Today on Newshub Nation ` after a damning report into our insurance industry, we ask Kris Faafoi what the government's doing to protect Kiwi consumers. We ask the associate transport minister, Julie Anne Genter, why the government's commitment to road safety isn't reducing fatalities, with 125 people dead in the past four months. And we get an exclusive look at what the future could hold for some of the country's busiest ports. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019. Kia ora. Good morning. I'm Emma Jolliff. And I'm Simon Shepherd. Welcome to Newshub Nation. The death toll from the Sri Lanka bombings has been revised down by nearly 100 people to 253, as investigators blame difficulties in identifying victims. The week since has seen claims the bombings were in retaliation for the Christchurch mosque attacks. Also an announcement that Jacinda Ardern will work with French president Emmanuel Macron to eliminate terrorist and extremist content on social media. And there was the foiling of an alleged terror plot at Anzac Day commemorations at Gallipoli. A symbol of royal solidarity ` Prince William met with community leaders and survivors of the Christchurch attacks at the Al Noor Mosque. On the map, New Zealand may look like an isolated land, but in the weeks that followed the 15th of March, the moral compass of the world was centred here in Christchurch. You showed the way we must respond to hate, with love. He said extremism in all its forms must be defeated. Just as New Zealand has taken swift action to ban physical tools of violence, we must unite to reform the social technology that allowed hateful propaganda to inspire the murder of innocents. Earlier in the week, Prime Minister Ardern announced she and French President Emmanuel Macron will be co-hosting a meeting in Paris next month to tackle terrorism and extremism on social media. What's clear is that what happened on the 15th of March was unprecedented in the way that it used online platforms to disseminate the terrorist attack. # My country stands... # As thousands of New Zealanders and Australians made the annual pilgrimage to Turkey's Gallipoli Peninsula for Anzac Day, authorities arrested a suspected Islamic State member, allegedly planning a terror attack at the commemorations, tight security ensuring the service was a peaceful one, speaker Trevor Mallard playing down the threat. It was not serious enough, uh, for me, uh, or for the New Zealand Government to be convinced to lift the level of alert. The Sri Lankan Government has blamed the multiple Easter Sunday bombings on local Islamic extremist group NTJ. The death toll stands at 253. Two suicide bombers are reported to be brothers from one of the wealthiest Muslim families in the capital, Columbo. Imsath Ibrahim is the suspected mastermind behind the attacks, his pregnant wife detonating a suicide vest, killing herself, her two children and three police officers as they raided the family's home. On Wednesday, Prime Minister Ardern questioned claims by the Sri Lankan Defence Minister that the bombings were in retaliation for the Christchurch mosque attacks. We haven't received anything officially, nor have we received any intelligence reports, uh, that corroborate what has been said in Sri Lanka. Meanwhile, the Sri Lankan Government is warning its citizens to avoid places of worship, because bombing suspects may still be on the run. Well, the banking and insurance industries have been under the microscope after two reviews discovered cultures of excessive risk taking and little accountability. Both industries have been asked to come up with ways to improve, but the government is also proposing changes. Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Kris Faafoi joins me now to outline what they are. Thank you for your time this morning. Morning. Excessive risk taking, little accountability ` what do you mean by that? Well, there was obviously some behaviour that both the FMA and the Reserve Bank weren't happy about, in and around probably some of the remuneration and some of the sales practices that weren't guaranteeing consumer outcomes. And there is little or no responsibility or accountability for senior managers or directors, either of life insurance or banks. And the proposals that we're releasing today put out a discussion about some more accountability. Mm. And, you know, we've been having discussion with life insurers and bank hierarchy since those reports became public. They're taking it seriously, we understand. Some serious discussions are being had around board tables. Because there is going to be more accountability on them when we decide exactly what the final policy will look like. OK, well, let's drill down through some of that. I mean, you're talking about some bad examples around incentives. What kind of things do you mean? What will the public have seen? Well, look, we made it pretty clear when we released the life insurance report that stuff, like soft commissions. Such as? Trips to Rome once you, you know, meet a certain amount of policies that you've sold are really driving some incentives for salespeople that aren't necessarily focused on the consumer. There are certainly some instances of that we've seen, both through the reviews and also instances that have been brought to us directly, where people are being sold insurance policies that they simply didn't need, because some of the motivations of the people selling it weren't necessarily because they needed the product that was being sold. So that isn't about customer outcome, and certainly what we're focusing on now is making sure that if there is a sale, whether it be a financial product from a bank or a life insurance product, that it is tailored to suit the needs of the customer. All right. So what can you do about those incentives? Oh, look, let me pre-empt one question, because I think there's been some concern about whether or not commissions, for instance, will be banned, and that's not what's on the table. There are some options within the discussion document that we released, where there can be incentives for good outcomes for a commission structure. So, for instance, if you bought a policy now, a commission that you pay for can be for the sale of the policy, but also a tail commission, you can be paid for years after, because you're meant to be looking after the customer. Mm. In some instances, the customer doesn't get looked after at all. And one of the options within the discussion paper is well, maybe you might get the commission upfront for the sale, but the tail commission actually means that you have to engage with a customer to ensure that they're looked after. So you're gonna earn that commission ongoing? Absolutely. And I think there's some concern around those sorts of issues. But those soft commissions you're talking about, are you going to ban those? Absolutely. We made that very clear, when we released the life insurance review at the end of January, that those types of, you know, you get a set of steak knives if you sell 20 policies, overseas trips to Rome, you know, Queenstown ` all those kinds of things, those incentives are driven not by what the customer wants, but what the people who are selling those products want to achieve. Aren't you turning the industry on its head in terms of incentives? That's how the industry works. So if you go and ban certain kinds of incentives, how are you gonna get people to