(INTENSE MUSIC) Today on Newshub Nation, we ask Green co-leader Marama Davidson whether her party is just getting the scraps from the coalition table. Plus, terrorism expert Martha Crenshaw on whether the decline of ISIS means the threat is over. And where is the support? Why some parents of intellectually disabled adult children have no choice but to put them in police cells. 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 Greens have had a seat at the table for almost a year. For the first time, they are part of the government. But that brings with it the C word ` compromise. How many policy 'dead rats' do they have to swallow to stay there? And is it worth it? Well, Green co-leader Marama Davidson joins me now. Morena. Kia ora, Lisa. So, you're renewing calls today for a rental warrant of fitness for homes. So that would mean independent inspectors go in there, and they enforce it. I'm wondering ` how would this be different from the gains that we're going to get from the Healthy Homes legislation? We need to make sure that this is enforced. So it's all good and well having minimum standards, which we absolutely welcome and support. What we need for that to work is actually having put in place an enforcement regime to make sure that we've got people who can rent houses without having to have the burden of making complaints for damp, mouldy, cold homes or homes that are in disrepair, which is currently what happens at the moment. A lot of that burden is on tenants, and that's a high threshold to be able to get some action on fixing up homes. So to be clear, if you do not pass your warrant of fitness, you won't be allowed to rent out your house? Yes, absolutely. We think that right at the get-go, people even looking for a home should be able to be assured in this country that your home to rent will be up to a certain standard. How much is that going to cost people to be involved in a scheme like that? So, we don't have the figures yet, but it costs us to have unhealthy homes ` for example, over 40,000 admissions to children's hospitals during the winter just from homes that are in bad condition and are unsafe, unwarm, draughty and mouldy. Winston Peters said this week that we've got 50,000 homeless people. So do you imagine that this, if it were to be adopted as policy, would rule out a chunk of rental properties, and you would end up with more people with nowhere to live? So, there's absolutely no excuse for this country to accept that we can rent out homes that are unfit for purpose. We need to change our culture and our understanding. Renting needs to be seen as a first-class option, not a second-class option in this country ` more and more people are renting ` at the same time as ensuring that we've got a strong state housing building programme, emergency housing to deal and help deal with our homeless people, as well as the social services. All of those things need to be done, and we must no longer let people get away with renting properties that are unhealthy. OK. So this is a Green policy, yes? It has been for a long time, warrant of fitness. Yes. Absolutely. You floated it during the election campaign as well. So what support do you have from Labour and NZ First? So, I think that Labour and NZ First have also been very mindful that things have to change when it comes to renting out homes that are just unfit. So Greens will continue to lead and champion on an enforcement regime for making sure that warrant of fitness is a strong consideration. Labour are aware of our policy, NZ First also. And we'll make sure that we are at the front line of pushing this. Yeah, but being aware doesn't mean they're going to be voting for it, and it's just a pipe dream unless you can get them on board. So do you have the numbers or not? So, this is us making an announcement that this is something we'll call for. We've discussed with Labour that this is something that we're going to be really strong on ` MMP and the way that we work things out together, coming from sometimes different places across the three parties, and then we work things out, and the Greens are going to be a really strong voice for a warrant of fitness. OK. Well, I want to move on, but what you're suggesting there is compromising and bargaining, basically, to get what you want. So let's talk about some other areas where that might be happening. Earlier this week, there seemed to be some confusion over the refugee quota. Did you think that this government was going to double the refugee quota to 1500? Was that your impression? It's not inside our confidence-and-supply Agreement, and I understand it's not part of the coalition agreement, but it is something that we very much have an understanding that is something that we can do. I understand that, but what I'm asking was ` what was your impression? Were you under the impression that this would happen under this government, the doubling of the refugee quota? Certainly, we're aware that Labour are in support of doubling the quota. And also it's not a surprise where New Zealand First have a slightly different approach. But we would like to see us do more for international obligations. We can take more people here. And what's happening on Manus and Nauru is unacceptable, for children, for human beings. So I understand, again, we're three different parties; we'll work through this issue. And again, the Greens will proudly keep championing increasing and doubling our refugee quota. So, Labour is the senior party in this government, and Winston Peters said, basically, not on his watch are you going to get a doubling of the quota. And later, the PM seemed to fall into line and say it's not government policy. So is Mr Peters the person who's driving the agenda for this government? I don't think Mr Peters campaigned on ending oil exploration, for example. That was a massive win for the Greens. We've campaigned on that forever. So, again, we're three parties working through, which I understand that a lot of people understand. We bring different flavours and viewpoints to the government; we push that through. And Mr Peters is one perspective; we're another. And I'm really proud of the things that we've been able to achieve as the Green Party. OK, I get that, but you still haven't been particularly clear about whether you were under the impression this was actually going to happen, the 1500. Were you? Did you personally think that was going to be doubled to 1500? I do think it's something we should be doing, absolutely. Again, not the question. It's whether you were under the impression that that was going to happen. Yeah, I think that there's an understanding that this should happen. But again, Lisa, I'm being very upfront when I say it's not in our confidence-and-supply, and