Today on Newshub Nation, Finance Minister Grant Robertson on a slowing economy and a very bad week in politics. New research on why school deciles don't matter, and Backstory ` Jan Logie on the day she came out to a conservative Invercargill family. Kia ora, good morning. I'm Simon Shepherd, and welcome to Newshub Nation. Kingitanga mediators claimed progress this week at Ihumatao. They said mana whenua agreed after a long mediation process that they want the land purchased by the government and returned to them. The owner of the land, Fletcher Residential, says it's now seeking urgent talks with all parties. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is in Japan for the Rugby World Cup on the way to New York for the UN General Assembly. It seems the excitement caught up with her when she delivered her first speech. Look, this is an incredibly exciting time for New Zealand in its relationship with China. Sorry, excuse me, with Japan. She blamed it on the jet-lag. And the hearing investigating claims of civilian deaths and a cover-up in Afghanistan was suspended this week. The Operation Burnham enquiry suspended the hearing based on crucial new evidence, and witnesses may now need to be re-interviewed. The inquiry is investigating claims made in the book Hit and Run by Nicky Hager and John Stephenson. Well, Finance Minister Grant Robertson is under intense scrutiny. New figures show economic growth has grown to levels not seen in six years. And he's chosen not to answer questions about when he heard about serious allegations of a sexual assault cover-up in the Labour leader's office. So I began by asking him whether the Government is living up to its promise of transparency. I believe so. I mean, the Prime Minister's put in place a process where not only are the complainants going to get their cases heard, which is completely independent of the party, there's also a review taking place of how the party has handled these allegations. And the Prime Minister has been very upfront. They weren't handled as they should have been. We've got to get this right, and so we're making sure we do do that in a way that's transparent. What about you? Have you been open, honest and transparent as well? Yeah, I have been. I mean, it's really important for me that we put the complainants at the centre of this process. I don't want to add to a whole lot of partial information and partial truth that's out there. We've got some vulnerable young people involved here, and I'm very comfortable that I've done the right thing throughout this process. Yeah. In terms of when you know, that is the question that everybody's been asking you. Was it June 30th? What I've said very clearly is that the allegations that were published on The Spinoff were the first that I had heard of them. Beyond that, I don't want to go into that, because I don't believe that that's in the interests of the young people involved here. I'm very comfortable that at every stage of this process, any information I've had I've dealt with that appropriately, I've followed that up, and I've supported people. That's my focus here, not a political game of who knew what when. OK, but the political game goes on. And in terms of the political side of it, I mean, there doesn't seem to be any guarantee that the findings will be made public, so I guess, how will we know and how can we trust that people will be held accountable if they need to be? Well, I think it's really important for the sake of the complainants that particularly in terms of the process that they're doing with Maria Dew QC, they have control of that and Maria Dew does, and so they will make their own decisions about what gets published. In terms of the review of how the party handled it, that's clearly going to be a matter for the party to decide. But I think we should be publishing information, so long as it isn't things that will affect the privacy of the complainants. We appreciate that in terms of protecting the privacy of the complainants, but a public organisation like the Labour Party needs to be held up for scrutiny, doesn't it? Well, I believe that's what's happening in this case, and as I say, I imagine the party would want to publish anything it could, subject to any redactions it needs to make. Is there any guarantee that it will publish? Well, that's entirely a matter for the party. I've been very clear that if they want to speak to me, I'm happy to do that. Is there an unwritten rule within the party that if there is a politically risky issue that the Prime Minister should be shielded from it? No, there's not. And I think it's really important to remember that this is the Labour Party, it is an organisation quite separate from the government. The party has its own rules and processes, as the Prime Minister has made clear, that process wasn't good, and we need to improve that. I think it's important that as a party, we do take ownership of that. That's what's happening right now. The party and the Prime Minister has ordered a review of culture within the party. What would you like to see covered in that? I think it's really important that we have a good understanding within our party of how we respect one another, what sort of behaviours we should expect of people. And this could apply to any organisation, not just a political organisation. That seems like deflecting the issue, though, to a wider audience. You've got to concentrate on your own party. No, no. There are some important lessons for us all to learn about how we handle these sorts of situations, so I look forward to the outcome of the review. And in terms of how you handled the situation ` you say that you're comfortable, but are you open to scrutiny, are you open to addressing the way that you handled the situation? Look, I know that I acted appropriately throughout this process, but the focus here has got to be the wellbeing of the young people involved. We now have a process where their voices can be heard. That's what I'm focused on. And will the public be satisfied, do you think, once this process has rolled out across all these reviews? Well, I certainly hope so. All right, let's talk about the economy. Figures out this week show our economy's growth has slowed to levels not seen for six years. Are we heading for a recession? Well, that's not the advice that I'm getting. I mean, we still have to bear in mind that the economy is growing, and a recession is defined by us going backwards for at least two quarters. That's not what we're seeing. We're actually seeing in the latest quarter half a percent growth. The thing is, we are growing more slowly than we have seen, and that's the point in the economic cycle that we're at. And globally we're certainly seeing that trend. New Zealand's not immune from that, but I do believe that we're well positioned to deal with that. The OECD has come out this week saying that governments are not doing enough to prevent long-term damage, and that they should take advantage of the low interest rates to invest in the future. Money is cheap. Is this not the time` Is this the time, actually, to splash it around? Well, we are investing significantly more. We have a budget that came into life on the 1st of July that has $3.8 billion worth, per annum, of new spending in our operating area ` our public services; around $10 billion of spending on capital expenditure, on infrastructure, new money. That's a significant