I'm Oriini Kaipara. - Manawatia a Matariki. I'm Simon Shepherd, and welcome to Newshub Nation. - On the program today ` revelations the government will review some genetic modification rules for the first time in 20 years. - The International Red Cross on food prices and looming famine. - But first, a turning point in our international relations ` an interview with NATO ahead of the leaders meeting. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2022 - It's the first time New Zealand has attended the leaders meeting of the powerful security and military alliance, and the first time we've been invited. - It's also a landmark summit for NATO, setting its agenda for the next decade. - I spoke to NATO deputy spokesperson Piers Cazalet and asked him why NATO has invited us now. - Well, first of all, let me say thank you very much for having me on the program. Delighted to be with you, and good morning from Brussels. I think it's important to see, first of all, a little bit of history of NATO. And NATO ` It's an organisation which has been around for almost 75 years. It's an organisation which guarantees the security and defence of its allies, which are largely European nations, but also the US and Canada. Historically, of course, that focus was very much around what we call the Euro-Atlantic area. But increasingly, in recent years, globalisation has meant that threats and challenges have come closer to us, if you like, and you just need to look at something like cyber` for examples of cyber attacks which can emanate from anywhere in the world and attack any country in the world. Something like climate security, which affects all of us. It's a global issue that needs to be addressed globally. So we've been working in recent years to develop a set of partnerships with nations around the globe where we can cooperate more closely with them. And New Zealand is one of these countries. New Zealand` we started our partnership with New Zealand about 20 years ago and has been developing very fast, in particular, in the last 10 years. And in a way, the invitation to New Zealand, it's a culmination of that partnership and how that's developed over the years. It's a demonstration of our shared values. The invitation's also to Australia and to Japan and the Republic of Korea. So we will have the leaders of the four countries coming to the summit, and it's an opportunity for us to discuss the types of global and regional issues that affect all of us, that have an impact on all of us. - So in terms of regional issues, is it because you're concerned about the rise of China in this area of the world? - This is certainly one of the issues, and we don't see China as an adversary, but there are challenging aspects to China's behaviour that we see here in Europe and in the US as well. We recognise, as well, that European countries individually, and even the US on its own, cannot confront China and confront that behaviour individually. So the more we can work together and cooperate together, the better. There are areas where we can see for cooperation with China, for example, on discussions on arms control, on climate change. But at the same time, we have to recognise that China is beginning to come closer to us, whether it's in terms of cyber attacks, whether it's in terms of investments in some of our critical infrastructure. - Right. - And we need to see how we can address some of those challenges. And I think it's very useful for us to... - Are they threats or challenges to NATO from China? - For the time being, we'd say they're challenges because they're` you know, their challenges that we face, and I think we can face them all better` all the better if we can work closely with partners such as New Zealand, Australia, Japan and the Republic of Korea, where we have common interests around some of those challenges. - Is NATO aware of the risks to New Zealand here though? Because if we align ourselves with NATO, China is our biggest trade partner. There's a real balancing act here for New Zealand. - Yeah, we recognise that. And for a lot of European nations, Germany, for example, China is also a huge trading partner. So as I was saying, we don't see China as an adversary, but we have to look at some of the aspects of Chinese behaviour to see how we can address that and address those challenges, so recognising that there are positives there` - When you say aspects of Chinese behaviour, can you give me an example, please? - Yeah. For example, whether it's cyber attacks that we've seen in the past, or whether it's some of the internal aspects that we see ` so the crushing of democracy in Hong Kong, the increasingly rhetorical threats against Taiwan, the challenges that you can see in the South China Sea. So these are issues that we're concerned about and we want to discuss with regional partners. - How could New Zealand play a part in that? What could New Zealand do? - Well, I think firstly we'd be very, very interested to hear New Zealand's assessment of the regional challenges as you see them. Your perspective is different from that of Australia, for example, and again different from Japan and Korea. All of these assessments, all of these views, it'll be interesting for all the allies based in Europe and North America to hear some of these views and these assessments. - I mean, NATO is a European organisation, and obviously you have a crisis on the doorstep, and New Zealanders feel for Ukrainians. But why should our Prime Minister get involved with a military alliance in Europe? - Well, firstly, we're not a military alliance. We're a political military alliance, and effectively we work politically. Secondly, it's not just Europe; it's Europe and North America, so the United States and Canada. As I was saying earlier, we're beginning to look at things more globally anyway. And I think that the war in Ukraine is an example of where our countries, such as NATO countries, but also New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Korea can come together around some shared values and some common values. New Zealand has been supporting Ukraine in the current conflict. They've been helping with providing equipment to Ukraine. There's also been New Zealand to help with airlifting some of that equipment into Ukraine. This has been a substantial help to Ukraine, and I think it's an indication of where New Zealand sees its interests in terms of this war and this invasion by Russia. - Do you want more help from New Zealand, and, in return, what would New Zealand get by attending the summit? - Well, I mean, firstly, there's no bargaining going on here, but I think it'll be a discussion around shared values and common interests that we have together with countries such as New Zealand. One of the key outcomes that we're looking for from this summit is to increase the level of support from Ukraine` for Ukraine. If New Zealand is willing and able to help with that, I think that'll be very welcome to Ukraine but to the rest of NATO as well. - OK. If New Zealand, sort of, you know, becomes more aligned with NATO, would there be pressure on New Zealand to increase its defence spending to about 2% of GDP? At the moment, it's 1.5%. 