it's not in the coalition. So there was always that understanding there. As co-leader, you said that you would be building up communication with NZ First. So I'm wondering ` did Winston Peters let you know ahead of time that he was going to be making the comments about refugee numbers? No, but again, I'm not surprised that this is their position. That isn't a massive secret. And Mr Peters can obviously say and do what they will do. The Greens, also, will continue to push for increasing and doubling our refugee quota, and we will work that through, and that's what we continue to do in this government. And that's why we've also been achieving incredible wins for the people, for our planet, for our rivers, and that's part of just an ordinary day in business. So it came as a total surprise to you that he was going to make those comments in the context that he made them? At a high-profile event, where, obviously, refugee quotas and the conditions of asylum seekers was front and foremost, he decided to drop those comments. You were oblivious to the fact that that was going to happen? We weren't aware of that, and he took an opportunity, and that's his right. We all have the right to be able to do that as independent parties. And simply, the Greens will be strong in continuing to say, 'Well, we want to push this through if we possibly can.' So, in terms of building that relationship and communication that you said you were going to do when you got the co-leadership, when did you last catch up with Winston Peters? Oh, we had fish and chips between the Greens and NZ First, I think, just in the last dinner sitting. So we do speak directly to each other and obviously are achieving things and wins that we agree on. But friends` This is one issue that there is a distinct difference. This is one issue, but alongside so many of the wins that the Greens have been able... Department of Conservation ` a massive injection... And I want to talk about some of that later. But you've described Labour and NZ First as your friends. Friends tell each other when they're going to do stuff like this, don't they? Not sure if I'd describe us as friends. We are in a partnership. Well, you did. You said, 'We, the Greens, are so proud to stand with our friends in Labour and NZ First.' Friends tell each other when they're going to do things like this, don't they? Yeah, and so, you know, we have our independent positions. We'll keep working, and we do communicate on the things that we need to be making progress on. So in terms of your independent positions, then, the Greens are committed to welfare reform. Dropping sanctions is part of your confidence agreement with Labour. After a year in office, still, there are 1700 kids who are missing out, because, in some cases, their mother's ` mainly their mother's ` benefit is being docked for not naming the father. So when are these so-called 'excessive sanctions' going to be dropped? So, it's incredible that we've got the expert advisory group. Again, that's Green helping to push that through. And again, we're going to stay very clear that we want to see an overhaul and make sure that Work and Income... When? ...is a place that actually looks after people rather than punishes people. And so that's work in progress. And I'm really proud of the work that Jan Logie is leading that through... So you can't put a date on when you're going to achieve that? There will be` So that's work. So again,... The sanctions? ...bringing three parties along and bringing people along with us is really important, massive undertaking, huge undertaking. And so some solid work happening to push that through as well. But Carmel Sepuloni, the minister for that particular area, social welfare, she said in a letter to a particular interest group that they would remove the sanctions as early as possible. She also reiterated that they would wipe debt from emergency accommodation benefits. But none of that has happened. So it's in your confidence-and-supply agreement to deal with this. If you don't get those sanctions dropped by next budget, will you have failed? Not at all, because this is a whole-term project across all of the 20 priorities in our confidence-and-supply agreement. We've got to deliver that this term. And that's our priority. We are committed to delivering on what we said we would do. The work is absolutely going ahead to push that through, and campaigning with communities, campaigning to be able to have a nationwide understanding that this needs to change, is also important. I suppose the perception that some people may have is that you are waiting for your social welfare reform. You have had to swallow the dead rat of the waka-jumping legislation. You had to also suck up the fact that Eugenie Sage had to sign off on a deal for water-bottling that effectively is in direct contradiction of every principle that you have as Greens. How many of those dead rats do you have to eat before you get sick to your stomach? So, with the reality of eight MPs in this partnership with government, I'm incredibly proud, Lisa, and a little bit, maybe, bewildered by some of the narrative that we're not achieving. Because people in communities, people out there know that the end to oil was fantastic; that a massive injection into Department of Conservation funding was huge; that phasing out plastic bags ` my goodness, people wanted that; making sure that we've got public transport investment... It's coming from inside your own party. We have spoken to people within your own party who are concerned about some of the gains that you are not getting. Yeah, and of course, there are compromises. And that is a reality. And all three parties have had to make those. We come out with something that is quite representative in the end of where the three independent parties working together can come to for New Zealanders. Because in recent times, there seems to be a number of announcements that reflect NZ First policy ` a back-down on the three strikes legislation ` you know, they've got a harder line than you guys on justice reform; the Regional Development Fund ` every week, there is money being handed out under that; Winston Peters' $30 million for all-weather racing tracks. He seems to be getting his way. And NZ First seem to be getting their way all the time. Yeah. Are you comfortable with where you're fitting in this relationship? I'm really proud of` You can't even fiscally quantify an end to offshore oil exploration and drilling. You can't quantify the protection for domestic violence work in workplaces. Some of those things` So many of the things you cannot quantify ` transport, $16.9 billion massive injection into public transport` Are you being treated as an equal... Are you being treated