Today on Newshub Nation ` MP Jami-Lee Ross on cash in politics. Is the government really transformational on poverty? Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni joins us live. And an exit interview with disappointed Green MP Gareth Hughes. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019 Kia ora, good morning. I'm Simon Shepherd, and welcome to Newshub Nation. A new playground has been opened on parliament's lawn, the first in the world, at House of Representatives. It comes as the government defends its welfare policies aimed at lifting 70,000 children out of poverty. And the government's announced a new national interest test for overseas investors. It will apply to the sale of sensitive assets like airports and infrastructure as well as media companies and water bottlers. The test will be enforced by the Overseas Investment Office. And Winston Peters is under pressure to answer questions about links between his party and the New Zealand First Foundation. Documents obtained by Stuff show the Foundation donated more than half a million dollars to the party since 2017. The Foundation enables donors to contribute anonymously instead of having to declare their donations, as they would if made directly to the party. The Electoral Commission is investigating. Well, this week's investigations into the New Zealand First Foundation acted as a reminder that the Serious Fraud Office continues to investigate allegations of electoral donation fraud against the National Party, and meanwhile, the Justice Select Committee still hasn't finished its overdue investigation into whether our electoral laws are fit for purpose. In response to the allegations against his party, Foreign Minister Winston Peters defended himself by posting this footage on Twitter on Friday. One of the amazing things about New Zealand politics is just how hypocritical some people can be. For example, Simon Bridges is attacking New Zealand First and me on the question of donations to the party. All these donations, of course, were under and in the limits defined by the electoral law. We've met all the requirements. But it's him and his party that's in front of the Serious Fraud Office, and have been for eight long months ` but you wouldn't think so, the way he's carrying on at the moment. Well, few have found themselves as tangled up in New Zealand electoral law than Botany MP Jami-Lee Ross. The former National MP reported his leader Simon Bridges to the police, alleging corruption ` allegations now under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. Well, now he sits on the Justice Select Committee that's reviewing electoral law. Jami-Lee Ross, thanks for your time this morning. Morning. Would you agree with Winston Peters there that National is being hypocritical? Well, I think what we have here is we have the NZ First Party being targeted for a foundation that they have, but the reality is this is nothing new in New Zealand politics. The NZ First Foundation, I understand, was actually modelled on the National Party Foundation. Political parties sit there and look at electoral law and go, 'How can we work our way through this? 'How can we find ways to ensure that we want to do and operate the way we want in accordance with the law?' OK. All right, just to take you back on that ` you're not alleging any illegality in this instance in these foundations, are you? No. No. I'm not alleging any illegality with the NZ First Foundation or the National Foundation,... Right. ...but we actually have a very similar set of arrangements here. NZ First has a foundation; so does National. There are complex loan agreements between the parties and the foundations that exist. Donors are directed towards the foundation in National's case and in NZ First's case as well; and the NZ First and National foundations are structures that are set up to enable political parties to do what they want with donations ` probably within the law, but what it highlights is our law should be cleaned up and we should tidy that up, and we should ensure that there's more transparency. These foundations don't provide the transparency that I think New Zealanders expect. All right. I just want to pick up on the National Party Foundation, or the National Foundation. I mean, we've spoken to the Chair and President of the National Party and the Chair of the Foundation, and they say that there is transparency for all the donors that donate to the Foundation; that they cannot escape being declared by just donating to the Foundation. Well, that's what NZ First says as well. If you go and play clips from Simon Bridges last year around the donations that we were discussing last year, he said, 'Everything's lawful; nothing to see here; move on.' NZ First and Winston Peters are saying the same thing ` 'Everything's lawful; move on.' Yeah. Our system relies on too much trust, and our system doesn't have enough checks and balances. The Electoral Commission has no real power here. OK. Well, let's talk about that in a moment. What evidence is there that these donations, or money, that goes to these foundations doesn't get declared? I think what the question we should be asking is why the parties even need these in the first place. If everything was declared and everything was part of a party, what's the very purpose of having a foundation? The foundations that exist, they have complex trust arrangements and loan agreements that are interrelated between the party. The NZ First Foundation operates almost exactly the same way as the National Foundation. Yeah. Why do parties have these, though? Right. They have these foundations there so they can find ways through the electoral law in a way that isn't as transparent as the public expects. OK, well, let's talk about that, in terms of` Parties have to have returns saying how much money they get from donations and loan returns. Now, NZ First, in the last few years, has signalled that there's been two loans the NZ First Foundation, and they've declared those on those, but there's no mention of the National Foundation, in the last three years, of National Party returns all. Well, the problem we have here is the Electoral Commission has no power to investigate these things, and I think New Zealanders expect greater transparency, and they wouldn't expect parties to have these complex trust and loan agreements existing between separate legal entities and themselves. We would be far cleaner in this country ` and it would be tidier ` if we simply made it so that only people who are able to vote can actually make donations. I'm of the view that if you can't vote in an election, you shouldn't be able to make a donation, you shouldn't be able to make a loan. Politics and democracy is about people; it's not about foundations or companies or other organisations ` should be restricted to people. OK. All right, so you think it should be restricted to voters. But the Electoral Commission's investigating what's happening with the NZ First Foundation` They can't. They can't, Simon. Well, you're saying` Why can't they? Well, because they have no power. The Electoral Commission can politely say, 'Show us your documents,' but they have no power to require that. And that's a flaw in our system too ` the only bodies that can actually do anything is police or the Serious Fraud Office. But can the Electoral Commission not refer its concerns to the police or the SFO? But they have to have a reason to refer their concerns, and if they're not provided any information, because they have no power to require it, they can't pass anything on. Our Electoral Commission are good at running elections. They're toothless when it comes to accountability for political parties. So, would you want