Today on Newshub Nation ` the Pike River Mine re-enty is on hold, so when will it be safe to go in? We ask the minister in charge, Andrew Little. She was raped at 15, and asked her mum to look after the baby. So why was this teenager charged for child support? And a major welfare review suggests a big benefit boost, but the government isn't buying it. Kia ora, good morning. I'm Simon Shepherd. And I'm Emma Jolliff. Welcome to Newshub Nation. This week saw an emboldened National Party leader, Simon Bridges, fire-up over frozen drinks, despite having to fend off more rumblings that Judith Collins is after his job. Collins was cagey ahead of caucus, but has repeatedly delivered the well-worn line that she supports National's current leader. The National Party, of course, is not a cult, and I always support the leader, and he was chosen as the leader just over a year ago. I absolutely support him. What has the government delivered? Nothing. ALL: Nothing. Oh, nothing! Nothing- Slushies! A review of our welfare system has revealed it's too complex and not fit for purpose for the 630,000 people who receive welfare payments each year. The government has adopted just 3 out of 42 recommendations, and says it won't be increasing benefits this year ` something that was recommended as critical. And the unexplained and unexpected oxygen levels at a borehole at Pike River mine have delayed re-entry. The Pike River recovery team says it's possibly because a wild animal ate through a pipe. The families have waited eight and a half years, and will now have to wait a little longer, but say they understand the delay. So when will the mine be safe to enter? Pike River Re-entry Minister Andrew Little has been on the West Coast and joins me now. Minister, thank you very much for joining us. Morning, Emma. The decision to delay re-entry was a safety call. What's the mood now ` the mood among the re-entry team? The mood is very good. I was down there yesterday with the Prime Minister, and each day I'm getting reports about what the response is to the issue that caused the delay. The latest is that it looks almost certain that there is an issue about the monitoring equipment, and it is faulty. There is more testing to do. What it means now ` that all of the monitoring equipment will now have to be tested. That will take some days, possibly a couple of weeks. But once we're satisfied about that, then the drilling on the 30m seal can recommence. So you're suggesting that, in fact, the oxygen level reading of 3% was wrong because of that monitoring equipment. Yeah, so they put down a new piece of monitoring equipment to calibrate it against the old. We're getting different readings from the old and new pieces of equipment. The new piece of equipment is showing consistent, stable levels. Both pieces of equipment then underwent an integrity test, so different gases were deliberately put in front of those monitors, and inaccurate readings were recorded by the old equipment; accurate readings were recorded by the new equipment. That suggests there is an issue with the monitoring equipment. To be absolutely safe, we need to be sure that every monitoring point in the drift and around the mine workings is accurate, and so that now has to be tested. So how long would that take? How quickly could we see the re-entry resume? Look, that'll take a wee bit of time. What's 'a wee bit of time'? Well, it won't be days, but it won't be months either. So I don't want to be too specific about it, except that every effort now is being made, working around the clock to deal with that issue and get to the point where we can resume the drilling of the 30m seal, get that out and get the men in. We've been told that the mine is as safe ` or as unsafe ` as it was eight-and-a-half years ago. Are you convinced it's any safer now? Well, yes, I'm totally convinced it is, because of the work that's been done on it to... fill it with nitrogen, to purge it of methane and get it ready so that the drift can be made; turned into breathable air so that when the men go in, they don't have to wear breathing apparatus. The mine is safer now than what it was at the time that it exploded and in the months that followed. You used the expression this week 'unexplained and unexpected'. That doesn't really inspire confidence around a potentially explosive mine though, does it? No, but this is a complex operation, and you're dealing with a whole bunch of equipment and technical equipment, and faults do develop with complicated, technical equipment. What you've got to know is that when something happens that is unexplained, you stop what you're doing and you check it out. We are working to very, very high ` as you'd expect ` health and safety standards, very low thresholds for stopping and intervening. That's what we need to do. We are under intense scrutiny by WorkSafe, and we should be. We need to be, and I said to the agency right from the outset, 'We need to be an exemplar when it comes to health and safety management.' And I'm determined that we will. And with Dave Gawn and Dinghy Pattinson and their team, they are. You're sounding confident, Minister. Totally. Drug law reform debated this week ` encourages policy not to prosecute users except when it's in the public interest. Is this decriminalisation in fact by stealth? No, it leaves the option open for police, but what it does do is give a signal ` as happened with Section 59 of the Crimes Act and the child-discipline issues. It allows the statute to give a pointer to the way the discretion ought to be exercised. And I guess the point we're making is ` if we want to get on top of the harm that drug use ` particularly things like synthetic cannabis ` are causing, it doesn't help to say to users, 'Right, forget your health issues; we're just going to punish you.' That's not going to help the problem. And we want to have a situation where those who are users and who have addictions and can't get off their addictions actually get treatment and help. That's going to be a better use of time and effort and money than just prosecuting people and putting them in jail. Both the Police Association and the Law Society have expressed concern about the proposal and how you can safely legislate discretion. You're confident you can. It is a tricky area. Conceptually, legally, it is very difficult to do that, particularly in our criminal code. One of the fundamental principles of our criminal code is you want maximum certainty, but actually, what we also do want to do in situations where you're dealing with substance abuse is ` the real victims of it are people who have addictions, who have conditions that mean that they can't get off their habit. We need to help those people get off their habit rather than, you know, stand over them with a big stick and punish them all the time, and that's the signal we're trying to send with the law change that we've got on the books. You talk about prosecution when it's in the public interest to prosecute. Under what circumstances would it be in the public interest? Look, I can't go through a whole heap of, sort of, examples. I think the point we're trying to get to, though, is that