Today on Newshub Nation ` fresh from success with the euthanasia vote, ACT Leader David Seymour reveals the next law change in his sights. The government's poised to shake up New Zealand broadcasting. How far will it go? And the feminist who's banned from Twitter ` Meghan Murphy ` on trans rights. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019 Kia ora, good morning. I'm Simon Shepherd, and welcome to Newshub Nation. Hundreds of farmers marched on Parliament this week. They were protesting the conversion of farmland to forestry and other measures to adapt to climate change and improved water quality. New Zealand First Shane Jones dismissed the protesters, and then called them 'rednecks'. Winston Peters' personal lawyer Brian Henry has been revealed as a founding director of a new forestry company that unsuccessfully saw money from the Billion Trees Programme and the Provincial Growth Fund. Both funds are overseen by New Zealand First Minister Shane Jones. Mr Peters' Partner, Jan Trotman, was also recently appointed as director of the same company ` Future Forest Products. And Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway says the visa problem for those with culturally-arranged marriages has now been fixed. Changes by Immigration New Zealand that made it harder for those with arranged marriages to visit their partners had caused an uproar in the Indian community. Well, David Seymour's euthanasia bill passed this week, and next week he'll be putting the finishing touches on his next bill. Is he just a very hard-working politician or is this the longest one-person election campaign known to mankind? David Seymour joins me now. Congratulations on getting the euthanasia bill passed. Are you concerned that voters will be deciding on euthanasia at the same time as cannabis and a general election. How are you going to make sure it gets the attention it deserves? Look, I think a lot of people have raised that, but they also underestimate the New Zealand Public ` particularly on the issue of assisted dying. You know, people have come to their conclusions on this over 20 or 30 years, mainly from personal experience. And so I think that's actually pretty much locked in for most New Zealanders. They've thought about the issue because of harrowing events in their own lives. Sure, but international experience ` does it tell you that when it's got this far, it's going to become law? Yeah, look, there's actually not a lot of precedents of an assisted dying law going to referendum. I think there was one in Colorado, which was successful. There may be other ballot initiatives, cos the Americans do that a lot, but as far as I'm aware, this is a first for our part of the world. What is the strongest argument, that you think, that you're going to have to fight against? Look, I think that there will be actually many different, I guess, misinformation campaigns. The strongest argument is speculation about what might happen. That's misinformation, right, but` I want to argue about what actually happens in overseas experience. If we can have the argument that way, I think that New Zealanders will` Justice Minister Andrew Little has instructed that his ministry put just the facts out there. Are you supportive of that? To an extent. Remember, the government or the Electoral Commission have to do a job telling people that there is a referendum. And they have to go to some extent telling people what the referendum is about. Now, of course, at some point you come up against a difficult line of then swaying people how they should vote for it. And I have difficulties with that, but I think in reality most of the debate will be done by civil society anyway. OK, so you're already moving on to your next desired law change. What is that? It's about trying to work out how we reconcile freedom of speech with health and safety. If you look at Massey University, they've just published a policy saying that if a speaker comes to our campus, and that speaker makes people feel uncomfortable, then we may not allow them to speak on our campus. Now, you just think about that for a moment. Universities are supposed to be places where you examine difficult ideas. You've now got a university that's publically funded, whose policy is that you can't say anything that might hurt feelings. Yeah, but surely if there is some risk of, say, mental or physical harm, that these kinds of things have to be taken into account in terms of health and safety. Well, they can be taken into account, but our long-term future as a country is not going to be helped by suppression discussion of difficult issues. I'll give you an example. Last night at Parliament, I hosted a Feminism 2020 event. It's a group of feminists who have a particular view about what feminism is. I hosted it at Parliament because Massey University would not host it. Now, it's a ridiculous situation. An MP shouldn't be giving sanctuary to feminists to have their views expressed at Parliament in 2019, but that's what happened, and we need to clarify the obligations ` particularly of the public sector ` of health and safety versus` OK. ...freedom of expression. This replaces a previous bill that you had drafted called Freedom to Speak Bill. Why did you` That aimed to take hate speech restrictions off current law. So why did you scrap that, then? I think that there's a more urgent need now because it's become clear that the most pressing threat to free expression in New Zealand is not our current law. Our current laws are not bad. I think that they could be improved, and that was what my previous bill would have done. The most pressing threat is that some people are genuinely concerned about their health and safety obligations as a person conducting business` undertaking. And they are not sure if they can let people speak on their premises ` others are abusing it. And that needs to be clarified in the law that freedom of expression is an important value, and only if there is a serious threat to physical safety that cannot otherwise be dealt with` Who is abusing it? Who is abusing it, though? Oh, I think Massey University- So Massey University was abusing` ...are horrific. You know, Jan Thomas, their Vice Chancellor blocked Don Brash from coming to talk ` I think about monetary policy ` because she didn't like him or his views on other topics. Claimed that it was due to health and safety concerns. It was later revealed that she'd, at the very least, over-egged her claims of how much she'd consulted with the police. Right, OK. I think Parliament needs to step in and say freedom of expression is an important value, and you can't fudge it with such claims. Can I ask you whether you've intentionally chosen a really hot-button topics this year, with the election in mind ` freedom of speech, euthanasia, you opposed the gun-law reform. You didn't vote on the Zero Carbon Act. Is this intentional? No. I chose the euthanasia ` or assisted dying ` legislation back in 2015, so I wasn't thinking about the 2020 election. Yeah, but on the other examples? I didn't expect the firearms situation to come up, obviously nobody did. But I've always opposed rushed legislation. I think what was done by the government was abominable, and I also opposed the Zero Carbon Bill because I think restricting New Zealanders to New Zealand-only credits puts massive costs that we don't need, and actually makes it ineffective at fighting climate change, and I think the powers given to ministers under that bill take us back to the Economic Stabilisation Act that was abused by Muldoon. All of these positions are positions that you would