the Electoral Commission to be beefed up with powers? Absolutely. One of the things that I've been pushing on the Justice Committee is that we should have greater powers for the Electoral Commission to require information and also to have the ability to prosecute if they deem that there's some issues here. I also think we should consider having an independent commission against corruption. It exists in Australia; even Fiji has an independent commission against corruption. These are bodies which sit there that can look at politics, look at the public sector,... Yeah. ...and decide for themselves... All right. ...whether politicians are acting appropriately. So, apart from that, as you say, you're on the Justice Select Committee that's investigating electoral law. What have you heard there that has made you so concerned about this? Because you've been tied up in these` in raising donations for the National Party when you were there, so why should we believe that you're concerned now? Well, I think the problem with politics and donations is over time, it corrupts the way politicians think about the political system. Politicians are driven to seek donations. It's a fiction when you hear political party leaders saying, 'MPs and politicians have nothing to do with money.' MPs are expected, within their political parties, to raise money, and you end up looking at organisations and people through the lens of how much money you can raise out of them. And do those donations influence policy? Absolutely. I mean, donors want to donate to parties not out of the goodness of their heart but because they want access. The biggest thing a donor gets from political donations is access to politicians, and the politicians are the ones that go and raise the donations. They say it's the party, they say it's the party president, but MPs themselves` I mean, in the National Party, when I was there,... They're the ones` Yeah. ...we were set targets. If you did not fundraise your $20,000 or $30,000, you weren't allowed to go to selection. Every MP was also expected to ensure there were donations going into the National Foundation. John Key sat in caucus one year and put a rocket up us and said, 'If you don't donate through your electorate to the National Foundation, 'then we're going to ensure that, you know, there may be repercussions ` 'you may not be a minister, or there may be other issues.' MPs are expected to donate. All right. The political parties say they don't, but they do. OK. Your role at the National Party was sort of like the bagman, wasn't it? You went around and collected` Well, that's a derogatory term, Simon, but` OK, well, how would you describe the role, then? Well, look, I was a product of the National Party, and when important politicians ` like Simon Bridges, when he was leader, and Tod McClay, when he was Trade Minister ` had big donations that they didn't want to have their hands on, they came to me and asked me to collect them. And why you? Well, I guess I was a friend of them. I also wasn't subject to the Official Information Act. So the New Zealand` Who was, then? Well, Ministers of the Crown. Todd McClay ` there was a very good story in the Herald about him meeting a donor in China, a foreign national meeting him in his capacity as Minister of Trade. Subseque` And there's nothing illegal about this story, though, is there? Correct. Correct. But? But Subsequent meetings took place in New Zealand; a donation was offered to the National Party. Todd McClay sat in my office, and I made the phone call to the donor. Todd McClay, as a minster, was subject to the Official Information Act; I was not. Right. Again, lawful. But the problem we have there is that` Not transparent? Not transparent. You can utilise company structures in our system to avoid a form of detection. So, if a company makes a donation to a political party, the ultimate owner of the company or anyone who was funding that company isn't transparent. Now, my concern in that particular case is you had a foreign national in China who trades horses with New Zealand talking to the Trade Minister about donations and then ultimately making a donation through a New Zealand company to the National Party. Where's the transparency there? OK, sure. But why did you do this at the time? Because political parties expect their MPs to raise money, and political parties need money... And so you were`? Right. ...to run election campaigns, and I guess I was effective at doing so. But having been through the wringer, having looked at it now from the outside, without that lens that you have within a political party, I say these things are wrong and we need greater transparency. And it's about democracy and about ensuring New Zealand's democracy is about people ` not companies, not donors. OK. All right, I want to ask you about the progress from the Serious Fraud Office investigation into those allegations ` made by you ` of electoral donation fraud by the National Party. What can you tell us about that Serious Fraud Office investigation? There's secrecy provisions in the Serious Fraud Office Act. I am` It would be unlawful for me to say anything that I would know about their investigation. But what I went to police about was a donation of $100,000 that was offered directly to Simon Bridges. He then contacted me and asked me to talk to the donor, to collect the money, so that he could keep his hands clean. This is` Did you split that donation up? Was it you? No. No, I didn't. No. What needed to be investigated ` and what I complained to the police about ` was the fact that $100,000 was offered, and then, by the time it ended up in National Party accounts, it came in in smaller amounts that did not need to be declared. Need to be disclosed, yeah. And to detect that ` the Electoral Commission can't do this ` to detect that, only an agency like police or the Serious Fraud Office, that has the power to look backwards through bank accounts, could do that work. Sure. We should make the point that Simon Bridges says that he hasn't done any of this. Well, that's what` It's the National Party being under investigation. I should just make that point, to be fair, OK? But here's the other thing, Simon ` all the politicians say, 'Nothing to see here; move on; everything's fine.' We don't have a body that can look properly at these things. The Electoral Commission cannot; they should have greater powers, and I say we should have an independent commission against corruption that can look at these things at will whenever they want to. OK. All right. One last question, about Botany ` you're the MP for Botany, but Christopher Luxon's standing there for National. What's your strategy going to be? My strategy is to talk to people one-on-one, locally, on their doorsteps. I've always been a politician who talks directly to people. Sure, if you look at the last election's election results, it paints a picture that's rosy for the National Party, but I believe political parties shouldn't take voters for granted. Voters are thinking people; they can make their own minds up, and a local MP that stands up for them is in their best interest. OK. I just want to know, if you lose ` because, you know, he's a strong candidate ` if you lose, what's next for you? I don't have a plan B ` I'm working as hard as I can for Botany ` but I'll certainly be speaking up as much as I can to ensure we have greater transparency in elections. Only New Zealanders should be able to donate. We shouldn't have companies or foundations doing that. Jami-Lee Ross, thank you very much for your time this morning. Thanks, Simon. All right. Last night, we received a statement from the National Party President, Peter Goodfellow, who is also Chair of the