- Today on Newshub Nation, Ashley Bloomfield has committed one of the cardinal sins of politics, misleading the parliament, forcing an apology to MPs. - We cross live to the National Party conference in Auckland and Green Party conference in Wellington. - An extended interview with Andrew Little. Can he resuscitate the health system? - And with time running out to have your say, we investigate the future of adoption in Aotearoa. - 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. - 30,000 nurses will strike on August 19 after the latest round of negotiations with DHBs broke down. Managed isolation staff will not strike, and all hospitals will maintain life-preserving staff levels. - The Reserve Bank is toughening mortgage lending after Finance Minister Grant Robertson gave it the green light this week. The move could see tighter loan-to-value and debt-to-income ratios. - And the bill that would outlaw gay conversion therapy has passed its first reading on Thursday. National was the only party that didn't support the proposed legislation, despite lobbying from its own youth wing. - It's an exciting weekend for political geeks like us here at Newshub Nation, with a confluence of conferences. Both National and the Greens have their annual party get-togethers. We'll be crossing live to political reporters Jenna Lynch with the Nats in Auckland and Amelia Wade at the Greens in Wellington. But first, let's take a look at some of the highlights from day one of National. - And you are here because you all believe in this party. You want your caucus working together and backing each other. And we have listened, and we are serious. (APPLAUSE) I'm very excited, and I hope you are, too, to be here this weekend. Make sure you engage on the important task of shaping The National Party's future. Thank you all. - Newshub Political reporter Jenna Lynch was there for all the thrills, spills and eye rolls. Jenna, a lot of self-reflection and self-flagellation from the party on day one. Was that the right approach or the wrong approach? - Yeah, once again, bringing up the shambles that has been the last three years of the National Party. And you might be thinking, why on earth would you dredge up all that sludge again? We have heard Judith Collins mention these things in speeches time and time again, but not necessarily to this audience, directly to the membership. And those are the people that needed an apology from the caucus in particular for that behaviour over the past three years. We saw that come out in that review that they did into the election. That review is up for discussion today. So while the party is still healing from the electoral drubbing they got last year, Judith Collins' message for the future was unity, unity, unity with a good side of discipline as well. - And what's the tea on that closed door review session? Do you think that there could be meaningful change within the party? - Yes. So the sort of things that are up for discussion, whether there needs to be` some diversity things or whether there needs to be a specific Maori seat on the board, whether they need to enshrine the treaty within their constitution, which has a bit of a ring of irony to it, given the discussions that the National Party has been having of late, demanding the debate around He Puapua, Maori partnership, alleging separatism by stealth, demanding debates around Maori Wards, those Maori seats on councils, and even demanding debates around the use of the name Aotearoa. - And Jenna you brought us those Newshub Reid Research poll results this week that showed that the Nats are confident the party is focussed on the issues that matter to them, to the base, but do the Young Nats and some of the National Party MPs see things differently? - Yeah, quite an interesting result. So 69.5% of National's own voters think, yeah, they are focussed on the issues that matter to them, which is possibly maybe a bit of a reflection on the fact that there haven't been quite as many stories about backstabbing and infighting within the Nats as there have been in the past. But when you look at all voters, the wider population, only 30.1% of people think that they're focussed on the issues that matter to them. And when you're looking at a broad church party, or a party that is supposed to be a broad church party, like the Nats, that's not really high enough. The Young Nats actually called out their elders this week, slammed them for voting against that conversion therapy bill, which would ban conversion therapy. They said they were disappointed about that, and they were actually expecting that they had bought the caucus around to at least supporting the bill in principle, supporting it through to select committee so that they could have the debate on it. We understand even some of the more liberal National MPs are gutted about the way that they had to vote. - Jenna Marie Lynch live from the National Party conference in Auckland. Thank you very much. And while there may be a bit of leadership chatter going on in the margins at the Nats, there's also an all-out coup at the Green Party conference. Our other political reporter, Amelia Wade, is there. Amelia, James Shaw facing a leadership challenge. Is he worried? - That's right. We're in for a bit of a James-off this weekend. James Shaw is having his co-leadership contested by James Cockle, a Dunedin activist and Green Party member. I spoke to Cockle last night, and he told me he was concerned James Shaw was dragging the party too far to the centre, and they'd been muzzled on issues while going into government without actually getting any policy concessions. He wanted them to be more outspoken on the core Greens issues like climate change, poverty, and the biodiversity crisis. But James Shaw doesn't seem too worried about this one and is pretty confident he's got this one in the bag. - And Amelia, the co-leaders delivering a speech each, Marama Davidson up today, what's she on about? - Well, I'm told there won't be any policy announcements this weekend. Instead Marama Davidson and the other to-be-determined co-leader will focus their speeches on their wins in government. So for Marama Davidson, that'll be getting $132 million in the budget for the prevention of family and sexual violence. And for James Shaw, that will be focusing on getting the hefty recommendations of the Climate Change Commission's report through. And so the whole point of these speeches is to prove to the membership why it was worth going into government, which not all of the members agreed with. And I'm also told that Marama Davidson will use part of her speech to talk about the National Party and what she's calling their racist campaign. - And that's interesting, isn't it? Because we heard Marama Davidson come out quite strongly on this. The Greens, there's been a bit of talk about it this week. - Yeah, she sure did. Marama Davidson really got stuck into that Demand the Debate campaign this week, saying it was disgusting, hideous, and dog-whistling racism. And she really lay into Judith Collins as well, saying it showed her lack of integrity, her lack of leadership and her unwillingness to focus on what really matters for Maori, which is their inequities in health, housing, justice, and education. So if she if she was willing to go that far with reporters this week, it's going to be really interesting to see how far she'll go with the membership. - Amelia Jane Wade, thank you very much for your time from the Green Party conference. Enjoy both conferences, korua, kia ora for this morning. 