Today, on Newshub Nation ` she's third in the new look Nats, in charge of COVID recovery. But what's her plan? Amy Adams joins me live. Environment Minister David Parker defends his clean river policy. And Marama Davidson on how she and James Shaw plan to get the Greens above 5% and back into parliament. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2020 Kia ora, good morning. I'm Ryan Bridge. Welcome to Newshub Nation. In this week's political news ` the US passed a grim milestone this week with COVID deaths passing 100,000. Meanwhile, following three nights of violence and protests in Minneapolis, the former police officer seen kneeling on George Floyd's neck has been arrested and charged with murder. The Government has pledged $700m as part of its promise to clean up our rivers, streams and wetlands. The announcement included restrictions on agriculture, including a cap on fertiliser use. And a new look National has unveiled its first policy ` a job-start scheme promising $10,000 per employee to businesses who hire new staff. Leader Todd Muller claims the scheme could incentivise up to 50,000 new jobs. And, in our top story today, cops with guns. Armed police response teams trialled in three major districts were supposed to focus on firearms and serious crime. But data obtained by Newshub Nation shows they did the work of normal police, and critics say they put lives at risk. Conor Whitten has this exclusive report. It was meant to make police and communities safer. A six-month trial of Armed Response Teams ` New Zealand's first full-time armed police. Launched to respond more quickly to shooters in the wake of last years Christchurch attacks. The operating environment has changed, particularly since March 15. ARTs are equipped with a Bushmaster rifle,... and carry a Glock pistol on their hip. But figures obtained by Newshub Nation show, for the first three months, they were busy doing the work of normal police. One of the concerns, when these teams were introduced, was they would be an introduction of armed units into routine policing by stealth, and looking at the data that's emerged those fears seem to be realised Armed police were used 339 times for bail checks, 224 times for basic enquiries, 223 times for suspicious activity; 43 times for burglar alarms. And three times more than any other incident, armed police were used for turnovers ` basic traffic stops. 3T Vehicle turnovers are probably the most routine form of proactive policing there is and there's very rarely a need for armed police to be doing that. When the trial was launched last October, police had gun crime in their sites. But firearms offences made up less than 3% of incidents attended by armed police. Of nearly 500 people apprehended, more than half didn't have a weapon, and just 14% carried a gun. The fact we have armed police getting involved in general policing I think is a concern ` and will be a concern for many communities, including Maori and Pasifika communities, who had real fears about how these teams were going to be deployed. The trial had a disproportionate impact on Maori. Nearly half of those apprehended were Maori, Pacific people another 11%. I think it's history repeating itself, Conor, because in the last 10 years 66% of those shot by police were either Maori or Pacific. Former cop and justice advocate, Sir Kim Workman, has laid a complaint with the Waitangi Tribunal, alleging Maori were never consulted and would feel the effects most of all. I realised that we had to do something, because somebody would be killed before very long, and it could end up with innocent bystanders or children. And documents obtained by Newshub Nation show the trial had early problems. An evaluation of its first month in action found officers weren't filling in required forms, including those to measure perceptions of safety, meaning, at the time, nothing could be learned. Police Commissioner Andrew Coster wasn't available for interview, but in response to questions from Newshub Nation, police acknowledged 'lower priority' events were attended by armed police. They say that happened when 'available and appropriate,' but wouldn't answer questions as to why. The six-month trial finished in April and is currently being evaluated by police. To answer a fundamental question ` do cops with guns belong on New Zealand streets? Amy Adams was set to retire from politics at the election in September, but Todd Muller changed her mind and gave her third place in the National Party, just after the Deputy, Nikki Kaye. She's got the resume, but what exactly is the job description? Amy Adams joins me now live. Good morning. Good morning, Ryan. Great to have you on the programme. What are you going to be doing? What is the job description? I think the job description is recognising that really the central port of all political thinking at the moment has to be ` how do we get New Zealand through this enormous economic crisis we're facing? And my job is to work across all members of our caucus, all spokespeople and coordinate and lead that recovery effort to make sure we have not only a plan, but a comprehensive plan ` a well thought-through plan and one that we're going to be able to deliver. OK, What are the priorities, then? What is top of the list when it comes to formulating that plan? Sure. Jobs. Look, it's as simp` It's not as simple` but absolutely, our number one priority is jobs. This started as a health crisis, but there is no doubt in anyone's mind that we have a looming unemployment crisis. We have everyone from the Reserve Bank to bank economists talking about New Zealand facing unemployment of things like 18% to 20+%. That is totally unacceptable, and we need to be doing absolutely everything in our power as government to not only save jobs but to create jobs. And that is our absolute main priority in this. It's not the only part of what we need in COVID recovery, but there's no doubt our number one priority is keeping New Zealanders in jobs. Very quickly, then, two things that should be done, could be done immediately ` moving to Level 1 and the trans-Tasman bubble. When should we go to Level 1? Yes. Look, I think we should be looking at Level 1 now. You've got clear confusion between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, and if you want to go back to jobs, one thing businesses need is clarity and certainty. It's not good enough for the PM to simply say, 'We'll think about it in the next four weeks.' The businesses need to know what the operating environment is. We should go there now, and we should get the trans-Tasman bubble working as soon as we safely can. All right, so Level 1 now, Amy? As soon as we can with the trans-Tasman bubble? OK, that's fine. Yeah, we haven't seen the cabinet paper, but I think that makes sense. OK. Let's talk about your leader's new policy, because it was seven days before we got one. Now we have one, and it's a $10,000 cash payment for businesses taking on a new staff member. You say this will create up to 50,000 new jobs, which sounds fantastic. Can you name for me one business that will actually do this at a time like this when they are, as you say, already struggling? Yeah. Look, I can absolutely tell you that both Todd and Nikki and Paul Goldsmith and myself have talked to businesses in the last few days who've told us that