expect ACT to take, whether there's an election or not. Can I ask this ` National told us that they're going to announce their intentions for coalition and voting, including the Epsom electorate early next year. You maintain there's no deal in Epsom, don't you? Yeah, well, there's a deal between me and the voters, and the deal is` Yeah, I'm talking about a deal between political parties` Yeah, well, not for me there isn't. The deal is between me and the voters. If you vote for me, you get a good local MP, and more chance` So you win on merit? Well, you win on having the best strategy and the best argument for voters to elect you. That's how every election works, including in Epsom. OK. In terms of strategy in the 2017 campaign, Paul Goldsmith said he was focused on the party, rather than winning the seat, and he told voters that you're doing a good job. That kind of rhetoric, to me, implies that there is a deal. There is an implicit deal. Well, it's a strategy for both parties. I think if I was Paul Goldsmith, I'd be sitting there saying, 'Well, if David Seymour wins Epsom and ACT is bringing more MPs into Parliament, 'I might be the Minister for Finance.' 'If I win Epsom', Paul Goldsmith will be thinking, 'I could be a Member of Parliament, that has to deal with a lot more constituency cases, in opposition.' So actually, it makes sense for him for me to win. It makes sense for me for me to win, and a lot of people in the Epsom electorate also think it makes good strategic sense for me to win the Epsom electorate. That's the Realpolitik of it. OK. That's your take on it, but what if Paul Goldsmith, now that he is a senior member in National's hierarchy, decides that he wants an electorate, and is going to run hard at it? What does that mean for you? Well` Because although you have won the seat, and you've got, like, a 5000-vote majority, you don't have the party vote. Yeah, what it would mean for me is that I'd probably spend more time on that campaign and less time on the party vote campaign. That's what it would mean, but I'd be making the proposition to the voters ` good local MP, strategically more likely to get a centre-right government, and I think that's a very compelling proposition. And is that a proposition that` Can you tell us whether you will be taking that proposition publically to Simon Bridges? Well, no. I mean, Simon Bridges is the leader of another party. I'm focused on the voters. All right. David Seymour, thank you very much for your time this morning. Hey, no problem. Thank you. If you've got something to say about what you see on our show, please let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram ` NewshubNationNZ ` or email us nation@mediaworks.co.nz. But still to come, we dissect the week's political news with our panel. Plus, what's next for public broadcasting in New Zealand? Welcome back. The media landscape has rapidly changed, So should our public broadcasters do the same? Labour came to government promising a new publicly funded TV channel, at the same time private media companies are scrambling to survive. The high court has ruled Fairfax and NZME should not be allowed to merge. One or the other will be now up for sale. Labour has announced funding for Radio New Zealand to set up a non-commercial TV channel if it's elected. 'Where's Claire?' was the big question at Parliament, after her catastrophic performance in the House yesterday. Um, I've answered OIA, uh,... uh, OIA responses. I have made the decision to remove Claire Curran from Cabinet. She set us on a path to make sure that we prioritise public broadcasting. Step in and save New Zealand television and New Zealand news channels before it's too late and the lights somehow go out. Oh, it's too late. (CHUCKLES) More than 500 jobs could be on the line at one of our largest media companies, as Mediaworks prepares its television assets for sale. We cannot find a way to make TV sustainably profitable. The government is considering a mega merger of TVNZ and Radio New Zealand. I'm not gonna go into any details. And what they could do is pump some more money into NZ On Air and help all the media which are under threat. You're gonna have to wait till December. The future of media now a waiting game. Right, so come December the government will reveal its plans for TVNZ and Radio New Zealand, the favoured option a merger of the two. What would that mean for journalism and what would it mean for the commercial medial companies? I'm joined now by AUT head of journalism Greg Treadwell and editor of the Spinoff website Toby Manhire. Gents, thanks for your time this morning. Greg, what's your personal best case scenario for the government's merger proposal? Best cast scenario would be a direct and serious injection of funding into public broadcasting. But it has to be managed. There are peripheral issues that are terribly serious around a public broadcast entirely dominating a market. Journalists need to be on their toes. They need competition from other journalists ` there's no doubt about that. Journalists without competition become lazy. So to have the state dominate entirely the media landscape would be problematic. Having said that, it's entirely preferable to the race to the bottom that we're now experiencing. So yeah, best case scenario would be that they go forward with a huge injection of public funding, but it's managed in a way that the outcome is a successful media market, obviously. Right, so, Toby, you are part of the competition, an independent website. How do you see you playing out in this changing, evolving landscape here? Well, I think of be supportive of the thrust of creating a strong public-service broadcasting mandate and system without wanting to have the unintended consequence of pulling back on the diversity, plurality of voices within the media. So one of the things they clearly have looked at, and to some extent appear to have rejected, is boosting the NZ On Air amount, the contestable fund, which funds this programme, for example. That's right. The danger would be that the unintended consequence of piling everything into one monolith would damage that plurality. OK, but do you think that another option would be just for, say, TV1 to be commercial-free and have just one publicly funded state broadcaster, and that would let more advertising revenue go into the marketplace? And that's something that the company that runs this show, Mediaworks, has been lobbying for. And the idea is that then that means the pool of advertising funds is not being soaked up by an organisation that no longer has a profit obligation, in effect. And maybe that works. Maybe you just say TVNZ1, completely commercial-free. The danger in a way, now, is to say then TV2 would have commercials. Increasingly, those channels matter less than the digital offerings. So all these different forces are operating at the same time, and they need to find some way to square it. So just while we're still on public broadcasting, Greg, do you think that there is a public appetite for lots of taxpayers' money, as you suggest, to go into public broadcasting? I suspect, given the history of New Zealand underinvestment in public broadcasting, that the public many not have that much appetite, but I do think it's up to the government to increase that appetite with a great campaign on it. We have fantastic examples in the UK and Ireland and Australia, with SBS, of publicly funded broadcasting being at the heart of the democracy. The risk is that it doesn't have any competition at all. But, yeah, I personally don't think that overinvestment is going to be