as an equal partner in this relationship? Because some critics might look at it and say, 'Well, actually, the tail is wagging the dog.' And all I can continue to keep saying is the incredible wins that we're really proud of. Yes, there are compromises for all three political parties, but the wins in insulation, housing, environmental, conservation, drilling, the workplace protections, plastic bags phasing out, just as a small example of what we're really proud` and extending insulation of houses. These things make a difference for people every single day, and they're only a small example of what we've done just in a year and what we've got more to do. So there are other things in your confidence-and-supply agreement that are yet to be achieved ` quite a few things. And as co-leader, you said without a ministerial portfolio, that you were going to ensure on the delivery of that agreement. So you're a third of the way through the term. How much of that agreement have you delivered? Oh, so we've started` As a percentage. Do you know? No. So we've started on all of it. It's 'go' on every single of those 20 priorities. Some we've already delivered ` the ones that I've been outlining. And we've got work happening for the rest. And, you know, that's quite ordinary and quite normal. And we're making progress every single day. And we know that the prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, signed up to make transformational changes, because what is happening in New Zealand and the world is an outcome of the economic system which has trampled over people and our planet for far too long. And those are the changes that the Green Party will continue to make. This is our role in this government is to ensure that we transform our economic system to uphold also the well-being of people, rivers, soil and our climate as part of what we need to do. I understand that, but this is a conversation about how much` how big the gains you are getting and whether you're being treated as an equal partner. In terms of the things that you're concentrating on, how is the campaign going to reclaim the C word? Is that cows or...? There was no campaign. And so what I am happy about... Isn't that the point...? ...and will keep standing by is rejecting the incredible hatred, death threats and rape threats that are aimed at women ` particularly, brown women and women of colour, but women ` in public. That is not acceptable that that word and many other words can be used at us in a way to try and silence us and to stop us from doing our job. Was that a diversion? Should you be focusing more on core business of the Green Party? So, standing up against abuse towards women is, and always has been, a core business of the Green Party. We know that we are a strong feminist party. We always have been. And that will remain part of our important work. Do you think that the ministerial workload that your co-leader is facing means that the Green Party is losing traction when it comes to your identity in this government and building on its base? Our party, our members, voted for us to go into a confidence-and-supply agreement and voted for us to have these ministers. They are doing incredible work. The wellbeing indicators that Minister James Shaw is leading to change the way we measure the success, how we are doing as a country, is transformational, incredible work that I'm really proud of. He's leading the carbon zero work, making sure that we've got a solid plan to address the very real issue of climate destruction in our country and in the world. I'm incredibly proud of the ministerial portfolios that all of our ministers are leading. And the membership gave me a mandate as a non-executive member to also keep our differentiation and claiming the wins that we are getting in government here on the table as well. OK, we need to leave it there. Thanks for joining me this morning. Marama Davidson, the co-leader of the Green Party. If you've got something to say about what you see on the show, do let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram ` NewshubNationNZ. Our Twitter panel this week is Emma Espiner and John Hart. Or you can email us at... The address is on your screen now. And up next ` security expert Martha Crenshaw on the new shape of terrorism. Plus, intellectually disabled adults are being forced to stay in police cells. Is it because of budget cuts? The terror threat posed by ISIS may be waning, but does that mean that terrorism itself is declining? And is our small area of the Pacific safe, or just as much at risk? Martha Crenshaw is a senior fellow at the Centre for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University. Mike Wesley-Smith asked her what is classed as terrorism in 2018. Well, that's a very contentious question, so it's a good thing you started off with it. We think of terrorism as a form of violent communication. It typically is directed at civilian targets. It's intended to shock. It's intended sometimes to intimidate, sometimes to motivate enthusiasm on the part of supporters. And it depends largely on a psychological effect on a watching audience. So it's designed with that purpose in mind. So that really distinguishes it from other forms of political violence, but I think it's important to remember it is a form of political violence. Right, and so it's really about promulgating the message. Yes. And do you... What role does the media play? Do they become unwitting agents of... of extending that message out to a wider audience? Well, there's certainly been a widespread perception that the media are the lifeblood of terrorism. I think Margaret Thatcher famously said something like that with regard to the IRA many, many years ago. It's actually a mixed relationship. Many terrorist groups are not sympathetic to the mainstream media. They want attention from the media, but they don't trust it entirely. They've been known to attack journalists. I'm sure we're all familiar with many instances of that. And what you see these days is they provide their own media through ` very easily ` social media, YouTube. They record their own attacks, and they broadcast them through their own websites and media channels. So I think it would be unfair to say that the mainstream media is an instrument of these actors. OK. And going back to the definition of violence considered terrorism, I just want to look at some recent examples. We had the terrible massacre in Las Vegas perpetrated by Stephen Paddock. I think 58 people were killed; more than 500 were injured. Would analysts consider that an act of terrorism? That's a really good case to bring up. There is a database called the Global Terrorism Database that's held at the University of Maryland, and they have defined that