this would make a tremendous difference to their ability to take on a new worker. Now, you'll know, Ryan, that when a business takes on a new worker, it's a serious commitment. They have to work through a lot of components. This isn't going to magic up jobs that weren't there. But what it is going to do is make a critical difference for a business who's just thinking, 'Gosh, can I afford to take that risk?' And if we can take away some of those real costs that they face, we know this will make a difference. And as I've said, government has to do everything it can right now to get New Zealanders into jobs. Sounds a bit like a Labour policy ` we're borrowing to create jobs. (CHUCKLES) Look, at this stage of an economic cycle, Ryan, I think governments have to do whatever they can and things that they wouldn't necessarily do in normal times. We are going to help get New Zealanders into jobs. And it isn't our first policy, Ryan. We've put out a number of policies already. It's the first under Todd. Under Todd, absolutely. The 50,000 figure, what is that based on? How have you calculated that? Well, what we've done is we've simply said we will put in place a scheme that runs for five months from as soon as we're elected. But can I just say on that ` we've actually asked the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to think about putting this in place sooner. We don't want to wait until the 1st of November. We'd like to see it sooner. But if it has to wait for our election ` starts in November, runs for five months, $10,000 per job, capped at 500 million. If we can get anywhere near that 50,000 job figure, Ryan, that's a huge success. You know, we lost 37,000 jobs in New Zealand last month. There are 37,000 fewer jobs. We've got to turn that around. There is no denying how dire the situation is. Absolutely. Speaking of jobs, your new job and the jobs of your fellow MPs ` (CHUCKLES) You've called yourselves Todd and the Supremes ` the top four. (LAUGHS) It was a passing reference, but yeah. I know, which is fair enough. But why aren't you and Nikki Kaye` Or why isn't one of you the leader of the National Party today? You are both more experienced. You are both well-known. You are both deserving of the leadership. Nikki's been a minister; she's beaten Ardern in Auckland. You were the Minister of Justice, Minister of Communications, Associate Minister of Finance ` I could go on. You are very, very qualified ` in fact, over-qualified. Is the National Party not ready for another female leader? Not at all. I think the National Party is just rich with talent. The reason Todd is the leader is because he is the person that our caucus knows is the leader we need right now. I think he is an exceptional leader. He is a man of huge authenticity and integrity and work ethic. I know he has what it takes, and Nikki and I are very comfortable not only backing him but doing everything we can to help make that a success. We're not a party of one person; we're a party of a whole team. And you don't want to be leader, Amy? I don't want to be leader. No, absolutely not. You can rule that out? I am very comfortable with Todd. Absolutely ruled it out. I just want to help Todd and National do everything we can to get jobs created in this economy and help New Zealanders back into work. All right. Let's move on to Muller and his performance this week. How would you rate him out of 10? I would give him a strong 8.5. There is always learnings in the first few days. I think Todd's performance has been exceptional for a new leader, thrust into the white-hot spotlight of national focus. I have been amazed how well he has adapted and performed, but you're only going to see Todd continue to exceed expectations. Is he getting media training this weekend? Does he need it? Oh, I have no idea what's` Look, I think he's doing very, very well. You will understand, I'm sure, when you step into a new role, there's always learnings, but I think Todd has all of the core fundamentals to be a superb prime minister. He is honest. He has a strong sense of integrity. He believes deeply in New Zealand's future and wanting to help New Zealanders. The rest around the performance piece he'll continue to grow into, but he is absolutely the prime minister New Zealand needs. But he waited until 13th on the list to put a Maori in. If you had chosen that front bench, would you have done it differently? Would there have been fewer white faces? The list is Todd's list, absolutely. But I absolutely agree that a list should be put together based on the right people in the right roles. We have an incredible talent across our caucus. The hardest part of putting a list together is that you can't have everyone in the top 10. Every single one of the people in our caucus could serve well in the top 10. It's a matter of the right people in the right roles, and it doesn't matter for us where in the caucus they sit. What we want is good ideas and hard work. Would you have done it differently, Amy? I haven't turned my mind to a list that I would create. That's Todd's job. But I can tell you that I 100% support the list he's come up with. All right. Let's talk about the leaks in the National Party. Who's leaking? Oh, look, I don't know, and frankly, I don't spend too much time worrying about it. That's the sort of Wellington chatter that the media sometimes get excited by. What I'm more interested in is ` how do we get people back in jobs? That's what my focus has been this week, and I'm not, to be honest, very distracted by that. 100%, but the problem is it is undermining your party, Amy, isn't it? It's undermining your party and undermining that message whenever somebody leaks. So do you have` You may not care who it is. What is your message to the leakers within the National caucus this morning? Well, what I would say is that everyone in our caucus knows that the thing that's going to get us elected is showing that we have the right team and the right plan to get New Zealand through this economic crisis. I think every one of my colleagues know that. And while, as I say, it's always fun in Wellington for the chatter to speculate on who's doing what to whom, that's not what New Zealanders care about. That's not what this election's going to be about, and that's not what we're going to be talking about over the next four months. What about when it comes to campaigning? There was talk this week of a sort of black ops team within the National Party doing some background research on your opposition ahead of the election. That sounds a little bit dirty, a little bit like dirty politics, Amy. Is it? Again, I think that's the way the media have chosen to portray what is a very simple part of a campaign, which is that, of course, we want to keep records of what the government is putting out, what our local opponents are saying, where they're holding events. That's a very standard and, frankly, boring part of a campaign, but I think it's been painted as something much more exciting. So it's nothing personal? Of course not personal. It's about what they're saying, where they're going, what's being coordinated so that we've all got information in the campaign. I can assure you that every party will do a version of exactly the same. When you say 'where they're going', you mean, what, people are going to follow them