2% seems to be the sort of standard for NATO member states. - This is` Yeah, 2% is the guideline for NATO member states, and, er, all the member states made a commitment back in 2014 to increase their levels of defence spending up to that` up to that level. Now it's increasingly being seen as a floor of spending rather than an upper level, and there are countries that are spending now above 2% of GDP. But this only applies to NATO members, and it's a political agreement within the alliance; it doesn't apply to partners. And partners such as New Zealand, they will have their own defence priorities; they will also have their own fiscal and government priorities. So there will be no` It's not for NATO to impose on New Zealand or any other country what they spend their money on and how they spend it. - You talk about how NATO, which, you know, originally was European- focused ` Euro-focused ` is now taking a more global focus. Does that mean that NATO wants to expand, to, sort of, become a NATO-plus? And is that why Pacific partners are being invited to the summit? - I think, in terms of membership, no. I mean, NATO's will stay focused around the European continent and North America. But, yes, we do want to develop closer partnerships with countries around the globe, so countries such as New Zealand and Australia ` which, as I said, they've been developing for the last ten, 20 years anyhow. We have partnerships with countries in the Middle East and North Africa, in the Arabian Gulf, now in Latin America ` we have a partnership with Colombia. So where we see shared values and shared interests, this is where we want to develop the partnerships so that we can, as an organisation with partners, better address some of the global challenges that we face. - Right. So should our Prime Minister expect an invitation to join the Alliance on some greater level than the current partnership level? - Certainly not joining NATO, as New Zealand is, er` it's an Asian country; it's not` er, Asia-Pacific country. It's not a European country. But I think we will look for ways in discussion with New Zealand as to how we can further develop the partnership. - Would New Zealand's current nuclear-free stance present a problem for NATO if there was a development of a relationship with NATO? - No. Once again, er, this is New Zealand's sovereign right, to choose its nuclear policy, erm, and if it's not a member of NATO, then that's entirely within its remit, so it can` it can choose any policy it wants on nuclear weapons. - OK. So, obviously, tensions are on a knife edge in Europe. If any NATO member is attacked, I mean, all the NATO members are obliged to defend the others. So therefore, should the world be prepared to see a war between NATO and Russia? - Er, we've tried very, very hard to make sure that there is no escalation on the European continent. Er, it's been very difficult. We have been working hard to support Ukraine; indeed, since 2014, we've been supporting Ukraine with levels of assistance to help them defend their sovereignty. Since February this year, erm, we've been providing far more in terms of lethal and non-lethal equipment, and NATO allies have` have really stepped up to provide the support that Ukraine needs. At the same time, we've also been very careful, erm, not to get NATO nations directly involved ourselves. So we have no NATO troops on the ground; and we've been very clear that, for example, we're not going to impose a no-fly zone, which would ultimately mean that a NATO country might have to shoot down a Russian plane. So we have set clear limits. We're also very clear that we will do everything that we can to defend all our allies. This is why we've stepped up our military presence in the east of our alliance to make sure there's a clear defensive message to Moscow... - Mm. - ...that we will defend all our allies if there's any attack on any of those allies. - If Russia were to attack a NATO country and spark a conflict, um, and New Zealand has an increased kind of partnership with NATO, what would you expect from New Zealand? - Well, I mean, there would be no obligations on New Zealand whatsoever, erm, but I think New Zealand has demonstrated in its partnership with NATO its support for Ukraine, for example, and where we have those common values and those common interests. Erm, and I think that, er... (STAMMERS) It would not be for us to expect anything from New Zealand, but I would imagine that New Zealand would do what it can to support NATO allies. - New Zealand has a very small military. Is New Zealand of any worth to NATO at all? - Er, New Zealand has a small but very effective military, as demonstrated by, for example, its deployment in Afghanistan with NATO; er, and also a very effective navy, and here we've worked very closely with New Zealand, for example, on maritime security issues. So every country, er... Well, countries like New Zealand always have something to offer in terms of what we can learn and what they can contribute to NATO operations and missions. - Piers, I wonder ` by including Asia-Pacific countries to the summit ` Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, as you mentioned ` is there a risk` or are you contributing to the set-up of a sort of... a new Cold War? - We certainly don't see it that way. It's more just a question of, er, the partners, the countries with whom we have shared values and common interests and having discussions with those countries. I think we are seeing, increasingly, the rise of authoritarian countries such as China and Russia, erm, and the countries who don't share those values need to be able to stick together and work together to make sure that we can protect our values. - Just finally ` this is a landmark summit for NATO; it's setting its agenda for the next decade, and NATO is releasing its new strategic concept at the summit. What's going to be in that? - Well, this is still being negotiated as we speak, so it'll be difficult for me to go into too much detail. But it's important to note that it's a document that we negotiate about once every 10 years. - Of course. - And I think` If you look back 10 years ago, to our last strategic concept, er, Russia was described as a strategic partner; now that is clearly no longer the case. And China was not mentioned in the strategic concept at all. So, China will be mentioned this time. There will be discussion of that. - And finally ` I guess NATO will be hoping to address the question, is there hope for peace in Ukraine and Russia conflict? - Indeed. And, I mean, this` this is something that we've been working on for many months. Er, for the time being, our focus is very much on making sure that Ukraine is strengthened on the battlefield, because ultimately, this will strengthen their position at the negotiating table. What's really critical and important is that the sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, a country in the heart of