an issue. Right, because compared to the countries that you just mentioned, we chronically underfund public broadcasting. We absolutely do, and have historically done that. And given New Zealand's strong democracy, it's very surprising that successive governments haven't reinforced that democracy with great public broadcasting. Having said that, I don't want that to sound like a criticism of RNZ, which is a fantastic public broadcaster. I wonder if there isn't an opportunity for RNZ to be expanded to have a serious television newsroom as well, and TVNZ runs the news, but it operates commercially in its other arms ` entertainment and programming. That was RNZ Plus in a way. In a way, it was. That came a cropper. But as we were talking about just before, RNZ Plus was a clunky, difficult thing to make work. You need proper television. You can't do television in a radio station. Are you saying they should be resurrected? It would take a lot of money to do that. I don't have any issue with a lot of money being put into this, because I think we're talking about a long-term future for the country at a time when journalism around the world is in desperate, desperate trouble. Do you think that the two ` just speaking of RNZ and TVNZ, Toby ` do you think that the two cultures could be melded? Because one is commercial, one is a public broadcaster. There's definitely cultural difference there. I mean, RNZ isn't just one organisation, either. There are people in RNZ who would love to get their hands on some of the tech that they've got in that TVNZ building, which is incredible. But also, the other thing about the culture difference is that I've talked to a few people about it this week, and there are people who tell me that the culture difference between RNZ Wellington and RNZ Auckland is almost as different as the culture difference between RNZ Auckland and the TVNZ operation. So there are a mix of different forces at play. I mean, the other thing is how much you want to keep the RNZ identity alive. I don't think that this proposal would suggest that they would somehow become all speaking with one voice; you're obviously gonna have different platforms within it. So, they're talking about public broadcasting here, but it doesn't address the wider mediascape, where you've got Stuff for sale, you've got Mediaworks for sale, and a loss of journalists over the years. Should the government be doing anything for the private sector, Greg? Well, in a way, this proposal is to bail out` in the public interest, but, in a way, it's a bailout. But how would it do that? Well, a horrible idea that TV3 might not be here, but if it isn't, and the market is dominated by that monolith, as Toby put it, we have effectively bailed out the private sector in media. But should it just be market forces at play, Toby? Should the private sector just come and go as the market dictates? I mean, it does within certain parts of the media, but I think we are a small country, we don't have the benefits of scale of other countries which also do have that public-service-funded model, as you've said, more than we do. But I think that one of the issues is that if you do create a single RNZ company, in a digital world, you look at ` you mentioned Stuff ` NZME's share price is struggling, Sky is struggling, if you then end up knocking out these organisations that, remember, not that long ago were told by the Commerce Commission that they couldn't merge, and you've created a state merger, then I think there's some bitter taste in mouths. OK. How much responsibility for, say, the audience numbers shrinking and the audience going elsewhere lies with journalists to make their content more attractive, Greg? Cos you were talking about the race to the bottom a moment ago. Yeah, journalists aren't the problem here. Journalists are working as hard as ever, probably harder. They're as skilled, they're as intent on the public interest. But are they? Cos the public trust in journalists has never been great. No, and in New Zealand it's lower than internationally. We're going to do a study on public trust next year. That's... What can you do about that issue, except continue to do good journalism? So, I don't think... I think journalists will be looking to this as an opportunity to return the focus of journalism more to the public interest, and that's only a good thing. OK, so perhaps then, Toby, it's more about the changing media landscape per se, the advertising revenues going off to Facebook and Google, that's really driving all this? Yeah. There is a kind of ` to put it in a very bald sense ` there is a kind of common enemy. And sometimes you see this scrapping between media organisations, when really they need to work together. And there is move afoot on that. OK. Greg, what are you saying to reassure journalism students signing up to your course these days? Because we've seen a drop-off in numbers, and you see the kind of landscape which is very uncertain. What do you say to them? We say that the job is about the public interest. We struggle, actually, to provide enough graduates for the media industry. That might sound odd, when the general narrative is that there are no jobs. In fact, there are jobs. There is a much reduced number of journalists than there were 20 years ago. As a result, entrants to the courses are fewer, and several provincial journalism schools have closed. But nevertheless, the current situation is that we can't provide enough graduates, and that I'm getting emails every week from editors wanting to employ somebody. Right. So, why don't people want to work in the industry, if you don't have enough graduates? There's a terrible narrative, isn't there, around? So we have to reconcile the narrative that says it's all failing with the narrative that says it cannot fail, because democracy fails. And there is still a strong core of students who believe that and want to be journalists. Also, they're not going to get paid as much as they are if they go into PR. That's the other reality, right? Absolutely. And the PR programmes around the country are doing very well. This is a concern. But, you know, we work with what we've got. The journalists are hopeful, courses are hopeful, and, as I say, we can't provide enough students. Toby, do you think that the government has a commitment to actually make this kind of change, or is it just gonna leave it alone? Is it too hard? I think once they think of all the knock-on implications of it, it's gonna be a big thing to tackle. And it's debatable whether they've shown the stomach for some of the big changes over this term. I've heard that New Zealand First is pushing quite strongly for this, and it's been something that they've had in their manifesto for a while now. But when you think, for example, what happens to NZ On Air, there are knock-on effects. Do you then go, 'Well, let's merge NZ On Air and the Film Commission, do everything'? And then you stare at that, and you look at how long there is till the election. You look at the fact that it's definitely going to cost some money. You wonder, right? All right, we're going to have to leave it there. We'll see what happens to journalism and public broadcasting. Thanks very much for your time, Toby and Greg. Thank you. OK, coming up, our panel on the week in news and politics. But first, her visit to New Zealand has sparked protests and venue changes. Feminist Megan Murphy explains why she says trans women are not women. Welcome back. It's Transgender Awareness Week, the same week a feminist group, Speak Up For Women, has brought Megan Murphy from Canada to speak in