Today on Newshub Nation ` Education Minister Chris Hipkins on why he thinks radical changes are needed to improve our school system. Could new laws against hate speech affect our right to free speech? We look at both sides of the debate. And why international mining companies are under fire for their Wild West behaviour in the Solomon Islands. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019 Kia ora, good morning. I'm Simon Shepherd. And I'm Emma Jolliff. Welcome to Newshub Nation. Gun debate raged this week as the government seeks to rush through legislation banning most types of military style semi-automatic weapons, like those used in the Christchurch mosque attacks. A select committee heard just one full day of emotional submissions on the Arms Amendment Bill. The reforms have cross-party support, with the exception of ACT's David Seymour. He had planned to vote against the speed of the reforms, but got to the House too late to vote because he was explaining his plan to journalists. It's a bit embarrassing, obviously. Um, but, you know, when the dust settles, the government had to do this in the minute that I was talking to some journalists, because if they waited until I was there, I would have objected. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's whirlwind trip to China to meet with President Xi Jinping was regarded as a diplomatic triumph of quality over quantity. The visit was intended to ease any possible tension over the GCSB's rejection of Huawei's interest in building a 5G network here. And Mark Zuckerberg has defended Facebook's live streaming service following criticism in the wake of Christchurch shooting. He told US network ABC that while a delay could have been helpful in this case, it would detract from what live streaming is about. Meanwhile, Australia has passed a law threatening jail for tech company executives who allow sharing of abhorrent, violent material. Well, it's all go in education. Submissions have just closed on a proposal to merge 16 polytechnics into one national, mega institute. And this coming Monday, feedback is due on the biggest review of our schools in 30 years; one that's come in for a fair bit of criticism. So I asked Education Minister Chris Hipkins why such a comprehensive review is necessary. Well, we know that we've got a number of issues within our school system and the way it operates. We know that we've got some real disparities of achievement. Some schools are performing really, really well; some schools are not, and it's not necessarily linked to decile, because actually ` when you strip out the out-of-school factors ` in fact, you know, some high-decile schools aren't performing as well as they should, and some low-decile schools are performing better than they should. We've got to get every school in New Zealand performing, you know, to the highest possible standard we can. We also know there's some issues around the way schools operate ` where a school board makes a bad decision about a principal appointment, for example. The consequences of that for generations of students can be quite significant. We know that the money we're spending on school property, for example, we're not always getting that right, and we're not always getting good value for money from that. OK, well, let's go back to educational achievement. Now, the review says there's no evidence the current self-governing schools model has been successful in raising student achievement, but if you look at NCEA pass rates 2013, 2017, they're all going up ` all of them, even in the lower-decile, in Maori/Pasifika. They're all going the right way. Well, one of the things that is very clear about that is that we're not necessarily comparing apples with apples here, and the NCEA review has already highlighted some weaknesses in that, in that the quest for credit attainment... hasn't necessarily resulted in an evenly spread qualification attainment and that some qualifications are different to others. So basically, not every kid is as well prepared coming out of their NCEA for life beyond school as others. So they're just getting easy credits, and they're strategising this quest for credit attainment. Is that what you're saying? Well, that's a less diplomatic way of saying it. But truthful, perhaps. But, actually, there is an element of truth to that, you know, that some kids are being encouraged to accumulate whatever credits are necessary to get the qualification, regardless of whether that's setting them up for life beyond school. OK, that's part of a different review. This particular review says that ` and you mentioned it before ` the Board of Trustees model is not working consistently across the country. But only 6% to 8% of the schools actually need statutory intervention. That's a very low number. Why not just target those particular ones? Well, but actually, this is one of the problems with the model. If education is not going well in a school, the interventions that the government has are at the governance level. But the Board of Trustees could be operating perfectly all right, but actually, if we've got problems at the management level ` the school's not being well led in terms of its curriculum development, in terms of its teaching ` actually, there's not much government can do about that. So one of the things that the task force has been grappling with ` and I think it's a concern that many schools themselves have been raising ` is ` how do you actually provide better professional support to schools where teaching and learning isn't operating at the high-quality level that it should be? Do you need to do such a big review, though, when there doesn't seem like a great number of schools actually need that intervention? Well, I don't necessarily accept that, actually. The system as a whole needs to be considered as a system as a whole, because some of the statistics can be misleading. Mm. As I said, if you take out the out-of-school factors, some of the schools that on the surface appear to be doing well, when you consider the out-of-school factors, actually aren't doing as well as they should be. Do you think that the education hubs that are being proposed`? They're gonna look after 125 schools. Do you think that's going to just make a 'one size fits all' approach and that the schools that are doing well are just going to be brought down to a different level? Look, we haven't made decisions on the hubs proposal. The Tomorrow Schools task force were sent out to listen to what people had to say, to formulate some ideas about how the system might change, and then we asked them to go back and actually ask the education community and parents ` what do they think of those proposals? That's what they're doing now. The government's keeping a very open mind on that. So it's not just based on ideology where centralisation is good and competition between schools is bad? No. Look, we want solutions that are gonna work, and one of the reasons that we said to the task force` you know, before we considered their proposals, we said to them, 'Go out and consult on them,' was cos we actually wanna know what people think about them, and we wanna know what's gonna to work and what's not. There hasn't been any shortage of feedback. In fact, you know, a group of 43 schools has formed an alliance in opposition to this review. So does that level of pushback raise flags with you? Oh, look, one of the joys of being Minister of Education in a country of about five