National Foundation Board. He says the National Foundation is a capital protected fund managed by a board of trustees that generates income for the National Party, and he says all donations to the National Foundation are treated the same as donations to the National Party and are disclosed in line with the Electoral Act and audited. And he also says, 'If someone was to donate $10,000 to the National Foundation 'and $10,000 to the National Party within a calendar year, 'they would be disclosed as a donor exceeding $15,000, as required by the Electoral Act,' and that a donor cannot escape donation disclosure by donating to the Foundation rather than the Party. Well, if you've got something to say about what you see on our show, please let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram ` NewshubNationNZ. Our Twitter panel this week is Bevan Chuang and Josiah Tualamali'I. They're using the hashtag #NationNZ. Or you can email us at nation@mediaworks.co.nz. But still to come ` we dissect the week's political news with our panel. But next, Carmel Sepuloni defends her record as Social Development Minister. Welcome back. When the coalition came to power, it quickly announced its landmark $5.5 billion Families Package. The target ` to raise 74,000 children out of poverty. Well, is it working or is the government moving too slowly? Social Development Minister, Carmel Sepuloni, joins me now. Thank you for your time, Minister. How many children have been lifted out of poverty as a result of this Families Package? We don't get the next report on child poverty statistics until February, Simon, and that's public information. OK, but your press release said that we're on track to lift between 50,000 and 74,000 children out of poverty. How can you say that if you don't know? When we implemented the Families Package, we were really clear about the number of New Zealanders that we wanted to benefit from each of the initiatives, and the recent monitoring report that came out shows that we were absolutely on the ball, with respect to the figures and the number of New Zealanders that would benefit. So that was part of our plan, and we feel that we're tracking. Right. You feel that you're tracking because you're dishing the money out, but you don't know as yet whether it's having any effect. February is when we get the results. Our targets, as you know, Simon, are the first lot of three-year targets, so that'll be 2021, but we get an update on how we're tracking in February. So 70,000 in 2021. Your election promise was 100,000. What happened to that? Look, as a Parliament, everyone in Parliament committed to the child poverty reduction targets, except for the ACT Party, of course. And so that was something we were very transparent about when we came in. It's the first time that we've had legislation of this nature or that any government has been aspirational enough to set targets around child poverty. So we will continue to keep our minds on that and to focus on those targets. So this Families Package monitoring report that came out this week that says that you're spending this much and this much and reaching so many. It says ` it has a disclaimer, doesn't it? It says it doesn't allow us to say what difference the package makes for payments, family incomes, child poverty, children's outcomes, people's employment... There's a lot of caveats. Yeah. It was the number of New Zealanders that have been touched by the Families Package, Simon. But we've been really clear with respect to how we address child poverty, and what we need to do with regard to New Zealanders' wellbeing. And it hasn't all been about what we do in the welfare system, although that's important, it is about ` at the same time ` addressing the housing crisis, it is about addressing other neglect with respect to mental health and a range of other things. So there are wider issues there, but I guess in particular, from your responsibility, this is quite loose. It's two years on, and we can't say anything. Oh, we can, Simon. We can say the number of New Zealanders that have benefitted by the Families Package, and we need to keep in mind that the alternative coming into government, if it hadn't of been us, would have been tax cuts with 400 million going to the top 10% of income earners in this country, which is what National had put up. I know. And I think this the better alternative` But we are talking about your promises and your policy here` More money into the pockets of low to middle-income New Zealanders, and that was our commitment, and we are absolutely tracking with respect to that. All right. Let's talk about` More money going out there, as you say, so the Ministry of Social Development has its annual reports, of which you're aware, and it has performance trackers in there. Yes. And they are showing that more people are going back on benefits after one year, and fewer people are staying in work. So why is that? Look, I think we do need to think of the retrospective impact ` when the data was gathered and then also what time period we're looking over. We have only been in for two years, Simon, and so it's not going to be immediate with respect to all of the changes we'd been able to make, but I will say the 263 frontline work-focussed case managers that we put into place at this year's budget, were a response to the fact that there'd been a decline in frontline work-focused support at MSD. That's what we've been asked to do. We know it's the right thing to do, and we put that investment there. Okay. You just talked about those 263 frontline workers. That was one of the three recommendations from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group that you adopted, isn't it? No, there's more going on than that, Simon. I think that we're overly simplistic when we look at the recommendations that came out. They made recommendations around improving the experience of people that come to MSD for support, and we've been undergoing a culture change programme since the beginning, since I became minister, since we took office. We're seeing the results from that now, with respect to positive feedback from clients. You're talking about your Heartbeat survey? I'm talking about the Heartbeat survey, I'm talking about the feedback that I'm getting in general. And I take very seriously ` we take very seriously ` the need to make sure that everyone who needs support from our MSD system is treated with dignity, fairness, respect, whether they be a superannuitant, unemployed person, sole parent ` every New Zealander. So that's the culture on the frontline. Do you think that the benefits that they are getting from this government are enabling them to live with dignity? Look, I think the starting point is how you address people's hardship when they walk through that door and how you treat them. If we can do those two things right, and we can also put into place the work, upskilling and training support, which we have, then we would've achieved much more than what had been done before. And so those are the things that we're focussed on. But once you've gone past that process, do they have enough to live with dignity in their daily lives at the moment? Many of the initiatives that we've put into place through the Families Package and through this year's budget have actually resulted in more money in people's pockets. And so, it's not that nothing has been done here, Simon. But is it enough? Is it enough? That's the question, isn't it? Will it ever be enough? That's the question. So the Welfare Expert Advisory Group said, 'Let's boost benefits by between 12 and 47%'. Now, I know that's very expensive, but benefits have been lagging behind average wages for years. That's one of the things