Today, on Newshub Nation, leaks, hacks, police, and a rogue search bar. Will Finance Minister Grant Robertson give us any clarity on the worst political own goal of the year? Then, the budget itself. Health Minister David Clark on the whopping $1.9 billion allocated to mental health. Will it solve our soaring suicide rate? And we take a look at how climate change will impact your daily life and household. Www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019 Kia ora, good morning. I'm Simon Shepherd and welcome to Newshub Nation. There was turmoil in parliament this week when parts of the highly confidential Budget 2019 were leaked by the National Party two days early. Following a scrap between the two main parties and Treasury, it was discovered the documents were never properly secured, and there had been no illegal hack. There were red faces in parliament, and police withdrew from their investigation. But New Zealanders did receive their budget on Thursday, including major wins for child well-being, rail, and hospitals, and while our first well-being budget attracted plenty of international interest and approval, there was scepticism back home. Business owners and teachers remain unsatisfied, and the opposition leaders who leaked the figures early are calling it the botched budget. And sweeping changes to mental healthcare are on their way. The government announce this week it partly or fully accepts 38 of the 40 recommendations of the mental health and addiction inquiry, and has allocated $1.9 billion to start that work. It would not, however, adopt suicide prevention targets, arguing that every death is one too many. Well, I'm joined now by Shaun Robinson, CEO of The Mental Health Foundation, and Dr Maria Baker, CEO of Maori healthcare organisation Te Rau Ora. Welcome to you both this morning. Let's start with the budget's funding for mental health. Shaun, rate it out of ten. What's the best bit and the worst bit? I'd give it a seven out of ten. The best bit for me is actually a tiny little detail, which is resiliency building for primary school children ` there's a couple of million in there, and that's going to be about building up kids' skills to be able to manage their own mental health as they grow through life, and that, sort of, is where we need to be going in the next phase of mental health. I think the worst bit for me is probably the need to do even more around addressing issues around alcohol sale and some of that impact on mental health and well-being. But I wouldn't say that's bad. Overall, this is a really great response to mental health, and I'm feeling more optimistic than I've been for years. Are you feeling more optimistic? And how would you rate it? Kia ora, Simon. I would rate it an eight. It's the biggest investment I've ever seen in my lifetime specifically to mental health and addiction. There have been proportions of the money being targeted right across the continuum if we're thinking about mental health and addiction and well-being in its broadest sense. I do think that there is also some room for opportunity for Maori to have the fair share right across the components of that budget, in addition to some of the other components overall with the Wellbeing Budget, because we know that for our people, given our issues in terms of being at the bottom of the ladder ` the economic and social ladder ` that we do experience some of the worst mental health and addiction issues, and self-harm and suicide issues. Right. Now that's something that we need to talk about. OK, so the government accepted or are considering 38 out of the 40 recommendations from the mental health review. One not adopted was the suicide reduction target. Shaun, should that have been adopted? Well, we certainly advocated that there should be a target, but really, just as one tool within an overall action plan to reduce suicide. So I think what's most important is that government has committed to coming up with that action plan. We haven't had a plan in New Zealand for several years. We haven't had co-ordination, we haven't had a direction about how we're going to tackle this. But would a target not give us some urgency, or something to strive towards? Well, I do think it would give us some urgency. It can be interpreted as kind of saying, 'Well, we get to that target and then we stop.' I don't think that was ever the intention. So I guess my question is how do we now measure success? You know, how do we know if we're making progress? But, again, I do feel optimistic that the government is committed to actually doing something about this. OK. It's also allocated $40 million to suicide prevention, Maria. So that's $10 million a year. Is that enough? There's never enough. Suicides and self-harm and mental distress is complex anyway. When we have a look at the contribution that is occurring across sector, actually, health is the leader. We need more investment at grassroots. There are a number of different innovations and programs that are working well that are demonstrating, particularly, building capacity and capability in Maori and Pasifika families and communities, that are focusing on leadership, that are focusing on the type of training and interventions that are supportive of our communities. There's lots of evidence to demonstrate that these things work, but they need upscaling and they need more investment. Did the budget deliver enough in terms of Maori mental health? Not specifically yet. I think, overall, if I consider the Wellbeing Budget, it really resonates. The philosophy around well-being from this government resonates with us. Yep, but do you want more targeted funding for Maori mental health? We would love more targeted funding for Maori mental health. Do you want the Maori Mental Health Commission to do that? Yes, we would. Across the board, Maori, be it in health, be it in education, and corrections, are saying 'We want our own entity. We want our own authority to be able to make 'the decisions that we need to make.' We want to self-determine the solutions that work for us. We know that these things work for us. So why is it important to address it outside the mainstream? It's important for us because the current authoritative approach, it dictates to us. It filters through the type of money. It doesn't have the ability to be able to give the money, or the decisions, or the ability to have an understanding of what well-being means to us. We're talking about infrastructures and decision making that come from a Western society that restrict us. OK. It's oppressive. It doesn't empower Maori. But there are numbers of different, really awesome commissioning agencies and procurement models that are already underway. Yeah, but shouldn't it be evidence-based? I mean, you're talking about kaupapa Maori. It is evidence-based. It is evidence-based? There is proven evidence and formed practice from this country and research that is informed by kaupapa Maori ` solid pedagogy and methodologies ` that are valid here. There's a 30-year record. The issue is that who is saying that that is evidence that's valid, and who is saying that it isn't? This is the issue here in New Zealand. OK. I just want to move on then to alcohol, which you mentioned earlier, Shaun. So it's been considered, stricter rules around selling alcohol. Should that happen? Absolutely that should happen. Why should it happen? Well, because alcohol is a key social ill that impacts on so many other of the social determinants of poor mental health and other poor health outcomes, and the industry targets vulnerable communities with multiple outlets. People who are desperate self-medicate with alcohol. I myself live with bipolar disorder. Before I was diagnosed, before I had support and proper medication, you know, I abused alcohol as my way of