- E haere ake nei ` Today, on Newshub Nation ` we are in Christchurch nearly two years worst terrorist attack. - Muslim leader Aliya Danseizen responds to our interview with Intelligence Minister Andrew Little. - And a foreign ambassador accused of exploitation on Kiwi soil. A shocking report from Connor Whitham. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2021 - Tena tatou katoa. Good morning. I am Simon Shepherd in Auckland. - And I am Tova O'Brien in Christchurch. Welcome to News Hub Nation. In political news this week ` - Last week we brought you the story of patients anxious they would lose access to prescribed medicinal cannabis when a new standard is introduced in April. Thousands of patients currently use products that have not passed the standard, which has been criticised for being far too rigid. Five days after our story aired, Health Minister Andrew Little stepped in and extended the deadline for products to meet that standard. - With only two products having been approved in as recently as last week, we need more products to be in the market for it to be properly competitive and to make sure that all those who are reliant on those products can get access to them. - Auckland has joined the rest of the country at alert level 1, following another week of no new cases in the community. - And mental health advocates are critical of the government's rollout of mental health services after a review warned of slow progress. Almost half a billion dollars over four years has been promised to expand services since the 2018 Mental Health Enquiry. - Monday marks two years since 51 people were killed in the worst terrorist attack in New Zealand's history. Life changed forever for those who survived. Earlier I spoke to Mriwais Waziri. He was shot and wounded in the attack, but it is his mental injuries that will haunt him and so many others for life. - Physically and mentally, everybody is suffering. That day has changed the whole thing for the for the community, people who might never come back from the trauma. When he starts shooting, like bang, bang, bang, bang, around 16, 17 bullets, he shot, and turned his face that way, so I got up. (SIREN WAILS) And I still remember the screaming of the day. It still comes to my mind that people were screaming for help. Those were injured inside the mosque, and they were calling, 'Help me, help me.' And people were reading the verses of Koran. Me and my friend, he died on that day there. He was sitting beside me. And the person beside me died. The person sitting in front of me died. My physical injury was not big. I had the shrapnel of bullets in my skull, six holes. I recovered quickly. But my mental injuries ` big. It is big. I might never come out of this trauma. Sometimes you say, 'No, I am lucky.' A lot of the people, they are so traumatised, and they say, 'We wish we died there.' A lot of the times, it comes to my mind. I say, 'I wish I was one of them.' The families are traumatised. The life is not normal after 15 March. So most of the time, you are suspicious of stuff, when you go to mosque and after 15 March. When you get to the door, you remember that day, and you think of somebody might come again and attack and you are looking and watching and you are not going with confidence to the place any more. So, of course, it is psychologically and mentally affecting as I say, everyone. - Even in your place of worship? - Even in the place of worship. You are not safe in our place of worship. My wife, after this 15 March, she is not able to walk on the street with a scarf. She is too scared. She might be attacked by someone in the shopping mall or while she is walking in the park. - And had your wife experienced Islamophobia and racism before? - Yes, she had. Yes. Yes, she had that before after 15 March. - Afterwards as well? - Yes, yes, yes. - What happened? - In a shopping mall, they called her offensive language. 'You are Muslim.' And because of her scarf, she has been abused. Some people forgive him. Even now the Muslim community forgive him, and I respect their view and their decision that they forgive him. But I could not forgive him. It is not about me. It is about those other ones. Those widows, they lost their loved one. Those daughters love their daddy. We were not supported well enough. Some people were pushed to work after two weeks of this. They lost their loved ones. - If you had a message for the Minister, what would it be? - My message would be, 'We are suffering, and we do not want politics in this matter.' Just be honest and support the victims. Physically and emotionally, we need both. - And the second anniversary of the attacks will be commemorated at a remembrance service here in Christchurch. The minister responsible for implementing all of the recommendations from the Royal Commission and ensuring this attack never happens again is Andrew Little. And he joins me now. Minister, thank you very much for joining us. - Good morning, Tova. - Good morning. You heard from Mriwais there, and we have heard it from so many others in the community, they do not feel supported. They are still suffering. They need help. That $1 million that you announced yesterday to go into the community fund, that breaks down to about $5 for every member of the Muslim community. Is there a specific compensation package that you are going to present to the victims of March 15? - There is not a compensation package. The $1m fund is actually to allow the various organisations that represent these communities and others to engage with the government. Really, what I think will make the difference is the collective impact board that we have set up week. As soon as the Royal Commission's report was released at the end of last year, myself and a number of other ministers engaged with the community, we got that message that support that had been in place in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack had somehow disappeared and we needed to put it back together. The Collective Impact Board is a group of representatives from the community, as well as senior officials from various government departments, who will make sure that the ongoing support that is needed is there. Can you not task them with coming up with a specific compensation package for the victims of March 15th in the broader community? - I think there is different needs, because of people's journey, in terms of coming to terms with the trauma, is going to be different and different needs at different times. And we need to make sure that those who particularly are still suffering that trauma, and will for some time, are getting the psychosocial support that they need. But we are not looking at any particular compensation package. Those who are entitled to ACC will have got it. Those who are entitled to other social security support will have got it. And some may continue to get it. But we are not looking at any other form of compensation. - But, Minister, ACC does not cover everyone. It does not cover psychological trauma and does not