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, we dissect the week's political news with our panel. But next, the Minister with a hospital pass. Andrew Little joins us live. - Former Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters says the government's gone back on its word at Pike River, and he's fighting to prove it in court. - Newshub Nation has obtained an affidavit from Peters backing 20 Pike River families who say the government hasn't delivered on what was promised in 2017. - Senior reporter Conor Whitten explains. - Winston Peters made finding the truth at Pike River an election bottom line in 2017. Today, with the mine about to be sealed, he says the government never finished the job. - I know what the cabinet of the last government committed itself to, and it's clearly going back on its word. It should not be allowed to get away with it. - The remains of 29 men still lie somewhere inside Pike River, along with the evidence of what went wrong. But the government's decided the recovery mission is out of money and out of time. - One of the most disappointing things I've ever seen in politics. - It will end here, 2.4km into the tunnel, known as the drift. Minister Andrew Little says that's what was promised. Peters is adamant Little is wrong. - Well, that's preposterous. There's no way that we expended that sort of money just to recover the drift. - The families of 20 Pike River victims are urgently taking the government to court, seeking to stop the mine being sealed and to push further beyond the drift. An affidavit from Peters was filed on Friday. Newshub Nation has obtained a copy. It says,... - The government's commitment was to go in and find out the truth, if that was possible, and it is possible. - The families commissioned their own study this year to show it was possible to enter the main mine. A government review found it was feasible, but in May, Little ruled it out, saying the cabinet mandated authority was only ever to recover the drift. - I believed then it was possible because of the expert advice I got, and now we know it is. So why on earth is this being stopped? - Peters had a seat at the cabinet table when the Pike River Recovery Agency was set up. They agreed to consider going into the mine workings when the drift recovery was well advanced. But Little took it off the table in March 2020, before the recovery was a quarter done. - And I've said it to Mr Little, 'You have lied to us.' - Bernie Monk lost his son Michael at Pike. He's leading the families' fight in court. - We need these people to stand up to this government to make sure that they fulfil the obligation that they promised the families to do. - A last desperate chance for answers before the mine is sealed for good. - Conor Whitten with that report. Minister Andrew Little, who is responsible for the Pike River re-entry, joins me now. Tena koe. - Tena koe. - So, Winston Peters says cabinet never agreed to stop at the end of the Pike River drift, so have you broken a promise? - No. Let's go back a step. Before the 2017 election, all parties were called upon by the families to sign a pledge. That was a pledge to recover the drift. It was very clear. New Zealand First did not sign that pledge. And then we formed a government, and cabinet mandated the Pike River Agency would be set up to recover the drift. That is very clear in the papers. I might add this too about Winston Peters ` in the three years that I was in government with him, I invited him many, many times to go down to the Pike River project, the recovery project. He, at one point, said he wanted to lead the way into` - That's right. - He never went down. In all the three years in government, he never went down. So it's great that Winston is now interested in the project. But before the 2017 election, he wasn't, because they wouldn't sign the pledge, and he wasn't in the three years we were in government. - So are you saying that he's just making this up? - Well, I don't know whether he's trying to rewrite the cabinet minutes, but the cabinet minutes are very clear. The pledge that the Labour Party and the Green Party ` and for that matter, United Future ` signed up to was a commitment to recover the drift, and that's what we've done. - OK, but Peters says that you haven't done a good enough job, that you pushed to be the Minister for the Pike River, and that, you know, you've sort of lost sight of what matters here and that is finding the truth. - I was asked to be the Minister for Pike River Recovery. I was happy to pick up that role. I did that job and followed the cabinet mandate to do so, and it was on the back of the pledge that some political parties signed up to, which was to recover the drift. - OK, but why did you rule out going any further before` They'd only got a quarter of the way down the drift, and you ruled out going any further. - Yeah, so I had to go to cabinet three times for the budget for the Pike River Recovery Agency because the cost of the project was getting more and more expensive. The more we did, the more we discovered how challenging the project was, and we got to 2020, and I needed another top-up, taking it to $51 million. Cabinet was very clear ` and of course, Winston Peters was part of that cabinet ` it was very clear, 'We have now exhausted our willingness to fund any further activity.' And therefore, to the extent there was ever an option to go beyond recovery of the drift, that was closed off. - OK, but if money wasn't an object, would you keep going? - The critical factor was safety and getting through the roof fall and getting into the mine workings. It was clear` Experts were saying even before we started, even before we formed a government in 2017, that getting back into the mine workings was all but impossible. We could` We could do it for hundreds of millions of dollars. - Right. - But actually doing it safely` - This is what families are saying. They're saying it is feasible, right? - Well, they got a report ` that interesting nobody has put their name to ` that says that it's feasible. They've put a cost to it. That's been reviewed by experts ` it has a much higher cost. But the reality is you do get to a point where, having fulfilled what we were asked by the families to do, to recover the drift. - So the line has been drawn? We're just going to leave it there? The line has been drawn. And is it? - Except that there is still a police investigation ongoing. There is still` They are still doing further work, drilling through the boreholes, putting a scanner down to look at certain aspects of it. So that work will continue for the next few months. But then that is pretty much it. - So, with the police carrying on with their investigation, it's not going to be sealed imminently, so the family's going to get its wish? - The process of sealing the mine is underway. And bearing in mind that there was a permanent seal put in the mine before. We had to break through that. There are other mines that have been technically permanently sealed. - So the police do still have access? - But the reality is, in the end, this is all about ` and the families were very clear too ` in the end, this is all about