Today on Newshub Nation ` Minister Iain Lees-Galloway on our high immigration levels and reforming the refugee rules. Should employers drug test workers for cannabis if it's legalised? And Backstory ` the book author MP who wants to control the country's finances. Kia ora, good morning. I'm Simon Shepherd, and welcome to Newshub Nation. The British government this week offered a formal expression of regret for the harm caused when Captain Cook arrived in New Zealand in 1769. Nine Maori were killed when Captain Cook's crew landed in Gisborne. High Commissioner Laura Clarke said Britain recognised the pain of those encounters, but Race Relations Commissioner Meng Foon said a full apology would have been better. New Zealand First MP Shane Jones has been dressed-down by the Prime Minister for inappropriate comments he made a forestry conference. Jones said if the sector liked the money they got through the Provincial Growth Fund, then they should vote for him. Jacinda Ardern said Jones' language needed to be tighter. And the government has scrapped the policy that stopped refugees from Africa and the Middle East bringing their families to New Zealand. The change comes as New Zealand's refugee quota jumps from 1000 to 1500 next year. However, despite most of the world's refugees coming from Africa and the Middle East, the number allowed to come here has risen by just 2%. Well, the person responsible for those changes is Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway, and he joins me now. Thanks for your time this morning. Why have you only increased the ratio from those regions by such a small amount? Well, actually, if you look at the actual numbers with the family link in place, I think the proportion of our refugee intake coming from the Middle East was about 1.2%, not 14%, 1.2%, and the proportion coming from Africa was about 5.3%. So we're confident that by removing the family link, we can get those numbers up from those paltry figures to the 15%. That's doable in this three year programme. And also, you know, we have to balance our role and responsibility within our own region, the Asia-Pacific region. There is still a lot of need in our region with what's happening around the world. Advocates were saying it really should be 50%, because most of the war-torn areas and the places of need come from those two regions. Yeah, yeah, look. New Zealand's doing its bit. We're increasing the quota to 1500, which on a per-capita basis kind of brings us to about the middle of the pack. But we're still a small country, doing our best, making our contribution. We think we need to balance our responsibilities between being a good neighbour to the Asia-Pacific region and looking where the global need is. OK, so we're a small but rich country; surely we could have even more. I mean, are you going to boost the number from 1500 further? 1500 is what we're planning on at the moment; that's what we've decided to do. We think that's the right number for being able to settle those people well. You know, it's not just about getting the numbers in; it's being able to make sure that they're housed, that there's opportunities for them, they can get an education, they can get jobs, that they're able to settle well in their new homes, their new communities. And we think we've got that balance about right. OK, and have you been hamstrung by, say, New Zealand First on these immigration matters, in terms of these refugee policies. No, not at all. No? There's no concessions to them about the numbers? No, no, not about numbers. Not at all, no. I mean, the truth is, in coalition Governments, sometimes, you know, these decisions can take a little bit longer. But I actually think taking a little longer on decisions can often be a good thing. It means more robust, more enduring decisions get made. Just quickly, are there any more of these sort of race-based policies in place, in terms of the refugee policy? Ah, look, not that I'm aware of. The family link was one which stood out a little bit and which we've been keen to make some change on. I think we've got our refugee policies in a good place now. We're taking a good number, which as I said, puts us sort of in the middle of the pack amongst the nations that we like to compare ourselves with. And we'll now be able to take people from all around the world, and do our bit. OK, so other people who want to come here by boat, they haven't arrived yet, these are asylum seekers. And in the budget you've increased the budget significantly to $26 million to prevent asylum seekers coming to here on boats. Where are you spending that money? I mean, you've announced it, but where are you spending it? Yeah, look, we think the previous government probably underdid this a bit. People trafficking is on the rise around the world. That's around the world, but treasury has said there's no credible evidence that it's on the rise or we're at further risk here, though. Look, as I say, I think the previous government probably underdid this a little bit. So we're wanting to make sure that we are making our contribution again in our region. So where that money is going to go is to putting people on the ground in some of those source and transit countries to help prevent people becoming vulnerable to people trafficking. And you're right, it's an important point here, you're right. No one has made it here by boat; it is a dangerous treacherous journey. People who try to undertake that journey are putting their lives at risk. We would like to play our part as a nation to prevent people becoming exploited by people traffickers, and potentially putting their own lives at risk. Has Australia pressured us over this? Absolutely not. All right. Net migration has been tracking well above comparable countries, the countries that we like to compare ourselves` We've been averaging 50,000 new residents a year` Not residents, no, that's not correct. No, sorry, 50,000 net migration. That's right. OK, so you promised to cut that in the last election by 20-30,000, and it hasn't happened. OK, well, that's not correct. Well, that's what the Labour Party document said. That wasn't what the Labour Party policy was, and also there is no coalition government target for numbers. Sorry, that is correct, I went back to the Labour Party policy in 2017, and the changes to the visas that you outlined there said the net effect would be a reduction by around 20-30,000. Yeah, that was our estimate, but it was never a target. What's the difference? And there is no government target for net migration, and we've got to remember, you know, the context for all our immigration decisions, our economic migration decisions, is New Zealand has a strong economy right now. Unemployment is very low. Sure. And we did inherit a severe skill shortage from the previous government because they didn't invest in vocational education. So what we've got to do is make sure that our immigration system is well-aligned with what we're doing in education, what we're doing in welfare. The changes which Chris Hipkins is leading ` I've been working really closely with him to make sure what we do supports the government's aims for a more productive, more sustainable, more inclusive economy, and that we're filling those skill-shortages both with the immigration system and providing opportunities for New Zealanders. It's still running about 50-odd thousand a year ` is that right? And we've just made changes to the