million people is that you have about five million views on how the education system should operate. So, yes, there are gonna be a broad range of views about what the task force has got right and what they need to improve. Actually, even amongst the alliance schools, they're actually saying that many of the things the task force are talking about are things that they support. But there are things that they don't support. And then you talk to a different group of schools; you'll get a different answer. So you will take those kinds of concerns on board, though. Absolutely. This is a genuine consultation process. But actually, to be clear again, it's a task force, and the government hasn't yet seen their final report, and we also haven't made decisions on that. One of the concerns of those schools is this proposal to limit a principal's time at a school to just five years. Do you have concerns as education minister that that will end up destabilising a school, that kinda policy? Look, I think the task force themselves have had a lot of feedback on that already. When I read their initial report, that was one of the things that I looked at and thought, 'I'm not really sure how that would work.' And I think, actually, as they've unpacked that and as they've got feedback on that, I think that's probably one of the things` the feedback they've given me is that that's one of the things that they're rethinking. So off the table. Well, look, that's gonna be up to the task force. I'm not going to tell them what they should put in their final report, but the feedback they've already given is that they've had a lot of feedback on that particular proposal and that it hasn't been interpreted, perhaps, in the way that they intended, and maybe it's a bit of a distraction from the more important debates they should be having. Biggest shake-up in three decades. The consultation has only really been going the beginning of this year ` a matter of weeks. Is there a rush? The consultation started before the end of last year. Obviously, school holidays mean that many people didn't really engage with that until they got back from school holidays. This is going to be an iterative process, though. So it's not just suddenly, 'Consultation closes ` that's that. 'Government goes off and makes all the decisions, and everyone has to live with it.' We are going to be constantly talking to people all the way through this process. When do you want to make decisions? When do you wanna take something to Cabinet? The first round, I guess, it will depend partly on what the task force come back and recommend ` how radical that is, whether their proposals change in a significant way to what they were proposing prior to Christmas. And then once Cabinet's had a chance to consider that, then of course, we'll be going out and talking to people more about it. But do you believe that radical change is needed across the schooling sector? I do think that there are some very big systemic weaknesses in the way we run our school system at the moment. We really have a lack of support when teaching, and learning is not operating as it should. Sacking a Board of Trustees if teaching and learning isn't going well isn't necessarily gonna change anything for that school. So we've gotta have a better range of support available to actually get the school back on track. Some of the principals that I've spoken to say attracting quality teachers is actually the issue of the moment, not revamping the administration of the schools. So shouldn't you get that sorted first? There's no question we've got a challenge around teacher supply. We've seen a 40% reduction in the number of people training to be teachers over the last decade, and that clearly is creating some real pressure on teacher supply, the number of teachers that we have right now. We know that last year teacher trainee numbers went up, and this year they've gone up again. By how much? So we're starting to see` I believe it's in the teens, in terms of the percentages, but that's a good start. We obviously need to see more people training to be teachers, but the fact that the numbers seem to be turning around now is good. Right, we're gonna take a break now, and we'll be back afterwards with the education minister to talk about the polytechs. Welcome back. We're with the Education Minister Chris Hipkins, and we're talking about the massive change that's coming along for polytechs. Now you're suggesting that merging 16 into one. How is that going to affect the regions? Well, one of the things that we have said very clearly is that we need more vocational education provision in the regions. What's been happening with the polytech system is they consolidated from about 24 down to 16. Because, actually, some parts of the country saw that the amount of provision, the amount of education training, the number of courses available has actually significantly decreased. And we need to go the other way. So I'm not at all convinced that this gradual process of consolidation that was happening is going to lead to better outcomes for the regions` So you're going to jump in and create one major one for the whole country. But how is that going to regionalise the teaching that's needed out there? Well, because we can remove a lot of unnecessary duplication and therefore focus people on increasing the number of courses that are being delivered around different parts of the country. We don't often need to have many different variants of the same programme when, actually, we can have one programme, and it can be delivered in a number of different places around the country ` that is going to focus the resource on the frontline, rather than reinventing the wheel all of the time. So if you're going to centralise these back office administration roles, how many jobs are going to go? It's not just back office administration. I mean, yes, there will be some consolidation around that, but it's also things like course development and so on, which has a very high learning and teaching component to it` Sure. So how many jobs will go? Look, this isn't about losing jobs; it's about refocusing jobs as much as we can on delivering more courses. So yes, there will be people whose jobs will change. We've been really clear about that. And, in fact, everybody working in this sector accepts that that's going to happen. It's happening now. It's happening today. Sure. Will jobs go, though? You say, 'jobs will change', but no jobs will go? Well` Can you make that commitment? Well, some jobs will go, and they will be replaced with others. And how many jobs will go? Well, look, I'm not going to put a number on that. But it could well be a significant number. But` What does that mean 'a significant number'? Well, it depends on where you are, and it depends on the context, depends on what sort of job you're doing. For example, if you say, 'we're only going to have one student management system', people who are working in that area may find that, you know, that there's an implication for them. So I guess, in totality, though, look, if you're having one central organisation, you'll do the numbers to say, 'We're going to lose these jobs around the regions'. Have you got a number for that? This isn't about losing jobs in the region. I've been very clear that, actually, we want to see more jobs in the regions coming out of this. OK, all right, you're not going to give me a figure there just yet, are you? There's another thing that