for the user, for whom the only harm is being caused to them` We'll deal with suppliers ` plenty of laws to deal with the suppliers. But for the user who would otherwise face a charge of possession but who has addictions and other underlying problems, we are better to spend our time fixing their underlying problems and their addictions than punishing them, constraining them in some ways, doing things that mean they can't continue their employment and what have you. We talk about it being a health issue, but how much extra pressure would that put on our already struggling mental health service, for example? The Drug Foundation estimates an extra $150 million is currently needed for alcohol-and-drug treatment, and that's before you even add another tranche of drug users who are not being prosecuted. Yeah, and this is one of the challenges we have to face up to. We got that from the Mental Health and Addiction review that came out at the end of last year. That is shaping decisions for this year's Budget. We know that one of the big challenges we've got is the huge gap we have in service provision for the alcohol-and-drug addiction side of things, that we have to step up what we're doing in that regard. So more money? Well, I mean, announcements will be made in the Budget, but the Mental Health and Addiction Inquiry report gave us a pretty clear steer about where the gaps are. We're determined to do the best we can to fill those gaps. So there are already those gaps, and now we're going to throw more people at that service. Well, we know that there are gaps in the system; the Mental Health and Addiction Inquiry report told us that. But we've also got to think about when we're working out how we deal with particular social problems ` in this case, the harm caused by these iniquitous drugs like synthetic cannabis ` we still have to be on a path of doing the right thing that's going to fix the problem, not just say, 'Oh, look, we can't do that. 'We're not going to spend money on fixing the problem. We'll just bang people in jail.' That's not a solution. Okay, let's talk about the referendum on the personal use of cannabis. You confirm you're taking a proposal to Cabinet next week? No, look, we're still going through a process with our coalition and confidence-and-supply partners. We will make announcements on the issue about that hopefully very soon. So not happening next week? Look, I'm not going to say exactly where we are in the process, but we have been in a process, negotiating this through. I think we're at a pretty good point. Eventually, we'll get to the point where Cabinet will make a decision, and once that happens, we'll make announcements. Could we have a timeline? I would hope sooner rather than later. I would expect in the next few weeks as opposed to, you know, too much later than that. And have you got all your coalition partners on board on this? I'm very pleased with where things are at. In the end, what` Is that a yes? Well, in the end, what is most important is Cabinet gets to make a decision. Once Cabinet has made a decision, then we're in a position to announce` Have you decided the wording of the question? Look, I don't want to go into a whole lot of detail. This has been, obviously, the subject of discussion. it's been very intense discussion; I think very constructive discussion. I'm pleased with where things are at. Cabinet will be poised to make a decision fairly soon, and once they do, then we'll make those announcements. Okay. Abortion law reform has also been a sticking point with one of your coalition partners, NZ First. Where's that at? Yep, again, good discussions. It's got to go through the process. It's a little bit further behind the process than the cannabis-referendum-question issue. So when can we see abortion removed from the Crimes Act? Well, again, once Cabinet makes the decision ` which, again, I expect will be in the next few weeks; it'll be, you know, sooner rather than later than that ` then we go through the process of legislation. And that'll be depending on the timetabling in the house and what support it gets. It's a conscious issue, so MPs from all sides of the house will have a chance to vote for it if they support it or vote against it if they don't. Hard to gauge where the numbers are at the moment, but I'm confident that we will get a change. So where you personally? Where are you personally now? Do you support the choice of a woman to abort up to 20 weeks? I certainly... I've already expressed my support for one of the Law Commission recommendations, which was option C. Obviously, there's details around that that are still up for negotiation. I'm confident that we will have a piece of legislation that will herald a significant change, but I can't foretell what the house or Parliament collectively might decide or not. Okay, putting your spy hat on now, Minister, what's the latest with Spark's bid to use Huawei's 5G technology? Look, as I understand it, they are still going through working through what alternatives might be. I understand they're in discussions with the GCSB, the outfit that oversees that, and has made the finding they did at the end of last year that they didn't accept the original proposal. But I understand there's a constructive path being developed that will be good for Spark. There's a plan to allow Huawei limited access to help build the 5G network in the UK. Is that an option here? I think there's a little bit of mythology about what actually is happening in the UK. There was a leaked indication about what might be happening. I understand that officially, that is not the UK Government's position; a decision is yet to be made. And, look, in the end, we make decisions; our GCSB gives advice to myself as a minister and the government and, indeed, to telco providers like Spark on the basis of what's right for New Zealand and on our intelligence. That's the basis on which we're proceeding on this issue. Part of that advice was a GCSB briefing paper that's been released to Newshub saying that limiting access to Huawei Technology would still mean it's carrying sensitive information, and that sensitive information is no longer restricted to the core of a network. Would you agree that that's the case ` it'll still have access to sensitive information? Well, that's the technical advice or conclusions that GCSB drew, and that's what they've, obviously, been talking to Spark about. The way the process` So is that off the table? Well, the way the process works is ` the GCSB does its report, furnishes it to the telco; they obviously give me advice about that. It's then for the telco to decide what happens next. They can negotiate or work out whether they can do something that mitigates or removes the national-security risk, and that's the process they're in at the moment. What are your concerns about Huawei? Look, I follow the advice that I've received, and there are issues about... the technology that they use and the accessibility by Huawei itself to our telecommunications network. There is Huawei's obligations to the Chinese government, to the Chinese state and their 2017 national-security law, which requires them to do that. The