Today, on Newshub Nation ` ructions in New Zealand First. Will the coalition survive another year? Political editor Tova O'Brien live from the New Zealand First conference. Golriz Ghahraman's critique of Andrew Little's proposed terrorism suppression law, and new mayor Andy Foster gets five hot minutes to sell us his vision for Wellington. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019 Kia ora, good morning. I'm Simon Shepherd, and welcome to Newshub Nation. There's been a rise in the number of people on the jobseeker benefit. There are now 143,000 people receiving government support ` a 10% jump since September last year. National is slamming the increase as 'appalling.' This programme's parent company, Mediaworks, has announced it will sell its television operation, citing structural problems in the New Zealand TV market. Mediaworks is jointly owned by US private equity firm Oaktree Capital and Australian outdoor advertiser QMS. Broadcasting Minister Kris Faafoi says it's a commercial decision and he does not want to intrude. And following our story last week on the game based on the Christchurch mosque attacks, an extra $17 million over four years is being invested into tackling violent online extremism. The package includes 17 new full-time staff in the censor's office dedicated to finding and prosecuting those who upload extremist content. Well, two years into the coalition government, and New Zealand First's handbrake on Labour and the Green's more progressive ideas is clear to see, whether it be three strikes, the capital gains tax, abortion, methane targets or drug testing. If Winston doesn't like it, it's not gonna happen. A coalition government of New Zealand First... with the New Zealand Labour Party. Thank you very much. Any questions? Can the public have faith in you when you cannot get your story straight? If you want this interview to be about you, then turn the camera around. Is this a New Zealand First-led coalition? No. The Labour Party is in government because of my party. A referendum is what New Zealand First has stood for for a long time. Well, it hasn't been raised with me before. The terms of him being hijacked is unadulterated drivel. We are a true MMP government. # You can go your own way. I'm a retail politician. I'm industrial-grade. Minister Jones and I have spoken, and we have a common understanding. What does this say about the state of the coalition that you can't agree on a capital gains tax? It says that this is MMP. # Go your own way. # I'm not a tail. None of us is a tail. We don't, um... We're not a dog. You couldn't be more wrong. Heroic climate change ambitions need to be measured with fiscal heat on the ground. We want to make sure that people are safe. The drug experimentation is an awfully risky, dangerous thing to do. Bad news for you all ` I'm back, and I've never been fitter. Right. Well, the unofficial campaign for election 2020 begins today for Winston Peters. The New Zealand First annual conference is getting underway now in Christchurch. What are they going to do to rise above internal ructions and 4% polling? We were going to interview Winston Peters, but he pulled out yesterday. But political editor Tova O'Brien is there, and you've been listening to his speech that he's just given. He's finishing up at the moment. What's he said so far, Tova? That's right, Simon. So, the opening gambit, actually, was a very moving tribute to New Zealand First member Pita Paraone, who died this year. There was a video tribute to him, and then Winston Peters took the stage to standing ovation from his loyal faithful, and immediately, straight out of the traps, having a crack at National, having a crack at Steven Joyce over the $11.7 billion hole, talking up the government's $7.5 billion surplus. So, immediately, having a go at National, having a go at the media. This is Winston Peters on true form. All right. The party has had some ructions recently with some New Zealand First leaks from the 2017 election. Is this about presenting a unified front now? Yeah, absolutely ` cavernous ructions, actually. So there were the leaks from the disgruntled party members, the president jumping ship, wayward MPs behaving badly. Winston Peters, we know, Simon, likes to be in control. He needs to be in control. So all of these kerfuffles happening on the side-line do not play well for him, and probably why he panicked and pulled out of the interview with you on The Nation today. So, yeah. The first leak, I think, that came out of the party showed those disgruntled members, and I think speaks to the fact that Winston Peters and New Zealand First went with Labour. It was probably more right-leaning members of New Zealand First. The second leak with the party details ` innocuous content, but the fact of these leaks ` that's what hurts New Zealand First, and that's what hurts Winston Peters, and that's what he's been trying to cauterize. You'll remember when Simon Bridges called for that inquiry into the leaking of his expenses to Newshub. Winston Peters came down to the media. He was playing that 'Bridges Burning' song on his phone, and trolling Simon Bridges, trolling the media. Winston Peters is now calling for` when Simon was calling for an inquiry. Winston Peters now calling for an inquiry, getting the police involved, the privacy commissioner involved, and I think that just goes to show how antsy he is about those party leaks. He's also not very happy about questions about the behaviour of Clayton Mitchell. Is Winston Peters still backing the MP that you broke the story about ` Clayton Mitchell being ejected from that Tauranga bar? Big time. Backing him big time. So Clayton Mitchell ` an MP. You know, the threshold for MP's behaviour is really high, and a guy getting pulled out of a bar, dragged out of a bar in a headlock after midnight doesn't pass that sniff test. Winston Peters is saying how could the behaviour have been so bad, given that Clayton Mitchell is invited back to the bar next weekend, and there's gonna be some grand screening of the CCTV footage, apparently, which is gonna show that Clayton Mitchell did absolutely nothing wrong. But the fact is witnesses said that Clayton Mitchell was standing in this bar area, not moving. He was repeatedly told to move. He ended up bonking a waitress on the side of the head with a glass, spilling his drink over her, and making her cry, according to those witness statements, and that is not behaviour befitting an MP. And again, Winston Peters likes to be in control. So, yes, he's backing Clayton Mitchell, but he won't like the distraction that his MP has caused. It's about the unofficial launch of the election campaign for 2020, really, this conference. How is New Zealand First going to distinguish itself from the rest of the coalition come next year? Yeah, that's the million-dollar question, and actually, that's what Winston Peters was also talking about in his speech ` talking about this conference as how they're going to campaign in 2020, how they're going to try and win and cross that 5% threshold in 2020, and saying that that is 100% the focus of this conference. But that is the million-dollar question ` how does New Zealand First disentangle itself, how do all of the governing parties disentangle themselves from one another, and I think for Winston Peters and New Zealand First, it's even more pertinent, because New Zealand First needs to not only kind of campaign to get across that threshold, but also those hackneyed cries from Winston Peters about never signalling who his intentions are to go with. So I think we'll hear a lot about the positive things that Winston Peters will say it's done for its voters. It'll talk up the PGF and various other things, but we'll also hear a lot about that