New Zealand. Murphy is a radical feminist who believes trans women aren't women, views that have seen her banned from Twitter. We asked representatives from several trans and rainbow organisations to engage in a debate, but no one was available. So I began by asking Megan Murphy to explain her position. Sure, I mean, my position is pretty straightforward, in my opinion. I don't believe that it's possible to change biological sex. So I think that you're born either male or female, and you remain male of female for life. So I disagree with the idea that you can identify as female if you're male. I also, of course, have concerns about gender identity legislation and policies and the way that they impact women, and particularly women's spaces where women and girls might be particularly vulnerable, so change rooms, transition houses, prisons. We'll get to those specific examples in a moment. Gender self-identification ` what is wrong with a trans person declaring that they're a woman, though, if that's how they feel? Well, being a woman isn't a feeling, it's a fact. I guess I don't quite understand what the purpose is, in identifying as the opposite sex. I understand that some people suffer from, you know, what you might call gender dysphoria. That's right. And that's a medically recognised diagnosis, isn't it? Well, the problem is that now gender identity legislation and policy isn't based on any kind of medical diagnoses. I would disagree with the concept of gender dysphoria, but that's sort of a more complicated topic we could maybe get into later. But right now, what we're talking about is literally just a person announcing that they're the opposite sex, based on nothing, not based on any kind of mental illness or whatever. Well, there is one thing that we should raise, though. What about intersex people ` the definition is people who do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies. Where do they fit into this? Well, they don't fit into this, because trans people aren't intersex, they're just males or females who don't identify with the gender stereotypes attached to males and females. Yeah, but you're saying that biologically you're one or the other, but these people are both or neither. Well, actually, with intersex conditions, usually those people are male or female, and then they have an intersex condition. There's some people that it's more complicated and harder to decipher, but for most people, it's actually not that hard to decipher, and they just have abnormalities. Right, so, if someone chooses ` if they are intersex and they choose to become a female, is that acceptable to you? Well, I mean, this conversation really doesn't have anything to do with intersex, so I'm not particularly interested in debating that issue. I think that's separate. And, you know, I'm not a doctor, so that's an issue between the person and their doctor, how they want to go about dealing with this condition. Sure, but it doesn't fit into your` But what we're talking about is a male who's obviously male, clearly male, simply saying, 'I'm a woman,' and expecting to be accepted as a literal female. The non-binary community is tiny; some studies here put it at about 1%. So why does a feminist like yourself feel threatened by trans people calling themselves women? Well, I don't know that it's about me feeling threatened per se. Is that I have concerns for the impact on women's rights as a whole, and particularly marginalised women. So, for example, when we're talking about female prisons, the women who are in female prisons are among the most marginalised people in the country. And men are being transferred to these prisons and assaulting and sexually harassing these women. Trans people have a high suicide rate here. There's a study recently that more than 50% of them have considered suicide in the past year. They are very marginalised as well. Shouldn't there be some empathy towards them? I totally have empathy towards people who struggle with gender dysphoria, who struggle with mental illness, who struggle with, you know, their identities, who are marginalised in various ways. It's really not about empathy or a lack of empathy. I mean, we're talking about legislation, so it has to be about more than just how you feel. And really, what I'm concerned about is why no one in this conversation seems to have empathy or concerns for women and girls ` I mean, they're totally being left out and shut out of this debate. And you are fighting for what you say has been the oppression of women over centuries. Do you believe that, in a way, this is also the oppression of another minority, or a marginalised society ` that your opinions about them is marginalising them and oppressing them? Well, I mean, my opinions about people who identify as trans are not offensive or judgemental or hateful in any way. I'm really just saying these basic things like you can't change your sex. Yeah, but some cultures have accepted this for years. I mean, there's cultures around the world that have a history of gender fluidity. So why is it an issue right now? I don't have an issue with gender fluidity. And many of those cultures actually didn't necessarily accept these people as literally the opposite sex. They accepted them as, you know, a male who adopted feminine stereotypes. Or there was, like, a 'third gender', but it wasn't the same as what we're talking about now. So you're saying that society` In your view, should society treat trans people differently, have a different category than male or female? No. I mean, the problem with trans is that there's no definition of transgender. It's just an announcement. So there's no way to discern who is transgender. You know, what does that mean? What does it mean to be transgender? It's just something that you say. The transgender community feels feminists like yourself are what they call exclusionary. They call you TERFs ` trans exclusionary radical feminists. Mm-hm. So you're excluding them from society. That's what their argument` I'm definitely not excluding them from society. So why do you object on the terms? And I'm not excluding trans people from anything. I mean, females who identify as transgender are welcome in women's spaces, males who identify as transgender are welcome in male spaces and welcome everywhere else. What we're saying, what we're talking about specifically is men, so I really feel frustrated when people start talking about it as oppression of trans people or about transphobia, for example, because it's really not about the trans identity. It's really about biological sex, and that's it. These people feel like they've been trapped in the wrong body. That's one of the things that you hear. Well, it's not possible to be trapped in the wrong body. You're just born with the body and you deal with it. I mean, lots of people don't like their bodies and wish they had different bodies, but, you know, too bad. So, you're a male; you're always going to be a male. That's right? You just cannot identify` Of course. And everyone knows that. I mean, you have to agree it's not possible to change sex. How would that happen? Well, medically, it's possible to change sex. It's not possible to change your chromosomes. It's not possible to change your bones. It's not possible to change your pheromones. I mean, you can get cosmetic surgery, so you can be a male with breast implants or you can get genital surgery, but that doesn't literally change your biological sex. Do you think that you have the privilege in this debate? I mean, you are` Definitely not. ...you're a cis-gender woman, and` I am not a