go far enough. And frankly, the worst terrorist attack in our history, it is not an accident. You need to have a specific scheme set up for these families and for these victims. - So two things there. It is possible to provide psychosocial support for those who do not qualify to get it from ACC. And we have got to make sure that happens, and it did happen in the immediate aftermath of the attack. We need to make sure that happens. And that will be the role of the Collective Impact Board. The bigger question about 'Should ACC cover trauma for things other than physical injury?' That is a bigger question. I know my colleague Carmel Sepuloni, the minister for ACC, is interested in looking at that at some point. But we do not have a work programme on that at the moment. - Because any act of terror is a failure of national security, and therefore, a failure of government. So do not you have a moral obligation to compensate these people that the government failed to protect? - We have a moral duty as a government looking after its citizens to make sure that people are supported through those sorts of things. And the Royal Commission Enquiry has made its findings about whether or not there was a failure of the security services and others. They did not find there was a failure. They said there were improvements those agencies could make, but not a failure. That aside, we are dealing with, very human reactions to an extraordinarily traumatic terrorist event. We have got to make sure that the support that we can put in place is there. - Precisely, it is an extraordinary event. After the 2005 London bombings, after the Madrid bombings, Oslo, 9/11, specific bespoke compensation packages were set up for victims of terror. Why are we not looking at the same? It does not make sense. - We have looked at the response we have made for the victims of the terrorist attack and the broader community has been tailored to that community. Some of the ongoing support fell away last year. That was it was unfortunate. It was wrong. - That is not good enough. - No, it is not good enough. And now we are putting it back together. But we are doing so in a way that is representative. The community have direct oversight, and there is direct accountability to them with senior officials from the government to make sure the support is there. - Because quite a comprehensive and seemingly fair compensation proposal was put to you by Raf Manji, who is an advocate of the victims of Christchurch and the broader Muslim community. $35m, is that too much for the government to spend? - Some will have got compensation through ACC. I acknowledge some have not. But to open up the sort of proposal that Raf Manji was putting together, that has huge implications that go beyond this admittedly extraordinary terrorist event. But it would have implications for other events as well. - Is that not a good thing? Do we not want to set a precedent where we support people if, heaven forbid, something like this did ever happen again? - Yes. And I think that whatever we do needs to be done in a considered sort of way. I get that there are some things, in terms of government policy, in terms of those things that cause significant trauma, maybe we should be having a look at. But in terms of the proposal about that compensation, that would have huge implications that go way beyond this particular event. And I am just not sure that, the kind of framework that we have got that we can justify that. - But we need a new framework to deal with this new event. You compensated gun owners $120m during the buyback scheme. $35m seems like a drop in the bucket, going directly to the victims and the people affected by the attack. - I have heard of the proposal. Actually, I have not seen the detail of it. The issue of compensation` - It will not take you long to read. It is only few pages, and it is very comprehensive. - Was considered by the Royal Commission, and they have said that they did not make any recommendations in relation to that. We are not considering the issue of specific compensation at this point. - That is a shame. One of the big concerns that was also raised by the Muslim community when you have been doing these hui around the country is that no individual or specific government agency was found to be at fault for the attack. Could our spy agencies not foot the bill for that? Because they really had no hope of finding that terrorist ahead of March 15th, did they? Because they were not looking for people who looked like him or believed in the things that he believed. They were only looking for Islamist extremists. - That is not correct. But I think if you have a look at the findings of the Royal Commission, actually, what they focussed on was the conduct of the terrorist. And they said that like lone actors` - But if we were not looking for far-right extremists at all, we were never going to find them. - No. But the finding of the Royal Commission was` And I know members of the community have struggled to come to terms with the particular finding, but particular finding was that there was nothing that the agencies and the police and others were doing or not doing that would have lead to this being detected because he was a` - I find this so hard to reconcile, though, Minister. - I am sure you do. - Because also, you have your head of the SIS Rebecca Kitteridge saying that the SIS was not monitoring the Muslim community, and yet the Royal Commission put out details of your terror watch list ` 100% Islamist extremists. No far-right extremist were being looked into. So how can how do you reconcile what you are saying and also what she is saying, the fact that they were not monitoring the community? - Well, what the Royal Commission said was that, particularly the SIS, had left it until May 2018. So 10 months before the terrorist attack. To start, their work on white supremacism and white identatarian violent extremism, and the Royal Commission said that was very late, given what was happening in other parts of the world. So it was not that the SIS was not on to it, it was that it was very late. That led the Royal Commission to say, how does that sort of strategic decision get made? And that got lost in, kind of, the lack of strategic leadership in our intelligence community broadly, which is why they have recommended that we have this other overlay strategic leadership agency that is going to help out. - Yeah, because if you are not looking for someone, you are not going to find them, though, right? - So the work had started on white supremacism and white identity extremist violence and that work was underway` - And yet, there was no one on the terror watch list. Yeah. So, is Rebecca Kitteridge the right person to be overseeing the change at the SIS, given that she also oversaw that prejudice within the agency? - I do not accept she is prejudiced. She was put in place actually under the last government to lead a culture change in the SIS, to increase diversity` - And under her watch, they were only spying