incident as an act of terrorism. And some of us questioned that definition. And their argument was that the perpetrator did issue some statements that indicated that he had a political motive, but I think most people think that his motive is unknown. The police certainly said that they found his motive to be unknown. And this points to a basic problem in deciding whether something is terrorism; you don't always know someone's motivation. You know what they did, you know that it resembles many acts of terrorism, but you don't know their motivation, so you're sort of hampered. But in this case, after fairly careful investigation, they decided that it was terrorism. But many people disagree. And then in the United Kingdom, you had the Finsbury Park incident in June 2017, where a van was driven into a group of people outside a mosque by a person saying, they 'want to kill all Muslims' and 'this is for London Bridge'. Would analysts consider that an act of terrorism? I think, in most cases, they would. And I think that many people feel that sometimes defining something as terrorism is biased, that we are all inclined to label our opponents as terrorists and not say that a group with which we might agree is a terrorist. In this case, of course, it was an anti-Muslim attack outside the Finsbury Park mosque, but certainly, that ` I think by any standard ` would be regarded as an act of terrorism. The perpetrator announces his purpose. London Bridge, also, I think most people think that was an act of terrorism. And in particular, the fact that some well-known, well-established organisations, such as the Islamic State, have deliberately called for individuals to, in effect, take up arms on their own and act in any way they can ` this leads us more and more to think these are, indeed, acts of terrorism that have been inspired by these appeals. Reading through your research, you said that foreign intervention in internal conflicts can contribute to the rise of terrorism. And some would say, 'Well, what's the alternative?' Do countries just stand by and do nothing? Well, I think the thing is that a country that wants to intervene has to consider this to be one of the risks they're going to run; that through intervention, they may, in effect, incur the wrath of a group like al-Qaeda or the Islamic State or one of their many affiliates around the world. So a government simply says, 'All right, here are the costs and the benefits to intervention, 'and it's worth the cost. We realise that this will be something that our public might suffer from, 'but we think that the intervention is sufficiently important. We're going to go ahead.' The important thing is not to ignore the fact that it's going to create this risk. Yes. And Syria's obviously the most recent quagmire that the international community is struggling with. In your view, is there any particular strategy that they should be using that they haven't implemented to try and solve what's going on there? I think that Syria, as you say, is, indeed, a quagmire with so many different outside interventions, not just one side ` the West or the United States ` but many different outside actors ` Russia, Iran, even Hezbollah, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Emirates ` and at cross purposes as well. So it's enormously complicated. I think that there needs to be some sort of settlement of the conflict. I don't think there's going to be a solution that is entirely satisfactory to Western governments, particularly the United States. But it appears to me now that Russia and Iran have the initiative, joined by Turkey. And it looks to me like there's going to be some sort of settlement that will maintain Assad in power. Not what the United States wanted, but I think the American administration very badly wants to get out of Syria. And I think in the context of 9/11, you've talked about the tendency with which some governments have overreacted to domestic attacks. And, indeed, that's been a stated objective of terrorism. How should governments respond to attacks post-9/11 and the lessons we've learnt from that? Well, I think, first, they can step back and take a very deep breath and think, 'All right, what are my options for responding? 'Do I need to respond within the next 24 hours with a bombing strike?' Or might decision-makers take a little more time, think through different options, think of ways of responding that are perhaps less attention-worthy, more subtle, more behind-the-scenes and think of a way to deal with it. I think governments, particularly democratic governments with a public to answer to, are inclined to act very quickly without thinking through their options and thinking through the long-term effects of what they might do. So this is not advice that governments typically welcome ` be patient, think through your options, take some time, you don't have to respond right away. But sometimes I think governments exaggerate the amount of public pressure that's going to be brought to bear in such an incident. And there is opportunity to educate the public when something happens. What do you consider is the biggest terror threat in the Asia-Pacific region ` the area which we call home? Well, I think for some countries like Australia, it remains Islamist-inspired, jihadist-inspired groups, and there are many of them, as we all know. Certainly, in countries like the Philippines and, to a certain extent, Indonesia, it remains a problem. We're still concerned with the ability of the central groups, like the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, to, in effect, metastasise around the world. It's not an existential threat to countries in this region or anywhere, unless it's a very weak country already destabilised by other factors. But I think this is going to remain the threat for the foreseeable future, in effect. I suppose this is probably a question without an easy answer, but most New Zealanders watching this may have it foremost in their mind, and for an expert like yourself, what are the chances of a country like New Zealand experiencing a terrorist attack, maybe like we've seen in Australia or Canada? It's really impossible to say. These attacks are so unpredictable. It's not unimaginable to think that someone might think that New Zealand was an appropriate target. How likely it is is just impossible to say. If you look at many of the sort of 'lone wolf', as they're often called, attacks, they were really, I'm sorry to say, extremely unpredictable. You might be able to draw up a mathematical model, but it's really very, very difficult to say. There's a lot of study now of what's called 'radicalisation' ` that is, developing the sort of beliefs that would lead someone to justify violence ` but we