cis-gender woman. I don't identify with femininity. All right. I don't identify with sexist gender stereotypes. OK. All right. So you're a woman. I'm a woman. I'm a female. That's right. OK. You're a female. But you are not being marginalised, are you? I mean, because women are 50% of the population. Um... (LAUGHS) So therefore you have the power in this relationship with people` I mean, I` Me personally` This conversation really isn't about me personally. It's about all women and girls, and around the world, you have to agree that women still suffer enormously in many parts of the world. I mean, in Saudi Arabia, women still, you know, can't function on their own. They're not allowed to drive. Sure. So, I guess the argument is with that kind of understanding, why do you not have an understanding of people who feel like they are in the wrong bodies and they want to identify as women and that's what their natural state should be? You know, we can't base legislation based on a few people's feelings, especially when those people are male and potentially present a threat to women and girls. OK. Well, let's talk` I mean, just because a man identifies as a woman, I don't think that means he should be allowed access to women's change room and be able to be there naked with his penis out around women and girls. All right. So, they can` I think surely you can agree that's inappropriate. OK, so let's talk about the practicalities. You say that a trans woman who hasn't had a genital change should not be allowed into women's spaces. Is that right? In women's changing rooms? Definitely. OK. So you shouldn't share bathrooms. What about sport? Should trans women compete against other women in sport? I mean, this is a really big issue, and I'm really glad that you brought it up, because males have an obvious advantage over females in most sports, and that's why they compete separately. So, you know, women fought to have the right to compete on fair ground, and that's being rolled back really quickly, and they're being forced to compete against males. And there's no` There's nothing that a man can do, you know` These are men who have gone through puberty; they have male bodies. Even if they reduce their testosterone, that doesn't mean that they` Because many sports bodies do have levels of testosterone that are acceptable to have trans women versus women. I know, but those men still have more muscle mass, their bones are different. You know, males have, like` their bodies are completely different than female bodies. They have different organs ` they have bigger lungs, they have bigger hands, they have longer limbs, and you can't change any of that by reducing testosterone. What about self-identification on passports and drivers' licences, these official kinds of documents? I mean, I don't see the point, but, again, I think that it's dangerous to legally change a person's sex, because what that means is that then that person, if he's male and he has changed his sex to female on his ID and whatnot, then he must be accepted in women's transition houses, in female prisons, in women's change rooms. Are trans women really a threat in those kinds of places? Definitely not trans women. Men. Males. So, it doesn't matter if you identify as trans or not. I don't think that trans women are any more dangerous or predatorial than any other man, and I don't even think all men are predatorial. But we know that the people who are predatorial towards women, who sexually harass women, who sexually assault women are generally males, not females. So you're saying that a male cannot change their spots if they're a bad male, whether they be a trans woman or a male? I mean, I hope that men can change their spots. But by transitioning, they're definitely not changing anything. That's not the kind of change that we're looking for. You say that self-identification is a regressive ideology that's trying to erase sex-based rights. So you're saying that if somebody wants to self-ID as a trans woman, they're erasing women's rights. I think that if 'woman' no longer has a definition and there's no such thing as a woman, then there's no basis for women's rights. Megan Murphy there. No one wanted to debate Megan Murphy, but trans support organisation Agender NZ says this on the issue of safe toilet spaces for women ` there is no recorded instance of a trans woman harassing a woman in a bathroom. On whether trans women have an unfair advantage in sport, it says very few trans people participate; none competed at the 2016 Rio Olympics, and none have ever won at the Olympics. In regards to the view 'once a man, always a man', Agender NZ says there are many ways genes and hormones interact to create intersex conditions and the diversity in sexual and gender conditions should be celebrated not demonised. OK, so it's time for our panel to come off the back of that one ` political commentator Shane Te Pou, political reporter at Newsroom Dileepa Fonseka, and Trish Sherson from Sherson Willis PR. Thank you for your time this morning. Shane, first to you. What did you make of that interview? Far be from it for me to get into scraps with visiting Canadians, but can I say this ` I think that she's certainly not advancing, from my perspective, a feminist perspective. She's contributing to a debate that would disenfranchise people that are marginalised in society. I think in Aotearoa, we have a very proud record in these type of issues, and I certainly don't want to be part of a gang that lifts the ladder. Of a gang. Yeah, I don't want that gang mentality` to contribute to that gang mentality that lifts the ladder up for people behind them. And I think that trans women's rights ought to be respected and protected. This particular organisation Speak Up For Women has sparked quite a furore here. Trish, why is that? Well, I think it... it's an example of what we're seeing a lot today is these very hard-edge and divisive kind of comments at one end of the spectrum or another. I have to say as a woman and a feminist and a mother of a daughter, I don't feel any identification with what she is saying at all. I think, as Shane said, we have advanced massively in New Zealand, and we should be proud of that. And I think more importantly as human beings that lovely old saying 'Live and let live' I think is really important here. And good grief ` you know, I would like to hope that people who identify in any way these days feel far more safer and safe about being themselves and more confident in being themselves than they did, you know, 30 years ago, when even a` remember the days when we had those terrible debates about whether or not people could even come out as gay, and I think we've come so far now, which is great. We're talking about 1% of the population here, as well. So, in terms, Dileepa, of actual broad effect on the general population, the trans population is 1%, and so we should just be embracing rather than being scaremongering or fearful. Well, I think this whole debate... I mean, when you get down to it, it's very to have a debate when, I guess, one side or the other side sort of doesn't believe in your right to exist. And I think that in her whole interview, I didn't really fully understand where she thought that the trans community fit in with the broader scheme of things. It felt that she didn't really feel that they had a place. And I think that's probably the difficulty we have when having this argument here and with having her as the main proponent of that side of it is, you know` we get very close towards the edge of hate speech there. OK, all right. So is that why we