Today on Newshub Nation, Environment Minister David Parker on whether our kids will ever get clean rivers. - Is taxpayer-funded koha for the Mongrel Mob a sackable offence? Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt defends his role. - Labour free spirit Louisa Wall joins us live. - And Digital Editor Finn Hogan on who's up, who's down in politics online. - Tena tatou katoa. I'm Simon Shepherd. - And I'm Tova O'Brien. Welcome to Newshub Nation. Ko nga pitopito korero i te Whare Paremata, in political news this week. - Surgeries are being postponed and hospital wards are at capacity as respiratory virus RSV hits the nation's babies. It's more pressure on a health workforce already struggling to keep up with demand. And now nurses are planning further strike action. - COVID's delta variant has been confirmed in a vessel off the Taranaki coast, the same variant is in New South Wales and Queensland, where the travel bubble pause has been extended. Meanwhile, Medsafe has approved the Jansen vaccine as a back-up to the Pfizer jab. - And still no government commitment to help children of skilled migrants stuck in limbo while their family's residency applications are processed. Hundreds are unable to work or study, some telling Newshub it's causing depression and anxiety. The Immigration Minister's asked for advice on the issue. And a COVID-19 press conference in Parliament was delayed on Friday when reporters came face to face with Labour MP Sarah Pallet and her bridal party. Chris Hipkins stepped aside to allow his colleague, the blushing bride, to walk down the aisle to get married in the Legislative Council Chamber. Cleaning up waterways and reducing agricultural pollution ` two challenges this government is finding quite tricky. Proposed rules for both have been delayed, sparking accusations the government is kowtowing to farmers. The minister responsible is David Parker. I spoke to him earlier and began by asking what he thought of new winter grazing footage released by animal rights group SAFE? All right, Minister. Let's start with winter grazing rules. First off, I want to show you this footage supplied by animal rights group SAFE to Newshub reporter Alexa Cook, and it shows, as you can see, cows on wetland, seemingly flat. Now, is this an acceptable example of winter grazing? - Uh, it's hard to tell from that. Obviously, when you have rain on flat land, it does pond. But we know that winter grazing in Southland, for example ` we've got a problem with both the quantity of it and the quality of it. - Right. So, because this is another farm, it looks like, where the cows are up on the hill there, and there's a lot of runoff there, and there's a lot of water. - There is, and you can see how that can ruin a river. - OK. So is this what the winter grazing rules are supposed to rule out? - Well, yes. Yeah, they are. You know, that's pretty obvious that there's a loss of a lot of sediment on that occasion. - OK. - And, look, the difference here between sloping ground and flat ground is incredible. Even on flat ground, you can lose tens of thousands of tons of soil to adjacent waterways per annum. - All right. - And if it's sloping, it can be five times as bad. - OK. So, given that, why are the winter grazing rules that you proposed being pushed back until next year? - Well, there were two reasons for that. Firstly, the winter grazing rule as to the replanting date was said to be too rigid. We chose a date that was later for Southland of the 1st of November, but even some years, you can't plant new grass seed by the 1st of November. - So, and that was on the advice or pressure from farmers to have that done? - It was on advice from my own officials as well as from regional councils. And so, the farming sector came to us and said, 'Look, we're going to transition to farm plans anyway. 'Why don't we bring forward an intensive winter grazing module for farm plans, 'get the industry to push it really hard?' They gave us an undertaking that they would try to both reduce quantity and improve quality of winter grazing, and so we've taken them at their word and we're monitoring it this winter. - From the outside, it looks like you've given into pressure from farmers. - No, no. You know, no, and I never will, to be perfectly honest. I know that I take a lot of rubbish about this from some splinter groups, but all I'm trying to do is reduce pollution. I'm not trying to stop it. And I think that most New Zealanders are with me because they don't like their rivers and estuaries filling up with mud. - Absolutely. So will we see that kind of footage, you know, next year? - Well, the flattest ground always ponds when you graze it in winter intensively, and there's no avoiding that. What you can do is make sure that cattle are moved off it if the mud gets deep. - OK. - And you must prohibit it on sloping land. So I want less winter grazing, and the winter grazing that we've got left, I want to be of a better quality. - Right. So there will still be winter grazing, but you hope it's better quality. Isn't this a bit of a blow to our clean, green image that we still have these kinds of pictures? - It absolutely is, and I think that's one of the reasons why there are lots of farmers that are motivated to do better, even if there are a few recalcitrants that we're having to drag along. - OK. A year ago` Let's talk about water quality ` another complex area. About a year ago, you released your package to clean up rivers and lakes, but it was missing one crucial thing, which was a maximum allowable nitrate level. Too much nitrate kills river health, basically. So on this programme, you said it would take a year to fix that. Have you? Have you said it? - That's not quite what I said. I said we'd review it after a year. - OK. - You know, the two biggest problems with river and estuaries and lakes and things are sediment and excessive nutrients. Of excessive nutrients, the biggest problem in New Zealand is nitrates. There are two` - That's right. So why not set a maximum nitrate level? - Well, the suggestion is that we should have a maximum nitrate level of 1mg per, um,... - Per litre. That's right. - Per litre. We already have an effective limit of lower that for every gravel bottom river in the country, and one of my concerns is if you set a limit of 1, that will be seen by some in the sector as being a target and that they should be able to bring up rivers that are below 1 to that 1. We know that if you have even a limit of 1 in a gravel bottom river, you have the overgrowth of periphyton ` slime. - Slime. Yes. That's right. - So we've already got rules that prevent that, so the debate now is essentially about muddy bottom rivers and whether you should have a DIN of one with some exceptions or whether we shouldn't` - And that debate ` so, I mean, that was a debate that you couldn't agree on, or the Scientific Technical Advisory Group couldn't agree on a year ago. Where is it now? Are you dropping that? - No, we've said that we'll reconsider it this year, and we are. That involves consideration as to whether, you know, has the science changed? What's the effect of the package that we've already got? What's the environmental benefit of a tougher limit on DIN? - And all those questions were being asked last year. It's been a year on. Has there been no progress made on this? - No, that's` No, it's not. We're working those issues through, but we haven't landed it yet. - You still haven't landed it? Has the science changed? - You know, that sounds a very critical way you ask that question. This is really difficult stuff. - OK. - And we are making a difference. I phoned the head Freshwater Commissioner. This is a new post that we legislated for last year. He's a very experienced environment court judge, former professor of