coping. Now, I've always been, you know, I've had a good job, a good place to live. You know, I have a lot of the social advantages of our society. Had I also had a whole lot of other things going wrong in my life, turning to alcohol would have been a very easy solution. So there needs to be some movement on that? There needs to be a lot of control. OK. Let's talk about the big spend - $212 million allocated for health workforce training in the budget. Where are the workers, to both of you, who are going to fill these roles? We have a workforce. The dilemma is who determines what a workforce is? We have Maori with lived experience. We have whanau with the ability to be a whanau workforce. We have grassroots and community. We have NGO capability. We have kaupapa Maori mental health and addiction. We have a workforce. Shaun, do we have a workforce out there? Well, yeah. I totally agree with Maria, and I think it's been great to see in the budget documents an acknowledgement of peer support. There are really good models of kaupapa Maori peer-led services, of other peer-led services. We need teamwork in addressing mental health and addiction issues. We need to get away from this notion that doctors and nurses and pills and prescriptions are the answer, to the notion that people who have been through it, walking alongside other people, understanding where they come from, being of their culture, looking like them, can do far more, often, to coach people in their wellbeing. It will take time. We're looking at a massive scale-up of earlier support for people, and that will take time, but it's good that that sort of diversity of workforce has been acknowledged. Can I just add to that? There is this workforce. What we will need is the organisations conducive enough to know how to employ and support this workforce. This is where the change needs to also happen. So we've got the Minister here next. Is that something that you would say to him? What would you say to the Minister, if you had the chance, about this? What's the next step? Well, we don't want to see all the contribution going in to clinical services only. We want to see the whole aspect around building a mental health and addiction workforce that is all in sundry that is well-being oriented, that is not just at the serious end. And I do believe that there has been conversations about the models, and they still term the clinical elements around mild to moderate, and that kind of terminology, but we're looking about people within communities and families to actually have the understanding of how to care for themselves and to have good resilience to cope, that kind of thing. But we need people in communities. So we need places for those people to be employed. All right. Shaun, quickly, what would you say to the Minster? Well, I'd say, 'Look, the World Health Organisation says depression and anxiety 'will outstrip heart disease by next year. We will never have enough services 'to address this growing demand. How are we going to get really ahead of this? 'Not just have more ambulances at the bottom of the cliff, or even a bit further up the cliff, 'but have fences at the top of the cliff to empower people to manage their own wellbeing?' OK. Shaun, thank you very much for your time. Maria, thank you for your time. Right. So mental health has long been an issue close to the Prime Minister's heart. It brought her to tears on World Suicide Day in 2017, during a demonstration outside parliament by bereaved families. Those shoes are quite moving to see. (CLEARS THROAT) My best friend's brother, when I was just 13 years old, took his own life, and he was only 15. When you think about what we're planning and intending to do for mental health in particular in this country, it will change people's lives. I absolutely believe that. No one's designed a budget in this way before, and so we have done things differently, and particularly the emphasis on mental health, but also breaking cycles of violence and investment in family violence. These are some of the single biggest investments in those long-term challenges that New Zealand is facing that we've ever seen, and it needed that in order to make a change. Right, so, we've heard sweeping changes are coming to mental health care, courtesy of that $1.9 billion, the jewel in the crown of Budget 2019. But what exactly will it look like? Is it going to work? The Minister of Health, David Clark, joins me now. Thank you for your time this morning. Morning, Simon. Let's pick up on a couple of points from our expert panel there. Holistic, overall, overarching ` not an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff. Can you deliver that? This package is aimed to be across the spectrum. So, He Ara Oranga, the inquiry into mental health and addiction, identified that one of the big gaps in our system is for those with so-called mild to moderate mental health conditions ` those with anxiety, depression ` and the first 12 or 14 recommendations focused on that. So that is the centrepiece of the package, but we're also investing in counselling for bereaved families; we're also investing in emotional resilience for children, and Shaun spoke a little bit about that when I heard the panel speak. So we are investing across the spectrum here. There were some glowing recommendations from them, but also a couple of points which they'd like to see you pick up on. One of those is the suicide reduction target. Now, you've decided not to do that. Does that not give it a sense of urgency? We debated this` A lack of urgency, I mean. Yeah, we did debate this long and hard as a cabinet. It was one of the most difficult decisions for us, but in the end, none of us were comfortable with the idea that there would be any acceptable level of suicide. One suicide is one suicide too many, and in our view, every life matters. We're determined to take mental health seriously. I think the investment and the attitude matters more than having a target, which could look like we're satisfied with a certain number. Did you look at other worldwide programs? Like there's one in Scotland which has a very similar target which they almost reached. Yes, we did. We looked across internationally. There is no strong evidence that a target works. The results are really mixed. Some countries have achieved ` Australia and Canada ` without a target quite extraordinary results over a period of time, but then lapsed back. Others with a target have achieved, and others haven't, you know. So we thought in terms of our own comfort that we wanted to focus on this area, but a target wasn't` OK. So how are you actually going to measure success, then? I think we'll be judged more broadly by how we are going about this. For me it's about making sure that everyone in distress can access the services they need. OK, so, you accepted 22 recommendations from the review. The rest are accepted in principle and need further consideration. Is that sort of misleading, saying that you've accepted more ` like, 38 out of 40? No, we were very clear about the ones we weren't accepting. Other ones are more challenging or complex. Some of them we accepted the direction of travel, but we didn't accept the mechanism. An example of that would be the cross-Parliamentary group ` that's not actually for Government to determine that. That's up to the whole Parliament. So we accept that in principle, but it's not` we don't accept the finding in its specifics. A couple of specific points here ` Maria wants a Maori health commission to focus purely in a targeted way. Is there an appetite for that? That's something that the wider review of the health and disabilities system will look at. OK. Now, Shaun was talking about` So that's a possibility, you're saying? I'm saying that there is a review ongoing that's looking