Nau mai, and welcome to Newshub Nation. On the programme this week ` cash, bling and bikes. Police Minister Chris Hipkins defends his plan for gangs. The latest on the revolution in New Zealand's 67-year-old adoption laws. And from sickness to health to politics ` behind the scenes with the MP who's just happy to be alive. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2022 First up this week ` the government has expanded police powers to search and seize gang property, cars and motorbikes. - ...were given a stack of new tools to tackle gangs today. - Cash won't be able to be used to buy cars, boats, expensive watches and jewellery. - We want to drive their criminal activity out of the community completely. - Hitting them where it hurts. - The minister's clearly listening, and they're looking to take some action. - I was disappointed that it was so shallow. - He says the law changes are only there to make the government look tough on crime. - They will not address the underlying causes of offending. - We will support them. They frankly don't go far enough. - We are looking very closely at youth offending. There'll be more announcements on that in due course. - With violent crime and theft preoccupying communities for much of this year, I began by asking Police Minister Chris Hipkins why the government has chosen to crack down now. - Well, there's been action over the last few years on gangs. In fact, it's an ongoing operation by police and by Justice and by others. But we have to recognise that gang membership has been growing. They've cornered a certain market, which is around illegal drugs, and they're making a lot of money off that. And we've seen an importation of a different style of gang activity in the last four or five years, particularly as a result of the 501 deportations from Australia. - Can you pin it back to them, though? Because, as of May, 108 of the 7700 on the national gang list are 501s. I mean, 108. - Yeah, but it's triggered a series of activities here in New Zealand, including the competition between gangs. It's meant that some of the existing gangs have upped their level of activity in response to new gangs coming in on to their patch. - Can we really pin it back to them, though? Because 35% of the prison population are gang-affiliated. It's been an ongoing problem. - I would never make the claim that it is the only thing that's contributed. It is a contributing factor. There are others as well. You know, the disengagement of a section of our youth population has also been a contributing factor. We've seen the number of kids disengaging ` not just from education but from society generally ` that has been increasing. And they, unfortunately, sometimes find that they find a level of engagement, they find a place in a gang that they haven't been able to find elsewhere. - Just in terms of why you're acting now ` I mean, other political parties have been quicker to roll out gang policies. It looks like you're lagging behind. Is it not just a political reaction to these allegations that you're soft on crime? - Well, it's easy to roll out big fanfare policies that don't actually work and don't actually make a difference. So, take car crushing, for example. It was a big-ticket item, a lot of hoopla about it. - You do like to bring that example out. - Because very few cars actually got crushed, so it was a song and a dance that really didn't make a difference in terms of the level of offending. So we want to make sure that what we're doing is actually hitting the right spot. - So that's what these proposals are about. - But there's an ongoing operation of operations by police around gang activity right now. So, you will have seen, in the last week or so, a lot of work by police that's resulted in arrests. It's resulted in firearms, cash, drugs being seized from gangs. There's a lot of work goes on for months before that, often. - That's police action; that's not government policy, though. So let's look at the proposals that you've brought out. You're talking about a new offence of intimidation by firing a gun ` a maximum five years in prison. That's to target drive-by shootings, is it? - Absolutely, and other instances where gangs are using firearms in public places in order to intimidate. There are other offences that police can use. They don't have the degree of penalty associated with them that the new offence that we're introducing does have with it. - Right, so you're upping the penalty. But if someone's trespassing on my property, it's not gang-related, and I fire a warning shot to intimidate them off my property, does the same apply to me? - Firing a... Discharging a firearm in order to intimidate will become an offence in a greater range of places, including the example that you've just mentioned, including if a farmer fires a shotgun to ward off stock rustlers, yes. But of course, that doesn't mean they're going to be prosecuted. - But shouldn't they be prosecuted? It's the same offence. - Well, ultimately, police always have a degree of discretion as to when they prosecute. - Can we rely on the police discretion? I mean, they're undergoing a programme right now about bias, and predecessors in your seat have admitted that there's unconscious bias in the police. - And that is a different challenge, but it is a real challenge. It's one that I know the police are working very, very hard on. - Yeah, but there could be bias in the application of this new law. - Well, I think if we took that to its fullest extent, we wouldn't have a police force at all. We've actually... The government sets the law; the police have to enforce that