around? Physically? No, no, no. So, if we know, for example, that they've got a big announcement planned in what's currently my electorate of Selwyn, that's the sort of information, as the local MP, it's useful for us to know. So we keep track on the announcements they're making, where we know they're going to be giving speeches, what's coming out of each party so that we're all as informed as we can be. Amy, you've come out of retirement to do this big job, and you've been asked by Todd to do it. If you don't win the election, if National doesn't win the election, will that be it for you? You'll be gone, back to cosy retirement? Well, I've got to say I'm still looking forward, one day, to sailing off into a quiet life. But my commitment to the party is that I will be with them as long as they need me in that role. I'm very happy to stay and do the full next term. But my commitment is I'll be there as long as they feel I can be of use. So if that's a full next term, then, absolutely, I'm up for that. All right, Amy, thank you so much for that. Fantastic to have you on the show this morning. That is Amy Adams, who is the National Party's COVID response spokesperson. You're welcome. Thank you. If you've got something to say about what you have seen on the show this morning, let us know. We're on Twitter, we're on Facebook and we're on Instagram ` NewshubNationNZ. Or you can use the hashtag #NationNZ. Or, of course, you can email us ` nation@mediaworks.co.nz. Still to come, we dissect the week's political news with our panel. Plus, Environment Minister David Parker joins us live on swimmable rivers. Welcome back. It's one issue that unites New Zealanders no matter who they vote for ` clean pristine streams and rivers. Making our favourite swimming holes and rivers safe to jump into without getting sick is going to cost $700 million. I love rivers, and I love wetlands. I` You know, so many people in this room really are here because they feel this, and I'm determined that we turn this around. It's not easy, when you (SIGHS) have great respect for a politician like David Parker, to be in a position of disagreement. It's much more practical and achievable than what it could have been. There needed to be a nitrate limit, and it needs to be set by the science. The good news is that it hasn't been stopped; it's been postponed. It's like telling somebody ` you know, a smoker who's on three packs of cigarettes, you know, that you're gonna have to cut down to two and a half packs of cigarettes. Farmers have pretty good waterways on their farms already, so it's just gonna be about making sure that we get rid of those bottom-dwellers, I suppose, that are dragging the industries down. # There's somethin' in the water... # So, finally, we have the long-awaited policy for cleaning up our rivers, a key promise from Labour at the last election. Marnie Prickett from Choose Clean Water was on the Freshwater Leaders Group that advised the government. She's an environmentalist with an agricultural science background, she's advised farmers on clean practice, but she doesn't think this policy fulfils its full promise. She joins me now from Wellington. Marnie, thank you so much for being with us. What's wrong with this? Where is the hole in this policy, Marnie? So there's a lot of good stuff in this policy package, but the one big hole is with the nitrate bottom line, so the dissolved inorganic nitrate bottom line. So we know that nitrogen pollution in rivers and our streams and in our aquifers too is a really big deal for the health of our rivers and also for public health, so the quality of our drinking water. And what's missing from this policy is following the majority science advice and putting in a bottom line of 1mg per litre. This is the STAG group, the group that has advised on this ` a majority of them thought we should have a limit; the government has decided not to put a limit on. That's a problem. Yeah, so the government has said it's gonna defer this decision, but as far as we're concerned, we can see that the majority of the science experts, the ecologists, on the STAG group ` on the Science and Technical Advisory Group ` have said that that should be the bottom line, 1mg per litre. And they've actually been supported by public health professionals as well, who have said, well, yes, this has good outcomes for our ecology, our enviro` the health of our rivers, and it also serves as a backstop for human health, because we know that nitrogen in our drinking water is a problem for human health as well. OK, so there's a hole in the policy, in your view. Does that mean that the rivers won't be swimmable? Will we not meet the target that the government's set? I think it undermines the regional plans that are now going to be developed. We've got regional planning processes that will happen over the next several years, and it does put at risk` Not` Because we have to remember that the government has promised swimmable, healthy rivers, and healthy rivers are swimmable rivers, so we need to look at all of those pollutions in our rivers. Not just the faecal contamination, not just that stuff that` not just the things that are going to make you sick; but you want` you know, New Zealanders want to be able to swim in rivers that aren't clogged with algae, that don't have a whole lot of sediment in them, so we need to look at the full range of those pollutants. And we know that nitrate nitrogen in our rivers is a really big deal for the health of our rivers and how we can enjoy them and how safe they are. OK, so what you're saying is without plugging this hole in the policy, the rivers may be swimmable, but they'll be dirty; they'll look a bit grubby. I` I think swimmable` We really need to think about swimmability as a health` You know, we need to look at it holistically and think about it as the health of our rivers, the health of our rivers and lakes. And what not having this bottom line does is it makes those regional planning processes really vulnerable to polluting industries. We know where there's a lack of clarity, where there's some ambiguity about what's expected, that polluting industries will exploit those gaps, and they'll push for the worst possible outcome. We've seen it happen over and over again in regional planning processes. And the other thing to remember here is that the 1mg per litre ` that's not a goal; most rivers in New Zealand are already less than 1mg. It's a bottom line. It's the backstop, so it's to bring up our most polluted rivers to a form of health. All right. Basically, what you're saying there is that industry would just be rolled, would be pushed over` sorry, the industry would be able to push over the regional councils? I think that they would be able to apply more pressure, because there'd be ambiguity there. And the thing is is that, you know, everyday people in these regional planning processes, they're` It's really hard to get a look in if you're part of the public, because these processes take many months ` there are hearings, there are expert witnesses, and most people can't afford to pay expert witnesses to sit there day after day after day and say, 'Hey, please, keep my river healthy. 