had this sort of issue about whether this organisation should have had a platform for this, Shane? Yeah, I think that was part of it, and I personally think that Massey played a role in this, and they probably added` gave this agenda a stronger voice, and, yeah, I think it is a bigger issue in terms of` Right. So you think that Massey should have just said, 'Look, we're just gonna hold this as part of our debate.' Yeah, well, I think... Look, it's a difficult one. I think damned if you do; damned if you don't, but they did give this person a greater voice. That's the reality. But we should debate things when they're this hard, shouldn't we, Trish? Absolutely. I totally agree, but I think where we've got to, and I think, again, Massey has made this an absolute shambles, and I agree with David Seymour, actually, that universities are places where we should be able to have debate. But I think this is a great example of we've lost the ability to debate. A debate means talking and listening and advancing certain positions. This is actually about just shouting at people and having such a firm view that there is no opportunity for debate. And I think you see that on both sides of this debate. OK. And I think we need to get back to the art of actually debating and listening. Which is where David Seymour comes in with this proposal, Dileepa. He wants to, sort of, somehow massage the health and safety rules so they don't act as a way out of holding a debate. What do you think of that? Well, I mean, I guess it depends exactly what he's got in mind. We haven't heard too many details around it. The details. But, I mean, you have to wonder sometimes. I mean, are these genuine health and safety concerns, or is it actually the issue that some of these speakers are making a large amount of the student body, for example, feel very uncomfortable? Or is it causing a massive headache for`? I mean, are there other reasons? And, I mean, perhaps it's, you know, from all of this and perhaps even from David Seymour's kind of approach to it, we should just be thinking about` it's a prompt for, I think, a lot of public institutions and private institutions to be thinking about in this day and age. I mean, you know, maybe they do need to be thinking about 'At what point will we draw the line? Who are we?' Cos it has to be in fairness. Of course it's very hard to find out where you're gonna draw the line. That's why we're having this kind of discussion. I just want to talk about David Seymour. So, he's a sort of, you know, historic win this week, I guess, in terms of the Euthanasia Act passing in the third reading. He's got a lot of positions on hot-button issues. Is he just trying to really get his profile up, Trish, for an election year? Well, let's first take his work on the euthanasia bill. To get a bill like this, a private member's bill, to this stage is a huge undertaking. And as I understand it, David, because of the way he has worked, in terms of, you know, in opposite to the woman we just saw, he has been very thoughtful, he has listened, his has worked across the parties. I think he's gained huge respect in Parliament from this. And, potentially, he may get a bump in the polls because of the profile around this issue and the way he's approached it. ACT traditionally, and it's one of its first bylines, was the party of ideas. And I think, you know, if you look at where ACT got to about eight years ago, he has kind of brought it back to that core thought where you are challenging and you're putting forward interesting ideas. So I think he's doing, probably, a very good job for ACT at the moment. It remains to be seen how that goes next year. But, potentially, off the back of his work on the euthanasia bill, ACT could be a wild card in the next year's election, because we'd all been writing them off, but who knows now? If they got a, sort of, 2% bump, that's another two MPs. So, does that mean, Shane, that he doesn't need an implicit deal in Epsom if he might get a bump in the polls? Well, he calls it a strategy. I call it a deal. (LAUGHS) OK. He denies deal. Why would he do that? I don't think that he could` I think he still needs some sort of a deal, some sort of a strategy with the Nats. Yeah. And I think he has a less chance if he's not able to bring, or potentially bring, someone else on board. So this will strengthen his hand in relation to that. And, yes, of course he is creating a platform as we launch into the election year, and so he should be. Right. Do you think that National's looking at Paul Goldsmith and saying, 'He's a senior figure now. He actually needs an electorate. We're going to make him campaign harder,' or are they just gonna let it slide? How do you read what's going to happen? Well, I mean, if you were laying money on it, I think you'd think that they would continue the same arrangement with David Seymour. But, I mean, it is` I mean, his situation is kind of a reflection of just the disintegration of the libertarian sort of element in parliament. I mean, it used to be quite strong. You know, I mean, libertarians were very active, you know, both social and economic libertarians, and now that side of, you know, both the National Party and ACT, the voting population just seems to have shrunk. And whether he can rebuild a consensus around, you know` rebuild that support for libertarianism or refashion it in a way that it meets, you know, the way we all are now or the current, you know, desires of the voting population. I mean, that's gonna be his big task. Right. OK. All right, just quickly ` Trish, the merger of RNZ and TVNZ ` would the public support that? I think it would get public support. I think, personally, it will happen, probably in about three years. I think it makes sense, and if you look at public broadcasters that are strong around the world, it's radio and TV together, but I think the point from the panel earlier is a really important one ` that the Stuff-NZME merger that was proposed a few years ago` And denied. The Commerce Commission denied it, and, in fact, in a lot of the Commerce Commission's findings, it seemed that they were struggling to understand where the competition for the ad dollar comes from now, and that Google and Facebook weren't just, sort of, social platforms, but they were big hooverers of advertising dollars. Is there a concern that if you do have a public broadcasting... a monolith, I think Toby Manhire called it, but a very powerful public broadcaster that the private media companies who are struggling now, Shane, they're not going to exist? Well, no, I think this would create some space for them. I think that the TVNZ-RNZ merger is almost inevitable. Right, but to create space, would that have to be non-commercial? Yeah, I think they have to be non-commercial, and I think that the last thing that I certainly want and I think that the viewers would want is a monopoly in terms of news sources. And I think we've got to be very careful about that. It's further than news sources, though, isn't it? There's also the programming that comes with, you know, like MediaWorks and with other channels and the other kind of content as well, isn't it? So has it been that... the public is saying, 'We don't really like what the broadcasters or the wider media are doing'? Or is it just that there are too many, you know` a fragmented market with Netflix and Google taking on the money and Netflix and Disney+ coming in, Dileepa? I mean, you've got... I mean, I think that, in some ways, you know, news and journalism has never been more popular. I mean, if you look at what people are spending a