you're considering here, which is getting a lot of kickback, is merging apprenticeships into the new big polytech. Now the industry training organisations are not happy with this. They're saying, 'Why try and fix them when they're not broken?' So, look, one of the things that industry training organisations have been complaining about since they were first established in the early 1990s is that industry have a good oversight and a good input into on-the-job training through apprenticeships and through other forms of traineeships, but they don't have any real input into what's happening off the job through the polytech system. They've complained about that for a long time. They have argued for a long time that those two systems need to be brought together, and that's what we're going to do. We have said that we want what are currently ITOs ` under the new model, they'd become 'industry skills bodies' ` we want them to have oversight of setting the standard for vocational education wherever it is delivered so that employers are actually saying, 'These are the skills we need, 'and this is how we think they're best delivered.' Employers don't seem to be that happy with this either. So the Skills Organisation, which is one of them that represents these industry training organisations, did a survey of 920 employers, and more than half said, 'We're not happy. 'We probably won't even take on apprentices because of this, because of the uncertainty.' Only around 15%` 10% to 15% of businesses now are currently involved in industry training, so we've got about at least 85% of businesses who are not. And one of the things that we're getting out of this consultation process is we're reaching out beyond the businesses currently covered by ITOs, and we're able to ask them, 'Why is this system not working for you? And what do you want to have change?' But all the ITOs are saying the system is working and that this reform could lose apprentices. And we need these kinds of jobs. These are the jobs that are in the skills shortages. Well, the ITOs have spent the better part of 25 years arguing that the system isn't working as effectively as it could do. Now I accept that when you propose significant change like this, people are going to look at that and say, 'What does that mean for me?' In fact, some of the ITOs have been really constructively engaged in this and have said, 'We think that's going to work. We think that's not going to work. 'We think if you're going to do that, this is how you should do it to make it work.' As a result, when we make decisions, they'll be very well informed, and you'll see those proposals change as we go through the decision-making process. Will they be well informed? Because they've been complaining that they've only been given seven weeks consultation, while the polytechs have probably had about a year. Why is that? Look, we've been intensively engaging in consultation. There's no question about that. But actually, I had the Master Builders, Plumbers and Electricians in my office yesterday, saying that prolonged uncertainty could potentially be very devastating for apprenticeships, because people won't sign up for them. So while on the one hand they were saying, 'This is very hard, because it's a very tight timeframe.' They were also saying, 'Actually, we do have to get certainty quite quickly.' So what are you saying? Get on board? Get on board quickly? Well, no, I'm saying, people who have engaged constructively in the consultation process will find that their views are being taken on-board, and that the proposals will probably change as a result of that. Education Minister Chris Hipkins, thank you for your time. Thank you. Well, if you've got something to say about what you see on our show, let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram ` NewshubNationNZ Our Twitter panel this week is Tim McCready and Mark Thomas, and they're using the hashtag NationNZ Or you can email us ` nation@mediaworks.co.nz The address is on your screen now. I'm joined now by our panel ` Sandra Grey, Thomas Pryor and Tim Watkin. Good morning to you all. Thanks for joining us. Sandra, let's start with you. It sounds like Hipkins is saying that the idea of limiting principals to five years at one school is off the table. Are you pleased to hear that? Well, I think, for educationalists, there is some need to have stability in our system and to have stability of leadership. And, you know, we can actually make the system work with people having very good, secure, permanent jobs, including principals. We do just need to make sure we have a much more collaborative system so where things are going wrong, we can work together to fix them. So, you know, I don't think it's going to worry people that we're not going to see principals moving around here and there and changing, as long as they can talk to each other and learn new ideas. They can help the school next door or down the road and actually say, 'Have you tried this?' And... yeah, yeah, yeah. You want stability if it's going well, presumably. Yeah, and you want a system whereby they can go and ask questions of a colleague nearby if they aren't going well or we can have teachers work together with the principal to make things change. I think it is probably the underlying thing across the education reviews that we're saying as teachers and tutors and, you know, people who work in the sector is we're now not allowed to actually talk to each other; there's little silos. And that's gotta disappear. Education is a collaborative business. And I think that principal point was, as the minister was saying, becoming a distraction. That seems to be a lot of the feedback was, 'Well, hang on, you can't move around principals 'like they're pawns on a board. They're allowed to actually have jobs and settle their families 'and communities and get to know those communities.' And five years? You know, your first year even in a term of government, three years is a short time. You get your feet under the table; second year, you start to begin to think about things. Five years is very short. And people were reacting to that. And I think you're right. That's a really interesting thing ` the minister is clearly backing away from that situation. He is. He is. So, Tim, he was talking there about systemic weaknesses across our education sector and some radical change that he says is required. Do you agree? Look, it's hard to know, cos we've seen the way these things swing back and forth over the years and decades. You bring things back into the centre, then you devolve them back out to schools and then you bring them back in. I mean, he's taken the education system back from where Lange took it to a kind of a pre-Lange model. Um, so... who knows? My gut tells me that` What the research tells us what really changes schools is the quality of the teachers and the home life around it. Now, these changes aren't necessarily going to have a huge impact on that. And so what is actually going to make life better for kids is getting the right teachers, which is going to cost money. And as with most of these government reforms, you can change structures and have bureaucrats playing with things, but so much of it comes back to how much money` are you prepared to teachers more? Are you prepared to put the support services in there? Give SES more. Put in more teacher aides. That's where it'll make a difference. Thomas, wouldn't it make more sense, though, to just target