'I love this place. I want to swim here. I want to fish here.' But people who have a financial interest in keeping polluting, they can pay expert witnesses ` pay scientists, pay lawyers ` to sit there day after day and get those outcomes that they want. And so having this 1mg per litre in place would really be` it would protect the public interest. It would say, 'This is the worst that it can get.' All right, Marnie, thank you very much for that assessment. Fantastic to have you on the programme. That is Marnie Prickett from Choose Clean Water. Well, watching that interview was the Environment Minister, David Parker, who I'm sure will be keen to defend his policy from its critics. Welcome to the studio, Minister. Great to have you on. Thank you. My pleasure. Could we start with this 2017 promise from you that we would have swimmable rivers within a generation ` healthy swimmable rivers within a generation? Will we? Yes. After this policy? Yes. Three parts to our promise ` stop the degradation, see material improvements within five years and have all our waterways back to a healthy state in a generation. I think we'll get there. And when you say you think we'll get there, what's the official advice, based on the compromises you've made in the policy? Well, I would` They're not political compromises. The difficulty that we had in respect of dissolvable` OK, we actually have a problem, I'm afraid, Minister, with your microphone. What we will do is check on the Minister's microphone and come back after the break. We'll be back with the Environment Minister, David Parker, in just a few moments. Welcome back. This is Newshub Nation with me, Ryan Bridge. Great to have your company this morning. We've been speaking about fresh water ` our rivers and our wetlands ` and the promise that the Labour Party made in the 2017 General Election to have us in swimmable rivers within a generation ` a policy, of course, we've been discussing this morning ` and the Environment Minister, David Parker, is with me in studio. Minister, great to have you back. Not muted this time. Not muted this time. Important to be able to hear what you're saying ` particularly because you just said you think we will achieve what we set out to do. Will we or not? I'm confident that this will stop the degradation getting worse. One thing that worries me in the current measures that we have in New Zealand is that we rely upon the measurement of outputs of pollution rather than the inputs that caused them, and we've never managed to do that properly yet. So we're investing a lot more ` we're actually investing over $30 million in those tools to enable that ` but you'll also see in this package that for the first time, we've introduced a limit on nitrogenous fertilisers inputs ` 190kg/ha, which will knock off` or it will require the top 20% of dairy farmers who are doing more than that to actually reduce their input. So if I've got a doubt as to what needs to be fixed up, yeah, it's actually the tools rather than the policy settings. OK. You said that it will stop the degradation. Yeah. Is that what you set out to do? Weren't we going to make it better? We had three parts to our problem. First of all, to make things get better, you've got to stop them getting worse, and at the moment, twice as many rivers are degrading, according to the health of` So this only does the first objective? No. No, it doesn't. But you can't go on to improvements within five years, which this will achieve, without first stopping it getting worse ` so stopping the degradation, material improvements within five years, and all our rivers being healthy within a generation. And the advice that you're receiving is that that will happen? Yes. What you're doing in this policy... Yeah. ...will mean that within a generation, we will have swimmable, healthy rivers in New Zealand? Yes. OK. Marnie's criticism ` we've just heard from Marnie Prickett ` is the big hole ` you haven't put a limit on nitrogen pollution of 1mg per litre of dissolved inorganic nitrogen. Why didn't you do that? Well, there wasn't a consensus amongst the Scientific Advisory Group, so we've delayed that for a year to see whether we can get that consensus. Do you need one? Well, Marnie made the point that already, 95% of New Zealand's waterways are above that` are better than that 1mg limit. The rivers that aren't are muddy-bottom rivers, and there is still controversy as to whether` in those muddy-bottom rivers, what the limit should be. I hope we will get a consensus on that. I'm` You don't need one, though, do you? I mean, you could show some leadership, Minister. Uh, well` I think I am, in the strongest water package that this country's ever had, as was acknowledged by James Shaw on the podium the other day, so I don't think that's a fair criticism. The split on the group, though ` what is the split? Because from where I'm sitting, 70% of the group agreed with a limit. They did. That's right. OK. The Chair thought that a consensus can be reached. It hasn't yet been. The advisory group that we had, which was headed by an environment court judge, said on the basis of the advice that he had, he didn't think we should proceed with a DIN limit now. We've actually gone tougher than that. We actually have it remaining on the table, and as I say, we have since then also introduced this limit on nitrogenous fertiliser. Yes ` which is fantastic, and a lot of people have given you a lot of praise for that. Yeah. Yeah. Let's talk politics. New Zealand First, were they against the DIN limit? Um, they were actually` Is that the real reason we're not going down this road? No. No. No. No, no. It's not fair to say that they advocated against the DIN limit. The package that we took to them didn't include the DIN limit, so... It said that we will delay that decision for a year, so, no, we can't blame New Zealand First for that. That was a decision we took in Government. Did they know, or did they tell you, before you gave them a proposal, that they didn't want the DIN limit involved? No. No. No. No. And, indeed, the driver of slime` Because, you know, Marnie's right ` I've got a lot of time for Marnie ` she's right that swimmability of itself isn't enough, because that's really about E. coli, faecal contamination. To have healthy ecosystems, you don't want too much slime and algae. In gravel-bottom rivers, that's already achieved by the Periphyton Criteria, which says that you can't have slime, essentially, in your rivers, and that's a driver of a limit on nitrogen. We really are down to a debate in New Zealand about what you do with muddy-bottom rivers. That's a vast narrowing of the debate compared with where we were. The other point that Marnie makes, though, is that this creates ambiguity ` it leaves it open to interpretation depending on where you sit with the final solution. If you leave it up to region by region trying to decide how much` where the limit should fall, you create ambiguity, and you create room for industry to push around regional councils. Well, every river has to be maintained or improved, and we've actually got a centralised planning process now, which is going to be led by an environment court judge, so these water plans have a lot more controls on their creation than they have until now, through changes that we're making to the RMA. Actually, and we had a reading on it that started again ` well, second reading ` yesterday. Will it ever be put in? Or day before yesterday. The limit? Will