Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Today on Newshub Nation ` survivors of abuse in state care raise serious concerns about child welfare practises by Oranga Tamariki, as well as the inquiry that's supposed to bring them justice. Exclusive details from David Seymour on the ACT Party relaunch, and our new series The Pitch, in which a member of the Opposition has five hot minutes to sell you on their ideas. First up ` Nikki Kaye. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019 Kia ora, good morning. I'm Tova O'Brien. Welcome to Newshub Nation. A breakthrough for teachers as education minister Chris Hipkins fronts up with hundreds of millions of dollars to end the pay dispute and industrial action in our schools. The $271 million deal includes pay parity for primary school teachers and a plan to reduce teacher workloads. It brings the full package to $1.47 billion ` the biggest single increase for teachers in decades. Oranga Tamariki has so far failed to legally force Newsroom to re-edit its story about attempts to take a newborn baby from its young mother. Family Court judge Max Courtney suggested that if Newsroom had broken the law, Oranga Tamariki could involve police. Oranga Tamariki is currently considering its options. The agency has meanwhile emailed staff to recommend they do not watch the video story or engage with it on social media. And the Court of Appeal has stopped a man accused of killing a woman in Shanghai a decade ago from being extradited to China, amidst concerns he could be tortured there. It's the first time China has attempted to extradite a suspect from New Zealand. The long-running case now requires the Justice Minister Andrew Little to personally reconsider the extradition. This comes as New Zealand seeks an upgrade to its free trade agreement with China, our largest trading partner. Intense scrutiny for Oranga Tamariki this week over its removal of Maori newborns from their families. Adult survivors of state abuse and of abuse in state care have serious concerns about the inquiry that's supposed to bring them justice. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into historical abuse in state care and faith-based care has barely started, yet it's already run into problems, including allegations the Head Commissioner, Sir Anand Satyanand, fell asleep during victim testimonies. A warning, our guests' stories of traumatic childhood experiences could be upsetting for some viewers. With me now are survivors of abuse in state care. Tanya Sammons, Tyrone Marks, who also sits on the commissioner's Survivor's Advisory Group. Kia ora, korua. Thank you very much for joining us. Tanya, perhaps we could start with you, and just maybe tell me a bit about the impact that state care had on you and your family. Pretty much, it was me and my two other sisters were fostered. We were taken away from our family. I'm the middle daughter. I've got a younger sister and an older sister. My older sister committed suicide throughout her experiences. She'd left two children behind. We've been fighting to try and get justice for her, and for ourselves as well. We need to heal, we need to get all this out on the table. That is why it was so important that we finally got to this point with the Royal Commission. Tyrone, we did finally get there. The first serious attempt by the state to address the abuses of the past. Tell us about your role and your experience so far with the Commission. I've had` I've probably been there on nine different occasions. They've asked us for our input, in terms of, 'How are they going to run this? How do they get to survivors? 'How do they engage?' And so I've been there, as I've said, a number of times. I've been in a support role. I've been also in counselling with other survivors. And I've advised them, as well as others, on a number of occasions about what to do and what not to do. In terms of what's happening at the moment, I think that advice has fallen on deaf ears. Yes. So you think they've dropped the ball. How so? I think that they've dropped the ball in... not listening, not taking the advice. You've got to remember that state abuse, state survivors ` there's trauma we're talking about. There's re-traumatising, and there's lots of safety issues that` they've just gone about this and around it in a different way altogether. We feel that if it continues in this way that this whole thing's going to fall. Yeah, which would be the worst-case scenario for everyone. Our third guest, Aaron Smale, has joined us. He's a journalist, also a survivor of state abuse. Aaron, thank you very much for being here. We started off talking a bit about Oranga Tamariki being under immense scrutiny this week over the removal of newborns from their mothers. Is this a new problem? The short answer is no. I mean, Tyrone went through the welfare homes. He started back in the '60s. I was adopted in the '70s. This is a decades-old issue. I couldn't watch that video. I knew it would actually set me off. It would be too distressing because the state has been doing this for a very, very long time. Just picking up on what Tyrone said, the state just does not listen, and that has been something that is a theme that has come through consistently in everything that I've covered. There's this denial ` deny, deny, deny the whole time. The allegations that have come out over the years, there's been this flat-out stonewalling denial. It's kind of annoying to me that Oranga Tamariki and the Royal Commission, when the finger's been pointed at them this week they basically go to that default position of denial. They won't listen. They won't take on-board the criticism that's been directed at them, and I don't know how they're going to fix anything unless they actually front-up to the mistakes that they're making. Those mistakes are significant, they're on-going and they're entrenched, actually. And I'm ` like Tyrone ` concerned. I want this Royal Commission to work, like a lot of people. I did not put that story out there lightly. I did not take a cheap shot because I want it to work. But when all of these things are starting to surface, these problems, I can't just sit on the side-lines and stay quiet about it. You've had one private session now, haven't you, Tanya? What was that experience like for you? Because it was at a motel room, I had the choice of where I wanted to have my interview. I pretty much just wanted to get on with it. I didn't really have a problem where it was. But then I went into a motel, and I sat in the waiting room for quite some time before I got called in. I talked to the reception person at the motel, they just told me, 'Take a seat.' I would be called in in a moment. But he was unaware whether they were even ready and prepared. So he went off and did his job, came back to the room, and said, 'Oh, you're still here.' He went off and notified them that I was actually sitting