those schools that are under statutory management? And we're only talking about 6% to 8% of schools. Yeah, although there's also a much broader number which aren't performing very well. And I think that, you know, there's something wrong in the system. And that gap's getting bigger all the time. I mean, I think it is right though in that I think the problems that have been identified are very genuine and very real. It seems the solution has just taken a bit too much of a broad-brush approach, which is actually only just going to carry on some of those issues and, unnecessarily and in an unneeded way, punish some of the well-performing schools. So I think probably what we'll see ` and in fact, I think the minister was already hinting that in the interview ` is there'll be some compromise on where the government lands. I mean, he's backing away from the hub model, I noticed. He certainly wouldn't commit to it. And I also think he might` I wonder whether the government might land on a more sort of opt-in or opt-out model for schools so that well-performing schools can carry on functioning largely in a sort of status quo approach. And the ones that need intervention` I mean, I do think it's interesting, people are saying ` and they're saying it with polytechs too ` 'Why punish the well-performing?' Changing the system is not going to punish anyone. It's actually just going to look at the system as a whole and actually say, 'OK, if we change these rules, can everybody now do the best?' And I think that is really important to acknowledge. And I think it is that idea that people are holding on to their little bit of power ` all of us, teachers, students, principals, ITOs. You know, polytech tutors have said, 'Change` Big change is needed.' But yeah, it's a 'not me, not me'. The principle ` 'le' not 'al' ` is that` I mean, democracy in managing things is not necessarily the best model. When you're managing something you want expertise, not just representation. If you've got expert people who can come in and help buy and sell property and deal with health and safety rather than elected parents then maybe- I think that's right. But the politics of that is pretty hard, right, for all the well-performing schools? And this is where I think the government is going to come a bit a cropper on this is that all round the country there are going to be parents who start getting outraged about these proposals because they see their school functioning well. They like the fact they have those powers on the Board of Trustees. They're going to be talking to their local MPs, local MPs are going to be talking to the minister. It's like whenever a health minister proposes merging DHBs it just ends up being bogged down because it becomes this local political issue, which makes it really hard. Sandra, how's this sector reacting to the pace of these reforms? Both the education sector and the polytechs. Well, I think there's two different things here. We have seen a genuine crisis in the polytechnics sector where we've had crowd managers go in, multi-million-dollar bailouts, closures of courses. One of the things that we are, certainly, concerned across the nation about is that you end up with a student in Tai Tokerau will miss out on a course because the well-functioning polytechnics are getting all the money, you know? There is a real equity issue, and the polytechnics` I don't think we've got two or three or four years to think about this. We are going to have to move. It should have been done five years ago when we first saw the issues. The schools, you know, you hear the teachers saying, 'We just need a bit more time.' The reforms are so big, and actually the government's left so much undecided. It's actually quite hard for a sector to grasp which bits they want to talk about when we have been told, 'Of course we're not going to change everything at once.' 'You are going to have more time to talk.' But I think teachers do need a little bit more time. And in their very, very busy jobs ` 'cause it's working conditions that are putting people off staying in education. In their very busy jobs to find the time to sit down and blue sky think for the nation. Really hard to do. I would say one of the fundamentals about correcting the system. It is about money and giving teachers more time, but it's about removing some of the ridiculous rules that sit across teaching and learning now. The form-filling that goes on in a market model. Where did they come from? I mean, they've just crept in, haven't they? Well, it's part of the ` you give everybody the freedom to do they want in a market, and then you say, 'But we have to make sure that you're doing the right thing.' And then you give them a form to fill in to make sure they're doing the right thing, and it absolutely has happened across the education sector. Thomas, just quickly to you, the minister seemed to be brushing off industry concerns over the proposal to merge apprenticeships into polytechs, but could this become a real problem, in fact? I think it could, and I think also the regional factor more on the polytech side could become a major issue for this government ` particularly around New Zealand First, right? I think they're already uncomfortable with any suggestion that the smaller, regional polytechnics would be disadvantaged. And I think they will start to push back on this quite hard. I think he's got a bit of a fight on his hands to get this through. More broadly, back to that original point around the speed and the pace of reforms, I don't know if you're ever going to get bipartisanship on this. But I think there is something to be said in just moving a little bit slower, if that can help at least get National more comfortable with this, so that when they get in ` whether it's next term or the term after ` they may roll back aspects of it, but they don't roll back fundamentals. All right. We're going to have to leave it there. Thank you very much. Tim Watkin, Sandra Grey, and Thomas Cognan. Thank you very much` and Thomas Pryor. Sorry. Thomas Pryor, thank you very much for joining us. (ALL LAUGH) Thomas Cognan might be offended (!) All right. Up next ` Green Party MP Golriz Ghahraman and the Free Speech Coalition's Stephen Franks debate possible changes to hate speech laws. Plus ` Michael Mora looks at who was responsible for a massive oil spill in the Solomon Islands. Welcome back. The government is reviewing our hate-speech laws in the wake of the Christchurch attacks. Justice Minister Andrew Little says the current legislation is very narrow, only applying to inciting racial disharmony. It doesn't cover other areas like religion, gender or sexual orientation. Lawyers Golriz Ghahraman and Stephen Franks join me now to discuss the issues. Thank you both for joining us. Our first question to you, Golriz ` how do you define hate speech, in fact? Yeah, so one of the problems ` and I think the minister's recognised this ` is that we don't have a very workable, sort of, (CHUCKLES GENTLY) effective definition of hate speech as it would apply to the modern world. And most countries ` you know, modern democracies in Europe, Canada ` has really effective definitions. And the starting point is ` we actually need a definition. We will need to set the bar very high, because we wanna protect free speech, and it can't be about, you know, whether you've offended someone. It needs to be about actual harm, which it is in other jurisdictions` How do you determine