immigration system which are designed to make sure those people are getting into the places where we need them. We need a workforce to help sustain regional growth, and that's exactly what the changes are designed to do. Yes. But do we have the infrastructure to support a 50,000 annual net migration? Well, look, it's absolutely true that the previous government did not invest in the infrastructure we need to support population growth. So you have seen, you know, a big effort from this government on housing, on public transport, on education. If we don't have the infrastructure now, why aren't you reducing that number? Because we actually have to make sure that we have our immigration settings in the right place that they support sustainable, inclusive, productive growth. And that means growth based on real economic growth, not growth based on housing speculation and population growth, which is what National focussed on. So our changes are designed to make sure the immigration system supports those. We're not fixated on the number, it's about getting the right people with the right skills in the right part of the country. Your coalition partner, Winston Peters, said at ` I think it was at a post-Cabinet press conference just recently, 'Immigration needs to slow.' And his party was saying last election 10,000 as their number. So how are you going to navigate that with them? Look, I work on what the government's plan is. He's part of the government. The coalition agreement and the agreements and decisions that we make as a government. We are managing the immigration system in a much stricter fashion than the previous government did to make sure that we're getting people into the right parts of the country, and that we're focussed on the people with the skills that we need to grow our economy. But the numbers are still high. The numbers are still high compared to other countries as well. You're looking at the net migration numbers. Those include New Zealanders. That includes New Zealanders coming home to work and live here, having spent some time overseas. New Zealand has a strong economy` But are you saying` ...with very low unemployment, and we need that workforce. But are you saying that New Zealanders returning to the strong economy, low unemployment ` are they making up the bulk of this 50,000? Not the bulk of it, but you've got to remember that that's what this number includes. If you look at residency numbers` I mean, you accidentally said residency number earlier on, those residency numbers are coming down. They've come down from a peak of around 52,000 to more like 36,000 in the last year to June. So as I've said, we're not particularly fixated on the numbers. What we're interested in is making sure that the immigration system supports our overall aims. It's a more productive, more sustainable, more inclusive economy where everybody in New Zealand gets to do well. More than a quarter of our population is foreign-born. It's something like a third in the OECD. Other countries with high migration have experienced` Well, they're dealing with polarisation and backlash in some of them, like Brexit, maybe and the US. What are you doing to mitigate that backlash when we have high migration? My first point is, New Zealand's a migrant nation. All of us either came here from somewhere else or are descended from people who came here from somewhere else. So immigration is not new in New Zealand, and we've always relied on it. But, yes, we do have to make sure that as our society becomes more diverse, that we're actively supporting that inclusion. And I think, yeah, you just need to see the way New Zealand responded after the March 15th attacks, in a way, that demonstrated that we are an inclusive nation. We wanted to get around and support those people. And yet we are still seeing signs like at Auckland University this week, where there's that tension between supposed white supremacists and university students. Sure. So the other things I announced yesterday alongside the changes to the refugee programme, is an extension of the Welcoming Communities programme. That's a programme which has been piloted in 10 councils, where government has provided has provided seeding funding for councils to actively become involved in making their community a more welcoming one to people from outside of their community. So you're saying more integration? Yes. That's now being extended to 30 additional sites. And the councils that have used that programme over the last two years have found real gains and benefits from it, and I think the other councils that pick it up will too. 2017, you admit that immigration was a pretty hot-button election issue. Will you be changing any other settings? Oh, look, I think immigration is always one of those areas where you're always looking at the settings to make sure that they remain fit-for-purpose. I think the big set of changes around the temporary work visas are probably the most substantial change that's been made to the immigration system in a number of years. You're not foreshadowing any more changes? Oh, look, I think there's room for more changes, but they won't be at the` I don't think they won't be at the` I don't think they'll be quite at the same scale as the changes that we've made to the temporary working visas. Your coalition partner wants migrants to sign up to 'New Zealand values', at their last conference, New Zealand First. How are you going to find consensus with New Zealand First? Well, I think we have consensus around the idea that New Zealand values include tolerance, inclusivity and being embracing of our role in the world. And yet, they want immigration cut to like 10,000, which is, you know, at odds with you guys. Yeah, but that might have been their party policy, but we work on what we've agreed as a coalition, and what we've agreed as a coalition is that we need to manage the immigration system to support our aims as a government. And, of course, one of the other areas that we are focussing on is migrant exploitation. We are really concerned that some people have come to the country and been put in extremely exploitative situations. We need to do more to encourage them to come forward and speak up, and we need to do a lot more to prevent that. When I say there's more changes coming in the immigration space, you can expect more in that area. Can you tell us what they are? Not today, but soon enough. OK. Let's just quickly talk ACC. I asked ACC yesterday whether there have been more mental health claims, mental trauma claims, denied as a result of March 15. And they say it's up to 61 now that aren't included for the people that experienced mental trauma from March 15. Why doesn't ACC ` and you're in favour of this ` why doesn't ACC broaden itself to include mental trauma? Well, look, the decision was made a long time ago that mental trauma would be covered when it occurs in a workplace, as the result of a workplace accident or it occurs in a way that is related to a physical injury ` so if you have a physical injury` But not stand-alone by itself. But not stand-alone by itself. That's been in place for a long time now. In the context of the March 15 attack, yes, I did put up a paper in the immediate aftermath of that. We knew that government had to respond to that in some fashion. We put up the option of ACC being the agency that responded. Ultimately, we made the decision that that response would better come from the health system, from the welfare system. I don't think it matters to people on the ground which bit of government provides that support. It's knowing that they get the right level of support. I'm confident that we made a decision that ensures that government provides that level of support. It's just going to come from another part of government. And there's no plans on your behalf to expand ACC? Not in the immediate future, no. All right. Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway, thank you very much for your time. All right. If you've got something to say about what you see on our show, let us know. We are on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram ` NewshubNationNZ ` or you can email us at nation@mediaworks.co.nz also available on podcast on iTunes, Google, wherever you get your podcasts. But still to come ` we dissect the week's political news with our panel. Plus ` what will employers do if the country says 'yes' to legalising dope? Welcome back. Next year, Kiwis will be asked to vote yes or no on legalising the recreational use of cannabis. If it's a yes, what will that mean for your workplace? Some businesses are concerned there's no way of testing whether someone is high and they could be lumped with extra liability for workplace accidents. Business New Zealand chief executive Kirk Hope joins me now. Thanks for your time. Good morning. Currently, if I turn up to work and you thought I was stoned, what would my employer do? You'd probably be tested, so the challenge, I think, with legalisation is you've got to treat it like alcohol, because it's a legal drug. But then you need to find a test which tests from not whether you're positive or negative for the drug, but actually whether you're impaired by the drug, and that's a much, much harder thing to test for, actually. Right. So is there concern amongst employers that there isn't anything which can say, 'Test me if I've got cannabis in me or whether it's actually impairing me at work'? That's exactly right ` whether it's impairing you or not. Because you could say, for example, the current test would work like this ` you might have smoked a joint 30 days ago; that turns up in the test, but you wouldn't be impaired by that 30 days later ` you may be, but it's unlikely that you'd be impaired. So what you really need is something that reflects the risks that might be taking place in the workplace. OK. Well, before we get on to that, you said that, you know, why can't we just manage it the same way that employers manage alcohol at the moment? Yeah, again, because I think it's the timeframe. So, a blood test for alcohol will be a relatively short blood test, and an impairment test is pretty obvious ` you've got a breathalyser, for example, and some very clear measures about what impairment would look like for any given individual. You don't really have that with marijuana. OK. And I think that's part of the challenge. And I think, in general, business doesn't really have a view about legalisation of marijuana, but businesses are very concerned about how they might manage some of these risks. All right. If I am stoned at work and I cause an accident, who is liable? Well, the employer is likely to be liable because of strict liability, and some of the challenges` hence their nervousness... Yeah, OK. ...under the reasonably comprehensive now health and safety laws that we have. So, again, that's driving businesses to say, 'How will we manage this?' So, yeah, if the business is liable, even though I as an employee have caused it, what changes does the business community want to protect them from that? Do they want changes? Well, so, some of the things that this could lead to is saying, 'Actually, we ban... 'We don't want any drugs or alcohol in the workplace,' or not even in the workplace, but, 'We can't have people in the workplace who have taken drugs,' and that will change people's lifestyle choices, and if marijuana is a legal drug, that's a lifestyle choice that a person is choosing and is allowed to make under the law. It's going to be pretty hard, I think, for employers to manage that particular... the social context within which they're going to have to say, 'Well, you can't come in, because if you cause an accident, we're in trouble.' Yeah, so do you need a change in the health and safety laws to say that if somebody has marijuana in their system, it's up to them to make the choices to whether they're going to come into work? How are you going to...? Well, how can you regulate this? Yeah, look, I mean I think, firstly, the nation's got to vote on this. Yeah. And that's still a wee way away. But these are some of the ramifications you have to look at now. Yeah. So, there is some development work going on in terms of impairment testing ` so shorter term impairment testing ` which would, I mean, I would imagine, look much like a marijuana version of a breathalyser test, so it would at least give you some idea about how impaired someone might be. But again, that is also a little way off. So in the interim, I think employers are worried about the prospect that they'll have to manage this without some of those testing and regimes available. Could you not implement things like they have in Canada, where the military says that if you're going to turn up for work, it has to be eight hours before you've consumed, say, a joint, if you're on general duties. If you're going out on an exercise, it has to be 24 hours. Could employers say that to their employees? Yeah, look, I mean, that's a possibility. But again, what you want to be able to do is say, 'OK, that person suggests that they haven't taken a drug for 24 hours, 'but their work performance doesn't look particularly good.' And then you want to be able to say, 'Are you under the influence? You're under the influence and impaired.' Yeah, so, if you have drug testing in the workplace, doesn't that create a culture of mistrust, though? Well, not really, because if` bear in mind, businesses that are using those sorts of tests are usually pretty high-risk workplaces. We're talking factories, heavy construction, things like that, where, actually, you don't want your workmates to be impaired, because that will, in all likelihood, be endangering your life. OK. Let's just move on to business confidence. It hasn't seemed to be so low since the end of the global financial crisis. Why is that? Well, look, I think that what businesses have been dealing with is actually a really large raft of policy changes, and quite quickly. Bear in mind it's only been, really, two years since the government was elected, and there was the instant, I think, chilling effect of the oil and gas ban ` don't really want to talk about that. We could, but there have been a raft of other policy changes, which have essentially created additional costs for businesses. Yeah. But more than that, I think there were some signals leading into the election ` we've just been talking about immigration policy setting, right ` where businesses have been saying, 'We're struggling to get the employees we need. 