issue that I think that is coming out of the UK is whether or not the equipment that the UK sell that deals with 5G or network issues, the stuff they're getting from Huawei is the same stuff that's going out to market. So there's all these sorts of issues that are brewing round at the moment. Okay, let's have a look at MMP reform ` or potential reform. Will a referendum go ahead on the threshold? Again, look, like all these kind of referendum questions, we'll make announcements about those in due course. I imagine they will be sooner rather than later. Is there a public appetite for change? Obviously, it's in the interest of those minor parties, for whom a lower threshold would help them get more power. Is there actually an appetite to lower from 5%? Well, two things ` I mean, right since the 1986 Royal Commission report, that was what the recommendation was. Successive reviews of our MMP system have recommended the same thing. But` Do you want to see it lowered? Well, it's a question about ` we conceived of MMP as a way of diversifying voices in Parliament. We've gone a long way to achieving that. What about your view, Minister? Yeah, well... Well, in the end, as a minister, it's not about my view; it is about the government's view. So the government will, when it is ready to do so, make its announcement on all the referendum questions that have been talked about or scheduled for 2020. I expect that'll be sooner rather than later. All right. Minister Andrew Little, thank you very much for joining us. 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 Jason Walls and Mark Thomas. They're using the hashtag 'NationNZ' or you can email us at nation@mediaworks.co.nz The address is on your screen now. But still to come ` we dissect the week's political news with our panel. Plus ` the teen who got pregnant through rape and was then charged child support. Welcome back. A wide-ranging review of our welfare system has described it as dire and devastating. Imagine if you were a teenager who became a mother as the result of rape, and you were then forced to pay child-support to your own mother to look after the baby. What's more, your pleas for help go unheard for years. Mike Wesley-Smith met a woman who says she's forced to relive her trauma every time a demand for payment arrives. In 2010, a young woman became a mother, not by choice, but sexual assault. Grace, as we'll call her, was only a child. MODULATED VOICE: And then I had my baby at 16, and I wasn't ready to be a mother at the time, because of a lot of childhood issues. Grace still deals with the consequences of the attack. It's really made me see relationships differently. Um... Sorry... Grace was too traumatised to go to police about her attacker, and he wasn't named on the birth certificate. Grace's baby went into the care of Grace's mother, who we'll call Tamara. Because of this, Grace, still only 16, started being billed $17 a week in child support, meaning she built up a debt to the government before she even became old enough to receive the benefit. Every letter she got from IRD reminded her of the attack. Seeing those letters just flipped me out, eh? I was just pissed off. Um, it brang back all the emotions and trauma. The impact on Grace was devastating for Tamara to witness. MODULATED VOICE Grace told her social worker in 2011 about what had happened to her, a written disclosure we have seen. Tamara and Grace then started emailing and calling everyone they could, pleading for the payments to case, like this letter from 2016 in which Grace wrote... Tamara even emailed five different Ministers in the last Government, and the office of the current Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni in December 2017. She wrote... And it just was going round and round in circles. It was only in March 2019, almost 8 years later, that Tamara said Grace's child support payments finally stopped. But not before, Tamara said, Grace had already had thousands taken from her benefit. MODULATED VOICE I know of a couple of other girls who are going through the same thing as me. Young woman like those who end up sitting across the desk from advocate Kathy Paraha, many of them becoming mothers as a result of rape. I think that they're victims, they didn't do this on purpose. Sometimes it doesn't pay to name the father of a child, because it's too dangerous. A lot of the beneficiaries Cathy helps have been hit with financial difficulties of a different kind to that of Grace ` sanctions of $22 a week per child from the Ministry of Social Development for failing to name the father, a policy intended to ensure the other parent is identified and can contribute to the cost of raising a child. It's caused mental issues that they don't want to live with. It's also caused, um... Work and income has caused them to be in poverty. As of March this year, 15,302 such sanctions were in place. Much of the work Kathy and her colleagues do is helping people with sanctions apply for exemptions, which include cases where the mother is a victim of sexual assault. We've helped a lot of woman that didn't even know that they had a sanction until we explained it to them. MSD research from the mid-2000s showed around 20% of clients were not aware they had a reduction ` in other words a sanction ` in place. Only 41 sanctions were overturned or partially upheld in the last financial year. And some of the refunds from MSD secured by Auckland Action Against Poverty have been significant. In one case, am other and her child were sanctioned for more than 13 years. They were refunded ` In another case, a mother and two children were under sanction for 17 years. Their refund? Children are punished to the end. And they don't realise when they punish the adults, they punish the children. Which is why on Friday the Government announced it will repeal this sanction. Around 24,000 children will be significantly better-off as a result of the change, with many sole parent's incomes increasing by an average of $34 per week. The investment is $113.4 million over four years and will come into effect first of April 2020. National do not support the repeal, saying there are adequate protections already built into the law for vulnerable parents. Beneficiaries have welcomed the removal of the sanction, but many are left with this question ` if there was never any clear evidence that the policy was meeting its objectives, how, in the face of all the material, financial and emotional harm its caused to solo mums, was a policy allowed to exist for so long? According to this 2017 MSD report, the earliest version of this policy was introduced way back in 1938. That's before any of the current MPS were even born. This is an absolute glaring example of where children have been disadvantaged, people have known about it, for years, but nothing's changed. The Children's Commissioner believes the policy's long life is proof beneficiaries, and children in particular, have had their voices marginalised in decisions made about them. The starting point should be the welfare and best interests of the child as the primary consideration. Supposedly, that's a principle in the act. He also wants children