handbrake on those kind of 'loony left policies', as New Zealand First would probably have it from Labour and the Greens, that New Zealand First has managed to kind of pull the handbrake on. So, concessions around emissions, the capital gains tax ` that type of thing, and you'll probably hear the words 'common sense' on high repeat. (CHUCKLES) What about this idea of pulling out of the coalition altogether, and singing a confidence and supply agreement with Labour, like the Greens have done? So that would, you know, distance themselves from Labour next year. Yeah, it would distance them. I don't think that's so likely. I think it would make New Zealand First and Winston Peters look too flaky. You'll remember when the Prime Minister went on maternity leave for those six weeks, and there was a lot of speculation about whether that would cause great unrest, and Winston Peters would be this destabilising force. But, actually, it was in his interests, and he made a great effort to steady the ship and not veer off course, and I think that's what he'll continue to do with this coalition as well. He won't want to look like he's pulling out of agreements at the kind of final hurdle. So I think Winston Peters will avoid pulling out of the coalition agreement, but that will be a question again as to how they create that demarcation between the three political governing parties come election year. What about polling? I mean, it's 4% roughly at the moment. That's good for New Zealand First in between elections, isn't it? Yeah. If you'd asked me that on Sunday, on poll day, on the Newshub-Reid Research poll day ` when I spoke to Winston Peters, he seemed pretty chuffed about that 4% number, and it is a good number for New Zealand First in a non-election year. They tend to poll lower in non-election years, and then boost that support come the campaign period. But then, his talk this week ` he's been so antsy about the polls, so defensive. He's had this siege mentality, which we've kind of come to expect from Winston Peters when it comes to the polls. So I wonder if, actually, it got under his skin perhaps a bit more than we first thought. But he's still gonna have to defy history, isn't he? The two previous times that New Zealand First has been in government, come election time, they've been ousted, haven't they? So how` History is against them coming back in. Yeah, that's right. He'd have to` Never has New Zealand First, after being in government, passed that 5% threshold. So, again, I think the polls are quite good for him in that he's on 4% at the moment, and going into election year, that will likely be boosted. But a year ago, he told me that, on the night that he decided to go with Labour, he said he always knew it was going to be a pretty rough night ` that you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, because either way, one half of your base is going to end up condemning you, and that's precisely what happened, and what we saw from those leaks as well is that the more right-leaning members of New Zealand First felt alienated for New Zealand First, and Winston Peters needs to try and get them back on board, but it's also really hard to see New Zealand First doing a deal with National. As I said, opening gambit in there, having a crack as Steven Joyce, having a crack at National. He's always mocking Simon Bridges. He's called for Simon Bridges' resignation. He's taking Simon Bridges' deputy to court in November. So it's very hard to see a world in which New Zealand First and Winston Peters can work with Simon Bridges and National come 2020 and beyond. And just quickly, he's obviously had his health issues this year. Will he be at the helm of New Zealand First come election time? That's certainly the plan, and I'd say that, barring the Clayton Mitchell stuff and the kind of cantankerous nature around the polls, Winston Peters has been in a very good mood this week. He's in fine form in there, in the conference, as well. But that is the plan ` Winston Peters to lead New Zealand First into the election campaign come 2020, but there's another plan underway as well ` a succession plan. There's no doubt that Shane Jones is being groomed as a successor to Winston Peters, so perhaps he runs in Northland, perhaps Labour does a deal with New Zealand First, so that Shane Jones can win Northland, like they did that deal back in 2015 and Winston Peters took it off National. Perhaps all of that happens. But... But the big question is how New Zealand First gets across the line come 2020, and also how Winston Peters responds in there this weekend with all of that upset around the outsides. Tova O'Brien in Christchurch for the New Zealand First convention. Thanks very much for your time. All right. The prospect of ISIS fighters returning home to New Zealand is becoming more likely by the day. New Zealand has been slow to prepare compared to other countries like the UK and Australia, but finally, this week, Justice Minister Andrew Little released the Terrorism Suppression Bill. Green MP and human rights lawyer Golriz Ghahraman is unsatisfied with the proposed law, and she joins me now. Thanks for your time. Why are you not supporting this bill? Well, we've had yesterday an arrest warrant issued for Mark Taylor already, so we say that New Zealand's terror laws are already fit for purpose to catch people like a returning fighter like Mark Taylor. But more than that, the proposed law scares us, as it expands New Zealand's definition of terror to include convictions anywhere in the world or deportation for terror anywhere in the world, and we know that in much of the world, that could include environmental activists, feminists. OK. Let's` So you're saying that the definition of terrorism around the world is different, and it may capture people who aren't really terrorist fighters? Absolutely, and we know that's happened in New Zealand. I mean, I remember Ahmed Zaoui being captured under previous national security legislation, and he was just an opposition politician in Algeria. But don't we already have a definition of terrorism that we apply to our own in the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002? Absolutely. So we already have that. We don't have to take other people's definitions. Absolutely, and that's exactly the Green Party's position. So, we have a tight definition of terror. It includes extremism, violence, and it explicitly excludes activism and things like that. So why not apply that? Yeah, but this particular piece of legislation ` are you saying that it broadens that, or doesn't it just rely on what's already in law? No. It introduces` In particular provisions, it introduces the definition of a person with a conviction for terror elsewhere in the world, or a person who's been deported for terrorism activities elsewhere in the world, which we say risks catching exactly the people we don't want. But there is a failsafe here, and this is the police who have to go to the court to apply for a control order for this person that's coming back, and so it's going through various safeguards, isn't it? Well, why change the definition then? I mean, it still risks catching extra people, and in fact, we have to remember that something like this would go through a special process in any case, and may rely on secret, classified information, as in the Zaoui case, because national security interests would likely be triggered. OK. Are you not being naive in that we need these kinds of laws? Because we are seeing the world's situation change rapidly. Oh, we absolutely need to keep New Zealand safe from terrorism. We say that our laws do that, and that's exemplified by the arrest warrant for Mark Taylor that was issued by the High Court yesterday. If we're going to bolster our ability