Today on Newshub Nation Damien O'Connor on tightening up our borders and giving farmers a sweet deal on emissions. And following a historic hui, a plea from Maori leaders for more control over child welfare. And Backstory how well do we know our leaders? We go home with NZ First MP Jenny Marcroft. Kia ora, good morning. I am Simion Shepherd, and welcome to Newshub Nation. And it was a big week for New Zealand foreign affairs Foreign Minister Winston Peters visitied the White House to lobby Vice President Mike Pence for a free trade deal. And Jacinda Ardern met fellow Prime Minister Scott Morrison for bilateral talks in Australia. Although she raised the contentious issue of Kiwi deportations from Australia, the Australian Government remains comitted to the policy. The Prime Minister flew home on a commercial flight last night after the Air Force jet that was going to bring her home broke down. Under the current Government, the number of one-off hardship grants have increased from $270,000 a year to $490,000 a year. Hardship grants pay for urgent basic needs like food. Opposition Leader, Simon Bridges, has accused the government of taxing people into poverty. The government, meannwhile, says it is helping those who need it the most. And the Government says that it's agreement with farmers that they should pay for agricultural emissions is historic, but there's no agreement on how. One proposal says farmers should pay a 5% emissions tax, another suggests farmers themselves design the new pricing scheme. Agricultural emissions are the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand. And Damien O'Connor, Minister for Agriculture and Biosecurity, among other things, joins me now from Nelson. Good morning, Minister, thanks for your time. Good morning, Simon. Going to talk emissions in a moment, but first, this wide-ranging review of the biosecurity act. Does this mean that our border control is failing us? No, it doesn't, but the act is 26 years old. A lot has changed in that time. There have been occasional reviews and updates, but it's time for a major overhaul. We'll look at the act in two parts we'll look at the acute issues like compensation, like on-farm practice, to make sure that the act gives the right guidelines, the right requirements for people on the ground. Then we'll look at the wider issues of policy how we do pest management, national pest management plans. So it's a two stage review of an act that is 26 years old. All right, well, we've had a lot of incursions stink bugs, fruit fly, myrtle rust, Mycoplasma bovis. In fact, a fruit fly discovered 5 days ago, but not notified to the public yesterday. Are you being transparent enough about the incursions that are happening on our border? We're being absolutely transparent. The reality is that we have more trade, we have more people coming in. The threat is growing all the time. Climate change offshore means that there are new pests from new locations. So, we're keeping as up to date as we can. We've had to put more resource in. The fact is that the system hasn't kept up over the last 9 years of National. We've had increasing trade without increasing resource. So we're playing catch-up at the moment, but this review is part of that wide-ranging oversight. Is there a chance that our clean, green island nation that's good for business, good for tourism, good for reputation is that at risk because our border security is not up to it? No, we're always at risk, and we do have things that come in from time to time. But our response, as we've seen in the fruit fly, has been rapid. We've been transparent, we've talked to our trading partners. So, generally speaking, I think we've got an open, transparent process. It's always at risk; if something major comes into the country, yes, of course that could threaten our reputation. But we're honest with our trading partners offshore. So they understand that we're focussed on this. And I guess the impacts on our own economy that's up to us to manage. OK, just quickly on the latest fruit fly find, it was found 5 days ago, and yet Biosecurity only notified the public yesterday. That's five days later, is that acceptable? Yes, it is. They're busy on the ground trying to assess whether it's one fly, whether there are any others. We have a lot of traps on the ground. The issue here is that, actually, normally in the winter they'd be in hibernation. Because of the warmer temperatures that we're seeing, not only in New Zealand, but elsewhere, we've got different patterns of behaviour with fruit fly and many other pests and diseases. So, we have to double check that indeed it's a fruit fly, where it's from, and that there's only one. So we're trying to work out whether there's a population here or not, and that's something that decision yet to be made on. OK, because normally we see fruit fly in the headlines immediately when you find a discovery, so it's unusual to see a delay when you actually find another one. Look, there's been a fruit fly incursion, we've had the Northcote for some time. We've been finding the odd fly, we've been notifying that as quickly as possible, and certainly our trading partners. So we've been trying to minimise the impact on local people. They have been very cooperative, I'd have to say, and in South Auckland as well. The programme is running well, as we find the fly, we'll notify. But the objective, of course, is to find every one of them. All right. Just quickly, are you going to increase fines at the border? At the moment it's, like, $400 if you have an apple in your bag. Are you going to bump those up under this review to make sure that these kinds of things are being disincentivized across the border? Look, that could be the case. But actually, we've got to make sure that we've got proper videos, proper warnings and systems to notify people of the importance of not bringing fruit and veggies into the country, or anything that may be risk material. We've had a very average video played on some of the airlines. We've got to make sure a very good video on all the airlines is played, that we're doing everything we can to notify people of their responsibilities before we whack them. $400 is quite a fine that's not going to prevent people bringing it in if they make a genuine mistake. So we've got to be focussed on every area of the biosecurity system. All right, so part of the review, as well, is that you're going to have a look at the readiness and the response of Biosecurity and MPI. Has this been brought to light because the response to Mycoplasma bovis hasn't been up to scratch? M. bovis has certainly been a wakeup call. If you look at the fruit fly response, I think that's been very, very positive industry participants, cooperation with all stakeholders there has been very, very good. If I go back to M. bovis clearly we've had mistakes and faults in the NAIT system. We haven't had the people on the ground ready to respond to something like M. bovis. It's a new disease, we were unaware, probably, of its potential danger, and we're the only country in the world that's attempting to eradicate this. Most other countries have just managed with it. That wouldn't be an ideal scenario for the New Zealand farming system. That's why we've been learning a lot as we go forward. Mistakes have been made, we have apologised. You know, and on both sides, farmers obviously don't always provide all the information. We're learning as we go, and I think the