on Muslims` - to improve the breadth of its coverage and she is been doing that work. So, as a government minister, I have got to follow the findings of the Royal Commission. I do not have the right to make my own findings up, and what we are doing is consistent with the Royal Commission's findings. - But you can also look at the facts, and the facts are they were only spying on Muslims. - But that is not what the Royal Commission said and what the Royal Commission said` - That is what your watchlist says. - But what the Royal Commission said was, there was nothing that the agencies, including the police, did or did not do that would have lead to this terrorist being detected. - Terrorism expert, Dr Chris Wilson has told us that the current environment is actually more extreme than it was in 2019. How confident are you that our spy agencies are now looking in the right place? - Well, I am very confident. I mean, I meet with the agencies weekly. I know the work that they are doing. I know the breadth of the terrorist threat that they are having to deal with because it is not just confined to what they see and hear in New Zealand, it is around the world. And I am very confident that they are across it. - A bomb threat from March 15th was busted by an online watchdog group, Paparoa. If they had not clocked that threat, could our spy agencies have missed it? And could we have ended up with another attack, this March 15th? - Look, I am very confident in the way that our agencies operate and deal with and assess threats, including the white supremacist threat and the anti-Muslim, the Islamophobic threat, that they are very well placed to prevent any further physical terrorist attack. - Are they monitoring sites like 4chan? - I am not going to go into what their actions are, what their capabilities are, except that` - It does not look like it, though, does it, if community groups are having to flag these things rather than them identifying them themselves. - Yeah, and I know there is some media reporting ` justified in circumstances ` that that would imply that. But I know that for them to be across that threat, there is a whole range of platforms. But most importantly, what they are looking for, following the established literature, is that stuff that is an indicator to mobilisation, to violence. That is what our agencies, the police and others have to be across and that is what they are across. - Paparoa makes it sound really easy. They use basic software that does keyword searches and we did basic searches ourselves, I can just give you a few examples here. Here is Brenton Tarrant being hailed as a saint. - Sure. - Here is Brenton Tarrant being deified for the number of kills. - Sure, yep. - Here is a link to his manifesto and here is a link to the livestream of the attack. This is all still available on 4chan, so it is hard to hard to see that our spies are actually finding the stuff, and taking it seriously. - So, their role is to be across those threats, the physical threats to any citizen, including our Muslim community and any other faith community or any other ethnic community, and to be alert to mobilisations, to violence. And look, there will be people who will go on platforms like this and thousands of others and on gaming platforms who will say all sorts of things. But what our agencies have to be alert to is mobilisation to violence. - There are only about 5-42 posts about Christchurch ` related to Christchurch ` on these sites every day, according to Paparoa. And if you search for child exploitation online, you get blocked. So why are we not blocking people from these types of searches? - Look, our internet service providers actually blocked access to these sites, but New Zealand` - It was pretty easy for us to find. - Yeah, exactly. So, that is the point. So there is a lot you can do with technology, but actually, ultimately, preventing` being absolute in preventing New Zealanders getting access to these sites there is other technology that can be used to gain access to it and that has been happening. So this is a major challenge, not just for us, but for many countries. - That was not a major challenge for us, though, finding those things. It does not seem a major challenge. - The challenge is blocking it. - Some of the key recommendations from the Royal Commission, the hate crime and hate speech ` just starting on hate crime ` will you do as the Brits have done and create a specific, hate-motivated offences and punishments? - Yes, we have accepted that recommendation and that work is underway. - When is that going to happen? - I expect later this year. That is a matter for the Minister of Justice. And I know that he is working on that, along with the hate speech issue. - Because when Philip Arps dumped that pig's head outside Linwood mosque, 800 buck fine, pretty middling compared to someone who did the same thing in the United Kingdom, was sentenced to six weeks imprisonment. So we want those powers and we want them fast. Do not we? So, when can you commit to implementing those changes? - So, that work is underway with what the Ministry of Justice, and I expect later this year we will introduce legislation to Parliament` - you are happy with how slowly that is progressing? - Well, we have got the Royal Commission's report at the end of last year, they made that specific recommendation, so that work is underway, there is a level of engagement about that. I want to make sure that we set up the Oversight Advisory Group. The reason why I have given priority to that is I want that group to be actively involved in the way we follow up on each of the 44 recommendations. So I want them to be engaged in that. And then we get the legislation to Parliament. - People want to see this in action. On hate speech` - I know` people do want speed, but they also want engagement as well. So I think we have got to get the balance right. - On hate speech, the prime minister, at Al Noor Mosque, on the election campaign, made a commitment to change. The Royal Commission wants a new offense of stirring up or inciting hatred with the maximum penalty of three years. When is that going to happen? - Well, that will be late this year too. A lot of that work has been done, because it is done when I was Minister of Justice, but that is about taking the current law that is in the Human Rights Act, modernising the language and putting it into the Crimes Act, that would be later this year. - How many of the 44 recommendations have you implemented so far, and when will you finish them all? What is the final date? - Look, I cannot give you a final date, because some of them are immediate, some of the longer term. The critical thing for me is, this is about restoring faith and confidence, particularly of the Muslim community, but actually, of other faith communities and minority communities too. - What is the timeline? - So` that is right. So I want to work with them on that. That is one of the first tasks of the Oversight Advisory Group, is to get the list of