to keep New Zealand safe, there's no need to expand our definition to include that which is being applied, say, in Russia against the Rainbow community, or Iran, where I'm from, against feminists. We don't need that, because those people aren't making us unsafe. Yeah, but under our existing definition and our treatment of those kinds of people that you're talking about, it would be reviewed when it gets here, so we don't have to take another country's definition of terrorism. But that's what's in this bill. It specifically includes people with convictions anywhere in the world for terrorism offending, and that is as defined by that other country. You say it's harsh, but other countries have already introduced this kind of thing; these kinds of laws. There's temporary exclusion orders that Australia and the UK have, and they have absorbed fighters or people who have said that they've been fighting for, say, ISIS, back into communities, and there's been no problems through their laws. So` Well, our specific concern isn't with the fact that the law would catch terrorists. Our concern is that it would catch people who wouldn't be defined as terrorists in New Zealand law. You've called it dog-whistle law-making. Why? Well, that` Because we see our laws as being fit for purpose, because we know that someone like Mark Taylor would be immediately arrested. We know that he could be monitored. He could even be held. We've got the Bail Act. So, you know, to introduce more far-reaching laws to kind of talk about terrorism as if it's this, you know, this new, massive concern reminds me of the kind of George Bush-era War on Terror rhetoric that we know didn't keep anyone safe, we know resulted in rights being eroded and surveillance going up exponentially, and groups being targeted, and we know our own security agencies aren't free from prejudice. So, if we're going to introduce laws, let's make sure that people's human rights are protected, and that the definition is actually fit for what we're trying to catch, which is terrorists. So, dog-whistle law-making ` it's appealing to who? What are you accusing Labour of doing there? Well, I'm not accusing anyone in particular of doing that. I think we need to guard against falling into an international trend of sort of this hysterics around terrorism, where we go beyond what is required by the rule of law. But when you look at the proposed legislation, it's talking about bringing people in and helping them rehabilitate and, you know, it's not just preventative detention where they're stuck in a room, no internet, no bank account. There are things being wrapped around. Absolutely, and we don't have a problem with that. That's fine. It's the expansion where we kind of are suddenly like, 'If you've been anywhere in the world, 'if you've got these convictions,' and we know that they've actually caught so many people. The last time we all went down the route of, 'This is a clash between civilisations, 'and we need to take away any kind of right that there is in order to keep ourselves safe,' we know that that didn't keep anyone safe, and that it, in fact, weakened our legal system. This is an imminent threat, as it were, because of what's happening in the Middle East, but also, this can capture other extremism around the world ` say, in the Ukraine or elsewhere. So this isn't a hysterical response, is it? Well, expanding the definition of terror is, in our mind, unnecessary, and will result in unfairness and an erosion of people's rights. New Zealand will perpetuate the kind of persecution that people like activists suffer in other places in the world, where activism is illegal. By taking this position, are you not risking making the law even harsher from a political sense? I mean, if the Greens don't back this, Labour's going to have to go to National, and National is saying, 'Let's make it tougher. 'Let's make it, instead of 18-year-olds, let's make it 14-year-olds. 'Let's make these control orders longer ` not just two years, but longer than that.' So you're playing a risky game here. The National Party proposals are a huge knee-jerk reaction, and in part kind of show a lack of understanding of the criminal law, because they've included things that are already in the law. We're trying to make the law better. We want to catch terrorists as defined in New Zealand law. We want to catch extremists, people that are actually a threat to international peace and security and New Zealand's peace and security. We don't want to give away New Zealand's excellent standards of human rights and the rule of law in doing that. We don't think that will keep New Zealand safe, and we are working with the minister to make this law better. OK. Will you` Have you given up on actually negotiating these changes? No. Not at all. OK. So you're going back to Andrew Little and saying that this new definition that you're talking about, this new catch-all, should be gone? Yeah, absolutely. And the response? He seems pretty hard-nosed about this. No, we're still talking with the minister. I have an excellent relationship with the minister, and we talk regularly, so it's` you know, we want due process standards in here. We want people to be able to challenge these orders. We want the definition to be strictly based on what New Zealand considers to be terrorism, and then we would support it. Do you think this is all coming a bit late? I mean, should this have all been started a lot earlier? We've known about, say, the bumbling Jihadi for years, and Andrew Little says there's two or three others out there. Should this have been started earlier? I'm not worried for New Zealand. I know that we have criminalised terrorism, and I know that there's an arrest warrant lying in wait for Mark Taylor, and will be lying in wait for any others that come through who have helped ISIS. Do you know that? Do you know that there are others that are coming through? Well, the minister has indicated that there may be others, and I'm sure we will know ahead of time, and, you know, we can arrest people, and, you know, this has only taken a day to get that arrest warrant. The actual legislation in the proposed bill says itself that this was only envisaged being applied one or two times a year. It's a very small percentage. So, therefore, is that just really honing in on what we would consider an extremist threat? That's what it should do, but unfortunately, as the bill is drafted currently, it expands our definition to include, essentially, political prisoners ` people like us, people who want to stand up for those freedoms. And you just mentioned that you think we would know ahead of time of people coming back. How would we definitely know ahead of time if we` Well, if we're talking about this exact class of person that the bill is intended for, and they are suspected of terror, and they have gone to join ISIS, I mean, getting them on a flight is pretty difficult. So we will definitely know when Mark Taylor is coming back. So you're absolutely sure that New Zealanders are going to feel safe, that they are being protected from returning extremist fighters, even though you're opposing this legislation? Well, like any crime, we apply it as soon as we know someone is suspected of a crime. We arrest them, we then can surveil them, and we can apply things like ankle bracelets, which this law foresees. That's within our criminal law already. So if we don't think our criminal law is fit for purpose, then it's not fit for purpose for anyone, because terrorism is a crime. It's not something that we need to kind of rile up extra hysteria about, and I don't think that's helpful. Golriz Ghahraman, thank you very much for your time. If you've got something to say about what you've seen on our show, please let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram ` NewshubNationNZ. You can email us at nation@mediaworks.co.nz. But up next, new mayor Andy Foster has five minutes to sell us on his vision for Wellington. Plus, Backstory ` the MP on a search to find his birth mother. Welcome back. To Backstory ` he was adopted as a baby, was suspended for stealing at high school and almost lost his right leg to bone cancer. But Dan Bidois has managed to turn his life around. He completed a butcher's course, studied at Harvard and is now the National MP for Northcote. Bidois agreed to tell us his backstory. 