'We're paying well above minimum wage now, and we just can't get the people, 'so we're worried about our ability to fulfil demand,' particularly at a time when, of course, CPTPP is coming online. We've got more foreign markets that are` ...opening up. ...more accessible than we've ever had before. So there is that going on. So in terms of sentiment, there's the general mood of business, which has been pretty grumpy. The things to watch, actually, are businesses' own assessment of where they're at, and that tracks quite closely to GDP. So that's really the number to look at, and that's been declining also. Yeah. But I just want to ask, though ` I mean, you say that businesses are pretty grumpy ` is that just a political bias? Because I've noticed that the confidence levels fell off a cliff immediately after the election. Sure. Well, I think, again, it's because you're seeing a policy programme, which means quite a lot of change for your business, probably quite a lot of cost for your business and not really much upside. One thing that I would say is that sentiment is now starting to impact in actual investment, so... Right. So does that mean we're going to see businesses downsize? Are we going to see jobs going? Well, let me just talk about the investment situation first. So, in the five years leading up to this year, on average, business investment was growing at about 5.4% per year. For the last year, it's 0.7%. So that tells you that there is a sharp contraction in business investment, so the sentiment is now translating into a real non-activity. That could have some real impact for, certainly, productivity in jobs, I would suggest, in the future. OK. Just finally, do businesses see climate change as a threat or an opportunity? I think both, actually, and I think what good businesses are doing is thinking how they can A) manage their carbon footprint, but they're also thinking about the investments that they might need to make to fundamentally change their business and also some of the products and services that people might need to continue to reduce their own carbon footprint. Because, of course, it'll be lots of individuals doing things, lots of businesses doing things and so on and so forth. So I see it as a threat and as an opportunity. It has been characterised, I think` over-characterised as a threat. I mean, it's certainly real, it's certainly happening. People, I think, are still figuring out how to manage through that stuff. Right. OK. Business New Zealand chief executive Kirk Hope, thanks very much for your time. Pleasure. OK, up next ` our panel on the week's highs and lows in politics. Plus, Backstory ` from playing second fiddle in Epsom to orchestrating National's economic symphony, it's Paul Goldsmith. Paul Goldsmithis mainly known as the National MP who played second fiddle in the seat of Epsom to kept the ACT party in Parliament, however, he's also a concert pianist, a former historian and novelist who once worked for the Waitangi Tribunal. Newshub nation went to visit his Remurera home in Auckland to hear his Backstory. (PLAYS MILD JAZZ ON PIANO) I started when I was 8, lessons with Charlie Penman, my teacher. Music was always part of the broader family, and so it was just the natural thing to do. It's a good way of clearing my head, and just having a bit of relaxation. This is my favourite little room, yeah. I always wanted a grand piano, and when we moved to Auckland and got this house, I put a little add in the Remuera New World saying 'Grand Piano Wanted.' And, sure enough, somebody turned up within a couple of weeks who had a spare one somewhere, and I went out and bought it. So this has come out of the community noticeboard. (CHUCKLES) Banksy, who I wrote a biography about, beat me. One of my friends, a good friend, decided it was a funny idea to buy the cartoon and give it to me when I got elected. For 6 years of the 9 years John Key was in power, we had a one-seat majority. Yeah, it was significant. But it works fine, I mean, I live here, I'm, part of the community, so I certainly don't see that the people of Epsom are short-changed in any way. They just got two MPs. This little collection here is all the various books I've written over the years. That was a thesis I did on an early missionary who got me interested in Maori history, actually. And so my first job was at the Waitangi Tribunal... doing` researching claims. This was a history of Puketutu Island. And it's people that I did for the Kelliher Trust. A history of the politics of tax. We won, you lost, eat that. You know, the Greens always understood the logic that if you wanted to stop people smoking, you increase the taxes on cigarettes. Cos that disincentives you to smoke. But they never accept the argument that if you put taxes on work too high, then that has an impact on people's decision making as well. That's my lovely wife, Melissa, and I back on our wedding day 20-odd years ago. We were a lot younger back then, obviously. (CHUCKLES) Melissa knitted it for some reason, and I think she actually knitted it for somebody else's dog. But, uh, this dog likes it so much, so there you go. He's got an unusual name, it's 'Langer', named after the Aussie cricketer. There was a family vote, I said I didn't want one. But there he is, he turned up. And actually he's quite nice. In fact I love the little boy. We've got lovely four kids. Oliver, the oldest. Eliza the second. Violet, the third. And then Olympia turned up last. They're all still at home. The oldest now is at his first year at university. But he's doing really well. And I thought the cow just added a little touch. My wife's idea of a joke was these monkeys. (LAUGHS) I can't explain them other than the fact that this is monkeys climbing up the wall. (LAUGHS) I got involved in the National Party, and then I got selected in 2011. And I'd had a little stint on the city council before that, under the old regime. I don't think the super-city has lived up to its potential. Put it that way, I think we could be doing better. In fact, I've got my voting papers and I don't know what on earth to do. (LAUGHS) At one point, we sort of bought one reasonably nice piece of art to give to each of the kids, and then it's all, sort of, just accumulated, really. Yeah, we had an African phase at one point. I think it's a shield of some sort. There's a bit of a debate amongst the kids as to which ones are the most terrifying. (LAUGHS) There's that one there. (LAUGHS) That one's a strange one. I think she's` can you remember what she's about? I dunno. I think she's a prisoner of some sort. (LAUGHS) That one, that one. (LAUGHS) Oh yeah, that's our Australian one. That one there is a little bit nicer. Yeah. Anyway. (LAUGHS) So, yeah, I've dug out a few old photos here. Well, that's me. (LAUGHS) I went to Auckland Grammar back in the old days when they weren't too worried about the length of your hair. (SNIGGERS) That's me and my chopper. No, that was the surfy period. We grew up in Mount Roskill south, and I went along to Waikowhai Primary School. It was good. That's at little Huia. I think I'm wearing my Waikowhai Primary t-shirt. It's the three of us, me in the middle, my sister Jenny and my brother David. We had a great upbringing, just standard sort of Kiwi thing. My dad was a teacher, my mother was a nurse. We were very, very lucky. Yeah, the only` Oh, thank you, Dog. The best thing you can ask for in life is parents who can give you unconditional love, and are around, and that's what we had. Come on, boy. (CACKLES) My brother was, you know, we just did the normal stuff. He didn't beat me up too much. Played a bit of backyard cricket. Nah, it was good. You know, we have to make the most of the time that we do have, and prioritise it. I mean, one of the thing that spending a decade writing