that when, actually, these things are often in the eye of the beholder? Yeah, so the definition of hate speech is a little bit like definitions of other limitations to free speech that already apply in our law to protect individuals. So defamation exists, for example, and it's about harm, so you can't lie about a person to damage their reputation, make them unsafe, make them unemployable, for example. Those are very real harms that can come from speech, and we have legislated against that for individuals. What we're saying is ` the same type of thing should apply to groups. In France, they actually define hate speech very similarly to defamation, as they do in other parts of Europe. So it's about whether a third party would be moved` and this is the standard in New Zealand in terms of our jurisprudence, whether a third party would find the speech to be such that they would become hostile toward that group. It's not about how the group feels. OK, OK. So, Stephen` Well, no. It's an objective view` That's right. That's right. ...of how they would feel. No. It's an objective view of harm. It's putting yourself into their shoes. But the essence of what's missing is that truth is no defence. In defamation, truth is an absolute defence, and that's because of the view that we all ought to be able to challenge and be offensive and call out beliefs and views that are bad. I mean,... there's absolutely no doubt that for many Catholics, exposing priests' pederasty has been offensive. Under all the tests of hate speech, it's hate speech because it makes them feel bad ` and ought to make them feel bad. Well, I disagree, because` Well, it has been. ...pointing out truthful things about individuals within that group wouldn't come under hate speech. If you say all Catholics are paedophiles` No, it's a group. ...that would start to come under the definition. You're inventing law there. What is actually says ` 'If it makes the group offended.' In Australia, in Britain` There's 3000 police investigations last year in Britain of things like... a woman on Twitter who refused to call a transgender man a woman and called him a man. She was arrested ` a breast-feeding woman ` kept in prison overnight, lost her computer, hasn't got it back. The police are obliged under these laws, because someone's offended, to go and tackle them. But the point is ` this is a conversation we need to be having, because our hate speech laws aren't actually fit for purpose right now. We know` Now, that's just jargon. What do you mean, not fit? Give me an example of something that should be banned that isn't. Would you`? OK. No, no, and we should` Can you give us an example, actually? Is there any form of expression you would consider hate speech or unacceptable? I think the Human Rights Act has a very good definition. Section 61` But it doesn't cover all groups. Do you think that race should`? It doesn't cover religion, for example, because religion is something that should be argued about. We're not talking about religion. Yes, you are. Religious groups. No. So the people that ascribe to that religion; you can always criticise a religion. You just can't s` No, you can't. You can't. If it makes them feel bad, you can't. Go and read the law. Go and read what's happen` No, I have. It's about` Read what's happened in Australia; read what's happened in the UK. It's about inciting hostility in a third party. That's our law. Well, it's automatically hostile when you say, 'This is a ghastly religion.' In a third party, not in the group. Stephen, do you think there's any safe way of legislating against hate speech? Well, we can see that there isn't, from what's happened. We can see what's happened in Australia. But let's look at the example, that we can have an example. Let's look at an example. The Bible says, 'Stone adulterers.' The Bible says, 'Kill gays.' No, let's look at a modern` Let's look at the terror attack, because that's actually the context we're operating in. Let me finish. Let me finish. That's one faith we're talking about there. Yeah. (STAMMERS) That's an incitement. So is the Koran, which says, 'Slaughter infidels. Slaughter apostates. Deal in vicious ways,' which in fact have been effective. A quarter of the world is operating` That's why the rainbow community should be protected against hate speech. A quarter of the world is operating under, essentially, some version of these hateful rules that are in books that are sacred. I don't think they should be banned. I think with` The response to stuff you consider foul is more speech and persuasion, not banning it. OK, well, that's coming from a very privileged place. So let's actually look at what's happening in New Zealand right now. We've had an outpouring of absolute love and unity across the country. New Zealanders have told us they don't want to live in a divisive, hateful world. We know Facebook and Twitter are making billions off of us, and they don't regulate hate speech. We also know that a man` You're absolutely making that up. No. Have you seen how much they spend on trying to get rid of hate speech? So, an example of a man standing outside a Manawatu mosque wearing a swastika T-shirt, so effectively an anti-Muslim sentiment just days after the attack that killed 50 people ` is that OK? How does that get dealt with? Well, actually, that is really offensive, and I think probably would be covered by existing law, because if it's intended to incite hatred, ridicule or contempt` Against a racial group. ...against a racial group` If it's a religion, often the power of bad religion has only been defeated by satire,... by ridicule, by exposure. And that's just something if` Our law has always said, 'Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.' OK, so` Would you legalise defamation? Because that's a limitation on free speech. Would you legalise incitement? Would you allow the Privacy Commissioner`? So let's bring` OK, OK, can we just have one at a time? Can we just have one at a time? Would you allow the privacy commissioner to supress your record, to supress your past? Our privacy commissioner wants to ban` OK, all right, let's move away from personal attacks, please. Back to another example, Titahi Bay RSA planned to have a Muslim prayer in its civic ANZAC service. The social media comments have been so vitriolic that police have taken half a dozen names or so. How should that be dealt with, do you think, Stephen? I think it's... I think it's like saying, 'How do you deal with all those horrible comments about 'that very gracious gesture that the Prime Minister made when she wore a veil to the commemorations?' She was saying to people, 'We're standing with you. 