lot of time on their phones doing, it's browsing news sites; if they're on Facebook, it's sharing news links. But, I mean, the thing is the advertising revenues have dried up, and that is killing the commercial end of a lot of these media platforms. And so, I mean, this, you know, RNZ... the merger is being mooted as being kind of a solution to, I guess, the public broadcasting angle. We still don't have a real solution around what we're going to do on the commercial end to ensure there's a vibrant private media. The government can't really do anything about that, can they, Trish? No, and I think the most important point here is the government can change structurally what happens ` ie a merger. What they need to be thinking, though, is actually consumer behaviour to Dileepa's point. How are people consuming media now? And make sure that the resource follows that behaviour. OK. All right. That's it for the panel for the moment. Thanks very much Dileepa, Trish and Shane. Up next ` National's Scott Simpson gets five minutes to convince you why he'd be a better climate change minister than James Shaw. Plus, another big week in the House with the passing of the End of Life Choice bill. just five minutes to sell you on their ideas. Well, National doesn't have the strongest environmental track record, but its spokesperson for climate change, Scott Simpson, says he could do a better job as minister than James Shaw. Reporter Finn Hogan asked how. The National Party has done an awful lot on climate action, and one of the things that sometimes people forget is it was the National Party that signed us up to the Paris Agreement ` against expectations, and then it was the National Party that ratified the Paris Agreement on behalf of all New Zealanders. What would you do over and above what the government is doing, though? Well, what we would be doing is making the policies much clearer to New Zealand businesses, to New Zealand families and to New Zealand individuals. One of the challenges, I think, that this government has been unable to perform on is that they haven't delivered certainty for New Zealanders about what their policies mean. Apart from clarification, are there specific policy differences? Would you introduce a specific new policy? Well, absolutely. One of the things that we talked about in our policy discussion document, that we released in February of this year, was our support for a container deposit scheme for recycled beverage containers. Now, the government at the time rejected that, said it wasn't part of their work programme. And then six months later, suddenly guess what, they've set up working group number 252, which is on container deposit schemes. So even from opposition, a party like the National Party can have an influence on government. I think that's a good thing. I'm pleased they've adopted our idea. What about waste energy? Well, waste energy is something that we need to explore. Waste to energy means that some of the waste that is currently going to landfill, could go to creating energy ` could be ethanol, could be diesel, could be electricity, could be heat. Now, currently the Greens say, from a very academic and theoretical point of view, 'No, no, no, no. The solution to not sending stuff to landfill is to just have no waste at all.' Now that's practically not possible at the moment. So in the meantime, surely waste to energy programmes are something well worth considering. You don't support the methane targets in the Zero Carbon Bill. How should they be set? Well, we think that the targets in the Zero Carbon Bill should be recommended by the Commission ` the expert-led panel of professionals who know what they're talking about, not politicians. So we think that that's a target that should be recommended by the Commission, and that's the first job for the Commission to do. Yeah, but if you want to take the politics out of it, why don't you just support making the Climate Commission fully independent? Well, the Climate Commission is fully independent. We were very impressed with the` But making it not just advisory; giving it actual teeth. Well, it has recommendatory powers, and that's important. But that's not real power, is it? Well, I don't think` That's what we have a Parliament for. I don't think that it should be given Reserve Bank powers that mean that the decisions of an unelected group of people become the decision makers for New Zealanders and their way of life. That should be the role of the politicians. But you're saying you want to take the politics out of it. We` But we leave the detail, the implementation of the policy to the politicians of the day ` no matter what colour or hue those politicians are. Why shouldn't we declare a climate emergency? Because I'd much rather we spent our time doing stuff ` doing things that are actually going to impact on a transition to a low-carbon economy than simply declaring feel-good factors like a climate emergency. But we've have 11,000 scientists recently pen an open letter practically begging world governments to declare a climate emergency. If not now, when? Well, even the Prime Minister has said that we shouldn't declare a climate emergency, so this is one rare occasion when I agree with her. Is there any situation where you'd declare a climate emergency? Well, look, I come from the Coromandel, and we have emergencies from time-to-time on the Coromandel, and for me, an emergency is something that's real, impending and happening right this minute. Isn't that climate change? Well, it is, but we're talking about a 2050 time frame, so from my point view` But climate change is happening right now, and we are seeing the effects. Yeah, but, Finn, I'd rather we got on and started doing stuff, than simply making a declaration. I'd rather we did things. Why shouldn't agriculture be folded into the Emission Trading Scheme earlier? Because right at the minute, farmers don't have tools that allow them to reduce their emissions footprint, other than by simply lowering the number of stock that they have. Now, that's not a sensible way to go for New Zealand ` or for the world, actually, because if we just reduce our agricultural output, then that market will be filled by farmers producing in other countries in a less efficient-emissions way than we do. That doesn't help the globe. What amount of economic slow-down is National willing to accept to curtail the worst effects of climate change? Well, I don't accept, for instance, that you need to have economic slow-down and cope with climate change at the same time. I don't think it's a binary option. I don't think it's either the economy or climate change mitigation. So you're saying we can aim for 3% annual growth while also reversing the worst environmental degradation? I think that we should have as an absolute target better care for our environment, of course, but if that comes at the expense of New Zealanders' quality of life, in terms of economic growth, then I can't see the sense in that. But I don't think you have to sacrifice one for the other. I actually think that you can do both. Scott Simpson there. Stay with us. We're back after the break. Welcome back, and we are back with our panel ` Trish Sherson, Dileepa Fonseka and Shane Te Pou. Thanks for your time. It seemed like a bit of backflip on the partnership visa this week. Dileepa, was it the Prime Minister putting Shane Jones in his place? Well, I mean, in some ways this whole debate ` You know, it's like one immigration lawyer I talked to this week about the whole thing` He was actually toasting Shane Jones in a bar. Because? Well, because