at the whole system settings, and I think that's appropriate to look at that. Do you accept her, sort of, point that kaupapa Maori is evidence-based and needs particular attention? There is evidence around kaupapa Maori programs. We've set aside $62 million out of the Primary Care Initiative for mild to moderate specifically for kaupapa Maori initiatives. So why wouldn't you`? If there is that evidence now, why wouldn't you put that Maori mental health commission in place now? A Maori mental health commission? That's something that's going to be looked at in the wider settings. We are looking to have a mental health commission now. That was a recommendation. The Maori-targeted one? Yeah, one of the recommendations was to put that in the wider review, and that's what we're going to do. OK. All right. Shaun wants regulation on alcohol. Now, you're just looking at that. Why are you not adopting that? The Parliament itself has looked at alcohol regulation twice in recent history. It traditionally in Parliament is a conscience vote. It is a complex matter. Look, we're focused more on what we can do immediately, which is things around looking at advertising, sponsorship ` those kinds of things. They do impact how people think about alcohol, and we want to have a good look at that. And what about pricing regulation? Because access to alcohol is very, very easy and it's low-priced, and that's one of the drivers, isn't it? Yes, and we're focusing also on those who come forward for support, which until now has not been able to be delivered for many people. So we've put additional money in the Budget ` $56 million into addiction responses. We need to ramp up in that area. We also put aside $200 million ring-fenced capital for mental health and addiction facilities. OK. Let's look broader. So, psychological distress is evidenced to be three times higher in more deprived neighbourhoods than the less deprived. So do you think the $1.9 billion is being targeted in the right way? Or should it go on the causes, like poverty or perhaps putting in a living wage and those kinds of drivers? It is about balance. In our package, you'll see also we've put a focus on housing first, recognising that those things need to be dealt with. On Corrections, you know, those who are at the hardest end of these things need addiction support, need rehabilitation programs for when they go back into the community. So this is a balanced approach, and as a Government, housing has been a major priority for us. Well, see, housing seemed to drop out of the Budget this year, didn't it? We've got a focus on child poverty ` breaking the cycle; domestic violence ` $320 million package. That's a big contributor, actually, long-term to people's mental health outcomes. There are measures of prevention, and we think we've got the balance right. $212 million for health workforce training. So, are you confident you're going to find the people? And how many people do you think you need? In the package for primary mental health care, for mental health and addictions, there are an anticipated 1600 staff required. That is a lot of staff. Most of those will be already providing health care ` so they'll be nurses, they'll be occupational therapists, they'll be social workers ` and they'll receive a top-up qualification, if you like, in cognitive behavioural therapies or talking therapies. So those people are already in the health workforce. About a quarter will be new to the health workforce, we think. What about the people with lived experience like Maria was talking about? Indeed. They are a part of that. We absolutely anticipate having peer support workers as a part of that. People with lived experience have a lot to contribute, and that's already in place in the models that we've looked at that we want to build on. So the five-year plan, $1.9 billion, but Mary O'Hagan, who is a former mental health commissioner, says no one's painted a picture of this transformation ` what it's going to look like. Can you paint that now? Yeah. For me, it really is about every person who's in distress being able to get the services they need when they reach out, because the stories I hear, and I get a lot of correspondence about people turning up at emergency departments not being able to get the help they need, people going to their GP, getting some pills, but it's a 15-minute session and they're out the door. It's not that people don't want to help, it's just that the resourcing and the system hasn't been set up` So instead of going to the GP and getting pills, what would happen? What kind of service would they get? In the model, exactly what happens is they go into their GP, they sit with their GP, the GP at a certain point says, 'Look, I think you need some support that I'm not qualified to deliver, 'but actually just down the hallway, we've got someone in our practice who is specialised in this area. 'Will you walk with me now?' And the way that it's set up is they walk in, what they call a 'warm handshake', an introduction. 'I've just spoken with this person. 'They've got these challenges. I need some help solving them.' So when can someone expect to see that kind of service in place? Well, it's already being delivered in some settings around New Zealand. That's what gives us confidence. There are grass roots models that are already delivering this service, so we're wanting to roll this programme out over five years across the country. It will be building up. So give us an example of who is actually doing this right now. There's an outfit called ProCare in Auckland who is delivering it. There's four sites across Auckland. We visited one with the Prime Minister yesterday. And is that the kind of model that you think should be rolled out? That's the kind of model, absolutely. We also visited in Newtown a model that's been in place for 17 years, with psychiatrists visiting the practice regularly. They've got a high number of addiction patients. These things have been proven to work, we just need to make them more accessible. Just quickly ` is $1.9 billion enough, or will there be more next Budget? We will need to continue to invest over time. We've put $20 million into digital and tele health. Those services are expanding in their capacity, capability and availability to people. There will be further investment in the future. OK. Health Minister David Clark, thank you very much for your time. Thanks, Simon. Well, if you've got something to say about what you see on the show, please let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, NewshubNationNZ. Our Twitter panel this week is Jason Walls and Josiah Tualamali'i. They're using the hashtag #NationNZ. Or you can email us at nation@mediaworks.co.nz. The address is on your screen right now. But still to come, the man of the moment ` Finance Minister Grant Robertson. Plus our panel dissects the news of the week, including budget highlights and New Zealand's most notorious search bar. Welcome back. It's the highlight of the political year for the government and one man in particular ` the Finance Minister. So I asked Finance Minister Grant Robertson if he was disappointed that the unauthorised early release of budget details overshadowed his first-ever Wellbeing Budget. I don't think that it did. I mean, the reaction that we're getting from New Zealanders to the Budget is that they're really pleased that we're focussed on a big, long-term issue like mental health. I don't think that New Zealanders are focussed on the political games in Wellington. But there were so many of them. There was the leak of the documentation, the allegations of a hack ` you sort of seemingly linking the National Party to that, and then it wasn't a hack. It was shambolic. Look, I've expressed my disappointment in the fact that the Treasury system could