investment ` way more than what was planned by the previous government, and indeed more than we planned last year, so we are beginning that process. We're keeping a wary eye on what's happening in the rest of the world, and if we see a further deterioration in economic conditions, we will act in response to that. GDP figures out this week show that infrastructure spending is actually down 11%, so since you've been in, have you actually dropped the ball on infrastructure spending? Not at all. We've actually proposed over $40 billion of capital spending. The previous government only had $30 billion for the period that we're looking at, so it is going out. Of course there is some programmes, like KiwiBuild, which we would've liked to have seen go faster, but in terms of, for example, transport spending, we're spending about the same amount in terms of a percentage that the previous government did in a same sort of period. How much of that, though, is actually shovel-ready? The problem is that the industry's concerned that there's not enough to replace the projects that you've put on hold from the previous government. Well, it's important when you think about those projects that many of them were just proposals and ideas. There actually wasn't money set aside for them. In terms of what we're doing, yes, there has been a bit of refocusing in our transport programme so that we're getting on with rail, expenditure and roading. Roading in the regions, safety improvements ` that work's been done right now. Yeah, sure, but in terms of light rail this week, we've seen that 300-odd-million has to be repurposed by the NZTA because it's not ready to go. So is there this hole that the country's going to fall into in terms of infrastructure spending? I really don't believe that. In the case of light rail, we want to get this project right. It's one of the biggest transport projects that New Zealand will ever see, and we want to make sure that it's delivered well. But in the meantime, we've put a huge amount of money into upgrading our rail system that had been neglected. Right around the country there is work going on on improving regional roads, the safety issues that New Zealanders want us to deal with. There is a lot happening in the transport area, and more will be happening in the coming years. If things actually turn to custard around the world, and that affects New Zealand, would you consider, as a government, spending what's called helicopter money, where you're going to hand out cash to the people to stimulate the spend? Yeah, look, at the moment that's not something that I'm considering, but what we are doing is keeping an eye on that global situation. And I certainly understand the importance of the government playing its part in this part of the economic cycle. That's why we spent so much more money in this budget. But we'll continue to look at that, because the Reserve Bank can only do so much with its monetary policy changes. The OECD has said this week, it's up to the governments to actually spend the money. And I take that seriously. That's exactly why we're spending significantly more money than had originally been planned, but we will keep a close eye on what's happening, because global conditions are deteriorating, and if they deteriorate further, we will act. One of the sectors that is keeping the economy afloat is agriculture. But at the moment, there's a whole raft of reforms going on there, where you could probably lose some political points. Should you be pressing on so fast with a sector that's holding the economy up? Oh, look, we know we very much value wat the agriculture sector does, but my conversations with that sector indicate that they understand that we do need to move to a more sustainable footing. The truth is, we trade in the world on our clean, green image. We have to live up to that, and that involves us taking an approach to land-use, in particular, that's more sustainable. The job of government is to actually work with the agriculture sector to support that more sustainable land-use. That's what we're doing, and we funded that significantly in the budget. Quite a bit of kick-back from the agriculture sector at the moment, though. From some elements, but a lot of the people I talk to in the agriculture sector are saying, 'We know that we need to move towards a more sustainable footing,' and there's actually fantastic work being done, in terms of making sure we're improving the health of our waterways, and moving to more sustainable land-use. We've just got to support that as a government. One of the criticisms that the Opposition has, that National has, is that you don't actually have a plan for growth. Now, you're about to launch an economic plan. What's in it? Well, basically, what that's doing is bringing together the work that the government has underway so it is all in one place, and we can give people certainty by that. Is that an admission that you haven't really communicated your vision? Oh, no, not at all. What it is it's a very big vision. It's one with a lot of moving parts, because we've got to make some big shifts in our economy if we're going to protect the living standards of New Zealand into the future. We are far less productive as a nation than countries in Europe and around the world. We haven't done enough to improve our sustainability, and we haven't done enough to include people. So how are you going to raise the wellbeing of everybody economically? Because our GDP, the amount of money per person, is low in New Zealand compared to other OECD countries. Well, in fact, our GDP growth is actually still very good comparable to the rest of the world. That's the overall GDP, but per person... it's low. Yeah. And the challenge for us is a long-term one. I think most New Zealanders would accept the fact that improving productivity is a decades-long challenge. But that's why we've bought in the research and development tax credit. That's why we're spending over $40 billion on capital expenditure. That's why we're investing in skills for things like fees-free and the training programmes that we've got. All of those things are important shifts for the New Zealand economy, but they will take time to bed down. Finance Minister Grant Robertson there. If you've got something to say about what you see on our show, please let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, NewshubNationNZ. Our Twitter panel this week is Eric Crampton and John Hart, they're using the hashtag #nationnz, or you can email us at nation@mediaworks.co.nz. But, still to come, we dissect the week's political news with our panel and we ask Climate Change Minister James Shaw whether we really deserve our clean, green reputation. Welcome back. It started with Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg protesting outside parliament, her strike inspiring hundreds of thousands of students around the world. The message was simple, 'We demand climate action.' (RACING DRUMBEAT) This is my generations nuclear-free moment. So today we have drawn a line in the sand. Today we introduce the Climate Change Response Zero Carbon Amendment Bill to parliament. Take responsibility for product packaging. We're making a record investment into public transport. This is about making more efficient cars more affordable and available. We're announcing the country's first ever nationwide climate change risk assessment. So it's