planning as well, and I said to him ` Peter Skelton ` 'Peter, is this going to work?' And he says, 'This is going to make a difference.' So I think` I think, you know, it's hard, but I think we're doing the right things. - OK. Just quickly on this, I mean, the Science and Technical Advisory Group ` I've been provided with quotes which say that the inclusion of this kind of thing ` a DIN as it's known ` is recommended because it will impact both the structure and functioning of healthy ecosystems. - Mm. Yes, that's correct. - So there will be a DIN? Because farmers don't like it. - Well, there is already a DIN in effect for all gravel bottom rivers in New Zealand. That's why I drive this point home, because there is already a lower than` In fact, this week, the scientists ` a group of scientists ` said it shouldn't be 1 for gravel bottom rivers. It should be .6. - Yeah. OK. - Well, that's` - But for other rivers, it should be 1 at the maximum, shouldn't it? - Well, uh, no. There are` It's not quite that simple because there are some muddy bottom rivers where some scientists say that you need an exception because the DIN should be higher than 1. - OK. - Uh... - OK. - We've also got a limit on the amount of fertiliser per hectare that can be applied, which used to be` some farmers were using over 300kg per hectare per annum. We've limited that to 190. That also has a benefit on nutrient losses. - Are you running out of time as a government? I mean, are you risking` You've been in for four years. You're in your second term. I know these are complex things, but you have a certain time frame to get this done, haven't you? - Hey, the` - Do you think the opposition would do it? - No, I don't think they'd do it. - Well, there you go. It's on you. - Yeah. No, it is on me. But, you know, we've changed the RMA, we've required council plans to be vastly different, and we've got standards around intensive winter grazing that didn't used to apply. Now, if we have poor practise in Southland and they're not on the road to recovery, we've made it clear that that regulation that sits behind that will actually return. - OK, let's move on to another area that you're responsible for, and that's plastics. You've announced that you're phasing out a number three plastic, basically ` PVC. - Yes. - And some other plastics. They're used for food and beverage. But those PVC plastics are used in a much broader area, and there's concern within the plastics industry that you're not being ambitious enough there. - (LAUGHS) Oh, it's hard to please everyone, isn't it? - (LAUGHS) - You know, look, what have we done? We actually banned single-use plastic bags. There's a big` - That was two years ago. Yep? - OK. Two years ago. And since then, we've stopped a billion plastic bags going into landfills ` substantial progress. We've got other plastics that, if they get mixed up in the recycling of other plastics, ruin the recycled plastic, so we're banning them. We're banning various other single-use items like drink stirrers and plastic cutlery and those pesky plastic stickers. - Yeah. So you're phasing those out. - We're doing a lot. Should more be done? Yes, it should be. - OK. So what is the next step? - Well, I personally think that we need to update the Waste Management Act, which we're doing, and create a process so that, annually, we're knocking out the next thing that ought not to be in the waste stream because it's not necessary and it causes problems. We're considering container deposit legislation. We've got a waste minimisation strategy for all plastics, and one of the things that will eventually be considered ` if you do move to container deposits, you can have different deposits on different materials so as to encourage people to` - Right. So if I give a high-value plastic back, I'll get more money back? Or something like that? - Or if you're the producer of it, you might have to, you know, pay more for recycling than you would if it was a clear plastic. - There's a lot of confusion about plastic numbers, isn't there? I mean, do you know which` out of the seven numbers, do you know which are the good ones? - Well, I sort of do, but` - I would hope you do as Environment Minister. - But you sort of need your magnifying glass out to tell. - Yeah. - So one of the things we're trying to do is to chunk down to fewer grades of plastic, move to a different labelling system that's easier for people to follow. - Yeah. Are you going to make it uniform nationally? Because it's so different council to council. - Yeah. We're going to make it uniform nationally. We're also working with industry to help them manage out the problem plastics so that they're actually not in what we buy from the supermarket. - OK. I want to ask about your other portfolio ` revenue. Right? So, it's been in the spotlight because of the feebate and utes. - Mm. - What is the situation with double-cab utes? What has Inland Revenue told you? Do they get a tax break or do they not? - They've never been accepted as a class of vehicles. A lot of people that use twin-cab utes have never been caught by the regime because they legitimately take their ute home at night full of tools, for example. So this isn't a debate about tradies. But there has` - Is there debate about the people who don't use them for taking home tools? - There has been a misapprehension amongst some people that's been common view that twin-cab utes are always exempt from fringe benefit tax. That's never been the case legally. - OK, but they've proliferated on that assumption, haven't they? - Well, I don't know. No, actually, I don't think that is the main reason. I actually think most people that buy twin-cab utes use them, buy them because they find them convenient and they like to use them. - Right. - I don't think it's driven by tax primarily. - OK. So this issue ` that Inland Revenue isn't chasing people for not paying the fringe benefit tax for the double-cab utes ` it's not an issue? - Well, the decisions that Inland Revenue make about who they chase for tax avoidance are made by them, not me. - Mm. - And they tell me that there's much other areas that are more profitable for them to chase down, which is why they're not chasing down FBT on twin-cab utes. - I have one more question for you in terms of your environment portfolio. The UK, the US, and the EU are looking at right to repair legislation. So, you know, if you've got a washing machine, the manufacturer has to have those parts so you can do that. Is that something that you'd be interested in? - Yeah. In fact, I met with the Consumer organisation this week, which is something that they're keen on too, and I'm interested in that, and we will be considering that as part of our review of the Waste Management` Waste... - And what's the time frame for that? - Again, we're expecting to make Cabinet decisions on that later this year, but I'm personally frustrated. I had a fridge that broke down recently; couldn't get a part. When I eventually tracked down a part, couldn't get someone to repair it. - Right. - After five weeks of running a chilly bin in the fridge, I gave up, chucked out what was a perfectly good fridge. It was such a waste. - All right. So those rules are definitely coming in, according to you. (LAUGHS) - Well, I'm definitely interested in them. They're Cabinet decisions, not mine. - All right. Minister for many things, David Parker, thank you very much for your time. - Thanks. - And Newshub's Alexa Cook will have more exclusive details on that winter grazing footage we showed you on Newshub live at 6. - If you've got a news tip, get in touch, we're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, or you can email us at nation@tv3.co.nz. - E whai ake nei, still to come, we dissect the week's political news with our panel. But