17 years after I've picked up a knife, and... I've still got it. Did a butcher's apprenticeship when I was 16 with Woolworths and had aspirations to run that company one day. (CHUCKLES) Morning. How are you? Dan. How goes it, man? Yeah, good. (CHUCKLES) This is the heart of Birkenhead. It's the heart of my electorate. I'll take you into my local Japanese shop. Fantastic Japanese food here. Just say 'hi' to Mia for me. OK. Tongue and Groove ` they do good coffee there. Oh, fantastic good here. How are you? Good to see you. You again! It's the only Dutch restaurant in New Zealand. Authentic Dutch food. The first time you see your face on a billboard, you want to go back into bed and climb under the sheets, but I've got used to it over time. I would say the challenging days are where we're dealing with local constituent issues, where there's, perhaps, somebody who's on the streets, who's looking for emergency accommodation and how we can help. People with mental health issues come by, and you just got to do the best you can. I'm the only National MP that rents; everybody else owns. And I think I'm the only one of five MPs in our Parliament that rents. Now, of course, there's a reason for that. I spent a lot of my money on education. What happened was that I was mentored to go to university. I have a letter that I wrote to my mentor to thank him for getting me to go to university. It was an experience later on that kind of transformed my life. Honestly, growing up I never wanted to go into politics. I thought that business would be where I'd make my contribution. I was a little rat-bag, really, from an early age. I just was a bit of a trouble-maker. I think this is probably the first time I was caught red-handed stealing, maybe a watch from my sister's room. (CHUCKLES) I was a rat-bag of a kid, so I think as a teenager, I got caught shoplifting, and I was suspended from stealing in Howick College. And it wasn't the stealing that was an issue, it was the rush that I got from stealing. Nothing can really explain that. I think I was just a lost kid. Yeah, so I was adopted when I was 9 months old into a fantastic family in East Auckland. Unfortunately, my real mother just couldn't take care of me. She was 26 years of age, and I was nearly two months premature. Trying to look for her now. My adopted mother's trying to help me. So we're going through that process right now. And it's interesting going through it. Certainly brings up a lot of emotions. I think there's a sense of abandonment and, you know, that your biological parents didn't want you enough, that they would give you up. There's just a sense of, you know, 'Who am I?' I'm hoping that finding my parents leads me on a continual journey to find out a bit more about who I am and what my purpose here on earth is. Another person that is responsible for me being here today is my late grandmother. My grandmother helped convince my mother to adopt me, and she had two girls, but always wanted a son, so she kind of adopted me as her makeshift son. And I would say she is responsible for the values that I hold. Just an incredible lady. Strong set of values. Here's my mum and dad here, my adopted parents. They're my family, really. Unfortunately, my father passed away earlier this year. He was a hard man, and I really didn't tell him how much I love him, so if I had this opportunity, I'd definitely do that. So the transformation that kind of transformed my life ` was at high school, playing rugby, and got kneed in the leg and just collapsed. A bruise formed on my right hip ` or femur ` and at 15 of age, I was diagnosed with a Ewing's sarcoma, which is a rare form of bone cancer. Pretty scary moment for the family and myself, being told that I'd lose my leg. Six rounds of chemotherapy, lost all of my hair. I had an operation. The surgeons did a fantastic job cutting the bone out that had cancer and replaced it with a donor bone, and I have an L-shaped plate in my right leg. So very lucky to have the benefit of having a right leg, and that's why I enjoy things like running, and why I'm running for the half-marathon for Starship hospital. It's just a great way to de-stress. I think from a mental health perspective, you've got to find something that works for you, in terms of de-escalating the stress that builds up on a weekly basis. No on-going health issues, but it has left a strong mark, and there's not a day that goes by that I don't enjoy and appreciate the value of life. Dan Bidois there. Coming up, our panel dissects the week's news and politics. Plus, we ask new mayor Andy Foster what he's going to do what he's going to do with Wellington. Welcome back. He scraped into the Wellington Mayoralty with a tiny majority. (CLEARS THROAT) Excuse me, just a lead of 62 votes. And so what's Andy Foster's vision for our capital city? Reporter Finn Hogan asked if he was feeling nervous about a potential recount? Look, it's been a bit of a roller-coaster road over the last six or seven days. The margins sort of get a little bit narrower and a little bit narrower and a little bit narrower. They've done the count. I'm going to ask somebody who's been through that process before ` how that went, and how much movement there is if you do a recount. So, I'll see. I would have liked it if it was a little bit of a wider margin, (LAUGHS) to be fair. Assuming you are mayor, moving forward, what is your first and most urgent action? Well, look, the first thing is to get the council together ` working together. It's not going to be particularly easy to do that. What I've got to do is put together a package of responsibilities that the people are going to be happy with and that we can all contribute. OK. Well, talking about building consensus, a lot of your councillors have different political leanings. You've got in by a very, very small margin. Of your policies, what are you willing to give up? Compromise is now inevitable. Well, it's not about my policies. but policies that are good for Wellington, so obviously the biggest area that's going to be a challenge is transport because there are people who are wanting to get some things done, and other people who are adamantly opposed to those things. But it's not just the people around the council table. There are a lot of other players in this, and we'll just see where we get to. One of your proposals is bringing the second Mount Vic tunnel forward on that timeline, but how are you going to do that? We're going to do the business case, both for the Mount Victoria tunnel, Basin Reserve, and for mass transit. I have a view as to how I think those business cases will end up. Let's see where they do, and then we'll be able to make some decisions about where we go from here. You'll need to get that past NZTA, your council and central government. Are you confident you can do that? Well, I'm really confident on NZTA, I'm really confident with the Ministry of Transport, I'm really confident of Treasury. My own council will be slightly more challenging. The public, I think, will be on-board with it, and, I expect, the regional council and certainly the councils of the region will be on-board with it as well. OK, you say you want