Europe, can be defended. - NATO Deputy Spokesperson Piers Cazalet, thank you so much for your time. - Thank you very much. - And there you have it ` NATO Deputy Spokesperson Piers Cazalet. Now, if you have a news tip or a story idea, whakapa mai ` get in touch with us. - 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, Georgina Stylianou, Tania Tapsell and Finn Hogan. - Plus ` David Parker with revelations that some of our genetic modification rules are up for review. Around the world, genetic modification technology has raced ahead without New Zealand. - But now some of our leading scientists, politicians and the Climate Commission want us to look at opening the door to some GMO advances. Finn Hogan has this report. - In a leafy laboratory in central Auckland, these innocuous plants have extraordinary properties. - So, here we have some tamarillo plants that have been gene edited to make it about half the size it currently is. What we'd like is a nice, small tamarillo plant that you can grow on your windowsill, perhaps, and have a tamarillo fresh, every day. - But, for now, even if successful, it's going to be staying here. - Yup. This plant will never get further than a containment facility. - Kept under lock and key because they're genetically modified. - What do we want? - CROWD CHANTS: GE free! - Is it possible that the people of New Zealand may be offended they were eating genetically modified corn. - Widespread protests in the '90s and a royal commission in 2001 led to New Zealand adopting some of the most stringent genetic modification regulations in the world. - We want to be... - CROWD CHANTS: GE free! - CROWD CHANTS: GMO has got to go. - In the '90s, there was a big push to introduce new genetically modified seeds, and people rightly said, 'We want proper regulation. 'We don't want to see this in our fields and in our paddocks. 'And how does it fit with our reputation of being a producer of natural and safe food?' - But is being GMO free trapping us in the past? In light of new advances, the Climate Commission, the Productivity Commission and the former Chief Science Adviser, Sir Peter Gluckman, have all called for our genetic modification laws to be reviewed, a conversation scientists like Rev would welcome. - I struggle with not being able to have the impact for New Zealand that we all desperately want to have. We want to make New Zealand the best place to grow food ` the most clean, the most green. The frustration of knowing that we have a route to make something better and being told, 'No, you mustn't.' - Told no by a 25-year-old law that restricts genetic modification to lab experiments and makes it very difficult to bring a modified product to market. If a scientist or business wants to take a genetically modified organism outside the lab, they must apply to the EPA. Until now, only one has been approved for unconditional release ` a vaccine for horses. - Back in the early 2000s, what we were talking about is we were actually taking bits of DNA from one organism and putting it in another organism that may not even be the same species. So back then, it does feel very Frankenstein. It does feel very foreign, and it feels very scary. Technology has moved on so far now. This is not the technology that we're using today. - Modern gene editing techniques, like CRISPR, allow changes to genes that simulate those found in nature. - The kinds of changes that gene editing make reflect almost exactly the natural processes of mutation in the environment. Mutation is a totally normal process. All of us are, in fact, mutants. Half of your DNA might have come from Mum, half from Dad, but there's a sprinkling of mutations in there that make you absolutely unique, and CRISPR does exactly those kinds of changes. - Tiny tweaks to microscopic DNA with potentially life saving benefits ` from crops that thrive in rising temperatures, more nutritious animal products, to bacteria that breaks down plastic in weeks instead of centuries. Scientists like Andrew Allan see gene technology as our best chance against global warming. - I think New Zealand needs to be, in the future, cleaner and greener. I totally agree with that image. But with climate change, it's going to be brown, be a wasteland, if we don't fight back, and fighting back on climate change requires technology. Gene editing is revolutionary for plant biology. We can go in and make slight new variants of key genes, and then the resulting plant is better ` coping with climate change. It could be higher nutrition ` all sorts of new features. That argument about its risk versus safety is so tiny compared to what we face with global warming. - Other countries are harnessing gene technology, and we're importing their innovations ` from the insulin used to fight diabetes to the enzymes used to make most cheeses to the impossible burger, all made possible through genetic engineering. Now political pressure is brewing in parliament. - Yeah, I think we do need to have an intelligent conversation based on science and evidence and not based on emotion. - What message would you say to a New Zealander who is watching this, who says, 'No, I am proudly GMO free, and I don't want any of that in the country'? - I just say to you, I hope you're enjoying your soy latte, which has most likely got GM in it. - Until now, the government has allowed the GM conversation to move on without us. - New Zealand is falling further and further behind by the day. There's fish that are now edited in Japan on sale on the market. You can literally walk into a store and buy a fillet of a much improved fish, which has taken much less resources from the environment and still lets us feed everybody. - And young gene scientists are turning their backs on Aotearoa so they can work on the global cutting edge. - Left behind is exactly where we'll be. We'll watch others, and we'll learn what we can from them, and we'll move at a slower pace, and we'll do our best to keep up. It's our job here at Plant & Food to do that, but without all of the tools, we can't necessarily keep up. - But critics argue gene technology overpromises and underdelivers. - I don't think New Zealand has been set back in any way by the very precautionary approach we've taken to genetically modified organisms. The timeframes that it takes to develop these technologies, test them and prove them are not timeframes we have. (CHUCKLES) We need to act now on what we know will address the problem of climate change. - But international advocates, like Mark Lynas, say the science is settled, and it's time for Kiwis to catch up. - But it's just a matter of image. It's not a matter of science, and there's never any science they can use to justify that. And, in fact, it's harmful to the environment that they maintain this kind of restrictive regime against new science. New Zealand still have this probationary regime on GMOs. It's a bit like, say, 'We weren't going to take the COVID vaccine 'because that too is genetic engineered.' So it's time to get it into the 21st century, New Zealand. - And while GM remains