sell the stuff? And because of the way the industry has worked, customer outcomes haven't been focused on customer outcomes. And as both the FMA and the Reserve Bank found, if we don't fill that gap or make these changes, we would get to the stage where we had a situation, like in Australia, where they had to have a Royal Commission. And we saw some very abhorrent behaviour by some of their financial companies about the kinds of products that were being sold and why they were being sold. So that review said to us if we don't act now, we could get to that stage, so sitting here and doing nothing simply isn't an option. Another area where maybe the customers haven't been the focus of the policy, this particular inquiry found that insurance companies are incentivised to underpay claims, and it's hard for customers to fight that. So how are you going to change that? Oh, look, I think around the insurance contract law review that you're talking about there, there's been for some time concern about a number of issues, for instance, disclosure. One of the ways we will tackle that is changing the onus, um, on the insurance company to make sure they get the information. And I think that will have a better outcome on claims. Because at the moment, you're either getting claims that are underpaid or claims that aren't being paid out at all, and customers are left scratching their heads as to why they aren't being covered. So we're changing that onus on the company to ask the right questions of the customer, to make sure that everyone knows what exactly is covered. I think we'll remove some of that uncertainty that we've got in and around payment time and claim time at the moment. OK. So you want more transparency there. But also this issue, though, referred to ` the incentivisation for the insurance companies to underpay claims. An example in the report that you released is after the Christchurch earthquake, one insurer on average assessed claims at about $300,000, and then revised average value is actually $727,000. It's a $400,000 difference. So how has that been allowed to happen? And there's another stream of work that, um, Megan Woods as, uh, Minister of Christchurch Regeneration and EQC looking specifically at Christchurch, because that has been an issue that has reared its ugly head, as you rightly point out, quite vehemently in Christchurch. I think what we're looking at, in terms of the changes with the FMA review and also the insurance contract law review, is making sure we get the settings before you sign up to an insurance policy right, so we don't get those kinds of out of whack results for consumers. So are we gonna be able to rebuild trust in the insurance industry? Well, we have to, because I think it is definitely in the best interest of consumers, government and insurance companies to make sure that we have trust not just in insurance, but in the entire financial advice sector. Well, let's get to the entire financial sector, and that includes banks. Consumer survey out this week found one in five customers still being offered banking products they don't want, so how hard is it gonna be to change that kind of culture? It's that upselling. Yeah, and it's gonna take some time. And this legislation and regulation will change. And as I say, we've certainly spoken to insurance and bank hierarchy, who are taking it seriously. I think you need to take it in the context of some other changes that are happening, uh, and have already happened with the financial services legislation amendment act now, um, which is gonna put the onus on financial advisors, again, to work in the best interest of customers. They should be doing that already, shouldn't they? You would have thought so, um, but it took, um, that piece of legislation and the review from the FMA and the Reserve Bank to dig a bit deeper and for us to say, well, you know, some regulation is coming. And to give credit to some of these institutions, they have seen the writing on the wall and already moving. But they're gonna need a little bit more of a nudge than that. Right. So, I mean, what are you gonna do to ensure that these industries comply? Are you talking about fines? Oh, look, there are some much harsher penalties being proposed in the discussion document, and definitely will arrive in the legislation. Can you give me any examples of that? I don't want to pre-empt the discussion, because we want to make sure the consultation is fair. But I think there will be harsher penalties, because I think some of the behaviour that we've seen in the past, where the penalties may have been just cost of business kind of stuff. But also there is going to be, as proposed in the discussion document, some accountability for senior managers and directors which hasn't been there before. OK. What does that accountability look like? Well, you know, that's up for grabs. But what are the options? Yeah, look, there's obviously increased penalties for fines, greater enforcement and looking for some of the structures that those boards are gonna have to look at the detail of their products and their systems, cos some of the products actually don't fit the customers, and some of their systems don't fit the customers as well. They're all targeted at sales and maximising sales revenue. And in those instances, they will have to change their back-office systems to make sure that they priorities customer outcomes. And so when you say accountability for senior executives, are you talking about things like not only fines, but jail terms or criminal offences? No. I think we're certainly looking at fines, at increasing those fines. Those are the kinds of things that are within the discussion document. But they know we're taking this very seriously, as the Australians are across the Tasman. A lot of these firms and a lot of these sectors work on both sides of the Tasman, so obviously, watching very closely at what they're doing across the Tasman as well, and more scrutiny and accountability of directors and senior managers is what came out of the Australian Royal Commission, and that is what is within the document too. All right. I want you to change hats now as Digital Communications Minister. Now, Jacinda Ardern is leading this call for a global compact, a global call, the Christchurch call for social-media companies to take responsibility for extremist content. What's your input been? So, we'll be over in Paris as part of the G7 digital ministers as well. Mm. We have to seriously look, as we will in Paris, but also here in New Zealand post the 15th about how terrorist extremists are using social media. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, it is a place where they are gathering. It's a place where they are growing and getting their messages out, and then ultimately what happened on the 15th. Yeah, OK. So we do need to make sure we crack down on it to keep all New Zealanders safe. Great. OK. Let's talk about this global idea, this pledge. I mean, that's a global pledge. How can you back it up? What's the stick for these people? Well, we have to take a global approach, I think, to work up against the heft of the likes of Twitter, with the likes of Facebook, because New Zealand doing it in isolation won't be enough. And that's why I think having the Paris meeting, having the heft of working with France, other nations, having those social media companies at the table, to say that this can't go on any more. You know, if you look at what those terrorist groups are doing and using some of the features of social media, again, to gather, to grow and to get their messages out, and that puts us all at risk. As a government, are you acting fast enough on this? We have had the Christchurch mosque attack, but Australia has introduced legislation, fines and potential jail times for executives. Germany has fines of 50 million euros if hate speech isn't taken down within an hour. And yet we were one of the countries that was affected. Yes. And it's been five or six weeks since the 15th. And in two or three weeks, um, our Prime Minister will stand side by side with the French President, um, to call those social media companies to account, to make sure that they change some of the ways that their platforms operate. Now, if you've watched those social media platforms in the last three or four years, they seem to have snubbed their noses at any regulator who wants to do things, so we have to take this global approach in order for, as you say, the way that it was used here in New Zealand on the 15th of March, but also concerns around the rest of the world about how those platforms are growing. Are those tech companies going to turn up to this summit? Well, as you've already heard, some are going to turn up, and we hope others will join as well. But we can't sit here and do nothing after the horrible experience that we've had last month. And I think having the heft of someone like the President of France to help get that call out and to call some of those social media companies to account is not a bad way to deal with those problems in a global sense, but obviously there's a lot of work going on in the meantime. So you think that doing a thing locally or just nationally, like the UK's proposing a regulator imposing legal duty of care to these companies. I mean, are those things just pointless? No, they're not pointless, but I think they can be much more effective if you act globally with some other big players, and that's what Paris is all about. What about taking a more hands-on approach? We've just unfortunately had the Sri Lanka Easter Sunday bombings. Now, there they temporarily shut down social media sites after those bombings. Should we have done something like that retrospectively after March 15th? Some of our internet service providers did shut down some sites, uh, that were propagating some of the material that happened as a result of March the 15th. That's the industry regulating itself; it's not the government stepping in. No, but I think if you look at the way the industry and the government worked in a lot of spaces, actually, in and around the 15th to make sure that New Zealanders were kept safe, it's quite promising. You know, as of the 15th, yes, there's more work needs to be done, and that's what Paris is about, that's what a lot of the work that is going on behind the scenes domestically to progress some of the issues that you're talking about, to make sure that both domestically and internationally, we can have some movement. So, can you tell me, Minister, as Digital Communications Minister, there is work being done domestically around this? Absolutely. What kind of work? It hasn't been announced yet, but I can tell you there's some furious work going on at the moment to make sure. And when will we see the results of that work? I don't want to give you timelines on that. It won't be too far away, but at the moment, obviously, the focus is making sure that we can work with some of these global players to get some cooperation with them to make some big changes. So again, this extreme kind of behaviour and this gathering and growing cannot happen in New Zealand. So you don't want to give me a timeline. Are you waiting for the global compact, the global call to be put in place, and then, you know, act domestically or will it be this year? Well, we can do two things at once. The focus at the moment, in the wake of the 15th, is getting international partners together to hold some of these social media companies to account. That's what Paris is about. As I say, there's also work going on behind the scenes to make sure that domestically, we're doing what we can, and we can have the types of options for regulation in place that we might need to have once we get an idea of what comes out of the likes of Paris. OK. Kris Faafoi, Consumer Minister and Digital Communications Minister, thank you very much for your time. Thank you. If you've got something to say about what you see on our show, let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram ` Our Twitter panel this week is Laura Tupou and Josiah Tualamali'i. They're using the #NationNZ. Or you can email as at... The address is on your screen now. And still to come ` we get an exclusive look at plans for some of the country's biggest ports. Plus ` we ask Associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter why the government's focus on safety isn't reducing the road toll. Welcome back. This month saw the worst week on our roads in 16 years with 26 dead. In an attempt to fix our shocking road toll, the government has allocated $1.4 billion for road safety over the next three years. So why isn't it working? Associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter joins me now. Thank you very much for joining us this morning. Good morning. First up, I want to ask you about the NZTA. We've seen the resignation overnight of the NZTA Chair Michael Stiassny. It's the latest in the succession of resignations from the NZTA. What's going on there? It's an organisation in a period of change. I think, when it comes to Michael Stiassny, he was instrumental over the last year in uncovering very serious regulatory failure of that organisation for a long time. As he said in his statement, his work there is complete. And now we've got quite a big job to carry on with the paradigm shift in transport that this government is committed to, which will ensure that there's more choice for New Zealanders and that we have safer roads. One year into a three-year contract though. That doesn't look good, does it? Um, really, Mr Twyford is responsible for that, so I can't comment much further. OK. On to the death toll, 125 deaths on our roads so far this year. We're on track, if you multiply that by three, for a similar road toll to last year when 377 people died. Road safety is a key priority for your government, so why aren't things improving? This is something that is going to take time. It's incredibly important. You know, for decades, New Zealand accepted that road deaths were inevitable. It was just seen as part of getting around. But we've seen other countries, like Norway and Sweden, who have similar populations, dispersed populations, lots of rural roads, they have brought down deaths and serious injuries to substantially below where New Zealand is. Now, from 2013 to 2018, deaths and serious injuries were rising, year on year. That's now stalled. But it is our intention to bring it down through a sustained commitment to investment, enforcement and education. You talk about Sweden ` they have this Vision Zero. We've talked about the same thing here, and the fact that we would have so many fewer deaths if we had that here. Where are we at with following their lead? Well, Sweden took those steps ` they started in the '90s. And over a period of two decades, they've brought it down to less than a third of what