biographies teaches you, it doesn't matter how successful you've been during your life, if at the end you haven't got those family relationships right. You know, that's the most important thing of all. I'm certainly not going to spend every waking moment on politics and neglect my family and think it's gonna be a great success, cos it won't be. I've enjoyed every moment of it, really. Aside from losing the election. (LAUGHS) You know, a lot of the things that we're grappling with have taken decades to evolve. And they aren't gonna be solved overnight. But you're consistent, and you've got a clear sense of direction, then over time you make a difference. Paul Goldsmith there. I'm now joined by our panel, refugee advocate and Young New Zealander of the Year 2017 Rez Gardi, Radio New Zealand journalist Indira Stewart and Exceltium PR's Matthew Hooton. Thank you so much, everybody, for coming on this morning. First question to you, Rez, the Government's increased the quota for refugees from Middle East and Africa 1% each, is that a token gesture? I think what's really important about the policy change is removing the discriminatory and racist ban that was in place. Previously it was this arbitrary policy against refugees from the Middle East and from Africa. And there was no reason for that to be in place. So it's a good move from the Minister to remove that resettlement link, that only applied to refugees from those parts of the world. In terms of increasing, I think, I mean, we've been at 14% previously on the papers, but in reality only bringing in about less than 2%. So a lot needs to be done increasing the numbers from some of the most vulnerable parts of the world. Yeah, one of the advocates that we talked to this year was saying that, you know, those are the areas that need other places to accept them the most. You know, they're the most in need. So it should be more like 50%, what do you think, Indira? Um, yes, I mean, you've got to go with what the advocates are saying. And there's a huge need in that area. I think it's a good start, but I think there's still a long way to go in terms of` I mean, the UN Secretary General, when he came here a few months ago, acknowledged that, 'Yes, we're thankful that New Zealand are taking 1000 refugees in a year, 'we would like to see that number boosted.' 1500 is getting a bit closer up to the mark, but there are a couple of positive things I do like about the announcement that was made yesterday, including the fact that there is a continued focus at women at risk. And they've doubled that quota, in the sub-category of women at risk. So those things are important. But in terms of the racial-discriminatory immigration laws, I'd like to touch on what Raz is saying, there are policies, there are plenty in the last decade that have proven that New Zealand is closing its borders to certain countries, including the Pacific. If you look at` And it's not policies that specifically say, 'People from these countries cannot come.' But the restrictions, the rules around how people can get in have become tighter, and almost impossible for certain people, particularly in the Pacific, to obtain. So for example, a friend of mine who is from the UK spent two years here, got his residency instantly, just like that. And another friend of mine who's been here 10 years, working here, cannot even get her daughter to come in who has cerebral palsy. So there are` and that's from Fiji. So it's almost, you know, we're still at record immigration numbers` Yeah, and he's talking about` his conversation was all about the skills that we need. That was his conversation in that interview just then, wasn't it? It is, but, you know, the statement that came out yesterday said the Asia-Pacific reason. And so there's a lot still, I think that we can acknowledge in terms of who is being shut out. Right, OK. So, Matthew, I mean this policy dates back quite a while. In your observation, is it common to see these kinds of policies, have a race-based flavour to them, like Indira is saying? Well, (LAUGHS), not explicitly. And of course, this pretended it wasn't a race-based policy. But it clearly was. It clearly was a view that it was to fight terrorism..., Mm. ...essentially. That's the subtext. In the post-10/11, that's the subtext. And of course there's been three terrorist incidents in New Zealand in my lifetime, the Christchurch Massacre. The Rainbow Warrior bombing by so-called Swiss backpackers who turned out to be French secret agents, and the Trades Hall bombing, which I bet was conducted by a white person. So if you look at the three terrorist incidents that have occurred in New Zealand, you would be saying that we should stop immigration from white people. (LAUGHS) If that were indeed the motivation. When you're looking at skills, as well, I mean, you look at certain countries, and I almost feel the immigration polices spell out that those countries are spelt as R-I-S-K, but perhaps we should be looking at opportunities. Because there is plenty our certain different ethnicities have contributed to the economy when they do arrive here, migrants are great workers when they do come here. They contribute a lot to the economy. Yeah, but` Sorry, Raz. Just to add to that point, in terms of the security risk, which is the text that we're seeing in terms of the racist policy towards Middle East and Africa, I think what people don't realise is that the UN HCR already vets all the refugees that come to New Zealand. They go through a very rigorous vetting process, so the ones that are suggested to come to New Zealand through the refugee programme, quota programme, have already been vetted, they don't pose a security risk. So it doesn't matter which part of the world they're coming from, so, I think at the heart of this policy it was just keeping out people from Africa and from the Middle East for xenophobic reasons. There's no other reason behind it. Or to play to a voter base? Yep, exactly. OK, all right. Immigration is` Net immigration, net migration levels are still running high. It was a really hot topic last election. But, Matthew, Labour sort of promised to say 20-30,000 would go under their polices. It hasn't reduced that much, has it? They haven't really delivered. Well, Labour took an extraordinary raced-based approach prior to the last election that is to its discredit. It was the Chinese-sounding names incident, which many people were shocked by coming from the Labour Party. Yeah, that's true. But the Labour Party took a very staunch line against immigration, obviously not as staunch as Winston Peters. So there's clearly been a liberalization. I think there is a deep cynicism. I think that successive Governments do use immigration to hide the fact that New Zealand has very poor growth on a per capita basis, and they use immigration to artificially boost the GDP figures for electoral purposes. Well, yeah, that's been the allegation against National for the last nine years. Absolutely, and it's true also against this Government. There is extremely low economic growth on a per-capita basis. It seems hypocritical of this government. Well, no, it's going to be the case until the conversation in New Zealand changes to GDP per capita rather than the headline GDP figure, Governments are going to want to use immigration to boost that headline figure. OK, so, net migration levels, I mean, are they talking about skills bases and improving productivity through