polarising, there's some evidence public opinion is softening. A 2019 Waikato University study found 79% of Kiwis are at least open to supporting gene technologies, but of that number, a majority felt conflicted and very few could define the technology accurately. - We'd say to a legislator or a policymaker, revisit the area and balance the situation based on real risk and not perceived risk. Some of the answers to some of the problems that we've got, that's what we're working on. We're keeping them in a box right now. Come and talk to us about what they could do. - A powerful tool locked in a box until our public and our politicians believe it's safe. - Finn Hogan with that report. Coming up ` Environment Minister David Parker reveals the government's next moves on GMO. - Plus ` are we heading into a food crisis? One expert from the International Red Cross says we're already there. that had some of our leading scientists calling for modernisation of our genetic modification laws. - Genetic modification in New Zealand is the domain of Environment Minister David Parker. I spoke with the Minister earlier and asked him if this government plans to modernise our legislation. - Yes, there are. We're not proposing a, you know, root-and-branch review of it, but we are looking at whether some of the regulatory settings around biomedical research and laboratory research are a bit outdated. - OK. So what do you mean by outdated? What in particular are you going to focus on? - For example, mammalian cell lines that can't persist alive outside of the lab and never produce a inheritable characteristic, which are nonetheless regulated highly, as if they were something that could live outside the lab,... - Right. ...will pass on a heritable characteristic. So we're looking at that sort of thing and easing up on the regulation of those less problem` less risky` - OK. So, in lay terms, what does that mean, mammalian cells? What could benefit could that be? - Well, it's a research benefit for the development, perhaps of new medicines. In terms of what will happen in practice, in terms of your or my lives, nothing other than the eventual outcomes of good medical research, bringing forward new technologies that improve health outcomes. - OK. So, food and climate, they're not part of this review. They couldn't be benefited by this review. - Well, I suppose, some of the lab research could eventually have an agricultural benefit. But, no, we're not looking at making it easier to have field trials, for example, of genetically modified organisms. And, you know, I look at the way in which those sectors have prospered hugely in the decades since this precautionary approach was first enshrined in legislation, and I don't think that's held them back in any meaningful way. And I also think that it's been beneficial in terms of the brand values that New Zealand has when we sell our products to the world to be able to say that we're GM free. - Well, that's a very interesting point. Have we placed brand New Zealand above the science over the years? - Well, we've not had a ban on genetically modified organisms... - I know, but you can't` - ...being released into the environment. - But we can't sell or make or export these kinds of things. You can develop in the lab, and they have to stay there, but we haven't been able to commercialise it. - Well, you could commercialise it if anyone thought there was enough money in it to actually be willing to apply to release a genetically modified organism, and no one has, and I've not seen any great demand for it either. On the other side of it, I have been` I used to be the trade minister, and I can remember being in Europe and people asking me about our GE status in New Zealand with a view to criticising us if we had GMOs running around out there that we were trying to sell to Europe. So there is, I think, a trade benefit. Some people would say those who are anti-GM overstate the trade benefit of being GE-free, but there's no doubt some benefit. - Do you think that the regulatory threshold has been too high to encourage an active marketplace and active development of GM kind of products? - Uh, at the research end, yes. At the market end, no. You know, again, there are GM forms of corn that have been available to be grown internationally and in New Zealand if anyone wanted to seek approval to release them, and they haven't, cos there's no money in it. - OK. So, let's talk climate change. Doesn't it make sense to allow our scientist to use every tool to fight it? This is, as the Prime Minister called it, the nuclear-free moment. - Well, yes, we do have to consider all technologies, including, over time, perhaps GM technologies. - So why aren't we doing that? I mean, this is urgent. - Well, we can. If people want to release a GM crop or animal, they can apply to do so. What we're not proposing through this is removing the ability for people to have a say in a public process. In respect of laboratory research, we agree that some of the background laboratory research could be made simpler through a less regulatory complex route, and that's what we're considering. - So is this a huge moment, then? Am I reading that right, that you're opening the door further or opening the door or even a little bit to GM in New Zealand? - No. No, it's not a huge moment. We will have a very open process around whether some of the rules to get an approval for low-risk research activities` whether it should be made easier, and I think there's a great deal of community comfort with that. Since these rules were first passed, we've, of course, developed in the world GM medicines which are used in New Zealand. - What about the example of gene editing a crop so it could be resistant to drought? Could that be done in New Zealand any time soon? - Well, it could be, if people wanted to apply to the Environmental Protection Authority for approval to do it. They've chosen not to until now. Maybe that is because our rules are tougher than they are in some places overseas, and it's easier to do it overseas. - So they've gone overseas to do it. - For some of us, yes, that's right. - But why would they do that? Is it easier? - Yes, it is easier overseas. But that doesn't mean to say that those rules would be the right ones to adopt for New Zealand. - Should we make it easier here? Because we care about climate. You are the environment minister. - We do care about climate in New Zealand, and I think that we will consider those technologies in the future. - Do you have plans for a wider review? - No. - Should we be able to, in the future, at some stage, do what UK is allowed? They're just allowed gene-edited crops. Australia moved in 2018. There're gene-edited fish for sale in Japan. Could we see that here? - Well, you could already see that here if people were willing to use the processes available under the EPA. - Right. You keep saying that. Yeah. I mean, you keep saying it. So that means that the regulatory threshold here is just too high, and everybody goes overseas to do this kind of work. - Well, maybe