been two years since Jacinda Ardern called climate change her generation's nuclear-free moment. And on Monday, against a backdrop of global climate protest, she'll give the opening speech at the UN's global climate action summit. But, does New Zealand really deserve its reputation as a leader on climate action? I asked Climate Change Minister James Shaw. The way that I see it is we're not the leader, but we are one of the leading countries in the world on climate change. And we're by no means perfect. So it is a mixed story, and I don't think that we should over-claim leadership. So how would you rate our government and your performance as Climate Change Minister? Well, look, in this term of parliament, right, in three years, by the end of this term of parliament, we'll have put in place a legally binding target to stay within 1.5 degrees of global warming above pre-industrial levels. We'll be one of the first countries in the world to do that. We'll have put in place a mechanism for emissions on agricultural pricing. We will be the first country in the world to have done that. And we'll have reformed the Emissions Trading Scheme so that it's got a proper cap on the amount of emissions in any given period. We'll have brought in a clean-car discount to make it easier for people to afford electric vehicles and low-emission vehicles. Right. We'll have set up a green investment fund. I mean, we will have done more, I believe ` and I'm not spinning you ` in this term of parliament, than the combination of the last 30 years' worth of government. So is that the kind of a brag sheet that the Prime Minister is taking to the UN? We've gotta be honest with ourselves ` we haven't been as fast to address this as we should have been. We are one of the countries that wants to do more and wants to do it faster, but even we're struggling to move as fast as the problem actually requires. So what will be the focus of the PM's address at the UN? We do have this very large agricultural sector unlike most of the other OECD countries. People are looking at us for leadership in that space. And so that will be part of what she's talking about. But she's also just really trying to galvanise international action and say, 'Come on ` we've actually gotta move faster on this thing.' You said on our show before that as long as everyone is equally unhappy with the Zero Carbon Bill, you can get this over the line, but I would say that the farmers are more unhappy, that in fact, some of them are devastated. How are you gonna bring them along with you? Well, look, there's actually a huge spectrum of opinion in the agricultural community and in farming communities about this. And certainly there are people who are really worried and fearful, and I can understand why. And I think that we've gotta do a better job of, you know, working with those people and saying, 'Look, actually, there's all to play for here. This is not about the end of farming or anything like that. 'We've actually talking about a better world.' And if you went 30 years ago, our farms are quite different to how they were 30 years ago, but they're much more valuable now. I think the future is exactly the same. There's a political risk there for you, though, isn't there, that if you don't get everybody to come along with you, you're not gonna get another go at it. Yeah, of course, but you've gotta try. And, you know, I have bent over backwards to try and build political consensus over the past two years. Yeah. And I think that there is a measure of consensus now that there wasn't just a few years ago. I mean, you did question the integrity of Simon Bridges about the same time as the Green Party conference. Has that become a major stumbling block for getting that political consensus? No, I don't think so. And remember we are talking about, you know, across all of society, not just between the political parties. And certainly political parties are here to represent constituencies ` those pressures do exist, but there's a spectrum of opinion inside the National Party as well. And I honestly don't think that they've worked out where they're going to land on this thing yet. Well, they supported the Zero Carbon Bill in its first reading, but we're not sure where they're going now. That's right. Have they indicated to you that they're going to go with it? Well, they said at the first reading that they agreed with basically every provision in the bill, but they didn't think that the top end of the range for the 2050 target on methane ` they wanted to narrow it. I've always said if they can come back with something that is scientifically grounded, that, you know, I can guarantee, hand on heart, lives within that temperature threshold of 1.5 degrees ` well, I just haven't seen it yet. OK. You haven't seen that, but you are open to the idea of reducing that methane cap? Well, what I'm open to is a solution to that conundrum, if you like, but it's got to meet the science. It has to be grounded in science. One of the other ways of keeping within that cap that you're talking about is transport emissions. How unhappy are you with the fact that the light-rail project in Auckland, it seems to be delayed yet again? Yeah. And that money is going to go probably to roads. Well, it is very annoying, because we think that there is a solution there. It should have moved faster than it was, and I think that the frustrations that our Transport Ministers have had with, you know, agencies and other factors in getting that over the line sooner is pretty evident. How can we trust that this government is going to make advancements in that area if you can't deliver on what is a key Green policy of getting more public transport? We are going to deliver on it. And actually, if you look at what we've done, is we've diverted $14.5 billion over the course of the next years into light rail, heavy rail, walking, cycling, public transport and so on. And so I think whilst the machine was very set up just to deliver these astonishingly expensive, but very short motorways, actually creating a holistic integrated multi-modal transport system is a big challenge, when everything that the last government did was just build motorways. And so there's a lot of retooling the system that needs to happen in order to get the shift that we need. And just finally, you've also announced some voluntary guidelines on how businesses can offset their emissions, but aren't offsets just a way for the wealthy businesses to buy their way out of climate guilt? And that's one of the concerns actually that some of those leading businesses had ` they said they don't wanna be perceived as just this, kind of, get-out-of-jail-free card. And so the guidelines themselves say, you know, that offsetting should be your last resort, not your first resort. The whole idea is you've gotta reduce your emissions as much as you possibly can. But frankly, there are some areas where their technology means you can't swap out right now. And so if you can't get them down to zero, then you really should offset the difference. Is it mutually exclusive ` our main earners like tourism, and climate change? Yeah, Chris Luxon, the outgoing chief executive of Air New Zealand, swears that we'll be flying electric planes at least for regional routes within 10 years. We know that people are testing hydrogen as a fuel for long-distance aircraft, and so I think that a change is definitely