outside waiting for them. I had two ladies come out and introduce themselves, took me into the conference room, and I pretty much got told at that time, introduced to my well-being person. To me, I would have expected my well-being person to come out and greet me. That's one thing I was a little bit concerned about. I was sitting in a room by myself with no support. And those things are really important, aren't they? Yes. Because you're opening up in a way that is incredibly difficult for people. It needs to be treated with the due care and respect. Yep. Definitely. I didn't go into too much of the detail because how I felt. I, sort of, just went through my background, where I came from, a bit about certain things that happened, but I didn't go into full detail because I didn't feel that comfortable at that time. Can you go into any of that detail now? Because I didn't explain a lot of things to them. I was taken at the age of 2, oh, sorry` age of 3. My sister was 2, my younger sister, and my older sister was 4 years old. There's a year in between us. Me and my younger sister, sort of, started all this going after my older sister passed away. She committed suicide. So that was, you know, it's a pretty raw thing for us. They are responsible for it. For Alva's death? Yeah. So I started telling a bit about my story. I, sort of, didn't feel comfortable explaining a lot. There was sexual abuse. For me, it was three of the boys that were in the home. My younger sister can only recall one of them. She knows there was another one, but she can't identify which one. So I just explained that side of things ` what age I was when I went into the home, into the foster care, what age I left and got the opportunity to meet my birth mother at the same time. So that was an experience on its own. I also explained to them what I` They started asking me questions on how I would like to see the... how to run it, sort of thing. So I thought, am I here to do your job and teach you or are you just asking me general questions? So I answered some of the questions that they asked. Do I want to see the person who did this to me be prosecuted? Yes, definitely. Do I want to see rehabilitation? How do I feel about that? Reimbursements. I also got asked if it went to a public hearing, did I want to attend it? If I wanted to give evidence. So that's the part, I was a little bit wary when this mock thing came out. This is where there's a bit of confusion, isn't there? Yeah. Are the private sessions actual sessions? Is your evidence being taken or are they indeed just these mock sessions? Is this the feedback you're hearing as well? The consent form that I saw, it said quite clearly that this is not evidence. You're not giving evidence. It won't be taken as evidence. Only at that subsequent hearing? Yes. And if you want to give evidence, you have to front up again. Now, that to me is like, why would you be putting people through that process twice? I asked them ` and I never got and answer ` I said, 'Have you put this process through any kind of ethical scrutiny? 'Some kind of independent scrutiny?' Never got an answer. What about these people who have been through these sessions and have spoken about Sir Anand Satyanand falling asleep? One of them was a guy, Milton, who I spoke to, and he was adamant he saw Sir Anand falling asleep twice. I spoke to another survivor, Paora, who hadn't been in these pilot meetings, but she had seen the same thing in the meetings that she'd been in. I've witnessed it. What effect does that have on survivors who are trying to tell their story if someone's nodding off in the room? Disrespectful. Totally. People are there explaining their situation and what they've gone through ` such a traumatic situation ` and you've got somebody who's running the whole team falling asleep on you. What would you do, Tyrone, if someone fell asleep in one of these sessions with you? I'd probably get up and walk out because if I prepare myself to tell my story ` and goodness me, it's quite a big one, my story and so are quite a few others, thousands of others, I don't want someone falling on sleep on me. If you fall asleep or you nod off or whatever you call it and I'm starting to get traumatised by re-living and re-telling my story again, what's the point? Who's going to notice? So, are you really serious about what you're doing or what you're getting paid for? We can't have this. This is just not on. Get all those things at the right at the very least, stay bloody awake. And the other thing was they denied it when I put that to them. Yep. That was the straight out reaction. 'We don't have that in the minutes.' Yeah. So, what impact does that have on survivors if they're then told by the Royal Commission, basically, that they're lying and that the Royal Commission's account of what happened in those sessions is the accurate one? They've been told they're liars all their lives. This is it. From childhood, they've been told, 'No, this didn't happen to you.' And then for the Royal Commission that's supposed to be investigating this to then turn around and say, 'No, we don't believe you.' I'm sorry? You're behaving like the state. You're supposed to be investigating the state. Aaron, does what we're hearing from Tanya and Tyrone have echoes of what's happening now with Oranga Tamariki? Are we creating the next stolen generation? I don't think we've stopped. There's this cut-off point of 1999. I can't quite work out why that's there. There's a Crown lawyer that was actually put in charge of setting this up, so take that as you will. But, yeah, absolutely. We've got now third, fourth generation of this where the state has intervened in people's lives, botched it completely, traumatised people and then we're now getting on. They've had kids. The numbers for me` If you look at the ball park figure of over 100,000, roughly 70% of those were Maori. Now, you put them through that trauma ` the kind of trauma individuals like this have been through. They have kids. They have grandkids. You add that up, that is a number bigger than any iwi in this country. Just finally, do we need a state apology now? Would that go some way to rebuilding trust? To me, personally, no. Because they need to know what they're actually apologising for. It's just like when you go through the legal system to get paid out or to do your evidence side. They apologise to you for what` They're not even opening your file up. So, they've changed the whole MSD. Me and my sister were involved in trying to help restructure it. To me, the MSD leaflet that we received of the overhaul side of things is still the same. That hasn't really changed the process side. They're trying to get people to go directly to MSE instead of going through legal, which we've got Sonia Cooper. So, I don't think that has changed, and I don't think the apology` Don't apologise unless you know what you're apologising