to... As part of that programme. ...this programme. Let's get` Let's have a go at stuff. Let's be innovative. Chris, the break is fast approaching but I just wanna hear you on, Labour's had some quite universal policies, the so-called 'baby bonus', the heating allowance, free first year education at university for everybody. Willie Jackson seemed to be making more noises about targeted funding. How's that gonna fly with New Zealand First when it comes to Maori unemployment? It's like anything, when you start targeting the funding and it doesn't work then you start getting those conversations with the likes of New Zealand First going, 'That's actually not working over there. We need to 'spend the money over here.' So I'm finding that really difficult to understand what they're trying to do. All right, we will be back after the break. Stay with us. Welcome back. You're with Newshub Nation and our panel. Well, Ella, arguably, it's been a bit of a tough fortnight for the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. How do you rate her handling of the situation with two of her ministers? I think that she does not appear to be as bright-eyed and bushy-tailed as she has in recent months, and let's not take away from the fact that, you know, having a baby is in and of itself tiring and stressful, but I do think that she's becoming more adroit at being crisp and clear in her communications, and so, when she doesn't want to address stuff, she doesn't, and I think that we're watching a Prime Minister evolve in front of our very eyes. Chris, do you think she's been tough enough? Because there has been some criticism. No, she hasn't been tough enough at all, but she's developing that, and she's being forcibly a lot tougher, and it should have been, with Clare Curran, it should have been instantly, 'No, that's not what you do. You know those are the rules. You're out.' Vernon, is she dealing with ministers who still think or are still acting like they're in opposition? You know, MPs who haven't kind of got with the programme that they've now got greater responsibility? Oh, certainly. You know, I mean, she came in saying this was going to be a more compassionate government, her leadership style was going to be one of kindness, so I think she's having to reconcile that with the very strict role that a Prime Minister in a government has to take. You have a handful ` well, really, about three, ministers who are carrying, by far, the bulk of the load. Andrew Little and David Parker and Chris Hipkins have incredibly punishing workloads, and there's a bit of a drop-off ` and Grant Robertson, of course, minding the till. There's quite a drop-off after that between what people seem to be able to handle, and there is a lot of scrabbling going on, as has been widely commented upon, to actually work out exactly what the 'this' in 'Let's do this' is meant to be. So we've got someone like Clare Curran, whose pretty egregious offences, really, as a minister, who's been rotated out of cabinet, but is still a minster. I think, surely, the next reshuffle that comes when the pressure's a little less directly on, she's going to be shuffled out as a minster altogether, but we're seeing a pretty permissive sort of environment around the ministers, and that can come across as weak leadership. Are any of you picking a cabinet reshuffle before the end of the year? I'd assume that it's going to be time to refresh a number of portfolios, and there are also some recommendations coming in from a variety of different commissions and groups that may change some responsibilities, so I'd be looking forward to a reshuffle before the end of the year. Politically, you can't do a reshuffle cos you start to look weak, so you end up going, 'got to live what I've got here.' Tell the team, 'pick it up. 'Don't do what you're doing at the moment.' And then get through to next year, and then possibly look at what they need nearer the budget. Does it help, Vernon, that this week, you had a former Prime Minister and pretty high-profile person, Helen Clark,... well, a backhanded serve, really, wasn't it, over the Labour Youth summer camps. Helen Clark said, under her watch, people didn't keep their jobs. Did you read that as criticism? I was surprised how direct that was, actually, and she actually did try to backpedal from it a bit, and say 'Oh, of course, that wasn't a direct comment on Jacinda Ardern's leadership', but it was impossible to take it as anything but, and I think it was an entirely fair and honest and candid comment from her. It's very hard to imagine that Helen Clark and Heather Simpson would have tolerated anything like the sort of carry-on that we saw coming out of that camp. Earlier in the week, things started off with wrestling the elephant in the room, Ella, when the Prime Minister took on business confidence. Do you think that that speech ` obviously, the survey that came out later in the week was taken largely before that speech. Do you think that speech would have done anything to calm the farm? Well, I guess there` this is what I got from listening to Willie this morning, and what I'm starting to realise is there's a lot of what I call 'highly scientific political science 'suck-it-and-see' going on, and I think, maybe, that reaching out in to the business community is about sort of concerting some of those relationships. Certainly, there's a need for it, clearly, in some of the areas that I'm familiar with that the sense that government and business are able to communicate and work together is actually really important. Chris, what are you hearing from business? Cos, hey, that's your bread and butter. Yeah, well, I got quite the opposite in the sense of, you have Christopher Luxon there. That's fine ` that's big business. There's only 5000 big businesses of the 515,000 other businesses. They're the ones that you need to reach. They're the ones who are actually paying billions in the taxes. So that's the conversation there ` that small to medium enterprise which we're not hearing. So, to use PR speak, Vernon, has she reached out to the wrong people? Yeah. Look, I think it's fair to say that big business is hardly under-represented in the halls of parliament, and it is the vast majority of businesses who actually need to be better represented ` no question about it. OK. Looking ahead, she's to Nauru for the Pacific Islands Forum, and, obviously, the issue of refugees is going to come up. She's suggested that, if she has time, she may go and visit the camps. This is obviously a clash of views on how to handle things with Australia. Could this be, potentially, well, could this backfire for her, Chris, if she does go and visit? Yeah, well, it could, cos, potentially, she could be left literally holding the baby on TV, and then what are you going to do? Are you going to go, 'No, we're not going to have the refugees in', or, 'Yes, we are going to have the refugees in'? And that brings that bigger question about Australia, where Australia doesn't want human trafficking by stopping the boats from landing on their shores. So you're getting into a very geopolitical conversation that Australia doesn't want us to have. Ella, what happens if she goes there, she sees that the conditions are horrendous? She's made this offer to Australia, Australia doesn't want a bar of it. Does that mean she's forced to make it direct to Nauru? I absolutely agree ` this will cause real difficulties with the Australian Government, whether she goes or not. The fact that she's even talked about it is going to send flurries through some of the Australian political corridors. But you know what? I mean, maybe she wants to be brave and bold and adventurous, and say to Nauru, 'We'll take some of these children off your hands and see what happens.' I don't know that they'd say yes, because they're a little frightened of Australia. All right, we're out of time. Green Party MP Jan Logie joined us of Facebook Live this week to talk about the ongoing review of the family court, as well as how to be an activist MP while till swallowing dead rats. She also told us why she thinks we need to talk more about gender-based violence in New Zealand for the sake of our men and women. But I think it's absolutely important, as a country, that we start talking about gender-based violence, and that's what I'm doing, because intimate partner violence in particular and sexual violence is driven by how we've constructed gender roles in this country, and they're really damaging. And that affects men as well as women. That we know, and in opposition, I worked really hard around sexual violence to get funding for male survivors, because nobody was talking about their needs, and men are victims of sexual violence. That's a reality, and we need to make sure they've got appropriate support. And we know that, because of the way... What people are told it is to be a man in this country, which is, you know, like, that staunch` Alpha, macho. Yeah. Like, that doesn't leave much space for men to talk about their experience of being victims, right? So, if we're gonna unpack that, that will help men as well as women. And that is all from us for now. Thanks for watching, and we'll see you again next weekend. Www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018