Today on Newshub Nation ` Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern from the labour Party Conference. Our three year investigation into why allegations of child torture in New Zealand have never come before the courts. And Backstory, at home with Children's Minister Tracy Martin and her husband, Ben. Kia ora, good morning. I'm Simon Shepherd and welcome to Newshub Nation. The National Party has proposed banning gang insignia in public and establishing a police unit to target gang members. Opponents have criticised the plan as not being evidence-based. The man at the centre of the Young Labour camp scandal has been discharged without conviction. He pleaded guilty last year to assaulting two teenage boys. And the government and Air New Zealand have apologised to the families of those killed in the Erebus disaster. It comes 40 years after the crash that killed all 257 people on board. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said the way previous governments and Air New Zealand handled the incident was wrong. Well, the Labour Party's annual conference opened in Whanganui last night, a chance for party members to reflect on 2019 and plan for election 2020. (WOMAN CHANTS KARANGA) It's been one year since I asked all of you to hold all of us and myself to account. The biggest Maori movement of this time. People have been describing this as the revolution. And so it's really disappointing that she's not here. Newsroom Aired this video showing a newborn baby being taken from its mother at a Hawke's Bay Hospital. We need a system that prevents the state becoming the parent. We are trying to turn that ship around. In Christchurch, scenes of horror. I can tell you one thing right now ` our gun laws will change. So last May, we joined the Christchurch call to action. I'm here today with 51 lives lost in New Zealand, a very, very, heavy loss. The coalition government has ruled out implementing a capital gains tax. We as a government are building more houses. Phil Twyford losing his job as Housing Minister. That's an admission that we know we have got things wrong with Kiwibuild. CROWD CHANTS: Let's do this! It was Jacinda Ardern's first election promise. The Auckland light rail project is fast becoming Kiwibuild 2.0. What do we want? CROWD CHANTS: Climate justice! When do we want it? CROWD CHANTS: Now! Parliament has just passed landmark climate legislation. We did our best for you. I hope the next generation will see that we, in New Zealand, were on the right side of history. So, how is this year of delivery going for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern? Political Editor Tova O'Brien sat down with her this morning. Last night, in your opening remarks, you acknowledged the Labour bullying and sexual assault allegations saying the party isn't perfect; it needs to be a safer place for people to come forward, people before politics. Are you there yet? Sorry, are we there yet? No, no. I can't hand on heart say that yet. But what I do know is that everyone is committed to that. Even here at the conference there's space for people to be a part of some of the training we've been running through our organization. And I think the Labour Party, like many places, is doing all it can to make sure not only do we give the skills to our volunteers in our organization, but that we have the processes in place if something does go wrong, that we deal with it appropriately. So we're not there yet, but we are working on it. A lot of those assurances that you've given around the culture of the party were given after the Labour summer camp allegations. So why should anyone believe that it's going to be difficult this time? Yeah, and in that case, you know, clearly there was a deficiency in some of the process we had for when people wanted to make allegations or when issues had arisen, and what we need to learn from is even though the party had instituted that process, clearly it failed individuals involved. Part of what we've been looking at as part of the more recent sexual assault claims is what happened exactly with that process. We've had someone independently do that work so people can have faith that it's not just us looking at ourselves, we're using experts in the field to help us in that process too. And this morning Poto Williams, one of your MPs, was having a closed session about making the party a safer environment for volunteers. What will the message be to members? Well, ultimately, I think we're acknowledging that we are an organization of volunteers. So that means it's not just about people who are employed by the Labour Party, of which there are a very small number; actually, we run local organizations. And I've sensed a real call from them to say, 'Actually, we'd like to be upskilled too.' So we're providing that training, that support here. And the message simply will be that we're here to support everybody in the organization, that we know that we can and should be better, and I think we're all supporting one another to be in the place that we know we should be. The party's also been forced to elect a new president, a QC report into the bullying, and sexual assault allegations has been delayed. A victim of the Labour Summer Camp allegations said on Twitter the other day how devastated he is. How much of a personal toll has this taken on your reputation? Yeah, I mean, in each of the scenarios that you've just played out though, obviously, those who were involved in summer school issues there ` ultimately, the court has made decisions that we just obviously don't have any control over that process. What we do have control over is the support that we provide them in the aftermath. And I'll be looking to make sure that we` Clearly not feeling supported. Well, obviously I can't do anything about a decision that was made by a court. And I think that there's an understanding of that. But we can as an organization support those individuals, and that is what we need to keep doing. When it comes to the Maria Dew work, ultimately, my understanding is those involved are finding it a good process. I want to make sure that they have the space to complete it properly. So, we're not going to impose timelines on Maria Dew, the QC. It's for her to do the work and for her to conclude it in the time that she thinks appropriate. Look, as an organization, there's no doubt this of course has had an impact. But you would expect it to. Has it on you personally? Oh, look, ultimately it's not about me. But I am human. But ultimately, my job is to make sure that I take all of us, the party, through this learning process. And it shouldn't be about me; it should be about those who have been involved in this. You declared 2019 your year of delivery. What's one area you feel you failed to deliver in? I actually don't ever see, when you're coming to a massive work programme like the one that we've taken on, anything as being simply deemed success or failure. There'll be things where I would have liked to have moved faster, I've been very open about that. Or happen at all, like the capital gains tax? Ultimately, we're an MMP government. So there are some things that will never be assured. But I've been clear on where there have been some things