coming. You know, Auckland Port has just bought the world's first electric tugboat. So things are changing, but it is taking a while to change. All right, up next, our panel of experts on the highlights of the week in news and politics, plus, Backstory ` the MP raised in a traditional Southland farming family who calls herself a lefty feminist lesbian! Welcome back to Backstory, where we ask how well do we really know our MPs? She was raised in a traditional Invercargill family of four, but in her maiden speech to parliament, she described herself as a 'lefty, feminist lesbian.' From her home in Wellington's Cannons Creek, Green MP Jan Logie shares her backstory. People had this sense that Cannons Creek was a dangerous community, it's a community where people watch out for each other. One of the signals for me was when my mum was visiting and she was waiting for a bus, and it started to rain and there was a woman at the shops who, like, put her shopping down, came over the road and stood with my mum with the umbrella over her until the bus came. Like, it's a community where people care. And my partner ` it took me four years to convince her to get new cats. Their names are ginger and bean. And they are both tabbies. I am now full lesbian cliche. My partner's so sweet. So, Kath got it made. Had to, uh, defend New Zealand's... record at United Nations around status of women. And being grilled by this committee of global experts on New Zealand's action or inaction on women's rights for hours. (LAUGHS) It was pretty intense. And, so, Kath tuned in from New Zealand and watched some of it in the middle of the night. She's so lovely. And took a photo. So, this is me and my brother and his noddy. And my Mum and my Dad and my cat McScratch. I think my parents are just deeply good people. And that's my Mum as a nurse. People definitely know we're related. And there was a photo I shared on Mother's day of her when she was young, and people thought it was me. Dad grew up in South Otago, rural area. You know, out with his ferrets rabbiting. (LAUGHS) And then kind of became an electrician, and went of Antarctica. He was on a few missions down there, discovered a glacier that's named after him. Yeah, there's a Logie Glacier in Antarctica that I'm inordinately proud of. In Invercargill as a kid, like, I` My hairdresser was gay. I didn't know anyone else. So, it took me quite a while to kind of recognise` My first boyfriend picked I was lesbian, cos he walked into my bedroom and it was, like, pictures of girls everywhere. (LAUGHS) Which I hadn't registered was a thing. It took me longer to tell my Dad than it took me to tell my Mum. And his response was hilarious. GRUFF VOICE: 'Oh, girl, some things you're just better off not knowing.' (LAUGHS) (LAUGHING) But... bless... But, you know, that sense of, um... Like, having that kind of journey and struggling... to kind of understand myself and my existence in the world... maybe, I think, has given me a compassion for others, and a sense of the importance of... trying to create inclusive spaces. When I came out, I was working at Women's Refuge, and into a community that affirmed me. And my parents still... were living in communities that saw nobody like me. So, they had no community to reinforce that actually I was OK. And that they were OK for having a kid who was different. So, I really understand that actually, sometimes it's harder for parents than it is for the people coming out. And it seems overwrought to say it, but I do say it, is that for me I think going and working at refuge saved my life, because it created an environment where that felt safe. Proudest achievement, passing the victim's violence protection legislation. So, victims of domestic violence get protection in their workplace. There are ways where actually things are harder now for, um... women and kids to get safety than 30 years ago. I want to see our government commit to eliminating poverty; I want to see benefit rates increased to a level that actually... people have a chance... to live in dignity. And to be able to make the right choices for themselves or their families. Jan Logie there. All right, I'm joined now by our panel. Brigitte Morten from Franks Ogilvie Law, Bernard Hickey, managing editor for Newsroom Pro, and political commentator Shane Te Pou. Thank you so much for your time this morning, Brigitte, first to you. Grant Robertson says that there's transparency, he's living up to his promises. Do you agree? Well, I think what is happening here is a huge transparency issue for the Government. I think the most recent allegations around sexual assault have just really typified that. And I don't know anyone who possibly believes what has come from the Prime Minister and from senior ministers around those events. You know, that's building on, sort of, our Kiwibuild promises and a number of other promises that haven't been actualised. But they're two different issues, really. Oh, absolutely. The Labour Party's alleged sexual assault and policy delivery. Yes, but if you're talking that you're a new type of government that is transparent and open, that means that you're accountable on everything that you do, that's what the standard they set. And so, if you've got to look through everything they do with that lens, and you know, we've got two issues, you know, building houses over here and sexual assault claims here. And both of them, they have not lived up to what they said they would do. Shane, do you... I mean, Grant Robertson said 'no', but do you believe there's sort of an unwritten rule about protecting the Prime Minister from political risky issues? Well, I think the Prime Minister is quite frankly trying to make the best out of a dog's breakfast. But I don't accept for one minute that the leadership` Well, I find it very hard to understand that the leadership didn't know that there was something going on until they read it in Spinoff. Political pundits, people around Auckland and Wellington knew that there was something up, something quite dire, weeks out. If they didn't know, why didn't they know? Chief of Staff, back room people, it's there job to get wind of these type of things. Do they need to know? Bernard, I mean, do they need to know? I mean, they're the senior figures of the party, but, you know, do they need to know? And does the public need to know whether they know? Well, we'll find out a lot more about this as we go. And whether this goes beyond the beltway into being a real problem for the Prime Minister depends on whether or not a smoking gun is found in that trail of evidence about who knew what, when. They key issue will be whether she managed to maintain plausible deniability by saying, 'Well I didn't know.' Yeah. It would be surprising, given that her main predecessor, John Key, made a point of knowing about this stuff and acting very decisively. And that will be the key question, was she on top of it as John Key was at a similar stage in the government. Don't these guys operate on a no surprises kind-of policy, Brigitte? Yeah, absolutely. And I think you make a good point that what we saw from the previous Government is that they did act really fast on things like that, and so, that's the standard that's been expected. And I think it has gone beyond the beltway. You know, talking about people there, even if they don't understand 'who', 'what', 'when', they still understand that the Prime Minister