if he hadn't had a blow-up about all of this and caused the kind of ruckus that he did within the Indian community, and the outcry, possibly, Immigration New Zealand might have just kept on with its advice. Cos, I mean, the policy changed in May, and, I mean, people have been writing about it progressively since. But, you know, definitely, I think that whole community outrage element of it forced Jacinda to actually` Yeah, OK. Do you think there's lasting damage between the government and the Indian community as a result of this? I think it's` Well, the interesting thing around this whole debate is in some ways a lot of the community reaction seem to be, not necessarily just about the partnership visa aspect of it, but about some of the perceived racism in the comments. I think in that sense, yes, there is the potential. I mean, you know, and the Labour Party has to be careful. I mean, the Chinese name scandal from many years ago still hurts them in the Chinese community. And they'd be careful they don't cause lasting damage` So that's why, probably, that the Prime Minister would be very happy to move on this. Yeah, I mean, it was a calculated political move because, I think, where Labour were looking was, yes, the outrage was one thing, but actually there's a huge weight of voting numbers now in the Indian community, and I think it's a real recognition from Labour that we're going to need those votes next election. They were` The outrage was sufficient that they thought it could impact on voting, and I think that's why they made the move. And New Zealand First doesn't need those Indian voters, Shane? Well, I think that the debate was lost a little bit in Shane's rhetoric, and I think even he accepts that, but the reality is we do need to focus the debate on discrimination` sorry, on immigration, and I think it does need to be skill-based. The other thing is that we've had a long-held policy that if you're going to bring your spouse here, it needs to be real and stable relationships, and I think that's what the focus needs to be on. And hopefully there's a correction. All right. So New Zealand First, though, has used this issue in its fundraising emails and things like that to state that it's going to tease an immigration stance for the election year. Is that predictable? Well, yeah. I mean, I suppose it's a bit early. It's a year out, potentially. But it is an issue. I think that one thing we've got to be careful of` The whole discussion this week has basically shown it, is that there's a difference between in immigration debate and a culture debate. And I think what we ended up having in this mess was a culture debate about, 'I don't like this person's cultural practice.' And we should be making this other cultural practice work. OK, but there is going to be an immigration debate next year, isn't there, Trish? I think Dileepa's hit the nail on the head there, and actually, if you think of New Zealand First and how it has grown up ` it has been immigration, but it has been more than that. And it has been, at times, bordering on, perhaps, xenophobic. It started particularly around the Asian community, and I think we do have to be really careful about that. But it's not surprise that they have leveraged off the back of this, to start the ball rolling and passing the hat around for next year. OK. Let's talk about perception of New Zealand First, Shane. They're in the headlines because both their lawyer and Winston Peters' partner are directors of a forestry company that went for PGF funding and Billion Trees funding. Is that a bad look? No, I don't think it is. I think it showed that the system worked. Trotman, who is an internationally recognised CEO. Why wouldn't she be involved in business. It would be ridiculous to assume otherwise. But Trotman and Henry declared a conflict of interest, Shane Jones, obviously read the Cabinet Manual, went to the powers that be and said, 'I might have a perceived conflict of interest.' The powers that be said, 'Yes, you do.' He stood aside. Labour ministers made the decisions. Labour ministers made the decisions to turn down the project. Showed that the system worked perfectly, and it's transparent. But` there's a perception there. I mean, isn't there, Trish? But they're wrong. How do you fight that? I mean, maybe a wrong perception. But there is a perception there when you've got a party that's pushing these particular policies and people involved in that party also trying to make a commercial business out of them. Trish? Yeah, and I think the Realpolitik always is not` and Shane's right. The system has worked in this case. But over time, it is the perception that builds up, and that's really` that is really now the issue for New Zealand First around this. But I think, more particularly, for the Labour government around this. And just how that` You know, the issue with the Provincial Growth Fund is there has over time been questions and questions and questions, and then you get another one like this, and then there's more questions around it. So I think there's going to be focus around that at the next election. All right. National's obviously trying to make some hay out of this, Dileepa, calling for the Auditor General to investigate. Should they or is it just political? Well, I think, like they say, the system does seem to have worked in this instance. I mean, in New Zealand ` a small country like New Zealand ` you're always going to have this crossover between the people advocating for a particular policy and, you know, some of the people who may be contracted to implement it, and you've got to have systems in place to manage it, but` Always going to run into it because it's not six degrees of separation here, is it? Two. Two degrees of separation. (ALL CHUCKLE) Well, on that I'm going to leave it. Thank you very much to our panel, Dileepa, Trish and Shane. OK, it was another landmark week for cross-party collaboration in the House. But that didn't stop the leader of one party sorely testing the Speaker's patience. Here's Finn Hogan with the week that was in Wellington. Well, it wouldn't be a week in Parliament without Speaker Trevor Mallard losing his temper at least once. Order. If Paul Goldsmith wants Nikki Kaye to have a question, he will zip his mouth. And while Simon Bridges and the Speaker have a rocky relationship at the best of times,` He's testing my patience. ...it was the National Leader's accusation of selective hearing that finally pushed Mallard too far. Does just rather seem that your left ear is rather more acute at picking these things up at that point` Right. I've had enough. The Member will leave the Chamber. But it was the third reading of the End of Life Choice Bill which brought out the best of our politicians this week. I've seen bad death. If my time comes, and I'm not doing well, then I want choice. They put partisanship to one side, and instead stood united by the importance of the vote before them. I want to acknowledge all of the parliamentarians across this House who have exercised their conscience. They did still find time for a few friendly jabs at David Seymour, however. Can I do something that I never thought I would do, and can I thank David Seymour. I've never been a fan of the ACT party at all ` ever ` and Mr Seymour knows that, but he touched our hearts a little bit. Yes, it was a rare week of cross-party consensus in the House, but as an election looms, perhaps the last we'll see for a while. And that's all from us for now. Don't forget, you can catch the programme as a podcast, but 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