they recommended, absolutely, and a range of other things to address income adequacy as well, and as you know, we have done some of those things. We never said everything was going to be able to be done in one year or even one term. There are decades of neglect here, and we are in the process of going through that transformational change. Let's look at two things here. So, benefits have been just going up by CPI; they haven't been indexed to wages, and wages have been going up like this. But superannuation has been tracking wages, so we've been looking after the elderly more than the youth. Is that a real investment? Well, Simon, that's why, at the 2019 budget, we did actually fix benefits to wages, and so this is the first time that they've ever been indexed` Yeah, sure. But that's an incremental` that's only, like, a 2% or 3% increase... Over time. That's actually significant. And wages have gone up faster than CPI, and so it's one of those enduring changes that I've spoken about publicly before. Any changes that we make, if we want to be transformational, have to be enduring, have to be things that last, and that is one of those enduring changes, I do believe. You talked about 'phase two' in previous interviews. Phase two is next year's budget ` I mean, when is phase two coming? Because there seems to be a lot of impatience in the sector. Every budget should deliver, here on in, on what the Welfare Expert Advisory Group have recommended. So what is coming next budget? You know as well as I do, Simon, that I can't pre-empt what may come of next year's budget. But our minds are turned to making sure that we respond to the WEAG recommendations and that the WEAG recommendations, keeping in mind, are part of our overhaul. The overhaul started when we got in, and we started to address culture change at MSD. You've got $7.5 billion as a surplus there. Look, Simon, there's a budget process that we have to go through, and you know what we can speak to and what we can't. And so we're in the midst of that now. Have you put your hand up for a fair share of that money? I'm not going to say what I have asked for or what I haven't, Simon. But, absolutely, our minds are turned to how we can respond to the needs of New Zealanders that are going through the welfare system, low- to middle-income New Zealanders. The Child Poverty Action Group has said it wants emergency packages; you say you can't do that in the short term. But they've also asked for some quick fixes, and I just wanted to run these past you. One is continue paying the Winter Energy Payment ` that you introduced but stops after winter. But why not just continue paying that, and that would be a quick fix? You know, the Child Poverty Action Group, I respect the work they do. Their advocacy for children is excellent. Doing something like that outside of a budget process without any regard for the legislative changes that might need to happen, despite whatever else is going on in the House, is a little bit unreasonable. New Zealanders expect us to follow a process as well and be transparent about what our budget is going to look like. Okay. So, let's quickly go through these others. I think you're going to give me the same answer. But they want you to give families the out-of-work extra $72 that families in work receive, and that would cost, like, half a billion dollars. Once again, is that something that you would consider? I can't commit to something right now on that, Simon. No, I know, but is that something that you would be considering? Look, we are considering the recommendations in the Expert Advisory Group's report on welfare that we received. One of the things that you are going to do next year is increase the amount of money that someone on the benefit can earn before they get docked some of their benefit, going up to $100. They're saying that's only, like, five hours' work. Let's increase it to 10 hours' work to make that meaningful. Is there any chance you would increase that threshold, the work threshold? I mean, I think that we're shifting at all, given that it hasn't been done for such a long time, is a really good step. With any initiative that we undertake in this space, is there more that can be done? Absolutely, and those are considerations moving forward. But we've just made that step, and so that first shift is going to come into place next year. So to try and pre-empt another change already might be a little bit premature. All right. Just finally ` in 2016, the United Nations reported on our child welfare, and they basically slammed it. You're going to report back in two years' time. What do you think they're going to say about us? Well, we would absolutely hope, as a government ` and, I'm sure, as a country ` that we'd see improvement in that space, and that is absolutely why our prime minister has led the charge with respect to setting child poverty reduction targets. And apart from ACT, all political parties have got behind those targets. It has to be a priority for us as a country. Certainly for us as a government, it is a priority. And so we would like to see improvement, and we absolutely hope to see improvement. And so the first report card will be early next year? In February, yes. Okay. Carmel Sepuloni, thank you very much for your time this morning. Thank you. Thank you, Simon. Up next ` National MP Nicola Willis on being John Key's protegee. Plus ` outgoing Green MP Gareth Hughes reflects on 10 years in politics. Welcome back to Backstory. As a child, she was a gymnast, a surfer and a debater. But now Nicola Willis is an MP and political protege, mentored by former prime ministers Bill English and John Key. Newshub Nation visited her family home in Wellington to hear her backstory. This is where it all happens. This is my husband, Duncan, and he is chief lunchbox-maker in this household. And we have four children. We have our oldest, who's 9, and then we've got Harriet, who's 8, Reuben, who's 6, who I think has disappeared downstairs right now, and Gloria, who is 4. I really do want to get a family dog, Mum. I think, actually, Harriet, when you get to the point where you can tidy your room every morning without me asking, we can get a dog. (DING!) OK, that's gonna be... (MUSIC PLAYS ON PHONE) ...unhelpful, James. (LAUGHS) We were pretty young when we got married. I was just in my late 20s. That's us in the car... Oh, yeah. ...coming out of the church. Very happy. And, you know, we loved our wedding so much, cos we had all of our friends and family with us. You all right, you two? This is warm blankie, and this is (INDISTINCT). Shall we get your bag? Do you need to go to the loo before we go? Where's my bag?! Hey, that's my side! Kiss goodbye. (KISSES) Kiss goodbye, Reuben? (CHUCKLES) So, that's the madhouse. Sometimes it's more chaotic, because there's someone who's refusing to get dressed or someone who's particularly had a fight with their younger brother or sister that morning or someone who won't brush their teeth. So the aim is not to ever raise our voices. That's the aim. There were a couple of weeks there where we had three children under 3, and that was very full-on, very intense. I always had the sense that I wasn't meeting anyone's needs completely, and I had to give up on some of my perfectionism. I had these rules for myself. I was gonna exclusively breastfeed until every baby was 6 months old, cos that was what was best for them. And eventually, with number three, you know, Reuben had a few bottles along the way, and he doesn't appear to have been mortally harmed. So, the joys of living in Wellington ` when we came out to say goodbye to the kids this morning, it appears the door has blown shut, and, uh, I didn't actually have a spare key