for. Yeah, exactly. We have to leave it there. Thank you all so much for joining us. Thank you. OK. And remember, you can free call or text the Mental Health Foundation Helpline any time on 1737. Up next ` the Executive Director of the inquiry responds to our survivors' comments, but first here's Mike Wesley-Smith with the recap of their efforts to seek justice. WESLEY-SMITH: The Royal Commission was announced at the start of 2018. We hope that this inquiry, this royal commission, will confront New Zealand's history in this area. It came after years of survivors' calls for justice for what happened to them at the hands of the state. MAN: He would keep me in the store room in the kitchen. They'd take you into the bedroom and molest you. Trauma that had life-long consequences. I was only a child, and I had no knowledge of anything of that nature. Given $80 million, the inquiry is tasked with finding out how and why so many children were abused dating back to 1950 in state-run institutions. The man appointed to head the commission, former Governor General Sir Anadn Satyanand. He's an individual with extensive experience, mana, and the integrity required. There was soon calls, though, for the inquiry's scope to be expanded to include faith-based institutions ` I think it would be a good idea if the government did broaden the terms of reference for the Royal Commission. ...a move initially resisted by the government, but soon it relented. It was very hard to ignore the strength of feeling that came through during the consultation process. The commission is due to deliver its first report in December 2020. So a disappointing start for the Royal Commission of Inquiry into historical abuse. Is it too late to regain the trust of survivors? The executive director for the inquiry, Mervin Singham joins me now. Thank you very much for being here. Kia ora, Mervin. Does the commission think it's done anything wrong? I think the commission is a learning curve process, but firstly, Tova, I want to thank Aaron, Tyrone and Tanya. They have been advocating for this inquiry for a very, very long time alongside many other survivors, and this Royal Commission would not have been in existence if not for them. So I want to thank them for that, and also for the feedback that I just heard on screen before. And so hearing that, hearing their experiences of the commission, are you shocked about how they've been treated, how they feel they've been treated throughout this process? Look, I'm sorry that the experience they feel they had was one that was less than satisfactory. We're on a learning curve. This is a major inquiry ` the biggest inquiry New Zealand's ever seen. It is major, so we have to learn to do things differently than it has been done before. What are your takeaways? What are you going to change based on what we heard here today? I think, in the process we've just gone through, with 70 people who've gone through a process of meeting with the commissioner, described the account of abuse they've gone through, we've asked them questions about venue, things that we can learn to improve. And 95% of those people who we talked to told us that they had a positive experience with the commissioner. They've also given us valuable feedback, some of which that I heard before. For example, people waiting in the waiting room without being told what's coming up next. We want everyone who comes to us to feel respected, cared for, we want to treat them with compassion. End-to-end care, not leave them waiting in waiting rooms. That's exactly right. Did you think that those mock sessions ` some of those sessions are being called mock sessions ` risked re-traumatising survivors for no real reason because the evidence wasn't actually being heard. Well, I want to make very clear that these were not mock sessions by any means. That's how some survivors felt they were being treated. Yeah. And this needs to be explained clearly, because that would be traumatising, and we wouldn't want that. These sessions were, the first 70 sessions, and they are exactly the same approach that we will be taking for the rest of the inquiry. In other words, the accounts they gave us go towards the assessment and information that we'll be assessing for the future. The only part that was different is we asked focus questions about their comfort with the content of information we gave them, their interaction with the commissioner, logistics, venues. So you'll continue with those sessions because you feel like they are` We will be continuing with those sessions. But you'll be clearer with survivors about what those sessions are and the purpose of them off the back of what you've heard today? Indeed we will. The approach we're taking, it's a mirror approach they've taken in Australia, Scotland, England and Wales. In those sessions, in those jurisdictions, I mean, people share their accounts with the commission, and those stories are then assessed for themes. But there will be public hearings, in which evidence may be called for. And I heard Tanya speak about that before ` her lack of clarity about the session she had, and then how that will interact with the public hearing, so we will need to explain those things a lot more. But we want everyone who comes to us to have a positive experience, because they're giving us the gift of their story, and we understand they would be dredging up memories, painful things that emerge, as we saw before. We want people to feel cared for, we want them to feel supported. So, feeling cared for and feeling supported is not having someone nodding off in the room. That's a base-level respect. Did Sir Anand fall asleep during these sessions? Look, I have to say that our record shows that he did not fall asleep. Having said that, we have to remember Sir Anand is an eminent New Zealander. He was the governor general, as you just reflected. He was an ombudsman and a district court judge. All of these roles require careful listening skills. So we should listen to the voice of a powerful man saying he didn't fall asleep in those sessions, versus the voices of these survivors who say he did fall asleep? I think Sir Anand would be really disappointed to think that people felt less than satisfied with the session they had with him. What we want to do is make sure that every person that comes to us feels respected, listened to, heard, and we show them compassion and kindness. Yeah, at the very least staying awake for those sessions. Do you recognise the damage done to the survivors and the commission by having the chief commissioner fall asleep? Well, I have to say that our record in this instance shows that he did not fall asleep. Did you ask him? Did you follow up with him? I did ask him myself. And what did he say? He said that he reflects on information in different ways, like he sometimes closes his eyes. That might have been interpreted as sleeping. Yeah, contemplation. You