is now having to face up to a whole bunch of allegations that she promised would never happen under her government. I think it's the layering on top of the disappointments from the capital gains tax, Kiwibuild, which has destabilized confidence amongst the core supporters, you know, the activists, the ones who are knocking on doors. So is this building into a political problem? Internally. It is` Well, I'm not sure. It's well beyond that. This is about her personal integrity and brand. This is a woman who, rightfully so, said 'Me too is us.' You know? And her own party has got problems, they've accepted they've got problems. They've accepted that they haven't done things as well as they should've, and we've also had the first political blood in terms of the President. Presidents do not go easily. And I think this is about her personal brand and the integrity of this government. I think it's actually a core value issue. On top of that. On top of that. On top of that, Kiwibuild and capital gains tax, which surprised a lot of people, disappointed them. And this year was supposed to be the year of delivery. She promised a transformational government, she isn't delivering it yet. And how are we` How are we to believe a Prime Minister who says that we are gonna look after young people when their own young people, within their own party have got these type of issues. OK, well, let's talk about the economy. That's another big issue for us. Figures out this week, Bernard, show that the growth has slowed to levels not seen for six years. Grant Robertson says 'Nah, no recession on the way.' Well, he should be pointing at the numbers he used to point to which is the per capita growth numbers. Yeah, that's right. Which he seemed to deflect from in that interview, didn't he? (LAUGHS) Yeah, well. 0.2% was the growth in the quarter, and we only had 0.1% in the March quarter. So we've only had 0.3% growth this year in per capita growth. We've essentially done what the previous government did, which was grow the economy by importing people and getting people to work more hours. So, we're not getting richer, we're just working harder and things are getting more crowded. So, are they dropping the ball in terms of how they're spending, Shane? I mean, should they be pumping money even more? Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. They say that they are. Absolutely they should, and money is cheap and we should be spending it. But we need to spend it in the right areas. I think it's more about infrastructure, about the infrastructure around protecting and enhancing our environment. I think, then, it is quite right we're not keeping up with the population growth. And we're failing to futureproof the economy. So, when you look at how much they're spending, the Finance Minister said, 'Oh, we're spending a lot more than the previous government.' When you actually look at the treasury figures, and the IMF pointed out this today as well, they're actually sucking money out of the economy over the next two years. There's a fiscal detraction by this government. Sorry, I don't understand, how could he say that we're spending $10 billion more, say, on infrastructure than the previous government, and yet they're sucking money out of the economy. How does that work? Well, the government's very effective at raising taxes. You've also got this fiscal bracket creep going on. And the treasuries own numbers in the budget show a fiscal detraction over the next couple of years. And compared with the half-yearly update and the budget update, there was a reduction in planned capital spending. So when this government says its doing more on infrastructure and capital spending than the previous government, technically, it's true. But it's not nearly enough to deal with the population growth we've had, and they're not looking far enough ahead to deal with the housing affordability and climate change issues they need to. So there's, I mean, National's saying, look, you guys are scrapping projects that we set in place, you've got nothing to replace it with, and growth is slowing. Is this time for Simon Bridges, its this an opportunity for Simon Bridges? Yeah, absolutely. And what you see, I think, is a vacuum of responsibility from the Minister of Finance. He's not stepping up and saying, 'Yes, we need to look at those long-term issues.' he's using those as an excuse. He's using those international environments as an excuse about, you know, that whatever happens is going to happen to us. Where I think we've got historical highs in terms of trade, you know, there is still great growth in exports. But we've got those massive slumps with business and consumer confidence. And the Government has to play a role in addressing them. Particularly when, as the OECD said this week, and the IMF said again on Saturday, that borrowing is cheap. In fact the Government this week, on Monday, went out to the markets and said, 'Instead of borrowing $100 million, we're gonna borrow $1.5-2 billion.' There were $3 billion worth of bids came in, and they raised it at 1.4%. So there's no shortage of money to borrow. Plenty of money out there. And when you've got your civil contractors, your road-builders, and rail-builders saying, 'Hey, we've got no work, we're laying people off,' it seems negligent, frankly, for the government to say, 'Oh, we can't go and ahead and do this right now.' It is absolutely negligent, because we all know we've got a skills shortage, and if there isn't the money and there isn't the work and there isn't investment now, we'll lose that skills` So the skilled force is gonna go somewhere else? They'll go somewhere else, absolutely. And the likes of civil contractors are out there saying, 'Please, give us a pipeline.' A hole has opened up between the roads stopping and the rail starting. Yeah. (LAUGHS) And the rail's not starting for a while, is it? We should be in a much better position considering our trade receipts. OK, I'm gonna leave it there for the moment. Thank you very much to the panel. All right, up next, do school deciles matter? We look into new evidence suggesting they don't. Plus, Mike Wesley-Smith reports on one of our most unusual and unresolved hunting accidents. Welcome back. How do you rate a secondary school's performance? For many parents, the decile rating becomes the default measure, but libertarian think tank 'the New Zealand Initiative' has crunched the numbers and come up with a new tool they say is better. Director Oliver Hartwich joins me now. So why did you decide to develop this tool? Well, because often you hear parents think that you have to send kids to a higher decile school to get a better school performance, and we think that is not quite accurate because we think there are some schools in the lower deciles that are doing a phenomenal job. But so far, they couldn't see this in the data because typically what you do is you just see how many NCEA credits they generate, how many university entrance qualifications these schools generate. But you never really account for the differences in students attending these schools. Right, so why are those particular schools' NCEA pass rates not good enough? Well, because actually sometimes it matters not just what the school does, but actually what kind of kids you're dealing with, and what kind of family backgrounds you're dealing with. So of course, if you're looking at lower decile