law. And of course, they should always be looking to make sure they're doing that in a very fair and equitable way. - You're also targeting cash profits. This will mean watches, boats, precious metals, jewellery cannot be sold for cash. That's for everybody? That's not just for gangs? - That's right. But there aren't that many law-abiding people who are showing up to a car dealer and offering a $20,000 suitcase of cash in order to buy a new car. - What level does this kick in? What is the value level? - The value we determine by the legislation, which is being drafted at the moment. The working number at the moment ` because it aligns with the anti-money laundering legislation that's already in place ` is $10,000. But we'll have an opportunity through the legislative process to test that. - So if I want to sell my car, and somebody turns up with $10,001, how are you going to police that? - Well, that would be a private sale. So, what we're talking about here is high-value dealers. We're talking about car dealers. We're talking about people who trade in jewellery rather than people who are, you know, making a one-off sale on Trade Me. That's not the group that are being targeted here. These are people who are dealers. That's where we're targeting, because we know that's where the money laundering can take place. - So I can't pay cash for a car at a dealer? - Not at a dealer. - If it's over 10,000. - That's right. - How are you going to police that? Is that up to the dealer to say, 'Where did you get your money from?' - There's already anti-money laundering legislation in place. This is expanding the range of places where that applies. So there's already quite a lot of work that's been done on that over quite a period of time. - Does a car dealer really want to have to go to that level of compliance? - Well, I don't think you'll find that there are many car dealers that would be selling cars for cash to law-abiding citizens where they're worth over $10,000. You know, frankly, people don't walk around with that kind of cash these days. We live in an electronic age where people are transferring money electronically, and from a law enforcement perspective, that's a much better thing. - All right. There's also new search powers which mean police can go back again and again to the same address for 14 days, and they won't have to get a new warrant each time they do that. What checks and balances are going to be in place to make sure that those kind of repeated searches are legitimate? - So, that is a limited power. It's still a warranted power, so they will still need to go and convince a judicial officer that it's warranted in order to get a warrant. And it will be in a limited range of circumstances, so it would be where there's gang tension that is imminently going to lead to or could imminently lead to armed conflict, for example. So they would have to go and demonstrate, 'Look, there's a fight going on between gangs. 'There's firearms involved.' And in those circumstances, they would be able to get a warrant that would give them that power for up to 14 days. And of course, it doesn't have to be for 14 days. It could be for a shorter period, depending on the case that they make. - So there's no concern that other premises that gangs have stored stuff at, like their Harleys or their cash or their drugs, and they're going to be searched, and it's been someone else who's not involved with the gang, but they've been told to use it ` it could be quite terrifying for a child to have repeated police searches. - There will be a clear definition around who a gang member is ` so if you're a patched gang member, you know, a gang prospect, etc. What we have to do in the legislative drafting process, and then in the legislative process as it works through Parliament, is make sure that we're drawing the right boundary around that so that we're not targeting the people who aren't intended to be targeted. Having said that, if you're offering storage to a gang, and gangs are coming and going from your premises in order to store their ill-gotten gains, then you should be subject to that. - How can you guarantee that these proposals will only be used for gangs, all of them? - Well, the key issue here is around the warranted` In terms of the warranted search power, that is specifically applied to gangs. And obviously, they'll have to go and convince a judicial officer that the warrant is` you know, is justified in those circumstances. - And in terms of the other proposals as well? - So there is a protection there. - There's protection there, but for the other ones? - But some of those other ones will apply to other circumstances as well. So for example, the expansion of the range of offences of which police can impound a vehicle for 28 days will be expanded to a wider range of offences. And that won't just apply to gangs. It may also apply` It may also be used in the case of boy racers, for example, because they are also causing a lot of public harm in some of their activities. So my message is ` if you don't want your vehicle impounded, don't do those illegal activities with it. - All of this is really bottom-of-the-cliff stuff. You've talked about recruitment before, but how are you going to stop recruitment to gangs? - We've got a whole programme of work ` and we will have more to say about this in the coming weeks ` around youth engagement. So we've already announced a plan to get kids back to school, and we've got a lot of work happening in that space. And the police are actually, you know, partnering with schools and with communities to get kids back to school. And that's already