'You are victims, and we are with you. We are not hostile.' And it was a wonderful thing to do. The viciousness about it speaks for itself. The horrible people on Facebook who are condemning her speak for themselves. In our society, we have` Do we just let that happen? We don't let it happen. But people aren't able to go to the service, because they're unsafe. The police have said it's too unsafe now because of these comments. They haven't. No, they have. They haven't said that at all. They have. They have said that. That's actually what they have said. So it has made people unsafe. Wouldn't addressing hate-speech laws actually catch hate before it spills over into hate crime? We're talking about how you would prevent something like` Well, if there was any evidence of that, it'd be wonderful. I mean, it's something that most rulers have` How about the words 'UN Migration Compact' being written on the butt of his gun? We're gonna have leave it there. All right, thank you very much. Golriz Ghahraman and Stephen Franks on the topic of hate speech. Thanks for joining us. Welcome back. A massive oil spill on a remote atoll on the Solomon Islands has focused world-wide attention on the operation of foreign miners and loggers. The World Bank has likened the behaviour to the US Wild West, and said there's been a chronic failure by the government to regulate the industry. Investigations reporter Michael Mora travelled to the Solomon Islands to look into the claims. This stricken Solomon Trader off Rennell Island ` a 224m long bulk carrier. Hard up against a reef in this marine protected area, it's released at least 100 tons of oil into the surrounding environment. As international experts work to prevent further damage from the oil still on board, man and machine are perched precariously on the top of mountains of reddish soil, loading a constant stream of waiting trucks. The bauxite on this tiny island has sparked a flurry of interest from big business. Not even the unfolding environmental crisis nearby has stopped this 24-hour operation. We have been forgotten. We need help. Does the mining company care about the people here? They do not care about us. Miners came here in 2014, promising significant benefits for the local population. When you go mining, you will be OK. You'll have money; you'll sustain your lives with your family. These were the promises made? Yeah. But have those benefits been realised? And at what cost to the environment? This is all about greed and manipulating the system. This is the government's system at the top leadership level. Do you think that the mining company is helping the local people? Is benefitting the local people? (PLANE ENGINE HUMS) The turquoise waters of Rennell Island; population ` just over 2000. It's one of the world's largest raised coral atolls, renowned for its steep limestone cliffs, a World Heritage lagoon, rare plants and animals and, of course, its valuable pockets of bauxite ` soil that's shipped to China and made into aluminium. There's no cell phone coverage, only generated power in some areas, no running water, but a big mining operation. How busy is it along here? They're working all day and night? 'We're on the road with Aaron Nassau, a local hostel owner, who's offered to give us a lift from the airstrip to Kangava Bay, where the mining ship hit rocks. When the mining came into Rennell, it's a big change. More people coming to the island. The landscape changed. Yeah. It's a lot of change. When more people came in with the mining, did that mean more jobs for the local people and more opportunity? Uh, not really. Not really. Most workers say they are from` foreigners and some from other islands. It was a foreign vessel ` the Hong Kong flagged Solomon Trader ` that hit the reef off Kangava Bay. The heavy fuel released into the sea spoiled beaches and marine life, much to the distress of locals like Jeffrey Pugeva. Very sorry of what has happened to us, because we survive on marine resource. Paua shells and other type of sea resources and fish. So who's responsible? Well, it's complicated. In 2014, Asia Pacific Investment Development, or APID, a company with a background in logging got approval to mine in West Rennell. APID then contracted Chinese company Bintan Mining to do the work. It then established a local firm ` Bintan Mining Solomon Islands. Bintan Mining chartered the ship, but says as it doesn't own it, it has no liability for the incident, leaving the disaster response to the vessel's Korean-based insurer. It's clearly a sensitive matter. We were even stopped from filming and escorted off the beach by local police. While that issue was resolved, locals say the disaster on their doorstep hasn't been and is part of a wider problem ` irresponsible players in an unregulated industry. On the hills above the blackened beaches, we met Joshua Nassau and his family. He's a tribal chief who did a deal with the mining company three years ago. I was shame and I was regret of what happened. Shame and regret because of what became of his land, his heritage. In a ute paid for by the mining company, he took us to his old village. It was here where he allowed the excavators in. They dug up and removed tons of bauxite from his family's gardens. But as the diggers worked at night, they also hit his ancestors' graves. It happened when they worked overnight. And in the day, they told me that some machine already dug it. They dug up the graves? Yeah. For the tons of soil taken, Joshua says he got 20,000 Solomon Island dollars ` or around 3600 New Zealand dollars. On top of that, he says he was paid compensation for the graves mistakenly bulldozed. They don't worry about the graves. They just worry about the ground. The mining company has what it calls 'community development projects' as part of its commitment to help locals. The main village in West Rennell, Lavungu, has a church and a basketball court paid for by Bintan Mining; some homes even have power. But Joshua says his village of Abatai has seen nothing. I was asking the boss of the mine, 'What's so important in mining?' And the boss tell me that, 'Your tonnage is very important. You make a good contribution to the company, 'so we will` whatever programme you need, we will help you.' But he says his repeated requests for a kindergarten and better infrastructure in his area have gone nowhere. I'm very regret. And also, I can't believe it, because most of their promises are not function well. So we visited the mining camp and spoke to Operations Manager Allen Hu. Do you think that the mining company is helping the local people, is benefitting the local people? 'But he wouldn't answer any further questions.' Is it Fred Tang I have to speak to? 'After multiple emails and phone calls went unanswered, 'we then went to Bintan Mining's local headquarters in Honiara.' Is Fred Tang here? Fred Tang is the General Manager of Bintan Mining. He didn't want to do an on-camera interview, but he disputed the $20,000 figure, saying, 'Bintan pays much more than that.' He said, 'Bintan runs a very decent business and is regarded as a model mining company.' He further stated, 'Infrastructure will be implemented in other areas.' Joshua doesn't have much hope. You can see by yourselves ` our standard of living, our road ` there's no changes. 