with me. But, um, this is something I prepared for earlier by having a window that I can climb through. So she'll be right. Welcome! (CHUCKLES) See, this is the miracle of Duncan. He's managed to get just about every dish in the dishwasher already, and I just don't know how he actually did that with everything that was happening this morning. Managed to get my first ever job working as a researcher in the research unit of the then-opposition leader's office with Bill English. To be honest, when I first was assigned Bill as my MP, I thought, 'Uh-oh. This is a bit of a disaster. I've hitched my wagon to yesterday's man.' But, of course, he turned out to be someone whose character was so strong. And then I was very lucky, because when John Key became the leader of the National Party in 2007, he hired me as his senior adviser, a young woman in her 20s, which was incredible. You know, they were kind. They were generous. They were good. They wanted to listen to advice. And, um, they really wanted to give people opportunities, so both of them placed an enormous amount of trust in me, and I found that really empowering. Kept on saying, 'You can do this. You can do this.' And I wasn't so sure about that, but I made the decision to go out into the world and get a job with Fonterra. This is a sign of our naivete before children. I bought white sofas about six months before James was born, which was the stupidest thing I've ever done. For me, if I'm to look back on my time in Parliament, I wanna be able to say, 'Are families finding it easier to raise kids in New Zealand now 'than they were when I started?' And that's the measure I always have in my head. What does this mean for a real family juggling it all, trying to make it work? Will this actually make a difference to them? Hi, Mum. Thank you. OK. Let's have a quick look. So, this dress Harriet still wears. She wore it last night. That's after school, in matching tracksuits ` '80s style. Me, my sister and my brother. Christmas at Riversdale. Doing a bit of surfing. There's evidence that I can surf. Proof! (CHUCKLES) So, believe it or not, I was actually a super keen gymnast as a child, and on the school camp, I decided to show off my gymnastic skills by attempting a double backflip on the trampoline that was there. It was an old-school trampoline; there were not safety pads. And, um, I managed to get one and a half times round and just didn't quite complete it. So I slammed my head into the springs and managed to rip my tear duct out. So, uh, had to have some surgery on that one, and that accident put me off gymnastics for a long time. The one thing that I often say about family is that families come in all shapes and sizes. What matters isn't the shape or size of the family; what matters is the love and the connections between people. And I'm really lucky that I've had a really loving family. I wanna be really loving to my kids and for them to always know that they're my priority, and for them to know that I'm in politics, actually, because I want New Zealand to be better for them and for other kids so that they can have the sorts of opportunities that my family has had. Nicola Willis there. OK, I'm joined now by our panel ` Innes Asher, professor of paediatrics at Auckland University; Jason Walls, political reporter for the Herald; and former National Party president and PR expert Michelle Boag. Thank you very much for your time this morning, to the panel. Michelle, first to you. Jami-Lee Ross there describing a culture within the National Party that MPs are expected to reach donation targets, or there would be consequences. What do you say about that? Well, that's absolutely right. When you go to selection, you need to have a strong organisation. It's not about donation targets; it's about resourcing the electorate and making sure they've got enough money to fight the campaign. So he's actually talking about something completely different. Jami-Lee needs to do his homework. If he looks at the last returns for the last election period, he will find the National Party have disclosed 59 names of donors who've given more than $15,000. The Labour Party have disclosed 28 names. New Zealand First has disclosed none. Mm. Donations more than $15,000. But also, in that particular return that you're talking about` No, New Zealand First has not disclosed any names for any donations. But the point I wanna make there is that $3.5 million of National Party fundraising was done under $15,000 limits. Well, that's absolutely right, and let me tell you why. It's totally legal, but is it right, though? No, no, listen. What you're forgetting is that there are 25,000 members of the National Party who pay a membership every year. It's not hard to get to $3500 of donations when you get 25,000 members. Can I ask you, as a former National Party president ` can you explain the role that the National Foundation plays? As I understand it, the National Foundation is a capital foundation` What does that mean, for people to understand? Well, I'll give you an example. The National Party owns a building, OK? It has owned a building for many years. It's changed that building. A few years ago, it built one` sorry, it bought an historical building. That foundation raised the money for that, but everyone who donated is on those forms. Everyone who donated an amount over the disclosable limit is on those forms. So does the National Foundation` is it used to raise money which is then passed on to the party? Not as a foundation. It's used to raise money, but every donation made to it fits within the legal limits in terms of disclosure. So if I donated $20,000 to the National Foundation, I would be disclosed as a donor, just as all those other 59 people were. All right. More generally, Jason, this whole question about foundations ` why do we need them? I mean, it seems like it makes it murky. I'm not asking you as a political reporter why we need them, but it seems a murky kind of way of` and less transparency of getting party money. Well, in politics, perception is everything, and people will often see the events that have happened in the news this week, and they'll hark back to 2008, where we were looking at a very similar thing in regards to Mr Peters and Owen Glenn and some of the donations made there as well. And people might be sitting at home thinking... For them, the distinction between what's in the cabinet manual, what's above board in terms of the donation limits, it kind of comes secondary to the way that politicians conduct themselves when they've been talking about this. For example, I've been following this story very closely this week. Winston Peters says, 'This isn't a question for me; this is a question for the political party.' I spent the better part of three or four hours yesterday on the blower trying to get anybody from the New Zealand First Party to talk to me, and I couldn't until I got the husband of the now-president at her bed & breakfast, who said, 'She told me not to comment to anybody.' Yeah. So there is a perception here that something is a little bit off, and that's the thing that New Zealand First will be fighting. OK. Professor Asher, as somebody who sits out of this political arena, what does it say to you? I think that New Zealanders expect fairness and transparency in the electoral processes and in terms of our political parties. So that's all the comment I'd like to make. OK. All right. Jacinda Ardern ` will she be able to keep her distance from this one, Michelle Boag? I think she'll try. I think she'll try. But the fact is it's absolutely ironic... Back in the mid-'90s, Winston Peters introduced a bill where he tried to make any donation over $500 disclosable,... Right. (CHUCKLES) OK. ...who