be infiltrated this way and also that the Treasury didn't do more to find out what had happened before they referred it to the police. The reality is that that's now in the hands of the State Services Commissioner, who is doing an inquiry, and we'll await the outcomes of that. Well, how do you think you handled it all? Look, I invite you to put yourself in my shoes. On Tuesday night the Chief Executive of the Treasury arrived in my office and said about an hour ago I have referred to the police 2000, of what he called, hacks into the system. I said to him, 'Do you know how that's happened?' He said, 'No, I don't.' I said, 'Do you know if any other areas 'of the Treasury system have been compromised?' He said, 'No, I don't.' So at that point, I'm going to take that matter pretty seriously. That's what we did. Obviously more information has now come to light. That's what the inquiry will cover. Do you think you acted too quickly? Do you think you should've waited and got some more information before you` What about that press release just then, which seemed to indicate that National was linked to the allegations of a hack? Like I say, I think most people in my shoes, having received the information I did, would react and say, 'Well, we need to make sure, regardless of how the National Party might've got the information, that they were aware of what the Treasury had advised me. We all now know that the situation is somewhat different. The inquiry will look into how that happened. When were you told that the situation was different ` that it wasn't a hack, it was just a search bar` Look, I learned very late on Wednesday night that the Treasury Secretary would be putting out a media statement on Thursday morning. Has the Treasury Secretary apologised to you over this? He said sorry on the first day that this had happened. And since then? But otherwise he's been leaving me to focus on the Budget, which as I say, I think most New Zealanders would want me to be doing. You named it the Wellbeing Budget, but mental health aside, what is actually transformational about it? I think the work that we're doing in domestic and sexual violence is absolutely transformational. We're talking there about breaking a cycle that has bedevilled New Zealand for many years. $320 million going into that. We're going to transform the lives of people who are on benefits by indexing that to the average wage. That's going to lift their incomes consistently. OK. Well, let's talk about that. Obviously the Welfare Expert Advisory Group said 12-47% boost to benefits is needed, something like $5 billion. You didn't go near that. You've done $300 million. Why not? Well, because we're doing this in phases. And we've actually done three things ` we've done, not only the indexation of benefits, but we've also lifted the abatement rate ` the rate at which your income drops if you're working while you're on a benefit. And we've got rid of the sanction that was on mothers who didn't identify the fathers of their children. That's stage one. We absolutely acknowledge that there's further work to do in this area. Do you think that you missed a chance to be transformational by not implementing a capital gains tax? Well, as you well know, I would've like to have implemented a capital gains tax. That, of course, would not have come into force until after the election. That was always the plan, but the realities of coalition government are we didn't have the numbers for that. What about a greater focus on business? If you lift them and provide incentives for business, that changes the whole economy, doesn't it? So why didn't you do that? Well, we are. There's a great deal of focus on supporting business. One of the things I'm really excited about in this Budget is the $300 million fund for venture investment in those businesses that have got past the start-up phase and are looking to grow to be international companies, and Peter Beck from Rocket Lab has raised this issue with us and said, 'Too many of these companies head offshore because there isn't investment here.' The government's now got $300 million of skin in the game. But I would say to you, that this country is made up ` the backbone ` is small to medium enterprises, and the businesses you're talking about there are start-ups that want to go internationally. You're not addressing the small to medium enterprises. Well, I'd argue we are. The biggest issue raised with me by business is skilled staff, infrastructure, making sure we get those trade agreements going so people can export. They are the issues we are working on. Could you have been more transformational if you'd relaxed your debt rules earlier? Is there a chance you could look back at this and say, 'I wish I hadn't played it so safe'? It's always about a balance. We have to make sure that we do keep our debt under control. We're a small country. We're susceptible to significant economic shocks and natural disasters. We are actually borrowing more money in this Budget. The economy is growing as well. That means the percentage of GDP stays steady, but we are borrowing to invest in those areas like infrastructure, building up KiwiRail, building more schools and hospitals. But it is all about a balance, and I think we've got it right. Well, what about the balance ` you've just mentioned shocks like natural disasters or international shocks. You are actually borrowing more. You are running down the projected surpluses. Are you leaving us vulnerable to something like that? No, I don't believe so. I mean, we still have a surplus of $1.3 billion here. We still have debt at a relatively low level. We are creating that balance, but we made a decision in this Budget to spend more than we had originally allocated, and that's because the need was there. The need was there in infrastructure, but the need was also there in services like mental health. We always said, Simon, is that a sustainable surplus would be one where we'd met the needs that were there, so therefore this Budget that surplus is a bit lower, but it still exists. Are you meeting the health needs though? Because National's Amy Adams points out that policies for midwives, no free health checks for seniors, reduced GP fees ` those kinds of things are not addressed in this particular budget. And in fact, figures from the Child Poverty Action Group show that spending on public health is forecast to be the lowest in a decade by 2023. Well, what we've done is prioritise mental health, and we've been completely upfront about that from day one. We have a mental health crisis in New Zealand. It's been ignored, but there's still significant resources going into the rest of our health system, around $2.9 billion into supporting DHBs, more money for ambulances. There are other areas, within our coalition agreement, within our confidence-and-supply agreement that we'll look to address in next year's Budget, but we made mental health a priority. Such as? Well, you'll have to wait till next year. What about teachers, though? They're crying out for some more love from the government, and they've just announced more disruptive action. So why couldn't you address that in this Budget? We believe we've got a fair offer on the table, the $1.2 billion offer. The Budget also addresses some of the non-pay-related issues that teachers have been raising. 