getting the people that we need to help us out, especially in the regions. I mean, Indira, are you happy with that kind of net migration of 50,000 coming into the country? To fill the jobs that Kiwis say they can't do. Well, watching that interview, it was quite amusing, cos, you're right, they were heavily critical at the last election about National's record immigration levels. And yet, nothing, you know... And they blamed it back then on, you know, when we've got, you know, a shortage in housing and not enough jobs, and why are we having, you know, record immigration levels? They're yet to shy away from that. And also the fact that he said, 'But we've got to counter the fact that these are New Zealanders returning here to work as well.' If you can't provide the numbers, you know, they're not the bulk of those figures. And I doubt that they are the bulk of those figures. So, is there something there for the government that just doesn't really want to address that, or...? Um, well, even acknowledging the truth behind figures and exactly what that looks like. Rez, do you think that migration and net-migration is gonna be another hot topic coming up? Is it ever gonna go away? I don't think it's ever gonna go away, but I think that the conversation might be a little bit different after the tragic events of March 15. So I think that it's important that the country has a dialogue about what we care about, what our values are, and how we feel about refugees and immigration topics. And I don't think it's gonna go away, it's gonna be, probably, a hotter topic. Do you think there's, there's sort of the backlash, talking about March 15, we see incidents on Auckland campus this week, yeah, Auckland University campus, do you fear that there's a polarization or a backlash because of this issue? It's hard to say, but I think there's a possibility of it. I mean, on the one hand there's a huge part of the population wanting to come together to figure out how we respond to the tragic events, what our values are as a New Zealand nation, and how to move forward and be more socially cohesive. But on the other hand, there is a fear that the more we focus on certain marginalized communities that other communities will feel marginalized themselves, and there may be backlash in that regard. OK, can I just move on quickly to business confidence? Cos it sort of meshes in with the two of them. Matthew was saying, you know, they're hiding poor business growth behind immigration numbers. And business confidence has dropped right off a cliff recently, and they're not wanting to invest. Is this all tied up? Yeah, I think Kirk Hope was right to identify the oil and gas decision. Whether you're for or against it on the substance of the policy, the way it was just suddenly announced I think has made businesses think, 'Well, wait a second, it could be my industry next.' Um, so that was a real problem for them. And then of course there are the international problems. But I think a real thing is people are concerned about the trade war between the US and China, people feel that it's time for a correction, there's usually a correction every 10 years in the global economy. But at the moment they don't have any confidence that the political leadership is competent. And according to polling done by CT New Zealand, for example, the old Crosby Textor, only 9% of New Zealanders think this Government is competent to deal with an offshore shock. So, where before there was the global financial crisis or the earthquake, people felt Bill English or John Key were competent. And they don't feel the same about the current government. Yeah, so, what could the government do to address this, Indira. It's a hard one, isn't it? It is a hard one, especially on the fact that those numbers have been dropping since they came into Government, really. Yeah. And I do think that what Kirk touched on in terms of policy changes have possibly frightened a lot of businesses, including a lot of small businesses. But I also kind of think, what kind of support are the little guys getting? The small businesses who are struggling in New Zealand. And, you know, the Reserve Bank cutting it's Official Cash Rate down, continuing to cut it, now it's at a record low. The intended impact has not come out the way it` No. And so, lot's of consumers are more afraid of spending instead of being encouraged to spend. And I think what Matthew has touched on, too, geopolitics has a huge impact. And being able to see strong political leadership on that is certainly going to affect how people are confident. All right, Indria, we'll wrap up there. Thank you very much to our panel for the moment. Coming up, the first in our new series on those paid to be our public watchdogs, but first, the young Maori architect determined to build a modern Kainga, settlement, on her ancestors land. Welcome back. The unlawful confiscation of Maori land is one of the stains on New Zealand's history and its impacts are still being felt today. Maori retain just 5% of the land they once held, most of it underdeveloped or unoccupied. In her new book, Rebuilding the Kainga, architect Jade Kake looks into the challenges and solutions facing the development of whenua. Newshub Nation went to visit Jade at her family whenua in Whangarei. We're here at the mara, and one of my cousins is starting the process of regenerating the whenua. And so the vision is that there's gonna be a mara like this one all through our papa kainga, and it's gonna feed our whanau and create more than enough kai and look after the whenua. A big part of the way settlements, or kainga, were cited was really around access to resources. And so that might have been growing food or gathering, and if you didn't have that yourself, then you might need to maintain good relationships with the next kainga and that hapu that had access to different resources. And so the kainga that was here was, obviously, in good proximity to the harbour. And even in our grandparents' time, they still used to get all of their food, all of their kai, from the harbour. So, over the years, as a whanau, we have done some planting bees and some work on the land, and it's really good as an opportunity to reconnect and spend time together and actually get to know our whenua again, but it can be quite overwhelming, just the scale of what needs to be done. So, as you can see around us, there's a lot of wilding pines, a lot of gorse, but there's also a lot of native plants that are growing through. So as we're coming at the entrance, you can see there's a lot of kumarahou, there's a lot of manuka, kanuka. So there are things coming back, and it's just` you need to start somewhere, and I think the mara that we have here is really the beginning of that. Basically, we're in this situation where the harbour board and others really wanted to take our land and we're trying to hold on to it. And in their wisdom, our kaumatua of the time, decided to put it into forestry, which is a productive use, which insures that the whenua will be retained. This is a photo from that time, 1979, where the whanau were preparing a hangi. There was a real push and encouragement for Maori to leave the kainga and head to the cities, to take up employment, which would fuel the economy. It would also leave their rural lands available for productive uses by Pakeha. Also, our land base had already been eroded to such a point at that time that it was very