was the person who has been not disclosing donations. And if you look at their electoral return ` you obviously have ` there is nothing there to indicate where any of that money came from for any of the years that we're looking at. All right. I'm gonna move on to welfare there. Carmel Sepuloni is defending the Families Package that (CLEARS THROAT) has spent so much money. Professor Asher, what's your analysis of the government's record so far? I think the Families Package is a really good thing. It's great to see something being done in this space, and the government has done something significant. It will deliver $75 on average per family by 2021, but what it doesn't... what we need is the next step, because the depth of poverty is far greater than needing $75 a week. So one sixth of our children are in deep poverty, and these are children mainly supported by the income support benefits, and families supported by income support benefits need another $100 to $300 per week in their pockets for the basics. And I'd ask people in the studio and your audience ` how would you be if you were short of $100 to $300 per week? Because the benefits have been kept at such a terribly low level, and relatively falling, since 1991. So, one of the things the government is doing is indexing benefits now to wages, in a way, to make sure that they grow at the same level of wages. And they pointed to this as a big step. Is it not a big step? It's a very important structural step. What this will do on its own is to stop benefits falling even further behind. What we need is the lift in benefits and then carry on. Lift them up to near where Super is, and then carry on the indexing. We like the indexing very much. I heard you questioning the minister, and I think it is the right questions to be asking, because if you're short of $100 to $300 a week, none of the measures are reaching those families, and we're seeing a high degree of distress. Now, there's other measures too in the income space. Lifewise came up with a really good slogan ` 'stuck in the '80s' ` (LAUGHS) ...which` Yeah. In 1986, the threshold before which your benefit gets clawed back, the threshold for earning was $80 in 1986. So it hasn't been changed yet! That was the other question we raised with the minister, yeah. So... And the government have done a tiny bit in this space. They're raising it by $3.50 this year and $17.50 by 2021. But the Welfare Expert Advisory Group said it had to go up to $150 now, and CPAG actually says $177. So those are the things that you want the government to work on? The principle is good; the amount is woefully inadequate. There's a political thing here. This government, or this Labour Party, campaigned on child poverty ` heavily. And yet, we haven't got any statistics to back that up as yet, Jason. Is that a problem for them? Well, they've always said that it's coming a little bit later, and they've pointed to these statistics to say how many. So if they're coming out and saying, 'We've lifted this many children out of poverty so far,' and citing a statistic that's going to happen, then that's a little bit problematic, But we can't really jump on them just as yet for not having those figures. I would make a point ` just on your point there, if you'll allow me to nerd out for a second on fiscal policy ` (LAUGHS) ...is that this is a really good time for the government, because` in terms of making additional welfare reforms, because they've got a $7.5 billion surplus. That's right. They are billions of dollars below their spending limit. They can borrow a bunch more money without any of the lending agencies saying anything, and they're a left-wing Labour government. And the Reserve Bank is calling out for them to spend as much capital as possible. So next year, come election, Michelle Boag, they'll be able to spend up big on this, and so that's a great election year position to be in, isn't it? Well, they're very lucky they inherited such a strong economy. (CHUCKLES) And as for this 'nine years of neglect', Bill English was the only finance minister who's ever given a one-off increase in welfare payments. I totally agree, Michelle, and that was great, and it was just a tiny bit, and that was really good. But it was a principle, I agree. We need to make it much bigger now. The purpose... The real tragedy is... that the social investment approach that Bill English put in process has been rejected by this government in favour of universal measures which are not working. Two years in, child poverty is worse. Innes Asher, do you prefer a target or universal? Well, we need to reach the people who have needs, and most of the people in the welfare system ` and there's 180,000 children and about 300,000 adults in receipt ` most of them have a disability or a health condition. And there needs to be a lot more` And most people who want to work in this country do. Our track record is clear on that. Low unemployment rates, yeah. Yeah. And so we need to give the people who are falling on hard times through earthquakes, floods, closure of industry, a child gets cancer, an adult gets multiple sclerosis ` those people who are in need need to have enough to live on, and the government's got a platform with adequacy of income. We want to see this delivered to people who need support from our country. All right. Thank you very much to the panel ` Professor Innes Asher, Jason Walls and Michelle Boag. Thanks for your time this morning. Up next ` Green MP Gareth Hughes on turning his back on Parliament. Plus ` The Pitch. Louise Upston explains why she'd make a better social development minister than Carmel Sepuloni. Welcome back. He was once a contender for the leadership and is the longest-serving Green MP, but this week Gareth Hughes announced his retirement from politics. Finn Hogan went to Wellington to ask why ` with the Greens finally in government ` he's chosen now to call it quits. I've always thought 10 years felt about right, particularly with my kids getting older. It has been more difficult, as they've got older, in Parliament. Early on, when they were babies and toddlers, it was easy, right? They didn't notice I wasn't there. Just this week, I missed my daughter's birthday. I've missed so many key life events, and I genuinely believe ` and this is the advice I've heard from lots of people ` you're never going to regret spending time with your kids. What was your hardest day on the job? Well, it was probably during the last election campaign. There was this horror patch where we had all these emergency conference calls where something worse was being announced. I'd crashed my car dropping my kids off at school. I'd door-knocked in the afternoon in the rain by myself, and not a single person said they were going to vote for us. I really thought we were an endangered species about to go extinct. That was a horror patch. But the way the party came together, the way we as a caucus came together, you know, that was also... it's a cliche, but it's the lowest of days and the best of days. But it was incredible how we managed to get through. What's your greatest personal disappointment from your time in politics? I guess it's that sense of frustration that we aren't seeing the fundamental change we need for our society to address the great emergencies we face. We're facing a natural species extinction level that's unprecedented in modern history. We're seeing a climate emergency. The government hasn't been as transformational as, say` Historians are going to look back on the '30s or the '80s as these fundamental tipping points in New Zealand history. There have been pockets of transformation; the Zero Carbon Act I'd put in that category. It's setting us up for a big