safety, the work is about safety. Obviously, it is about continuing the investigation, getting better information, giving the police a better chance to get good evidence to consider whether or not they can take a prosecution. That's what the objective always was. That's the way we have approached this, and we've fulfilled our obligation in doing so. - OK, well, let's move on to the Health Ministry and the health reforms. You're a high-performing minister. You expect a lot. Are you currently feeling let down by your own ministry? - No, I'm not. I think, look, we're all struggling with the huge challenge that we've got. There were challenges in the health sector before we took government from the last three years. We then were hit with COVID. COVID, I think, has compounded issues that were in the sector before. They've just become a lot more intensified. - But you are on record as saying it's hard to get information out of the ministry. You're on record saying that you're frustrated by the pace of reforms. - Actually, what I've said is that I think the ministry struggles to get the information from the sector as a whole in terms of providing information to me. I work very closely and very well with the Director General and, indeed, with senior officials. - Well, let's` - They do a good job. I think the challenge we've got and the reason why we're doing the reforms is the ministry is being asked to do a lot of things ` oversee and performance manage the system, as well as providing the high level of quality advice, and I think what` what we think is that actually having a ministry focused on the long term, the policy advice, the public health advice, and having a separate entity to really manage performance of the system, that is a better set-up. - You just mentioned the Director General, Ashley Bloomfield. So, he has admitted today misleading the Health Select Committee and is having to correct the record. And this is over` And I'll just give the context. He was asked whether he had ever spoken to MFAT officials over the United Nations worker that was medevacked here because of COVID, of being contracted with COVID. He said he hadn't, and then now he says he did have a text exchange. Is that good enough? Does that shake your confidence in him? - Look, I don't know enough about that particular incident. I know that was very fast-moving at the time. I was certainly briefed on it after everything had happened. Ashley is dealing with a lot of issues all the time. I have immense respect for him. I think he's doing a terrific job in a ministry that is being pulled all over the place to do a whole heap of things. And I just think, if we're going to get the best performance for the system and for the ministry, that's what` - Will you be speaking to him about this? I mean, is this something that is...? - I'm meeting with Ashley several times a week. I meet with him on a Monday. I will take this issue up. That's the first time I've heard of that. - OK, so this week, as part of the health reforms, you've just scrapped the health targets that measure performance, and replaced them with health indicators. They're not pass or fail marks. So I guess the question is ` how are we going to know if the system's getting better or worse? - First of all, the hospitals will still have targets they have to meet, so in terms of wait times in EDs and all the rest. Their stuff won't go away. But in terms of a public-facing indication of whether or not the system is doing what we expect it to do, these indicators will give us that. They are indicators. They are, to some extent, symbolic that if something is not working in one of the indicators we're talking about, it tells us there are other problems throughout the rest of the system. - Right. OK. But I guess` So the DHBs or the hospitals are still going to have targets. So what's wrong with just having those instead of having these indicators? - We don't want targets to become an end in themselves, as I think they became, I think, under the previous government. They set these targets. So one was the number of procedures carried out. What that drove DHBs to do was do a whole lot of minor, little procedures, many of which could actually be done out of a hospital in a primary care setting, rather than focussing on what the hospitals should be doing, which is the big complex` - From a political point of view, are you just afraid of setting targets? Because, you know, other targets are not being met by the government, like KiwiBuild, suicide. - Not at all. If you look at one of the targets, it is about access by young people to acute mental health services, which we have a major challenge with at the moment. - OK. - And we have said, 'Look`' We're not afraid of saying, 'This is a problematic area. 'Let's put it out there front and centre. We have to improve our performance on this. 'And here is an indicator that tells us whether or not we're improving.' - So the mental health reforms. Massive project. $1.9 billion. We asked the Newshub Reid Research poll this week, saying, 'Is the government doing enough to address the mental health crisis?' 70% said no. How would you have answered that question? - Well, I know, because we're partway through a five-year programme of training. We're probably two, two-and-a-bit years into it. - Yeah. - We've added over 520 full-time equivalent roles to the front line. We've got now, you know, running, what, 20-odd thousand sessions a month for people for mild-to-moderate mental health issues. 11,000 people being helped each month. - So` - And we're starting the long-term work of building that future workforce pipeline. There are a lot of things that are going well. What's not going well is the one thing that we said` we committed to a couple of years ago, and that is those mental health facilities for acute patients that desperately need rebuilding or upgrading. We're way behind on that. - And so you're extraordinarily frustrated by that. - Frustrated by it. And that's why the Minister of Finance and I are working very hard to shake the system, to say, 'We've just got to get these things done 'because it's too important for people and their families.' - So who are you shaking? Who are you out there and shaking? I mean, if you and minister Grant Robertson are going to go and shake somebody, who is it? - It's a whole bunch of agencies: it's Treasury, who sets up this very complicated process for making decisions; the ministry; and others` - And you're saying, 'Get on with it'? - Saying` Well, in fairness, people are responding to the system, the rules that they've got. We've got to work on that system and the rules and say, 'We've got to find a better way to accelerate these projects.' We know what is needed. We've made the decision. The money is there. We just need to get on and do the work. - Do you think things got a bit fiery at a GPs conference that you attended this week? I mean, one of the indicators that you talked about was, you know, the under-25s should be able to access mental health within three weeks, and that got laughter from the floor of the conference. I mean, how are you addressing that worker shortfall? And are they going to believe that you can do it? - Yeah, I mean, I think because the GPs, they are on the front line, and like pretty much the whole of the health workforce who have got us through 2020 and