difficult to sustain our way of lives on the scraps of land that we had left. So there was a real push to assimilate Maori to Pakeha ways of living, and so there was policies like pepper-potting so that you weren't able to form a critical mass around the community. And then there's also living in Pakeha-style housing, which, again, didn't necessarily meet the needs of whanau Maori. For those of us that are not living together, it's harder to maintain those relationships, it's harder to maintain that living presence, it's harder to make decisions as a whanau, and it's harder to participate in the life of the hapu. And I can see the contrast with those that have been able to maintain that and those of us who have not been able to. I was born and raised in Australia, and so my grandfather was always my connection to home, and my grandfather was the one that brought me home, and he always talked about building a whare here, and I suppose that's the whakaaro that I've carried with me, because he was never able to do that, but I hoped that I might be able to do that, not just for myself, but for other members of our whanau. This is the plan of te whenua, and so what we're looking at is a cluster of eight to 10 homes for the first stage on the northern side of the ridge that's protected, good solar orientation and good ground, and then following this clustering pattern around the contours of the site. And so, at the moment, in this iteration, we've ended up with 50 homes. So, at the far end of the block, which is kind of off the page, we've got plans for an industrial park. And so the land is currently going through a rezoning process, and then there's also plans for bush regeneration through the centre section of the block. There's also plans for marae, the location to be determined, although we've got some recommendations. And the point I've really been trying to get across to our whanau is that this can all change, but the more we get right, the easier it'll be for future stages. There's been some good examples. I think one of the barriers is that until fairly recently, the government funding available for papa kainga was really only for housing, and so it's been difficult to incorporate all of these other dimensions when you can only really get putea for one of the things. And also it's a challenging process, so there's a lot of barriers. There's a cap on how much you can borrow ` 1600m2, which you can't build anything for that ` and it hasn't been updated for a long time. It also requires that you be able to physically remove the home in the event of a default. So it seems like a really absurd rule that you need to be able to physically remove the house just in case you don't pay your mortgage. There's other issues around finance; there's issues around governance; a lot of Maori land is landlocked. And so there's just so much against you that there are good examples, but every single one of them has required a dedicated whanau driver who has stayed with that project, pushed it through, worked together with their whanau, even as they hit these various barriers. So there's grant money available. That absolutely must continue, and that includes money to do all the feasibility and planning. There's infrastructure funding, and that's so important, because so much of Maori land is not serviced by infrastructure. They also have grants which are really helpful to get developments started so that we can then become self-sustaining over time, and we can fuel our own development. We're just so grateful that we still have this place, cos I know there's plenty of other whanau that are totally landless. They have nowhere to come back to, and they might be totally disconnected, and that's a really common story. Jade Kake there. Stay with us. We are back after the break. Look, National came out this week saying parents of school drop-outs should face fines of up to $3000. Who are they trying to appeal to with this, Matthew? Absolutely no one. (LAUGHS) It isn't going to be their policy. Judith Collins, who's sort of seen as their right-wing MP, has ruled it out. It's completely statist. It's like something out of the Zodiac Union that you would be holding parent responsible for the actions of their 17-year-old children. I don't know where it came from. I imagine someone without teenage kids. Right. I mean, what... who would bring this up at a conference? Gosh, it's baffling to know, but you've got to also think when you look back at your own party who that would have disqualified, who would have paid that penalty. So Paula Bennet was out of school at 16. Her parents would've had to pay that. Kiri Allan, who I went to school with at AGS, and she dropped out and started working at KFC. So she would have... (LAUGHS) And look at her now. I mean, I'd have to say that when I was at school, she was certainly` you already knew she was a leader, but she did` you know, things happen to teenagers at different times of their lives. She decided to take another path, but then she became a qualified lawyer, now she's an MP. So, I mean, the Spinoff did a really wonderful series about who` Lorde would be out ` Lorde's parents would've paid that ` so it's` Sonny Bill Williams. Well, they could afford it. Sonny Bill Williams. Yes. They could've afforded it. They` (ALL LAUGH) But still, what kind of... What are you trying to... What result do you want from that? There is this issue of trying to get what's called the NEETS ` not in employment, education or training ` into work or into those areas, isn't it, Rez? I mean, so there is a need for that kind of policy to get people to go into places like that. Maybe not this policy. Yeah, I don't know what they're trying to achieve with this policy. I don't think that would be the way to do it, and especially when you think about the kind of people that are dropping out. I mean, in my community, refugee communities, there's very high high school drop-out rates, and that's just going to further exacerbate the issues they're already facing. So, yeah, not sure what they're trying to achieve with this one, but I don't think the results will be very good. Is this because, Matthew, they're scratching around, trying to bring together a policy platform heading into next year's election? Well, where politics has gone is sloganeering, you know, rather than developing comprehensive programmes. So you say that we're going to build 100,000 houses, we're going to` and this is just a symptom of that form of politics, which is completely idiotic. OK. All right. Let's... (ALL LAUGH) No, that's pretty black and white from you. Let's move on to black and white ` New Zealand First. It's their colours, by the way, sorry. So leaked documents have just come out this week showing there was discontent within the party about how Winston Peters was negotiating with the coalition, at the same time trying to file a suit against somebody in National. Do you think there's trouble in New Zealand First at the moment, Indira? Well, with the announcement of the president resigning as well, it's hard to see. And this is very crucial in the lead up to an election year, and you've got to remember New Zealand First, Winston Peters was the king maker. There wouldn't have been a coalition if he hadn't agreed to go with Labour and the Greens. So I think voters are watching very carefully on if there's instability within the party, how that's going to affect a coalition coming up. But even