first, National wants him to resign. ACT wants his office abolished entirely. It's the embattled embattled Human Rights Commissioner. Since the Human Rights Commissioner gave a $200 koha courtesy of the taxpayer to the Mongrel Mob Kingdom Waikato Chapter, National has called for his resignation. - And ACT went even further. It wants his entire office to be abolished. I spoke to him earlier to ask why he did it. - Can I just back up a little bit and explain briefly what the Human Rights Commission seeks to do? Because that provides a context for me going to Kirikiriroa, to the hui and the koha and so forth. So really briefly, the Human Rights Commission, established by the Human Rights Act, our business is human rights. All human rights for everybody. That is the human rights which are in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Another thing that's really important is that we're not just about human rights for lawyers going to court. It's human rights for public officials to take into account when they're drafting their policies and so forth and so on. So we are interested in what's happening in the Beehive and Lambton Quay, but not just for lawyers. It's the public officials as well. - Totally. So inclusivity is part of your remit, right? - It is. - You want to bring people in so to have these conversations, but why did you give $200 taxpayer money to the Mongrel Mob? - As I was about to say ` that what we're keen to do is to reach beyond the Beehive and Lambton Quay to different communities to show how human rights can help deal with difficult issues. And that means that we have to think about what human rights means. Now, human rights isn't just about entitlements. It's also about building good relationships across communities, between communities with whanau and so forth and so on. It's about relationships. It's also about responsibilities. Everyone has, not only human rights, but human responsibilities. That's what we're arguing. And also there are rights. So what I call the three Rs are really, really important. Now, those three Rs ` talking about relationships, responsibilities and rights, those were the things that led me to attend the hui on the 1st of May. - For sure. We can see them there on your on your shirt. Marama Davidson, the Greens co-leader, she was at the same hui, Mr Hunt, and she didn't pay a koha because it wasn't on a marae. Why didn't you follow her example? - First of all, can I just say that the sweatshirt here is not paid for by the taxpayer. - Thanks for clarifying. - It's paid out of my own pocket. - Let's stick to the amount of money that was paid by the taxpayer. - I took advice, and I was advised that the appropriate thing to do is to be respectful of Tikanga ` Maori protocol. - Personally, how did it sit with you? Can I just put to you something that RNZ journalist Meriana Johnsen said to Willie Jackson this week. Why would you uphold Tikanga for a group that don't uphold Tikanga? 'They harm our people; they pump meth; they beat the women.' So personally, are you comfortable giving them $200 of someone else's cash? - Yeah, look, to be absolutely clear, in case there's any misunderstanding anywhere, I abhor violent, criminal, drug peddling gangs, wherever they come from. Wherever they come from. The question is, how do we deal with that issue? Now, one deal, one way of dealing with it is by looking at a very narrow lens of criminality. And has that worked? No, it hasn't. There's another way of looking at this challenge that you're referring to. - I don't I genuinely don't think anyone is contesting the fact that you are having these conversations. I think they are critically important, but did you consider just paying for this one yourself, maybe, given it is so contentious? - No, no. I was there on behalf of the Human Rights Commission. - But how much does the taxpayer pay you? - The koha was from the Human Rights Commission. - On the flip side, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, the Maori Party co-leader, has come in to bat for you, backing up a lot of those points that you've just made. She said that your critics are race baiting. Do you agree that your critics on this are race baiting? - I'm not going to enter that. Look, the this issue, of course, it has an ethnic and cultural dimension to it. Of course it has. And, you know, when I listened, I was there to listen and learn and also to have some challenging conversations. And what did I hear? I heard about poverty. I heard about discrimination. I heard about dislocation. I heard about a sense of powerlessness. Look, I'm not naive. I understand how these gangs that` the history that these gangs have. I understand that. But one has to engage. One has to` I favour social inclusion, not exclusion. I don't favour demonization. I don't favour dissing people's culture, and I think we should be respectful. - Yeah, I agree. We should be respectful. The government's proposal on hate speech. Do you think that it strikes the right balance, or do you think, perhaps, it could be clearer or tighter, given that the bar is set so low for language, which is just insulting? - Yeah, this is a terribly important issue, a really polarising issue. For a long time now, the Human Rights Commission has been saying, 'Let's have a respectful, inclusive and calm discussion about these matters.' We are finalising our submission to the government just now. It'll be published in a few weeks' time, during the period of consultation. - I'm sorry to interrupt, but if I could bring you back to the question, do you think it needs to be tighter? Do you think that insulting is too low a bar? - Well, look, wait for our submission to come out on that. - The central question when debating hate speech is where to draw the line. And we've been trying to work out, at Newshub Nation, where that line is. If someone says that all gay people are going to hell, as Israel Folau did, is that hate speech? - Look, that's going to be a matter for the judges to decide. - Yes or no, in your opinion? No, no, no, no, no, no. No, the legislation has to set out the parameters, the principles, has to define the thresholds, has to define the groups, various principles have to be established, and then ` really difficult ` what the literature calls 'wicked problems', really difficult problems will have to be adjudicated by the judges. - One of the most visible and invisible human rights abuses in the world right now is what's going on in Xinjiang Province in China. Do you believe that genocide is going on there against Uyghur Muslims? - If you... It's a really good question. However, I have to say this ` I am empowered under the Human Rights Act to do my best to promote and protect human rights in Aotearoa. It's not possible for me to talk about what is happening` - OK, so you don't have a view on Xinjiang. - Of course I have a personal view. In my present position as Chief Human Rights Commissioner, it's not within my mandate to lawfully make comments in that area. - Let's move back to New Zealand, then. Housing. Adequate housing is a fundamental human right. Do you think emergency motels are adequate housing? - Well, a good place to start is to look at the recent recommendations and report that has come out of the United Nations by an independent expert on the right to housing. And have a look at what she says. She talks about housing` - I want to know what you say. (LAUGHS) - Housing is a human rights crisis. Sorry, Mr Hunt. With respect, do you think emergency motels are adequate housing? - What I invite you to do is wait for the launch in a couple of weeks' time... - OK, you're not going to answer that one either. ...on our framework guidelines on the right to a decent home in Aotearoa. When those publications, those guidelines are launched, probably