that haven't happened at the pace that I want, but ultimately within that, there's still been success. Take for example the thousands of state houses that we are churning out. Yeah, but also take for example Kiwibuild. Do you chalk that up as a failure? Because only seven houses built last month. Again, as I have said continuously on the housing crisis, we are the ones who stopped the sale of state houses, who are building more houses than any government since the 1970s, who have expanded Housing First, who have banned letting fees, improved rental standards, and continue on with Kiwibuild. But in addition to that, acknowledged where there have been gaps in that policy and we have filled it. I think people want their governments to learn. And we are learning as we go, because some of the things that we've done no one has ever done before. You still fell well short of the promise. You won't even build 300 houses by the end of the year, it was supposed to be more than 1000. We are not stopping our Kiwibuild programme. And nor did we ever accept that when we found it wasn't meeting our expectations, that there wasn't more we could do to fix that. As a result we've bought in progressive home ownership, we've made it easier for people to access government grants relative to deposits required, we are making sure that when we see things that aren't moving as quickly as we'd like, that we're changing some of those processes. We should be able to learn from the new programmes that we bring in and do better. And I think people can see we are taking the housing crisis seriously. In the wake of the Christchurch terror attacks, you changed gun laws, you raised the spectre of social media regulation and also hate speech reform. Do you feel like you brought the country with you? Or do you think we're more divided now? Actually, I still hear universal themes when it comes to the aftermath of March 15. I do think that there is more awareness in our nation around issues of discrimination, and issues that particularly members of our ethnic communities face. I think there's greater awareness of that, but there needed to be. But I still absolutely believe that when it comes to the response of New Zealand, that there was unity in that and remains to be. But in the wake of those gun reforms, social media regulation, the spectre of hate speech reform, there was a really vociferous and ugly debate, wasn't there? Well, actually, that's not my reflection. You know, when it came to the ban on semi-automatic weapons, military-style semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles, I actually think the nation came with us on that. We had to call in death threats to you to the police because it was so ugly at times. I hate to tell you that that is not new. That has been from the day I took on this job. It's a sad fact of life that comes with these roles. But was that the right thing to do? Absolutely. The vast majority of New Zealanders supported it. Regardless of whether or not there is a minority that may react in another way, I absolutely stand by it. What about that directive that the Ministry of Justice work with the Human Rights Commission to review our hate speech laws. When's that coming out? Because Andrew Little said it would be out by the end of this year. Yeah, and that is work that he has been doing. And I think just to acknowledge, again, we do have laws in this area already, but they have been rather limited. In fact, the Human Rights Commission some time ago ` before March 15 ` recognised that there was ` a gap around religion that actually hate speech or threats to people based on their religion had not been included in that legislation. So, do you think religion and perhaps sexual orientation should be included in that legislation? I think the Human Rights Commission, they were right to point out there were gaps in our legislation. But obviously that's something the Minister of Justice is continuing to work through. This is the kind of thing that you want to do once and you want to do right, so I'm going to let him complete his work. Where is the line for you when it comes to free speech and hate speech? Someone 'seig heiling' outside a mosque, for example - free speech or hate speech? And again, I've always been really cautious in this space, because actually we do have a legal framework that exists so that our courts can make decisions on these issues. You won't acknowledge that 'seig heiling' outside a mosque is hate speech? Oh, look, I will acknowledge that we have had behaviour that I think is abhorrent, I think has incited discrimination against members of our community and that absolutely should be challenged through our court system. But you'll also understand why I don't try personally to be the individual arbiter, but there's been many things that I've seen since that time by some individuals that I think have been absolutely awful and should be challenged through our justice system. On Winston Peters, you've been quite defensive and haven't really said anything meaningful in terms of the allegations against the New Zealand First Foundation. Why has that rattled you so much? I would not characterise it in that way at all. You could have actually just made the same statement about the National Party and that would have been true. I was not drawn into the allegations that have landed them with the Serious Fraud Office. They weren't your governing partner. Indeed, and that's actually a fantastic point to make. If I was going to go for anyone, you'd think I would go for the opposition and I didn't, because for me this is a matter of principle. You're not responsible for keeping the opposition in line. But there's a matter of principle here that to have political parties you can understand that we're not the best ones to be judging one another on the implementation of electoral law. Because we have to uphold it ourselves. So that's why we do have independent agencies to make those judgements for us. For me, this is a matter of natural justice. I'm going to allow that process to play out rather than inserting myself into it, the same way that I didn't do that with the National Party. What about old mate Winston Peters going out there calling journalists 'psycho,' Shane Jones out on the forecourt of parliament calling protesting farmers 'rednecks.' You've said it's not language that you'd use, but why haven't you taken more leadership and making it clear that that is not language that is acceptable for your government ministers? Ultimately I have to still also accept I have members of different political parties in this government as well. Is that because you don't have any power over them? Over New Zealand First? No, absolutely not. My job is to enforce the Cabinet Manual when it comes to ministerial conduct. Whether or not someone chooses to use language as you've described is not something that really falls into the remit of the Cabinet Manual on Ministerial Conduct. And ultimately they are members of another political party. Now, some may decide that I should be the one that's the arbiter of the way that politicians speak in parliament. I'd have to say- You are the leader of the leader of the country and the government. I'd have