it says something about the size of the New Zealand market as well. If you were a company that was interested in commercialising those things, you might start it in countries that have got a bigger market. I know there are some people who would say that we should have a less precautionary approach to the release of new genetically modified food organisms. I think that is a big call for our country, and I would like to see, if that was proposed in the future, a full process around it, and we already have that provided for in our legislation. - Is it too politically risky for you to do it? - No. No, that's not my motivation at all. I actually think that our settings in that regard are correct. I know some people disagree, but I disagree with them. - The Climate Commission, the Productivity Commission, the former Chief Science Adviser, Sir Peter Gluckman, they are all recommending revisiting and, in fact, Sir Peter Gluckman said, 'The science is as settled as it will be.' - Well, I've actually talked to the current Chief Science Adviser about some of the suggestions that are used to produce gene-edited possums, for example, so as to rid ourselves of those pests that predate on our bird life, and the point was made to me that if you gene edited a possum in New Zealand and it throws only male progeny, if that was to be smuggled off into Australia, you could cause the extinction of the species. So, you know, if someone did that to a kiwi overseas and then brought that back to New Zealand, we'd be worried about it. So, you know, these are complex issues. - OK. You are someone who, I believe, is an evidence-based minister. You like the facts. Does the government's current position on GM` - I like science. - You like science, OK. So does the current GM position really sit well with you? - Yes, it does. But so does reducing the regulation on biomedical and lab level processes. I don't think it would be right to move to easier release of GM crops and animals at this time. - Right. David Parker there. As for other party views on genetic modification, ACT would like to liberalise our laws and, I quote, 'Allow New Zealand's agricultural industry to be a leader, not a laggard, in the field.' Te Pati Maori is currently working on its GMO policy. And the Green Party remains committed to keeping New Zealand free of genetically engineered organisms. - Kia mau tonu mai. Stay with us. Our political panel, Finn Hogan, Georgina Stylianou and Tania Tapsell, are up next. - Plus ` climate, pandemic and now war are hurting food supply chains. How can we find our way out of the global food crisis? Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Newshub Nation's Digital Editor, Finn Hogan; Georgina Stylianou, who is a former National Party press secretary now working in government relations; and, of course, Rotorua Lakes councillor Tania Tapsell. Tena koutou ` welcome to the show. - Finn, you've been here before... - Once or twice. (CHUCKLES) - ...but nice to see you again. Let's start off with Matariki. Now, yesterday was the first time we celebrated Matariki as our first public holiday. Finn, let's start with you. What did you get up to? - Well, I think you know full well what I got up to, Oriini. I was here, trying to get my story ready to go to air. - (LAUGHS) And so I perhaps wasn't leaning into the spirit as much as I should have been, but I'm really hoping the other two panellists here can be a bit more interesting that I can. - (CHUCKLES) OK. And we really appreciate that, Finn. - (LAUGHS) - Tania, coming to you. I aha koe? - It` It has been a really busy but full-on week. I think what's been amazing is New Zealand is now celebrating a holiday that's really unique to us. So, in Rotorua, being very busy, not only with our dawn ceremonies ` I went to two, so there's been a bit of lack of sleep as well ` - (LAUGHTER) but there's some really cool ways that are coming out on how to celebrate, and Te Puia, Rotorua, alongside Air New Zealand, had a virtual reality, which was awesome. So you put those on and you can learn about Matariki in that way. So, um, not only about honouring the past, but looking at, 'How can we celebrate this in a way that everyone can connect with?' - Yeah. Absolutely. Georgina, what did you get up to? - Honestly, I started the morning by listening to the ceremony down at Te Papa, and I, um... I got quite emotional, I gotta say. I think it was` Totally what you've just said ` it was` it's so unique and beautiful. And I grew up in England, so there's an even more unique value for me in terms of learning, and I've really taught myself a lot of things this week, and I've found it` it's been a pleasant environment to do it in. Like, you don't feel kind of like the dumb person being like, 'What do these stars mean?' It's actually been okay to ask questions that, you know, I don't know the answers to. - Absolutely. - And, um` Yeah, no, it's really beautiful. - And I believe a lot of us can relate to that ` not just non-Maori, but Maori as well. Um, Tania, it is, as you say, a time of reflection. So what went through your mind looking back at our political year? - Oh, what a year we've had. - (ALL LAUGH) Honestly, I think, you know` They say that a week's a long time in politics, but we've had to grapple with significant issues. Not only a war in Ukraine ` wow; can't believe that's actually happening ` but even for everyday people here, it's gotten so hard. Cost of living crisis, housing crisis. It's` People are feeling it ` everyday people, working families. But the main thing is how can politicians connect with these people, actually listen and hear the concerns that they have and, importantly, put that into action? So I think that's been the biggest challenge in the past year, is acknowledging we have to move into that next phase now of doing. - Georgina, Finn, do you believe Matariki should be our national holiday, the day we mark as a` you know, a celebration for all of Aotearoa, New Zealand, given that there's no controversy? - GEORGINA: Mm. - Which is` Surrounds quite often Waitangi Day, our current national day. Do you think Matariki should be the national day? - I think it can be, and I really hope that we move in that direction, and I think it is great to have a holiday that isn't soaked in that colonial past. And I think that's where we can come together ` you know, Maori and Pakeha. And I think that should be the future, but there is gonna be the work to get there, I think. - Mm. Your thoughts, Georgina? - Took the words out of my mouth. As long as we protect it from commercialism, I'm happy. - Yeah. Let's talk about GMO now, Finn. Uh, what did you make of the Minister's interview and his plan to review GMO regulation? - Well, I think, yes, there are definitely avenues in health that could be great for these advances, so it's good that he's at least doing that. But I think the problem for me is I don't understand how you can hold simultaneously the position that climate change is the existential threat facing humanity and, 'We are not going to investigate the use of these tools to combat it.' And that's what you saw the scientists say there ` there are new advanced techniques in gene editing, which are indistinguishable from selective breeding, from just traditional forms of breeding plants. And that's what Australia's recognised; that's what Japan's recognised; that's what the UK has recognised. And the Minister kept bringing up that we do have a pathway that you can apply to to bring these products to market, but I think the context that was a little bit missing there is that it's incredibly expensive to do so. And so companies and scientists here are saying, 'Why would I do that if I know I'm going to be rejected 'or there's a high chance I'm rejected? 