with the president's resignation, the words that he announced of Facebook ` and interesting to make an announcement on Facebook ` where he used the words 'I've resigned for moral reasons.' Yeah. That raises questions. Yeah. Exactly what, perhaps, the internal financial arrangements were, what does` were you pushed to do immoral, unethical things that you didn't want to do? It does raise the question what's in the dark. What do you think it spells, Matthew? Well, I think the way the New Zealand First Party operates is a bit like the Labour Party with Mike Moore's supporters club operated ` I hate to say this ` in 1993 ` showing my age ` where there is the party, and then there's also a parallel structure to which money can be donated, which can fund things. In the Mike Moore case, it published his book, it did polling, it did things like that. And I think perhaps the president found that... what he was in charge of wasn't what he thought he was in charge of. Right. (LAUGHS) OK. Is it a case of that Winston Peters is running something here, and then there's the party? It'll all be legal, by the way. Oh, I'm not suggesting anything else. Huge efforts will be made by Winston Peters, who is a lawyer, and Brian Henry, his personal lawyer, to ensure that everything is absolutely legal. It all revolves around Winston Peters, but, you know, come election time, everybody's saying, 'Will he be there next time around?' Rez, and we saw Shane Jones this week mouthing off, saying, 'Re-elect me, because I'm spending a lot of money on the PGF.' Do you think Shane Jones is angling to be public enough like Winston, get that leader's job? (CHUCKLES) Your best friend, eh, Rez, Shane Jones (?) Oh, really? (ALL LAUGH) Not at all. I mean, like you say, it's all legal, but sometimes there can be a blurred line between ethical and legal, and I think voters will be watching to see what's happening and paying close attention. And I don't think the recent comments made by Shane Jones are very helpful in that regard. Right. I think also with Shane Jones, I mean, it's interesting the prime minister said that he's going home for recess with the Cabinet manual. But, you know, hinting that he probably needs to study the guidelines a little bit more or the language he needs to use. But we all know too ` Shane is no baby to politics. He does it on purpose. He knows exactly what he's doing. And perhaps he doesn't care. But voters` We're in the lead-up to election. It's going to be a hot season. Voters remember everything you said and you did, and I think tax payers don't forget how you spent the money, what you said about it. We're talking about somebody who years and years ago was held up for purchasing porn with a ministerial credit card in a hotel room and is now in charge of hundreds of millions of dollars with the Growth Provincial Fund, so what he says about the money that he is in charge of is very important to a lot of people. All right. We're going to have to leave it there. Thank you very much to the panel this morning. Next up ` Watchdogs. A new feature introducing you to those who hold our institutions to account. The Health and Disability Commissioner deals with all sorts of issues, from complaints about rude receptionists to surgery gone seriously wrong. Reporter Mike Wesley-Smith sat down with Commissioner Anthony Hill. What I love about this job is that it's about people. You know, first and foremost, it's about people. The primary role of the Heath and Disability commissioner is to resolve complaints. We'll receive everything ` from a complaint from a person who's unhappy that a receptionist was rude to them in a General Practitioners office, to a complaint about brain surgery that went wrong. We have about 90 people here. We have a large number of assessors, and they are people from a variety of clinical and legal backgrounds who come and form part of the team, thinking about and assessing what happened. And we have a very small team who are litigators, so the Director of Proceedings team exists to take prosecutions on the most serious cases that I refer to that part of the team. We also have a Director of Advocacy, and advocacy is worth mentioning because we fund an advocacy service in New Zealand. They deal with thousands of complaints themselves every year. So if you think about where we began, 25 years ago, Judge Cartwright, as she then was, ran an inquiry into the Unfortunate Experiment, and that was about women who were being experimented on and they didn't know. And that was rightly rejected as being a terrible thing, and women died as a result of that process. The Health and Disability Commissioner was then created as a result of recommendations made by Judge Cartwright. And that led to this office, as it exists today. And rights were created ` rights that relate to dignity, and the way you are treated, and the way people relate to you, rights that relate to the quality of the care that you receive and, critically, rights that relate to the information you receive and the choices you make. Informed consent sits at the very heart of the culture and practice of the health and disability sectors in New Zealand, and yet even today, we receive complaints about informed consent and cases about informed consent. So we had a case quite recently where a midwife was treating a patient and saying, 'I'm giving you pethidine. I'm giving you a painkiller.' But actually she wasn't. She was giving her saline solutions. She was giving her water because she thought that was better for the patient. Now that's completely unacceptable. The office receives over 2300-2400 complaints a year. That's growing. It's been growing rapidly over the last several years. So why are complaints going up? One, is the profile of the HDC is high. It's been high, and it's getting higher. But as the health system, and I talk now of the hospital sector in particular, has come under more pressure in recent years, what we have seen is an increase in complaints about access. So access to services, critically surgery and waiting times for surgery, is now about 25% of the complaint base, and has been sustainably so for the last several years. So your job is to assess very carefully what happened, then to understand why it happened, to ensure that there's the appropriate accountability in that, but critically, also, that there is learning. That we do better tomorrow. That we have the power to issue an opinion. So an opinion indicating that a breach has occurred is a significant matter. We can also ` in the most severe cases ` refer to the Director of Proceedings here, and we will do that to request that a prosecution takes place. You know, there are 60,000 or more people in the health and disability sector of this country who get up every day to do a good job. Nobody gets up wanting to do a bad job. So a person who has breached, through a bad decision, isn't a bad doctor ` they might not even be an incompetent doctor. And almost certainly won't be. But that's not the question. The question is, 'Today, did we deliver the care to the standard that is expected in New Zealand?' And no, we did not. So what happened, how do we learn from that and what's the appropriate response to them? We can't change what has happened, but we can change tomorrow. And that's all from us for now. Don't forget you can catch the show as a podcast wherever you get them from, but thanks for watching, and we'll see you again next weekend.