recommendations and work up a timeline. I know that the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand has done a very useful piece of work and that might be a good first cut. But I want that Oversight Advisory Group. That is a critical point of accountability from the government to those communities and to others, and I think a huge opportunity for real influence and a sense of real power about what we do, how we fulfil the 44 recommendations. - Well, we will be checking in. Thank you very much, Minister, for your time. - Cheers. Thanks, Tova. - All right. If you've got something to say about what you see on our show, please let us know. We are on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram ` NewshubNationNZ. Or you can email us at national@tv3.co.NZ. But still to come ` we dissect the week's political news with our panel. But next, Muslim leader Aliya Danseizen with her response to our interview with Minister Andrew Little. - Hoki mai ano. Watching that interview with Minister Andrew Little was the president of the Islamic Women's Council, Aliya Danseizen. She joins me now. Thank you for your time this morning. The government says that the royal commission said that there was no failure. What do you say to that? - I'm sitting here right now, and I brought this, because they've been saying that to us. I have 800 pages right here that say that they have failed. I have one that shows that the police didn't, um, catch with a fire... licence. I have almost 300 pages of the SIS and what they weren't able to do, and I have another booklet on how they were not supporting our community or other communities like us, and the Royal Commission did not say they did not fail. What the Royal Commission said is that they need a whole systems change to be able to catch people like this and to stop it. They didn't do it, and right from the start, if you look at the first page with a picture, it says that this shouldn't have happened. - Right. OK, so... and yet the government is saying the royal commission has no particular` no` No one's being held accountable. - Because the Royal Commission was not allowed to make any findings of liability. They actually were not allowed by the terms of reference to determine whether or not, under Section three and Section six of the terms of reference, who was liable. That determination hasn't even occurred. So for the government to say they've been exonerated or they didn't fail is a joke. We've got 800 pages that say the whole government has to be restructured. So they need to stop that and start acting. - OK, so what would you want? I mean, you want someone to say` point the finger and say, 'These people are liable', or, 'This agency is liable?' - Well, it` - Would that bring some closure? Would that bring` Would that help? - It's a start of acknowledgement that they didn't do what they're supposed to do. SIS and the government are supposed to protect us as a community, and they did not do that. And the Royal Commission says, 'You have to restructure your whole system to be able to do that'. And when they're saying, 'Well, leaders then didn't` didn't do anything, so they`' you know, and they're still getting re-opt into new` into the same positions again. Actually, those leaders weren't innovative enough to restructure. We had to bring in a judge and somebody from the Foreign Affairs to be able to tell them what to do for their jobs. - OK, so do you want person` Do you want leaders of departments, leaders of agencies to be held accountable? Do you want them to lose their jobs? Is that what you're saying? - They need` - Or do you want an acknowledgement of liability from the government via compensation? - Both. - Both. - We need both. And we need people who weren't creative enough and able to lead these agencies to step off and not even` You know, themselves, they should be able to recognise that they didn't handle it and move on, but if they're not moving on, push them on, and that's the first thing. And then compensation ` we don't just have people that were physically injured. We've lost their businesses. They haven't been able to go back to their lives. Get them to be stabilised and bring them back to as good as` as close as possible as you could. They didn't ask for this. They didn't create the situation, and no one helped them. - The Royal Commission` OK, but the Royal Commission didn't recommend any compensation. - Actually, the Royal Commission made two recommendations that said that they needed to have discussions with the families and find a way to rehabilitate and repair them. There are two recommendations. So if they're going to meet the recommendations, they'll be fronting up and doing some compensation. Every other incident` Norway only has five million people as well. They had 79 people who passed away, but they were able to find somewhere` 850,000 per person to allocate to the families to be able to stabilise them. We know 10 years on that those families still are finding challenges. So we anticipate in our community we're going to be seeing the same thing. We're seeing it out of Quebec. That's two years ahead of us. - So you're saying this government is cheap? Is that what you're saying? - Not the` - Or not valuing the Muslim community in dollar signs? - It's` It's recognising` Yeah, they're not in the sense of cheap. They're not recognising the injuries and the needs that are there, and they've got to be able to find solutions, and part of it is actually stabilising them economically. - OK. - Back to where they were before the attacks. - So what happens now in terms of what is available? We talk about ACC compensation for people who were actually physically injured or people who lost people in the attacks and some mental trauma via the Amnesty or via ACC, but that is not enough. You're saying that is just not enough. - Oh, it isn't enough, and there are examples. There are unique situations. Like, for example, a family that` that lost two. The son had started working so that the father could go back for post-doctorate. That family, the father wasn't working. ACC says the father, 'You calculate the father's'. He was studying, so you calculate his income. How much is that when he isn't earning an income, because he's trying to advance the family, and they were relying on the son, who they also lost? That's one example, but there are examples throughout the whole community like that. The other thing is if you're` if you're not able to walk, and you were walking before, the type of work has to adjust, and it may not economically be at the same level. And it's like, 'We'll get them to work'. Well, that` for five years, the support's there, but this is going to be a lifelong support. - What about the recommendations` Not the recommendations but the implementation of the recommendations, implementation of the of the recommendations ` ie, what the government is saying that will have the collective impact but also the Muslim community can be part of that and steer and help design the programmes from now on. - You don't put money into how they're going` (CHUCKLES) What are they going to steer? If you don't fund or provide for the community, and the example that they did right now is they've allocated 330,000 a year to support 60,000 people, which is one cup of coffee per person a year to go, 'Oh, you'll be stabilised'. So they're handing us a cup of coffee to say, 'Build resilience. 