starting to make a difference. - Because, just on that, I mean, attendance at school in secondary, particularly ` only 54% of secondary students regularly attend. And that's your education portfolio there. I mean, that's a shocking statistic, isn't it? - Yeah, so, I think we should be a little sophisticated on how we look at those numbers. So those numbers are based on a 90% rate of attendance, and typically, the historical trend for that, the historical number series we look at, is term two attendance. Now, there's 10 weeks in term two. Often Easter, Queen's Birthday weekend will apply there as well. If a family takes their child on an overseas holiday during term two for one week, and then they have a long weekend ` i.e. the kid's away from school for more than six days ` then they will be counted in those statistics. Those are not the group of kids that we should be as worried about. Now, I would say to parents, 'Don't take your kids on holiday during term time. 'It's not a good thing to do.' But I'm not going to lie awake in bed at night worrying about it. What I will worry about, though, is the fact that the number of kids who are chronically absent has increased from about 4% to about 7.5%. Now, that is a really concerning number, because those are the kids who we should be worried about. Those are the kids who are out and about on the streets, who aren't regularly attending school, and they are getting into trouble. That's the group we've got to fight to target. - So you talk about youth engagement and youth activities, I believe, in your press conference. What do you mean by youth engagement and youth activities to target those kids that are not going to school and are susceptible to gang recruitment? - Well, we've seen some good programmes. We funded, through the COVID-19 Relief Fund, the Ministry of Youth Development to have a thing called the Akonga Fund, where they funded a number of community-based initiatives that were about getting young people constructively engaged in things. Now we're having a good look at that and saying, 'Well, what's working? Can we do more in that area?' - Because the Police Association says, actually, prevention starts with keeping kids in school. Do you agree with that? - Absolutely. But sometimes, a little bit extra outside of school, whether it's more club sport ` that can actually make a difference in making sure kids feel part of a community, and then they will be more inclined to be at school. - What about the victims of youth crime? The previous minister, Poto Williams, announced $6 million to help prevent retail crime. But what's happening to that? Because smash-and-grabs are ongoing. - There's about a thousand businesses that have had fog cannons installed. There are quite a few businesses, up to 500, where we'll be working with them to, if you like, harden their premises to make it more difficult for that type of activity to take place. - Is that all part of the $6 million? - The fog cannons is in addition to the $6 million, but the police have been actively following up those recidivist offenders. So, I think over 30 young people covering about 200 different serious offences have been arrested and are going through the judicial system as a result of that. It's never going to be possible for police to prevent every youth offence. Where you've got some kids who are getting into trouble, police can't be on every street corner to detect that ahead of it, but they are sending a very clear signal with the way they are following up that they will follow up and there will be consequences. - You've said that success in this role, in terms of gangs, will be a reduction in offending. Have you got a target of how much you want that to be reduced by and which particular offences? - No, I haven't, because actually, you know, what we're doing through the police is disrupting the gang activity. But you have to look at the broad range of measures, you know. Is drug consumption going down? That would be a good thing. Are there fewer people joining gangs? Yes, that would be a good thing. Are there fewer young people falling on to that pathway that leads them to more serious criminal offending? That would be a good thing. So there's a range of measures. I'm not going to pick one out and say that's more important than all the others. - I just want to move on to masks in schools. And so the government's providing 30,000 masks a week, but it's not requiring the kids to wear them. So is that a half measure? - One of the things that I have heard from school leaders is that they want to be trusted to make the right decisions for their schools. So we have not said that they can't have a mask mandate in an individual school, but we've said it's up to the school to determine what they want for their school community. If they want to require masks, they can absolutely require masks. - But you've got the Director-General of Health, Ashley Bloomfield, saying that masking reduces the risk of being infected by half. It sounds like a no-brainer, really. - But it's one of the things that schools have to work through. They have to work through the practicalities of that. They can make decisions about where masks are required and where they're not. - Well, if not the kids, why not just mandate the teachers? - We don't specify when employers have to require their employees to wear a mask. Now, we do in some public settings. We leave that to the employers. - It's a public service, though. The government has mandated other people to wear masks. So this is the public service. You could force them to wear a mask. - The mask requirements in the