in Grace's circumstances not to pay child support, and believes they deserve refunds like those given to sanctioned mothers. Yes, absolutely. That would be a child-centered approach. That would prioritise, as a primary consideration, children's interests. A proposed law change, though, will mean victims of sexual offenses will be exempt from child support liability. But in a statement, the IRD says ` It should never have been allowed to continue in this way. There is a clear obligation in the future that the social welfare and benefit provisions should be regularly reviewed, and we should ensure that they are fit for purpose. And the Government review of the welfare system has found it is not fit for purpose. The number of hardship grants have almost doubled in five years to half a million in the first half of 2019 alone. Many of those grants are for food, and at the Manurewa MSD office, that's what many of these people have been ling up for since half-five in the morning. And it's cold, and it's miserable. (CHUCKLES) Kathy was there along with other volunteers from Auckland Action Against Poverty to help out these people who have travelled from as far away as Tauranga and the Waikato. These people are entitled to their rights, you know? And they're entitled too food grants. They're entitled to help when they're not working. People in need like grandmother Tilly Roberts. And I'm breathless these days. I've been sick, though. But I have to come, otherwise I'd be starving if I don't come and get me some food for me and my son. Tilly has breast cancer, but despite that, she's been lining up outside this office, rain, hail or shine, for the last four years. To see all our young ones here, it's sad. I find it hard when my boy can't even get a milk powder, you know? But you know, it might be my last $25, but I'll give it to my grandchildren for milk powder. Or a Treasures. I will sacrifice a dinner for their Treasures and a milk powder, for my grandchildren. Tilly didn't have to leave her place her line and share with me, a stranger, her private concerns in public. But she felt compelled to pass on a message she hopes those at the top will hear. It's not about us. It's about the puta for the young ones, the tamariki, yeah, our mokos. That's who it's all about. As for Grace's tamariki, she is flourishing, as is Grace herself. But she has one request to politicians ` please don't put policy or politics above people. MODULATED VOICE: All those that I had to struggle on the benefit, and things like that. And then, like, I didn't have to go through any of it. That money could have been spent straight on my daughter. Up next, Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni on the Government's response to the major welfare review. Plus, the speaker gets called out for a joke that backfired as Gerry Brownlee scored some points for National. We look at what happened in the` this week In The House. Welcome back. Almost a year after the Government appointed an 11-strong expert panel to come with ways to overhaul the social welfare system, it's reported back recommending a big benefit boost and widespread reforms. Yet, the Government is adopting just 3 out of the 42 recommendations. Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni joins me now. Thank you for your time this morning. Thanks, Simon. The report says our welfare system is dire and desperate. 42 recommendations ` you're taking just three. So is that delivery in this so-called year of delivery? Well, Simon, I think we have to keep it in perspective that we received that report nine weeks ago. We've just released it publicly. As I've said, we want to take a two-phase approach to this, and we are doing some things immediately as well as taking seriously this very fulsome report with huge recommendations that we really need to consider as part of phase two so we can make sure that we think through how we can phase some of these recommendations in over a three- to five-year period. Let's talk about phase one, then. The Prime Minister said the welfare system needed an overhaul. The changes you are making were all promised before the elections, so there's nothing new in phase one, is there? Well, it's important that we situate some of the promises that we've made previously with regards to the overall recommendations that are being made-- When you say situate, do you mean deliver? Situate, deliver in terms of this is what we've told needs to be done. This is what we can do now. Also as part of phase one, taking stock of what has been done, because we do need to remember there was that $5.5 billion investment through the Families Package. There's already been the service delivery and culture-change work that's been undertaken since we've got into government. All of that sits within the report as well. And so it's not just the three announcements that I made yesterday, Simon. It's also some of the work that's already started. OK. So you've done the work that you say you've started, but the report takes that into account and it says that benefits are not enough to meet basic costs. It's recommended, in some cases, a 47% boost. So how long will people have to wait before that is addressed? We'll be considering the recommendations in the report. As I said, at this Budget, we've just received the report nine weeks ago. At this Budget, we won't see an increase in benefits, but I've given some pre-Budget announcements to say what we can do already. And the rest, people will have to wait for the Budget. How long? in The next Budget? There's still this year's Budget to come. Obviously what I announced were just pre-Budget announcements, but-- So you're saying there might be more in this Budget coming? I can't promise or say what might or mightn't be in the Budget, but what I announced was not the entire Budget. Just a few pre-Budget announcements. But in terms of welfare, you announced $286 million worth of three options yesterday. Will there be more than that in the Budget? I want to go back to the fact that in the report it also says there needs to be a cross-government approach. So it's not actually just what's offered up through the welfare system. It's also what we're doing with respect to things like mental health, and particularly with regards to housing, which we've highlighted as a priority for us as a government and which the report highlights as being a priority with regards to those who are accessing the welfare system. Right, so what I read from that is that we're going to spend in other areas, but this is the additional funds available in this upcoming Budget for the welfare system. I think you're going to just have to wait rather than read anything into things, Simon. OK. We just saw in Mike Wesley-Smith's story people queuing for hardship grants out at Manurewa, and they've doubled in the past five years. 