know when you listen to the accounts of survivors, they're really full-on ` the things they share. It's very hard to fall asleep in the middle of it unless you're completely devoid of any human compassion, which he is not. We've known about this issue for decades, and there's a lot of criticism about how long the commission took to get off the ground and then get started. People want` Survivors want people to be held accountable, don't they? So if the evidence establishes that prime ministers, ministers, heads of departments knew about this and did nothing, will you haul them in to give evidence to explain why? Absolutely. That is exactly what this inquiry is for ` it's to hold people to account, to put a torchlight on the truth. It's a big inquiry. We need to plan it carefully; we need to make sure it's fair and impartial to everyone, so it withstands scrutiny, and that's the only way the recommendations we make will be implemented. People are not going to implement things that we say if they don't have confidence that it's got the weight of evidence behind it. Do you anticipate that there could be prosecutions against those who have abused or covered up abuse? That is possible. If we look at what's happened in other jurisdictions, referrals have been made to police, prosecutions have followed. We've already made some referrals to the police. In 2016, Jacinda Ardern, the now prime minister, she was in Opposition at the time, she called the then-government, John Key, to make a state apology. Does the government need to make a state apology now? Look, I think the important thing about this inquiry is to make sure we uncover the truth first. To make an apology in the absence of information that says what actually happened, I think would actually rob survivors of a meaningful apology. So I would suggest that we need to wait for the inquiry to reach its findings and to show New Zealand what actually happened. We know some of those stories, though, and at the time, I think, Jacinda Ardern was making the point that we know there were egregious abuses of state power to these children who'd been taken out of their homes, so is there not recourse for an apology now before the inquiry is complete just to address what has gone on and what we know has gone on. Well, that would be a matter for the government to obviously... In my thinking, this Royal Commission has to complete its inquiry, make its findings, and then say to the government what we think is required. The government may, of course, choose to implement that then, or may choose to apologise now. OK, all right. Mervin Singham, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you very much, Tova. Thank you. If you've got something to say about what you see on our show, let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram ` NewshubNationNZ. Our Twitter panel this week is Tim Mcready and Bevan Chuang. They're using the hashtag NationNZ, or you can email us at... The address is on your screen now. Still to come, we dissect the week in politics with our panel, plus David Seymour with an exclusive preview of this weekend's ACT Party relaunch. The ACT Party will unveil its grand rebrand at the party conference this weekend, complete with a suite of new policies. David Seymour, the ACT Party leader, hopes it will transform his minor party into a major political force. David joins me now. David, kia ora. Thank you for joining us. Kia ora. What policy changes can you reveal on Newshub Nation this week? Well, we're going to talk a lot more about freedom of speech. That's something that at the start of the year, you might not have thought would be a major issue, but you now the government seriously talking about putting in place new rules that may actually allow people to be punished on the basis of opinion. Now, you've always been able to be punished by the state on the basis of fact. You take something like burglary - Did you enter the premises? Did you commit a crime while you were there? et cetera. Those are all facts. The idea that you could be potentially punished for saying something that was offensive or insulting as they have in the UK is something that worries a lot of Kiwis, and so we're going to talk about that a lot. So, what changes are you proposing? So, we're going to put down a Private Member's Bill. Obviously, from opposition, your power to affect parliament is limited to that. But it's actually going to take out the few parts of our legislation in the Human Rights Act and the Summary Offences Act that make people potentially subject to prosecution for saying things that are judged to be insulting or offensive. And I think that's important because at a time when the government wants to go the other way, one of the roles that ACT has started to play in parliament recently is that we stand up for things that are sometimes unpopular at the time but important to New Zealanders long-term values, and in this case, freedom of speech. You want part 6 and section 61 of the Human Rights Acts scrapped. That's the bit of the law that protects against racial disharmony. Are you saying that abusive or insulting speech that incites racial disharmony is OK? What's not okay is to incite or threaten violence. That's a crime in the Crimes Act. It always should be. It's been a crime for a long time` But insulting or abusive speech that incites racial disharmony? That's right because- That's fine by you? No, it's not fine by me. And this is a really important distinction. I've got a strong record of standing up against racism in parliament, such as Labour's Chinese-sounding names. I was the first to come on this show and stand up to that. But you want people to have the right to do that? Well, I don't even want them to have the right ` and this is where it gets important. I don't want the state to have the right to punish people. To prosecute. And so, you look at some of these examples that we've seen recently of people saying rude and horrible things. Do I think that's okay? No, I don't. But what's more important is that we don't go down a path that the UK has been down where people can have the police come around to their door and potentially arrest them and have actually detained people is for sending a Tweet. I think that's something that we need to avoid. As you say, the governments looking at going in a different direction, strengthening those parts of the Human Rights Act ` perhaps include gender, religion, sexual orientation. Is that not where the public appetite is after Christchurch? And who are you trying to appeal to here? Well, I'm trying to appeal to people who see that freedom of speech is the foundation of all freedoms. If you can't express yourself, it's very hard to stand up politically for important causes. And just remember, a lot of the causes that we now think are totally normal are things that were expressed initially because people had the right