'Build programmes that will make these children safe'. You and I know what a self-defence course even cost, let alone upskilling on technology and safety. So they actually have to put some funding into this. So why don't we get Ministry of Ed putting 100,000? Why don't we have MB putting some money out there, so that a little bit each together can get a collaborative programme that will work? - Do you find that one million amount insulting? - Yes, it's paltry, to be honest. You tell me how I'm supposed to build a community with $5. Just my` You know, for the Women's Council. How are we supposed to create a programme on $5 a person? And then that's... (CHUCKLES) - We've been talking to you for two years now. - Yeah. - This is probably the most frustrated I've seen you. - Because we've been hoping that the government will get it right. You can talk about good. You know, 'We want to do well. We want to', but you actually have to put some action to it, and you actually have to fund some things, and you actually` You need to put energy not just in the talk, but in the walk, and you actually have to fund the walk. You can't just say, 'We want this', and it appears. You actually have to put something there. But if the government can't do it, I'll plant one seed, and I'll grow the tree myself. If they are not going to help us plant it, we'll do it, and we'll find it. Yeah, we'll do it by` by shared dinners and meals on our own, and I'll work 80 hours a week, while the government goes back and sits and have their coffee in the parliament. I'll have to do it. - Are you` I mean, you have been providing a lot of services to the community free of charge, working around the clock, I understand. - Yeah. - Are you exhausted by the last two years? - Yes. We need social workers and youth workers across the nation. It's not just the people in Christchurch that are traumatised. Our community` We have youth that won't go out of the home without a family member or to school. They have to be` They won't walk on their own. We need support across ` which is youth workers, social workers, and we` Where am I, and $300,000 ` that's not even six social workers. - Can I ask about whether the community feels safe in light of the reports of a 27-year-old posting on 4chan and things like that? - So we've had an issue in Nelson. We've had a youth in Wellington. We've had the recent event this week. The examples are here, and they're home-grown, and so we have people in the community that need to be addressed We also need is` a public service that can actually reach them and find them and get them support as well. These are not lone wolves; they've come from a community. They may be apart from the community, and we've got to figure out why they feel apart and also make sure that there are support networks around them so it doesn't occur. And those things have to be invested in. You can't just talk it. You've got to put support. - That is your message, it seems. - Yes. - Fund the recovery. - (CHUCKLES DRYLY) Fund the recovery and` and get creative public servants who actually want to solve this so that we're not seeing it in ten years time. - OK, Aliya Danseizen, we'll have to leave it there, but thank you so much for your time. - Appreciate it. - All right. Coming up, there were stoushes and standoffs in the halls of power this week. Plus, allegations of modern slavery in Wellington, Connor Whitten exclusive report. - Welcome back. Newshub Nation can reveal a foreign ambassador is under investigation in his country for alleged exploitation on Kiwi soil. Peru's ambassador to New Zealand brought a woman to Wellington to work as a maid, and one expert says the claims, if true, would amount to modern slavery. Senior reporter Conor Whitten has this exclusive report. - From 10,000km across the ocean, Diana Baratta came for a better life. Peru to New Zealand. Lima to Wellington. For a maid, this was the chance of a lifetime ` one simply too good to pass up. - Pues, era una gran oportunidad para mi y mi familia. - TRANSLATOR: It was a great chance and opportunity for me and my family. - She would work for her country, for Peru's ambassador, earning more money than ever before. 40 hours a week at New Zealand's minimum wage is four times Peru's average income. She would have to leave her family to do it, but her children would reap the rewards. Yet today, nearly two years later, Diana is completely unable to help them. - Ahorita no estoy apoyando la familia. - TRANSLATOR: Now I am not supporting my family in Peru. - (SNIFFLES) - Out of a job and out of a home ` a victim, she says, of exploitation by Peru's ambassador to New Zealand Overworked, underpaid and bullied. The allegations are extensive. - It could be compared to slavery. I guess you would call it 'modern day slavery'. - So how did it go so wrong? - Yo di todo por ellos. - TRANSLATOR: I gave everything for them. I came here for them. I trusted them. - Her story begins in 2019. Peru was about to reopen its embassy, closed since 2010. - It was a re-establishment of the whole embassy. And so, new office. Everything was new. - Sandra Soto was hired as a personal assistant to the new incoming ambassador. It was a time of pride and hope. - I was very excited because this time I will actually work as a Peruvian for my embassy. - You did it for your country? - Yes, definitely. I did. - Soon the ambassador arrived in New Zealand. Javier Augusto Prado Miranda receiving his credentials from the Governor General in a ceremony at Government House. He brought his two children and his wife along with them, Maria Teresa Alvaredo de Prado. Sandra says their arrival was a turning point. What was it like working for them? - OK. So... Sorry. (WEEPS) They were very abusive. Nothing was ever enough. Never enough. - Diana also arrived with the family to live and work at the official residence, a sprawling $2m property in a leafy suburb of Lower Hutt. She would clean and cook for the ambassador's family, just as she had for five years in Peru. But Diana had never lived with the Prados, and in New Zealand, she says, things changed. When did you start to realise things were not going well? - A los seis meses. - TRANSLATOR: After six months living here. - On top of her usual cooking and cleaning, she says new jobs started piling up, including catering for official functions so the family would not have to hire a chef. And instead of her contracted 40 hours, she claims she worked 80 or 90 a week. - TRANSLATOR: I was working double the amount of hours. - Despite this, she alleges she was never paid overtime. How many hours do they still owe you? - Yo creo que son como