472,000 in the first three months of this year. So why not raise the benefits now to counteract people having to queue and sort of lose their dignity early in the morning? What I have to say, Simon, is queues like that`I respect the work that AAAP does, but queues like that are actually not a common occurrence. It happens when you've got a campaign or you draw people together in the way that AAAP do - a call for action telling them to come out at that time - but it is very seldom where you see people lining up an MSD office from 5.30 in the morning. Sure. You might not get the queues, but you are getting the applications and the spike in applications. We are. Yes. So the problem does exist. Yes, and so can I say too that the demand and the need were there before we got into government. The difference is now that, actually, we are actually addressing the needs and giving people what they're eligible for to a much further extent than what was previously being done. Three recommendations out of 42 doesn't sound like you're addressing it very fast, though. Look, Simon, as I said, there's two phases to this. What can we do immediately, and I announced those as pre-Budget announcements here, but what needs to be done in the longer-term, and we'll be working together across government - not just MSD, across government - to suss out a plan to make sure that we can implement those recommendations. $286 million. They wanted $5.2 billion. Massive distance between the two. Can you not afford this upgrade to the welfare system? $286 million for the three announcements that I made as part of pre-Budget announcements, Simon. And the report says you need $5.2 billion. Simon, as part of the three pre-Budget announcements that I made yesterday, that's the cost of them. Also keep it in mind that as soon as we came in, we put that $5.5 billion investment in as part of the Families Package. 385,000 families will be better off by $75 a week when that's fully implemented. And hundreds` tens of thousands of children will be lifted out of poverty. And I think although that's a start and we know we've got more to do, I think that was a really good start. Let's talk about what you have done. So, one of the things you announced was the sanction where solo parents are penalised for not naming the other parent. That's gone. All the other sanctions that were recommended to go in this report are staying. So why aren't you scrapping those? The repeal of Section 192, the one that you've referred to, is something that we decided to announce as a pre-Budget announcement and so` It was also a pre-election promise, wasn't it? Oh, it was something that we were committed to doing, and it was something that was recommended through the report. The other sanctions, we're going to look at as part of our coalition, with our coalition and confidence-and-supply partners, and we're going to take the recommendations in this report really seriously. I will say that the advisory group themselves said that time constraints meant that they didn't necessarily have time to ascertain whether or not any other interactions might result in unintended consequences. And so that's our job as a government` What do you mean by that? Well, you know, if you shift one thing, how does it impact on another. For instance, if you lift benefits, what's the impact on the accommodation supplement? What's the impact on temporary assistance support, additional support? And then do families end up being better off. So all of those things have to be taken into consideration, and that's our role as a government. Well, there's a case-in-point in Mike Wesley-Smith's story that just ran where a rape victim who kept the child, and basically her mother's looking after, is then charged child support for that child. And years of pleas, including to your own office, went unheard. That shows that the system is not working. And no one would dispute that that's a terrible situation, at all. And looking at that, even watching the footage on TV, of course, you know, we all feel that way. That's a terrible situation. Unfortunately, with regards to me, that's an IRD issue, it actually not an MSD issue. I understand, but there is an interaction between the two departments. There's an interaction between the two departments, but I don't have any levers with regards to the policy for that particular issue. OK. The solo parents' sanction that you are getting rid of, that's cost a lot of people a lot of money, so will you be refunding them? It won't be retrospective. So that's a 'no'. It won't be retrospective, so that is a 'no'. Can I say, though, that what MSD have been doing at my request is been proactive with regard to those who've had that sanction applied? So, since the beginning of April, they've actually been proactively phoning to check that those women, predominantly women, are actually getting what they're eligible for, that the sanction has been applied appropriately, and making sure that, you know, that MSD's been doing what's right. The findings from that so-far have been really interesting. And we have been able to find out that, actually, they haven't always been getting what they're eligible for, and so, let's make sure that they do get that. And in some cases, their situations had changed, so it didn't need to be applied. In some cases they've made the decision they can, or will name the other parent, and so they have done that. OK. The Green's confidence and supply agreement stated that they wanted to remove all the excessive sanctions. And, so, you've done one, and then six more have been recommended by this review. And, so have you reneged on your agreement with the Greens? Oh, we haven't reneged at all. As I said, as part of phase 2, we go and ascertain, look at those recommendations, and then we make a plan working forwards with regards to how we` So will you commit to removing further excessive sanctions before the next election? We need to work together to ascertain which ones are excessive, taking on-board the recommendations of the report, and that will be part of the phase two programme. You're also increasing frontline staff by 263, which is part of your three announcements. How would that actually help people living on the benefit to live with dignity, which is the core message of this report? Well, what became very clear from the consultation that occurred from the Expert Advisory Group of the general public, and also is evident in report, is people do want MSD to be proactive in terms of supporting them into meaningful and sustainable employment. But what's happened over the course of time, as hardship has increased, and little additional investment has gone in to resourcing and staffing in MSD, is that the focus has shifted away from work and towards housing and hardship, as you can imagine has happened. And, so, what this government is saying is that, yes, income support, hardship, housing are all really important. We need to maintain that focus. At the same time, we need to make an investment so that we can provide those going to MSD with the support that they need to get into meaningful and sustainable employment. OK. 