still quite don't know what causes it. And so, again, for a country like New Zealand, which is a part of the Five Eyes, what should we be doing, do you see, in the fight against global terrorism? I think probably good intelligence work still outweighs the main bow work against terrorism. It's not easy. It's not easy to penetrate these types of groups. But let us say, a sort of watchful eye by all the Five Eyes is the best preventive for terrorism. That's not to say that there are not limits to how far we want intelligence operations to go in democracies, but this is still the best way of figuring out what's going on and trying to forestall it. And when New Zealand governments are considering assisting in, say, Iraq or Afghanistan, should they have in their mind, 'Well, if we do intervene, even in a humanitarian sense, 'it will elevate our risk of a domestic terrorist attack'? Should that realistically factor in their decision? It elevates the risk, to a certain extent, but so do many other things that governments do ` whether this is a higher risk than many other things. But yes, anything that associates a country with what radical jihadists view as a crusader alliance, depending on a particular incident, publicity given in incident, where a potential perpetrator happens to be located, ease of access to a target ` all these sorts of imponderables enter into it. Well, Professor, thank you so much for your time. It's my pleasure. Thank you for having me. Great. Thank you very much. And still to come, we dissect the week's political news with our panel. Plus, how would you feel as a parent if your intellectually disabled adult child had to spend the night in a police cell? It's a dilemma no parents of an adult with an intellectual disability want to face ` calling the police for help when their child loses control and care services don't respond. It often means people with disabilities sleeping in police cells. How does it end like this? Well, today we can reveal budget documents have triggered a war of words between National and Labour over whether disability services have been stripped of millions in funding. But as Mike Wesley-Smith reports, regardless of who's right, people with disabilities are being left behind. Becky can't communicate with words, but she has a smile her friends understand. We're best friends. Eh, Bec? No? (LAUGHS) Becky! Yes, we are! Becky lives with a severe form of epilepsy that means she has the intellectual functioning of a pre-schooler. Jan Moss is her mum. She was told Becky wouldn't live past the age of 5. Becky will be 35 this year. Jan is 70. She's quite severely cognitively impaired and non-verbal, so she has a series of grunts and gestures, and she certainly manages to get most of her needs met. (LAUGHS) But this year, Becky's needs have increased. For four months, she's been in an Auckland Hospital ward, because there is no other suitable care residence for her. Because of her medication, she's put on a heap of weight since she's been in hospital. And she's just too big for me. She's about, I dunno, 5'8", 5'9" and weighs about 105kg. So when she's having big seizures, epileptic seizures and things, it's incredibly difficult for me to... Well, in fact, it's impossible now for me to support her. It's an experience that gives a clear insight into the challenges faced by parents like Jan, who struggle to find the right support and placement for their adult children. How many supporters would she have had over the years? Oh, 500 or 600. 500 or 600? Yeah. Different support workers? Mm. I don't always blame the support workers, but when a support worker's struggling because of Becky's seizures or her aggression or whatever and they ring, oh, no, nobody's available to come and help. Jan says Becky does receive a lot of funding for her care, but it is appropriate care they struggle to access. A recent example was Becky's arrival at Auckland Hospital. I wasn't with her, and so it required her to be held down by eight guards, security guards in the hospital. That's the only way that they felt that they could manage it. And really all she was incredibly frightened and anxious, because I wasn't there. And it's when the behaviour of adults with complex needs gets too much for parents or carers, they find themselves entangled in the criminal justice system. We've previously reported on the case of an Auckland man with the intellectual age of a 5-year-old who was charged with assaulting a care worker by pushing him. There was two men at the property standing, talking to them through some iron gates. I was there the evening police attempted unsuccessfully to return the man to his South Auckland care residence run by the Forensic Coordination Centre. Police had to transport the man after careers left him alone at court. So, you're happy for your clients to be dropped off by police? Is that normal practice? Like I said, I am not in a position to be talking to you, so if you want to find that out, then you can speak with our CEO. Thank you. Goodnight. OK. Well, I tried that, and he... (DISCONNECTED SIGNAL BEEPS) The man was forced to spend two nights in a police cell. According to Jan Moss, who also runs a support group for parents of adults with complex needs, too often, police are the only ones parents can call for help when their child's behaviour gets out of hand. I've supported through their young boy, who was desperate to kill himself. And he kept doing all sort of things, like running in front of trucks and swam out to the bridge and things like that, because he wanted help. And so they'd call the police, and the police would say, 'Oh, well, we can't charge him, cos he's intellectually disabled.' So they kept saying, 'But please charge him, 'because we can't get any help and support unless he's charged.' Many of the parents Jan helps have had experiences like this, but, she says, most are too scared or simply too exhausted to speak out. I've spoken to the parents of a 19-year-old intellectually disabled man. Physically, he's quite strong. But when he's acted out at home, they felt forced to call the police, because support services won't respond. It's had heart-breaking consequences ` on at least 12 different occasions, he's had to be detained in a police cell overnight, because there was nowhere else for him to go. Fortunately, a temporary placement has been found for him in a care facility. The family tell me they just hope that no one else has to go through what they've experienced. People with learning intellectual disabilities, often with some behavioural issues or autism, we're leaving them behind. They're the most vulnerable in our society, and this group is in crisis. Paul Gibson was the Disability Rights Commissioner until 2017. He says that