change in our future. Overall, though, I don't think historians are going to look back and say this was like the fourth Labour government. What specific area do you think has not been moved on fast enough? Well, I think there's a whole host. I think tax and welfare are two really big areas which we haven't seen the progress or the big change we need to see. For a lot of my career, what I've seen is a lot of debates around what make, model and colour should the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff be, rather than stopping that problem in the first place. What specific area do you think was the biggest backdown? Capital gains tax? I wouldn't call it a backdown; it was politics, right? And, you know, this happens. And this is, I think, the Green Party's job in Parliament and in government is to keep pushing the boundaries of ideas. Did it sting not being offered a ministerial portfolio despite being the longest-serving Green MP? Yeah, a little bit, I guess. I'm not one for regrets and what-ifs in history. I mean, I would've loved to have served as a minister, and I think I would've done a good job. You once threw your hat in the ring for leader. How different would the Green Party have been with you as the leader? I do come from an activist background. I spent 10 years banging on the outside door of Parliament with Greenpeace before banging on the inside door. So, you know, it would've been different, but it's been a huge privilege to work with James, to work closely with him. I've been on our senior leadership team, and I'm really proud of the work we've done together. When you look at the current political climate in New Zealand, what concerns you the most? That we aren't discussing the big issues of transformational change. So, I'm 38. I've known nothing but that revolution which happened in the 1980s and early 1990s. You know, even though my family wasn't paying attention to politics, growing up in Gisborne, politics was happening to me, my family, my community, and we've seen the impacts. According to Yale, the highest rate of homelessness in the world. According to the Economist, the most unaffordable housing in the world. Fifth-highest per person emissions in the developed world. You know, we've really got to turn some of these key metrics around. So we're thinking too small, still? We are thinking too small, and I want to be known as the country that did change, that did turn around pollution, that did clean up its rivers, that did house every single person, that built a fairer society. And when you look around the world, with Trump, and Bolsonaro in Brazil, the growth of authoritarianism, we need to set a good example of how things can be different. What's your message to your colleagues, of all political stripes, as you leave? Our ambitions have to match the scale of the emergency. We can't keep keeping our head in the sand. We can't keep consuming the scale that we are. We can't keep burning coal. We have to stop all new fossil fuel expansions. We need to see more clean energy ` not just on a few households. We need to see it on Parliament, on hospitals, on schools, on universities. But this is tremendously exciting too, because if we do tackle climate change, I genuinely believe we're going to see a fairer society. We're going to see nicer towns and cities. So actually, we should be doing it and doing it faster. Gareth Hughes there. After the break ` National MP Louise Upston on why she'd make the best Social Development Minister. National's social development spokesperson, Louise Upston, says her party's new policy document outlines a firm but fair approach to welfare. Finn Hogan started by asking whether any of the policies are new or just National's greatest hits. So what's not new is social investment. Actually, social investment is about changing lives. So we want to take that to the next level. If you think about` But, respectfully, the question is, 'What is new?' Uh, well, actually, why would you change everything when something was working. So social investment is about getting in early, it's about focusing on results... So nothing new in this document? It's all what you've done before? It's about using evidence to get the best outcome for New Zealanders. So, yep, some of it is following on with what we've done before and some of it is new. So if you look at the first 1000 days, for example, that's a big focus in the document. One of the` It might seem small, but actually, a three-day postnatal stay for a mum and baby to make sure they get the best possible start in life isn't something that this government's doing. On young people, though, you're also discussing limiting how long a young person can be on the benefit. Why? For a young person who goes on to the benefit under the age of 20, they are more likely to spend 14 years of their life on benefit. That is not a life of opportunity. And we want to change that for those young people. You're also discussing managing their money directly. Why? Yep, so part of it is, again, making sure that young people don't get into debt. If you can avoid some of the problems that young people face, then, actually, we've given them a better chance and a better future. But that's not teaching them responsibility, is it? Yep, some of the feedback I've had already is to say, 'What about a sliding scale?' Why don't you say, right, strict money management for the first six months, then the next six months, can you dial it back and give them more responsibility? If they have participated in a budgeting course, if they have demonstrated that they're able to do these sorts of things. Rather than just, kind of, leaving them in the deep end. You're also suggesting bringing back the sanction on so-called 'deadbeat dads'. Why? First of all, the sanction is about an obligation that a sole parent has. And this is about, as most people would expect, when people are being supported by the tax-payer, that there are responsibilities and obligations that they fulfil. But your own minister was advised to drop it in 2017. Why bring it back? That's not accurate. So there was a review of the sanctions` But advice received by the Ministry was that there was no evidence that it was working. But there's also no evidence it wasn't working. So what we're doing instead ` what the government has done ` in removing that sanction, is basically removing the obligation of dads to financially pay for their` But just to be clear, there's no evidence that it works. That's correct? There's no evidence it doesn't work. Right. So the problem is, by removing that sanction, we are expecting, and the financial projections from Treasury and from MSD are expecting there will be less dads who are financially responsible for their children. Should people with disabilities still receive the minimum wage? Basically, you've got two options; do you have a minimum wage exemption or do you support those organisations or employers that are employing people with disabilities. So, just to be clear, in some circumstances, you think a person with disabilities shouldn't get the minimum wage? So I've got a couple of organisations in my electorate that employ people with intellectual disabilities, and I know the huge benefit for those people ` young and old ` being in work, and turning up to a job, and nobody who's in that workplace would argue that they produce the same amount in 40 hours as someone else does. But that's through no fault of their own, right? Put it round the other way ` You're an employer. You have the opportunity to employ two people. One has an intellectual disability and might be capable of producing in 40 hours what someone else does in 10. I do not want to have a situation where that person with