mil horas, mas o menos. - TRANSLATOR: I believe they owe me around 1000 hours. - And she says when she raised it with the embassy, she was told the 40 hours in the contract she signed did not really apply to her. - Me dijeron que yo no tenia horario. - TRANSLATOR: They told me that I have no hours, that my work was very different from the others, from those who work at the embassy, that I had no reason to compare with them. - They knew who to do these things with. And that means that their target was the people that were not hired New Zealand, and therefore, Peruvians. - Employment lawyer Bridget Smith says, if true, it's a serious breach. - At the very least, it is serious exploitation. - Diana was especially vulnerable living and working at the ambassador's residence. She does not speak any English, and her right to work here was tied to her job. The only time she could leave the property was when her work was considered finished. But even then, she says she was not free. And when you did leave, did you have a key? - TRANSLATOR: No. - So they were in control of when you could come and go? - Si. - TRANSLATOR: Yes. - Did you feel trapped? - TRANSLATOR: Yes. - It seems like her freedoms were significantly limited, and in almost every way, her minimum entitlements and rights were not meet. - Those who worked at the Peruvian embassy say their work was no less demanding. Sandra was also working long hours,... But they never paid for the overtime or the extra hours that you did? - No. They still owe me. - ...and says she was subject to verbal abuse, particularly by the ambassador's wife. - She called me stupid and silly and inefficient and that I was not good enough. But no one did anything. - Was it bullying? - Yes. Because she was a controlling person and abusive and demanding. - And what did the ambassador do about that? - Nothing. Nothing at all. - Sandra quit in August of 2019 and made a formal complaint to Peru. The Peruvian Foreign Ministry has never responded. Meanwhile, Diana's ordeal dragged on. - I see Diana, and I see myself, even worse because she suffered more than me. - Diana says she was regularly bullied by Alvareda, the ambassador's wife. Recording's heard by Newshub Nation reveal her calling Diana 'pendeja', a Spanish curse word for 'stupid' or 'arsehole'. Others capture yelling and swearing. Diana says she needed proof. - La forma como me trataba... - TRANSLATOR: The lady treated me. How she would yell at me. How she spoke to me. - You wanted people to believe you? - Si. - TRANSLATOR: Yes, because everything I am saying is the truth. - And the allegations of exploitation go even further. Diana says she was forced to spend her own money on the ambassador's family's food. - 'Yo quiero que tu seas sincera conmigo.' - TRANSLATOR: He said, 'I want you to be honest with me and tell me the truth.' I told him, 'Yes, your wife things with my money for you.' - Sandra handled the accounts for the embassy, processing those same receipts for food. - They did not tell her that that was the money for her food. - They used it on themselves? - Yes. They used it on themselves. - It's a pattern of alleged exploitation other migrant workers say they have seen before. How many hours a week do you think you worked? We can't reveal this woman's face or identity, but like Diana, she worked as a maid for a previous Peruvian ambassador before the embassy closed in 2010. She says he withheld a large chunk of her paycheque, keeping the difference for himself. Were they paying you less than minimum wage. At minimum wage or less than? And that's because they were keeping some of the money for themselves. Diana's allegations came to a head when she raised it at the embassy. Soon she found herself out of a job. - TRANSLATOR: I think it was because of that that the ambassador decided to fire me. - They were trying to make her redundant without any reason. They wanted to get rid of rid of her because she knew a lot. - They gave her a week to leave the property, and when she returned to collect her belongings, she found them piled outside the front door. - Esta fue la ultima vez que yo estuvo contacto con el embajador. - TRANSLATOR: That was the last time I had contact with the ambassador. ` Nunca me llamaron... - TRANSLATOR: They never me called me to say thank you. - She made a complaint with Peru's foreign ministry. It is 129 pages long. In a statement, Ambassador Javier Prado confirmed he is under investigation by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Peru. He says he cannot comment while that is taking place. But he also claims Diana's employment and firing were done in accordance with Peruvian law, that only Peru has jurisdiction and New Zealand law does not apply. Diana's contract is a little more murky. Newshub Nation had it translated. It says the employer, Ambassador Prado, will respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state. New Zealand's Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta says she expects nothing less of diplomats. - That they abide by their good employment practises. - By New Zealand law? - Absolutely that they abide by New Zealand law. - But enforcing the law is a different story. Ambassadors have diplomatic immunity, as Diana discovered when she went to police. An email from New Zealand police to Diana confirms an investigation was opened. They said they would raise it with diplomatic channels but warned it was likely diplomatic immunity for the ambassador and his spouse would not be waived. MFAT says it takes these issues very seriously, but their ability to intervene is limited. They have raised it with the ambassador and with Peru. - While I am not going to go into the detail, we are working with the embassy and the ambassador on a number of allegations that have been made. - The Labour inspectorate will not be investigating. They do not believe they have jurisdiction, none of which is much help to Diana. - TRANSLATOR: I want justice to be done. - She cannot work on her interim visa, relying on friends for shelter and food and unable to provide for her family at home. - Por una parte, ellos quieren que yo me regrese. - TRANSLATOR: On the one hand, my family want to return. But as a mother, I feel that I will not be able to do anything because the situation in Peru is terrible. - She and Sandra want someone held to account. - TRANSLATOR: I want them to go back. Because if they bring in someone else, they will do this. - They are not serving their country. They are not serving the citizens at all, not even the employees. - Victims, they say, of their own ambassador who here in New Zealand is immune to the law. - That report from Conor Whitten. Up next ` the news and politics of the week with our political panel. Plus ` the week that was in parliament. - Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` Newshub political reporter Jenna Lynch and former political gallery journalist turned PR consultant Scott Campbell. Tena korua to you both. Thanks for your time. Look, some fiery issues this