to say things that are unpopular. And I would say the most important person in New Zealand history who's done that is Kate Sheppard. OK. Are you going for the racist vote with this? No, not at all. I think that there's a problem where to stand up for freedom of speech, you have to stand up for things that you don't agree with. And I've stood up for people on the left and the right of the political spectrum in the last few years that I completely disagree with. But if you only stand up for people who share your views, you're not standing up for freedom of speech, you're doing the opposite. I think it's really unfortunate that some people in the political debate, try to conflate me with the people I'm standing up with. I think a more respectful way to look at it is to say, 'David Seymour doesn't necessarily agree with these people.' I don't agree with racist people. But you'd be quite comfortable for white supremacists to vote for you and the ACT Party? Well, I can't stop people voting for me, obviously. I mean, I think that's an absurd question. But I think it's unreasonable for you to try and conflate me with a particular cause because I'm standing up for freedom of speech. Let's work through some potentially everyday examples, not necessarily whether you'd be comfortable with it. But do you think it's fair people could walk down the street using the N-word? Look, I think that's completely offensive, and I think there would be a whole lot of sanctions from that from the wider society. But you don't think that should be enshrined in law? But I don't think that the state should be there trying to punish people. What about people Sieg Heiling at rallies on the parliament? Well, I think those people are complete idiots, and they'll get all their- Is that freedom of expression, though, and that should be protected? It is freedom of expression, but it will get- Sieg Heiling at parliament? It will get exactly what it deserves, which is total contempt and ridicule from all of New Zealand society, from the media- Contempt and ridicule doesn't necessarily protect people from the harms that those kinds of actions can perpetrate. Actually in the long-term, state punishment of expression hasn't protected people from harms at all, it's the places where the state can punish you for your opinion that you're in most danger. The way that we have become the society that we are is not by punishing people for their opinions, but by debating and throwing out bad ideas in the contest of debate, and that's what you do every night at 6 o'clock on Newshub. Is there such-? You should be worried about the ability to say things that people often find- But there are other ways of doing that. There are ways of fortifying freedom of expression without removing some of the protections in the Human Rights Act, which could enable destructive free speech. But let's talk about another law you want changed ` the harmful- Actually, is there something that you would like to be able to say now that you feel you can't say because of the current laws? No. All the things I say are things that a lot of people agree with, and I certainly don't like discriminating on people on the basis of their race or their gender or their sexuality or their religion. I'm just not into that. You won't find me anywhere at any time discriminating against anyone on those kind of bases, so I'm not a person who is in any danger, I don't think. On the other hand, I've often said things that I think are perfectly legitimate that people have tried to twist, and people have tried to persecute me. I mean, you yourself on Newshub have left the impression- Poor David Seymour. Exactly. I mean, you know- We don't have a lot of time. Let's- And this is the thing. You might not be saying something that is unreasonable, but once you have mob rule and you allow the state to punish you for unpopular opinions, that is a dangerous place to go. A couple of the other things that you want changed, the Harmful Digital Communications Act, which protects people from online bullying, revenge porn and other forms of digital abuse, you want that to only protect 18-year-olds and under. Why not adults as well? Why not protect them from digital harms? So, first of all, with regard to revenge porn, that should apply to everybody. That's a particular crime that when the Crimes Act was done in 1961, of course nobody could foresee the internet, so that should remain for everybody. But when it comes to what the Harmful Digital Communications Act says, you're not allowed to say things that are offensive. If you think someone said something offensive, then you can actually go and have that litigated through the courts. Now, just remember Newsroom ` a very important establishment in New Zealand journalism ` has already had to face off a threat under the Harmful Digital Communication Act. I don't think that adults should be able to use it to litigate disputes with other adults. Protecting kids from bullying, sure. I'm an electorate MP. Principals and parents tell me all the time that's an important issue, but it shouldn't be enabling adults to use the state to win debates. What about the Human Rights Commission ` you want that abolished. What records will people have against discrimination? Well, about as much as they've got now, because I can tell you, as an electorate MP, I have been to the Human Rights Commission and asked them to help with constituents, and they've run for the hills. Meanwhile, whenever there's a political issue, the previous Human Rights Commissioner, Susan Devoy, was happy to wade in with all sorts of opinions that were completely unreasonable and outside her role. Paula Tesoriero, one of the commissioners for Disability Commissioner, has waded into the debate about the End of Life Choice Bill in the most unprofessional way. These guys are highly politicised, and when it comes to actually helping people with human rights, they don't help at all, so I don't see any purpose for them. We have to leave it there, unfortunately. I would like to talk a bit about the re-brand. Is it significant, the re-brand tomorrow for the ACT Party? Oh, absolutely. But no new name. No, we're keeping the name ACT. After 20 years of investing in it, we thought we'd keep it. But, look, if you look across the political spectrum, people are saying we need something more. National are voting with the government almost half the time. People are saying we need some real opposition. You're on .5%. You think you're going to- Last election, you thought you were going to get five MPs in, right? Yeah. Yeah. Are you delusional? (LAUGHS) No, not at all. I'm ambitious. And people like you should have more admiration for ambition and not be so mean. I think that actually there is a place for ACT. I think that as we refocus our brand, our policies become more sharply distinguished, then we can do better than the last time. That's a great