New Zealand's road death rate is. And so that is the type of commitment that we need to have. Now where we're at is we're already investing in urgent safety upgrades to rural roads ` the most dangerous ones. We've got 10 projects under construction in regions around the country. And we're going to be upgrading thousands of kilometres of state highways, improving intersections, level crossings, local roads over the next three years. And that's just the beginning. Based on that Vision Zero, we're told that if we had a comparable death rate to Sweden, we would have seen 250 fewer people die on our roads. That's a terrible statistic to hear if you're one of the families of those. It is. It's not just a number. I mean, this is people's entire lives being, in some cases, destroyed. And what Vision Zero comes down to is recognising that you can't just focus on bad driving. The majority of fatal crashes in New Zealand are the result of ordinary people making mistakes in a road environment that is unforgiving. And that is why things like median barriers make such a difference. A median barrier can be the difference between someone being in a fatal head-on collision where multiple people die or a car being written off, bouncing off the median. But people walk away from that. And where we've put them in place, like Centennial Highway or up over the Brynderwyns more recently, there hasn't been a fatal crash since those have gone in. And we can afford to put them across our most dangerous highways right around the country. Has that upgrading stalled at all? Paul Goldsmith says that our regional roads have been stripped of funding. No, that's ridiculous. I mean, under the National government, the majority of funding was going to just seven road projects ` two of which had been started under the previous Labour government; two of which are still not complete ten years later. And there was a reduction in road policing under National; there was a reduction in regional road funding; there was a reduction in maintenance. They were sweating the assets. We are putting more money into regional roads, much more money into safety upgrades right around the country. And it will take a couple of years until we start to see a substantial difference. DIA, for example, says that re-engineering our roads is what we actually need to do to improve their safety. 40% of our state highway network has just a two star safety rating, and those roads need re-engineering. How much would that cost and where is that at? Well, so, the Safe Networks programme is the beginning of that ` that's $1.4 billion. That's going to improve over 800km of state highway alone. And half of that spend will also go on local roads. And as I said, that is just the beginning. Are tweaks like increasing rumble strips and widening shoulders enough? Actually, widening shoulders, rumble strips, have surprising and substantial impact on safety on those rural roads. The other side of it is, of course, safer speeds. We know that the safe and appropriate speed limit is not always the sign that's posted at the moment, and many local communities have been calling for safer speeds. So we're streamlining that process to make it easier to get the safe and appropriate speed limit in those dangerous areas. Do you stand by your decision to scrap the Roads of Significance programme? Well, yeah, because as I said before, it was only improving a few roads around the country, mainly in the cities. What we need to do is improve the thousands of kilometres where New Zealanders are driving every day. And if things like a medium barrier, a side barrier, a wider shoulder, can be put in place in a shorter period of time at a lower cost, that means 10 times as many roads can be improved. It's not just about having better roads. You've also talked about driver education and changing behaviours. When will we see New Zealand First's policy of free driver education in schools? That is something that is being progressed. It's happening through the education portfolio. But just a couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister and I announced a programme that's being part-funded by MSD, part-funded by NZTA, which will see young drivers who couldn't afford to get driver education able to achieve their learner's licence. And that's really important, because actually young drivers who cannot afford to get training and cannot afford to get a licence end up still needing to drive at times and being quite dangerous. You're pushing for more people to use public transport. What's your target on that? Well, what we want to do is make it easier for people in our larger cities` What about a target? ...to take public transport, so we're working with the regional councils on what is the appropriate target. But our priority in places like Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, Hamilton and Tauranga is going to be ensuring that those peak hour trips, more people are able to take public transport. And for the short trips, more people are able to walk and cycle safely ` get their kids to school on foot or by bike ` that will not only make things safer, but it will actually reduce congestion. There's a lot of recognition that targets are what you actually need. When are we likely to see them? Yeah, yeah. The targets are being worked through. Auckland Transport just had a big workshop with NZTA and Minister Twyford and I. All of the councillors and the mayor were there, working through their programme of how we can accelerate mode-shift. So that really means more frequent buses, you know, safe, separated cycle ways. Those are the things that make a difference to people. Electric vehicles. National had a target of 64,000 by 2021. What's your target? We know that electric vehicles need to be more affordable and accessible to more New Zealanders. We have very high car ownership rates. Our car fleet is very polluting, and it actually costs more money to run because of that. So we're working through policy options right at the moment. But we need incentives, don't we? People are talking about this being stalled because the government's not being clear on incentives ` it's stalling sales. Do you agree? Yeah, the previous government had no plan to achieve their target, and I'm very, very committed to ensuring that we have an evidence-based plan that's going to support our target. So before we announce new targets, we need to be sure that we have the ambitious policies, which I am very supportive of, that are going to make it more affordable for New Zealanders and give them more choice when it comes to cleaner cars. The Greens campaigned on introducing a capital gains tax. Labour was on-board, but New Zealand First put the kibosh on it. Are the Greens feeling bruised at the moment? I think that the Greens are very focused on delivering what we can in this government, which includes significant and meaningful action on climate change. We want to see an overhaul of our welfare system. We want to see, and we have seen, a huge increase in funding for conservation. We are going to work with the Labour Government on the things that the Tax Working Group recommended around, you know, ensuring that we have appropriate prices around pollution. When it comes to housing, we're going to have to ensure that people have rights when it comes to renting. There's no question that I would have liked to see a capital gains tax. I think it's fair. I think people should pay tax on the income they earn, wherever it comes from. Is the Green Party leadership pushing hard enough for Green Party policies? Ultimately, the way that we're going to be able to implement our policies is by demonstrating that we're credible ` working where we can with this government ` and telling the voters that if they want to see change, they've got to vote Green at the next election. Do you still have aspirations to be co-leader? I think our co-leaders are doing an excellent job. All right. Julie Anne Genter, Associate Transport Minister. Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you. Up next, we're joined by our panel, Ben Thomas, Jenee Tibshraeny and David Cormack. Plus, is Auckland about to outgrow its port? We get the first look at a new report proposing a solution to the North Island's cargo transport troubles. Welcome back. We're joined now by our panel ` Jenee Tibshraeny from interest.co.nz, Ben Thomas from Exceltium PR and Dave Cormack from the Draper Cormack Communications Consultancy. Thank you all very much for joining us. Let's talk first banking and insurance. Jenee, what do you make of the measures toughening up banks and insurance companies in favour of consumers rather than sales targets. Well, actually having a read-through some of these discussion documents, I was quite surprised that MBIE put forward a range of some quite punitive measures. So these include capping those commission payments that advisers receive from insurers who sell their products and even banning some sorts of shonky financial products. They also said that financial services managers could be liable, so not just directors, but the actual managers. So they put forward all of these proposals, but the ones that MBIE said they were most keen on were actually slightly more subdued and not too punitive. It will be interesting to see where the minister lands on this. Do you think it's going to inspire, Ben, more confidence in our insurance and banking industry, which you have to say has been a bit questionable. Yeah, so our banks haven't been subject to the same sort of criticism that they have over in Australia ` you know, in many cases the same banks ` but yeah, there is a bit of a sense that maybe consumers aren't being looked after. And that's been quite a front for this government. You know, consumer affairs, which normally is seen as a bit of a backwater portfolio has actually been front-and-centre, with Faafoi cracking down on loan sharks, payday lenders and now insurance products. So should these commissions been scrapped years ago, do you think? I mean, we're not the first to consider this, are we, Jenee? Yes, well, look, I do think if not scrapped, then at least capped, because those commission payments that the advisers receive, they're really large upfront commissions, and when an adviser receives an upfront commission, it incentivises them to encourage their clients to change insurers all the time, so that they can keep getting these large upfront commissions. The FMA has recognised that this is a problem. I think that capping that upfront would not be a bad thing at all. So we're happy with the clampdown we're seeing? I mean, there was a lot of, sort of, 'Backroom processes need to change. It's an options paper.' Do you think this is going to be concrete enough? I think it's a- I mean, we've all had experiences where our insurance companies have been difficult to navigate through. You know, I know of someone that has had a flood, and it's taken them months to get their house repaired when it should have been a lot faster. We're human beings at the end of that, and I think what I'm seeing from this government is that they're trying to put the consumer, as Ben said, at the heart of that, so that insurance companies treat us like people and not just customers that they're there to reduce the pay-outs from. But the other thing that we saw, you know, during the finance company collapses, as it related to the finance sector issue, is that what's really at issue isn't necessarily the regulation you've got in place, it's actually the monitoring and the enforcement. So really, there has to be` In an ongoing basis. Yeah, there- So the Minister- It doesn't look like they're going to introduce an independent regulator, which was one of the options. So they'll be looking to the FMA to do this enforcement. So, you know, they will have to look at the resourcing there. I think if you look at everything together, though, there are lots of changes because there's what the Minister talked about this morning, there's insurance contracts law. There's also a new financial advisers regime that's come in that was introduced by the previous government, and there's also the Reserve Bank proposing tighter bank capital rules ` requiring banks to hold more capital, so if there's a crisis they've got enough money. So altogether there's a lot of changes happening in that sector. Moving on to social media and terrorism and extremism on social media, we've got Jacinda Ardern pairing up with Emmanuel Macron ` a meeting in the middle of next month. Dave, do you think that's actually going to achieve much? Well, it will get a lot of beautiful photos of the Prime Minister with the French Prime Minister. So that'll be nice. That's not really enough, though, is it? Well, it depends what we're trying to achieve. Like, what` It's a really tricky issue where you're running headfirst into the United States first amendment, right? Which is the right to free speech, and you can't really overcome that, and a lot of these social media companies are based there, and so if the United States aren't going to move, then nobody else is going to move. So I'll struggling to see the path forward for this. It's a good intention, but... ...only that. Yeah. Ben, what do you think are the changes ` the concrete changes ` that need to make social media giants take more accountability for what people are posting on their platforms. Well, I mean, we're going to have to take a lead from what's happening in the United States. There's` Well, that's scary in itself, isn't it? There's lawsuits happening California, we have presidential candidates` Well, putative presidential candidates talking about breaking up the monopolies. As Dave said, we have no jurisdiction over the servers that are in the United States, so we really have to rely on what's happening in their own jurisdictions. It's, yeah` It's` (SIGHS) Is this something you'd like to see happen? Well, look, it's difficult because the spirit- You know, the terrible events of Christchurch have been invoked to cover a really wide swathe of possible reforms. You know? Be good to get the nasties off Twitter, though. Oh, look, absolutely. I think there's certain things that aren't grey areas at all. You know, Nazi symbolism, things like that could be dealt with quite easily, but, you know, I saw a story that said, 'Twitter has a problem getting rid of white supremacists 'cos it would end up banning too many Republican senators.' But, you know` Should we have banned certain social media straight after the Christchurch mosque attacks? They've done that in Sri Lanka after the Easter Sunday bombings. We didn't. Should we have? Oh, that's a tough one. Yeah, look, I mean, there are certain standards, and I think if anyone crosses that standard you do need to shut that down. At the moment` Oh, this is not my area of expertise. I can