in the first week of August, - I'd be very happy to discuss it further with you. - I look forward to it. There is a lot of waiting going on off the back of these questions. There are about 24,000 people on the social housing waitlist. That's 24,000 people who don't have access to adequate housing. So is the government breaching the rights of 24,000 vulnerable New Zealanders? - Well, as I said, Tova, let me come back with the framework guidelines. - LAUGHS: You didn't say anything. - We'll talk about the issues when you've got them in front of you. - We look forward to reading it. What about prisoner rights? Amelia Wade's story about an inmate who was self-harming, had pepper spray used on him three times. A human rights lawyer says that Cell Buster pepper spray could be a weapon of torture and in breach of the International Convention Against Torture. Do you agree? - I do agree. I do agree. We have national preventive mechanisms established in Aotearoa to ensure these things don't happen; or if they do happen, they are exposed. I'm the chair of the committee that looks at those things. And it's really important that all measures are taken to ensure there is not torture, inhuman or degrading treatment in places of detention. - So we should abolish the use of that Cell Buster pepper spray in prisons? - I think that I would have to take expert advice on the medical implications for it. But I'm deeply worried about the use of excessive force in restraint and social inclusion. - Part of the broader problem that you don't ` you and your commission ` you just don't have any teeth. You can't do anything about any of these things, really, that we've talked about. - Yeah, look, Parliament, in its infinite wisdom, has given us certain limited powers. I have to make the best of those powers. I think that it would be appropriate for the powers to be revisited. - And do you think today in this interview, where you haven't really been able to answer many of my questions ` you've kind of kicked to touch ` do you think that maybe you've vindicated the ACT Party and the National Party who say you should go, or say that your role should even be abolished? - Well, I think it's a little bit unfair and unkind. Look, I have indicated to you that we're publishing in a few weeks' time some original, groundbreaking framework guidelines on the right to a decent home in Aotearoa. In a few weeks' time we are publishing our position in relation to harmful speech or hate speech. These matters have taken a lot of time and preparation, and we're going to launch them at the appropriate time. - I'll get you on the blower in a few weeks' time. - Thank you very much for your time today, Paul Hunt. Kia ora. - Kia ora. Thank you. - Paul Hunt there. Labour MP Louisa Wall, has hit the headlines twice this week, first suggesting her own government should be doing more to stop China's human rights abuses. And then second, accepting a National Party's speaking slot on mental health when her own party refused to give her one. She joins me now. Tena koe, Louisa. Thank you very much for joining us today. - Kia ora, Tova. - So those first headlines you made, you accused China of slavery and organ harvesting, 'forced organ harvesting is occurring 'to service a global market where people are wanting hearts, lungs, eyes and skin.' Why was it important to you to get that out there? - It's incredibly important from the position of being New Zealand's representative with Simon O'Connor on the Inter-parliamentary Alliance on China. I became involved because of what was happening on Hong Kong, to be honest. I think the erosion of democracy is something that we all should be wary of, because as we've seen with what's happening with Falun Gong practitioners, with Tibetans and, latterly, Uyghur human beings, they are being targeted and labelled as prisoners of conscience. But I think we should understand what that means within China's regime. It actually does mean slavery. It means camps. They call them education camps. Other people would see them as prisons. And it has seen blood tests taken, X-rays, a database of organs that services $1 billion global market. - And you believe there is a genocide going on in Xinjiang province? - I think the world is coming to a conclusion about genocide having happening in Xinjiang. And we want the UN through the Human Rights Council, and Michelle Bachelet particularly, to be able to do her job. And China has not cooperated. They will not let people in. So in lieu of that, you've had entity such as the China Tribunal, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice, who has worked on the International Criminal Court here from, not only refugees and survivors of these camps, but academics ` from journalists and from clinicians. So one of his co-sponsors of the process in the UK is Professor Martin Elliot. He's the head of paediatric cardiology. because they need the clinical support to be able to perform these transplants, obviously. - And, Louisa Wall, are you out there? I mean, you're good friends with the Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta, but are you out there saying what she can't because perhaps she's putting economics ahead of humanity? - No, I think both Nanaia and the prime minister and our government are doing everything that they can do and are doing. - They're not going far as you are, though. - Possibly not because they have a diplomatic process, and they're engaging country and government leader to government leader. I'm doing it as a member of the Inter-parliamentary Alliance on China. - You're also a Labour MP though... - I am. - ...in Jacinda Ardern's caucus. - Absolutely. But the rationale for me belonging to these groups is about my practise. People would not dispute that I'm a human rights champion practitioner. I have privy to information that has enabled me to have these informed discussions, and I believe New Zealanders deserve to know what's happening in those camps or in those prisons. But what I do want to be clear about is our government is absolutely committed to addressing modern slavery. - Did the prime minister know that your volley against China was coming? - My interview with Guyon Espiner happened in January. Obviously, from the depth of the interviews and the number of interviews, you can see it took a long time to get to a place where they've released it` - Did the prime minister know? - The minister's office did. And I contacted the office and let them know I was giving the interview. The fact that it's broken six months later and everyone thinks I did it last week, I think is problematic. - More headlines on Thursday as well. You accepted a speaking slot from National MP Shane Reti on mental health when your own party wouldn't give you a slot. Why didn't Labour let you speak? - So we have our internal processes, and through determination, they said ministers should lead this debate. And in some ways, it's really important that our ministers lead the debate because they're the ones in a position to do something about it. - You're also a founding member of the Cross-party Mental Health group. You worked hard on the suicide report that's under discussion. So you seem pretty relevant to that debate as well. Why did Labour silence you? - Well, that's a question for the whips. I'm not going to talk about the fact that I didn't have one. What I want to talk about is the Zero Suicide Aotearoa report. And I want to take the opportunity to thank particularly Dr Shane Reti. And therein lies the context of how this group was created. It was a recommendation He Ara Oranga. In the previous parliament, I was the chair of the health committee. Dr Reti was my deputy. - And we can recommend everyone go and watch that debate online because it was very moving and