'Why wouldn't I go over to Australia? 'Why wouldn't I go to America and take these innovations elsewhere?' So I think that's the frustration some of the scientists were expressing to me. - OK. Tania, our history is littered with mistakes like releasing stoats into New Zealand. Isn't that why our regulations need to be strong? - Well, (SIGHS) I think Finn has a good point here in terms of it can be costly, but a small amount of investment into this can actually save a lot in the long term. Now, if we talk about biosecurity, which you just mentioned, in Rotorua, we have a significant issue with catfish, but they are saying, 'Well, if we were able to use genetic modification 'to actually make them `' and I say the word ` 'infertile, 'then actually, this could stop a pest species, eradicate them, 'who are currently causing a lot of harm.' So I think there's a lot of benefit to still come with it. Um, there does need to be a cautious approach, but, hey, it'll be better to investigate the science and the research that's already there than to not do anything. - But there are risks, though. - GEORGINA: Mm. - Don't you agree, Georgina? - Yeah` I mean, there's a political risk. I think people have this visceral reaction to the letters 'GMO', and Minister Parker himself has been very open about that. He` That's his own personal opinion. I do think he's downplaying, potentially, the review. Um` Good scoop, you guys. - (FINN CHUCKLES) Um, and I do think it will have a pathway forward ` maybe not under his leadership, um, but it's definitely an adult debate that we need to have and we probably can't avoid having any more. - Mm. Let's talk about the global food crisis. We do have a story coming up on that, but... there is a food crisis going on globally, with 50 million people on the brink of starving to death. Finn, do New Zealanders realise how serious it is? - No. I think it's a tragic reality that we've sort of numbed to the suffering that's happening in the world. And this was before this food crisis. We've had rolling food crises for decades. It's` The war in Ukraine has brought this massively to the world's attention, because, as I'm sure we'll talk about, up to 12% of the world's calories are tied into the food production in Russia and Ukraine; massive fertiliser production, massive wheat production. But unfortunately, of course, the effects are not going to be as strongly felt by us here. We will see food prices go up, but the brunt of the suffering, as always, is gonna fall on the global south and the people that can afford it the least. And so, no, I don't think there is perhaps enough awareness, but in terms of what we can really do to actually address this issue, that's a really different question. - Yeah. Let's talk about NATO, Georgina. This is the first time a New Zealand prime minister has been invited to speak at the Leaders Summit. How significant is it, though? - It is a massive moment. There is` There is no denying that. Um, and I` I noted the wording of the Prime Minister's press release this week, sort of, reminding us that the trip was long planned and just happens to coincide (CHUCKLES) with, um` with the summit in Madrid. But it's` It's a big deal, but for all the pomp and circumstance, there are undercurrents here that we can't, um, play down, and this is us moving towards the US, this is us moving towards economies that have nuclear capabilities, and this is very much an anti-China move, as much as anything else. So how long we can, kind of, keep treading that tightrope before we end up in a trade war with China ` that's gonna be the interesting part to watch. - Mm. Tania, do you agree with that? Because it isn't just us going along; it's Australia, South Korea and Japan. What does that say about how NATO views China? - Um, I think, going off on that, that's actually really important, because we` that free trade agreement that we have with China is hugely valuable. A lot of people, a lot of workers here, actually rely on that free trade agreement. So we do have to have a really balanced approach to that. Um, but I think it is interesting that NATO, which is a North Atlantic organisation, is actually interested in bringing in Asia-Pacific countries. Now, there's an important note ` not as members; just as partners. So currently, it's still just in discussions, but the key thing for New Zealand is will that benefit us? Because it's defence and security. So by aligning with them at the risk of putting our relationship with China at risk will then ensure that at the time we have better defence, cos we play an important role here in New Zealand protecting our Pacific region. - What do you think NATO wants from us, Georgina? - Well, firstly I don't think we play an important enough role in protecting the Pacific. So when it comes to the question of` I mean, NATO, obviously has this 2% of GDP target for defence spending; I would argue that we should be spending far more on maritime surveillance and security and our EEZ in the Pacific and also on cybersecurity. I think (CHUCKLES) we are really, really, really open to attacks here. Um, I think NATO's is going to put pressure on New Zealand for additional support for Ukraine, and I think ultimately they want to have like-minded friends in a region where we know China is growing its influence. - But what a difference this year has made as well. Cos remember ` NATO was an organisation that Emmanuel Macron was referring to as 'brain dead' even up to very recently. - (CHUCKLING) And now, this year ` they have never been more powerful; they've never been more relevant. Remember, NATO was established to push back on Soviet aggression. In some ways, this is what they were built for ` renewed Russian aggression. And so now the question has to become ` what are NATO's incentives, what are NATO's goals, and do they align with New Zealand, and where are those differences? - Ka pai. We'll have to leave it there. Thank you very much. Finn Hogan, Georgina Stylianou, Tania Tapsell ` our panel for this week. Taihoa e haere ` we'll be back after the break. The irony ` there is enough food produced to feed all of us. - Kiwi Richard Casagrande is with the Red Cross in Switzerland, which is asking governments to help move food to where it's needed the most. I asked him to describe how bad the situation is. - Yes, Simon. Sadly, all of the indicators that we have