to say that as Prime Minister, that would take up a lot of my time if that was my job ` to be the one who judges and deems whether or not the 'moral code' is being upheld in parliament. I have to say, I've been in politics for 10 years and I've seen plenty of people do and say things that I wouldn't do. But is it my job to go around and wave my finger at them? Not always, no. But, I can- But sometimes, though. Look, and I will say if I disagree and I will share my view on whether or not something is appropriate. But I also have to accept that there are other political parties which I am not the leader of in our government. We've been told that the government's partner parties have been told to keep a united front until budget day- Oh, have they? And then after that all bets are off. No. What will happen after that? Is that campaign mode kicking in or is there a risk that the government could actually implode? No and that's not actually true. That's the first I've ever heard that, so I can tell you that certainly hasn't come from me. We are a government- We've heard it from ministers' offices. We are a government until the day that the election is held. Our duty is to run the country until individuals go to the poll, and in fact until a new government is declared. And that is the job we'll do. Just finishing up ` last question. On Ihumatao, do you regret not having gone sooner? Actually, you know, people I think see that as a proxy, though, and I've wondered about this ` the strength of feeling around that visit. I think people see it as a proxy, somehow, of me showing I care about the issue. I can hand-on-heart say I care deeply about this issue. I have spent a huge amount of time working on a resolution. I still am. And whether I visit or not, I'm going to keep doing that. I will visit, but I'd like to do it at a time when I feel like I actually have answer to the problem. Just finally, one word answer ` election date, September 19, correct? (LAUGHS) Wait. Thank you very much for your time, Prime Minister. Thank you. I appreciate it. Well, if you've got something to say about what you see on our show, let us know. We're on Twitter Facebook and Instagram, NewshubNationNZ. Our Twitter panel this week is Tim McCready and Mark Thomas using the hashtag #NationNZ. Or you can email us at nation@mediaworks.co.nz. But, still to come, we discuss the Prime Minister's interview with our political panel. Plus, are we about to be slammed by the United Nations to justice denied over the children of Lake Alice? Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` political commentators Bryce Edwards, Brigitte Morten and Ella Henry. Thank you very much for your time this morning. So, Jacinda Ardern's interview just then. You just had a quick look at that. We talked about culture at the beginning. Brigitte, how much has the handling of all the sexual assault allegations and Labour camp allegations hurt Jacinda Ardern's personal brand? Oh, it's definitely hurt her personal brand. You can't put yourself up there as the arbiter of kindness and understanding and then be the leader of a party that has so mishandled these types of allegations. And I think that's what people see. They see that the things happened, but it's more so what the Labour Party did afterwards and what they didn't do, and that's what has affected her brand. But, to be fair, she does say that they are addressing these things and while they're not there yet, as she just said in that interview, they are making progress. Bryce, would you agree with that? Um, well, no, because she's not really saying what's going to happen. Are we going to see these come out? And the Labour Party won't actually commit to that. So it's all up in the air. It could still all be covered up as far as we know ` public knows. But do they owe a care of duty to the complainants in these and respect what they want, Ella, in terms of how these things have been handled and the terms of reference and the recommendations? I think absolutely. And that we hope will start to become more apparent. But the reality is organisational culture is a top-down phenomenon. And so` and a political party is a multi-headed beast. You know, there's the volunteer management side, there's the political leadership side, there's the party president side. Nigel's fallen on his sword already. So I'm going to assume that the next person that's elected is going to be one that understands their responsibility of managing culture. It's a different gig from managing a political party. Right, so that's an interesting question. So, they're going to elect a new president, this weekend. Tane Phillips, who's working class, Maori, ticks all the traditional Labour boxes, you've got a young female executive Claire Szabo. How do you think this is going to play out, Bryce? Well, I mean, identity's really important in contemporary politics. Especially in the Labour Party. So, yes, you've got these different factions that represent different identities. And so you've got some serious candidates that represent the Maori faction, the union affiliates faction and gender issues. And so, it seems clear to me that the leading candidate is the one identified with Jacinda Ardern, Claire Szabo. Easily. And it looks like she's going to get it. But there's some major disgruntlement in Labour especially amongst Maori, amongst the union affiliates, that they haven't got a person in there. Is that going to be disruptive if there's disgruntlement within the party? I'd rather see somebody in that role who is actually comfortable leading cultural change. And I'm not talking about ethnic 'culture,' I'm talking about organisational culture. And I think Claire has some background in management. Both of them do. What they're going to need to do is create that change of culture about participation, emancipation, care, equality, those kinds of things, so that the Prime Minister doesn't have to worry about it. OK. Well, let's move on to the 'year of delivery'. Brigitte, Prime Minister says, 'You know, oh, look, we don't really have to say yes or no, success or failure. It's work in progress.' Well, perhaps she shouldn't have called it the 'year of delivery', then. (LAUGHS) OK. That was her putting it up there, once again setting this standard that this was what they were going to do. And it's very hard to see actually what they've done. And they've had some pretty big, spectacular failures like KiwiBuild that was covered in the interview, that have just washed over all those other things that they have possibly started. Is it, though, they do, Bryce, try and get away from that` those highlighting of KiwiBuild and, say, capital gains tax, and say, 'look at what we've done in social housing.' They've repeatedly referred to the housing crisis. Is that a message that's working? I don't think so. No. Especially at the conference this weekend there's going to be a lot of, especially those on the left of the party, delegates that want to see a message of something new ` something big. Maybe there'll be an announcement tomorrow. Maybe around dental ` free dental care. They need something big to show that this government is still transformational, because this has been the year of non-delivery. Would