'Other locals we met told us only a select few saw some benefits.' Are your family benefitting? Uh, yes, a little. A little. How? Uh, like, they have provided food for them, provided transport for the children to go to school. A 2014 environmental assessment report from the mining company's partner APID states,... ...that... ...and the company will examine ways of... The mining company said its work on Rennell would be 'clean and sustainable'. That mining sites like this would be replanted, but there's no evidence of that happening. This site has been exploited and then abandoned. One of the company's monthly reports to the government obtained by Newshub Nation says the company is taking the rehabilitation programme seriously. It contained a grainy image of new seedlings planted in one of the mined areas. But that's clearly not happening everywhere. Joshua's mined garden remains as a large hole in the ground. I never see any good things, because see this hole ` still deep, still not buried. (BOAT MOTOR WHIRRS) At the loading wharf, we were told the company had safeguarded the port to prevent loose bauxite falling into the water. But we found a barge with no side barriers, surrounded by murky, muddy waters. Some of the few bauxite fall into the sea. And it swallowed all the coral reef. Around this area, we used to catch crayfish, and we used to dive and hunt for` dive for fish, and now already destroyed. Following the oil spill, the government has announced that the mining lease for Rennell may have, in fact, been issued illegally. It's also acknowledged it has no way to verify how much bauxite is leaving these shores and that it has earned little from the current operation. An investigation is underway, yet locals say they've been complaining for years, with no action. Me? I have no hope. To ask the government? They can't help us. Neither the Prime Minister or the Minister of Mines would be interviewed for this story, but a report prepared for the World Bank and the government in 2015 stated,... And it went on to say, the mining of bauxite will destroy West Rennell's food gardens. Again, it's about leadership crisis in Solomon Islands, where they are there to fill up their pocket, not really to look after the people of Solomon Islands. Ruth Liloqula from watchdog group Transparency Solomon Islands is sceptical of what the Prime Minister's investigation will achieve. He serves an interest of this country as a prime minister, and he has turned a blind eye to the cries of the Rennell people. (CAR ENGINE RATTLES) Along the bumpy roads north of the oil spill, we're headed to villages around Lake Tegano ` an area known as East Rennell. In stark contrast to commercial operations in the west, this is a UN World Heritage site ` a brackish lake, home to many rare birds and plants. UNESCO says oil hasn't reached this area, but it hasn't done any actual testing. It's planning an expedition here in May to investigate. Why is the lake so important to you and your family? What do you use it for? We use this for many things. Especially for our bath, washing clothes and even sometimes cooking. Do you go fishing out here as well? Yes, and we also fish. That's another worry if that oil had affected our lake. Worryingly, locals have reported seeing oil on the eastern coast. If anything happened to this part of my island, we'd need compensation. Logging and mining is off-limits in this area, but there's concern this sanctuary and its borders could end up being targeted. Sina Zeal is a teacher from another lakeside settlement. We don't want to see a logging company to cross over that border, because it's ruined true damage to our environment. Are some landowners wanting the logging to happen? Some, yes. But with few options to make money, the lure of cash for land remains an ever-present threat. So you think that some of the local people, they just don't have any choice. They desperately need the money. Exactly. They don't have any choice. Her greatest worry? What will remain for future generations. What we did today will affect the future generation very much. I think we should push harder, especially us in this part of Rennell, not to allow logging or mining to come this far. Stay with us. We're back after the break. Welcome back. We're back with our panel now ` Tim Watkin, Thomas Pryor and Sandra Grey. Well, feisty debate on hate speech. Tim, do we need a specific hate speech crime? Laws are made by the will of the society, so, look, they're always up for conversation. It's legitimate to have a debate about where we go. Laws can change over time. I guess, what we've been reminded in recent weeks is that ideas are powerful, but there have always been ideas. There have always been, and will always be, evil ideas that can twist scared people to do terrible things. We have different platforms to share them on now. Well, exactly. What we've learnt now is quite how extensive those platforms are and their reach are. So I think there's definitely a conversation about new laws to do with new platforms, but I am` Except that the Harmful Digital Communications Act is meant to encompass that, isn't it? It was never a great law, in my view. But I think the point is that the best way to defeat bad ideas are with good ideas. I still think that's` I mean, I agree that we need the conversation, but we have to start from the place that says, 'Words do harm.' And they harm significantly. They harm people very much. Not just the Christchurch case, but when you look across New Zealand, they harm people's mental health, that leads to suicide. You know, that old adage that 'sticks and stones may break my bones, 'but words will never harm me.' Words harm daily. And that's the starting point for this conversation, rather than 'I need to defend someone's right to say whatever they like 'because I think it's OK to say offensive things.' That is not the starting point for this debate. I don't disagree. Words harm, but I think that we also have to remember that words save, words protect. I know journalists in Ecuador, in Nigeria and even parts of Europe now who would love the kind of freedoms we have and use those words to save people. The lack of words kill people too. So I think we have to be really careful about the balance we strike. And law restricting that speech can also do great harm. But Thomas, is it too subjective and too hard to measure, in fact? Oh, I think that's a little bit of a cop-out. It's definitely fiendishly difficult. And I mean, I think, you know, Stephen was using some of the UK examples which are bad. But that isn't a reason that we shouldn't try and progress this area. I think post-Christchurch, it's brought to service some broader issues that have been percolating for quite a long time. And I think it's clear that the current laws were left wanting. So I think, you know, the government's doing the right thing to progress this review. Where that lands, it's so complex. I don't at all` I've got, you know` Andrew Little's got an extraordinarily difficult challenge in front of him getting that right and getting buy-in from all parts of the community. Cos one thing we don't want, actually, is for this to land in an area where you start disenfranchising people. So, Sandra, do you think` do you have any sympathy concerned by what Stephen Frank's said, that the age of censorship is upon us. Oh, I don't, actually. I don't think anybody's suggesting that you stop people saying things that challenge others` that challenge others to think, but what we are saying is let's start back at the beginning, which is, 'What are we actually defending?' Are we defending someone's right to harm others with free speech laws that are too broad? Or actually are we going through and saying, 'We need to talk to those people who actually are harmed 'by this every single day of their lives.' And it's not just about law, it is about our behaviours. And there's been all the work around giving nothing to racism that's been done by the Human Rights Commission. We have to` We have to actually take that seriously now. And we can't gloss over it and say, 'We've changed the law, and everything will be right.' There is much more work than that to be done. And I think you're right. It's a much broader issue than just changing the law. Cos, actually, it is when you start to change the law, cos that` you know, when that starts criminalising things, that's when you get into, sort of, quite sticky positions. But if you do that broader sort of work programme, I think it's going to end up in a much better place than just taking a legalistic perspective. And Golriz did talk about setting the bar quite high, though, didn't she? And it has to be high. Look, it's easy for me ` I'm a middle-age white male, right? So it's easy for me to protect` you know, talk about this. You're right ` people deal with this harm every day who don't look like me. That's hard. That's wrong. And we should challenge that. But we challenge that with more words. We challenge that by exercising our freedom of speech. We don't win the argument against people like the accused terrorist ` against any terrorist ` with silence. We win it with love and hate, which is what` I mean, it's love and facts. Sorry. We` You know, hate will always be. The hate will always be there. We can't legislate that away. We win it by loving people and bringing them together. And we win it with facts to say, 'Actually, your ideas are wrong. You're just wrong. 