confirm that we really are in a severe global crisis. We have some 276 million people globally suffering from severe food insecurity in more than 50 countries. What we need to know is that this is roughly double the pre-pandemic level of food insecurity. Sadly, we always had food insecurity in different pockets of the globe, but this is now dramatically worsening. We're on quite a worrying trend. And in fact, we have more than half a million people in a handful of countries who are in the very worse situation, what we commonly refer to as famine. So where people are actually starving to death. The Food and Agricultural Organisation maintains a global food price index, and at the beginning of this year, that was already an all time high since that index started many decades ago, and it's dramatically increased since the Ukraine crisis started, so it's now roughly compared to, one year ago, up 33%. - Before the war started, what was actually driving the global food crisis? - There are a couple of other, shall we say, long-term drivers. So first of all, there's conflict. We've seen an increase in conflict in the world over the last decade after a couple of, let's say, relatively quieter decades. So conflict, displacement ` this obviously affects food production, but also people's ability to meet their basic needs. Then we have climate change. So sadly, a lot of these countries, particularly in Africa and the Middle East, they're also on the front line of climate change. So they're experiencing extreme` more extreme and more variable weather patterns, low rainfall, recurring droughts. - So that's on top of the conflict that you're talking about? - On top of the conflict in many of these countries. And we're also talking about countries that are net food importers. This is very important. So they rely on buying staple foods` grains, wheat, cooking oils, these sorts of things` on global markets. And so they really get hit by increasing food prices. - The war in Ukraine, what effect is that having on top of everything that you've just mentioned? - So what we need to know about Ukraine is that` and Russia` is that they're large countries, and they're bread baskets. They're enormous agricultural producers, and they export a lot of their primary production. So we're talking about roughly 30% of global wheat exports, 20% of maize or corn, some 70% of sunflower oil. The list goes on and on, and of course the oil and gas coming from Russia ` we're all aware of. But the twist here is that the purchases of those products from Ukraine and Russia are these same poor countries in Africa and the Middle East who are dependent on those exports to meet their staple food needs. So they're importing the majority of their wheat, cooking oil and things like that from Russia and Ukraine. So this is just further increasing food prices. Fertiliser is another thing, very imported input into agricultural production globally. Prices are now at an all-time high. Prices have roughly tripled from one year ago. Let me say that again ` roughly tripled, tripled` the Ukraine - We've got Russia blaming the West for sanctions. The West is blaming Russia. Can we blame anyone in particular? - Well, you know, we prefer to stay away from the political sensitivities of what's happening in that region. The bottom line is, whoever is to blame, what needs to happen is to reintegrate that food production into the global food system and to get the grain flowing again from Ukraine. - If the war drags on and the food crisis gets worse, will that lead to further political turmoil, and not just in the countries that you've mentioned? - Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, it's a driver of displacement. We know that displacement causes civil unrest. We can see crises unfolding in countries that are quite unexpected, like Sri Lanka. And this is because of kind of complex macroeconomic effects from these food price increases, because we have inflation in rich world countries. We're raising interest rates, for example, in the US. This is causing currencies of small countries that are reliant upon imports, like Sri Lanka, to collapse, and they're entering into full economic collapse and unable to import food, fuel, medicines. So of course, this can really fuel, I think, civil unrest. And there's no sure recipe for bringing people out on to the street than hunger, I would say. - You mentioned some staggering figures before. Is there any modelling on how many people could actually die as a result of what's happening now? - Well, yeah, we do have these` we do know from the food security data, which is done by the international community together with the governments in these poor countries. So we do actually know which areas in which country and how many people are on the brink of famine. So we know there's roughly` I mentioned those numbers of 270 million people in severe food insecurity. Roughly 50 million of those are on the verge of entering into famine. And famine means starving to death. And we know that these more than half a million people who are already in that situation. We are actually talking about life or death situation here. And that's why it's so unfortunate that we're not able to mobilise funding for humanitarian response. We have our Red Cross requisite national societies who are responding to these needs. But the appeals we're making for funding on their behalf are not being funded. They drastically underfunded. And that's because so many of the world's resources for international assistance, humanitarian aid, have either been exhausted by the COVID pandemic or the Ukraine crisis now. - So is the rich world going to sit on the sidelines and watch millions of people die from starvation? - Well, we hope not. I mean, there are many urgent calls to action now, and this seems to be getting more and more traction in the media. But what we really do need now is a step up in funding from rich world governments, from international institutions. And, you know, I believe the local actors are in place. They can actually respond and make a difference. We also need long-term investment in climate change adaptation in these places. - Is it true that we actually produce enough food for everybody? - Absolutely. Absolutely. This is not a question of insufficient food supplies globally. It's more a question of the most vulnerable in the poorest countries not being able to access the food. So it's really tied up in macroeconomic issues, global trade, endemic poverty and all the rest of the factors we've talked about. - How do you stay optimistic in the face of all of those numbers? - We keep optimism because we have our global network, Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies who are responding. So they are saving lives. We know that there's the ability to do more. Some days, it's a bit difficult to, you know, to be positive, because we know we could do so much more. - So how urgent is the appeal for more resources? - We could mince words here, but it's really about life and death. So it's already happening. So it's very, very urgent. It is urgent as it can be. - Richard Casagrande there from the Red Cross in Switzerland. Now we're back with our panel, Finn Hogan, Georgina Stylianou and Tania Tapsell. Finn, what did you make of that story? I mean, the stats are staggering. 