schools, you're dealing with students who are coming from different socio-economic backgrounds, and therefore would have had parents that don't read to them, perhaps, or maybe they come from a background where the parents don't have a tertiary education. And then it's not surprising that these kids also struggle at school where kids coming from different backgrounds actually have a much better background, really, that enables them to thrive at school. So it's not really the schools themselves actually contributing to their students' success. Right. OK, so you decide to crunch a whole lot of data that you got from Stats New Zealand. It's 400,000 secondary students from 485 schools. How much data` That's an enormous amount of data. How far did you go into that data? Basically what you have to imagine` In New Zealand we have a data set in Stats New Zealand that is a data set like no other country has. So we have, actually, a government that has integrated all existing data, whether you are paying taxes or whether you're dealing with a welfare system or whether you're dealing with criminal justice, and all of this data goes into this one data set. And you can get access to it as a researcher` So you guys did, right? We did. Of course, this is anonymised. We can't see any names, we can't see addresses. OK. There are strict confidentiality rules, so you don't have to be afraid of that. But you can use real data to figure out what's happening in our schools, and we did that. So basically, we did it for 400,000 students, and we looked at all of their family backgrounds. All right. So on the basis of that, where would you send your kids to school? If you're trying to strip out the socio-economic background of a school and that school's performance, where would you send your kids to school? See, I can't tell you at the moment because we are not allowed to take that data out of the data lab yet. We can tell on average that when we're looking across all deciles, we have 85% of all schools in the country performing as you would expect them to perform, given the student populations they serve. But we couldn't tell you, at this stage, an individual school is working well or not. So you can't pinpoint each school, but` Because we're not allowed to by confidentiality rules. But you can tell me from this data that 80% of schools are performing the same? 85% of schools are performing as we would expect them to perform, given the students they serve. And what we found also was, that in each decile you find schools that are over-performing and schools that are under-performing. Right. So actually, that is the message, really, from our report, is not to accept the status quo as a given. We think we should improve, but we should say we have to learn from those schools in the lower deciles that are doing a fantastic job. We want to figure out what's going on in these schools. We would like to send people from the ministry into the schools once we've identified them and figure out what is so different about these schools ` what can we learn, what can we share? So the decile one and twos that are out-performing everybody else. That's something that you'd like to get involved in? Exactly. OK. Why is the New Zealand Initiative, which is, sort of like, a think tank which is sponsored by CEOs and business, involving itself in education? Well, obviously because education is the single biggest factor for long-term prosperity. We want to lift productivity levels. We want to make sure that this is a prosperous country, where people from all sorts of backgrounds have a good chance in life, and education is the key factor in all of this. OK. A school doesn't exist in isolation, right? So how` Is this just an academic exercise, really? Because you can't separate a community from its school, can you? It is not an academic exercise. It is actually a revolutionary tool, and actually it would enable the Minister of Education to be the most revolutionary education minister in the world because no other country has the database like New Zealand, and no other country has a tool now that we have developed like ours. OK. So you've run it past the Education Minister, what does he say? He's absolutely interested in it because he can see the revolutionary aspects of this. He can see that it will enable him to do his job better because he could actually test education policies. He could see what works, what doesn't work. He could actually help the Education Review Office to check on the performance of schools. But we think the benefits of the model go far beyond that. We think this is something that should be available to all principals, to all boards of trustees because we think they should want to know how they're performing, how their schools are performing. So you're talking about an annual report card on each school? Absolutely. At the end of the school year, push that button, and let us see what that school did. OK. Oliver Hartwich from the New Zealand Initiative, thank you very much for your time. Thank you. All right. Well, Jim Morton lost an eye in 2016, hit by shotgun pellets fired by another hunter. His pain was followed by surprise when the prosecution for carelessness was dropped. Apparently the pellets could have ricocheted off flying ducks. What can victims do when they feel they have been denied their day in court? Here's Mike Wesley-Smith with this report on what some experts say is a gap in our justice system, and a warning ` some viewers may find images in this story disturbing. (SOMBRE MUSIC) Jim Morton's morning ritual is... well, eye-opening. This is the eye that I've been left with after the shooting accident. There's a lot of people that don't notice it in general conversation at all, which is nice. Better than having to explain over and over again what happened that day. That day was 7th May 2016. Duck hunting season. Jim was in a group of hunters shooting at this pond on a North Island farm. Well, the plan, like other years, was to go out and have some fun with some friends. Jim and another man were located in this shelter, otherwise called a 'maimai'. At around 7.30am, another hunter, located in this maimai, took aim at two ducks with his shotgun. And the first shot was fired, and I glanced back over my left shoulder, and that's when I copped part of the second shot... in the face. I knew I was going to be in trouble then because my eye ran out through my fingers. Jim was rushed to hospital. His wife, Jenny, will never forget hearing the news. And I stood there, pretty much in a daze. Worst day of my life. Um,... yeah. Horrendous. Jim's surgeon told him he was 2mm from being killed. One pellet just below my right eye. The other pellet went straight through my left eye. A police investigation started and witness statements were taken. Early on, Jim says he didn't want anyone charged over the incident. It was just a blimming horrible mistake, as far as we were concerned. But police decided to charge the man with careless use of a firearm, causing injury. We had no say over that. We can't identify him because his name was later suppressed. Instead, we'll use the name given by the court ` Steven. All I wanted was someone to put their hand up and say, 'Sorry, mate. I stuffed up.' But Jim's view changed when Steven told police he wasn't responsible for Jim's injuries. Here's the back of the maimai that I was in. The back corner that I was leaning