'Living with dignity' seems to be the core message from this review. One of the things that was looked at was the way the welfare system treats a couple. Now, at the moment, if you are together for six weeks then you are then deemed to be a couple. The review says to make that six months. Why didn't you address that? Six weeks seems so short, it doesn't seem modern. Look, these are one of the recommendations and issues that are traversed in the report that we'll be taking into consideration in phase 2 of the thinking through what we'll do. Because, like, Labour said in its election manifesto that it wanted to modernise the welfare system. And that, in the report, was saying that was an old-fashioned way of looking at it, like a breadwinner type of relationship. Are you living up to your promises here? The report, thankfully, has provided us with these very fulsome recommendations, including ones about modern relationships, and now it's our opportunity, given that we only received the report nine weeks ago, to actually think through our plan for the next part, which is actually rolling out some of these recommendations. Should you have been ready for this report? In terms of` you've been promising these things, it's now 18 months down the track, and one of the key works when you came into power was transformational. How is it transformational adopting only 3 out of 42 recommendations? It wouldn't be transformational, either, if we made changes that weren't enduring and could be turned over at any given time, or where there were unintended consequences that we hadn't thought through properly that meant that people weren't any better off. So I think the general public would appreciate the fact, as a Government, we need to be considered and we need to make sure that we're making the right decisions. OK, just one, a couple of questions about the culture of welfare system` The Privacy Commissioner is investigating the way relationships are verified. And we understand that includes caseworkers asking about the personal, maybe, six lives of people who know the client. And that investigation's ongoing, so, once again, is that a dignified way to treat welfare recipients? Oh, look, there's lots to traverse here around relationships, around a whole range of areas, and so that's what we'll be doing as part of phase two. So, this is a year of delivery, coming out with a wellbeing budget. Are you sure that you are delivering on that promise of a wellbeing budget? Ah, look, I'm looking forward to the budget being announced. And as I said, and as has been reported, put in the report, it's not just about what MSD offers with regards to the people that we're there to serve, it's also about the other areas ` health, housing, education and actually making sure that across government we're actually responding to the recommendations that are in this report. Right, Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni, thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Up next, we look at the week's political news with our panel ` Chris Simpson, Tania Wilson and Tania Sawicki Mead. Plus, the Speaker's attempt at a joke backfires as Gerry Brownlee calls him out. We look at what happened this week, In The House. Welcome back. I am joined now by our panel. Waikato Chamber of Commerce CEO Chris Simpson, Simon Wilson from the NZ Herald and Tania Sawicki Mead from advocacy group Just Speak. Thank you very much for your time this morning. Chris, how much of a blow do you think it is to Andrew Little for this Pike River entry to be delayed? Oh, it's not much of a blow because from a public relations perspective they would have done a lot of work with the community. There would be expectations around it. And the other reality is that it's a mining community, so they actually do know what's going on behind the scenes. So have they been successful, Tania, in managing expectations? Yeah, I think they've been really clear from the outset that their priority is to do this safely and to do it well, rather than to do it in a timeframe that's not realistic. And I think it's really important to remember it's not just about recovering bodies, for example, it's also recovering really crucial evidence that might help us to make sure that the people who caused this accident are help accountable. What should we say to people that say, 'Well, look, this is why National 'didn't go in in the first place. It's no safer, or unsafe, than it was eight years ago.' I think the approach is different because the government is committed to go in if it is safe enough. Andrew Little said that they've set a very high bar. They want to be an exemplar of how you do this work safely, and they are proceeding step-by-step on that basis. That's very different from the previous government who said, 'Actually, no. We're going to wall it up.' So there is a real change there. It's not surprising at all that they are being super careful. Wouldn't we all want them to be super careful? We don't want anyone else dying in there. I'm sure the families on the West Coast now don't want anyone else to die. OK, so Andrew Little seems to be ` has revealed on the show ` that is probably is old monitoring equipment causing a different kind of reading, so we can` Those were West Coast wild animals. (BOTH LAUGH) Whatever kind of worst-case wild animal it was up there nibbling against the pipes. He also talked this week in the big debate about new drug legislation, and the allegation is that there's decriminalisation by stealth because they don't want police officers to prosecute users. What do you say to that, Chris? Oh, that gets into a very tricky situation where you're leaving police officers making the decision. And let's say the police officer has discretion, the person then goes out and offends ` let's say they kill somebody ` then the police is under the gun, excuse the pun, for that. You get to a situation of the police actually being a lot tougher around making those sort of decisions. It's not smart policy. Not smart policy. The Police Association is saying it goes too far, Tania. Yeah, I mean, I found that interesting because I think that police actually bear a huge brunt of the failure of the current approach to drugs, in terms of the harm that it does to our communities, the failure to address the causes of harmful relationships with drugs, and obviously the impact that it has further down the line on our criminal justice system. So while I understand their concerns, police do actually already have discretion as to whether they ask for prosecution or not. And we all understand that there is no real success in punishing people for using drugs. So if we all want to see less harm done, I think this discretion, this health-based approach is a really important first step. But the health-based approach has to have resources behind it, doesn't it, Simon? And we've seen from the Mental Health and Addiction Inquiry that we don't have enough resources at the moment. That's absolutely right. There are not enough resources in this area, but at the same time, I think this is one of the best policies or the best programme-approaches from, not just the government but from the public service generally, that we have operating in this country. I've talked on this programme before about the situation in Northland where police are arresting dealers and finding the list of who they're dealing to, then telling Work and Income or telling Social Welfare who these people are so they can be helped. Not so they can be locked up, but