workplace specified by government are actually quite a narrow range of circumstances, and most workplaces are making those decisions for themselves. - Is it just that it's not politically acceptable for you to use that word 'mandate' and 'masks' together? - No, not at all. You know, look, I've said I think schools are best positioned to make these decisions, and they'll have our full support when they do that. - COVID is peaking again. Winter illnesses are peaking. Hospitals are under pressure. Is there anything that would change your mind about mask-wearing in schools? - You never say never. And so, you know, I'd never take anything off the table when it comes to COVID-19, although I'm not primarily responsible for leading that any more. - So, just finally, are you relieved that you're no longer the COVID-19 Response Minister? - I'm sort of still going through a bit of a decompression process from that, actually. It is a pretty full-on role, and it is 24-7, and you do live with it all day, every day. And you do spend a lot of time lying awake at night worrying about this thing or the next thing. I still do, actually, to some extent, because I'm still a minister in the government. We are still ultimately responsible for getting New Zealand through a pandemic that's not yet over. - Chris Hipkins there. 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 ` Isobel Ewing, Agnes Loheni and Jarrod Gilbert. Plus ` the latest on the revolution in New Zealand's 67-year-old adoption laws. Newshub political reporter and climate correspondent Isobel Ewing, Former National MP Agnes Loheni and Canterbury University sociologist, gang expert and author Dr. Jarrod Gilbert. Welcome to you all. Jarrod, let's talk to you about gangs. We just heard from the minister. Overall, what are your what are your thoughts on what he said? - I mean, he's over it, isn't he? And he's got a walker. And I think he has walked a really delicate line between the politics and the practicalities here. - When you say he's over it, you mean he's over the details? - Yeah, he does seem over the detail. And I think we were talking earlier, perhaps, that this is why he's in that role now, because the government had perhaps lost the narrative here. And so I think he's going some way to get that back. But look, I did some research on the at the last time we had a big legislative thrust on gangs in New Zealand in the mid 1990s and the similarities between now and then are absolutely remarkable. - Are they? - And it's quite possible that the outcomes will be the same, too. - What were the outcomes then? - Well, the one that I picked up on, actually, was a very good question to the minister that these laws, many of these laws aren't gang laws. They are the general law and order provisions. And what we found with the gang laws from the 1990s is the ones that were used, and many them were never used, never came out of the` Never used at all. The ones that were used were more often used against non-gang members than gang members. And I think this is important for the debate because when they're couched as gang laws, then perhaps they're not given the same scrutiny because the public thinks that's just` - Right, So let's just unpack a little bit and then we'll get to get the others But the experts here, we're talking about the warrants there, he's saying that they are going to be very specific so that that is ring-fenced? - Yeah, look, of all of the provisions, there's no harm done in these. Four of the five, I think, seem sensible. What impact they'll have, we could debate that. But the warrants are the ones that need a look. When you're starting to go into people's homes with very, very strong police powers, in a modern Western democratic state, we should take that very, very seriously, and so the devil will be in the detail there. But the thing that I'm pleased about, and I think we can see this in the package as a whole, actually, is that they've taken a fairly mature approach. They haven't gone all out and sort of kowtowed to political pressure. And even in those warrant searches, and the detail that we've got there for a short period, and they're quite specific now. So there's more detail to come. - That's right, they've` - But they're not terrible. - You talked about political pressure, there. Agnes, um, is your view that they have caved in to political pressure, because they are sort of last cab off the rank in terms of ACT and National and bringing out this kind of gang policy. - I think the ministers had to come out hard and fast on this issue. Look, just in my area, West Auckland, we had two shootings yesterday, and one woman earlier, also this week to gun violence. No doubt about it. This is front and fore-mind of many people at the moment. They're not feeling safe in their homes. And politics, you know, people want this addressed and they want addressed it now, and they want the Minister to come out hard on gangs. - But have they done it as a result of the political pressure of the other parties? - Yeah, I'd say the pressure of the parties has added to it, and` but the pressure is also coming from the public. And so it's that's the reaction. The public are hearing these cases daily now. And so, you know, the minister` And I have to say, I think the government has made the right decision in putting Chris Hipkins in as Police Minister, this is an issue that needs to be dealt with, you know, with high priority. - Okay, so, Isobel, we've got Chris Hipkins coming in, 'Minister-Mr-Fix-It,' right? He's` You know, he gets he gets COVID-19, he gets Health. Now he's got police. So that` Poto Williams, I mean, we've