against. The ducks ended up right over here. And they've taken off on a flight path through here. He's taken shot at both of them. Jim believes Steven was careless because he didn't check his firing zone. And a leading firearm safety expert agrees. He was negligent and he was careless. Mike Spray has been a police-approved firearm safety instructor for more than 30 years. He's analysed more than 100 firearms incidents, given evidence in prosecutions and has examined Steven's actions. He's tracking ducks down here with his shotgun. That maimai's in the firing zone. I wouldn't do it. The risk is too great. Steven wouldn't be interviewed, but in a statement said he immediately offered first aid when Jim was hit, and has repeatedly expressed regret for what happened. But he maintains he was never careless because when he fired at the ducks, they were flying in a safe area ` above and to the left of Jim's maimai. It's an account he says is supported by other witnesses. And he also got an expert to prove it. I was satisfied, in this instance, that the person who was handling the gun was completely competent with it, had made a reasonable decision about when and where to fire. This is John Dyer, who's had decades of expertise in shotguns. The idea is the pellets fan out, and the bird is hit by sufficient` It's a bit using a garden hose. John visited the site and spoke with witnesses. He says Steven's firing zone was safe. There were no pellets on the building that would indicate that anyone shot directly at it. So then how did the two pellets get from Steven's gun into Jim's head? I think the only explanation that actually makes good, logical sense is that they deflected off the birds. According to John, pellets have bounced off birds before. Deflection off the wing bone or the breastbone or some other hard part of the bird. An event John says Steven couldn't have foreseen. It's like how freak does an occurrence have to be before you should be considering it? He also says even if Steven at the maimai, Jim would've been protected by a wall of corrugated iron, if he'd stayed inside. He was in the un-roofed part, and the pellets rained down on him, much like hail. Yeah, no. I was never outside the maimai. Jim took exception to what he believed was an attempt to blame him for his own injuries. A whole lot of tears and anger. Mm. Steven told us on previous occasions, Jim was warned for leaving his maimai in dangerous circumstances. And another time, had his gun taken off him by other hunters due to safety concerns. Just disbelief that that was the angle that anyone was going to take, rather than just put their hand up. Jim never accepted the deflecting duck theory, and expected it to be tested in a court room. It was the Crown prosecutor's role to put up counter-evidence. But in April 2017, the prosecutor, Ben Vanderkolk, told Jim and Jenny he was withdrawing the charge against Steven due to insufficient evidence. Mr Vanderkolk also told Jim that John Dyer's report had been reviewed by a forensic expert who could not disprove his theory. In deciding that he couldn't, as a Crown prosecutor, defend a ricochet off a duck was just a complete nonsense and a nightmare. There's a potential for a pellet to deflect off the wing of a bird. I accept that. I don't accept two ` off the same shot, the same bird, hitting the victim in the face, millimetres from each other. It's so extremely, extremely unlikely. In my view, that didn't happen. And he says the focus put on Jim's conduct was wrong. If you're the nut behind the butt, you have the sole responsibility. So blaming someone else for being in the way is ridiculous. Mike Spray says even if the ricochet theory is accepted, Steven was still careless, and he believes this could have been demonstrated to a jury. I mean, the fact is, the projectiles ended up from the barrel of his gun and hit that person in the face. Therefore, that person had to be in his firing zone or he had to be in the zone where there was the potential for ricochets to land. That's it. It's the type of evidence Jim hoped to hear in court, but in May 2017, the charge against Steven was dropped and his identity suppressed. The legal effect is, it's dead. It's over. Dr Bill Hodge is a law professor who has also looked at Jim's case. He says Jim deserved his day in court. Maybe that expert was right. Maybe ducks deflect all the time. I never heard of it, but let that expert tested in court on cross-examination. Jim did complain about the prosecutor, but it went nowhere. From the day I was shot, I actually had nobody standing in my corner fighting for me. And a leading lawyer agrees ` victims need a voice. Effectively, they have very little say in what is decided by prosecutors. QC Nigel Hampton acted for Pike River families devastated after charges were dropped against mine boss Peter Whittall in 2013. In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that decision unlawful. And that's where the gap is, so let's have a code that would give victims and other people aggrieved by decisions made not to prosecute the right to go to full review ` independent review. For now, Jim and Jenny will keep doing what they've been doing since the day Jim was shot ` battling onwards. (GUNSHOT) Jim's recently taken up shooting again. Over time, things are getting better. But Jim says nothing will stop him from trying to open the eyes of others to the experiences of victims like him. I certainly want to be an advocate for some change within the judicial system. So that people don't have to go through what we've been through. Well, Mr Vanderkolk and Police declined to interviewed for this story, as did Crown law, who reviewed Jim Morton's complaint. But all agree there was insufficient evidence to continue the prosecution. A decision signed-off by a judge. As for victims having the right to review prosecutor's decisions, as they do in the UK, Attorney-General David Parker declined to comment. Stay with us. We're back after the break. Welcome back, and we are back with our panel ` Brigitte Morten, Bernard Hickey and Shane Te Pou. Thanks for your time again. A pretty robust defence of New Zealand's environmental or climate change record by James Shaw there. Bernard, do you think so? Do you agree with him? No, I think they haven't done an awful lot at all. Not investing much in public transport. We've still got a delayed light rail. The feebate scheme was very weak. It was actually just a neutral thing. I mean, even Germany announced big subsidies to try and move people to a climate` to change the climate. This government has not done much, and it still has to get the Carbon Zero Act over the line, and there's a risk here that both National and New Zealand First will choose to stand up and grab the anti-climate change vote and do a Trump, and stop it. Right, OK. But the Prime Minister's heading off to the UN on Monday. So is that` Can she actually trumpet a record there, Brigitte, or is it just PR? I think it's mostly PR. And I think what's actually really important is that one-to-one that she's got with President Trump because what we're doing, here in New Zealand, is largely irrelevant if the international players don't come on the scene. And he is a key person that needs to be brought on. So will she use some of her political capital? Will she push that relationship? (LAUGHS) He's never going to agree to that, is he? That's going to be an amazing` You'd