so they can be helped. I think that's brilliant. I think that is exactly how our public service should be operating. I think it's a way in which we evolve as a community, as a society, looking after those vulnerable people and helping them move away from the dependency that Andrew Little was talking about. In the first year of that pilot that Simon's talking about ` Te Ara Oranga ` 308 people were referred, and in many cases by police, to Health and Social Welfare agencies to get the help they needed. And I think that's a really great example of where we could go as a country. But the issue though` The real issue is that when you get into that soft stuff, that's great, but the harder area where they're having to make a decision and they make the wrong decision, then there's a big public backlash, and then there's a big pushback by the politicians. There's no suggestion that the dealers, the people who are creating the problem, there's no suggestion that they're being soft on them. No, but it's about the discretional policy... But it's the discretion. For example, if an officer allows somebody to get away with it, and then it comes back and it blows back, then the conversation that we will be having will be quite different. I think` I think having well-trained officers and enabling them to use their discretion, which must be what happens in all fields of policing` It does, yep. ...I think that's great. OK, let's move on to` We're just talking about vulnerable people, and obviously the MSD review that came out yesterday says that benefits need to go up by 47% ` $5.2 billion needed to be spent to give people a life with dignity. Yet the government's only implementing 3 out of 42 recommendations. Tania, is that a failure? I'd say it's certainly the bare minimum of what they could be doing to counteract the extraordinary failures of our welfare system to address poverty in New Zealand. 1.4% of what the welfare expert group recommended is now what the government is putting into place, so, of the billions that they recommended in spending, the government is doing, really, the cheapest and the easiest things, I would say. And I think it is this challenge, as you were saying, to their claim to be transformational in their work. We don't yet know what's going to be in the budget, but we cannot address child poverty in this country, we cannot address poverty of families in this country if we don't lift benefits overall. Simon, you're itching to get in on this. (ALL LAUGH) Are they not transformational? Is it just a lot of hot air? I think there are three things the government needs to do, and the first one is the easy one, and that's more money to address the` So they haven't done that. ...actual benefit reform. Second one is the culture. Yeah. You know, we heard that example of that poor woman and how she was penalised year after year after year by Internal Revenue` Inland Revenue, I'm sorry. It's not a good enough answer to say, 'That was IRD and not Social Welfare.' That's nonsense. That should've been fixed, and the minister you had in front of you should have taken accountability. But culture doesn't come from the department ` a 30 billion-dollar department. Well, the culture comes from years of being punitive, and to the extent that that is true, there is a really deep-set problem that needs to be turned around. Well, they're not changing that culture, are they? Because they got rid of one sanction. I think they are, but it's going to take time, and it's going to take` OK, quickly, what's your third one? And the third one is we need a champion. Carmel Sepuloni needs to be the champion in this area. She needs to be the Peter Fraser of her time. All right. (LAUGHS) But it's not transformational, is it? I mean, we have a lot of promise. Most of these things, Chris, were done before the election ` promised before the election. It is totally not transformational in any way, shape or form because, unfortunately, Carmel's come against the Treasury and Grant Robertson that says, 'You're the biggest spend of our whole budget. 'You're $30 billion. We can't afford to spend $5.2 billion.' So what can we do? Regarding the aspect between what you earn on the benefit and what you can earn working, that's a really, really good initiative. But as for the rest, it's not transformational. And can beneficiaries, Tania, just quickly, be expected to wait even longer? No, they can't, and the problem is that the failure of the government to address their needs affects all of us. It increases all of the other social issues that we face in this country. It drives people into the criminal justice system. It drives people towards family breakdown, violence and reliance on drugs. And those things then cost money. So it's one thing to say, 'Yes, it's expensive 'to address the failures of successive governments to provide meaningful support to families, 'but what is the cost of the status quo?' It's really high. So is that a failure of the coalition. Is that a failure of the Greens? Are they swallowing dead rats? They're not coming through and pushing harder on this. I think that there's a question of how they framed their ask on Welfare, that maybe it ought to have been stronger and with a dollar-figure attached. But the other problem, I think, here, is that there's a collective failure in our tolerance of beneficiary bashing that has gone on for decades, and we can't ask a government and a ministry to do all the hard work of changing an entire approach to benefits in the welfare system. I think it's a bit tough to say it's a failure of the Greens. The Greens have been the most consistent voice advocating for change in this area of all of them. I don't know one single government that I've been involved in that's been beneficiary bashing. Everyone's been there to help, and it's the biggest spend. It's $30 billion. And we're going to have to wait for phase two to see whether the government's going to deliver on all the rest of the recommendations. Our panel, thank you very much for your time this morning. Thank you. Well, stay with us. We'll be back after the break. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` Waikato Chamber of Commerce CEO Chris Simpson, Simon Wilson from the NZ Herald, and Tania Sawicki-Mead from JustSpeak. Thank you for your time. Simon Bridges on the attack this week over slushies. Did he botch that story, Chris. Well, sometimes they say that all publicity's good publicity. (ALL LAUGH) This one possibly the ones who are defending us from paedophiles, rapists and murderers. They deserve slushies. You're talking about the prison officers. You're on their side? I think they deserve slushies, yep. It sounds like, Simon, do you think it's wrong advice? Wrong advice? For Simon Bridges, yeah. You can blame his advisors if you like, but the man's got his own brain, and surely there's a thing that kicks in that goes, 'Is this a good idea to do?' Sometimes those silly things work. Sometimes you can` I mean, at end of the previous Labour-led government, Labour was really damaged by accusations that they were obsessed with changing light bulbs. Yeah. It was a ridiculous, completely absurd attack that was made on them, but it stuck. So sometimes these minor things work. Sometimes they can. Yeah. But usually they don't. Like shower heads. Shower heads, yeah. Yeah, exactly. And they will work much more strongly when the government is weak anyway. The government's not weak at the moment. The government's very strong, and Jacinda Ardern, in particular, is very very strong. So, Tania, why is Bridges not getting any traction, then, if he's picking these kinds of issues? Well, I guess it's sort of unclear who's really suffering from prison officers getting slushie machines. I mean, I think there's a good argument to be made that it's very hot in those working conditions, they have a challenging job, and I just don't understand why this of all the issues that you would pick is the one that you would then scream at the top of your lungs. There's a snobbery in it, too, isn't there? There's a snobbery in it. 