you agree with that in terms of` Absolutely. welfare and housing and things like that. I only know well the far north, because that's the area I work in most and I come from, and I know that there communities up there that are so fractured and need so much help, that unless we can be seen to be delivering to those most vulnerable communities, then all of the polemic is a bit moot. (LAUGHS) OK. Let's talk about another issue ` Winston Peters and New Zealand First. So, the Prime Minister has distanced herself from these allegations about the New Zealand First Foundation, Brigitte, should she? Absolutely. She cannot allow her brand to be attached to those allegations. But she does have responsibility as the Prime Minister. She is the leader in Cabinet. Whilst I think there is some value in what she's saying ` that political parties shouldn't be the arbiters of others' electoral reforms, in terms of funding and things like that, the way that this has been handled, which is not accountable and not transparent, is definitely part of her responsibility. OK, but she says that as the Labour Party, they have skin in the game, so they can't be seen to be criticising others, really, can they? Yeah. I mean, it's a difficult situation she's in. I don't think there's any right or wrong. It's her prerogative to push this to the side if she wants to. But this is an issue of confidence that there's no corruption in government. And that's really what this issue's about. This is allegations that wealthy individuals are donating through various mechanisms to advantage Cabinet ministers and their political advantage and that decisions are being made by this government about fisheries, agriculture, distributing $3 billion that is potentially corrupt. Yeah. And she refuses to give any confidence about that issue. Right, OK. And the other thing that she has trouble reining in is actually Shane Jones and Winston Peters in terms of their rhetoric. But she says that's outside the Cabinet Manual remit, so she can't do anything about it. She's powerless, isn't she? Clearly you haven't met Shane and Winston. (LAUGHS) I have. Exactly. I mean. (SCOFFS) OK. And I'm related to them! (LAUGHS) All right, I just wonder finally about Ihumatao. Now, we're talking` there's some indication of, I guess, a change in positivity towards maybe a reconciliation before Christmas. Ella, do you think that this is going to be possible? I thought the most telling thing in the interview for me in terms of the Ihumatao issue is not 'if,' she said 'when' I visit... Yep. ...Ihumatao... OK. ...it will be with a solution. And I think everybody out there who has been part of, in any way, thinking about Ihumatao will have heard that. So perhaps there is a when and not an if. What about the idea that she should have gone sooner? I think she absolutely should have gone sooner. And I think a little bit of this swooping in only when there's good news, Rather than tackling the issues and talking to people on the ground ` it's a little bit disingenuous, and I think it's going to come off that way. And it's also going to be difficult to sell. Because we know whatever solution they come to is not going to be one that everyone agrees with. Somebody's going to have to swallow a dead rat on this. And so for her to just kind of sweep in with the shiny news is going to be really hard. Do you think that` I mean, we saw in a clip earlier in the programme that she was saying at Waitangi, 'hold us to account'. She's got to go back to Waitangi and say the same thing. So, how's she going to be received up there do you think, Bryce? Yeah, and that's why there's been a big push in the last few months to get this sorted out. The Maori Caucus are unhappy with this festering and we've seen protests at Maori MP offices. So the heat is on them. They want this resolved and in some ways it's a proxy for lots of other things that are going wrong with Maori inequality, with those at the bottom, and so this becomes kind of a lightning rod. And so they do have to at least come up some sort of symbolic compromise on this. OK. Well, we'll leave it there for the moment. Thank you very much to our panel. All right, up next ` 40 years on, why are the children of Lake Ellis still waiting for justice through the courts? Plus, Backstory ` a glass of wine with Children's Minister Tracey Martin and her husband, Ben. Welcome back. This week, the United Nations will look into the alleged abuse of children at Lake Alice Hospital in the 1970s. Specifically, why disgraced doctor Selwyn Leeks has never been brought to justice. 40 years on, the victims are still asking for a court trial. Is our government persisting in putting its reputation first? Here's Mike Wesley-Smith. It's a case like no other. Where would he apply the electrodes? Under genitals was his favourite spot. Have you listened to their stories? Is there any truth to them? Truth? It's a matter of national shame. Let justice take its course. And right up to this present day, he's just destroyed me. A paper trail of allegations dating back 40 years. Last time I would have read this was probably back when I made it. Charlie Symes is reading the statement he gave to a patient rights group when he was just 15, alleging psychiatrist Selwyn Leeks shocked his genitals at Lake Alice Hospital. It was just straight pain. For a kid, it was a scary place. Scary people. Marty Brand is another patient of Dr Leeks. Like Charlie, a tough man once a terrified teen. He applied shock treatment to my genitals, left with, uh, permanent burn marks on the underside of my penis. In the end, it just wasn't worth saying a damn thing. We just sort of suffered in silence. Kevin Banks was only 14 when he arrived at Lake Alice, where he too says Leeks shocked his testicles. Still to this day ` I'm 60 now ` I still can't get over it. Kevin says Leeks also asked him if he'd like to shock another child ` a scene captured in these drawings by fellow patient Bruce Harkness. We were offered the availability if we wanted to electrocute him ourselves. I declined the offer. It was something I didn't wish on anybody. I actually saw Dr Leeks put the electrodes on (BLEEP)'s genital area. And he started screaming out loud in agony. Leeks has called these claims completely untrue. But according to the United Nations, more than 200 acts of ill-treatment and torture happened here ` the site of the old Lake Alice Psychiatric Hospital in rural Whanganui. Do you apologise for anything? No, I don't think I do. I think he went too far. I think he got carried away with his own sadism, his own cruelty, and didn't recognise it. Former nurse Brian Stabb worked at Lake Alice. It had its own rules, its own staff. It was very secretive. Leeks would have known that what he was doing was over the top. Brian says Leeks gave electric shocks to children without anaesthetic or consent. The UN says this can constitute torture. It's... effective. It's quick. It's life-saving. That was assaultive. From the moment the kid was told he was having these, he'd be dragged up the stairs, and he fought and resisted. We've made extensive efforts to contact Selwyn Leeks, without success. Are you ashamed by anything you've done? No. Following complaints