he and DHBs wrote to the government in 2016 to warn them of the problems being faced by families trying to access support services. Well, first, it was also letters were written by the DHBs that deal with people with learning disabilities and compulsory care and rehabilitation environments ` they wrote to the ministers and others as well. The Disability Support Services Network wrote to ministers as well ` there are various incidences coming up. So it was generally accepted that there was something happening there, which a lot of people were alert to, and it was reported to ministers. About 32,000 Kiwis living with a disability receive ongoing support from the Ministry of Health, in the form of community and residential care. 46% of those clients identify as having an intellectual disability. The ministry spends about 7% of its $1.2 billion disability budget on people like Becky, who have high and complex needs. The current Disability Issues Minister accepts more resourcing is needed. Look, I think the Ministry of Health has been doing what they can under really tight conditions, in terms of they have been underfunded. So I know that the minister of health is doing everything he can to catch the health system up, so that they can provide more adequately. It's hard to get an exact idea of how many people with intellectual disabilities end up in the justice system, or indeed, how many have high and complex care needs. That is because no official figures are kept. But we told the minister about the experiences of families we'd spoken to, who'd had to call police in desperation, because no one else was available. Yeah, that's usually concerning to me. And so I'd be interested in getting detail around that. As I said before, we know that there's a lot of work that needs to be done, with regards to disabled people's interaction with the justice system. Police are trained in how to manage intellectually disabled people in distress, but Jan would like to see a more specialised response. We need something like a CAT team, a crisis team. Parents have told me about watching police officers on their doorsteps, on their mobile phones, trying to call different call providers, to see if there is a spare room for their vulnerable adult child. You know, psych doesn't do it. It's not a psychological problem, in the majority of cases. But we need something similar for intellectual disabilities, where they can, you know, when you are in crisis. I don't believe there's skilled staff out there. Putting vulnerable adults in a police cell suggests a lack of resourcing. The government claims this year's budget documents show money has been stripped out of the sector for years. It says... Disability Support Services was required to return funding, and that erased any budget increases that they had, so the total over five years was $199 million, $200 million. So that's why you're getting a whole lot of these horror stories from around the country, cos they just didn't have the funding to do their job. I'm appalled. Yeah. That's just unbelievable, really. Yeah, absolutely unbelievable. Yeah. No, that's shocking. Yeah. And because I think what's really sad is that, you know, we're the tip of the iceberg. We put this claim of underfunding to National's health spokesman, Dr Shane Reti, who said... This government in this year's budget, in our first budget, put $58 million back into Disability Support Services. That's just one year's funding. We know it doesn't cover the shortfall completely, but it is a good first step. And it won't just be parents like Jan keeping an eye on how well officials tackle the challenges in the disability sector ` next year, the government is required to report to the United Nations on disabled people's access to justice. We have scoped all of the ministries with regards to the progress that's been made to date, but absolutely accept that more needs to be done, and we're committed to doing that. Because while her daughter defied the medical odds, Jan just wants to say the words, 'Becky can't,' as they both wait for society to catch up. Previously, all these kids would have died. Well, now they're all alive, and clearly, they've got these degenerative brain disorders, and, you know, they've gotta be managed somewhere, somehow. So I think that's what I've always said to them ` if you can get it right for Becs, then at least you'll have a model prepared for those coming along behind us. But if they've got to return dividends, what can I say? And still to come ` former Labour MP Georgina Beyer answers questions in this week's Facebook Live. But first, we catch up with our panel ` Matthew Hooton from Exceltium PR, former Alliance MP Laila Harre and the Spinoff's senior editor, Toby Manhire. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` PR consultant Matthew Hooton, former MP Laila Harre and The Spinoff's Toby Manhire. Good morning to you all. Matthew, if I can come to you first, then. Marama Davidson is saying she's very proud of the big wins that the Greens are getting ` zero carbon emissions, getting rid of plastic bags. But they're still polling at about 6% in the last public poll. Are they getting traction? Well, the things you mentioned, I thought they were Labour Party policy, so no. But the thing is, they are 6% at the last election. They came fourth. They are not in the centre. They refuse to even talk to the National Party, so they don't have any power in the political system at all, and they shouldn't be surprised about that. Laila, are they making too many compromises? No, I don't think they are. I think that in the sort of initial period of the government, the most important thing has been for the Greens to establish that they can work effectively, you know, in their ministerial roles and in the coalition and confidence-and-supply arrangement. They have made significant gains, and I don't remember ending offshore oil drilling being Labour Party policy. There's no doubt that there was a shift in policy on that ` no doubt ` brought about by influence or pressure from the Greens. But does that perception matter, then, if people don't associate` If they're not getting credit for the gains that they see, are they really making gains? It's difficult, but I think when you look at the fact that they're still holding their 6% that they gained at the last election in polls now, you'd have to say that they're succeeding. I can't think of any other small party in such a small position of influence in political reality within the government who's managed to sustain their position over that time. What I do think they're doing is really missing opportunities, like today, to keep winning ground on these issues. And I think Marama Davidson today lost an opportunity to win