50 million people are on the brink of starving to death. - Oh, it's absolutely horrific. And we can't just let ourselves be numb to that. But one of the stats that really jumped out to me was just the astronomical food waste that happens, the fact that we produce more than enough food for everyone to get what they need, and we let some of it literally rot on the ground. And if there are regulatory levers that can be pulled to address that in New Zealand, that's absolutely something we can move towards, which wouldn't just be good for addressing this specific crisis. That's something we should move on just in general. It's an obscene amount of waste. - I mean, we're seeing it here in New Zealand. Absolutely` - All the time. I mean, we do have huge food producing businesses that legally have to throw things out that are a second past their best-by date. There was something I saw doing the rounds on Facebook this week, a local Wellington bakery, I think, and the dumpster outside was basically full of bread rolls, and people are starving. But the interesting point about what the Red Cross was saying, though, is that it's not actually about the supply; it's the accessibility. So I'm not sure why we're focusing on the debate being how New Zealand can produce more food. Yes, we need to, but actually there are some far more important obstacles in the way. - What do you think those obstacles are, Tania? - Look, I think it's actually let's just be smarter with how we're doing things because as well as the waste, we also know that it was very hard for kiwifruit growers to find enough pickers. So again, there was food wastage there when that could have been going, not only to New Zealand, but across the world. So I think when you look at it from that holistic picture, because on the other hand, there also, as well as a humanitarian crisis, is an environmental crisis, because food waste actually emits a lot of bad emissions into the economy. So we need to look at it from there. And also, how could we use it better? Which is that circular economy they talk about in terms of ` Let's use that food waste; let's get it into compost to help growing. Because we do have some of the most sustainable growers and farmers here in New Zealand. So we get our little economy growing, and make it more efficient for us to send overseas. - And as you're saying, it does intersect with all of these other issues around climate, around environment. And just to bring it back to the GMO discussion, this is the challenge we will face globally over the coming decades. How do we grow enough food for everyone at a low enough cost in rising temperatures? And that is going to require technology, and the most advanced technology we have is gene editing. And so I think that discussion also has to be had, not just here, but at a global level. - OK, let's move our discussion along with the resignation of Peter Goodfellow. After 13 years as National's president, he's now resigned. Tania, you were a National Party candidate. What do you think his legacy is? - I think he's left a very good legacy. 13 years is a long time. And if we look at the stability that he provided that party, he had signalled he wanted` he was going to resign, and then John Key left. And then obviously, he also provided stability through the leadership changes that we had in the last election. So I think he can leave with his head held high. - You reckon? Because, you know, he did oversee a landslide defeat last election. Should he have stepped down then, Georgina? - Yeah, I'm less optimistic on this one. I think it was a long time coming. I also think the way that his` the timing of his resignation will definitely leave a sour taste in a lot of people's mouths. The fact that the nominations for the board had closed ` frankly, not good enough. You know, the Nats have got some wind in their sails, to borrow your term, Finn, but they do need a line in the sand. And I think a changing of the guard is not only symbolic; it should bring about new policy ideas, a bit of a refreshed approach from the National Party about how they are going to campaign come next election. So yeah, I was a bit disappointed. - I agree. I think the back-of-house changing needs to be reflected in those front-facing, voter-viewed policies, because National ` yes, they have changed their leader, but all of the policies we've been seeing since Luxon came in are just reheated greatest hits of National, and where are the fresh ideas that are gonna take them to next election? - He is staying on the board for another three years. Is that really a fresh start for the party hierarchy? - No. - No? - No. - Tania? - But I think what we've learnt when, unfortunately, there were a number of leadership changes is that you still do need, what I mentioned about that stability, because yes, it's a great opportunity to renew and refresh. But as we know, if we were to look at this as a commercial board, if you were to wipe all the directors clean, who actually has the institutional knowledge of how to get things done? - I am hearing you. But they have actually had problems around candidacy selection for National. You know, there's` - Been a culture problem. - That's it. So` - And I think Mr Goodfellow has played a role there. I think Christopher Luxon is probably pretty pleased that Goodfellow is gone, and I think it was probably a bit of a compromise that he stay and stick around. I don't think it's about stability. I think it's some pretty much what Maurice Williamson said. I think it's the continuation of the old boys network. - So what do you think they need in order to change that culture? It's a prime opportunity now. What do you think that they need a new National president? - In a new national president, I think they need someone who can bring the values of the National Party to the forefront but actually seek to build out of the box a little bit. There is a bit of a mould for National MPs. I mean, Tauranga was a great example. They actually went through a pretty rigorous selection process, but it was basically the same kind of candidate that kept coming forward. So that's a problem for the Nats. They need younger people; they need more ethnic diversity. They certainly need more Maori representation. They need more women. And so in a new president, I want to see someone that appeals to the new generation of National voters. - All right. Thank you very much, Georgina Stylianou, Tania Tapsell and Finn Hogan ` our panel for this week. And that's our show for this week as well. Thank you for watching. Manawatia a Matariki. Happy Maori New Year. We'll see you all again next weekend. Captions by Able. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2022 This show was brought to you by the NZ On Air Public Interest Journalism Fund.