you ever put a limit in? Well, we'll take that decision in 12 months' time. I think the... I think` I think if the output-based package that this is doesn't show the rate of improvement that we expect it will, then the country's going to have to move to input controls rather than measuring outputs. Are you personally proud of every single part of this policy? I am. Yeah, I am. Absolutely. You know, no one` You know, over the past 30 years, we haven't managed to reach a social consensus around this. I've driven this to everyone (CHUCKLES) now agreeing that we need swimmable rivers and that that's actually a proxy for wider ecosystem health. And, you know, I won't be... You know, I would feel I had let myself down as well as the country if this doesn't achieve that. Minister, what about the tax or the levy on commercial water bottlers? What's happened to that? (CHUCKLES) That's been delayed by COVID. Is that right? Well, we actually` You said to Radio New Zealand before COVID, 'We made a commitment to our coalition and supply agreement partners...' Yeah. Yeah. '...we would address the issue of royalties on bottled water 'during this parliamentary term, and that is what we will do.' That's no longer the case? Well, we actually have got something in it about the Overseas Investment Act, actually ` which is already in Parliament; it's had a reading ` but, no, we haven't finished that off. I personally think that these water quality issues are far, far more important than those water bottling issues, which really goes to an issue of economic` So we could say it's a broken promise, couldn't we? I mean, you said you would address this issue. Well, we have. We have, through that Overseas Investment Act. But, look, you know, actually, some of these water bottling complaints in Christchurch I find a bit arcane. They complain about people taking water to put in a bottle and keep it clean when there used to be a wall scour, which actually caused pollution as a consequence of using the same water. So we've got to get a bit of this in perspective. All right. But we'll have no specific on that before... You won't have specific legislation. But it is a criteria under the Overseas Investment Act ` if an overseas purchaser is looking to buy an interest in New Zealand land... Yes. Yeah. Absolutely. ...and they want to water-bottle, well, yeah. Minister, thank you very much for your time. Fantastic to have you on the programme. OK. That's Environment Minister David Parker. Thanks very much. All right. With our borders closed, refugees on their way to New Zealand are stuck in camps all around the world. This week, we learned the Government has quietly opened the border to certain film industry workers ` so when the UNHCR says it's safe to move them, will we get a similar waiver for our refugees? Corazon Miller has more. Meet the Gonzalez family. Life in Hamilton is almost as good as it gets for the former refugees from Colombia ` but for the fact their eldest daughters and grandchildren are stuck in limbo in Ecuador. TRANSLATOR: Our daughters in Ecuador are suffering. They do not have enough to eat. They do not have much money. They were just starting the asylum process. Then COVID-19 arrived. Before arriving as refugees in 2019, Gabrielle, Barbara, Giovanni and Tomas lived in a farm near the Colombian capital of Bogota. We had everything to be happy. Then they came and destroyed all our life. They forced us to the floor, and they pulled their big guns on us. It was last year, as they sought refuge in Ecuador, that the Gonzalez family were told New Zealand would be their new home. (SPEAKS SPANISH) TRANSLATOR: I feel so grateful because I have my family here. My question is when I am going to see my daughters again. So what made you decide to take up the offer to come to New Zealand? Mis hijos. TRANSLATOR: My sons ` so they could have a future. But with borders closed against COVID-19, it is a happy ending that many refugees can only dream of. The UN Refugee Agency, the UNHCR, and the International Organisation for Migration have suspended resettlement departures for all but a handful of the most critical cases indefinitely. New Zealand is an idyllic place for refugees to rebuild. I feel really good to be in New Zealand, because there is... is freedom. Their first port of arrival ` the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre. Here, they are given medical checks, mental health support and English classes. But till the first resettlement flights begin taking off again, this will not happen, so as this intake moves out into their new homes, the multimillion-dollar centre will soon be sitting empty. New Zealand typically receives about 200 refugees every eight weeks, to an annual total of 1000 ` most of these from Myanmar, Colombia, Syria and Afghanistan ` and the annual quota was set to increase to 1500 in July, with an extra 300 places set aside in the 2020 Budget for their relatives. But only 795 of the 1000 arrived in the current intake. At least a thousand refugees destined for New Zealand, 40 of whom were due to arrive in March, are now stuck in limbo all across the world. INTERCOM ANNOUNCEMENT: ...by at least 1m. But as New Zealand makes tracks towards normality, opening its doors to foreign film crew, engineers and others deemed essential to the economy, the question is if a similar exemption could and should be made for humanitarian reasons. What it takes is someone in Government prioritising humanitarian migrants and refugees. My hope is that it's not the case that refugee intakes will be written off and moved to the bottom of the priority. The UNHCR and Immigration New Zealand said conversations were being had daily, but neither were able to say how and when a pathway for refugee resettlement would be opened. In the statement, a spokesperson for Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway said the government would bring in its quota of refugees when safety and border restrictions allowed. They added it was up to the UNHCR to make decisions around this process and would not elaborate on whether any moves have been made to hasten the process. The refugee situation is a humanitarian crisis that has been made worse COVID-19's arrival in a number of refugee camps, including those in Lebanon and Cox's Bazar, the largest refugee settlement in the world. We of course hope and would request that as soon as COVID-19 can be managed and resettlement can start up again, that it at least starts up to the same level that it was before. You can manage both the risks of COVID-19 and also promote resettlement. Hola, Mama. Como estan? Estan bien? For the Gonzalez family, this can't come soon enough. They last saw their daughters and their grandchildren more than two years ago, when they left Colombia, and their son Giovanni, who has refugee status in New Zealand, was trapped there just as the borders closed. There's little he can do but wait for clearance to return home. TRANSLATOR: There's a lot of dead people. Everything is in total lockdown. With no clear timeline around when border restrictions will be lifted, the Gonzalez family feels torn between gratitude and grief. (SPEAKS SPANISH) TRANSLATOR: Your heart is broken totally, because we are in a beautiful country ` we deserve this opportunity ` but have families left at home. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel, political commentators Brigitte Morten and Dr Lara Greaves. Welcome to the programme. Thank you. Great to have you both on this morning ` and, gosh, there is a lot to talk about, isn't there? What a week in politics. So let's start with the National Party. Brigitte, how do you rate Muller's performance this week? I actually rate it pretty highly. I think Tuesday's blunder was obviously a bit of a distraction, and` for, you know, obvious reasons ` there was a bit of an entertainment factor there ` but he did say he was going to not do opposition for opposition's sake, and his way that he conducted question time, the way that he did all his other stand-ups, I think, really demonstrated that. So I'd rate the first week pretty highly. OK. (EXHALES) A 'blunder'? Is that what we call leaving a single Maori face off the top 13? Yeah, see, I probably have a different take on it to you. Mine is is it's so bad that it's done on purpose to be bad. So at the moment, right, if you're National, (SIGHS) no matter what you do, you're gonna come up in the polls, because our research ` I'm part of the New Zealand Election Study and other studies ` has tended to show that probably where they are in the polls now, that's their base vote. So chances are they're going to go up no matter what they do. Ardern's performed so well over the COVID crisis that we're expecting them to go up no matter what. So I wonder to what extent the MAGA cap ` which I think a lot of New Zealanders, if they went overseas and went to the Republican Convention, they would've gotten that souvenir; the lacking` the no Maori on the front bench and some of these things put together ` I wonder if they're maybe dog-whistle politics or an attempt to kind of... try to do an 'us versus them' and, kind of, almost make the media and the Twitterati and all of us kind of look a bit out of touch with middle New Zealand. Surely, Lara, his response to the crisis that was Tuesday would indicate this wasn't planned. No, and I think there's always a danger with politics that you can write in some sort of plan or conspiracy when it's just actually mistakes. And taking over a leadership` Obviously last week` or the week prior was all about getting Muller into that leadership bid, so it's almost like taking over a plane while it's in mid-flight. It's going to be difficult. That's no excuse ` they should've been prepared ` but it's still` it's a mistake. I think it'll go away pretty quickly. All right. What about the... the Todd and the Supremes? The women who are standing behind Todd Muller? Some have said it's to soften his perhaps conservative image, an image of the National Party of years gone by, Lara. Is there... Is this a good thing, he's got three women behind him? Or do you look at that a bit more cynically? I think people, kind of, now are moving` I know my generation, we're moving more towards sort of an intersectional feminism, and you having three women right behind you isn't necessarily diversity any more. Like, that might have been in the '80s or '90s, that's diversity, (CHUCKLES) but nowadays, you know, you need some Maori in there; you need some Pasifika, people from different groups. So that particular angle... I mean, it is kind of good, because... If you` You might have seen, in the last week or so, Muller's position on abortion has come out and come to be quite conservative, and having Nikki Kaye there does soften that for the urban liberals, and I think that that's a positive thing. I think if I was Todd Muller, I'd be a little bit careful about who was behind me ` you know, having Judith Collins and Amy Adams and Nikki Kaye right there, because all three of them, I think, were all sitting going, 'Wait. We've got these qualified women there; why aren't they the leader again?' Well, if he stays around 29%, they may well be (CHUCKLES) one day very soon. Let's talk about Winston Peters. Because he seems to be softening ` well, I mean, who really knows what Winston Peters is thinking? ` but seems to be softening his stance with the National Party. Of course, he hated Bridges; that's out of the way now. What are the chances of some kind of deal here, Brigitte? Well, Bridges is` Sorry, Winston Peters is one of the most smartest political operatives we've seen, and there's no doubt that he's looking at his polling numbers, he's looking at where Labour is taking the country, which is further and further away from his base vote; and he knows, to be in the strongest position possible post-election, he needs to look like he can work with both parties and he would hold both parties to account so he can be in that position. It is exactly where he was in 2017. So he will definitely allow it to be seen that he could work with National, and for him, it's great news that there's been that break, I think, between Bridges and Muller, because it gives him the opportunity to portray that. Unlike the Greens, right, who aren't willing to play the decks? But will he ever do it? Can you realistically see him go from standing next to Jacinda Ardern ` being her Deputy and bashing the National Party, suing the National Party MPs ` and then turning round and jumping into bed with them? You can't predict Winston Peters. (LAUGHS) We should never try to predict Winston Peters. It's just not something anyone can do. Probably not even Winston Peters. All right. Let's talk about the so-called black ops, then, within the National Party. There's report this week from Newshub and Tova O'Brien that they're setting up some kind of intelligence unit, an espionage unit, within the National Party. We don't have a lot of detail on it. Amy Adams says 'nothing to see here'. Does that worry you, in terms of how we run our elections in New Zealand as opposed to places like the United States? To be honest, I'd be worried if they didn't have a research unit. Like, what exactly a research unit does is ` the government makes an announcement; the research unit takes it, pulls it apart, says, 'What has the government already delivered in this space? What have they failed to deliver? 'How does this match what they said they'd do at the last election?' And they arm their guys to, you know, go out and tell the public about that. That's a key part of our democracy. The fact that it's being set up now is mostly, probably, to do with Opposition resources ` you don't have a lot of staff, and so you have to use them carefully. So you are gonna make that group when it's most necessary, and that's gonna be close to an election. This sort of dirty politics thing that you see in the US and in Australia I think really comes from having quite a big political class, And having people as professional political operatives ` we just don't have that in New Zealand, and that's a great thing. Mm. Is that realistic, though? Is it realistic that even a small fraction of that wouldn't look at personal things? I think probably most parties are doing similar and looking at personal things, but` I mean, generally, though, I think we were quite concerned before the COVID crisis that National was gonna go quite negative with their ads and with their campaigning. Considering these are 'unprecedented' times ` which is, you know, a word that's been used far too much ` they literally are unprecedented times; we don't know what a COVID-19 