600 learning support coordinators for what we used to call special ed. 2480 more teachers` And yet they're still unhappy? Well, that's the reality of the world. What I hope is happening, and I'm pretty sure it is happening right now, is that the Ministry of Education and the unions are sitting down together to say, 'Look, how can we resolve this?' We want it resolved. We understand the frustration of teachers after 10 years of not getting supported. Let's take these first steps together now. What is there in this Budget for middle New Zealanders? Sort of, those low to middle income families. There doesn't seem to be anything. Well, I'd give you one example. We're removing school donations for decile one to seven schools. But in the hip pocket there's nothing like tax bracket creep or anything like that. Well, look, we've made a commitment not to change tax rates in this term of government because we believe that we need the resources that are there to meet the needs that are there. Well, let's talk about housing. There is nothing actually, really, apart from the Housing First ` the transitional housing ` there's nothing else for housing in this Budget. You've got KiwiBuild, which has stalled at the moment because it's not delivering. We put $2 billion in last year's Budget for KiwiBuild for the life of the programme` And it's not delivering. And as you know, there is a housing reset coming forward, and actually in the Budget documents we state that we've put some money aside to help manage that housing reset. How much? You'll see the details of that when the reset's released. What about the policies that you agreed with the Greens, like a shared equity scheme to get more people to be able to afford to buy into our houses. What happened to that? As I say, you'll have to wait for the housing reset that Minister Twyford's going to announce, but clearly we've got a large-scale building programme for housing that's not just about KiwiBuild. It's about state housing, transitional housing. Mr Twyford's now going to come back with that reset, and you'll be able to see` But there's 11,000 people on the state housing list, and there's nothing extra in this Budget for them. Well, we made a significant investment in the building of 6000 state houses in the last Budget. We've got an integrated programme with transitional housing and affordable housing. Phil Twyford's going to announce a housing reset. We've set some money aside to support that. What would you say to business-owners, teachers and say, middle income, low-income earners ` some of those feel left out by Budget 2019. What would you say to them? What hope will you offer them for next year? Look, I've always said that the three budgets of this term are a trilogy. Last year we did the foundation-building of making sure that we got spending back into those core areas. This year we've targeted areas like mental health that all of those people will benefit from. We've got a third Budget to come as well. So is that going to be the blockbuster for these people? No, I see them all as part of an attempt to start turning around a decade of neglect in a lot of important areas in New Zealand. Two-thirds of the way through, I think we're making good progress. Finance Minister Grant Robertson, thank you for your time. Thanks, Simon. Well, up next ` our panel on the highlights of the Budget and the leak. We thought there was a hack, that turned out to be a search. Plus ` what climate change will mean for your household. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` Bernard Hickey, Managing Editor of Newsroom Pro; Phil O'Reilly, CEO and founder of Iron Duke Partners; and Tracy Watkins, brand new editor of the Sunday Star Times. Thank you all for joining us. Bernard, you're up first. You've already said the budget falls short on being transformational. Why? It really doesn't fix the major problems we have, which are around transport and housing. It's made a good start on mental health, and the overall well-being approach makes sense, but to really address these issues for the next 10 to 20 years, it needs to revisit its debt target and use that 1.7% borrowing cost to really start fixing our problems around housing affordability and climate change in the long run. But they can't do everything all at the same time, can they? No, they can't, but this wasn't really a well-being budget. It was really a pretty traditional Labour budget with a bit of well-being hundreds and thousands sprinkled on top, you know what I mean? So in that context, I think that's how it should be judged. The Government made a big deal about how different it was. Actually it wasn't all that different from what they would normally do, and I think there'll be some disappointment around that. And I agree with Bernard ` they could have done more in that productive infrastructure. The challenge they've got is not just borrowing the money. The challenge is actually getting it out of the ground ` getting it through dodgy RMA procedures, getting the labour force necessary and so on. That's a real challenge, and they need to get on with that as well. OK. Tracy, you seem to be nodding your head there about, you know, whether it's a well-being budget or whether it's been a Labour budget. What do you think? Well, I don't think it's a blockbuster. It's certainly not one of those budgets that` But it's a middle budget. You never really expect a middle budget to be an absolute triumph. They've addressed some of the most pressing needs. It's a catch-up budget to me. A lot of the areas where we were really starting to see some real problems straining at the seams, particularly mental health ` I think, you know, National had also recognised that. And you could argue that addressing those big mental health strains do flow through to other areas, like a more productive economy. But on the whole, I think yeah, it's a pretty sound` sort of safe budget. A safe budget? And they should be given some credit, for example, on the indexation issue, which was a running sore on our welfare system. (ALL MURMUR AGREEMENT) And that's good news. Yeah, but Phil, you were on the Welfare Advise` Expert Advisory Group ` WEAG ` and you recommended a 12-47% increase in benefits, and they haven't done that. Well, I can understand the politics of why they haven't done that. Which is...? They've chosen mental health this year for the big bang, but I think I agree with Bernard that the fact that they've indexed it really stops the bleeding, and it's` it'll get very expensive in the out years, that. Now they need to complete the trifecta. They've done it for superannuation and they've done it for welfare. Now they need to index tax thresholds, because that's` The people who are paying are the only guys left behind now. And next year may be a bit more of a blockbuster, because they've given themselves some room with the 15-25% debt target, and they will be looking to, you know, open the door and unleash everything as much as they can within their existing rules to try and deal with some of these other issues. So next year will be a bigger blockbuster. So are we talking about middle New Zealand there ` that voting block? Tracy, are they going to unleash, you know, changing the tax threshold? Borrowing more? They definitely have to move somewhere in that direction. If you look at this budget, that's the group that has missed out. There's a lot there for the little other sectors, but that middle New Zealand hasn't, and traditionally that's where you fight elections anyway. It's going to be an election year budget. I'd be very surprised if they don't address something like the tax thresholds. I think that the move on benefits was absolutely critical, especially after they ditched the capital gains tax, which a lot of their supporters were looking to create some sort of equity and fairness in the system. I thought they would move on benefits. I thought they might increase them. This is actually a smart way of doing it, I think. Do you think the harder-left supporters will be actually disappointed in this budget? I think there's probably not as much in it for them as they would have liked, but, you know, you do what you can with the money you've got, and Robertson has already relaxed some of that ` the debt