'Slushies. It's what I, Simon Bridges, would never drink.' Oh, no, I think that's a bit too far. You don't think so? I'm with you. It's not snobbery. It's definitely not like that. But it did go into the house this week, didn't it? Yeah. And Simon Bridges realised that he had to give a big performance. Did he? Well, he gave a big performance in the house, so he did do that, but you make mistakes. You make mistakes, right. But he did do a big performance this week, so... So was it just a whole lot of bluster, or was that credible, that performance, Tania? It was not credible, and I think partly it was the issue chosen. I think there are plenty of things that one can critique a government on, and I wouldn't say that this is a great example. But also just the slightly deranged tone with which he approached it. I've seen so many remixes on the internet already of that video, and it's impossible to make it look anything other than somewhat deranged, I think. Somewhat deranged? It's the word 'slushie'. I totally disagree with 'deranged', but` But the word 'slushie' itself. Saying it out loud, you're already sort of, like, 'Oh, am I really saying this word?' But it wasn't all about slushies in the house. No, it wasn't. But apparently it was, because that's what we're talking about. (LAUGHS) That's true. OK. As a result of Slushie-Gate, Judith Collins seemed to be somewhat` There were rumours about Judith Collins having another go at the leadership, but can we take that seriously, Chris? At the moment, you can't, cos he's still polling in the 40s, late 30s. And this is a very successful prime minister, so you're doing something right. And you don't change a horse mid-course. And if you were to go back in history, so, Jim Bolger was 16% in the polls in '92 but he still won the '93 election. So there are wise heads within the National caucus that are going, 'No rush yet.' And, by the way, if you put somebody up now, you've got about a year of having to perform against Jacinda, which may not work. OK. And we've been talking about Judith Collins as being a contender, but can she really be a contender, seeing she's already tried twice before, Tania? Oh, I think, um, I personally find it difficult to believe that Judith Collins would thrive representing New Zealand, because her values seem to be often so at odds with even the centrist voters that National sees itself as representing. Regardless of whether she has the support of her caucus, the issue there is is someone as divisive as that able to unite enough people to kind of lead the country? Simon, do you think she's polarising? Oh, I think she's polarising, absolutely. You know, National MPs would be nuts to change their leader at the moment. They are, as Chris said, polling well against a very popular government. It's remarkable that this talk is even there. But the reality is it is there, and that means it will keep going and keep going and keep going, and I would expect at some point Judith Collins will be given the nod. How soon, it's very hard to say. Or Mark Mitchell, who's also positioning himself as well. Is there anybody that you spot in that National caucus that's going to be someone that can take on Ardern? Well, at the moment, it's a matter of what does that look like? And it's just not there at the moment. And that's purely because of the fact that this government's still got some leeway until things start performing or not. If the Greens, say, after swallowing some of their dead rats, were over it, were going full-on attack next Budget, then things start to fall apart. Then you'll start to see what leadership is within the Opposition and what needs to come through. It's still too early days yet. OK. Especially when you have a prime minister who's just announced her engagement, Tania. She seems unassailable. Uh, yeah, I mean, I think it was funny it was only an eagle-eyed intern with Stuff who noticed the ring on her finger. I mean, congratulations to Jacinda and Clarke. I think it's lovely. I mean, I guess she's entitled to make those choices. I think, as Simon and I were saying before, it's kind of a shame we no longer get to advocate on behalf of New Zealanders having an unmarried mother as the prime minister. That was a good thing. But it's great news. Good for them. OK, and let's say quickly, when will we actually get to see the wedding happen? Go on ` bets. Let's just remember what Tania just said. They didn't announce it. It was dragged out of them. I don't think` Jacinda Ardern has clearly used the women's magazines, used the profiles, used the soft media in ways that advantage her, as all leaders will do. But I don't think you could say that she's` She's not that calculating. ...she has not paraded her baby around the country. But it'll happen. It'll happen next year. There will be a wedding, and there will be a wedding presumably before the election. I will say that friends who have had marriages with small babies in tow will tell you that you kind of want to get it done quickly, because it's not always an easy time. All right. Next year. We have to wrap. Thank you very much for your time. Well, Simon Bridges was on the attack in the house this week, tearing into the Government over a big spend on slushie machines. There were some lighter moments too, with Jacinda Ardern's jibe at Gerry Brownlee resulting in a bit of banter between the National MP and Speaker Trevor Mallard. This is actually from Statistics NZ, Mr Brownlee, if you'd like to tune in. They say they saw a rise in men aged over 55 leaving the labour force in order to go into leisure time. Perhaps a suggestion, Mr Brownlee. (LAUGHTER) (ALL SPEAK AT ONCE) TREVOR MALLARD: Order. Order. I think the member has a right to make a point of order. I just want to express to the house how overcome I am by the kindness of the Prime Minister. (LAUGHTER) I thought the member was going say wouldn't notice any difference. (LAUGHTER, JEERING) (LAUGHTER CONTINUES) We really should get our two back. Fair enough. Fair enough. And that's all from Newshub Nation for this week. I'm Emma Jolliff. And I'm Simon Shepherd. Thank you for watching, and we'll see you again next weekend. Captions by Ella Wheeler, John Gibbs and Virginia Philp. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019