sense of cooperation is far greater now than it was when we started. Sure. But what about I mean, you're also reviewing how compensation is paid. What does that mean? But it's too late, isn't it, for the people who have been affected by M. bovis and, sort of, the delayed response to it? Some people have already lost their businesses. Um, yeah, well, some may have lost their businesses. I'm not aware of those that have been soley responsible That M. Bovis has been the single factor there. Yes, it has brought a lot of pressure on people, and, you know, it's very, very hard if you do get infected with M. bovis. Still, relative to the number of farms in New Zealand, it's small, it's under 200. We're trying to work with those people. Our support systems, working with Beef and Lamb and Dairy NZ, who are our partners in this eradication programme. We're all getting better at this, working with the Rural Support Trust to help people. It's not perfect, but I think we made a lot of progress. OK, can I move on to climate change now, and the proposals that were announced this week. Agriculture you say they're going to pay something, and this agreement is historic. But you haven't actually agreed anything, so what's historic about it? Well, it's the fact that farmers and industry leaders have finally accepted that a price on emissions is then incorporating us into the world movement to try and reduce emissions across the board. Climate change is a reality. We committed as a government in 1997 to bring agriculture into our Emissions Trading Scheme or into a climate change movement. Well, it's taken a long time then, hasn't it? If you committed in 1997. Indeed it has. And when we were last in government in Labour, we tried to bring in a carbon tax. That was rejected by farmers, they didn't want that. So the Emissions Trading Scheme was another alternative that was bought in by us. It was then tinkered with by the last National government. It hasn't been effective, and we're trying to straighten out the ETS, as well as bring agriculture in. And they're going to pay a 5% tax on emissions until a proper system can be designed by 2025. Are you being too soft on our biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses? No, look, we've made concessions for other industries like steel, like cement, because they are high-emitting industries. We can't just impose the full cost on those industries. It would be unviable. The same thing is with agriculture. Look, there's a biological reality here that methane from cows can't be stopped overnight. Farmers are looking at ways of mitigating, we're working on technology, investing in science and coming up with some ideas as to how we can reduce the emissions and the waste while still maintaining the, you know, the productive capacity and the profitability of farming. And at the same time, Greenpeace says that those kinds of 5% tax is laughable, and in fact, the actual cost to a dairy farmer of 1c per kilo of milk solids averages out to about $1500-2000 a year. That's hardly going to change behaviour, is it? It's a relatively low cost, but it will change behaviour, because if we can incentivise good behaviour` And farmers respond very quickly to that. They are very adaptive, in fact, more adaptive and more innovative than most other parts of our economy in many ways. So sending that signal to them, knowing that they are part of the ETS, you'll see changing behaviour. We've just got to give them the tools and give them the advice to move in the right direction, and that's what we're working on now. The other proposal is that it's coming from the industry, and they're saying they don't want to pay anything until they come up with their own emissions pricing plan. Can you rely on the industry itself to come up with a plan to tax itself? We've got to have the right mix of incentive and, I guess, driver. And the Interim Climate Change Committee came up with a recommendation that said we've got to work through some of the technical issues. In the meantime, perhaps we should have a payment at the processor level. That's one of the two options that are out for discussion now. I favour going to a farm-based obligation, because the farmers get that signal, and they will make the changes. It doesn't happen at a processor-level obligation, but what that would do is generate some funds that can go into more research and help farmers with the tools. So that's the discussion that we're going to have over the next four weeks, and I look forward to some robust discussion on those issues. Just quickly, the National Party isn't really in favour of this, these tools for farmers to get their emissions down. How are you going to get the National Party across the line and make sure that they don't scrap it if they get into power next? That is a risk, and of course what they did is they undermined the integrity of the ETS last time, which has meant that the farmers were now 10 years, effectively, behind where we should have been. And if we can get on to this earlier, then the obligations and the changes necessary are far less acute than they might be if we delayed this further and further. And I think the procrastination, aided and abetted by National Party that's had its head in the sand, it has meant it's harder for farmers. We've been upfront, clear with farmers with the messages. We've got to get on and be an international participant in this. That enables us to trade into the high-value markets. If we don't do this, there are more excuses for our trading partners to block access for us. And we want to keep those doors open so we can sell high-value products to high-value markets. OK. Agricultural Minister Damien O'Connor, thank you very much for your time this morning. Thank you. All right, if you've got something to say about what you see on the show, let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram NewshubNationNZ. Our Twitter Panel this week is Laura Tupou and Mark Thomas. They're using the hashtag #NationNZ. Or you can email us at the address is on your screen now. But, still to come, we dissect the week's political news with our panel, but first, a historic hui and a plea to the state this week from Maori leaders to stop taking their babies. We have two of those leaders live. Welcome back. Hundreds of whanau and Maori leaders gathered at a hui in Mangere last weekend where they voted unanimously for an inquiry into Oranga Tamariki. The historic meeting called for a child welfare framework to be developed by Maori, for Maori. Chair of Whanau Ora Commissioning Agency, Merepeka Raukawa-Tait and chair of the National Urban Maori Authority Lady Tureiti Moxon were at the hui, and they join me now live. Thanks for your time this morning. Kia ora. Lady Moxon, can you just describe to me what it was like last week and what really happened at the historic hui? Well, there were over 400 people who turned up to that meeting, and there were a whole lot of other people who were wired in to listen through live streaming. And the big overall cry from the hui was 'not one more child' ` not one more child to be taken. And there were people who told their stories about the horrors that had happened to them in the workshop groups. There was really a movement, if you like, for change. OK, all right. So that cry for not one more child to be taken ` Merepeka, not one more child to be taken by the state. I mean, is that no more uplifts per se? What does that mean? What