ceiling and spending allowances. He's probably pushed it as far as he can, and yeah, next year's budget is where I think they` Well, so, Robertson was saying in that interview that he` there is stuff there for small to medium enterprises. There's the $300 million` (LAUGHS) You don't` 'Really?' You're disagreeing there, Phil. Well, the $300 million actually applies to quite a small number of businesses, which is the point you made in your interview. Now, it's a very good thing they've done, by the way. That should have been done years ago, and the policy position's very good. But if I'm a small business, what I see ` minimum wage is rising. The threat of deunionisation. I don't see` I see, you know, lots of big new health and safety requirements and so on. Not much for me in this budget, and that will impact my confidence to hire and my confidence to invest. And I just think they're missing a trick here. They do need to say to business, 'Hey, you're part of this story,' and they just haven't so far. Yeah, but Shane Jones quite rudely came out yesterday and said, 'Hey, guys. We gave you the capital gains tax.' (LAUGHS) So a big one for business is the government did nothing. I mean, that's` Really? Come on. And I think that's what's hard about this budget is selling it as transformational when there are no real silver bullet ideas or exciting ideas. I think that's probably what is missing if you're gonna call it transformational. And that's the big issue for Jacinda Ardern ` at some point she has to start transforming things. Yeah. It has to look and sound transformational. OK, well, let's talk about the shenanigans that led up to this non-transformational budget, as you're putting it. So, Tracy, have you seen anything like this? No, I think ` I've actually written a piece for tomorrow ` this is just getting to peak crazy. I think we're reaching a point of political exhaustion, and the danger for that ` if people watch this from afar ` and I've actually had the ability to do that. I've just started my new job. I'm no longer working in Parliament after 22 years. When you're there, it consumes you. When you're watching it from afar, you just think, 'This is just crazy. It's silly. Get on with it.' And this is right. I wrote a piece for Newsroom yesterday about saying everyone should take a chill pill here. We're getting way too hyped up with all the he-said-she-said, you-lose-you-win, resign, when actually, out in the real world what they want is decent housing, decent transport and decent healthcare to make sure they can live their lives, and they don't care about all this stuff. This was just great politics. Yeah. Yeah. Bridges did a good job here in terms of the politics. The Government's policy program is not going well for them ` KiwiBuild, the years free for students, all that sort of stuff. This was an opportunity for the Government to seize the narrative this week. Bridges got them off-track, and he got them off-track brilliantly, and they fell into the trap and they were made to look stupid and had to walk back. And the whole thing is now dominated by that. Your own interview with` The only thing I would dispute there is I think he dragged it out too long, you know. He had the` So this is Simon Bridges, right? Simon Bridges, yeah. I would ask, would he have been more statesmanlike to say, 'I've discovered this but I'm not going to release it,'? Would that have worked for him better? Would any Opposition leader really do that? (CHUCKLES) So, it's unsurprising that left-wing commentators are suggesting he should have done that. You know, I'm thinking, 'Really?' Any Opposition politician, particularly one who's under pressure like he is, is going to try and make the most of that, and he did. It is true that their job is to test the bureaucracies and to challenge the Government at every turn, and he did that. I think the concern long-run is he's up against Jacinda Ardern, who is well away from this this week, and he has to be more of a statesmanlike character against her. OK, let's look at the crown jewel briefly. We had a lot of discussion on mental health. Do you think that this big-ticket item really resonated with the electorate? Most families probably have someone who is involved or is part of, you know, using the mental health system. I think it affects them in that way, and I think we can all recognise when we walk down the street and we see the number of homeless, or someone who's standing on the street corner who's, sort of, yelling out obscenities who clearly is, you know, in part of the mental health system, we all accept that it's got to the point where something has to be done. It has reached that point. But is it a pocket budget`? in the po` hit pocket budget? Absolutely not. So will people be saying, 'OK, yeah, good on you for doing that, but hey, next time around, what about me?' What's in it for me? That's right. As Tracy said, there's nothing in this for middle income families, and that's the` that's a real challenge for them, because they're the people that decide elections. And if a story gets up that, 'Look, it's all very well doing this mental health stuff. 'We all agree with that. If there's nothing in it for me and I'm paying an awful lot of bills here 'and I'm still having to support my family,' that'll be an ugly story for the Government if they don't get that sorted out. But when you look inside the guts of the Treasury forecasts, one that no one picked on ` they are forecasting house prices to rise another 21% in the next four years. Middle New Zealand who own property ` not the ones who are renting ` they'll be quietly thinking, 'Oh, this government's done quite well. They haven't managed to cut house prices.' 21%? Did you say 21%? Yeah. Yeah. In the next four years? Yeah, I didn't pick up on that either. And that's on top of an` of a 10-20% increase for most of New Zealand in the last two or three years. Auckland, of course, has stabilised. The rest of the country ` they're all going, 'Wa-hey!' ` if they own property. So they're feeling wealthy. They'll tend to bank that, though. I mean, they're all now moving to that top tax bracket too, so Government's really gotta` there's gotta be a nod to them next year, I would think, because otherwise you'll get an ugly reaction, I suspect, and the Nats will get a story up on that. OK. All right, well, the panel will leave it there for the moment. Thank you very much for your time. Up next ` what climate change could mean for your home. Plus, National on the attack in the House over the Budget. Welcome back. Now, whether you call it climate change or a climate crisis, we're facing the challenge of our lives. So what's it going to actually mean for the choices that you make about your home, in your fridge, on top of your roof, your car, your lifestyle? Well, John-Michael Swannix has been taking an in-depth look at what's going to happen. (MACHINES WHIRR, BEEP) We've just experienced our third-warmest summer on record. More than 170 homes were evacuated overnight. A million species are at risk of extinction. And with the rate of sea level rise expected to increase, experts say we need to adapt.ds 12 years. That's how long the UN says we have to limit the devastating effects of climate change. So meet Murray, our average New Zealander. Just like 80% of the country, Murray wants something to be done about climate change, but what will taking action actually look like? The Productivity Commission released this report last year. Its three key recommendations ` move away from fossil fuels to electricity, plant more trees and change the way we farm. Fossil fuels are the remains of plants and animals that have been compressed underground for millions of years. When we burn them, we're putting all that carbon, which had been locked in the ground, up