campaign is gonna look like, right? So it's not really clear whether they're going negative; and, I mean, we've kind of seen, though, evidence to suggest ` through Bridges' Facebook post and other things ` that going negative against the government is not gonna be a very good strategy. So it's probably more that ` like Brigitte said ` that they're already gonna have one of those units, that it's been set up, and hopefully they're not gonna go negative, because` Like, hopefully for them and hopefully for our political culture generally. We did have a policy` The first half of the week was spent bashing Todd Muller for not having any policies; now we've got one ` we had his first policy release yesterday, and it's $10,000 if you take on a new employee. Do you think this will work? And do you trust Amy Adams when she says '50,000 new jobs created'? Well, I think that's their cap and, in some ways, a goal to get there. What I think this policy does, though, is recognise that you need to invest in the industries that are growing. There are definitely industries that have done really well out of the COVID crisis. It's, you know, this shifting of resources ` we should be investing in those, we should be helping those industries and giving them certainty, and giving them that sort of bridge of confidence to employ that extra person could be the factor. Sounds a little bit like Labour policy, Lara. Doesn't it? It does a bit, but I was actually quite surprised ` so I went and did some analysis on the New Zealand Election Study for 2017, and only 48% of business owners and farmers voted for National, and I was expecting it to be much higher than that. So I think there's actually this quite vulnerable group ` vulnerable in terms of they will not vote for National; they'll head more the Jacinda Ardern/Labour side ` I think there's a group there that National needs to appeal to that traditionally might have been their base, but they're actually vulnerable to swinging in other directions at the moment. Only 48% of farmers and business owners voted National? Yeah. That's incredible. Yeah. And that's according to the New Zealand Election Study 2017 ` so promo for the study there, but, yeah ` (LAUGHS) and the data available online. Well done for getting it in there too. (LAUGHS) That is Brigitte Morten and Lara Greaves. Thank you so much for your time this morning. Thank you so much for being on our panel. Coming up ` Todd Muller's first crack at the Prime Minister in the House, plus The Pitch with the Green Party leader Marama Davidson. Stay with us. Welcome back to Newshub Nation. Welcome back to The Pitch, where we give an MP five hot minutes to sell you on their ideas. This week, with polls hovering in the 5% danger zone, Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson lays out a plan for saving her party from the brink. We know that we've got to address climate change, we know that we've got to protect our environment, and solve inequality ` and they're all connected. So that's what we're going to be focused on. But that's a very big umbrella of policies. Could you give me one specific thing that you're going to be fighting for the hardest? Well, I think that's the problem. There's not just one specific thing. They all connect and so we are going to be fighting to increase all benefit rates, the lowest incomes for households. We are going to be fighting to make sure we've got a strong plan to reduce our emissions. OK. Let's just focus on one of those areas. Let's talk about raising benefit rates. You've called out what you've said is a two-tier system with the latest tranche of income support that doubled the job-seeker benefit. You've said that that's unfair. But how are you going to get that changed? How are you going to raise those benefit levels? How are you going to bring Labour and New Zealand First to the table? We want to see incomes lifted for everyone to be able to have a liveable life with some dignity. We haven't called out the payment. We support people coming out of work to have that income ` they need it. But what we wanna see is everybody's low incomes lifted to a survivable and liveable level. We have managed to make some good changes with Green MPs when it comes to benefits, like removing the sanction that punishes women and their children for not naming the father, like increasing by $25 through COVID, like tagging benefit increases to wage increases. Isn't this just nibbling around the edges, though? In your confidence-and-supply agreement, Labour has promised to 'overhaul' the welfare system. And they had not done that yet. They've broken that promise, haven't they? It's important for people to know that with the Greens, and only because of the Greens, we have been able to get some really important changes with benefits through. And, yes, we have a high standard. We know that it's urgently needed to increase benefit rates across the board, and what we've done with eight Green MPs across government, I'm really proud of. Massive wins ` in zero-carbon legislation, in conservation, green jobs, in off-shore drilling gas, transport, domestic violence and so many more things. Imagine what we could do with more Green MPs. But what are the chances of getting more Green MPs, Marama, you're hovering around 5%. That's the cut-off. That's the threshold. You drop beneath that, you're out of parliament. And we're certainly not resting on our laurels. You're in danger of being out of parliament entirely. If that happens, would you step down as leader? I'm going to concentrate on getting a good result for our election night. And I'm really proud that the members have noticed the work that we have done, have returned all the sitting MPs into the top of our party list. I'm really proud of the wins that we have achieved, and it's been only because the Greens have been in government and my focus is on getting us a strong win through this election and focusing on what we know matters for people on our planet. OK, you've talked a lot about the things that you've gotten over the line, but it does seem that there is a disparity between what you have gotten and what New Zealand First has gotten. Let's just look at the most recent Budget. 1.7b for defence. 1.1b for the environment. It seems that they are getting the lion's share and then Greens are getting the scraps. And the environment $1.1b isn't the only win that we were able to achieve ` 8,000 more public and affordable homes, 9,000 more safe and healthy homes with insulation, extending Food in Schools ` we campaigned really hard on that. But transformational change hasn't happened, has it? A lot of important things have happened. Ending off-shore oil and gas, that's pretty transformational. New off-shore oil and gas permits. I never thought I was going to see that in my lifetime. Green, nature-loving jobs ` thousands around the country. That's pretty transformational. Isn't the core issue here that as long as you are refusing to cross over the aisle and work with National, Greens are never going to be politically bargaining from a position of strength, because Labour know they're your only option at getting policies over the line. Our position of strength is that it is our members who will decide who we work with and that all depends on what all the numbers are on election night. Our position of