significant. But do you think` I'm just interested in what was going on behind the scenes. Do you think that you were being punished by the Labour Party for speaking out on China? - I think that the context had changed. And the reason I wanted to highlight the fact I was chair of the health committee was because it's how Jenny Marcroft became a member of the cross-party group, and Matt Doocey. I'm no longer the chair of the health committee. Obviously, I'm still involved and I'm incredibly passionate about suicide. At the end of the day, this should be about our report. I mean, this is an opportunity for parliament to come together on an incredibly, you know... - 100%. But it's also important that MPs like you who have a voice are able to speak out and not be silenced by their parties. And I also wonder, I mean, you're a seriously impressive MP. You gave us marriage equality. You have more experience than more than half of those in cabinet. Why on earth aren't you a minister? - That's not my decision, and you have to ask the person who makes those decisions. - Is that gutting though? Should you be a minister? - What I am grateful for is the privilege that I have, and the opportunities that I do have, I make the most of them. So I sit on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Select Committee. Incredibly grateful and 100% focussed on supporting my ministers. So Nanaia, Damien O'Connor, Peeni Henare. I'm incredibly focussed on my IPAC role. I'm also the IPU reps. - Having to find extracurriculars because you're not a minister. We have to leave it there, I'm afraid, Louisa. Well, thank you very much for your time. Labour MP Louisa Wall` should-be Minister, Louisa Wall. Thank you very much. Kia ora. - Thank you, Tova. Kia ora. - Up next, our panel with their analysis of the week in politics. Plus digital editor Finn Hogan on who's up, who's down and who's splashing the cash online. Well, the election might be behind us, but of course MPs are already eyeing 2023. - So this week we're checking in with our digital editor Finn Hogan to see who's up, who's down and who's pulling ahead on social media. I started by asking him who's the success story so far this year? - Well, good morning, Simon. As it was in the election, so it has become on Facebook. David Seymour is playing an outsized role. He's posting pretty much twice as much as the prime minister, who, as we know, is extremely online. But importantly, he's also pulling ahead of Judith Collins in pretty much every metric that we can measure here, whether that be follower growth or video views. And what that tells us is that he's pushing really hard to try and get into that de facto opposition leader lane. And at least on Facebook, he's having some success. - What's driving it? Why is David so appealing now? - Well, I mean, there's a lot of answers to that, right? I mean, for one, him and the ACT Party page are just making more content, which, of course, leads to more engagement. But I think importantly, they're leaning really hard into those red meat conservative issues. Obviously, free speech is the big one right now. But because they're a minor party, they don't have to moderate their tone as much as they would were they a major party. So they're kind of getting the best of both worlds. Divisive content like this kind of stuff and really gets rewarded by the Facebook algorithm. - All right. So he's playing the game well? - Well, yes, he is playing the game well, but he's also splashing the cash at it. He's spent about $7000 on Facebook advertising over the past week, and that compares to zero for National and for Labour. So what that tells us is that ACT are really willing to pony up the cash to take advantage of a weakened National. - And what about National? Are they falling by the wayside? - Well, they are a little bit. But if you compare them directly to Labour, they're actually doing quite well. And that's not a sentence a lot of people have said over the last 12 months. If you look at key metrics, they're actually keeping steady or even pulling ahead of labour. And so what that says, if the Nats weren't having so many of their own internal issues, they could really capitalise and actually pull ahead in this space. But because of all the issues, they're not quite able to. - So, has National changed tack since the election? - Well, not really. And if anything, they're actually using some old ideas. This is a trick pioneered by Boris Johnson and the Brexit Boys. That's where you use intentionally terrible fonts like Comic Sans in your posts, and then snarky journalists and pundits retweet it, mocking you. But that, of course, just extends your reach for free. Now of course, it's not impossible that National are just terrible at choosing fonts, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say this one was tactical. - Let's talk about some of the lesser known MPS. Who's doing well? - Well, in terms of the lesser known, I can tell you who is very hungry right now, Erica Stanford. She's up over a 200% in terms of engagement compared to her profile last year. And that's very impressive considering she's much more of a backbencher. - How does she do this? - Well, it's interesting. She's done a very good strategy, which is to choose one extremely specific, emotive issue, in this case that separated migrant families at the border. And she's just coming out with content consistently about that. She's grandstanding in the House, taking that clip from the debating chamber, posting it to her own profile. And Facebook loves this kind of stuff. It loves long form video content that's extremely emotive. And she's using that to reach hundreds of thousands of people without spending a cent. - Which is clever. But in terms of who is the most dominant MPs, still gotta be Jacinda Ardern, is that right? - It's always Jacinda Ardern. In terms of the headline numbers in this space, Ardern is completely unassailable. But the only way that I would qualify that is by saying A) I would assume, I don't know, but I would assume a lot of that engagement comes from overseas fans. It doesn't actually really affect our domestic politics that much. And B) if you look at the actual weighting of the way people respond to her social media posts, it's actually changed a bit this year, and the number of people responding in an inherently positive way has dropped off. And that does tell you the shine's coming off a little bit. And yes, that is extremely granular and extremely nerdy, but that's what you pay me for. - I respect your nerd credentials. Any other honourable mentions? Well, of course, there's only one that it could possibly be a big shout out to Chris Penk, who managed to fit Winston Peters, sex maniac and a very naughty four letter word and to the same tweet, which if there is any secret source for traction online, it's that. - Yeah, he did delete it. And he did apologise, though, didn't he? - Oh yeah. But that's the great thing about social media, isn't it? You can take it down, but once you've posted it, it exists forever. It's the best of both worlds. You can take it down, make headlines, smile and apologise. But if there's one lesson we know to be true about social media, it's what you do lives forever. - All right. Digital editor Finn Hogan, thanks very much for your time. - Thank you very much. - Digital editor Finn Hogan there. E whai ake nei, we'll be back with our political panel. - Plus National MP Simeon Brown on why he'd make a better Corrections Minister than Kelvin Davis. We're joined now by our panel ` PR man and former National staffer Ben Thomas, clean water campaigner Marnie Prickett, who advises the government on water policy and Newshub political reporter Jenna Lynch. Welcome to you all. Let's kick off with the intensive winter grazing