morning. Scott, what do you think the main issue is for the Muslim community? - Action, or at least a perceived lack of action, and I think in listening to the minister, we don't know when something's happening, other than there will be some delivery by the end of the year. And unfortunately hearing the ministers talk this morning about an advisory board going to ensure that there's accountability, well, he is the accountability, and then almost sitting back on the Royal Commission as being the reason whether or not you can do something or you can't do something ` you're the minister. You're the cabinet. You can do something. I think the frustration that we've shown` that has been shown by this community is just overwhelming, and the longer this goes on, the more likely or the more potential there is for it to actually just go on the backburner, and I think that that this morning came through very loud and clear for me. - So, yeah, Jenna, the Minister there was relying just on the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I guess they're entitled to, but they can actually do other things outside of those recommendations. - Yeah, totally, and the point that you're making that everything's going to be done later this year, what have they been doing in the meantime? It's two years on from the attack. Yes, they had to wait for that Royal Commission possibly to act, but they could have been doing some of that consultation in the background, and when you've got other people coming to you with full blown compensation plans, this $35 million plan, it seems really comprehensive, and the minister hasn't even bothered to read it. That's really offensive and insulting that he's showed up with five bucks each instead. - Yeah. On that point, so if you take the overseas examples, as Tova raised in that interview with Andrew Little, I mean, in Norway, the World Trade Centre, all those kinds of things, compensation packages for the victims and the families were put in place, but this government seems to be relying on existing channels. - Yeah, and` and one of the things that concern me a little bit in that interview was this idea that we might set a precedent, and we have to be careful about doing that. Whether or not there's liability sitting on one person or not, or any specific chief executive or senior official, I think just accept that something has happened, and that the government has a role in actually making it right now. When you have a community that can't walk outside without looking over its back, there's a problem. And when you have the report saying and calling for meaningful and authentic engagements, then do it. - Yeah, I mean, in defence of the government there, I mean, there's been` Jenny Salesa did nationwide hui tour. There has been consultation through the Royal Commission, and now` But is it` It seems to be frustration, time for action if you take Aliya's words, rather than more collective impact board and more oversight and more consultation. Is that` Is that the nub here? - Yeah, well, it seems` It still seems that the intelligence services are failing to pick everything up. This recent threat was alerted to them by Paparoa, the group that's monitoring these white supremacists. It seems more than our spy agencies. They have managed to create this piece of software to monitor these sites. Why can't our SIS do the same thing, or if they can't do it, why not bring Paparoa on board and get them to do it for them? - Yeah, I mean, Andrew Little's response to that is that, you know, 'I can't tell you what they are and are not monitoring', and we have to take his word at that, because, you know, maybe they want the public to carry on with that input, but it is a bad look, isn't it, Scott? - I think you've got a minister who has shown his competence and ability to actually deliver in areas outside of this, right, and I think Pike River is one of those where he's actually been able to work through getting things done there. And so I think in his defence, we have to take him at his word on it, and he's not going to tell us what the` what the spies are looking at. - No. - However, when you've got a community that is concerned about whether or not they are looking, it just shows that there's a breakdown in that connection and that engagement, and that's something they need to work on quickly. - OK, um... (CHUCKLES) Yes, there's going to be a lot` a lot of water to flow on that one, the Muslim community definitely not happy. Let's talk about the other big issue, which is covid, and, you know, we went back to Level 1 really quickly, didn't we, on Friday, Jenna? Is it` Was there frustration that it happened just like that? - Yeah, I think from the businesses, event managers, anyone that was trying to prepare for that level change, it` all indications were that it was going to happen on the Saturday morning, and all of a sudden, all of the businesses had to kind of spiral into action, staff themselves up for a busy Friday night and Auckland. I don't think that outcome necessarily would have changed if the government had announced it the day before. It still may have been midday, but giving businesses that, sort of, certainty, and also the government keeps changing the goalposts of how they're doing this. Covid is unpredictable and uncertain, but there are things that the government can give certainty on, like sticking to a framework when it comes to these alert levels. - Yeah, I guess, you know, businesses have been crying out for certainty. So any kind of acknowledgement of forewarning that they are going to be actually trade for once would be a good thing. That would get them onside with the government. - I think the public trust and confidence in their approach is really under scrutiny at the moment. And when you have a government that essentially` well, did make a decision in principle, we know now, on the day before,... - On Thursday, yes. - ...if` Why couldn't they have said that they'd made a decision in principle, but that we're waiting on some results before we confirm it tomorrow at 12 and give those businesses the extra 24 hours or however long to actually gear up so that they had people ready to go back into the businesses. It's not an easy job to go and just try and find 10 waiting staff to then go and get ready in four hours time to serve all the people down on the waterfront. - Yeah, yeah. Yeah, that was` That was a very publicly aired gripe yesterday. They have rolled out the vaccine timetable. Should they have moved faster, do you think, Scott, with targeted vaccine in South Auckland? They` They've done elderly people and people at risk, but not the wider community. - I think, um, without knowing exactly what their delivery ability is and whether or not the infrastructure is there to` to support that, you know, I think` should they have done it sooner? The easy answer is yes. Could they have done it sooner? I don't know, and I think when you look at Northland, they can't go there, cos the infrastructure is not there. - I