'The ideas about European and white civilisation superiority are just wrong.' Win the argument. Do you think there is actually more hate now? Or do you think we just see it more because we've got the vehicles to spread it? I think that's very much the case. And it's much easier because people can do it in anonymous ways. So it's actually` it's much easier to spread hateful, nasty things online in a mass form. And so again, I think it's not just focusing on, kind of, the hate crime aspects, it's actually focusing on what are the vehicles that it's being communicated. It's also been opened up by a particular type of regime that's come in. You know, so Trump has something to do with this debate. Absolutely. Because when you have someone who is very powerful saying it's all right to hate,` It gives permission. ...it gives permission to others to go, 'Oh, good, I can come out from behind my, you know, desk, and I can actually say this publicly.' So we do need to acknowledge that it has been there, and we have to deal with it. But we do have to acknowledge some people make it easy, which is why also we need to think about who we put in front of cameras, who we get to speak on issues, who is actually getting voice. And I do think challenge the norms of putting up people who allow others to come out from behind their desks. To the matter of guns which have dominated public debate this week, Thomas, do you think the government's striking the right balance with the gun law reform? I think they do. I think the approach they've taken has been reasonable. Obviously hasn't gone as far as what they could have. I think the challenge for them will be in the second stage, when they start looking at issues like a database and so forth and further restrictions. They've moved quickly, they've addressed what was the glaring hole and the glaring omissions, which I think most New Zealanders didn't realise which the gunman in Christchurch exploited in a purely legal way. So you think a lot of New Zealanders didn't realise how loose the whole arrangement was? No. I certainly didn't. I mean, I had no idea you could go buy these semi-automatic weapons that were capable of doing such harm. And frankly, I've got absolutely no truck with the arguments that they're needed for hunting or that they're needed for casual pest control. Yes, if you're a commercial` doing commercial pest control there is an argument that you do need them, and there will be exemptions in the regime for that. There was a great line I heard this week about the need to be able to kill animals humanely and so forth, and someone saying, 'If you can't do it with five shots.' Yeah, what are you doing? Then get a professional in to do it. Yeah, that's right. Tim, are they moving too fast with the reforms though? No. No, I think ` even as we're saying with speech ` you reflect the moment. The moment very much has called for action. Look, it's politically right into` a Labour party would politically want to do this. It fits their ideology, so they will grab their political opportunity presented. But it reflects what society wants too. And the other nice thing is ` I think we've actually, perhaps with one or two exceptions, seen a really refreshing level of maturity and bipartisanship across the board with this. For once, actually we're seeing our politicians in a good light. And show that when they work in a bipartisan way, they can achieve really good law reform really quickly. Speaking of politicians, Sandra, what did you make of David Seymour's failed attempt to slow the process down this week by simply not being there for the vote? We're talking about him, aren't we? Do we need to say any more? He's won. I mean, certainly, these things happen all the time, but we are now just talking about his opinions, when, in fact, there was cross-party support. So we should actually be focusing on that. It wouldn't have ultimately made any difference to the outcome anyway. And, you know, good on him. He's making his ploy for a bunch of voters that he'll hope will rally behind him. But, you know, I think he's got to walk a very fine line right now, doesn't he? So he did say that it was all a bit embarrassing, but important for him to be differentiating himself, anyway? Well, I think he's made a strategic calculation that there's votes in it. I'm not sure if they've ever shown any great appetite for protecting gun owners' rights previously, so I'm a little bit cynical about it that it's nothing more than just a vote-grab. Will it work? And we've been talking about Peter Dunne for years trying to cultivate the hunting and fishing community` Yeah, the hunting and fishing` ...and, you know, he got stuck on some 1% for some time. I don't think there's necessarily a voting history behind those issues. Yeah, we're not the States. You just feel that Seymour is flailing about ` looking for any issue that might save his party, and I'm just not quite sure if this is going to be it. All right. We're going to have to leave it there. Thomas Pryor, Tim Watkin and Sandra Grey. Thank you very much for joining us. Well, as you heard Parliament presented an almost-united front this week as the government moved quickly on gun law reform. However, Act party leader, David Seymour, spent so long talking about his plan to vote against the speed of changes, he almost ` he did ` miss his chance to actually do it. Here's what happened in the house this week. Today I am announcing that New Zealand will ban all military-style semi automatic weapons. We will also ban all assault rifles. Change is needed. We know ` (CHUCKLES) I know. We want to be constructive partners in all of this. I think the fact that we're having one day of pre-selected Select Committee submissions is an outrage. It's actually making me quite angry to see how contemptuous this government is of democracy. And for the bill to be set down for third reading forthwith, following the committee stage, despite standing order 3/10. Is there any objection to that process being followed? There appears to be none. (LAUGHTER) There's not a lot of point in grandstanding if you don't actually show up. Clearly making myself available to the press and communicating with the public has been my downfall here. You won't see me make that mistake again. And that's all from us for now. I'm Emma Jolliff. And I'm Simon Shepherd. We'll see you again next weekend. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019