rules. They were changed and then delayed for a year. David Parker denies it's in response to pressure from the farming community. Marnie, what do you think? - I think that it's really important that we differentiate between farming voices. So, the farming community isn't just one voice. And there's actually a lot of people in the farming community who are ready to shift away from intensive winter grazing and who want to do that. Obviously, that takes a few seasons to be able to do that effectively. But there has been a lot of pressure on this government from farming lobby, farming industry groups, to weaken the fresh water reforms. And I don't necessarily think that that's going to support farmers in the long run. I think that farmers need to be working towards the outcomes that their communities want for their environment. And so I think that there is still a lot of pressure on the government from industry groups, yes. - In recognising, as Marnie says, that there's a diversity of voices within the farming community, Jenna, farmers say that the government is pushing too much on to them ` climate change, RMA reform, biodiversity, water quality, farm plans ` are they expecting too much? - Well, government would do well to probably figure out what a farmer is, define what a farmer is. That was the reason that they couldn't give an exemption on the work utes for farmers, because they don't actually know what a farmer is. But yes and no. They have been putting a lot on farmers. Farmers will feel like there is a bit of an onslaught. But these are all issues that have been building for a significant amount of time. And at the same time, those farmers have got some concessions on the winter grazing, on the ETS, on the Significant Natural Areas. So the farmer voice is still being heard at the table. They're perhaps just not getting quite as many concessions as they're used to. - Yeah, that's a good point. Ben, is Labour not giving them enough concessions getting them offside, so this gives room for National to capitalise? - Well, you would hope so ` or they would hope so. - (LAUGHS) - But it doesn't seem to be showing up in the polls. - Yeah. Yeah, there doesn't seem to be a lot of room to move on this, in the sense that National was actually working reasonably closely with the government in the last term on these sorts of issues on climate change. And so, you know, as with a lot of these issues, ACT has been able to be a lot more sort of black and white, steer a more consistent line through, even if it's a more unrealistic one if you ever want to actually govern the country. But it has been, you know, like a lot of other areas, tough for National to get cut-through there while they're dealing with their own internal problems. - On to clean water stuff, Marnie, which is your serious domain. David Parker still saying whether they're going to put a maximum nitrate level on for rivers, saying it's really complicated. What do you make of that argument? - I don't think it's complicated at all. I think that the science is definitely robust. There's a big evidence base now for that 1mg per litre of nitrogen, for that bottom line. Again, I think that the pressure is coming from largely the dairy industry in New Zealand. So, the dairy industry is obviously a big source of nitrogen, particularly through cow urine. And so there has been a big push from the dairy sector to undermine the science. I have to say, it's a little bit tobacco-y science situation` - And is Parker a bit beholden to that, do you think, given that he hasn't moved? - I think that they struggled during the last government because they didn't have the strength in numbers that they do now, and that they were a bit more tentative about what they might do with the fresh water reform than they could have been, given the public sentiment around fresh water reform. And I think that now is the time that they just need to put in that really sensible bottom line. We know ` earlier in the week, we heard about the link with human health issues. This is about putting in place something that is going to help us in the long term. It's not going to be overnight change, but it's about making sure that we're safe and secure in the long term. - But politically, I mean, in that interview, Parker pushed back and said, against the idea that he's not moving fast, he believes that is, Jenna. But are they? I mean, are they seen to be? - Well, he'll argue that he is moving fast enough. Dairy farmers will argue that he's moving way too fast. But clean water is not something that, as you said, will happen overnight. It's not something that you can physically see happening like you can see a road being built or houses being built. - That's not happening either. - (LAUGHS) - But also, just to go back to what I was trying to do before, which is to differentiate between farmers and industry voices ` those are two quite different things. And a lot of dairy farmers, they are ready to move. They want to change. They want to diversify their farm systems. They maybe they want to get out of not being just dairy farmers, but move into some other spaces. A lot of dairy farmers are already reducing their cow numbers, they're reducing their nitrogen use. But the industry seems to me to be, they're supporting that intensive model. And it largely seems to me to be pushed by an old school idea about production above all else. So are they defending the farmers, or are they defending the people who make money off the farmers producing a lot? - Well, OK, let's move on to another one. Recycling. Hey, Jenna, this is a favourite one of yours. How good is the current recycling system? Because the government's saying they're going to make a uniform kerbside recycling. - You'd be on board with that. - I would love uniform kerbside recycling. I find our recycling system so confusing. I think if the government wants to make recycling easy, it needs to be A) making those uniform rules so that you don't have to learn them every time you move into a new city, and B) invest in that infrastructure, those sorting machines, so that I don't have` no one has to learn how to do it. You can't rely on the public to implement your ideas. Like, get in behind it and put some money behind it to make it happen. - Do you agree, Ben? - Yeah, look, I mean, recycling is sort of a rort or urban myth up there with duty-free shopping,... - (LAUGHS) Here we go. ...or, no, in the sense that a lot of what we think we're recycling doesn't get recycled. You know, it gets shipped overseas, and that doesn't get recycled either, because of the capacity constraints there. And so a lot of it just goes into landfills or gets burned. So it is a much wider infrastructure issue. A bare minimum is that we have the processes in place that, you know, you don't have to learn a whole new dialect. I'm 40-something years old. I still don't know which numbers of plastics can be recycled, actually. - Yeah. Not many people do. - I do agree with Ben on this, that it's actually a bigger issue. And the plastics people that I spoke to before coming on the show, they were saying, you know, we're excited about the single-use being phased out. But actually there's just a much bigger issue of how much we're producing, how often we're using single-use plastics, and the fact that as Ben says, a lot of those things, even if they go in the right recycling bin, they won't be recycled. - Let's move on to Paul Hunt, the Human Rights Commissioner, and that elucidating interview that he gave. Ben, was it right or wrong to give $200 of taxpayer money as a koha to the Mongrel Mob? - Look, the koha aspect of it gets a bit overly emotive. And it becomes a bit of a target for people like ACT, like National, who want to take sort of cheap shots. The koha is beside the point. The