some more ground, at least on the intellectual arguments, the conceptual arguments around their policies and the things that they're continuing to promote. So on that note, Toby, I asked her about the situation with the refugees, cos there seemed to be some ` the quota ` confusion about this this week when Winston Peters stole the limelight, arguably, in Nauru announcing 1500 ` no way, no how on my watch. The Greens want 4000` the quota to be 4000, yet she was surprised by this announcement, seemed to... be on the outside of it. Her response to that question, I think, was interesting, and it goes to what Laila and Matthew both were saying, in so far as she seemed to explain quite carefully the nuance of policymaking in government decision making, rather than thumping the tub and saying, 'This is my chance to say, "Yes, we should be increasing that refugee quota. That's our policy."' That's Labour policy. Labour policy, in so far as it's not covered by either of the agreements, is government policy. Jacinda Ardern said that after the election. And so Marama Davidson, I think, could really` rather than explaining things in a careful, nuanced fashion, lay a challenge at the feet of the prime minister. So Marama Davidson identified that as one of her key roles when she came into the co-leadership was being outside the executive. She was supposed to stand up for the party, she said, make it visible. Is she doing that? Or is she making it visible for the right reasons? Well, in today's interview, she spoke like a minister would have, as Toby's saying and Laila's saying. She gave nuanced positions on where the three parties in the government stand. And I absolutely think, yes, she should have said, 'We believe in these refugees. 'We want them all to come to New Zealand.' She should have outlined the Green Party policy and then said, 'It's really up to the prime minister and the deputy prime minister 'to decide whether they stand with us, with these refugees', rather than explaining the processes of government. I don't think that` I mean, I think that the Greens have had a good amount of policy win. I think they have had a huge influence on the government. But I think that if you came down from outer space and looked at New Zealand First and the Greens now, you would think that New Zealand First was the party with the support agreement and the Greens were the ones locked at the hip in coalition, whereas, in fact, it's the other way around. You mean because of how vocal Winston Peters is at making his point? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, I think one of the fallacies, really, is that the role` Marama's role as the co-deputy leader should be to differentiate the Greens from the government. By far the strongest chance the Greens have of building their support base is to build their identity and their public record around the work that their ministers are doing and those 20 items that they had as priorities in their supply-and-confidence agreement. And I think we should be hearing a lot more about that. Instead, we hear a` we see a lot of sideshows and, you know, not` But she's responsible for some of that. Absolutely. I mean, I just think it was a wrong pitch to say the job is to act as the Green Party outside the executive. There is no differentiation between the Green Party in the executive and the Green Party outside the executive. Their jobs should be to work as a team to promote a) the things that they are achieving in government, and b) to demonstrate ` for instance, on the refugee issue ` why you have to support the Greens if you want to see an effective doubling of the quota. But Labour needs the Greens to be stronger in order to deliver that result. Yep, OK. Let's move on to Clare Curran, who's gone altogether from her ministerial responsibilities. We've got a little grab from her, which is when she was announcing that she was bowing out from those responsibilities. I am, like the rest of you, a human being. And I can no longer endure the relentless pressure that I've been under. So she was saying there ` she's human, like all the rest of us, can't endure this 'relentless pressure'. Has the pressure she has been under, Matthew, been undue? No, it's been completely acceptable. What is she saying there? That as a Cabinet minister, she doesn't think the media and the opposition should put pressure on her when she's not telling the truth? That's what she's saying there. She refused to answer sensibly in Parliament. The opposition's role is to challenge her. She's under no more pressure than anyone else in the government. Toby? I mean, it's` no one can take any pleasure in watching someone for whom the walls seem to be falling in. It was a meltdown in Parliament. But the only thing though ` she's taken the right decision, and I wish her all the best, and I don't think she's a corrupt person or a mendacious person particularly, but she has made some serious screw-ups. She hasn't shown that she has what it takes to be a minister. And in the end, it's right that she removes herself from that role. Laila? Yeah, I think, I completely agree with that that the` clearly, she has failed to succeed as a minister, for whatever reasons. She has been fairly questioned, it seems to me, on these issues around the meetings. I mean, the prime minister agreed that this was a no-go zone and that justified her being` having two of her portfolios taken away from her. So, I mean, she failed in the role, and, of course, you know, I think we all feel empathy for the human impact of that and the personal disappointment she must be feeling, but, you know, there wasn't really an alternative here, either for her, in the end with the decision, or for the opposition to keep challenging her. We're going to have to hold that thought. Sorry, Matthew, we've got to go` More surprising is that she was appointed in the first place. All right. We'll go to the break. Do stay with us. We'll be back shortly. Welcome back. You're with Newshub Nation and our panel. Toby, arguably, the Prime Minister's had a pretty challenging week ` she went to Nauru for basically one day, was highly criticised for that. Did she achieve anything in it? I mean, not as much as she would have hoped. It was kind of embarrassing to see her being serenaded by the Maori president on arrival, who'd written a new song for her. But, I mean, in terms of the going there, I think that was a bit of a bizarre argument that she shouldn't go there, when it's a Foreign Policy priority, then she goes there, and everything else is when weirdly, people obsessing about her lactation on the radio. But you say arguably a challenging week ` clearly, the worst week yet, and clearly, she's got some work to do too. I mean, I don't like