from children in the 1970s, medical authorities cleared Leeks of wrongdoing, and he moved to Australia in 1978. In 2001, Kevin gave an interview to the 20/20 programme. I believe he'll always have in his heart this evilness. Along with 90 more of Leeks' former patients, in 1999, he filed a class action against the government, with lawyer Grant Cameron, and they were awarded millions in a compensation settlement. Generally speaking, do you think there was enough evidence to lay a criminal prosecution? Absolutely. Bolstered by their win, Kevin and 54 other patients sent written complaints to the police in the early 2000s, hoping Leeks himself would finally be brought to justice. Assistant Police Commissioner Malcolm Burgess headed the police investigation. We'll make an assessment on whether a prosecution is, um,... possible or not. A child psychiatrist told police Leeks' treatments were often very poor or inappropriate. It is unacceptable. And in these circumstances, it's assault. It's grievous bodily harm. But to patients, the police investigation seemed half-hearted. Only one of the 55 complainants was interviewed. No. I never saw the police at all. Yes, it probably does have a lower priority than current matters. An opinion provided to police by the Crown Law Office dismissed Kevin's complaint as a medico-legal issue. The Crown Law Office are the government's lawyers. Kevin now wants to know why police got advice from Crown Law on prosecuting Dr Leeks. It's because, unbeknownst to him, between 1994 and 2002, Crown Law defended the government against claims of abuse made by other patients against Dr Leeks ` cases that were eventually settled. That meant the allegations were never tested in court. Julie-Anne Kincade is a former prosecutor. There appears to be what, at best, can be described as a conflict of interest. While they were defending the actions of Leeks in court, Crown Law investigators obtained 38 witness statements from former Lake Alice staff members. When Newshub Nation asked Crown Law if those statements disclosed any criminal offending, they refused to tell us, citing professional privilege. Crucially, Crown Law did not tell police of the existence of those staff statements. Instead, they advised detectives there was sufficient evidence to charge Leeks. To this day, the contents of those statements, including whether or not they contain evidence of crimes, remains secret. Earlier this year, Crown Law opposed our attempts to see evidence given by Dr Leeks in the earlier court cases that were defended by the government. But the court let us see it, and for the first time, we can reveal that Leeks left for Australia with the full backing of the New Zealand medical establishment. In his evidence, Leeks said the medical council gave him a Certificate of Good Standing, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists offered Leeks the directorship of a child psychiatric unit in Melbourne. To recommend him so that he could carry on practising in Australia is also disgraceful. It's a disgrace. It's a matter of national shame. But in 2006, Leeks' past finally caught up with him. Australian medical authorities brought 39 disciplinary charges against him, and Leeks agreed to retire. But back in New Zealand, the police still refuse to file charges. And right up to this present day, he's just destroyed me. We asked retired detective Dave Pizzini to consider the evidence. We're talking about sustained and systematic... physical and sexual abuse of children. The fact that none of those perpetrators have been held to account in the criminal courts is reprehensible. We can reveal two former senior detectives who worked on the Lake Alice investigation in the 2000s have told us they believe Leeks should be prosecuted, and that a huge injustice has occurred. We have also obtained this 2006 job sheet from Malcolm Burgess of an interview he did with a former Lake Alice nurse. The nurse said he saw Leeks apply the electrodes to the genitals and thighs of a boy in the child and adolescent unit. I don't think any reasonable jury properly directed would come to any conclusion other than it was gratuitous sexual violence. In November 2018, another former patient of Dr Leeks went to police alleging that he had been shocked on the genitals. But he was told in an email by a detective,... Following inquiries from Newshub Nation, the man was interviewed earlier this year, but has not yet heard whether or not Leeks will be charged. There are some people in power that have made some very important decisions along this journey that need to be asked some serious questions about their decisions. Questions that will be asked by the Royal Commission into Abuse in Care, which is now investigating Lake Alice. This case is a disgrace. It's disgusting. Those children were abused three times. They were abused to lead them into having to be at Lake Alice, they have abused and tortured in Lake Alice, and they are abused a third time by the fact that the police and crime lawyers who should have made the proper decision to prosecute on their behalf failed to do that, and the prosecution could still be brought, in my opinion. Well, we were going to interview Justice Minister Andrew Little, but he pulled out on advice from his ministry and Crown Law. They said it would be inappropriate for him to comment on a case that will also be considered by the Royal Commission into Abuse in State Care. Meanwhile, Crown Law and the Ministry of Health have told us they would continue to cooperate with police if required. Well, the journalist who's behind that story has been investigating it for three years. Mike Wesley-Smith joins me now. Mike, thanks for your time. Three years? Yeah, I was looking. There's more than 2000 emails I've sent over that time, trying to get to the truth on this. I'll just point out at this stage ` the Crown and Ministry of Health acknowledge that these patients were subjected to unacceptable treatment. They point out that there's been a settlement, there's been an apology. Also, we tried to contact Malcolm Burgess for that story, without success. But, yeah. It has been a long road to this point, and we still don't know the full picture. Right, and the key players who haven't fronted up are who? So, I mean, we've approached government ministers, the police, the New Zealand Medical Council, the Royal College, Crown Law. None of them wanted to be interviewed. They instead sent us some statements, the full contents of which we'll put online. But, yeah. To me, I was surprised. After all of this time, and a case of this magnitude ` we are talking about 200 alleged acts of cruel and degrading treatment on, possibly, torture. And that's why this is so crucial, isn't it? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think... these people ` we can't give them their youth back, but what we can do is we can give them the truth of what happened to them, and basically, what their message to decision-makers is to put down your budget analysis. Put down the advice you've been getting from Crown Law, and just be guided by the instinct that should exist in all of us, which is, 'Ask yourself that question ` 'if this was my 8-year-old, if this was my 9-year-old, what would I want to have happened to them?' So, do you think that these government departments, or these institutions, are looking through the lens of just, you know, a political and budgetary lens? Or a legal lens? Yeah. Not through a human lens? Part of the problem is we don't really know. I mean, much of this material is covered by legal privilege. You know, these patients` I can tell you what they don't want. They don't want blacked-out documents. They don't want people claiming legal privilege. They don't want delays. They just want someone in government to look like they give a damn about what happened to them, and, you know, the apology they got so many years ago ` they see that as a conditional apology. It was phrased as 'without a mission of liability.' Well, every expert that I've spoken to in the psychiatric profession, the legal profession, law enforcement ` I haven't been able to find somebody that can tell me this is legally defensible. OK. So what should the government do to put things right? Well, there's a case by a patient brought before the United Nations with the assistance of a patient rights groups called the Citizen Commission on Human Rights. They will be asking some questions. One thing that we've noticed ` the most recent submissions the government made for the United Nations does not include reference to the fact that for almost a decade, the government was co-defendants with Leeks in civil proceedings. That's a material fact. It doesn't form part of their submissions. We've asked them why that was not included. They have not told us. So, I think, really, the appeal from the patients is just, please, just tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, they're taking the case back to the United Nations. What can the United Nations do if they do find against the New Zealand government? So, complaints of this kind for New Zealand are exceedingly rare. In fact, this may be the first time, I'm told by an expert. The committee can't award compensation. What they can do is they can make a finding that, if they believe the investigation has been inadequate, then that is a real, um,... that's a very public statement, particularly from the United Nations, of some significance. And that... I don't think the government would treat such a finding lightly. And I think the patients will hope that they will now, yeah, just be at a bit more of a full disclosure to the United Nations. So, this has been going on for so long, and yet, you know, it's unfolding yet again next week, is it? What's happening? Is it next week that the UN is considering this? So, well just have a time window. We don't have a specific date. We've been told that the case comes back before the Committee Against Torture sometime before the 6th of December. So, hopefully, maybe, that's an avenue through with some of these patients who have been waiting 40 years ` remember, they were kids when this happened to them. Many of them are approaching retirement age. They just want to know what happened to them. OK. Mike Wesley-Smith, thank you very much for your time. Thank you. OK. Up next, the director of New Zealand's first suicide prevention office, which opened this week, plus we sample the product with Children's Minister Tracey Martin and her winemaker husband, Ben. Welcome back. To Backstory ` she was a stay-at-home parent who became a New Zealand First MP in 2011. Now, Tracey Martin is a senior government minister with big responsibilities. Newshub Nation joined Tracey at her family vineyard in Martinborough to hear her backstory. When I first had little children, I know that there's a period of the year when you shouldn't have children if you're married to a winemaker, and that's around about April, because I remember going into labour with our first child and Ben was away in vintage, and I rang him to say, 'I'm in labour. You need to come home and we need to go to the hospital.' And he said, 'Mm, could I just pump over this tea?' I think I said to him, 'When you figure out your priorities, let me know, but I'm having a baby.' (LAUGHS) It's not like that happened straight away! (LAUGHS) And I probably should declare now ` I know literally nothing about winemaking, except how to taste and critique the final product. That's my role in this little arrangement, isn't that right? That's right. Yeah. (LAUGHS) So, I was working at a liquor store as an administrator in Newmarket, and Ben came in ` exceptionally good-looking, tall, sort of tanned young man. This was a long time ago. (LAUGHS) And then, he got a part-time job down in the cellar, so I managed to continually visit the cellar. So, I'd take pieces of paper down so that I could talk to this guy. I'd been a stay-at-home mum before I went to parliament. So, the kids were 8, 10, and 12. The day I got elected, Ben said, 'Well, you've supported me in my career, so now's your time.' So Ben quite work, and stayed at home with the kids. So, there's just the three girls. Mum and Dad lost a son in between myself and my younger sister. Mum was seven to eight months pregnant, and went out to move the goat house, and my understanding is it fell back against her, and I'm pretty sure it split her spleen. So, we're what's called whangai. So, sort of, in Maoridom, whangai means that you're just one of us. You're now ours. So, my grandfather ` my mum was abandoned by her mum when she was about two years old, and so, while I don't have any Maori blood, we were just raised` I thought that's how all New Zealand families were ` part Pakeha, part Maori. So these are my cousins, and actually, yesterday was the anniversary of my cousin Richard's passing. So, if we're talking about mental health, if we're talking about suicide numbers, particularly for young Maori males, then I connect it to Richard. If I think about the Oranga Tamariki and children who have been taken into care, then I connect it to my mum being abandoned by her mum and having to be taken into the care of others. OK. So, these are the family shots we had done before we left Warkworth. So, our oldest boy, Connor, Shaun ` he's just finished his degree at Auckland University. This is Rose, and this is a much younger me. I'm only involved in politics because of my mum, and I'm only here because of my mum, actually. So, my dad died in 2008, and that was a really hard year, actually. We nursed him to his passing at home of cancer. It was also the year that Rodney Hide laid charges against my mum. So, Mum was the party secretary of New Zealand First. So, the police showed up, they took her away in a car, and Serious Fraud Office investigation and Electoral Commission investigation, all that showed nothing wrong, right? But you imagine your husband's dying of cancer and you've got all that going on as well. It was a really hard year. Beverly left her 2-year-old daughter and 5-year-old son in 1943. TEARFULLY: And it took well into the 1980s for us to find out what happened to her. (EXHALES SHARPLY) So, my mum was 2, and her brother, Barry, was 4, and they were down in Christchurch with her mum, Beverly, and their dad was away with the army. Beverly took her children to the neighbour next door, and said, 'I'm just gonna go to the shops.' And left them with the