issue is that Paul Hunt is essentially what the Soviets used to call a useful idiot, who will turn up to these gang events, legitimise them, say, you know, the real problem here is that we're stigmatising gangs, not the real problem is gangs are involved in crime at all levels, from organised to very disorganised ` like, you know, group beatings, like random stabbings, like killing people in the streets, like we've seen, you know, in news report after news report in recent months, you know, shootings in the regions. And Paul Hunt says, 'Well, I'm not naive.' He sounds pretty naive. In his statement defending the koha, he said, 'Well, this is part of our journey towards being a Te Tiriti-based organisation.' The Mongrel Mob never signed the Treaty. It's a complete misrepresentation of the Crown's duties as a Treaty partner to put gang leaders on the same level as the great iwi leaders in this country who are doing amazing things for their communities and their people. - Yeah, I agree with Ben in the sense that I think that the koha thing is not the issue. That's obviously a very convenient thing for ACT and National, who have said outright now that they want to get rid of the Human Rights Commission, claiming that it's a left-wing organisation. And so there's obviously... It obviously seems like there's a bigger agenda at play here. I think we do have to work through, you know... The Human Rights Commission is a Crown agency. It's going to have to work through what it is to be a Te Tiriti partner, as we all are. And those things are complex, but they're still very worthwhile to work through. And I think that the koha thing is really just a cheap shot. - We want to hear more on this, and we will on our extended Sunday panel. Jenna, I'm interested in your views on the politics of National and ACT's view on the Human Rights Commission. So we'll come back to that on Sunday and our extended panel. Thank you very much, all, for joining us. - All right. Stay with us. We're back after the break. He's demanding the gangs give up their guns, but he's also gunning for Kelvin Davis' job as Corrections Minister. Finn Hogan sat down with National's Simeon Brown and started by asking him his number one priority. - The number one thing which needs to be dealt with in the Corrections portfolio at the moment is the unacceptable increase in violence that we've seen against Corrections officers in the last three years under Kelvin Davis' watch. There's been a 92% increase in violence against our Corrections officers, and assaults. It's completely unacceptable. And so I've got an action plan that I would like to see immediately put in place to address that violence. - OK, but the most severe assaults, that rate has actually remained steady, right? A lot of that increase is being driven by non-serious or non-injury assaults. Every assault against a Corrections officer is unacceptable. And non-serious can actually still mean quite serious, including stitches, hospital stays, a whole range of quite serious things which happen to Corrections officers, and so it has to be addressed. - OK, but Kelvin Davis has his own five-point plan, and there is actually quite a lot of broad agreement between your two plans. Could you just point to most specifically what differentiates yours from his? - Well, I think there needs to be accountability, and there needs to be harsher penalties for those who do commit assaults against our Corrections officers. - Specifically, what would that look like? - Well, it means that there should be a penalty, an increased penalty. - What kind of penalty? - Well, what we proposed in that legislation was that if someone assaults a Corrections officer, they should have an additional penalty beyond what they're currently serving. At the moment, those additional penalties could actually be alongside their existing sentences that they're serving. - Aren't you concerned about that ballooning our already very high prison population? We've got the fifth highest rate of incarceration in the OECD already. - Well, there needs to be a very clear deterrent and a clear message that assaults against Corrections officers is unacceptable. And so actually, if you do the time, you should do the crime. That's what National stands for. - Do the time, do the crime? - Do the crime, do the time. - (BOTH LAUGH) - But to what extent are you actually concerned about lowering the prison population in New Zealand? Because these are very punitive measures. - Oh, look, we're going to scrap the target to reduce the 30% reduction in prison population that Kelvin Davis has got. That's actually the only target that Kelvin Davis has in Corrections. And that's something which I think ` yes, we might want to see a reduction in the prison population. But the way you go about achieving that is actually you want to see less crime taking place in the community. - One of the more extreme measures you've suggested is introducing Tasers to prisons. But isn't that just meeting violence with more violence? - No, it's about providing an additional tactical option to Corrections officers, who are having to deal with these very difficult situations where violence has been taking place. I'm not suggesting that they should be strapped to their belts. I'm saying it should be behind lock and key as a extra tactical option which can be made available. It's in Western Australia. It's in Tasmania. I'm saying let's have a trial of that in New Zealand. - There's a lot of reasons not to do that, right? There could be extreme health complications. They could be turned on staff. They're only one use, so they wouldn't be effective against a group. And as you say, if they're under lock and key, they can't be accessed quickly. - It's an additional tactical option. I'm suggesting there should be a trial of Tasers in the prisons. As I said, it happens in Western Australia, it happens in Tasmania. - What evidence do you see out of Australia showing that it actually lower rates of violence? - Well, what we see in Australia is it's an additional technical option. So it's about providing that as a deterrent, but also something` - So is there any evidence that you could point to that shows it does actually lower rates of violence? - Well, I think that's something which the Australian states do have. But what we are saying is let's have a trial in New Zealand. I'm not saying this is something which we would permanently put in place or in every single prison. - What's wrong with politicians or the Human Rights Commissioner meeting with the Mongrel Mob or with gang leaders, if they think there is a good-faith effort to engage on issues? - The message it sends to New Zealand is that actually we see you as valuable members of community. Well, I'm sorry. They should firstly stop selling their meth, hand back their guns and stop perpetrating the violence on our streets. - John Key was fine with it when Pita Sharples met with 16 gang leaders. What's different now? - Look, it's not OK to sit down with gang members and have cups of tea. That's my view. - But what's different now? John Key said` - What we have seen is a 50% increase in gang membership in the last three years. We've had a massive increase in gang membership. - So it's only because there's more gang members now? It was fine when John Key said` - I'm not saying it was fine then. What I'm saying is we are seeing` - So John Key was wrong to say that? - What I'm saying is we've seen a massive increase in gang membership and violence in the last few years. - The point here is that National has previously drawn a distinction between engagement and endorsement. - Are you saying that distinction is gone now? - Absolutely. - With a completely black-and-white view like that, though, aren't you blocking off one potential area of