a more sustainable city, but aren't you prioritising cars over public transport? How is that sustainable? Yeah, well, look, I've been in charge of transport for quite a few years of my time on council, and in that time, every year, we've built the number of people ` the proportion of people ` who travel to work and to education by bike, by bus and by train and on foot, and we are by far the` We have by far the highest proportion of people doing that of any city in the country, and that has grown and grown and grown. I've shown that we can do that, and I want on keep on doing that. I think people are focussed on a project in isolation from a big picture. You're also proposing cutting rate increases essentially by half over the next 10 years. How are you going to build a better city with much less money? At the moment we have a projection of 70-80% rates rise over the next 10 years. To me, that's utterly unsustainable. We will be driving people out of their homes, literally, if we do that. And certainly a lot of businesses won't be able to cope with that either. So we have to be able to prioritise. Some of the things we quite clearly can push beyond that 10 year time frame, and obviously, we've got some pretty big decisions to make around transport. You're a vocal opponent of the Shelly Bay development. What is your vision for Shelly Bay? What I've said for the whole of Miramar Peninsular ` Shelly Bay, Te Motu Kairangi ` it's a special part of the city, and I really would like to have all the parties able to sit down and develop a master plan together that actually celebrates the really important parts` the really good aspects of that part of our city. But what's your personal vision? We've got the potential, almost the determination, to deliver a heritage park. So we've got some fantastic military and Maori heritage on the old defence land there. I think there is the potential to so some quite special things. I think some of the people within the iwi would like to have a place to stand ` a turangawaewae, that there is an iwi presence in that area. I think there are some potentials for visitor attractions in the area as well. Peter Jackson opposed that development and he made a sizeable contribution to your campaign. Did he influence your policy at all? No, because I've been in exactly that space for 4 and a half years, which is long before I even met him. No, they came on board with me because of what I was doing, not to try and influence what I was doing. You also agree with him on building a movie museum. How are you going to shift perception that he has influence over your policy? Look, again, I mean, the first time I thought a movie museum was a good idea was probably 15-plus years ago when I worked behind the scenes at Weta. I think Kerry was the mayor at the time, and I saw the creativity that was being displayed there, whether it was prosthetics or the digital stuff or making weapons et cetera, and I thought people would love to see this. We've got 600,000 people going to see Hobbiton at the moment in rural Waikato. If we have that kind of attraction, most cities would give their eye-teeth for it. Now, I probably won't be able to vote on it, but I think most people would say that will be a fantastic attraction for Wellington. Rent in Wellington is now comparable to Auckland. What specific action are you going to take to address the housing shortage? Well, clearly we need more houses. There's two key initiatives there. One is to change the district planning rules. We're about to go out and consult. In the new year we will consult on a spatial plan, so where we want development, which bits of the city maybe we want to protect and which bits we want to develop` But how many are you going to build and how quickly? Look, I'm not going to give you a number. We need a lot. We need to change the planning rules, and also we need to set up, in my view, an urban development agency. Should've happened in the last three years. That's about council getting actively involved in the process of development and urban renewal. So if you don't have an exact number in mind, what have you based your policy on? I've based my policy on ` we need about 30,000 over the next 30 years. How many are going to be delivered in the next year or the next year or the year after that? I'm not going to put a number on at the moment. So in this term you don't have a number in mind? The Labour Government does things that way, and then they decided it wasn't a very good idea, so, no, I'm not going to give you a number. You've learnt your lessons from KiwiBuild? (LAUGHS) Yes. All right, now I'm joined by our panel, New Zealand herald journalist Simon Wilson, AUT senior lecturer Ella Henry, and political commentator Brigitte Morten. Thank you for your time this morning. Before we get started, as you know, our owner Mediaworks is selling its TV operation, saying you can't make a buck in the market here cos it's skewed towards TVNZ, so it prompted some questions as to whether the government should step in, and we received a statement from Broadcasting Minister Kris Faafoi and we asked him whether he'd had discussions about the government buying TV3, and he said such discussions would be commercially sensitive and not appropriate to comment on. So I don't know if that's a yes or a no. What do you think, Simon? I'm not sure if it's a yes or a no, but I think the really important take out of this is that it's not business as usual in media. Television, of course, is acutely in the news now and acutely affected. But it affects all media. Advertising dollars have dried up because of the rise of Google and Facebook and so on. Now, that's been really, really significantly damaging to our media. If we are serious about wanting to have media where there is the pluralism of voices, where we do have lively debates, where we do cover the things that are important, and have those democratic roles being played out in society, we cannot just keep looking at the businesses that run media, and saying 'Well, they can just sort it out. The market will make it work.' That way will lead to collapse. Well, that's interesting. Brigitte, do you think the Government should step in, in this particular case, or just let the market sort it out? I think you've gotta be careful. Taxpayer bailouts rarely work in a sustainable manner. So I think what's clear here is the traditional sense of taxpayers funding two big platforms and then having them compete against the commercial market it's not sustainable, it's not going to work, the changing market doesn't reflect having that complete polarised system. So there has to be, I think, more of a system change rather than a pure, 'Should they buy this now?' So Kris Faafoi's talking about releasing a broadcasting strategy at the end of this year. If he doesn't, there may only be one major TV broadcaster in the market. Would that be acceptable, Ella? Well, I mean, from a Maori perspective, you know, I'm thinking of Maori Television as well, which is equally vulnerable, though it does receive a lot of taxpayer support. I do think that the take-home for me in what he talked about was that recognition of that need for PLURALITY. And how that review addresses that plurality. I mean, England to some degree has still got government funding through the licencing system ` government funded media ` but has that plurality. So whether or not we look at that kind of innovation as a nation to ensure we get that, I think that's the critical issue. Right, like a TV licence? Another thing at stake here with Mediaworks and TV3 as well, that the culture at TV3 has been that it has produced an awful lot of the talent and the excitement in terms of our local television. That's true in drama and in comedy, news and current