are you calling for, then? Well, first of all, our children must be safe in their homes, and if there is an issue around the safety of the children, that must be addressed. But it must be addressed by the people who actually can influence the environment in the home. So you have to get into the homes. And what we are seeing now is there are too many children ` Maori children, particularly newborns ` that are being uplifted, taken by the state. And, so, what we're saying is, 'No, no, no.' We want to ensure that those who have responsibility for the children must step up, and they have to be looking after their own children. So we don't want the state involved any longer. They've never done a good job. They continue to be there after the event, and what we're saying is, 'No.' Put all of your resources and all your time and effort into getting with the families, the people and the providers who actually know their job and can actually do something so that we can reduce the horrible statistics that we have in this country. Yeah, and we all acknowledge those statistics, and we'll talk about what the government's talking about in bringing in the state, because they believe that they are doing things. But are you saying that you need, that Maori need a separate organisation from Oranga Tamariki to look after children at risk? Maori need to look after our own babies in our own way. That's what we want to do. So that's a yes, though, isn't it? Yes, that's an absolute yes. And we need to do that because the state has proven time and time again that it can't do it. 14 failed reviews of children` of ministry now ` 14. I mean, how many times does an organisation ` if you like, an agency ` have to fail before we actually say, 'Hey. It's time for us to do something different'? OK, so, Merepeka, in your mind, what is the ideal model in place? What does it look like? Well, the ideal model should be by Maori, for Maori. Maori children should be looked after in an environment that's conducive to their well-being, and, so, that is the Maori families. And it really is about the families. Our children must be safe. But we have to put` We've got to get to the families. Otherwise we're going to continue to have children being taken or attempted to be taken by the state. The state should have no role in the upbringing of children. They've never been very good at it. And, so, why do we continue to fund an organisation that's going to be there nine times out of the 10 after the event? The funding has to go to where it's going to be most effective. This is taxpayers' money. It's got to go where it's most effective and where the work can be done. So, this is like a two-pronged organisation. You're going to have a separate organisation for Maori children. What about the non-Maori kids in care? I mean, who should be looking after them? Are you`? I mean, I know that's not your particular issue, but they are being looked after by Oranga Tamariki at the same time. Well, they can be looked after by Oranga Tamariki now. But what we are saying is it's time for us to do this for ourselves. It's time for us to work with our own children and our own families in terms of our own tikanga, in terms of our own ways of doing things, because we are the ones who understand and know what it means to belong to a whanau, a hapu and an iwi. We are not individuals. We come from families that are seen as part of the nature that we have around us, like our mountains and our rivers and our seas, and it's unique to New Zealand. But to be honest, there was no trust from iwi to the state department. And if there is no trust or mutual respect, then any work coming out of that organisation is not going to help the situation, which is Maori children continue to go into state care. We know where they are going to end up. We know what they're like in terms of their education, in terms of their health, labour force participation. So if we know that's where they're going to end up, then surely to goodness we need to start thinking differently, which is Maori involvement. OK. Let's talk about what the government says it's doing, OK ` $1 billion in the budget into Oranga Tamariki. It's in the middle of a five-year reset, and there's legislation which says that the disparity in the outcomes for Maori children has to be addressed by the chief executive. They are doing stuff, aren't they? Why is that not enough for you? It's not enough because all they're doing is tinkering with legislation. And we had the health claim that was before the Waitangi Tribunal. What came out of that was that the Ministry of Health didn't know how to operationalise the act. They didn't know how to operationalise Te Tiriti o Waitangi. They didn't know how to operationalise their own strategies, their Maori strategies. So I can tell you this ` that's not going to be an overnight fix, and it needs to` we need to be looking differently at this. And we need by Maori, for Maori. You're talking about getting into Maori families with the iwi and the hapu` Yes, that's what Whanau Ora's there for. OK. But at the same time Oranga Tamariki has just announced, or is just setting up, an early intervention service, which sounds like exactly the same kind of thing. Is it not? No. No, it's not, no. Because when we're talking about children, we know the environment in which they're living in. And, so, what you're talking about is an organisation that says they're going to take five years to embed the change that's required. First of all, we don't have five years. And the other thing ` all the billions of dollars over the next five years going into an organisation so they can better uplift children. It's` I was going to say it's bum about face. It's absolutely the wrong way around. Right. Maori have been calling this for decades. 1988 we had that report which investigated racism in the social welfare system. What's going to change now? Why are you going to get anything different now? It's been going on for decades. It's time for change, and it's time for the government to let go of the power and the resources that they have kept away from Maori. 60% of our babies are in state care, and we want to look after those 60% of our babies ourselves. And if we don't make a change, all you're doing is tinkering. We have got, what, a three-year window ` if we're lucky, another three-year window ` and then, what, a change of government, a change of everything. I think the change, Simon, is it is our responsibility. It is not the state's responsibility to be in the homes. So you're stepping up. Absolutely stepping up. We've always stepped up, though. Yes, we have always stepped up, and Te Rangihau ` the report that you referred to which is 30 years ago ` that was ground-breaking then. Had we implemented those recommendations then, we wouldn't have lost a generation of children, of young adults. And so this is the problem. We are saying, 'No, this is our time. These are our children. 