into the atmosphere, where it has a greenhouse effect ` trapping the sun's warmth like a blanket. To move away from fossil fuels will require the electrification of almost everything. For Murray, this will mean swapping his petrol car for an electric one by around 2030. We swap out our cars, on average, about every 15 years, and so, if you were to go out and buy a car today, then the next car you buy after that ` 15 years from now for the sake of argument ` would have to be an electric. The problem is that just 0.3% of the cars in New Zealand are electric, and they make up less than 2% of vehicle imports. One way of accelerating that type of product in the market is to focus on fleets. That could be with a fringe benefit tax adjustment. The other lever is around GST, and then the other one is your feebate scheme whereby gas guzzlers would probably get penalised a bit more and lower-emission vehicles would benefit from that. More electric vehicles will bump up the country's power usage. To address this, we'll need to generate more electricity and become more energy efficient. About 80% of New Zealand's power already comes from renewable sources. The rest comes from fossil fuels. What we've said is that we want our electricity supply to be 100% renewable by 2035. The problem with renewables is their reliability. If the sun isn't shining, or if our lakes are low, or if the wind isn't blowing, our backup is burning fossil fuels like coal in power plants. Solar City says installing solar panels and a battery like this one in every home would help shift dependency away from power plants. However, another possibility to ensure the grid has a backup, is to convert power plants from burning coal to burning biomass products like waste wood from forestry. We've obviously got lots of wood lying around, and the problems that we have in Tolaga Bay with all that waste wood that ended up washing through the river and down on to the beach, you know, you can imagine, that would have been much better used as a source of energy, if we'd had the supply chain set up for that. Another potential solution to the storage problem is using renewable electricity to produce hydrogen gas, which acts a bit like a battery. Hydrogen plants can make a lot of energy at short notice, and that's a really key capability that we need to push the last bit of coal and gas off the grid and get to 100% renewable. So back to Murray. Life is already pretty different. His car is electric, his home, better insulated, and his appliances more energy efficient. His roof has solar panels. His house has its own battery storage. And his power comes from 100% renewable sources backed up by carbon-neutral biomass energy or hydrogen. However, as with many homes in the North Island, Murray still uses natural gas for cooking and heating water. Natural gas has about half the carbon emissions of coal, and is often talked about as a transition fuel. However, in New Zealand it's estimated we only have around 10 years of gas left. We need to phase this out, and what that means, actually, is as a transition fuel, now is the transition. Murray's home is now entirely electric, but the changes don't end there. The way he shops and travels has also had to change. US research found express shipping creates nearly 30% more emissions than regular shipping because delivery companies are forced to prioritise speed over efficiency. If we can get to the idea that we don't need that pair of running shoes immediately, and we could wait for two or three weeks and therefore it's shipped across by boat, and then put on a train, and then finally delivered to your home. So it's the expectations which are driving up the amount of carbon dioxide emissions from the internet shopping. Aviation produces 859 million tonnes of carbon each year or around 2% of all emissions. Putting a price on emissions from aviation is tricky, and there is no global agreement on how to do it for international flights. However, some airlines, like Air New Zealand, already have a voluntary option which allows customers to offset their emissions by buying carbon credits that are used to plant trees. Forests are only a temporary measure, but you can offset air travel in the short term, but it's something that we can't keep doing. And in the next 10-20 years we have to find substitutes for aviation fuels and reduce the demand for air travel. This means flying is likely to be more expensive from 2035, and overnight delivery of online shopping will be deemed too inefficient. But the biggest changes will likely be what fills Murray's fridge. In New Zealand agriculture makes up half of our emissions, mainly from livestock burping methane. This gas is 25 times stronger than carbon when it comes to warming. There are ways to try and reduce that that are being researched. It's what you feed the animal on, it's how you breed the animals to produce less methane, but if we increase the productivity, then that's a better alternative than having to reduce stock numbers. So what does this mean for Murray? Well, he will still be able to purchase and eat meat and dairy, just at a higher cost, but the majority of what fills up his fridge will likely be plant-based. Vegetable protein is being used to produce artificial meat, burgers et cetera, that look like meat, taste like meat, smell like meat ` but they're not meat, and therefore they're healthier and they've got lower carbon footprints. And I think everyone in New Zealand, especially the farming community, should keep an eye on what's happening. Under the Paris Agreement, New Zealand has committed to targets to reduce emissions. The Zero Carbon Bill, which is now at Select Committee, will establish an independent climate commission to give the government advice on how to achieve them. The bill would also commit New Zealand to new targets for carbon and methane over the next 30 years. So there is a huge transition ahead for Murray, and it's understandably daunting. But the longer the world delays, the harder it will be to adjust. Climate change represents the greatest economic opportunity in at least a generation because the transition that we're talking about represents huge amounts of investment, huge amounts of innovation in new technology, and that's great for the economy. John-Michael Swannix there with that report. Stay with us. We're back after the break with the best and worst from inside parliament this high-impact Budget week. Welcome back, and we are back with our panel. Now, Health Minister David Clark says that the issue of alcohol` that was reg` Strict regulations were recommended by the review on that, and the government seems to be pushing that down the road. Why would they be doing that, Bernard? It's tough politically, and it typically is a conscience issue, so there's an uncertainty there about whether you'd get stuff through. And they've got an awful lot on their plate. You know, some of the climate change stuff they're going to have to do is going to be politically difficult. If they're going to anger Te Atatu Man and Mangere Mum, then that's one way to do it. Although, they could make a big impact with some tougher regulation there. And they actually do have a number of conscience issues on the table already. There's a number of votes that could be quite polarising. I suspect they wouldn't want to pick up another one. OK. It's the old story ` the health professionals all say 'regulate it!' You know 'tax it', but actually it's much more complicated than that. So how do you come up with the right kind of public policy framework around alcohol? It's a really wicked problem. So I think it's the right idea to just step back and think about what to do overall. OK, and one other area, that they are pushing down the road a bit, is the idea of a Maori mental health