Covid-19, who have been really under the pump in a time when many are thinking, 'Gee, we've got through the worst of it,' actually the health sector is still there, and they're kind of effectively on standby all the time in case there is an outbreak. And added to that, there's been, you know` people have left the health workforce. - That's right. - We've been struggling to replace them. For doctors dealing with` particularly with people with acute mental health issues, they're struggling to get people into the care they need in the hospital. So whereas we've got a target of something like, you know, 95% of people getting treatment within three weeks, we're actually 65%. So there are people who are waiting a long time. That's what the doctors are seeing and feeling. - That's right. And they're getting frustrated by that. Yeah. - And so we need to change. We need to improve that. That's what we're driving to do. - OK. So just quickly on the workforce. I mean, doctors do want more critical health care workers. We've just received an Official Information Act request which shows in the past 12 months 2700 critical health workers were allowed in. 605 were declined in the last 12 months. These are the people that we need. I mean, that's a refusal rate of 20%. What pressure are you putting on the Immigration Minister to open this up more? - A lot. I mean, of those ` you know, given that our borders are closed, and we do have an exemption process for people to come across the borders, non-residents and non-citizens ` 43% of those are health care workers. But the reality is we have a large number of vacancies, and we need more. I've been talking to the Minister of Immigration too about those who are here already but on short-term visas who are trying to either get them extended or get residency, we need to give them certainty too. - So you want those extended? - Working with the Minister of Immigration on that as well. - All right. And just quickly, a couple of quick-fire questions out of that conference. The doctors are also frustrated about poverty, and they say its wider health issues. You're talking about policy work on public health. Are you in favour of a sugar tax? - Look, this is an issue the government has to address on nutrition issues, those things that are driving obesity, those things that are driving` - So are you addressing a sugar tax? - We're not coming to any particular solution at the moment. The work is underway at the moment. We know that we have to deal with those public health issues. - And just one final comment from the conference. At the end of it, you said you didn't want to be licked up and down by doctors. I mean, I'm just trying to understand what that meant. - It's a turn of phrase. People say, 'Ooh, you weren't, kind of, you know,... 'championed or celebrated.' You go to these conferences, and particularly at a time when the health sector is under pressure, to hear what the issues are. - So they didn't grease you up, is that what you're saying? - Yeah, kind of. - (CHUCKLES) All right. - It's an old turn of phrase. - Yeah, OK. Let's move on to another ministerial hat, your spy hat, right? So you're responsible for the GCSB, and you called out China for undertaking state-sponsored malicious cyber activity in New Zealand. Is that a modern-day act of war? - It's become... Look, cyberattacks and cyber offensive activity has become more prevalent. Where we are concerned is, when we established that, where it's state-backed or even if it's done by private organisations within a country's borders, and the state turns a blind eye to it. That is a concern to us, and we will call that out. - Right. So is that war? Is that cyber war? Are we at cyber war with China? I guess is the question. - To the extent that a state is responsible or is not doing anything about it, it is unacceptable, and we will call it out. - OK. What exactly did they target? Was it critical infrastructure? Because if it's critical infrastructure, that is an act of war, is it not? - Well, what they've done is they've exploited, in this case, the Microsoft weakness, the weakness of Microsoft 365. They exploited the weakness there that has since been patched, and they promoted the availability of that weakness. It's that sort of stuff that on a state-to-state basis, when we see states either actively doing it or allowing it to happen or promoting it, that is not acceptable, and we call that out. - (CHUCKLES) OK. What real repercussions does China face from us? Because we can name-call them along with the rest of the world, but that's it. - China is a rising power and wants to be respected around the world. We` As a small country, we are dependent on a rules-based order for engagement between states. - Yeah. - And if we want China` If China wants to be respected around the world, it has to observe those rules. - And China, of course, is our largest trading partner. Was there any discussion behind cabinet doors about not calling China out because of our dependence on the trade relationship with them? - I think the way we think about our relationship with China is we know, look, they are an important trading partner to us, but equally, we need them to observe the same rules that we as a small country observe. That's the way that we protect our interests. But it's actually also the way that we engage maturely with bigger countries. - OK. And just finally, the attack, the Microsoft hack, do you know what China got out of New Zealand? Do you know the level of information, how concerning it is? - No, I don't. And in the end, what matters most is that once we establish that there is an actor that is either state backed or state protected, that's the most important thing, from our point of view, to call it out and say, 'This behaviour is not acceptable.' - All right. Our minister for various ministerial hats, Andrew Little, thank you very much for your time today. - Thank you. - Up next, we dissect the news of the week with our political panel. Plus, what can we expect from the overhaul of our adoption laws? Two experts coming up. - Hoki mai ano, welcome back. We're joined now by our panel, political commentator Neale Jones, Politik editor Richard Harman, and Newshub reporter Kethaki Masilamani. Kia ora kotou, thank you very much for joining us this morning. - Yeah, thanks for your time, guys. I just wanted to start with Andrew Little. Now, Neale, you are a former chief of staff of Andrew? - That's right. - OK. So you saw him there, he's sort of being openly frustrated with his own Ministry and the DHBs. How unusual is that? Was he just shifting the buck from his own performance? - Andrew Little is not one to hide his feelings. (LAUGHTER) He likes straight advice, and he gives straight advice back. And I was his chief of staff when he was leader of the opposition, and that was one of his features. (LAUGHTER) One thing I will say about Andrew Little is I think his frustration comes from the fact the government has come in, they've put billions upon billions into the health system, and we're still seeing stories of failures and shortages. And I think some of that struggle he's finding is that the DHB system means there's a really fragmented, sort of incoherent response. Ministerial directions don't really get it implemented consistently. And so you have years go by, and despite things being funded, for example, in