probably had this stuff under development, and he gets to announce it. What happened there? - Well, Simon, I think yes, I think obviously these changes were sort of in the pipeline there. But the turnaround was pretty quick in terms of the changes that we're seeing announced this week. And I think you have to hand it to Chippie, the guy can get across a large amount of information and portfolio fast. And I think also, as you saw that interview, he's got that sort of Teflon factor. He's able to just handle media pressure. And Poto Williams, as we have seen, can't handle the pressure. And I think you have to remember that Poto Williams was given that job at a time where, you know, the Prime Minister was thinking that she had a mandate to put a person in that role who's a departure from the police ministers that we've seen in the past and the hard-on-crime guys like Stuart Nash and Judith Collins. You know, you've got Poto Williams, who perhaps is the Police Minister that this country needs but isn't ready for, but then she's also no good under pressure and she crumbles under it. - Right. But was she given enough support perhaps in that role? It seems as she her appointment was a departure, as you say. Should she have been given more support in that role? - I think she was kind of thrown under the bus. - I mean, we can't ignore the fact that she obviously cannot do an interview, like we just saw Chippy do with you. You know, she can't remain composed under pressure, but I think that if the government was looking at a time when she did get that role to go in that direction, we were looking at, you know, there were discussions around defunding the police, the armed response trials, there was huge, you know, resistance in the public to that. If the Labour Government was looking to go in that direction with a Police Minister, and then some political pressure piles on and they'd just decide, 'oh shoot, you know, we've got to get rid of portfolios.' You know, I just think that's a real shame. But it comes back to the fact also that as a politician, you need to be able to cope with the hard questions, and she can't. Well, one of the hard things just finally on the gangs, Jarrod and Agnes, is the solution of recruitment, right? So there's the attractive lifestyle there. Is there are they doing enough at that top of the cliff level? - No, of course not. But I'm pleased I'm at least pleased to hear that this is part of the conversation. And this actually comes back to the problems that Poto had to some degree, is that this is a really complex area. Make no bones about it. And it's very easy to say, just crush the gangs, just hit them hard. You can do that in a sound bite, and it sounds kind of sensible. - A lot of people do that with soundbite, don't they. - But they have to explain why it's complex, and the sophistication required of the solutions in a broader sense takes a lot more time. Right? Same problem I've got now, we're gonna cut to ads. - Yep, yeah, no, we're not going to ads. - But do you know what I mean? Sorry. - But I am going to move on to the Pacific Island Forum again. - Very complex, I know. Yep. Cutting you off, Jarrod. - So to the Pacific Island Forum, I'm going to go back to you, Isobel. You've just come back from there late last night. Biggest takeaway from it? - Well, I think I mean, certainly looking at` The Pacific Islands Forum hasn't met in person for three years. And there's been talk ` the Prime Minister, we heard from her ` about unity, regionalism, and I was just amazed` Well, not amazed, but I'm really taken by the fact that the leaders were obviously all on the same page. They were making sure they emerged as a united front. The last meeting we saw face to face literally ended in tears with the Aussies digging their heels in over coal and climate change, and it was clear that this time around the leaders, Frank Bainimarama, the Chair, he really didn't want to have headlines saying, you know, leaders argue long into the night, can't agree. So the Prime Minister saying, you know, we've emerged in daylight. I mean, that is a real sign that the leaders are looking with, you know, the circling of China and the US and the fact that we've seen this instability and uncertainty over the last three years, they are so focussed on unity, that's what they've achieved. - But Agnes, I mean, we have seen obviously China, you know, trying to exert its influence in the Pacific, and then we had Kamala Harris turn up at the forum. It's so overt, the power plays in the Pacific at the moment. - It's very overt. And also, I mean, with Kamala Harris being` It's interesting that, you know, she was invited at last minute by the Fijian Prime Minister to address the forum because normally non-member nations don't address the form directly on this. And so it could be, you know, interpreted that the forum has chosen their strategic partner, you know` - Just by way of invitation? So you're saying that China's been` You know, done its best, been told to go away, in comes the U.S. So U.S. were invited. No one else was invited. and look, the US have indicated they are going to be more present in the Pacific with the announcement of the two US embassies in Tonga and Kiribati. And speaking of Kiribati, I think that's really, really important that the forum does what it can to bring Kiribati back to the table and have those conversations, those hard-hitting conversations at the table as part of the forum. So we're talking about, you know, geopolitical tensions there. You're talking about unity. But really, what they care about is climate change. I mean, as an observer