'Our responsibility.' We're stepping up. What's the government response been to the hui? Anything? Pretty muted, if I'm honest. Have you been disappointed? Well, I heard the Prime Minister say the other day that perhaps this is time to look at partnership. Well, most of us are over partnership. Well, she wants to walk alongside Maori. That's what she said. Yes, that's right, but these are our children, and what we're saying now is where there's no trust, where there's no mutual respect, no willingness to work collaboratively together. And the important thing is, also, there's no willingness by the government to put the resources into organisations like ours ` Whanau Ora the Commissioning Agency ` so we can get into the homes. It is the home environment that must change. All right. You're taking action now. Who's going to lead this? Who is going to be on the governance group going forward? You want this inquiry into Oranga Tamariki. You're setting up a governance group. Who is going to lead it, Lady Moxon? Well, we've got a governors' group that was sanctioned by the hui last week. So who was that? Sir Mason Durie, Dame Tariana Turia` Dame Naida Glavish. Dame Naida Glavish. And Dame Iritana Tawhiwhirangi, Sir Toby Curtis. So they will be formulating the way that this inquiry and the following process for the hui to approve what's going on? And we are actually going to have a meeting that's going to be hosted by the Kingitanga later on, but meanwhile we're going to be putting together the terms of reference and to take those around to make sure that we've got everybody on board and everybody has a say. And we want their wisdom. We want their wisdom because we're talking about a review that's for Maori, by Maori, with Maori. So we want people who are tikanga grounded, have been there before with many reports, who actually know the lay of the land, but more importantly, they know our culture, they know our values and they know our people. The group that is going to oversee and give us guidance and wisdom, their role will be actually crucial to this review. So the Prime Minister said this week that there is, like, two issues here. There's the issues of the rates of abuse and maltreatment and things like that, and then there's the rate of taking of Maori babies into state care. Are you confident that if you, sort of, get involved at this level that you'll be able to break that kind of cycle and bring down these statistics. I absolutely believe that. Well, we know what's at stake. If nothing changes, and you're talking about state intervention again, if nothing changes, this country will still continue to have the unenviable reputation of allowing children to be unsafe in their homes. We have to be taken seriously. Absolutely. So, 'By Maori, for Maori', does that mean that if a child is in danger, it's going to be the whanau that's going to take the baby away from the mother? Is that kind of thing ` grass roots ` going to happen? We have our own tikanga around these things, and we have always practiced our tikanga. The current system undermines the very fabric of Maori society, which is whanau, hapu, iwi. It undermines it. It takes those children away from their families, and they never come home. That's true. That's true. What's that about, when they never come home? And in some cases, they don't even know where they've gone ` that's the families don't know where they've ended up. Later on, we are dealing with this huge` Fall out. ...fall all out around that, but also the fact that a lot of our people don't know who they are, where they've come from, and they're broken people. OK. I've got to ask this ` it was reminiscent of the foreshore and seabed debate, which sparked a political party, the Maori Party. Do you see that this is a political movement, Merepeka? I wouldn't at this point in time. You can't presuppose what the outcomes might be. But certainly this is a unifying call to Maori, and that's certainly the comparison with the foreshore and seabed. Anything that galvanises the iwi Maori to take action, then you have to say that this is a serious issue. It's not going to go away any time soon, and it may well be the political push that's going to be required. Do you see that this could spread beyond Oranga Tamariki into broader issues, and that it could become that political movement? Well, you know, the thing is that what's happening to us today is not working for us. We have failures absolutely everywhere. We are the ones who are in poverty. We are the ones who are lacking in terms of education and all of those things. So is it going to be a political issue? Maori just being Maori is a political issue,` Ae. Kia ora. ...and depending on the government of the government of the day depends on how Maori fare. We've got to get past that. OK. Lady Tureiti Moxon and Merepeka Raukawa-Tait. Thank you very much for your time this morning. Thank you. Kia ora. Kia ora. So while Children's Minister Tracey Martin would not come on the show today, she did send us a statement, and she says ` She also says ` iwi and community organisations recognise this and want to provide it, and that Oranga Tamariki has specific obligations to improve outcomes for Maori children. She says she did watch a lot of the hui, and thinks that the desire of iwi and Maori to engage provides a chance to build the chare and the system that is needed. We will see what happens. Up next ` our panel. Phil O'Reilly, Tracy Watkins and Khylee Quince on the highs and lows of the week in news and politics. Plus, the Pitch ` in which the National Party has five hot minutes to convince you that they can do better on climate change. Welcome back. I am joined now by our panel ` Phil O'Reilly, Managing Director of Iron Duke Partners; Khylee Quince, Director of Maori and Pacific Advancement at AUT; and Tracy Watkins, Editor of the Sunday Star-Times. Thank you all for coming in this morning. Khylee, first to you. Can you give me a sense of how big this issue is around Oranga Tamariki? Well, I think it was going to be a real watershed moment, in terms of Maori-Crown relations in this country. And you'll note that the catch-cry has been 'not one more child', and that is reminiscent of the 'not one more acre' catch-cry of the 1974, 1975 Maori land march. I think it's as important as that. Right. And does it have as much, sort of, political ramifications as the foreshore and seabed debate, do you think? I think more so, because` And, of course, they're connected, you know. The breakdown of Maori whanau and Maori communities is, of course, related to the taking of the Maori economic base, in terms of stripping of land and whenua. So I think it's as important. OK, so there's this push for a separate Maori organisation for at-risk Maori children. Phil, do you think this is something that's realistic? No, but what we did do under the Welfare Expert Advisory Group that I was part of` We actually suggested that the whole of the welfare act should be based on Maori concepts, the concepts around Maori well-being. So rather than splitting it apart, what you should do is create a system that's very much pointed and very much based in Maori concepts. And I think that would be the best way through` But is it too late for that? I mean, obviously there's a lot of anger and a lot of will for change to set up a separate organisation. If you have a separate organisation, you're gonna really struggle with middle mums and dads who are gonna say, 'What's going on here?' Because I think one of the real` There were some powerful statements just made in the previous interviews about the need for Maori themselves to step up and take some responsibility. I think it was very, very powerfully said. That needs to be continued on, and I think if you're gonna have a separate organisation, it's gonna be much harder to hold that piece to account. And you've still gotta persuade middle mums and dads that this is a good idea to fund and it's a good idea to