mental health, just, things on the ground on aren't happening. And that's kind of driving those health reforms, I think. - It was interesting on that Ashley Bloomfield stuff as well, he was point pointing to the fact that Bloomfield's got a lot on his plate, as you were saying, the Ministry does as well. Is that enough of an excuse for being sloppy and misleading the parliament in the way that the Director General has, Richard? - Well, if you look back at the track record over the past year, look at the auditor general. You look at the report that Brian Roach and Heather Simpson did. They've been calling the Ministry of Health out on execution for the last year over the COVID response. And it would seem reasonable, wouldn't it, to think that if they've stuffed up COVID response, they've probably stuffed other things up as well. - So to that end, I suppose, Keth, is now the right time? I mean, they're undergoing the health system review, which is, I mean, it's basically blowing up the entire health system in the middle of a global pandemic. And all of these aforementioned things. Is now the right time to be doing that? - It's sort of building the plane while flying it, isn't it? But with these sort of things you just have to do it. If we've got Delta knocking on the door, when else do we have time to even think about it? We don't have that luxury any more. Andrew Little just has to act now. There isn't really a choice here. - OK, but, Neale, you know, we're talking about a mental health roll-out, I think you just mentioned it then. I mean, he's trying to have both ways now. He said he was extraordinarily frustrated. Now he's saying he's listing the things that he's done, but the doctors are still calling him out on that. It's not being delivered. - And one of the challenges I think they've had is when they inherited the government, there was basically nothing there in mental health. Normally when you put in more money, you're scaling up a system that's working. That $1.9 billion has had to kind of start a system from scratch. So there are things that are happening. He's sort of talked about things like these 10,000 sessions at GP clinics for people with mental health issues. But, you know, the really hard thing is getting the workforce trained up, getting, you know, facilities built. And I think that's where that frustration is coming in, because there's high expectations on mental health. The government's made big promises. They've put big money up. And people are saying, 'Well, we need help desperately now. Where is it' - So did they overpromise, Richard, before they've actually got their ducks in a row, when it comes to, in particular, I suppose, the facilities and the workforce stuff? - They may have. I mean, I can remember back in 2017 when Andrew Little was still the leader, and going on the road with him. And one of the things that he got a big response on was when he talked about mental health. Yet at the National Party conference, of all places yesterday, they spent a good half hour or so talking about mental health. It seems to be an issue that just gets bigger and bigger and bigger. And I think you're going to get caught no matter what you promise, because it's sort of limitless demand and, you know, it is a health system under stress. - Yeah, he acknowledged that, didn't he? Well, he seemed to put that out there in the end, saying it's under stress. The other thing we asked him about, Kethi, you may have an opinion on this, is that the GPs in that conference were taking a broader picture and saying, 'It's poverty. It's fresh fruit and vegetables.' It's those kinds of things. You know, they seem to be doing some policy work, but not really promising anything. But they are populist kind of health priorities. - Mm. It's not a political opinion. It's science. These are doctors. They're saying, 'Here are the problems. We've got obesity. 'We need fresh fruit and vegetables for our people in lower socioeconomic levels.' And the government just needs to act on this, and they've got the mandate to do it. And they should just do it at this stage because as you said, it's a health system under stress. And this would help in a huge way. - And it has been Labour Party policy in the past as well. The China hacking stuff there. He was possibly a bit more fulsome than we expected. Richard, what did you think? - I thought he was very fulsome, yes. (CHUCKLES) And the question about whether or not it's an act of war... - Mm. - He didn't say outright, 'No', did he?! - He didn't say no. - No, he didn't. - He didn't say yes, didn't say no. - I imagine they were shuddering a bit down at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs when that exchange took place, but it's an interesting situation, isn't it? I mean, we all know that China does this. New Zealand` I mean, I understand that government departments have a standing policy that if there's a Chinese delegation through them, they do an electronic sweep after they've been through. - Remember when we went to China with the PM as well, and suddenly the Prime Minister's office told us that they'd all got new phone numbers especially for the trip, and everyone had collected their burner phones. - And at the new embassy that we saw opened, they'd had to send up a group of New Zealand technicians to pull out the phone wiring that the Chinese had put in and put it in again. - How problematic is it, Neale, that the minister doesn't actually know what China got from us, what was stolen in that cyberattack? - Well, I mean, any cyberattack is problematic, and it might not be an act of war, but it's a hostile act. And I think New Zealand has a real challenge, given how dependent we are on China for trade, that we need to urgently decouple our economy from China's, or at least our dependence on it, and to really crack down on it. I think the work we did as a country lining up with Five Eyes and saying this isn't good enough, you need to stop it. I think that's critical. Just taking a bit more of a harder line. - OK. We also quizzed the Andrew Little, who has many hats, over Pike River and what's going on there. Kethaki, you saw Winston Peters come out there in that story saying, you know, 'We never agreed to this.' And then we have Andrew Little saying, 'Well, I don't know, was he at the cabinet table or not? 