from the outside, Jarrod, did that really get enough coverage? - I'm not sure that it did, but it's got to be` I mean, I think it's abstract. We were talking, weren't we, that this can be quite abstract for countries like ours, because it seems quite distant. For some of those smaller Pacific island countries, this is very immediate. It's an existential threat. - Yeah. - So you could see why it needs to be at the top end. - Did they get that message through, Isobel? - I would disagree. I think our climate coverage was excellent. (LAUGHTER) We had that covered. But I think that the message was so clear. I mean, you know, as Gerard says, Tuvalu is literally going underwater, and there are discussions around the fact that they're going to have legal` You know, legal recognition to be a country that doesn't have a landmass, and that's a heartbreaking thing to even consider. And so I think the countries are really you know, they know what the main issue is, and they will be looking, and I think we need to give some credit to the Pacific Islands. they're not going to just say, you know, oh, you know, the US, China suddenly paying us some attention, we're just going to go with them. What's important in the Pacific is relationships and mutual respect. And so I don't think we're going to see the Pacific jump to one superpower or another. We're going to see, you know, they'll take their time. They've seen the US come in ten years ago. Nice, big office. They've seen it all before. - And China as well. Yeah. All right. I'm going to leave it there for the moment. Thank you so much for your time, Jarrod Gilbert, Agnes Loheni, and Isobel Ewing. E whai ake nei, coming up, how to get hold of life saving COVID antivirals if you need them. Plus, from sickness to health to politics, MP Dr Neru Leavasa shares his personal story. In June last year, the government announced a review of New Zealand's 67-year-old adoption laws. More than 100,000 children were adopted in New Zealand between 1940 and 1990. Many lost their original names, never rediscovered their birth parents, and we still have about 125 adoptions each year. At the time, we spoke to experts in the field, Annabel Ahuriri-Driscoll ` apologies ` and Barbara Sumner. Here's what they had to say. - My family were ill-equipped, actually, to understand and... raise me... as a Maori child. And so I think that was a big struggle. I was very different from them. - 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 half-siblings that I'm now in contact with. - Well, Annabel and Barbara join me again now. Tena korua. Thanks for your time. Barbara, first to you. I know it's midnight in Cape Town where you are, but can you tell me ` is it disappointing that this current review doesn't address past adoption harms? - I think it's extremely disappointing. The review committee have` The team from the Ministry of Justice are very clear that this is forward-looking legislation that is designed to enable the adoption of future children, and there are quite a few details that are quite disturbing. I mean, for adopted people, we want the end of secrecy. We want access to our files. And the new legislation is offering, at this stage, to provide, going forward, things like... access to birth certificate and other documents held by Internal Affairs, but not adoption files. - Right. So forward-looking only, and it doesn't help people who have been adopted in the past. Annabel, this review is parallel to one that's for engaging Maori. So this particular review doesn't look at whangai. Is that the right way? - Absolutely. I agree, and I commend the Ministry for taking that line ` in that whangai is separate, and there's been that realisation that there has to be a separate discussion. It has to be Maori-led, because ultimately, what we want` We do want Section 19 of the Adoption Act repealed so that whangai is not prohibited but that it is determined by Maori that it is not subject to government definition and control. - OK. Let's look at some of the options being proposed. Older children ` it's been proposed that they be involved in their own adoption process. Barbara, is that practical? - Well, I don't think it is. I mean, we have legislation around consent to marriage; that is, anyone under 18 now has to have a judge's consent. And yet, we're asking a child to give consent for something that is life-changing and lifelong and, to their descendants, a change of identity. It renders` Even if there is some form of open adoption, it renders their biological kin... as social kin only. I think that it's` And children's needs are very different to adults' needs. A child's needs are very absolute and very in the moment ` you know, to be well-fed and cared for and loved. They don't understand what it would mean to lose your identity for all time. I think what children need is they need lawyers of their own. - Right. There are provisions, Annabel, that not only... perhaps that each child should have their own lawyer, but also, the social worker should look after the interests of the child rather than the child actually give consent or be involved. What do you think about that? - Oh, I think there's lots of questions around that, that Barbara's raised. I mean, the question of how an infant or a young child would be able to give consent, as Barbara says, to this life-changing action. I think, in terms of adoption of Maori children, this is where that suggestion of Maori-specific adoption agencies is really important so that those processes can be Maori-led and with the more nuanced decision-making that tikanga would enable. My stance is that, in an ideal