think they could have decided those categories sooner. There's no reason that the government couldn't have sprung into action to give us certainty of who was going to get vaccines first when they first made those purchase orders. We seem to be behind everyone else when it` You know, the Aussies have more certainties. You type in, you know, your location, your age, your health requirements, and get a pretty good idea of when you going to get the vaccine, but... and` yeah. - It's tricky, isn't it, you know? And just finally, look, the trans-Tasman bubble, the Aussie PM, Scott Morrison, has been piling, sort of, on more pressure on. Judith Collins has piled in again on that as well, and the tourism sectors is like` They're screaming for help. So where do you see this going, Scott? - Well, hopefully two ways... - (LAUGHTER) - ...very quickly,... - Soon. - ...and soon, but by all accounts it seems like we're not moving fast, and Australia's hoping that we do. - Yeah, we don't seem prepared to take the risk on Australia, even though they're doing better than us at the moment, by all accounts. - Well, that's right. They haven't really had many` well, hardly any community cases recently, especially in Victoria, where we're` where` That was the area of concern, and they're willing to say, 'Yeah, come on over, no bubble'. - Yeah. I wonder whether the government is now, sort of, waiting for this vaccine rollout, and maybe we can do a` sort of, a first move on the vaccine passport stuff, rather than going for the` trying to set up bubbles when` when the vaccine is so close now. - Yeah, I guess when` when they're weighing up whether or not they just wait out the frustration of people going back and forth, or whether or not they risk an outbreak which might sink them,... - Yeah. - ...it's probably the decision that they're looking at at the moment. - OK, well, we're gonna have to leave it there. Thank you so much for your time, Scott Campbell and Jenna Lynch. Stay with us. We're back after the break. - Hoki mai ano, we're back with our panel. Jenna Lynch, Scott Campbell, thanks for your time. Jenna, what did you make of Chris Hipkins this week, putting his foot in his mouth again? He's sort of reiterating the Aussie Immigration Minister's language, of, like, 'garbage' and 'trash'. - Yeah, to be fair to Chris Hipkins, he has the quickest back-down in the west. - (LAUGHS) - So, I think it took him 36 seconds to wind back the garbage comment after he made it. - Does that mean he's learnt from the last time? - Yeah, the last time it was four minutes, this one was only 36 seconds. The Aussies, obviously, are not` This was a pretty strategic campaign for them, to` you know, Dutton coming out there and calling the deportees trash. We spoke to one of them. She was a mother, left two kids behind, she was convicted on pretty minor drug possession charges, she's not gonna see those kids again. These people are not trash. Yes, they've made some mistakes in their life, but to call them that is pretty offensive. Probably shouldn't have doubled down on it. - No, no. But the way that that report was phrased, it was like, you know, murderers and every worst kind of criminal that you could get, it was very` it was just tar` it was targeted, wasn't it? - It was ugly TV. I guess, from us on this side of the Tasman, it was. It's playing, probably, to a domestic audience of people in Australia who want to see those 501s and deportees to leave the country. But, poor taste. And then to actually see the reporter then not really show any respect when people got fired up about it, I thought that that was even worse. - Mm. OK, let's talk about another potential gaffe this week, Ashley Bloomfield admitting that he was` that he got some tickets to the cricket. Should he have accepted them, Jenna Lynch? - Oh... It's kind of a tough one. You don't want Ashley Bloomfield not to be able to go along and enjoy a game of cricket. The thing here was about the perception, so Ashley Bloomfield seems to be acting more like a politician than a public servant at the moment. The public service needs to be the pillar of neutrality in New Zealand, and there is room for the perception that, you know, these cricketeers might have got quicker access to vaccines, just for slipping him a Sprite in the changing rooms. - (LAUGHS) - Yeah, is it a sackable offense? No. Should he have done it, under the letter of the law? No. But should we really crucify him for it? I don't think so. - Don't take on Ashley. - Don't take on Ashley, all right. Let's talk about the National Party. Now, the National Party board sort of released its report about the election defeat to its MPs, but won't make it public. What do you make of that, Scott? - Not surprising, probably. I can imagine that it hasn't` doesn't have a lot of good reading in it. And so, at the moment, you've got a government that's under pressure and people who are on fire on the other side of the House. The last thing that National wants to do is give anybody any reason not to like them. So I can understand why they didn't put it out there. But it doesn't garner up a whole lot of trust, though. - Yeah, I disagree. I think it was a dumb move. There was heaps of stuff going on that, basically, would have been buried in a news cycle. They could've had one hit and laid it all bare, on the table. Now that it's secret, it's got this, like, mystifying power. - We want to see it. - I really want to see it, want to know what's in it. - All right. Thank you very much to our panellists, Scott Campbell and Jenna Lynch. Again, thank you. All right. The House may have been sitting this week, but Trevor Mallard was on his feet for most of it. Here's Ben Hogan with the best from a raucus week in Wellington. (MISSY ELLIOT'S 'PASS THAT DUTCH') - Well, look. A lot has happened since last time we checked in on the chamber, but one thing never changes ` Trevor Mallard is not impressed. - Look, will the member sit down? - Particularly with his old mate, Simon Bridges. - Uh, the next` - Order, order. The Honourable Simon Bridges will leave the chamber. - Meanwhile, Megan Woods and Nicola Willis were going head-to-head over bang for buck on housing. - How do taxpayers benefit from a $10,000 video, promoting a scheme most will never access? - What I suggest, Mr Speaker, is that that member get outside of her ivory tower and speak to some real people. - And, of course, the PM clashing with Collins over everything, from COVID to KFC. - It's now clear that the KFC worker was told conflicting things. - We would never public health advice via Facebook comments and messages. That is not where we provide health advice. So it is patently incorrect. The member is, I'm sorry, wrong. - So, in these troubled times, just rest easy, knowing that no matter what's happening in the real world` - Order, order. - the House stays the same. - And that's all from us for now. Thank you so much for watching, we will see you again next week. Hei kona mai. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2021