support. So I don't think having two organisations is gonna do that, frankly. Tracy, how do you think this is gonna play out politically? Well, I think` Politically, I think Phil's right. It's very risky for them to look at, if you like, that concept of devolution ` handing the funding over to Whanau. But I actually think it's almost reached the point where someone has to take that big a political risk. Whatever has been done before isn't working. We've still got a problem. It's getting worse and worse. And it is just gonna depend on` The big issue for the government is giving away the accountability over funding. But there surely must be a system for dealing with that. Is there` Has this not been done before, in terms of separate organisations around the fisheries and wananga and Kohanga Reo. These models do exist. Yes, there are models, and there are also not just models within Aotearoa, but a lot of models elsewhere. There are models in Alaska; there are models with other First Nations ` peoples in North America and Canada. So this has been done. The difference here is that they have a geographical separateness, if you like, that makes it slightly out of sight, out of mind, which we don't have the privilege or opportunity to tap into in New Zealand, because we are right here. There's no separateness. You'll see us. But the government has acknowledged this. They kicked in a billion dollars towards Oranga Tamariki; they've changed legislation where disparity has to be addressed by the chief executive. Jacinda Ardern wants to walk alongside them, Tracy. So is the government not already on this path? Well, I think, you know, they talk about that partnership deal, but the problem is, I think, Oranga Tamariki is just a huge ministry. It's a government ministry. There has` I mean, Whanau Ora was the last government's attempt to try and find this way. But there hasn't really been a huge investment in Whanau Ora under this government or even much under National, and I guess they've gotta try and look at that model, and perhaps it's coming to the point they have to significantly boost the funding for that and give it a chance to work, and it might not work. It might fail. The problem is, of course, that, unlike fisheries or anything else, it involves very vulnerable children, and that's the big issue. Yeah. (STAMMERS) The real issue here is if you do devolve it, you put an enormous amount of media attention, an enormous amount of difficulty into the first case, the first Nia Glassie. You potentially set it up to fail. The better idea is to think about systems. A lot of the work we do in the welfare system review was thinking about systems. Just for example ` one of the reasons so many children get uplifted from Maori mums is that they've got poor access to emergency accommodation, for example, poor access to the right advocates at the right time to represent them through this process. So you need to take a systems approach to that. I'm just not sure that setting up a new thing is gonna resolve those issues, because they're much, much wider than even Oranga Tamariki. They're to do with the welfare system more generally that gets in the way of good outcomes here. So I think the way through this is to locate Oranga Tamariki much more in Maoridom but then make sure it does the same job for all New Zealanders. But that might not be enough for the advocates that we just saw on this show, Khylee. They're talking also about setting up a separate Maori health organisation. So that's complete devolvement, isn't it, or complete separation? And there's definite appetite for that in the Maori community. But I do understand the political, economic and social risk to doing that. But, I mean, as both of those wahine rangatira mentioned, it's time for trust. That partnership is a really... is a risky, um` a risky business from Maori perspective now, because partnerships have to be based upon trust, and the way in which Oranga Tamariki and whatever in its numerous iterations over generations, but particularly since Puao-te-Ata-tu in 1988, nah, nothing has worked. OK. Will this give birth to a political party, Tracy? (CHUCKLES) That's a tricky question. I thought Merepeka did extremely well today,... (CHUCKLES) ...but Phil's probably better placed to answer that one than me. Oh, gee, I could. But they've been down this track before. Mm. And it hadn't ended well at the end of the day. So I'd be surprised, actually, if it does. But I do agree that that's a massive movement, clearly, and something's gonna happen. And I don't think the government's handled it all that well this week. They've kinda said, 'Nothing to see here.' I think they'll learn a lesson from, kind of, the acts that they've said this week. So it should be more front and centre? Absolutely. I think they'd need to take more energy around this to actually engage. Given the fact, of course, that the prime minister turned up to Waitangi a year ago, February, and said, you know, 'We're for you. Things are gonna change.' Mm. I think she needs to step up into this now a little more energetically. OK. I just wanted to move on to biosecurity ` a big review announced yesterday by the agricultural minister, Damien O'Connor. Another fruit fly found this week. Are we at risk, Tracy, of letting our clean, green, pristine image go? Well, I think that's already been a risk for quite some years, and, I think, yeah, just another biosecurity incursion. I don't` As Damien O'Connor mentioned, there is some quite significant issues, including just changing climate change problems that are leading to different, sort of, incursions. So it's a huge issue. But, yeah, they definitely do need to step up further in that area. They seem to have to find quite a few learnings, as they say, in the business, because mycoplasma bovis has been a real wake-up call, the minister said, didn't he? So has MPI really gotta step up here ` do you think, Khylee? Well, clearly, as it's become easier for people and products to move much more easily around the world. And with the advent of online shopping and numerous other phenomena, we need to have systems that take account of not only growth in technology but also risk to our indigenous flora and fauna. Phil, the risk to business of having this kind of reputation damaged is huge. Massive, and I think the business community will probably support a lot of what the minister's talking about. Really importantly, he talked about a systems approach ` you know, videos on aircraft. I mean, the video on an aircraft right now is just silly. It appeals to me, but not to Chinese people. Right. It's ridiculous, actually, what's going on. So he's absolutely right to say you can change the law all you like, but you need to have a systems approach that every time someone is coming to our shores that they're either aware of the dangers and do something about it or some of those dangers are removed from them. So that kind of approach I think is absolutely right from MPI, and I very much think it's gonna be supported by the business community, so long as it doesn't increase costs massively, and I don't think it will. OK. Every time we get a fruit fly here, it's always been, like, a national emergency,... - (CHUCKLING) - ...and the media's jumped on it, Tracy. But, you know, as the editor of a paper, we got a notification of a fruit fly yesterday that was discovered over a week ago. Mm, yeah. I'm not sure what to read into that. Yeah, well, I