neighbour and never came back. Beverly passed away three years after that event from toxemia from a backstreet abortion. Yeah. So, for a long time, Mum had thought her mum was still alive, and of course, she wasn't alive. She'd... Beverly had been gone, you know? I remember a particular day when, um,... when she found out that Beverly had passed away, and it wasn't that Beverly had never tried to find her again or never cared about her again. It was that Beverly couldn't cos she was already dead. That's quite a big difference when you're thinking as a child, a teenager, or just as, you know, no matter what age. It's not that she never came to look for you. It was the fact that she was dead all those years that you kept looking for her. (CROWD CHANT IN TE REO) I knew about that case and was asking questions out of my office for a whole month before that video went up live. It's just horrifically bad practice. It's awful. Nothing there was right. But it was one case. You don't want to minimise that case,... but there's an awful lot of people ` social workers and that ` doing some amazing work. Children who are taken into care because they need to be. Families that step up because they must. (GENTLE FOLK MUSIC) I had a life with Ben and the kids, and an identity of my own before I became a politician. I'll have a life with Ben and the kids and an identity of my own after, you know, I finish being a politician. So, actually, it's the people that you've got to live with for the rest of your life that you've got to be true to. That's what this is, you know? Yeah. Cheers. Here's to you, darl. Cheers. And now it's time to welcome back our panel, Political Commentators Bryce Edwards, Brigitte Morten and Ella Henry. Now, I want to know about the election day, Bryce. Should the Prime Minister go early? Well, it depends on what happens with New Zealand first. These donation allegations, we'll see over the next two months whether there's any legs in that. If there is, then yes, she will want to disentangle herself at the earliest possible moment. We could be looking at April. That's only if things are so toxic that she has to get out, because she doesn't want to be in the whole of 2020 dealing with defending Winston Peters and potential corruption. But to have early elections worked for previous Prime Ministers Brigitte. Ah, not always. And I think one of the key things for this Prime Minister is she's gonna want to get the budget in, because they've got money to spend, And she's gonna want to be shown as spending that where Labour voters want it spent. So I think April is probably gonna be a bit early, but I wouldn't be ruling out a winter election. Right, and so, July, are you happy to vote in July, Ella? I think we should have an election on October the 28th, which is Maori Sovereignty day. (LAUGHS) OK, all right. Is that a de facto referendum? Almost. (CHUCKLES) What about ` so, in terms of an election date, Brigitte, what do you think is actually gonna happen? I mean, is it gonna be September? I think, I mean, they're gonna try and go full term, of course they are. All governments wanna go full term. So I think aiming for September, and hopefully we'll know sometime in January whether or not that's a possibility for all of us that like to plan their lives around campaigns. Um, and then, yeah, but I think, as Bryce says, it's all up in the air in terms of the coalition parties next year. OK, let's talk about the National, opposition party. A recent discussion paper on law and order, a big swipe out at gangs in the discussion paper. Is this election campaigning? Yeah, and this has been so useful for National. Even though, I mean, I've followed the debate closely, everyone's been ridiculing it, especially in the cities, the liberals like us, saying this isn't evidence-based, the Strike Force Raptor thing has just been, you know... Can you do that again? (LAUGHS) Sorry. (LAUGHS) It's been ridiculed by everyone, but I think that's powerful for National, because the more all of this is ridiculed and complained about in Wellington, Christchurch, Auckland, on Twitter, the more the rest of middle New Zealand actually warms to it and actually sees` Because law and order is gonna heat up for the next election. And National are branding this well. People do want, I think, some people do want a clampdown on gangs, and mostly they're New Zealand First voters. And that's why National are going hard on this, because they want to sink New Zealand First. Do you agree, Brigitte, that National, you know, National Party voters or New Zealand First voters in the rural areas will think, 'Yes, this is good'? Yeah, absolutely. A tough on crime message is a base message. And it does work. And I think, you know, as Bryce is saying, there has been a lot of discussion about the name. But, ultimately, you know, opposition discussion documents ultimately drop within a day, they get out of the media. What this as actually done is actually carried on the discussion for almost, you know, I think we're up to day 5 or something now, and it's been quite constructive in terms of, actually, people remember the name and go, 'Oh, that's National being tough on gangs.' And that is absolutely what they're looking for. OK. And have they been successful, Ella, in doing this both with their social development policy document and now their law and order discussion document. Both of those stayed alive for quite a while. Well, I'm still looking for evidence that tough on crime has actually been successful, and I reiterate something that was said by one of the gang leaders this week ` that the gang numbers dropped when governments were committed to finding them jobs and alternative lifestyles. For me, gangs are an effect, they are not a cause. And if we really wanna do something about that effect, we have to go to the cause. Yeah, but` And there are many, many young Maori men, and Pacific Island, and then a number of other ethnicities raised in such anger and rage that their only recourse is to come together and` So you're saying` What is the cause then? The cause is poverty, the cause is racism, the cause is colonization and its long-term impacts, the cause is mental health, let's look at fixing the causes rather than the` But do you` OK, so you've got Labour here who's trying to position itself as that. National has to differentiate itself, does it not? And we get that. Yeah, we get it. And I think that's key, but also, I think you've got to look at that discussion document, the stuff about getting tough, you know, with the squad is, you know, kind of what's got the media, but there's a lot in there around the social investment approach, about young offenders getting a wider clean slate policy, NCEA Level 2 for offenders, you know, all those sorts of things that do start to look at those causes. It just doesn't get the media. Right, and so this` I mean, Simon Bridges will be totally happy with the way this played out. Oh, absolutely. This has, I think, solidified his leadership. We've been seeing him be a stronger leader over the last few months. We're about to go into 2020, we were starting the year saying` Well, I was saying his leadership is over. It doesn't look like that. I think a lot