'Is he trying to rewrite it?' What do you think is going on there? - It's really interesting. It almost feels like Winston Peters just trying to stay in the conversation a little bit here. I'm not really sure what he's thinking with that, seeing as he did want to lead the charge there for a while. - In fact, Andrew Little saying, 'I never saw him. I invited him down there. He never came.' - In all his years in Parliament. So not really sure why he's throwing his hat in the ring this time. - Is it part of the comeback tour, Richard? - Well, it was wonderful, wasn't it? It was real nostalgia. (LAUGHTER) I mean, apart from the fact that his hair's gone a lot greyer, there he had the piece of paper, I wonder why they're not telling us what's going on. It was the all-purpose Peters attack, really, wasn't it? Another Peters conspiracy theory. What he didn't mention, of course, was the appeal court ruling against him this week over the privacy case, which he lost. - Oh, no. - Stayed pretty quiet on that one. - He set the agenda on that one. But I guess, you know, once again, you know, Andrew a little well, I mean, he's raising his eyebrows about Winston Peters coming out and doing this. - Look, this is political opportunism. I worked for Andrew Little at the miners union, the EPMU, and in Parliament for Labour. He's very dedicated to this. He's fulfilled the promise he made. And Winston Peters was there at the time that promise was made. He was there in` - Has he though? Because he said when they got to an advanced point in the drift, they weren't even a quarter of the way through. - In 2017, the promise made to the families, they were there, the cameras were there. It's all online. The promise was the drift. - This was the pledge that he was talking about. - That was the pledge. The cabinet papers said, 'Look, we might see, we might look at that.' But I think Winston Peters, if he says there was a promise made, there wasn't. - Does it matter at this point, though, if there are so many members of the Pike River families, does it matter? Is this just semantics? And should they just listen and...? - Yeah, I think there is a` The Pike River families have been treated terribly the whole way through this. And I think everyone has sympathy there. I think the question, though, is has the promise been met? I think it has. And I think put Winston Peters is being politically opportunistic here. - Right. OK. I just wonder, in terms of politics, we've got a couple of big things going on. We'll just briefly come to the National Party. Quick question, Richard. Is Judith Collins toast? - No, no. I think they'll hang on to Judith Collins for at least a year, because they don't have a viable contender. I mean, people say Christopher Luxon, but hell, he hasn't he hasn't even been in parliament a year yet. I think the focus will be on the president and almost as a surrogate, if you like, and we'll see what happens there tomorrow morning. - Would David Carter, if he takes over the presidency from Peter Goodfellow, do you think he'd make a good a good party president? - I don't know. I mean, we've seen David Carter perform as a minister. John Key moved him to speaker, which is hardly a vote of confidence. (LAUGHTER) As a speaker, he was adequate. But can he energise the party? And particularly, can he find some really impressive candidates? I think that's the big challenge for the next president. - Just quickly, Jenna Lynn revealed in the Newshub Reid Research poll that she was talking about there, is the National Party focussed on the things that matter to you? National Party voters say yes. That doesn't really surprise you, does it, Neale? - Well, no. But the important thing is National's current voters are not going to get them into power. They're only on about 25%. They actually need to be looking at those voters in the middle who switched to Labour, who listen to Judith Collins with her, you know, race-baiting about Maori and her bizarre thing on conversion therapy, and they say, 'You're not talking about the issues we care about 'and you're off on bizarre culture wars.' - Right. - That's the people they need to be focussing on. - All right. We're going to have to leave it there for the moment. Neale, Richard, and Kethaki, thank you very much for your input this morning. E whai ake nei, overhauling our adoption laws. With consultation ending this month, our experts traverse the issues. Plus, tension over gay conversion therapy in the House this week. - Hoki mai ano. Welcome back. In June, Justice Minister Kris Faafoi announced a review of New Zealand's 66-year-old adoption laws. More than 100,000 children were adopted in New Zealand between 1940 and 1990. Many lost their original names and never rediscovered their birth parents. We still have about 125 adoptions in New Zealand each year. Annabel Ahuriri-Driscoll is a lecturer in Maori health at Canterbury University who's PhD investigated the concept of identity in Maori adoptees. And filmmaker Barbara Sumner wrote a memoir about adoption called Tree of Strangers. Both women were themselves also adopted. Kia ora korua. Thank you very much for joining me this morning. Annabel, if I could start with you. You were adopted into a pakeha family. What was that like? - Well, I was very loved. So that's an important point to make. But, you know, I think my family were ill-equipped, actually, to understand and, um,... raise me as a Maori child. And so I think that was a big struggle. I was very different from them. And, you know, they didn't have the knowledge and the understanding of how to support me in who I am as a Maori woman. - So when and how did you discover your whakapapa? - When I was 19, I was able to find my whanau, and my birth mother, you know, very quickly said to me who my father was. So that was wonderful. But it's been a long process of over, you know, 25 years of working out what that means. So I've never been... I've never had that transmitted to me in a whanau context. I've had to learn from peers, from friends, actually, and then modelling that to transmit to my children. - And Barbara, you've said that you whakapapa back to nowhere. How did your adoption create that sense of abyss? - Well, all adoption completely severs you from your history. So from your grandparents, your ancestors, any siblings you might have, aunts, uncles, your health information ` everything is taken from you. So you have... You come from nowhere. So then you have to suddenly, you know, as a person growing up, you have to make yourself up from nothing. And it really` It's never about... I feel it's not about good or bad adoption or good or bad adopters. It really is about that there is a particular group of people in this country who have no rights to the things that non-adopted people don't even think about because they take it for granted. - And you were never able to meet your birth mother. I know you don't like that term, but you were never able to meet your mother, is that right? - No, I don't like the term birth mother because, I think, non-adopted people don't call their mothers birth mothers. So I'm always looking for parity. No, I wasn't. My mother... We made` We connected with each other. She was living in Spain by that time. She got on a flight to come to New Zealand, and that plane crashed. So, no, we weren't able to meet, although I have, you know, half-siblings that I'm now in contact with. - And I mean, it's such a long and slow process. And I think you've described it as the last law where morality is taken into account ` the adoption laws finally being reviewed for the first time since 1955. What was your reaction when you first heard that it was going to be reviewed? And I think, Barbara, also you have some insights on what your reaction was then to how it's actually being handled now? - I have to say... Well, as an adoptee, you know, I've lived this all my life, and I continue to live that experience. And so, I have` You know, we've talked about the fact that, as adoptees, we're silenced. We don't really have a voice. We're not heard, and so much of our experience is dismissed, denied. So actually, this is an opportunity for us. It's not the first time. But I think for Maori adoptees, a number of us, I guess, are coming to an age where we are actually wanting to be heard. So a great opportunity in that respect. - And is it going, Barbara, as you thought it would, the