feel the discomfort over here. At the moment, when I looked at the Prime Minister going overseas I thought, 'Oh, this is just a talk-fest. Let's focus on some concrete things.' But then the more I thought about it I thought, 'Well, maybe this talk-fest is necessary ` 'a necessary first step to actually start fleshing out some ideas.' And once, as the government says, get that global community on-board. I mean, at this stage you need voluntary buy-in from the tech companies, and so you are going to achieve that through, you know, mainly PR`focused events. Well, Mark Zuckerberg's front-footed that, hasn't he, by saying 'regulate us'. It's almost like absolving` Yeah, they had a Google guy out in New Zealand not long ago, and he said, you know, 'We said that we would regulate ourselves, and that clearly hasn't worked, 'so we do need regulation. Why don't you let us write the regulation?' And, well, that's the same thing as just regulating yourself, and it's clearly not working, but I also don't think you can have government shutting down social media because it's a government that I might support today, but tomorrow it could be a different group. And we saw in the Arab Spring, where a lot of social media got shut down because that was being used to activate activists. And so I don't think there should be a knee-jerk, 'Yes, government can shut down social media after an event.' Also Facebook, for all of its faults, does have that, 'Yes, I'm safe' check-in function, which is very useful for people who are overseas. I should actually say that maybe not shut things down, but try to take things offline. What I would have liked the government to have done straight away was actually to boycott Facebook because it was sort of funny because it was complaining about Facebook livestreaming and doing all of these terrible things, but the government through all of its agencies still advertises on Facebook so do all those other companies that were all up in arms about it. They still pay advertising, we still invest in these companies. And they still use their livestreaming functions. Because that is the thing. You know, just like people in our own social circles, politicians like being able to talk to the public without it being mediated by journalists. You know, Facebook is actually a godsend for political parties campaigning because they don't have to face tough questions from interviewers live on TV. They can just talk through their phone and appear relatable and comfortable. So, you know, I think we've actually seen a lot of rebalancing, in terms of parliamentary staff, where you used to have press sectaries to deal with the media, actually more of those jobs are going into dealing with direct online content. So, you know, there are different incentives at play. That's a good reason to actually kill social media, to be honest, if we have fewer Facebook Lives. Just to change tack completely for a moment ` we've seen the resignation of NZTA chair Michael Stiassny yesterday. He's the latest in a list. We've lost the CEO, we've lost three other board members. Is the NZTA in disarray? Well, I think there's probably some problems happening internally at NZTA. I mean, it's come out with the whole Warrant of Fitness thing, they got shifted from being a safety regulator, to more of a consumer delivery agency. Now we're seeing that shift back, and so I'm guessing there's tension happening. I'm not privy to internal discussions there, so... I think that's probably not going to be the end of the fall-out. We're hearing that we could see other people go. It's not great for the government's road reforms when the NZTA has got the wobbles. I mean, it seems like there's a lot of unwinding. I think probable the last chief executive who resigned, probably one of the only chief executives I can remember falling on their sword. When actually the problems` He'd only been in the job two years. So actually the problems, culturally, far pre-dated him. So that was an unfortunate but admirable kind of public service ethos, kind of, that he actually resigned for that. I think it will take a while to unwind the practices that came into place over a number of years. I think Stiassny would say, you know, he got in, he sorted things out, and now he's gone` All right. We're going to have to leave it there. And maybe that will help, sort of, restore a bit of stability there. All right. Our panel, Ben Thomas, Jenee Tibshraeny and Dave Cormack. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks. Up next ` we look at progress on a night shelter to help Auckland's homeless, And we get the first look at a new advice to the government on revamping the upper North Island's ports. Welcome back. The government's been told there is no point investing in Northport, without connecting it to the rail network. Newshub Nation can reveal details from the Working Group investigating how freight moves Northland, Auckland, Waikato and the Bay Of Plenty. It's also been examining a new location for the Ports Of Auckland, which is expected to outgrow the city's waterfront within 25 years. John-Michael Swannix got an exclusive look at the working group's report. Our ports are hives of activity. Here, the products we make are shipped from our shores, and the products we want are brought in. But the supply chain has broken links. We're bringing in around 500 containers a year. Those containers are going into Port Tauranga and to Port of Auckland. There are very few ships that do a direct sailing or very infrequent sailings into Northport, or Marsden Point as we all know it. BBS Timbers uses trains, trucks and shipping to move its timber products around. That's a lot of expensive double handing when you're based in Whangarei. With timber that has been processed from a raw material into a weatherboard or dressed for a site's fascia or something, they're prone to damage. The upper North Island Supply Chain Working Group has been looking at ways to address this kind of problem. Its first report is critical of the way Northport, the Ports of Auckland and Tauranga work together. They operate in isolation and often to the detriment of New Zealand. And as a politician, I'm going forward into the next election to bring that type of behaviour to a halt. These three ports handle half the country's exports and two-thirds of its imports, but Shane Jones wants Northport to play a bigger role. It currently occupies 49 hectares at the mouth of Whangarei Harbour, but is surrounded by 180 hectares zoned for port use. But the Working Group is crystal clear that there is no point making further investment in Northport without investment in the train line to Auckland. The government will have to understand the importance of running a rail line, a proper rail line, through to Northland. And just like it did to the Bay Of Plenty, it could become the North Of Plenty with that. 49% of the freight coming through the Port Of Tauranga does so on trains. In Northland it's just 1%. A lot of our freight comes up either by rail, funnily enough, to Auckland, and then it has to be trucked up to the north. Viability for us to bring it from Auckland directly to Northland via rail would be fantastic. It would probably save us a lot of money. Northport recorded nearly 150,000 truck movements last year, because it has no rail connection. The roads in Northland have been hammered by trucks. The best way to get the trucks off the road is on trains. The