mean, do we read into that that the systems are failing or that they're trying to manage the press releases before they come out and manage this, I guess, you know. It's quite interesting when you actually do an Official Information Act request and you look at the plans that are developed around some little thing like a fruit fly being discovered and the number of people involved in crafting the messages and things, it's just crazy. So is that why it took a week? I don't know. (CHUCKLES) OK. Just finally, compensation for farmers and mycoplasma bovis, they're gonna review this. It could be too late for some, though ` some people left behind. Phil? I think they should be thinking about potential packages of some sort. But if you're a farmer that's gone under just for that, then likely there are some other issues going on in your farm as well. To be fair. I don't know exactly what the situation is for farmers. And the minister did say he wasn't aware of M bovis directly` Yeah. Exclusively. I nodded about it. I thought there's something to that point, but I definitely think that farmers who've been through this terrible thing through no fault of their own` It's something that's come as an incursion to the country. The government, I think, has made the right decision to try and get rid of it. And I think they'll succeed at doing that, but I think farmers aren't at fault here, and I think they should be compensated. OK, we'll leave it there for the moment. Phil, Tracy and Khylee, thank you very much for your time this morning. Kia ora. OK, up next ` the pitch. Can Todd Muller convince you National is the best party to address climate change? Plus, she escaped abuse on horseback and spent her teenage years in foster care. New Zealand First MP Jenny Marcroft tells us her backstory. Welcome back to the Pitch. Today, Todd Muller has five minutes to convince you that National can do better than any other party on climate change. The UN has warned we have just 11 years to avert climate-related devastation, but how seriously does our largest party view the issue? Reporter John-Michael Swannix asked Muller what he would do as Minister for Climate Change. Reducing emissions is actually very challenging. In terms of specifics, we would support a climate commission. We should look to invest in green tech, as opposed to simply following the offset route, which seems to be the case at the moment. And I would also be open for a very honest conversation with New Zealand around not only how we reduce our emissions, but how we prepare for the adaptation that is required, if the rest of the world don't reduce theirs. So if National does take it seriously, why did it shoot down the climate emergency declaration? From our perspective, an emergency is` civil defence is a typical example in the New Zealand context, but you bring all of the agencies to bear and to prioritise it as an urgent, immediate focus, above all else. And actually we don't think that's appropriate in the context of a response for climate. Wouldn't have been good symbolism to show the rest of the world that we do take this very seriously? You don't run a country on symbolism. You run a country on actually having plans in place to make a difference. The world has been having this conversation for 25 years. We all got together in Kyoto in 1990 and said, 'This is a crisis. This is an emergency.' When we look at, say, the Kyoto Protocol and the laws that the Labour Government tried to bring in to support that, former National leader Bill English sat on a tractor holding up a sign calling Helen Clark a 'mad cow' for supporting those laws. Do you think that, in hindsight, National took it seriously enough? Look, the issue in the 2000s was quite different to the issue that confronts us here in 2019, 2020. Should school children be striking for the climate, in your view? I wasn't particularly fazed ` the fact that they had a strike. From what I understand, they'd like to do many more strikes. I think there's a point in time where perhaps it's best to have the conversation within the classroom, but I can understand their frustration when you look at the challenges of the global response to this issue, that the pace isn't what it should be. We are 0.17% of global emissions` But I'm going to stop you there because New Zealanders per capita are the fifth-highest in the world. And the reason we are is we produce more food per capita than any other country in the world, and that food system is the most efficient from an emissions perspective compared to everyone else. Do you support the methane targets in the Zero Carbon Bill? Our view is that the scale of the reductions that are in the first draft of the legislation are too onerous, and it should be a lesser amount` What should it be? Well, the Parliamentary Commissioner of the Environment said it should be somewhere between a 10% and a 22% reduction by 2050, depending on how the rest of the world responds themselves over the next 20-30 years. The government's announced a feebate scheme to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles from 2021, if you win government next year, will you keep that policy? Well, look, I'm broadly supportive. Transport is an area where we have roughly 20% of our emissions, but more critically, have at our fingertips a technology, in this case electric vehicles, or maybe in time hydrogen vehicles, that you can roll across the New Zealand sector to be able to improve emissions. So why didn't National transition the government's fleet to electric when it had the chance? Well, I think that's a fair point, bluntly. I'm sure there would have been a reason at the time, there always is, but Simon did make it very clear that EVs were a priority ` put out that 64,000 target. Burning the fossil fuels that humans have already extracted will push us above that 2 degree limit your government signed up to in the Paris Accord, so why does National support the continued exploration for oil and gas? In an energy context, you have coal ` which is about 38% currently of all energy across the world ` now, as that transitions to gas, the emissions will halve. And here we are in New Zealand with a remarkable amount of gas reserves, having the opportunity to sell it to the rest of the world, assist other countries to transition from coal to gas. You say gas is a transition fuel,` It is. ...but there are other alternatives, but there are other alternatives such as burning biomass products, like waste wood from forestry. Shouldn't National be focusing on those low-carbon approaches? The renewable energy solutions, be it biomass, be it wind, be it solar, are still a relatively small proportion of the global` They are, but shouldn't we be supporting those industries to grow? Of course, but my point is, that if you look out 20-30 years and all our cars are EVs or equivalent, and our large industry has transitioned to renewable, it is going to require that generation that sits behind that grid to double in size. And, really, I put the question straight to the Green Party ` when they say we need to push hard in terms of renewable generation, they can't then say, 'I'm sorry, we don't want another Clyde Dam.' 'We don't want to touch the RMA.' 