story. That's a good place to leave it. Thank you very much for joining us, David. Thank you. Coming up on the panel, Ben Thomas, Mihingarangi Forbes and Jenna Lynch on the news of the week. And up next ` the first of our new series 'The Pitch', in which a member of the opposition has a red-hot go at selling you their ideas in less than five minutes. Welcome back. Today we introduce our new series ` The Pitch ` in which a member of the opposition tries to sell us on their ideas in just five minutes. In a week that saw teachers score their best deal in decade's, can Nikki Kaye school us on education? Here's reporter John-Michael Swannix. Look, I give him credit, if the teachers do settle. I think that its important that the government has backed down and provided additional funding. Its been a really long prolonged process, and we hope that they settle. Primary teachers are getting an 18.5% increase, and under the National government they got less than that in the whole nine years that National was in power. Why didn't you give teachers pay the boost it needed? Because we didn't have the cash that this government has. In fact, we were staring down a decade of deficits, and we had billions of dollars of bill for Canterbury. If we had had more cash, then we would've have more options like this government has had. But we did what we could with the circumstances we were given. Will you commit to keeping teachers pay at or above the average wage, if National gets back into power? Well absolutely be looking to ensure that teachers can deal with those costs of living issues, but also that we have incentives for them to stay in teaching in the long term. I cant commit future governments to what that salary will be, but what I can say is they've locked in agreements via the collective bargaining until 2022. Those agreements are pretty good, and Nationals been very supportive of that. Its 2020, you're Education Minister, what's the first thing you want to get done? Look, I think its really important that we acknowledge that there are children with significant additional learning needs and complex needs. And the first thing that I want to make sure that we adequately focus on is ensuring that those children have the support that they need. What about in the first 100 days? National will be very focussed on, not only lifting standards of achievement, but helping our most vulnerable children in the system. I think that we can support teachers and principals more and invest in leadership. And so I'm very confident that while Labour talk a lot, and raise expectations, that National can deliver. What are you going to do when it comes to class sizes? We will be reducing teacher ratios in primary school. We've also said that its likely to be in the order of several hundred million dollars. The reason we haven't named the ratio is because we've got significant teacher shortages at the moment, and there's no point in promising a ratio, if you cant get teachers in classrooms. When we talked to you about this in 2017 and you were Education Minister, you were defending ratios of 36 kids to one teacher. What's changed? We leave it up to schools as to how they manage their classrooms. So we might provide them five teachers, but again, they can choose how many students are actually in their class. That's one thing that were dealing with and talking about in 2017. I think what has changed is as I've gone around New Zealand, its pretty clear to me that teachers have major workload issues, and we believe that we can do more around assisting those teachers to be able to get on with their job and do teaching, if they have lower workload. And that's why reducing teacher ratios matters. Aren't these sorts of promises that your making around reducing class sizes and ensuring that teachers are well-paid` aren't they the same sort of thing that you've been criticising Labour for in terms of raising expectations too high? No, because I think that National has a history and a track-record of delivering. And I think that's the difference between us and this government. We know that they promised more than 50 areas of education that they haven't delivered on. And even if people think National might be less generous, one thing that they know, and I think the feedback that I get, is that we've had credibility in delivering what we promise. What's your position on making New Zealand history compulsory in schools so that the generations of New Zealanders growing up have a better understanding of how colonialism is affecting Maori? Were open to strengthening it. The question is, how you do that? If it was via civics education then it could end up being compulsory. My strong view is, we don't do enough as a nation to enable young people to know about our history as a country. We will certainly be advocating for that. Compulsory te reo in schools, yes or no? It hasn't been Nationals position to have compulsory te reo. My strong view is, though, if we have universal access and we actually provide it properly, we will get most young people learning it. Charter schools, re-establish or dead in the water? National has said that we will bring back an enhanced model of partnership schools. The reason we believe in that, is that the facts are they help some of our most vulnerable young people. The current governments reviewing tomorrows schools, and they could be the biggest shake-up in education since the 1980s. Will you take that work forward? There's a number of areas in the report for which were supportive of the recommendations. Scrapping the decile system, moving to more equitable funding, more support for children with additional learning needs, but our big issue with this report is that we believe that the major structural change will lead to more centralisation, less autonomy for the profession, and too much power with officials. And it potentially could cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Up next ` our panel on the best and worst behaviour in politics this week. Plus ` Judith Collins in full attack mode at housing minister Phil Twyford's expense. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel: Ben Thomas from Exceltium PR, Mihingarangi Forbes from the hui, and Newshub political reporter Jenna Lynch. Thanks for being here, guys. Tena korua. Mihi, let's start with you. The survivors talking about state abuse. Not really feeling like it's survivor-centric. Does the Survivor Advisory Committee have to have more of a role ` the group that Tyrone's on? Yeah, I think having spoken to Tyrone there, they're turning up to these meetings, and they're not seeing anyone who looks like them. They're not` You know, Tanya was talking about being asked questions about sexual abuse, and, kind of, not feeling like she wanted to share her experiences because they don't see anyone and it's a really clinical situation for them. So, I guess, the Commission needs to look at how they're going to accommodate that and make those survivors feel safe, cos that's the most important thing, and believed ` cos we hear that they've been challenged on what they saw and what they heard. And, you know, those are fundamentally the most important things when you're talking to survivors of abuse ` especially when it's state abuse and it's a state process. And at least` I suppose Mervin Singham did seem open to, kind of, changing and amending things to make it more survivor-centric and actually take on board some of those concerns. But` As he should. But what does he mean by that? Because, you know, how are you going to make that meeting more of a hui? How are you going to make the people there more whanau? And what if people do break down and need support? Having done these kinds of interviews with Nga Morehu, the kind of after care and care that we put into those to make sure people felt safe was extraordinary, and it still goes on today ` two years later. Extraordinary and necessary as well. Absolutely. And we were hearing from Tanya there as well, Jenna, that she didn't want to ` as you say, Mihi ` didn't want to go into too much detail in those meetings. Does that just defeat the whole purpose of the Royal Commission? Yeah. And I think from the moment that she turned up having, you know, the hotel concierge greet her... In that moment, you should have every single piece of support around you, and if you don't have every single piece of support around you` You should have a survivor greeting you. Yeah. That's what you should have. And that support person. Somebody who knows and can say to them, 'Haere mai. Come in. It's going to be OK. This is how it's going to go today.' Yeah. Yeah. If these people can't open up, there is absolutely no point in running this whole thing, I don't think. And ideally, someone will leave the room five minutes before the meeting starts so that they can come and get the survivor so that somebody has an opportunity to wake up Sir Anand Satyanand. (CHUCKLES) Give him a bit of a prod. Yeah. Well, that's it as well, isn't it? At a very base level, everyone in the room needs to be awake. And what did you think of` Engaged. And engaged. Engaged. I mean, that's just appalling. If that is true ` and that's what they are saying ` that is appalling. And I don't know what the solution is, but perhaps not be in the room and have somebody who is engaging with them. And what of the fact that they're saying, 'Well, our records don't show that.'? Well, I mean` So, their records trump the records of the survivors. Ben falls asleep all the time, and it's not minuted. (CHUCKLES) Yeah, I'm not aware of any record keeping in minutes that puts an asterisk next to the business items where the chair is asleep. 'A gentle snore rose in the room.' Yeah, that's right. And, look, Sir Anand is not a young man. These will be long days for him, but they need to make sure that it's conducted in such a way that there is full attention. We already know, in general, that terrible things were done to many, many people. The government actually has, in very bland but general terms, apologised for this behaviour. Chris Finlayson ` my old boss ` during his time in government apologised to those people who were abused, but we don't have details on who those people are. Was a kind of caveated apology. You know, it hasn't stopped. Yeah, that's right. It needs to be specific people. It hasn't stopped. It's still today. And if you listen to those survivors, they say, 'there was no end point.' 1950 to 1990 really means nothing to them ` particularly, when we know that at the end of last year 2018 in six months 223 children were harmed in state care. More than in families. Yeah, in 2018 alone. On to David Seymour, his free speech v. hate speech ` wanting to change the Human Rights Act, the Harmful Digital Communications Act and others. Jenna, is the timing tone deaf after Christchurch? Don't we need more protections rather than fewer? Yeah, absolutely tone deaf. And it's continuing on the Act Party track of how they've acted post`Christchurch. All they have done so far is oppose the gun laws and try and open up our hate speech laws so we can be a little bit more racist. That is the wrong direction for New Zealand at the moment. However, I think they're feeling emboldened because free speech is one of the only things that David Seymour seems to be getting any cut through on. And if you look at his social media, that's where people are going to. So he's emboldened by` Unfortunately, every idiot in New Zealand has access to a computer, and they're being fed this fear and scare mongering that, 'the state is going to come for you if you think, if you speak.' If he's whipping that up, I think that's dangerous. Yeah. Who's he trying to appeal to? Is he going for the racist vote? What constituents he actually wants these law changes? Act, throughout its history, has had this branding of a freedom liberal party, so there's nothing inconsistent about what Seymour's doing right now in terms of freedom of speech. That's always been a core part of the Act brand. I think what's changed is that other major parties ` say, National, for instance ` have really receded in terms of their interest in this whole debate. I mean, the thing is there's very little prospect of the government rushing in and making big changes either way to our hate speech laws... Mm. Mm. ...to the Bill of Rights in terms of freedom of expressions. What's happening is the Greens vocally on one end and David Seymour on the other end are, kind of, whipping up their bases in a way that's very profitable to them on the fringes but probably won't have much of an effect legislatively in New Zealand at all. If David Seymour of Nga Puhi was looking for votes,... (CHUCKLES) he should look to the people who have signed this petition, 'Hands off our tamariki'. There's more than 10,000 now. And Maori are calling this the next Seabed and Foreshore. All right, thanks, guys. We'll leave it there. Thank you very much for joining me. Our panel: Ben Thomas, Jen Lynch and Mihingarangi Forbes. Stay with us. We're back after the break. Welcome back. We're with our panel. Ben Thomas from Exceltium PR, Mihingarangi Forbes from the Hui and Jenna Lynch, Newshub's political reporter. Thanks for joining us, guys. Oranga Tamariki taking Maori new-borns, the story of the week. Mihi, you talked before about the 220 children abused in 2018 in Oranga Tamariki care. Most of those were remaining with or returning to their families, so is there an argument for removing them from families to relative safety? Well, the Children's Commissioner, Andrew Becroft, who's had a lot of experience in this area would say the first principle of Oranga Tamariki is to keep the mother, baby, whanau, iwi together. So, based on that, you would have to really question the process of it. Funnily, we were just talking