like to be a fly on the wall in that meeting, would you? I would like to be a` (LAUGHS) I would like to be a fly on the wall. I think it's going to be an interesting dynamic. Look, I think that this government, and particularly the Greens, are trying to set up a precursor, in terms of making some real changes ` in terms of the environment. They're struggling, and I think they used up a lot of political capital over the Taranaki well. Yep, oil and gas, and I think they're struggling to get the momentum. You know, farmers are an easy target. Listen to talkback; they feel vilified. And they're really starting to organise themselves. Yes, they are really starting to organise. My other point is that us urbanites also need to play our parts. OK, so while Jacinda Ardern is over at the UN, we have Winston Peters as the Acting Prime Minister. He's back. Where has he been? What's actually happened to` Anybody know what he's had surgery for? Anyone? He apparently wasn't very well. And he had some sort of treatment, and that's enough, apparently. Is that enough? Should we know? I think that's enough. I like the fact that we don't delve into the personal medical histories of our politicians. That we have that respect around them. I don't want to get into that culture that we have in the U.S. where, you know, Hillary Clinton coughs and everyone goes deep into what she's got. This is a nice part that we've got, that we respect our politicians as people, and we allow them to have some boundaries. But his party is the cult of one personality, isn't it? So doesn't it depend on him, Shane? Well` (SIGHS), perhaps. But can I just say that people get unwell and they have a right to recover. He's back, bigger and stronger than ever. (LAUGHS) I haven't seen him live, but it looks like he's lost a couple of kilos, and I've got to tell you what ` I hope that I'm as robust as he is at his age. He is in full voice, though, isn't he? He's jumped both feet in to the swirling allegations around Labour. Bernard, do you have any idea ` why would he jump into that? He needs oxygen. The real problem for a partner party like New Zealand First ` and he's been there before ` is that you end up at the end of the first term as irrelevant and as a non-entity. He needs to jump above the parapet and wave at everyone to say, 'I'm not the government on some issues.' And this is one where he thinks he can do it without too much unease for the government's unity. The things to watch in the next year or so, will be which issues he chooses to try and differentiate himself. And it wouldn't surprise me to see him going on the climate issue and particularly around water and methane and this decision about the methane levels, and it's interesting to see James Shaw say in your interview that he's willing to see some change, but he's still talking pretty tough. That will be a key moment. When National decides to either back it at the Second Reading or decide to stand up and say, 'OK, we're with the farmers, 'and we're with the anti-green tax people.' Right. Yeah, OK. One of the issues that he might take a stand on, and already has, is Ihumatao. He's said that, you know, he doesn't want the government to buy the land, but the mana whenua has come together and said that that is its position. But before, Shane, I'll ask this to you ` originally mana whenua were split over this. Yeah, they were split. So they're unified now? I think there is a level of unification, and I think we've got to give the kind due credit for that. I think we still need an elegant solution. I don't think it's that far away. Look, here are the fundamentals. Mana whenua are saying they want it back, but the base argument is they want to give it back to the people of Tamaki Makaurau, in terms of its historical significance. That's not a big ask, in terms of a government contribution. Yeah, but` The key relationship here is going to be between the government and Fletcher who ` obviously ` they bought the land, they've got the land, they want something for it. And whether it's an outright purchase, which really does cause problems with other settlements and breaks the precedent or whether it's some sort of fancy swappy-gifty arrangement. Yeah, so what is this elegant solution? I mean, Brigitte, can you foresee an elegant solution to this? I can't see an elegant solution, particularly going into an election year. No matter what they choose it's going to be divisive. And there's going to be people that are going to fall down on either side, and politics are going to be made of whatever that solution looks like. I think the elegant solution will be swap and some money, and` and` So who's going to get some money, sorry? Swap and some money. I think that there will be three components to it. I think it will be Tainui themselves, the iwi, of course, were given some money, so perhaps they have to do that. And also a little bit from Fletcher. I think that building houses on that piece of land is almost not doable now because of the politics around it. All right, and just quickly ` what do you think, if anything, Bernard, is going to come out of the meeting with Donald Trump? Some fantastic quotes. (LAUGHS) Looking forward to this. And also I want to hear what he said off-camera, and there's bound to be three or four leakers in his office who let it out, and maybe there's a whistle-blower saying, you know, 'He put his hand on her knee or something', you know. That's what I'm looking forward to. Who knows? That's the whole thing about Trump. It's not a significant meeting. You know, in the scheme of things we're not a significant player, and, um, yeah, I think it'll be more about what we see, in terms of our expectations in New Zealand being on the big stage for 20 seconds. OK. Well, thank you for the panel this morning. We'll just have to leave it there. Well, another busy week in the House. Was Simon Bridges burned again over his China trip? And the Speaker booting one MP from the Chamber completely. Here's Finn Hogan with the week that was in Wellington. Well, Simon Bridges was probably hoping everyone had forgotten about his trip to China by now. But the Foreign Minister wasn't about to let him off the hook that easy. I have never heard such obsequious, subservient, grovelling, kowtowing, cap-doffing, bum-kissing nonsense. And as National continue to grill the government over our slowing economy, the Speaker had his hands full trying to keep everyone in-line. (ALL SPEAK AT ONCE) Can I say, Mr Speaker` Order, order. You will stand, withdraw and apologise. Point of order. No, he will stand, withdraw and apologise. I stand, withdraw and apologise. Be a good little boy. He will stand, withdraw and apologise. Those members who interject to them will stand, withdraw and apologise. Apologise. Who interjected then will stand, withdraw and apologise. Those members that made a noise during a point of order from my left, stand. You will, in unison, withdraw and apologise. (LAUGHTER) But his patience finally ran out, when it came to National MP Andrew Bayly. Order. The Member will leave the house. Poor, Mr Mallard. At least the All Blacks are playing tonight, so the Speaker can spend some quality time yelling at his television instead of our elected officials. That was not helpful. That's all from us for now. Thank you for watching, and we'll see you again next weekend. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019