review? - No. (LAUGHS DRYLY) I think that there are some big issues within the review. One is that it talks all the time` You mentioned the number of children being adopted today, so it talks about the best interest of the child. But of course, there are over 90,000 adult people who were adopted as children. We're not children. The law calls us 'children of any age', so we are adopted children of any age. So we are infantilized, and the reviewed papers do not address that. They don't really address the historical issues. They don't address the mothers who had their children forcibly removed, which was most of them. And certainly they were set up without any form of support. So, you know, a choice of no choice to lose your child. So, no, I think that the law reform, at this point, has` it appears that there is nobody with really lived experience informing. Certainly the way the questions are structured, you would think that. - Which is pretty appalling considering you're saying you don't feel like you've been heard, and here is an opportunity to do it. Whangai is a big focus of the review. Can you explain whangai practises and how you'd like to perhaps see that incorporated into any new law? - Yeah, I mean, whangai is talked about as a form of customary adoption, but it's the antithesis, the polar opposite of closed adoption. It was about maintaining and strengthening rather than severing kin relationships. You know, practised openly. You know, whangai children knew who they were, they knew their whakapapa. So it's about the integrity of the whanau unit. And I think that, you know, the definition of understanding of what it means to be a child, a parent is very different, and I'd like to see those sorts of concepts filter into this law reform. But I concur with Marie Dyhrberg's recommendations from 2001 that we need to address the legal prohibition of whangai. So I think repealing Section 19 is important. Enabling whanau tino rangatiratanga, you know, and including whangai as part of the package of options that are available to them. Yeah. - And you both seem to favour the kind of concept of guardianship over adoption. Can you explain the difference, Barbara? - Well, if... The adoption law is not welfare. We have really good welfare legislation in this country. So if adoption isn't welfare, what is it? And I've come to the conclusion that what it is is property. And certainly, I have judgements from various times where people have attempted to get hold of their files, have their files opened, and judges say things like, 'Adoptive people are object and subject of the adoption, but not party to it.' So... - And you know that process all too well. - I do know that process all too well. And I mean, I'm still` Well, I have some of my files because I managed to come up with a concept that hadn't come before the courts before. I'm still being blocked with some of them, under supposed privacy, which we know really is just code for secrecy. - Is there ever a time where, sorry, birth parents, but parents who have adopted out their children, is there ever a time where it's OK for them not to have contact and to kind of pull up that drawbridge? - Yeah, I mean, my own mother, my birth mother, did actually say, for her, she wouldn't have been able to have contact soon after, you know, I was` I'd been adopted out because it was too painful. But I think if there were the supports around our mothers and around adoptive families` I mean, New Zealand, compared to other countries, there's just no infrastructure. And so no one's really supported, and I think that if, with the law reform, if we're looking at maintaining adoption, I guess, dealing to some of the problematic aspects, but if it is going to continue, we have to better support families to make that work. International research around openness of adoption says it adds another layer of complexity, and you can't just leave families out there on their own to do that. - Yeah. Australia apologised in 2013 for forced adoptions. New Zealand hasn't even had an enquiry yet, even though the 1997 parliament did acknowledge that coercion had happened to get babies off mothers. Should New Zealand apologise or, at the very least, launch an enquiry? And then beyond that, what else needs to happen in terms of some kind of reparation, if that's even possible? - We need to we need to start by acknowledging publicly that this is the history of it, that it is... that it's all forced adoption for the child. For the child, all adoption is forced. There is no` There is no consent. There is no time where a non-consenting, preverbal person has a say in that. You can't even have your adoption annulled as an adult. So it's the only contract that does that. - And currently we have about 125 adoptions a year in New Zealand. Thousands of families would, you know, say they would like to offer their homes to children, offer safe homes to babies. What if better open adoption laws lead to more adoptions, would you be comfortable with that? - No, you don't need to be adopted to be loved. And a child should not have to lose their identity in order to be loved. So, adoption is really` Ultimately, it acts as ownership. It's property law, and it acts as ownership. So why can't we have forms of enduring guardianship for those children for whom family preservation has not worked? So, we don't need to... We just don't need to take people and sever them from everything, not just for their life and not just for their childhood, not just for their life, but for their children and their children. So, I mean, it really is, it's a... a lifetime sentence and beyond. - Annabel, did want to share your thoughts on that as well? - Yeah. I mean, I think for me, the key question is ` because I haven't sort of landed on a definite view, actually ` is that, you know, can we support children to be adopted without severing that birth relationship? So, I guess, I would like to hear more about how that might be possible, because I do think` I can understand, for adoptive parents, the security of the permanence and the stability for the child. And we do know that if caregivers feel supported and secure, then that can have positive benefits for the child. But I think we really need to have discussions about that. Yeah, more of that. - Yeah, we definitely need to talk more about it, and we definitely need more action faster. Thank you both so much for your time this morning. Annabel Ahuriri-Driscoll and Barbara Sumner. Kia ora korua. - Kia ora. - And if you want to have your say on the review of adoption law, you can email your feedback to adoptionlaw@justice.govt.nz. All the information is on the website ` consultations.justice.govt.nz. And consultation closes on the 31st of August. Stay with us. We're back after the break. - Welcome back. Parliament's long recess has come to an end, but don't expect these MPs to play nice just because they're fresh from a holiday. - So here's Finn Hogan with the week that was in Wellington. - Well, the long recess is over, but if you thought well-rested MPs would be better behaved, you haven't met this lot. - Order! OK, I'm going to just do a general warning now. The interjections were going right across the microphones into mine. Do members on this side want an answer? - The Police Minister was clearly losing patience with relentless grilling from Simeon Brown. - ...in