commission, as raised by Maria Baker in our interview there. So the government's saying, 'Well, that's part of the wider review.' Do you think that that's just too hard or too targeted? I think it's very difficult. I think we've seen various attempts to set up these, sort of, targeted areas, if you like, and we've seen a lot around Whanau Ora. It becomes` There seems to be all sorts of issues around funding and accountability. They always become fraught, and I think they won't be rushing into that, I wouldn't have thought. And also New Zealand First don't like that sort of thing. Well, they don't. So New Zealand First seem to` Maybe they got so much out of the Budget and in other places that they didn't mind the fact that Whanau Ora got $80 million in this one. Yeah, but in the scale of things ` I mean, it already exists. And it's, you know, $20 million a year or something. It's not going to move the dial. There's a point to be made, though, because mental health issues amongst Maori are huge. And so a special response to that, I think, is appropriate. The question is how you do that. Is it a separate thing or is it very much soaked into the other work that they're doing in mental health anyway? So they're right to take a step back, but I think overall probably a Maori mental health commission would be a good intervention, if it was done properly. OK. Let's move on to the mega-strike this week. We saw 55,000 teachers striking out of the classroom. Something like 800,000 students affected, and the government says, 'no more money', and then so the teachers come back and say, 'OK, we're going to do some more strikes.' So now Chris Hipkins has announced that there's going to be a forum this coming week. Is the government, Tracy, finally going to cave in? Um, I think they're aware of how much destruction these mega-strikes cause. If anyone was driving to work the other day and suddenly wondered why there was no traffic on the roads, that gives you an indication of how many parents had to stay home for the day. But I think the danger is also that the public sympathy for teachers might be wearing a bit thin. There's certainly a lot of support out there, but I think, you know, the more disruption that goes on, the more they risk losing that. And I suspect the government's hard-line so far is a reflection of that. So what Hipkins might look at doing, though, is offer some more measures to address some of the issues that teachers are talking about around pressures on the workforce. Put should they be stepping into a pay dispute like that, which is in the middle of a negotiation, Phil? It's classic Labour government, that. I mean, the unions have always taken the view that we'll negotiate with the State Services Commission, but when push comes to shove, we'll just go to the Beehive. And that's really what's happening here. What's remarkable about this` Actually, I think the government has been actually pretty reasonable about this ` $1.2 billion is not the government being tough. That's the government spending an awful lot of taxpayer money. The teacher's main argument, though, is, you know, labour shortages. We're not getting enough teachers. I always love union lines ` the answer to everything is 'send more money'. Actually the answer to this is certainly spend more money, but it's also about recreating the profession of teaching. This is the point about, you know, how do we attract young people into the teaching profession? How do we attract middle-aged men into the teaching profession who are carpenters, so we can teach technical skills, for example? None of that's being talked about in this dispute, and I think it needs to be. But it's always interesting, when people talk about labour shortages and teacher shortages, which there obviously are. Suddenly the market mechanism of letting the wages solve the supply-and-demand problem goes out the door, so I can see why there's such pressure. And unfortunately, this is because there was so little wage increase through the last 10 years or so, and the teachers decided they were spend their capital, if you like, on getting as big a bang for the buck from Labour than from National. Yeah, but are they losing that political capital now? Well, it's interesting. So, you've got a public who have spent the last 20 years not experiencing strikes. Now, I'm an old man. I remember those huge marches down Queen Street from people angry at all the strikes that were appearing. Now, strikes are such a rare thing now, so the unions do have some room before people get grumpy. (LAUGHS) OK. Just one quick look at what else National did this week. So while they were leaking Budget material they also put out their culture review, Tracy, and that just, sort of, sank without a trace. Yeah, it did, which is not surprising, really, when you consider how much frenzy surrounded the Budget process. Yeah, I guess that's politics, and Phil was talking about that before. I think` Certainly, I think that the way that Simon Bridges handled it, I've still got some questions around that. I do think he started to look too much like he was a boy playing a game, and it didn't work well for them, but I know Phil disagrees with me on that so, yeah. In terms of the National Party report, I mean, that was a pretty shocking thing to do ` just to sweep it under the carpet. But everybody's got form here. You know, the Labour Party on Labour Youth ` that camp. (LAUGHS) A pretty poor response from the Speaker to the bullying stuff in parliament. What this demonstrates is, actually, our politicians are not doing what they say everybody else should do, which is to get rid of the bullying, get rid of all of the sexism and so on, and be better people. They're not doing what they tell everybody else to do. And Labour's made a real art out of the Friday afternoon dump. The drop. Yeah. (LAUGHS) You know? It just happens so often that the reporters in the press gallery now almost expect it. OK. I'm gonna have to leave it there. We'll see ` there's lots more to come in that space. To our panel, Phil, Bernard and Tracy, thank you very much for your time. Well, the government was busy celebrating this week, but after a rocky run-up to their Wellbeing Budget, National took every opportunity to go on the attack. So Finn Hogan takes us through the biggest and loudest moments of Budget Week in the house. We said we would deliver this budget, and we have. The government was busy patting themselves on the back in the house this week, having delivered their first Wellbeing Budget. But Simon Bridges wasn't letting them off the hook. This is a botched budget by a bungling, incompetent government. Well, I'm gonna explain a few things to them about the so-called hack, Mr Speaker ` someone went to a website, and they looked at the top right of the website, and what did they find? Search bar, Mr Speaker! That is what they find! And when they typed in things like '2019/2020 defence', the money came up, Mr Speaker! No tricks. But the most brutal political burns were delivered by Paula Bennett and Gerry Brownlee, who pulled no punches going after Health Minister David Clark. I understand that on a day that the government wished would go away, you would put up your most boring speaker, but man! (LAUGHS) That was just another whole level. I just thought that completely sucked the oxygen out of the room. BROWNLEE: The health minister's cured insomnia! (LAUGHS) The health minister has cured insomnia, Mr Brownlee. You are right. And that's all from me for now. If you're missing my co-host Emma Joliff, so are we. She's away for a while for personal reasons, and we'll keep you posted. But I'll see you again next weekend. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019 This program was made with the assistance of the New Zealand On Air Platinum Fund.