Ministry Of Transport is looking into the costs and benefits of upgrading the Northland-Auckland line. The Working Group says the line could even be double tracked and connected with Northport. This was a key campaign pledge from New Zealand First in 2017. It's a no-brainer. It's just impossible to understand how that sort of neglect could have gone on for decades. So pressing on with it we will be. We need to say, is it cost effective as well as is it something that's going to help our future growth as a country? So my view is, let's see what it looks like, and then consider it. National had proposed a four-line highway between Whangarei and Auckland to help move more freight. Construction on the 18km section from Puhoi to Warkworth is already underway, using $700 million allocated by the previous government. One of the best things we could do for Northland is to continue with a four-line highway up to Whangarei. That is absolutely crucial. But the Working Group warns that the cost of the full project to Whangarei could grow to $7 billion over 60 years. We haven't made any decisions yet, but these things are coming out of our discussions. But it doesn't take long to get down to some of them are a hell of a lot more appealing than others. Rail to Northport would allow it to take on more operations from the Ports Of Auckland, which sits on 77 hectares of prime waterfront land in the supercity. Previous estimates found the land was worth $735 million, but the report suggests it could actually be worth up to $6 billion. I think the figure that you're quoting of many billions of dollars does not take account of the environmental, the recreational, the aesthetic and the civic virtues that that space represents. The report also suggests the land could yield higher dividends to the council if redeveloped. Architecture firm Archimedia released a proposal last year that would see the waterfront go from this to this. It features a sheltered lagoon, new beaches and walkways, park land and a cultural centre, as well as 4000 apartments, office spaces, cafes, shops, bars and underground parking. You know, 8000 people and thousands and thousands and thousands of new jobs right in the heart of the city, and I think the council would end up with a rates revenue that replaced the dividend from the ports company. Virtually everyone agrees that the Ports Of Auckland has to move. Auckland Council's own 2016 Port Futures Study found its operations would reach capacity within 25 years. That's because large protests had put paid to any further expansion into the harbour. The modern city doesn't need an old fashioned port right on its doorstep. The most important thing is that the freight is delivered to businesses and customers in the most efficient way. Where it actually comes into the country is far less important. But where is it going to go? Most of the country's containers and car imports come through the port. With one in three Kiwis living in Auckland, this means it comes straight into the largest market. The concept of it all being shifted up to Northland, which is Shane Jones' and Winston Peters' idea to win a seat, all that does is take around about 170,000 jobs that are currently facilitated in Auckland, but also add enormous amount of cost to freight coming into Auckland as well. The future location of the Ports Of Auckland is something to be answered in the Working Group's next two reports. But this report says that anything on the West Coast will have insurance problems, while building a new port in the Firth Of Thames will be both expensive and likely to face community opposition. The notion that the government is going to pay for a new port in the Firth Of Thames and dig up the Hauraki Gulf ` I can assure you that we have no interest in that pipe dream. Wayne Brown says distributing some of Ports Of Auckland's operations to neighbouring ports, like Tauranga, is a consideration. In the last five years they've taken on a lot of Auckland's operations, if you have a look, but there's a limit to how much they can take, and it's limited by the single-point tunnel, and it's limited by growing consternation of the citizens here about congestion. It's nowhere near as bad as it is in Auckland, but it's there, and it's growing. Ports of Auckland the Port of Tauranga are owned by their local councils or communities. Northport's structure is more convolution, with the Working Group suggests is impacting its growth. Auckland had two spare cranes, which instead of sending them to Northland, they were dismantled and cut up as junk. You know, it made sense for Auckland, but it didn't make sense for New Zealand, that's for sure. Single ownership of all three ports was one suggestion raised. If you can't cooperate, you can mandate cooperation ` we do have a government that can govern. According to the report, the Northland Regional Council and Auckland Council are... We're taking to the next election a very robust proposal to reform both of the three ports, and our remits also deal with ownership. Unfortunately, that is not the business of the Cabinet or the government I'm currently a part of. The Supply Chain Working Group is set to release a second report in June and final recommendations in September. Options will be there. I will put them before my ministerial colleagues, and I will exhort them for us to make decisions. In the meantime, businesses like BBS Timbers have a clear message for the government. If you build it, we will use it. Stay with us ` we're back after the break. Welcome back. We're back with our panel ` Jenee Tibshraeny from interest.co.nz, Ben Thomas from Exceltium PR and Dave Cormack from the Draper Cormack communications consultancy. Thank you very much. Let's talk roads. Ben, has the government got it right when it comes to road safety? And should it have scrapped National's 'Roads of National Significance'? Yeah, so, I mean, this` the idea that 'Roads of National Significance' is something that kind of, you know, stands apart from all other transport planning isn't really correct. You know, some of those projects started under the previous Labour government. You know, some of that work will continue. Um,... Yeah, look, I mean, they have different priorities. They've decided to look at road safety instead. I think they were talking about, you know, it's not acceptable to have any death. You know, what price can you put on a human life? You say 'road safety instead', but they shouldn't be mutually exclusive, should they? Well, look, it's about prioritisation in terms of resources. These things cost money. You know, we say, there's no price on a human life ` well, actually, the Ministry of Transport puts the price of about $3 million on it. So if you can save the equivalent of one life for the cost of $3 million, that's an investment worth making under our current policy settings. And then you factor in all of these other things, you know, your other priorities ` like, you know, getting to Northland faster ` and the government makes decisions based on those sorts of things. This government has decided to prioritise, otherwise they need to put more money in. You know, some people in the regions will be missing out ` I think in Tauranga particularly, but` ...some people won't be dying. And so, Dave, do you think a Vision Zero approach like that adopted in Sweden would help our road deaths here? I think you have to have a Vision Zero. I think you