a rare misstep for that member,... (LAUGHTER) - ...he has taken my quote out of context. - And the Transport Minister was under fire for the government's increasingly unpopular walking bridge proposal. - What does he say to the 81% of Kiwis, including 75% of Labour supporters, who think that he shouldn't go ahead with the $785 million cycling and walking bridge? - But was quick to point out that perhaps parties in glass houses shouldn't throw poll stones. - Speaker, my reflection on that particular poll would be that if support for any government project was as low as levels of support for the leader of the opposition, then it would be in trouble. - And tense scenes as National stood alone in opposition to banning gay conversion therapy. - Although we want to be supportive, we are opposing this law until it is amended. - I seriously say to the National Party, you are on the wrong side of history. (CHEERING, APPLAUSE) - Rawiri Waititi was quick to distance himself from the Maori Party's former colleagues in blue. - I'm going to be on the right side of history in this debate,... (APPLAUSE) ...and I will not wait for a valedictory speech to apologise to the rest of New Zealand. - The bill now heads to select committee, but the Maori Party co-leader seems to speak for the majority of MPs when he says,... - What I do know and have always known is that takatapui are whanau. End of story. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. Kia ora tatou. (APPLAUSE) - That was in the House. We're back with our panel. Neale Jones, Richard Harman, Kethaki Masilamani. Could barely keep them quiet long enough to do the intro. Guys, let's talk a little bit about the National Party, the only party to oppose gay conversion therapy. Neale. I mean, it was to the chagrin of the young Nats to some of the National Party MPs. Was this a misstep from Judith Collins? - I think it was. I mean, National made clear that they thought the intent of the bill was correct. Everyone agrees conversion therapy is a monstrous practise. The standard political thing to do when you agree with the intent of the bill, but you have some issues with provisions, is you say, 'We're going to vote for it at first reading, 'put it to select committee. We'll iron that out.' - Where these things get ironed out. - And then if the government agrees to your compromise, you claim victory. If the government doesn't, you say they haven't listened, and you slam them. National kind of put themselves in the worst of all worlds here. - What's going to happen, though? I mean, should it be put to a conscience vote? And will some of the more liberal National MPs go across the floor on that, do you think, Richard? - I think it would be interesting if it went to a conscience vote, which it should have done, because I think there are some Labour MPs that might vote against it as well. - I think that's probably why Labour's not calling for a conscience vote, right? But if I were in the ACT Party, I'd be putting that out there, because the ACT Party is going to vote for it, and they'd be forcing the National Party, some of those National MPs, the more liberal ones, to perhaps walk the floor. My two cents. - (CHUCKLES) Tova's two cents. Right, let's talk about the Greens. The party is debating, you know, whether to roll James with a James at the moment. But it's also talking about the wider leadership structure there. Kethaki, they're a party of inclusion. Do you think that the current model for their leadership is relevant? - Well, I'm sure they'll take a look at the treaty. They'll look at those principles, and I'm sure they'll come up with a structure that's more on-brand, if it's not already. And we might see, you know, that male-female leadership role may not exist going forward. Maybe it'll be` definitely include a Maori leader, but we're not sure what that structure will look like. But honestly, they're focussing on this leadership structure. But we haven't really heard a lot else from the Greens right now. I've just seen stats of even their social media engagement, and ACT is beating them at that. And that's a really sad state of affairs when, you know, they're not even great on Insta. - (CHUCKLES) - Why do you think that is, Neale, that the Greens have maybe slipped off the radar? Because it's not hurting them in the polls, is it, to just maybe 'Zip it, sweetie,' a little bit? - Look, it's always the case when a minor party goes into government of some form with a major party, that they lose a bit of coverage. But, I mean, their polling is holding up. That's what matters. The Newshub poll had them on 8.5. You know, that's pretty good compared to where they've been historically. So I wouldn't be too worried. I think as they go towards the election, they'll be in a good position to say, 'Hey, if you're a Labour voter, 'and you don't think they've gone far enough. we're right here to take your vote.' - All right. Let's talk about the adoption review. Very strong opinions there that there should be some sort of acknowledgement about forced adoption, Kethaki. - I mean, I think we're behind the eight ball on this. Australia has already acknowledged it. They've apologised, and you can see the scope of the enquiry, it brought up 250,000 forced adoptions came to light, and you can only imagine what it's like in New Zealand. We know it's happened, and we're just sweeping it under the rug at this stage if we're not acknowledging it. So I think an enquiry is probably long overdue. - And the law review itself, guys. Do you think that too long overdue? And should they be hastening the pace a bit? - Well, it's 55 years old, isn't it? So it's clearly a bit overdue. I know the government wanted to do it last term, but Winston Peters didn't want it. Clearly, there's a problem there. Clearly, it's not fit for purpose. A lot of people have had a lot of harm. It's time they do it, and they need to really make sure they listen to the people who've been through it. - And quickly, before we go, we cannot leave without mentioning the cycling bridge. Richard, what's your view on that? - Well, I think that it's headed for the bottom of the harbour... (LAUGHTER) ...at the moment. You would have thought there were bigger priorities in transport in Auckland. I've just heard this morning that the road, for example, from Whangarei to Auckland is blocked at the moment. Going up and down from the National Party conference yesterday, I came across a car crash which was blocking a lane. I mean, Auckland's in the state of transport crisis, and let's get that sorted first. - It's just bonkers that they were even doing it in the first` Why were they pushing ahead with it? No one wanted it. Not their own voters. No one wanted that bloody thing. - I think it went from Skypath, which was the original plan, which was a $30 million sort of clip on to the Harbour Bridge, that became $300 million. It became unviable. I think these things get a life of their own somehow, and before you know it, it's $785 million and is a standalone bridge. I think what they'll do, they'll can it, and when they do announce the second harbour crossing, they'll make that part of the solution. - All right. I think that wraps up all we've got time for. Thank you so much to Neale, Richard, and Kethaki. - That's all from us for now. Thank you 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.