strength is our long-standing kaupapa, our charter values, our Tiriti o Waitangi values. Sorry, just to jump in here. Just to clarify, you will` You are open to working with National? Our members at the moment know it's highly unlikely that National will come anywhere near what we need to achieve to protect our climate, our environment and our people, so they would have to come a long, long way before our members and myself as co-leader was open to considering them. Are the Greens completely united? Is there a division between your arm of the Greens and James Shaw's arm of the Greens? Oh, I want to reject that we own different arms of the Greens. Our co-leadership model has always been strong in bringing two leaders with diverse backgrounds and experiences and insights and that's the strength of it. We appeal to different communities and different ranges of people. Our party has always, always had networks and groups who have robust ideas and debate those. And that's also a strength of our party. You're on Newshub Nation. Stay with us, we're back after the break. Welcome back to Newshub Nation. It was the newly minted Opposition leader's first opportunity to go head-to-head with Jacinda Ardern in the House this week, but a misstep over Maori heritage quickly came back to bite Todd Muller. Here's Finn Hogan with the week that was in Wellington. Well, with the Muller-mentum in danger of stalling, the fresh Leader of the Opposition was rearing to take his first shot at grilling the PM. Why has the Government not delivered any direct cash support to small businesses? And for a while, it actually looked like we might have a new era of civility in the chamber. I also congratulate the member opposite on his new position as Leader of the Opposition. Unfortunately, it didn't last long, as one side of the House was much more interested in re-living Nikki Kaye's unfortunate gaffe about Paul Goldsmith's heritage. SHANE JONES: Ah, Ngati Epsom! Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ngati Epsom. SPEAKER: Order, order. And you know Winston Peters wasn't going to pass up a golden opportunity to twist the knife in National. It deeply shocked me that politicians could behave that way. (LAUGHTER) Where they would use inside information to destroy internally the very party the belong to. And where those that have been so heinously treated by demotion have decided to fight from the backbenches against those who are un-wantingly and wrongly and probably in vain promoted. But, of course, it wouldn't be a week in the House without Trevor Mallard making this face at least once. Order. But, luckily for Mr Mallard, his old mate Gerry Brownlee was on hand to cheer him up. That must be worth three questions. (SCATTERED LAUGHTER) SPEAKER MALLARD: That works from the assumption, Mr Brownlee, that your point of order is a valid one. Well, it` And you better get to it pretty quickly. Well, it's always a helpful one. And, uh` (MALLARD, MPs LAUGHS) You're not from the Government. You're not here to help at the moment. Well, moral of the story this week, while there might be a new leader and a few people in new chairs, the House never really changes. All right, we are back now with our panel ` Brigitte Morton and Dr Lara Greaves. Welcome back to both of you. So, you would have seen the Newshub Nation story this morning, and we've been discussing it, and that is the police and this trial of routinely arming a small number of police officers, but a number nonetheless. Were you surprised to see, Lara, in this story, that nearly half of those apprehended during the trial were Maori? No, and I'm not surprised and Maori and Pasifika communities have said time and time again, do not arm the police. There's also not really evidence to suggest that arming the police is going to be a positive thing. And it's something that's not particularly popular with the general public anyway. It's one of those annoying things were they keep going back to this arming the police/the police trials, all that kind of thing, but there's just not going to be any way to feasibly do that that isn't going to disproportionately affect Maori and Pacific communities. Because they're targeting them? Yeah. I've got a background in social psychology. So, in the prejudice literature, there's that explicit racism that people can spot and go 'that's racist'. And then there's this implicit kind of racism that people have. And babies as young as one year old have this implicit bias already, and they've shown time and time again that implicit bias training ` it can work, but it only ever works for a small amount of time. So there's not really any feasible way to implement police being armed and there to not be any kind of bias there. It's inevitable, is what you're saying? So, in evaluating the trial, which is what they're doing, do they get rid of it? You'd want them to get rid of it? OK, all right. Let's move on, then, Brigitte, and talk about the Green Party, who we've also had on the show this morning and Marama Davidson. How do you rate her performance in that interview and what do you think of this position that the members decide who we work with and therefore we'll remain a weak bargaining position? They` I think the fact that they have ruled out National so strongly is really to their disadvantage. That has put them in this position. The Government knows they can do whatever they like. And it means that when this week you saw, with the announcement of the increased welfare payments to those who lost their jobs during COVID, the Greens were 'calling' for stronger action. Well, you're in coalition with the Government. What are you actually doing about that? And you saw a lot of pushback from members about that and from people concerned that, 'Well, what's the point of having the Greens there making these promises?' Because it's in their coalition agreement, and then it's not being delivered on. So no matter what Marama says, it's going to be really difficult for her to go into the election and say, 'No, we are a strong partner, you do need to respect us.' You don't believe it when she says that? Well, I don't think the Labour Party believes here when she says that. And that's her problem. Yeah, it certainly is a big problem, because if they were` And case in point this week with the payment for redundancies versus what beneficiaries are getting, right? We're looking at a two-tier system, and the Green Party is there at the table for this. Yeah, absolutely. And you can see in that interview that Marama tried to turn it towards the announcement about nature jobs, which nobody really knows what that is. And this is coming from a government that's delivered I think about 2% of their one billion trees programme. So when you talk about they're going to create all these thousands of jobs in nature and environmental causes with no plan, it's hard to believe that actually that's going to be something to be realised. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you both so much for your time this morning, it's been fantastic to have you on the programme ` that is Brigitte Morton and Lara Greaves. That is all from us for now. Thanks everybody for watching. We will see you again next weekend. Ka kite. Captions by Joshua Tait, Maeve Kelly and Alex Walker. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2020