have to go in with the attitude that no deaths are acceptable on our roads, and then do what you can to try and get as close to that as possible. Is Julie Anne Genter right in that we've had this culture of accepting that our road toll every year, despite the number of cars, despite the number of Ks driven, will sit around the high 300s. I'm not sure if we have a culture of acceptance of a high road toll. We just have a culture of being crappy drivers. On not so good roads? Yeah, and so the road toll is a, sort of, result of that. She's talking about this driver training that NZ First has as part of the coalition agreement. And yes, they are looking to give free driver training to high school students. Would that be helpful, do you think? I wonder whether less high school students are choosing to drive now? And this might just be something in the cities, but I understand a lot of young people aren't getting their licences. Like, when I was that age, I couldn't wait to get my licence. Me too. Cos it was freedom and it meant` ...independence. ...independence. I'm not sure if young people are still like that. So I suppose it, no doubt, is a good thing, but I don't know if that is, kind of, getting to the` I guess it's getting to one of the problems. Yeah, I go to your point as someone in their 30s that only very recently got their full licence. And so I think that the priorities have, indeed, shifted, but that is a very city-centric thing. I think for a lot of places, you don't have that opportunity. And particularly if you're looking for work, a lot of them say drivers licences are required. And so I think that in the grand scheme of things, it is a good thing, so long as that the roads are safe and that` And you've got to look at the cost of vehicles and the cost of fuel as well. It's not a cheap thing to do. And the pollution that the cars are` No, that's right. But in rural areas, in the regions, it's the only option, right? You know, in Auckland, we've got a $4 billion tram line going in` (CHUCKLES SOFTLY) ...which will probably end up being $5-6 billion if the Central Rail Link, you know, overruns` ...continues on its trajectory. ...are anything to go by. They don't have that option in Northland. They don't have that option in the Waikato. And so, you know, we are stuck with emissions heavy vehicles in the regions. You talk about emissions. Electric vehicles ` that's something that this government has been very strong on. We've heard James Shaw talk about it for months, Julie-Anne Genter's talked about it, but we don't seem to have an actual target. And lobby groups like Drive Electric will say, 'Hang on a second, where are our incentives? 'We don't know what the government's planning, so we're going to hold off on buying that electric vehicle.' Do you think the government is responsible for stalling sales? I don't think they're responsible for stalling sales. I think they could be doing more to encourage sales. Like what? Well, so, when I was working in the Green Party, we had a policy to remove fringe benefit tax from companies that bought fleets of electric vehicles. And they've been talking about that for a while, but we still haven't seen it happen. As classic left-wing parties do. And so if you saw that happen, fleets would buy electric vehicles, which would then filter into the second-hand market. Because electric vehicles at the moment are the domain of the wealthy, right? So even a second-hand Nissan Leaf is somewhere in the vicinity of $13,000-$14,000, which is far more than most people can afford to pay for a car, which is why we buy these cheap Japanese imports for $2000 or $3000. But then, of course, they cost so little to run once you've actually got one. Yes, but having enough money to be able to pay for that initial overhead is beyond the reach for a lot of people. I think that's key, actually, is getting that second-hand market going, cos I recently bought a car. And I had the greatest of intentions and didn't go for that option, because of that cost. And there just wasn't that availability in that second-hand market, which is flooded with all sorts of terrible emitting cars. The other thing as well is that electric vehicles are great, but it's not going to reduce gridlock. So it will reduce emissions, which is really important, even if it does put more of a strain on the power grid. But having better public transport and more people cycling ` I've seen that the numbers of electric bikes have skyrocketed far faster than people anticipated. And so having the infrastructure in place to accommodate that is a far more important priority. All right. We're going to have to leave it there. That's our panel ` Ben Thomas, Jenee Tibshraeny and Dave Cormack. Thank you very much for joining us. Well, over the past few years, Newshub Nation has been reporting on the growing demand for a night shelter for Auckland's homeless. Lawyer Jo Wickliffe is part of a trust raising funds to build such a shelter in the central city, with beds for up to 120 people. In this week's Facebook Live, she told Mike Wesley-Smith about some of the desperate cases she's seeing on the streets. There was a woman with two little kids. And she'd managed to find foam mattresses ` don't know where from. So she had two kids on this foam mattress with a duvet over the top of them. And they were in their pyjamas. And she was obviously awake all night looking after them. But, you know, apart from the fact that they were outside in the street, you'd think that those were just two little kids in a bed. I saw the photos the next day. Mm. It's very sad. That's unusual, but I have seen women with little ones on the street. Wow. They don't` They're not in obvious places, because they're worried their children will be taken from them. So they tend to hide away. We have a property at 124 Nelson Street, which we have` we're negotiating the lease. We're in that process. But at the moment, we're in the resource consent phase. There is nowhere in Auckland for someone who lives on the street to just go and sleep for the night, have a shower, wash their clothes, have a sleep. Right. It's incredible to think that we don't have that in this city. In the biggest city in New Zealand. Exactly. With the most population. And what about funding from central or local government? Has that been forthcoming? Are there conversations in that respect? We've had a meeting with Mayor Phil Goff. We don't know what, if anything, will be coming from the council. We really need their support. Yeah. As far as central government goes, we've also had a meeting with some of the heads of the Ministry of Social Development. They'll be key to funding this. We're hoping for some corporate sponsorship. We've had some excellent donations from charitable trusts. Right. And we've also had our Givealittle page for crowdfunding. But why are you getting in behind this? It's just` It's just something we absolutely have to have. We have to have somewhere for people to sleep. It's a fundamental basic need. And I just can't` I can't see this continue the way it is without trying to do something about it. And that's all from us for now. I'm Simon Shepherd. And I'm Emma Jolliff. Thanks for watching. We'll see you again next weekend. Captions by Faith Hamblyn, Ella Wheeler and Elizabeth Welsh. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019. This programme was made with the assistance of the NZ On Air platinum fund.