affairs, right across. And you look at TVNZ today, many of their staffs are people who came out of the culture on this network. You know, it's had an extremely important role to play in New Zealand society, it's a terrible thing if that's now seriously at risk. OK, well we'll see what happens when the Minister announces his broadcast statement, whether Mediaworks actually sells. And can I just applaud TVNZ for the amount of Maori programming its shown consistently. Without, necessarily, full support from the government funding, that is something that I think is really important. OK. All right, well, let's move on to another sales pitch ` this is Winston, right? So, he's got next year. Brigitte, what are your thoughts on the current state of New Zealand First, with, you know, these things about Clayton Mitchell and leaks. What do you think? I think the Clayton Mitchell thing is completely overblown, and most people have frankly no idea who he is, and they don't really care what happened in a bar in Tauranga. I think the leaks point to more, particularly this weekend being the conference, to a little bit of cracks showing in that party unity. And going into an election year, the number one thing you want, is everyone, you know, sailing in the same boat in the same direction. So I think they're in a really strong position, but there's no doubt this weekend that Winston will be selling that party message. OK, so is a drunken` well, alleged drunken stouche or being evicted from a bar acceptable behaviour from an MP? Simon? Well... Well, of course it's not. But we want to know more, I think, about that. But I think you're quite right, this is not a big issue in terms of government relations. It's a very big question for the coalition now, as you've pointed out earlier. New Zealand First has not managed to be in Government and then get back into Government in a coalition, yet, under MMP. That's bee n a problem for MMP. And this coalition has to work out a way to resolve it, which means they can't do things the way they used to be done. We need to have new relationships being developed so we go into election year, each of those three parties are able to say 'This is who we are, and it's a creditable position for us to stand with our electors and, at the same time, keep our government together. My view is, so far, they've actually done that quite well. Right. Ella, do you think that New Zealand First has positioned itself well in the coalition in the last couple of years? Um, I think it's had an interesting position. And I am part of the many who were pleasantly surprised by how Prime Ministerial, you know, Winston was when Jacinda was away, how he has maintained a role, in many respects, as a mediator over some of the issues. So, that's gotta play well into his community. I think low polling in the last year is not` I mean, that's a norm. They deal with that at each election. But I agree entirely with Simon that I think we're gonna have to see some new realpolitik. You know, the 21st century real coalition style Government, without the bullying, without the infighting, for them to be able to survive next year. Fingers crossed? Mm, OK. So New Zealand First needs to differentiate itself, though, doesn't it, Brigitte? Oh, absolutely. And I think I completely disagree hat we're going to see some sort of harmonious coalition agreement. (LAUGHTER) I think that what we often don't see in the public is that the coalition agreements have your, sort of, policy announcements and you have the things that they say they're gonna do. But they also have a big bulk of, sort of, procedure behind them. You know, like, when do you go and have negotiations? Who speaks to who at what point? And I think that point of the coalition agreement, we've seen a few things this year already. And I think that part what falls over in the next year, because these people want to react more quickly and get that front-run in the media, about being, you know, the lead on a particular angle, they're gonna want to jump over those processes and get their voice out there. OK, have we seen that with New Zealand First already? Just recently claiming credit for the parent visa category` in terms of the uptake parent visa in the refugee category. Yeah, you saw that, and I think you saw, I think, there were a few other sort of policy announcements where, you know, the cabinet passed something or negotiated something and then they had to come back around, I think with the abortion bill where Andrew Little, you know, had been negotiating with Tracey Martin, and then that sort of fell over and then got back up later. So you're gonna see a little more of that sort of hustle and bustle, I think. OK, uh, Winston peters has had his health issues this year, but he seems pretty fit and ready to go for next year, yeah? I think he is, yeah. I'd say so. What about Shane Jones? Shane Jones is differentiating himself by doing various things like holding guns while on holiday, and telling the forestry people they should vote for him. Is he going to be the next leader, Brigitte? (EXHALES, LAUGHS) I don't think while Winston Peters is still standing on two feet. Yeah. All right, well, let's move on to the new Terrorism Suppression Control Orders Bill, which was introduced by Andrew Little this week. Now, the Greens are saying that it's broadening the definition of terrorism to include people who have been deported or convicted in other countries, and they're scared that that's going to capture people that aren't really terrorists, Simon. What do you think of the Green's position on that? I think the Greens make a very important point, that... All laws, you don't amend or revise laws unless you need to. You need to be able to show the reason why the existing law isn't good enough to cover the situation, and it's particularly true in security. Because, mostly, the operation of our security laws takes place away from the public gaze. We don't know how they work, we don't know how they're being operated. So, it becomes extremely important when you want to tighten up the rules around terrorism and security, to know that you've got a good reason to do it. And I'm not sure the Government has yet made the case for that. I think Golriz Ghahraman made a very good point. But we have a changing world situation at the moment, don't we, Ella, where, you know, captured ISIS fighters may be released, and ISIS may be able to rebuild because they've got quite a war chest. So, isn't there a need to adapt? Um, perhaps. But if we have existing laws that can deal with that ` I mean, I'm inclined to agree with the Green position, but more importantly, I have concerns about any expansion of the powers of security, as you mentioned, and the fact that this has happened in the same week that expanded powers for armed police has been announced suggest that there is an increasing power going to security and associated issues that are not necessarily public and transparent. And that worries me, because in the very week we found out that New Zealand is the second-least corrupt nation in the world ` yay ` one of the contributors to corruption is a loss of democracy. But don't we need, say, Brigitte, to reassure the New Zealand public that we have conditions in place to deal with people who have returned` People who have gone over to actually be a part of a terrorist organization. I don't think it's necessarily about reassurance, I think we want to make sure we have the safeguards in place to make sure that we can deal with anyone returning. And what the Minister has sort of said on the expanding definition, is that it's necessary because it's incredibly difficult in states of conflict to gather the evidence that you need to maybe reach the traditional thresholds. That is very, very difficult. And I think you have to be very careful, and I think we're all in agreement here that it's not something you want to play lightly with. I think what is interesting here is that, sort of, the politics of this situation in terms of the Greens have now said that they are still at the negotiating table, which was a little bit different to what we had perhaps seen earlier this week, you know, Andrew Little has now said that he will at least have a meeting with National. I think on this sort of highly subtle and really careful policy, we do need that sort of bi-partisan, really, discussions. And I think we should be encouraging that, I don't think` The word dog-whistle was thrown out by the Greens. No, I don't think so. I think that was really dangerous. And I think what we need is, yeah, much more of that discussion. All right, thank you to the panel for the moment. All right, up next, we go live to Toronto ahead of Monday's general election in Canada. Plus, game-playing from National in the house this week. Welcome back. Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, swept into power in 2015 on a promise of positive, progressive politics. But those hoping for transformational change say they've been let down by rhetoric that never matched the reality. - (CHEERING, APPLAUSE) - Thank you. This is what positive politics can do. I present a Cabinet that looks like Canada. Because it's 2015. It's sort of frustrating that it has to be a big thing. It shouldn't be a big thing that the prime minister is walking in pride parade. We get to show the world how to open our hearts and welcome in people who are fleeing extraordinarily difficult situations. We also committed to building a real plan to protect our environment and fight climate change. Today, I am announcing that our government has newly-approved the Trans Mountain Expansion Project going forward. Our efforts to build a better relationship with indigenous peoples in Canada are not only about righting historic wrongs,... There was a lot of hope with the election of Justin Trudeau, and I don't think with the actions of buying the Kinder Morgan pipeline, and the way that they've treated our nation, that we feel like he's living up to that promise. # Just noise. # White noise. # Just noise. # White noise. Pissed off at myself, obviously. I'm disappointed in myself, and I'm apologising to Canadians. We've seen now multiple examples of blackface and brownface. He can't even remember how many times he put blackface on because the fact of the matter is, he's always wearing a mask. Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives are on top at 37%. Justin Trudeau and the Liberals, rising to 34%. The Liberals are in trouble here if they can't get their vote out and get people excited about this campaign. They haven't done that so far. Well, following the ups and downs of the Canada elections is our correspondent Laura McQuillan. Laura previously covered politics here in New Zealand, and is now with the CBC in Toronto. Laura, thanks for your time. The election's on Monday. How would you describe the campaign? Well, it's been a busy one. You've seen these leaders getting out across the country. Justin Trudeau is a man who is fighting for his political survival, really. And so his messaging has been that he really wants to be re-elected, but he's facing such a tough competition from the Conservative Party leader, Andrew Scheer. But summing up what this election looks like, you might say it's been less about policy than it has about personality politics. And as you just saw there, that blackface scandal that has rocked the Trudeau camp during the election campaign. That's stolen so many headlines. Whereas Scheer on the other hand, has faced some of his own controversies, including his past comments about homosexuals, about abortion, coming back to haunt him, so it really has been those personality issues. And, really, voters going to the ballot boxes on Monday may be thinking, 'Who is the lesser of two evils?' Rather than actually voting for a candidate that they want to be their prime minister. You're saying it's about personalities, but what about policy? Is there major differences between the two on policy? Yeah, so there certainly is, as you'd see in New Zealand between National and Labour. Here, with the Liberals and Conservatives, you do see that left and right divide. But one issue that stands out in this election, really, is climate change. It's something that a lot of voters have been saying is going to be the key issue in their minds, but an issue for Canada is that its economy is so oil-reliant. How can it balance the environment with its economy with oil and in the prairies ` the middle of Canada ` especially Alberta. The oil-based economy is such an election issue. Pipelines are a hugely divisive issue here as well. You've seen both major parties come out in favour of pipelines, but then you've also seen the minor parties say they won't partner with a party that wants to push through pipelines. So that's one of the key issues here. Others, as well, are looking at issues for Trudeau defending his record on things like indigenous rights, immigration, housing, jobs, the economy ` all those things that you'd expect. But it is very much a referendum on the past four years of his time as Prime Minister, as much as it is for voting for any one of those issues. OK, and there's sort of an outside candidate ` Jagmeet Singh. Interesting, young, savvy, online kind of candidate. Is he taking away the youth vote that Justin Trudeau enjoyed last election? Yeah, so, a really interesting factor in this is Jagmeet Singh, his NDP Party. At the state of the election campaign, their chances looked pretty slim. Their vote had really subsided, but now, especially since the blackface/brownface scandal, you've seen Singh, who is Sikh, he wears a turban. You've seen him on the rise because the way he's been able to get his message out to the public, the way he's been able to communicate, and the way he is connecting with youth, with, perhaps, lower socio-economic groups and really rallying in the polls. But that's bad news for Justin Trudeau, of course, because that's splitting his vote on the left. Also another party ` a separatist party ` the Bloc Quebecois, based in Quebec. Which is where Justin Trudeau is from, also rising in the polls. So with those minor parties on the rise at this late stage, for Trudeau, he'll be thinking, 'How can I form a government? 'How can I turn out the vote for the Liberals', when people are swinging away to these minor parties that just a few weeks ago might not have been contenders in this election. OK, Laura McQuillan with the CBC in Toronto. Thank you very much for your time this morning. Happy to do it. OK, stay with us, and we'll be back after the break. Welcome back, and we're back with our Panel, Simon Wilson, Ella Henry and Brigitte Morten. A few quick things to wrap up the week, National has removed its attack ads that had parliamentary footage. So the speaker has got his way, Brigitte? Well, I think everyone's kind of got their way here, because it looks like the rule was changed, that was part of the protest, really, that this archaic rule about not having parliamentary footage, that looks like it's on the way out. Everyone` Well, it's on its way out. Everyone gets there way. But does that mean that we're not gonna see these kind of attack ads used, Ella? Oh, God, I wish I cared. (LAUGHTER) I think it's important! Oh, 'Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.' No, I do think it's important. We're gonna see lots of attack ads, of course we are. And that's just the reality of it. But I think there need to be rules about accurately representing what people say. And