of it is quite opportunistic on his part. He doesn't really seem genuine in pushing some of these things, but it is working. And would you agree, you two, that` sorry (LAUGHS) ` Brigitte and Ella, that Simon Bridges is here to stay now for election 2020? Yeah, I think absolutely. And I think Bryce is absolutely right. He was` I think they've come through that period of sort of, you know post-government disruption and people retiring, and obviously, the Jami-Lee Ross thing, all those kind of things, and it has really solidified his leadership. And I think absolutely, that will be that he will be opposition leader going into 2020. He's found his gang. He's found his gang! (LAUGHTER) Well, that's a lovely place to leave it. Thank you, I think. Ella Henry, Brigitte Morten and Bryce, thank you very much for your time on the panel. Stay with us, we'll be back after the break. Welcome back. New Zealand's suicide rate is almost double the road toll, and the Maori suicide rate is almost double the national rate. It's a painful record the government is trying to turn around with the opening of New Zealand's first Suicide Prevention Office this week. Director of that of office, Carla na Nagara, joins me now. Congratulations on the position. Thank you. 685 suicides in the past year. What is the most obvious thing that you think we're getting wrong? Or is it just one thing or is it just a whole sort of thing? I think it's a matter of... discussions about suicide have often been confined to issues of mental health, mental health services. Mm. And I think if we're going to make any progress in bringing our rate down, we have to understand that the drivers of suicide fall much beyond just mental illness. People with mental health problems and mental illness are at risk, and services are important and remain important. But from my work as a coroner, it was really clear to me that the majority of people who take their lives by suicide haven't had any mental illness. Or history of mental illness, right? No. Yeah. OK, so, what from your point of view, now that you're in this office, it's been established, what's the first, most urgent action, do you think, that you're going to be taking? Or what is the first work plan? Well, actually, it's to establish our work plan. We've got Every Life Matters, which is the Suicide Prevention Strategy and Action Plan, so we do have to develop a work plan to make that operational. A key piece of work that is underway is establishing a Maori advisory board to ensure the office has good, high-level strategic, cultural advice, given our disproportionate Maori rates. And just on that, there isn't a targeted Maori suicide prevention plan, but there is targeted funding. Should there be a Maori plan, or is it a universal approach? I think that` No, I don't think that, we haven't got a universal approach. What I think that Every Life Matters represents is an action plan that provides a framework that we can hang different strategies off, depending on the needs of the population groups. So, having Maori advisory groups will ensure that the office can support Maori to develop and deliver programmes and interventions that meet, you know, their needs. OK. Let's talk, you know, the more nitty-gritty, practical kind of things. The previous government had a plan to put mental health workers alongside police and crisis callouts, and that's been scrapped by this government. Is that something that you would revisit? Because the police tell us, you know, they are not mental health workers. I understand that there is some work underway in that area. Don't want to sort of swim outside of my lane. But certainly was the` I understand that there is some work going on in that area. Right. That you can't tell us about? Well, just because I don't know enough about it. So I don't want to` Is that work that your office is doing, or is it outside of that? No, I've heard it within the Ministry of Health. OK, all right. So my office has only just opened. (LAUGHS) Yeah, I understand, yeah, this week. No, no, hard questions when you haven't gotten your feet under the table, really, yet. People say intervention` you know, if I'm dealing with somebody suicidal, what is there, what should I be doing? How do I deal with that? I think a really important first question is just to ask, specifically, 'Are you feeling suicidal?' You know, 'Are you thinking about taking your life? ' And if they answer that they are, then thank them for their honesty. And support them to get help. Is it hard for people to ask that question, though? It is. I've had suicide prevention training myself, and I've been faced with situations where I've thought, 'I need to ask that question.' It was really hard to do, because I think there's myths around whether or not that's a safe question to ask. But I asked it, I got an answer, and we were able to move things on from there. OK. What else, in terms of resources, that's one of the key actions that you've got to bring in, you know, for NGOs, non-government organizations and DHB's. We've got some 291 extra staff appointed in mental health, but what are you calling for? What do you think is needed? I actually think better messaging is needed. So, you know, good communications around the nature of the problem, the reality of the drivers of suicide. And to move our conversations out of the mental health, you know, entirely mental health focus. And also out of perspectives that suggest one size will fit all in terms of a response. Right. Our responses to suicide need to be sort of multi-layered from the top down and communities up. And they need to be targeted for, you know, the needs of different communities. So they need a much more expansive and informed discussion, and I think the Office's role will be to lead that. OK. And, finally, the government says it's not setting suicide targets, the policy is Every Life Matters, but when will we see ` or when would you like to see ` the suicide rate coming down? Look, I mean, I'd like to see it come down next week. But the reality is it won't. I don't expect that we will see a rapid decline in numbers and that reflects the nature of the problems that we face. And part of the Office's work will be to establish an evaluation framework and within that framework we will be able to evaluate` because there will be other measures of our progress. So, for example, it will be difficult to measure the people who don't end their lives, but that will be an important negative, you know what I mean? But it's going to be a long process, isn't it? It will be a long process, you know, at least two or three years, maybe. You know, it could be more. But that's why, I think, we need to understand evaluating progress will be as important as` Cos we'll know we're on track, and we might then get a better idea of. OK, well, director of the Suicide Prevention Office, Carla na Nagara, thank you very much for your time this morning. You're welcome. Thank you. And that's it from the studio this week. Next week, it's our live Christmas Party show where I promise I won't be asking any serious questions. We'll see you then. Captions by Cameron Grigg, Joshua Tait and John Gibbs. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019