'We can't build anything.' You can't have it both ways. All right. The House might be in recess this week, but that didn't stop some shots being fired in the chamber. Deputy Speaker Anne Tolley reduced Youth MP Lily Dorrance to tears in an exchange that the Prime Minister herself has called 'unfortunate'. Here's Finn Hogan with a special recess edition of the week that was in parliament. Well, it's recess time, and the usual political suspects are taking a well-deserved break, so this week in the House it was Youth Parliament's turn to debate the big issues. What young people really need is open communication, education and accessible mental heath and well-being services. But when Christchurch student Lily Dorrance spoke up about New Zealand's mental health crisis, the Deputy Speaker gave her some pointed criticism. Put your notes away, and tell us what you think we need. She also had stern words for another youth MP, who sprang to her fellow student's defence. Will we maybe be able to be shown some lenience? No, no. You may sit down. Tolley has since apologised, and says she feels terrible for upsetting the young MPs, who perhaps weren't expecting to have an altercation with a speaker quite this early in their political career. All right. Stay with us. We're back after the break. Welcome back to Backstory, where we ask how well do we really know our MPs? Well, she was orphaned, ran away from home on horseback, and spent her teenage years in foster care. Now, Jenny Marcroft has entered parliament after a 30 year career in broadcasting. The first term New Zealand MP who lives north of Auckland agreed to open up and tell us her Backstory. Hi! How are you? Hey, Sophles. What a good girl? Eh? How are you? How are you? Good girl. Since Lily was little, we've had horses. But prior to that, on off, I've had horses since I was a teenager. They're just part of my family, really. We met Leanne, and she has a sanctuary where she's looking after and rehoming and healing a lot of these miniatures that have been left abandoned. One of the things that I absolutely believe is that horses are very healing. Well, this is my Mum and Dad, Lyndon and Helen. My Dad died at the age of 48, and my Mum died at 43. So we grew up in a really loving family environment, until my Dad died. And then after he died my mother remarried, and she developed breast cancer at the same time, as well, and passed away. As a result, I suppose, we, as Marcroft kids, have really stuck together. We're very close. Our Dad used to take us skiing. And I don't remember having my own skiis, but I remember skiing on his skis behind him. My Dad, he was` You know, he started off going to war. He went to Hiroshima and saw the devastation. That profoundly effected him. And since that time, we wonder whether there was any connection between what he was exposed to and the fact that he died at such a young age. So, I think because of my mother's grief, and the grief of the family, and because of her connections into the art world, she wanted to leave a memorial for him, and so a friend of hers was Don Binney, a New Zealand artist, and so she comissioned him to go up to our Marae in the North, in the Hokianga, in Utakura. And if we see in this picture here, this is the painting that he did in memory of my Father. My mother, she was an artist, and we grew up, obviously, in Rotorua. And the Art Society was her baby. Oh, he's a lovely talking boy. He is one of our beautiful boys, I have two brothers. Romeo and Leonardo. And they're Siamese-ragdoll crosses. I worked on a bunch of radio stations, so of course, we all had to have t-shirts, cos, you know, you kind of have to. This is Kiwi FM in Hamilton. Mai Fm Whanau! That's from when I was on Mai FM. It was the first Iiwi station that went into the commercial market, and boy did that cause a fuss. TV3 as a newsreader. So, that was pretty cool. There's a bit of an old, smaller, faded t-shirt nowadays. And then, of course, Radio LIVE where I spent the last of my career in broadcasting. Actually, that's one for the cousins. (LAUGHS) So, yeah, being from Hokianga. Hokianga hard. So, uh, yes. And hopefully we are able to move the... treaty negotiations on, because it is the responsibility of the crown to engage with Nga pui. And it's time for some movement in there. This is a pretty amazing document. These are the facsimilies from the signing of He Whakaputanga ` the Declaration of Independence and also Te Tiriti. So, here is my acestor Taonui's mark. That kind of gives me a really amazing feeling inside. Having this document gives me a real sense of who I am. And the fact that I don't have the reo, but I am starting that lifelong learning of what is the reo, is an exciting thing for me. My Dad, when he was younger, he was beaten for speaking te reo Maori. My uncle, Papa Manuera, when he went to school, their teachers actually took his name of him. They called him Bill. So, for many of us, that is such a loss for us. My mother was very ill, she was dying of cancer. I said to my Mum I was leaving, that I couldn't stay any longer, that it wasn't safe for me. And I went up to the horse paddock, saddled up my horse, and I rode to Ngakuru, which was about 30 miles away. And I never went home again. 15 years old. And then I was fostered to family friends. As my mother was dying, I went back for three weeks while she died. And then I went and lived with my grandmother. I think when you get orphaned, that has one level of impact. When you are beaten, when you are the victim of violence, that's a whole other realm. Then you add in a layer of sexual violence as well, you'd expect someone to spend a lot of years healing. Which is what I've done. But what I think I learned from all of that is that I had a voice. I didn't know how to use it at the time, because no-one was listening. And so I got myself into a job where I could continue healing, live a really great life and use my voice. And going into parliament is an extension of that. On a family level, the toughest part has been not being with my daughter. To have to rely on my sister, to rely on my brother to take care of her has been really hard. The other stuff, you know, the personal attacks, the trolls on social media, all of that stuff is just external noise. You can make a positive change in your life by choosing not to be a victim. By choosing to actually say, 'No.' 'That person trying to steal my power, my personal power, 'I will not them take that from me and ruin my life.' And that was New Zealand First MP Jenny Marcroft. Now, we're back with our Panel, Phil O'Reilly, Khylee Quince and Tracey Watkins. Thanks very much, guys. Now, Jacinda Ardern was meeting the Australian Prime Minister, ScoMo, this week. Tracey, hit a brick wall trying to get any inroads into the deportation policy. And they're not gonna make any inroads at all. I noticed that he didn't do a joint press conference with the Prime Minister, I presume that's becasue he's got absolutely nothing new to say on the issue of deportees and expat rights. It plays well for them domestically, it doesn't matter which government, which stripe, they're gonna keep raising it. We have to, it's a big domestic issue. But it won't change anything. So, it is a big domestic issue for us. It's a huge domestic issue. 