the, kind of, ruthless, tough stuff ` it's a bit boring and unfortunate, but she does need to show that she has authority over her government ` most of all, Winston Peters, who is causing all sorts of problems. And coming after the three-strikes rule blindsiding, I think that if there's another one of those before the year's out, then it's going to look really very much like there's a, sort of, seriously insubordinate element within government. Laila, does Winston Peters look like he is the boss? Well, I think I agree that there's some real issues here, not just about the authority of the Prime Minister, who clearly has authority in the sense of managing the executive, but the ability of Labour to progress its policies. It's, you know, by far the largest entity within the governing arrangement. Regardless of its dependence or otherwise on the Greens and New Zealand first, it should have an expectation of being able to progress, you know, the lion's share of its policy. And there's some pretty big issues coming up. I mean, next week ` or it may have even happened ` the Select Committee on the Employment Relations Act changes will be reporting to Parliament. There's a lot of word out there that New Zealand First have been undermining some of Labour's key objectives for those amendments. And, you know, this is dangerous stuff. Because if you start to, you know, challenge the, kind of, ability of the key party in government to progress its key agenda, then, you know, that's when things, I think, start to look really dangerous. And, you know, I'd prefer to focus on the policy implications of this than the palace politics of it. Yeah. Matthew, Winston Peters surely must have known what kind of hand grenade he was throwing when he made those comments in Nauru, stating that basically, no, we're not doubling the refugee quota. Oh, absolutely. It was done deliberately ` same with the Christopher Luxon thing. New Zealand First lets their friends in the media know that they're going to be doing these things ` they don't let the Prime Minister know, but they let their friends in the media know, because these are designed to remind their supporters of who's really in charge of the government. There's talk of this being a co-Prime Ministership. I don't think that's quite right. The way I would see it is more like the French system, where Winston Peters is the president. He appoints the Prime Minister, which he did ` he chose the Prime Minister between the two candidates, Bill English and Jacinda Ardern. And he lets the Prime Minister get on with the job on a day-to-day basis, but every so often, the president will say to the Prime Minister, 'No, no, you're not going to be doing that.' And it's particularly on foreign policy we've seen that. So yeah, I see him as a French president and Jacinda Ardern as a French prime minister. Well, Laila, how do you think Jacinda Ardern has handled a tough few weeks? So the way in which Claire Curran exited and Meka Whaitiri, who's basically on the subs bench while an investigation is carried out. Well, I think she's handled it within, you know, her experience and capacity to deal with some pretty difficult management issues. That kind of sounds like, 'Good first try, but...' Absolutely, and that's how I feel. I mean, we know we have a Prime Minister who came into the leadership of the Labour Party, you know, seven weeks out from a general election. She wasn't ambitious for the job. She hasn't been bossing her colleagues around for years and, sort of, making her way up the greasy pole through faction organising or anything like that, so why should we be surprised that she might stumble a little bit on dealing with some bloody hard management issues with these people? We have two very strong personalities ` you've got Claire Curran, who, you know, some of us would have predicted was an accident waiting to happen from well before her appointment to Cabinet, and you have Meka Whaitiri, who has the, sort of, solid support of the peers of the Maori caucus. These are really difficult issues for her to deal with, and I think, you know, she stumbles a little bit on, you know, how she times her interventions or how she communicates about them to the public. I absolutely think she should be forgiven for that. Yes, she'll probably toughen up a bit ` she'll say less, she'll act more quickly, but, you know, we have a Prime Minister here who brings compassion and kindness to the job, that's part of what we like her for, and she's learning how to deal with those management issues on the job. Can I just correct that? Because I don't think it was very kind to leave Claire Curran in the job. I don't think that was compassionate to Claire. We're being told by the Prime Minister that the Prime Minister would not have fired Claire Curran. If it was up to Jacinda Ardern, Claire Curran would be facing the opposition in Parliament next week. OK. So I don't see that as compassionate. We're almost out of time. Last word to you, Toby. The Prime Minister has not ruled out that she may have to reshuffle Cabinet before the end of the year. Will that be a failure? I think it's almost a necessity. I mean, I think a pre-Christmas overhaul of Cabinet and a, sort of, fresh assertion of who the key people are is important. All right. Including the deputy leader of the Labour Party. He cannot continue in that role. Well, that's another issue ` where are the people close around her? Well, we'll continue this debate. We need those first-term women. He is worse than Curran. OK. Time out. We'll continue the debate in the break, but the world's first openly transgender MP, Georgina Beyer, joined us on Facebook Live this week to talk about everything from Chelsea Manning to the resignation of Claire Curran. She even told us what skills she thought was transferable between her time as a sex worker to her time in politics. Well,... what does a candidate do at every election? They go out and solicit for votes. There's a very fine line that's like, you know, you're either a policeman or a criminal, you know? And I did flippantly, and it wasn't taken too well by some colleagues, you know, who didn't like that idea, but it actually is the same kind of thing, except it's not actually for cash money ` it's for votes. And so they go out there and sell themselves. So transferable skills, then. Transferable skills in some respects. And that is all from us now. Our panellists continue to chatter in the background about the issues debated this morning, but we will see you again next weekend. Thanks for joining us. Captions by Alex Walker, Elizabeth Welsh and Faith Hamblyn. www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018 This programme was made with the assistance of the NZ On Air Platinum Fund.