that's what the speaker was trying to get at. Broadcasting standards for attack ads, huh? OK, I don't think we're gonna see that. All right, so we're gonna see some more attack ads. Let's talk another issue this week, benefit numbers. Now, this is` Food grants have been up more than 90%, and money for motels to house the homeless also doubled compared to his time last year. Ella, that's disappointing isn't it? (SIGHS) Well, it's part of a longer and deeper issue. But I am pleased to see benefit numbers rising because so many under the last regime were taken off for all sorts of, I think, spurious reasons. And I'm glad to see those people are now back being protected by the state whilst we work out where to house them and how to keep them safe. The government said it was going to have a kind of more inclusive approach to beneficiaries, and so that people would be able to get the benefits that they are legally entitled to. An index of that would be that there has been a rise, so I think Ella's quite right about that. Long-term, of course, you'd want to see it going down. Absolutely, and Simon Bridges came out saying this is appalling, Brigitte. And does he have a right to say that? Well, I think even if you accept a point that there is some people that perhaps should be on the benefit who previously weren't getting them, this is an extreme number and rise. And all of them are going up at a really high rate. And the problem is, once you sort of cement that kind of high numbers in, it's really hard to start bringing them down again. And removing benefits and restructuring. So I think you've got to be very, very careful. And I think most people out there would be seeing this as a disappointment. Right. Do we ever see in history benefit claimants going down, Ella? Yes, at various points in our history. I mean, keep in mind that we have historically low unemployment. So the kinds of people who are currently receiving benefits require a lot more, I think, than just financial help on a weekly basis. We're talking about people with mental health issues, we're talking about people with a whole range of other things. And we as a society know, from the latest reviews, that we're not doing that well. That has to improve. You raise a good point, though. I mean, unemployment levels are historically low ` 3.94%. And yet the jobseeker benefit is just going up, Simon. So they don't seem to really match? I know, that's true. But we live in an economy now where it is harder to get lower-skilled jobs, because those jobs are disappearing. We have to confront the reality that there are a lot of people in our society, far more, it turns out, than we thought. Who desperately need assistance from the state to survive and to progress. And we want people to progress. So is this just the reality, Brigitte, that was masked by the previous government? Or have they just not done enough since they've been` despite all the rhetoric? I think the second one, there. I don't think this was completely masked by the former government. I think with any social assistance programme you want to have, obviously, to capture those people that really need it. But you also need to have the other side of it, helping people get off those benefits and get into productive society. And have that sort of role, and so I think that's the part that seems to be missing from this government. Let's rip the bandage off, right? The people, you know, the unemployment rate for Maori is twice that for white people. Yep. The people who are on those benefits are Maori and Pacific Islanders ` people of colour. So clearly, this issue is about how do we help those people who cannot get into gainful employment and they are overwhelmingly Maori, Pacifica, new migrants who are people of colour. That's an issue we have to face as a nation. OK. One more issue, just to cover off. Local body elections this week. Simon, once again another low turnout. There was a low turnout. I think there are lots of reasons, and many of them are not good. But there is one reason which people don't talk about a lot, which is that in many parts of the country, many communities, people are turning to other forms of political activity. It's pretty clear if you look at climate change, for example. OK. You're not going to get Parliamentary leadership on climate change. They're going to follow the will of the people, so there is much more activism happening. And that's important. The issues that actually dominated during the local body elections, were they traditional issues like, 'How much are my rates going to go up?' - No. - No? - No, they weren't. Certainly in Auckland. Remarkably, rates wasn't really an issue. There is a feeling in this city, at least, that there's so much to fix, and I think generally it's now understood that the council will continue to need money to do that, and we want to get it fixed. OK. Couple of interesting results. John Tamihere lost by a landslide. So that didn't go well for him, did it, Brigitte? Uh, no. (LAUGHS) (LAUGHS) Short answer on that one. And then we've got the intriguing Wellington race where Andy Foster is in by only 62 votes, so that could be a recount, couldn't it? I feel like wearing a tee-shirt saying, 'Who is Andy Foster?' (ALL LAUGH) If you're in Wellington, he's been a` Yeah, he is. Clearly not a Wellingtonian, sorry. But it's possible that he could go. It is possible. It is an extraordinary thing, on the face of it, that Wellington voted for someone who stood for New Zealand First in the last general election. But they were disappointed with their mayor. Their mayor, a little bit like the situation in Canada. Their mayor did not deliver to his own people in the way that they expected. And even Jacinda Ardern called him an independent, even though he was running on Labour ticket. Yeah, that was quite embarrassing. And I think also for Justin Lester, transport, which is a local body election issue, was a big thing in Wellington. It was a lot about the buses, a lot about the second Mount Vic tunnel. So I think that is actually something that has really pushed the particular vote outcome we got. OK, I'm going to leave it there for our panel. Brigitte, Ella and Simon, thanks very much for your time. OK, National has, as we said, taken down its online attack ads that use Parliamentary footage. Speaker Trevor Mallard deducted five supplementary questions from the party, after it refused his previous order to do so. National's strategy for its remaining questions quickly became clear this week. Here's Finn Hogan with this week's 'Games in the House'. Well, National wanted answers from Jacinda Ardern this week, but they only had one question in mind. Does she stand by all of her government's policies and actions? Does she stand by all of her government's policies and actions? Does she stand... ...by all her government's... ...policies and actions? Yes, and I will continue to stand by them for all five of the National Party's leader of the opposition auditions today in this house. (CHEERS) Meanwhile, when National's Todd McClay went after the government's economic record, he found associate Finance Minister James Shaw had done his homework. I hope I get more questions from this member in the future. (LAUGHTER) As it happens, in relation to tax, for an average single worker, New Zealand has the second-lowest tax on labour income in the OECD. There's more good news in that department, too, because CPI inflation fell. Petrol prices, he mentioned, which are down, I think 2.9% nationwide. (ALL EXCLAIM) Order, order. A member has a right to ask a question. And that's all from us for now. Don't forget you can listen to the programme as a podcast, available on all the usual platforms. But 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