before about that story, and, you know, one of the takeaways at the very beginning of this story is it's not about the reasons why this uplift was happening, it's about the way in which it was. I think it's, like, a really blunt tool that they use. It's like a sledgehammer rather using than a surgical blade, really, because not every single case is the same. I've had four children, and I've had four babies on my chest after I've given birth, and it's just barbaric that you would think that you can take away` That baby` I don't believe that baby was in any imminent danger. It had two qualified midwives with it that were going to` There was a plan. It was an Oranga Tamariki plan. That woman was going to a place where she was going to be monitored. The midwives, everyone was in on the plan, so... Ben, how do we balance calls for Maori children to never be uplifted with babies who genuinely need protection` I don't mean not ever uplifted. Absolutely not. There's always a place for Oranga Tamariki, and that is their job, to protect our tamariki. Yeah, and part of this arises from changes that the last National government made, which stopped mandatory consultation with whanau and iwi before uplifts, and I think that needs to be addressed. There needs to be much closer engagement with iwi organisations, in particular. You know, one of the things that we see is a lot of these families have been devastated by the effects of colonisation, by poverty, by inter-generational depravation. The wider whanau in a lot of cases isn't able to look after the children. We are talking about a subset. We're not talking about all Maori children. We're talking about parents who are Maori, who are not able to care for their kids, who know their whakapapa, and probably already have some pre-existing iwi links, so that they can be looped into those organisations. So it's not a question of blanket` Funnily enough in that case, the iwi was there, they were locked outside of the hospital. That was Des Ratima and Ngahiwi Tomoana who are very well-known and respected. And, you know, Ngahiwi Tomoana was a social worker for 30 years. These are the iwi leaders asking to be part of the plan. Yeah, and I think the upcoming changes, requiring Oranga Tamariki` So Oranga Tamariki talks about those. They've got three MOUs or relationships with three iwi, Waikato-Tainui, Ngai Tahu and Ngapuhi. And what are they actually look like, those? Because, I mean, have you seen those three iwi come out in support of Oranga Tamariki this week? I mean, the silence is actually deafening. Let's move on to another topic, just finally. The poll. Simon Bridges dragging the National Party down to 37.4%. He's on the lowest preferred prime minister rating as well. Jenna, do you think he'll survive? Feels like a case of when, not if, he will go, whether he will go before the next election, whether he will stay on. But... Look, I went to Tauranga on last Sunday, on poll day, talking to people in his own electorate. They are two-ticks blue people. Every time I mentioned Simon Bridges' name I got scrunched faces, I got shaking heads. People just do not like him. And now` They knew about the Treasury stuff as well, didn't they? Yeah, that's right. That got quite a bit of cut-through, but again, they didn't like the way it was handled. So everyone knew about the story, but didn't like the way that it was presented by the National Party. I think we've seen his personal poll ratings going down and down and down, but now he's in this tailspin, bringing the party with him. That's got to be worrying for his colleagues. Ben, will he survive? If you're asking whether he'll be prime minister, it's not looking good. Will he survive as leader of the National Party for some time yet? I think so. I think a lot of people in the National Party haven't actually realised how bad even a poll-rating in the 40s is for National, up against the combined total of the coalition plus the Green support party. You know, in some polls they've been as far as 18 points adrift. Now, that's a huge discrepancy. That's a lot of ground to make up before the next election, and in a presidential campaign, with the leaders of the two major parties pitted against each other, Ardern versus Bridges, as the main event, they're not going to make that up during the eight weeks. Judith Collins chomping at the bit, though, perhaps, and chomping at his heels. Is she going to come on in there? Well... Look at the ABC club - 'Anyone But Collins' club in there. I think if she` We're starting to hear if she makes a move, then perhaps Paula Bennet will come in there, and be the hero that saves the day, sort of thing. But, again, talking to the same people in Tauranga, they weren't sure about Judith Collins, but didn't have that same dislike` Visceral reaction. Yeah. Be interesting to see how the National Party reacts to David Seymour's policies so close to Christchurch. Yes. Yeah, indeed. Thank you guys so much for joining us. National remained on the attack in the house this week. And Trevor Mallard was taking no prisoners on either side of the aisle. Here's Finn Hogan with the week that was in parliament. While Phil Twyford's been keeping very quiet on the KiwiBuild front, Judith Collins was busy twisting the knife in the government's troubled flagship policy. Remember KiwiBuild? That was going to bring 100,000 houses to New Zealanders. Everyone was going to have one. It was going to be... Oh, I think they've got about 100? It's only 18 months and $2 billion (!) And you could be forgiven for thinking it was still Budget Week, the way Simon Bridges continued to grill government over the so-called 'hack'. Instead of changing her language, why didn't she do the right thing and publically make clear there was no criminal hacking? Mr Speaker, I would acknowledge this is the first time the Member's had a chance to question me about the Budget, and I notice priority is that this is the only thing that he thinks that matters to members of New Zealand, again, these are all political causes, and clearly this is his one, and I wish him well. When Winston Peters came to the PM's defence, Speaker Trevor Mallard was less than impressed. Can you clarify why it's not in order? Because it doesn't relate to the primary question. But it should. (LAUGHTER) The member will stand, withdraw and apologise. I withdraw and apologise. He is on his last warning for this sitting session. It seems the Deputy Prime Minister didn't exactly take that warning to heart. This is politics, and people need to hear it. I made it very clear that he was on his last warning, and then he continued to argue afterwards. He will leave the House. So the moral of the story this week? It's the Speaker's House, they're all just sitting in it. That's all from us for now. Thank you for watching. Thank you, and see you again next weekend. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019