1700 people are deported to New Zealand, more than half of them have already comitted further crimes here. They don't get welfare support, they are` you know, I prepare cultural reports for these young men in prison, the 501s. It's a serious issue. They need support, and I think we need to, irrespective of whether or not we get support or any kind of compensation from Australia, it needs to be raised. Or anything. Yeah, that's right. Phil, it's never gonna change though. Cos if it plays that well domestically over there. It's gotta be water on a rock. You've just gotta keep on at it, because there'll come a political time in Australia where things may change, and that you just need to keep at that. I mean, Bill Shorten, if he had been Prime Minister, was moving around on this topic a little bit before the election. So you've just got to keep at it. I think the Prime Minister did exactly the right thing. To raise it, and to raise it strongly on behalf of New Zealanders as she was raising New Zealanders' rights in Australia to welfare and so on, that's absolutely the right thing to do, as long as ` and I think she did this pretty well, frankly ` as long as it's based on a pretty constructive and positive relationship overall with the Aussies, which is what we've got. I mean, it's great that we can talk defence and trade and so on at the same time as these issues, and that they don't define our relationship. Right. So is there any chance or any risk that there's losing the traditional closeness with our neighbours across the ditch? Well, I don't think over this issue, because we've always had a bipartisan approach to it. You know, John Key raised it. Before him, you know, Helen Cla` others raised it. And it looks to me very much like there's a bipartisan approach to it across the Tasman too. So it's not something that is likely to corrode the relationship. You just have to erode it over time, as you say. They say somehow that we've got traditional close relations, but that's not quite true. Muldoon didn't get on with Fraser, you know. So we've had periods in time when we had really poisonous relationships between prime ministers. And ScoMo is a very different politician to Jacinda Ardern, very much a retail politician compared to Ardern's kinda more cerebral, kind of` the vision thing. He doesn't do visions much, ScoMo. (LAUGHTER) So, you know, that's unsurprising that they wouldn't quite have the warmth of relations, for example, with Turnbull and Key. They were peas in a pod, those guys. So these things are always different, and we just need to make sure that the broad relationship sees through those things. Politicians, they come, and they go. They don't like to hear that, but they do. - Yes, they do, especially in Australia recently. - (LAUGHTER) But how would it have played out, the fact that the Prime Minister goes over on a jet, and then she has to come back on a commercial jet. I mean, is that embarrassing? Yeah. (CHUCKLES) Absolutely. Absolutely, yeah? But it's not the first time, is it? No. We've got a bit of an issue with those planes, yeah. But if they tried to buy new ones, how would that work? Possibly time to just take the commercial flight there and back, I think. It's one of those sad things that defines the visit a bit. You know, the plane broke down, so everyone's gonna read that as opposed to the sensible things that were discussed at the lodge. Speaking of raising issues, Winston Peters was at the White House trying to get a free trade deal this week. But at the same time, Donald Trump's been making these comments about women of colour in Congress. Should Winston Peters have raised those comments? I think he did what he needed to do. That's just part of the game, isn't it? He's there, really, in terms of diplomacy and trade, not in respect of those broader issues. I don't think there was a place for that there. Jacinda made her thoughts known on that matter, and I think she, again, was quite diplomatic and appropriate to the extent that she could raise those objections. Right, as much as they can interfere in domestic politics of another country. Possibly not helpful for Winston if he wants to get a free trade deal with the US that she's making those comments across this side of the world. But at the same time, I don't know how much prospect there is of a free trade deal. We've talked about this for a very long time, and it's never come off. Right, so Winston should've just gone, 'Hey, Donald. You shouldn't be saying things like that. - 'And don't worry about the free trade deal.' (LAUGHS) - (LAUGHTER) If he's gonna do that, he's then gotta get into the complexity of what's going on in American domestic politics. Those` (STAMMERS) Those sena` Those congresswomen and senators have said some other things that are a little questionable too about things like Israel, so if you're gonna have a go at Donald Trump ` and he's richly worth having a go at about those comments, of course ` then you've really gotta have a conversation about the whole of the story in the context of red-hot American politics walking into a presidential election. So it's not just because we want a free trade deal that I think you need to be cautious about saying these things. It's because to weigh it in boots and all into a complex American domestic political situation is unlikely to end well in any case. So it's not just so black-and-white an issue. OK. Let's talk agricultural emissions. So the government said it was an historic deal with farmers and growers this week. Was it, though, Tracy? Was it an historic deal? I think it was a smart deal in the sense that they are limiting` They knew this was always gonna put them on a collision course with farmers if they went too far. They've come up with a very pragmatic, very incremental step towards bringing them in to the ETS, and I think that's the best they can do at this stage. They do actually have to have them on board. I spoke to Jacinda Ardern this week, and I've got a little bit of an interview in the Sunday Star-Times tomorrow about some of these things where she says it's only transformational if it sticks. Mm. This probably will stick. OK. But the ag sector itself, Phil, says it wants to design the pricing system. Can you rely on industry to tax itself? What I think you gotta do is take good industry consultation and feedback around the design of the system. I can't imagine the minister of revenue or someone's gonna just take their word for it, but I certainly` I agree with the farmers to say, 'Well, if you're gonna actually get us moving along the track, 'there's much more to it with farming than there is, say, with vehicles.' There's behaviour change. There's a whole bunch of other things that farmers can do to reduce emissions on farm. You've gotta take that total piece into account, which is really what the minister was talking about earlier in the show. You've gotta take this total systems approach, but I agree with Tracy. The fact that they've got a tow on the bus, that matters deeply. These guys for years have said, 'Nothing to do with us. See ya later. Read the hand.' And they've finally got on board with the political process, and you see the Nats basically backing that, all intents and purposes. That's the watershed. It's the fact that they're on the journey, and I really feel upset about people who continue to criticise them as if they're doing nothing. Actually they're on the bus. Let's keep them going, and let's keep them going down that road. Let's see where that road leads. Thank you very much, Phil, Tracy and Khylee. And that is all from us for now. Thank you so much for watching, and we will see you again next weekend. Captions by Michaela Cornelius, Ella Wheeler and John Gibbs. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019 This programme was made with the assistance of the NZ On Air Platinum Fund.