constructive engagement? I don't see how you can have a constructive engagement with an organisation which continues to perpetrate violence, peddle meth and cause misery in our community. - You've received death threats from the Mongrel Mob before. Are you afraid that suggesting measures like this, these more punitive approaches, are just going to invite more of the same? Look, I think what we have seen is, you know, in terms of those death threats, I think is, you know, unacceptable. And I don't think any New Zealander should have to live in fear. - Are you living in fear? - My biggest fear is for my family. But I also fear for all New Zealanders. And it's something which needs to be taken seriously. - Finally, what would you say to someone that has completely lost faith in the National Party brand? - Look, I think the National Party is focused on the issues which matter to New Zealanders and new ideas to take New Zealand forward. That's not an easy task, but it's a task that we're up to and that we're committed to fighting for. - Simeon Brown there. - We're back with our panel, Ben Thomas, Marnie Prickett and Jenna Lynch. Kia ora koutou. Thank you very much. Jenna, I want to start with you. Nation and ACT calling for Paul Hunt's resignation, ACT saying the whole kit and caboodle needs to go. Are they seizing a political opportunity, and is there a bit of a race to the bottom going on between the ACT Party and the National Party? - Yeah. It's not just with this. They kind of have started to do this outrage-off. So whatever issue of happening, the Nats will say that Paul Hunt should go, ACT says, 'Who needs human rights anyway? We'll scrap the whole commission, and while we're at it, - 'scrap the Ministry for Women and anything else.' - Burn down the country. - Well, um, anarchy seems fun. But I think that there is a bit of a problem for National and ACT, and they need to define whose territory is what, because they're scrapping over the same meat at the moment. - We'll talk about that in a moment. But, Marnie, before we leave Paul Hunt, has he been visible enough as the Chief Human Rights Commissioner? I mean, otherwise he wouldn't be getting such stick from National and ACT. - Oh, again, I'll say that I don't think it's really about Paul Hunt. I think it's really about the opportunity that Paul Hunt presents to ACT and National at the moment. And as Jenna says, they're sort of scrapping over this and having an outrage-off. And I think that the fundamental issue here is that, do we need a Human Rights Commission? Yes, we do need a Human Rights Commission. - But has he been visible enough, or has it been visible enough, really? - I mean, the argument that David Seymour would make, and ACT has made for a long time is, you know, should the Human Rights Commission be chatting with gangs? Should it be out there writing think pieces? Or should it be dealing with, say, issues like free speech? Now, Paul Hunt, when you were asking him, Tova, about the hate speech laws, all he did was waffle on about, general lawmaking principles like, 'It will have to have values, and the courts will decide.' The courts will decide based on Parliament's intention. The Human Rights Commission, if it's fulfilling its brief, has a responsibility to contribute and submit to Parliament. And we have a right to know what their opinion is. And you would think that they would come down somewhere on the side of free speech, which is actually in our Bill of Rights, which is incorporated through the Human Rights Act. - So the office, you're saying it needs to drive input and drive the form of the debate. - There has always been a tendency in the Human Rights Commission, since its existence, to focus on UN declarations and positive rights. You know, right now they're doing a report about the right to housing. - And they tend to ignore these fundamental` - That's a good report. - Yeah, well, I mean, hopefully another report about housing will fix it (!) - Jenna, do you think that he's visible? - I think in comparison to some of the other commissioners ` you look at the likes of Andrew Becroft, who is on the news every single night, fighting for kids' rights. Paul Hunt could take a leaf out of his book and actually come out and take some positions. He could have taken some positions in that interview with you. He didn't cover himself in glory, in defending his right to his job, by not taking those positions. - Because Becroft is also doing those pointy-headed things behind the scenes as well, isn't he, and he's still doing the community engagement, and still managing to do that, and speak out, and take a line that's often in contrast to what the government's doing. - Well, as far as we can tell, Paul Hunt's strategy for more inclusive communities is just going out and personally befriending everyone, which isn't a great use of public funds. - I think we need to move on from Paul Hunt. He's just dominated our conversation. Let's talk briefly about Louisa Wall. She's been breaking ranks on human rights, on China, taking an opposition speaking post on mental health. What's going on there, Jenna? - I think it's shocking that they didn't give her a speaking slot in that debate. She was their representative. She did all of the hard work on producing that report. And it is a really, really valuable report for New Zealand to have. The fact that she had to go to the Nats, their sworn enemies, and beg for a speaking slot on something that she'd worked so hard on is shameful for Labour. - I don't think she had to beg the Nats too much... - (ALL LAUGH) ...for them to be able to use that as a trump. - They focused more on that than they did, perhaps, on mental health. Look, Louisa Wall, it's become clear that she is not advancing further. She's not going to be made a minister. She's one of their longest-serving MPs. - But Tova said she should be made a minister. - Apparently Tova did. - She has one of the most impressive records of any MP, not just in the Labour Party, but in Parliament. She's very long-serving. She single-handedly, basically, got marriage equality through back in 2013, against the wishes of her party at the time, because her leadership saw that as a distraction. But she kept the course. So there is a tendency, I think maybe, or a temptation to think, 'Well, she's acting out.' You know, she was put on the list. She was taken out of her electorate this time. Maybe she just realises she's got a limited amount of time left. But if you actually` - She's doing what we want our MPs to do, which is speak out and have the courage of their convictions. Sorry to cut you off, Ben, but what does it say about Jacinda Ardern and the way she runs her caucus that she is silencing ` and Louisa not ruling out being punished ` for speaking out on China? - I... I don't know what that says about Jacinda Ardern, in fact. I'm not quite sure of the internal mechanics of this debate, particularly, so I might defer to` - But we can't see it either. - I think it's partly, as well, that they're so vulnerable on mental health. So, they've just had a couple of weeks of awful, awful news coverage ` you know, like, $1.9 billion ` where has it gone? Five beds. All of our hospitals are overflowing, that sort of thing. So perhaps a little bit scared of the friendly fire adding to that. - Yeah, there's another whole debate there, but we're going have to leave it for the moment. Marnie Prickett, thank you so much for your time, Jenna Lynch and Ben Thomas, - as always, thank you very much for your time. - Kia ora koutou. And that's all from us for now. Thanks for watching. Nga mihi nui, and we will see you again next weekend. Captions by Able. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2021 This programme was made with the assistance of the NZ On Air Platinum Fund.