an intellectual disability isn't able to get a job and work and be fulfilled in a workplace because of a policy setting. How much does a 25-year-old single person without kids get on a jobseeker benefit a week, after tax? About 220. Yeah, so it's $219. Is that enough? Uh. It's not easy. It's not easy. The reality is, though, we want to make sure there is support available to them, to get into a job. Are you comfortable with that person on that benefit, though, being beneath the poverty line? Uh, well, they are provided support that they need. But that's not enough to have a life, is it? Oh, I'm not saying it is easy for anyone on a benefit. I've been there myself, as a sole parent who was reliant on the DBP. It is really tough. But actually, it's also tough in the transition, and getting back into work and providing, basically, being in control of my own life and making decisions about my life and my family, is actually what you want for more New Zealanders. Louise Upston there. Right, it's time for more with our panel, Innes Asher, Jason Walls and Michelle Boag. Thanks for your time, guys. The Prime Minister was in the international spotlight this week on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert. Jason, what did you think? Was it worth the $100,000? Oh, in publicity, I think probably. There was a very interesting trend you saw on Google about Americans typing in 'Jacinda Ardern' on Google afterwards, and inevitably, it spiked, so there's a lot more eyeballs on New Zealand. And plus, I mean, $100,000 isn't, in the government context, a whole bunch of money ` No. especially when the expected return in terms of tourism revenue was predicted to be in the millions, and so that's really, really good news. And plus, you know, it's kind of funny, and it's kind of nice to see. Provides a bit of light and shade from the rest of politics. Michelle, I mean, John Key's done this kind of thing, Jacinda Ardern's done it ` is it worth the PR? I think it's worth it from a New Zealand perspective if we are getting people talking about New Zealand, because when you travel to the United States, they're not particularly well-informed about New Zealand. (LAUGHS) No. You know, the Prime Minister does this light and fluffy stuff very well. There's a constituency that says she should be doing other things, but I think, in the context of what it does for the country to be broadcast on big American networks, it's probably justified. Innes, do you like to see the Prime Minister out there doing that kind of thing? I know. OK. As long as she` It balances out all the very heavy work she does constantly. LAUGHS: Yeah, OK. All right. Let's talk about Ihumatao. So, there are reports this week that the government's considering loaning Auckland Council the money to buy the land. Michelle, do you think that's a good solution? Oh, look, I think this has been coming for some time, and I think it's being very carefully sandwiched between the local body election ` so that Phil Goff didn't cop any flack for spending ratepayers' money ` And? and next year, which is national election. Right. So my prediction is ` sorted by Christmas. Sorted by Christmas? Jason Walls, do you think that the government wants to sort this by Christmas, ahead of, like, Ratana and Waitangi, that kind of thing? I think they very much want to get it out of the headlines. Yeah. It's not been a very good look for the government at all, and any way that they can do that and, basically, come to some sort of solution is going to be welcomed by everybody in Cabinet. The question is how do you come to a solution? And I'd love to sit here and, kind of, thrash it out, but I just don't think that I have the solution. I think there's people a lot more smarter` (LAUGHS) ...a lot smarter than I am, probably, will be thrashing it out. But they have a particular issue there, where, you know, the Kingitanga, and, obviously, the SOUL group, want a 'by Maori, for Maori' solution. And at the moment, it's not looking like anybody can do that, because they've got to pay out Fletchers. What do you make of this? I don't think that the solution of the Auckland Council owning it seems to be the correct solution,... Right. ...because the land originally belonged to the early settlers of Auckland; it was taken off them ` confiscated; it was then sold to private ownership; and then it went back to the Auckland Council, who then sold it to private owner` well, to Fletchers again. So for it to go back again to the Auckland Council seems to be not the solution that's going to satisfy New Zealanders, because we've got a... The mana whenua, the people of the land, are still excluded from this solution, so I think there's a real problem with this approach. Right. So you would like to see mana whenua incorporated in the solution... Absolutely. Yes. ...rather than going to the Council? OK. Well, there's lots to go on there, but Michelle Boag's prediction ` done by Christmas ` we'll see what happens. Well, if` That's what they want. That's what they want. Whether they'll get it or not... But that's what they want. It's a particularly tricky situation, though,... Yes. ...because, you know, as we were saying, mana whenua want it sorted for them, not for Auckland Council, but can the government do that by, you know, overriding private property interests? Look, they're gonna offend someone, all right? (LAUGHS) Yeah. They're gonna make themselves unpopular. So, who are they gonna offend? That's the question, isn't it? Well, that's the question, yeah. Who is it worth offending and who is it worth trying to keep quiet? OK. And one last issue to quickly tick off. This week, they introduced the National Interest Test in the Overseas Investment Office. Is this just a ploy to protect, you know, the political issue of water bottlers and selling off the water to international companies cheaply? Jason, what do you think? Well, there was a number of things that was outlined in the National Interest Test as well. It's` The water bottling was one aspect of it, but it's also a range of other things, and I'll note that media companies were in there, for example, so you've got to` I'm kind of wondering what the government's seeing behind the scenes, where they feel like they have to have these certain clauses in, specifically laid out on... in this big press conferences and in these policies. But in terms of a national interest test, I mean, this is nothing new, essentially. Right. We see this in other countries, and in a lot of ways, it can be seen as the government playing a little bit of catch-up on other countries that have done it. And I think it's something that's not really gonna ruffle too many feathers of voters. Right. It might ruffle the feathers of people that would've come in here and wanted to buy things out, that they're not` Yeah, but they're not voting next year, are they? Exactly. No, but they are investing in New Zealand, and that's the big issue, right? Yeah. So, that could deter foreign investors. I think it should be called the Political Management Strategy to Avoid Controversial Foreign Takeovers. (CHUCKLES) That's what it should be called. LAUGHS: OK. Because just giving themselves total discretion is exactly what that is. They've given them` It's a really hard headline to put on to a press release. It is. It's also a hot acronym. OK. All right. (LAUGHS) We've run out of time. I'd just like to say thank you to the panel. Innes, Jason and Michelle, thanks very much for your time. Thank you. And that is all from us for now. Thank you for watching, and we will see you again next weekend. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019 This programme was made with the assistance of the NZ On Air Platinum Fund.