world, Maori children would be whangaied rather than adopted, but ultimately, that's going to be a whanau decision. - There is talk about, in terms of Maori adoptees ` how involved should the child be or the child's hapu and iwi be involved in that process? And there is also a suggestion, Annabel, of having a post-adoption cultural plan. What do you think of those? - Mm. Well, look, they're a big step up from the current legislation, and so, as I say, I think that they do propose to address some of the core problems of adoption currently. But I think there's a lot of detail to be ironed out, you know? For hapu and iwi, you know, are they the appropriate bodies? I'm not sure that iwi are. We need people who are closer to the coalface, kind of the people I would refer to as the aunties who've always had that care of tamariki, you know, in their hearts, and they've been active in the Maori Women's Welfare League and other providers, Maatua Whangai and so on. So I think all of that needs to be discussed, as it will be hopefully in August. - You're talking about keeping a connection to your whakapapa. But also, Barbara, if I bring you in here, you wrote a memoir called Tree of Strangers. So what do you think of this recommendation that adopted child keep a legal connection to their parents? Would that have made a difference in your case? - Well, it depends how that` because when you're saying a 'legal connection', currently, in the discussion document, they're talking about it being an agreement rather than a legal... rather than a contract. And... if you take a child, and you change their name to match the name of the adopting parents, then you have already... you've already altered that identity. And I... I can't see how it works. Open adoption` Well, of course we've never had open adoption in New Zealand. It's always been at the right of the adopting parents to control that. And I don't really see how... that is going to change. And we have to remember that adoption has never been about welfare. The Law Commission said in 2000, and since then, that it was more akin to property law, and I'm not seeing a lot of change in that underlying... belief system. - OK. To both of you, then, what is the one thing` I'll start with you, Barbara. What is the one thing that you want to come from this review? - I'd like the rights of the over 100,000 adults who are adopted as infants to be put at the centre of it. You know, last year, there were 111 children adopted in New Zealand under the age of 18. And we've got this huge cohort of people who have been discriminated against. We've got the Law Commission report in 2000, which I know is a long time ago, but it's still a very solid piece of review work. And we're not referring back to that. The committee that are doing the law reform have not gone back to the Law Commission to ask their input in it. So we're not` The most basic human rights that adopted adults are denied are not likely to... to change at this point. - Annabel, you support the idea of the parallel review for whangai, but in terms of this review on adoption laws, is there something that you would have a message to the review panel, to the government, to the politicians that are looking at changing these laws? - I think what's really positive is I'm seeing evidence that our voices have been heard. But I guess for a number of us, we're seeing this legislative change as a step in the pathway. So really, what we want to see is how society at large views adoption, views us. We want that to change. The other thing is we want healing. So, insofar as legislation can achieve that, you know,... that's great. We want to see more, though. It can't just stop at the legislation. - OK. We'll leave it there for the moment. Thank you so much for your time. Barbara Sumner and Annabel Ahuriri-Driscoll ` thank you so much for your time. - Mm. Kia ora. - E whai ake nei ` it just got easier to access life-saving COVID antivirals. Find out how after the break. And from sickness to health to politics ` behind the scenes with the MP who's just happy to be alive. to understand what drives their politics. From surviving bone cancer to training as a GP, What did it take for this MP to rise from sickness to health and now to politics. Labour MP for Takanini Dr Anae Neru Leavasa shares his backstory. - I was born in St Lukes, St Helens in central Auckland. Our family migrated in the early eighties to New Zealand from Samoa. So my, my family started off like any other migrant family from the Pacific, you know, in central Auckland. And then my parents decided to move to South Auckland, so shifted over to Mangere. And yeah, I grew up in Mangere. So I was the third child at that point. I've got four other brothers and sister, I guess, like any other siblings that get along, get into fights with my other brothers. But I love my siblings and growing up together and it was a good time here in Mangere. I went to the local primary school in Viscount. Manukau Rivers is the local rugby club that we played for. Got to grammar, and I was really getting into my, my, my rugby and wanting to be an All Black one day. But I got cut short when I got sick of cancer when I was a teenager. So when I went to Auckland hospital I was 14 years old, but I was on the adult ward because, of course, because of my size. Didn't know, you know, they journey from that point. So I started losing my hair after the first round of chemo. I guess at that point, naive about the journey. I didn't know what was going to happen, but I got interested in terms of medicine from that point, and I thought, you know, if I'm going to survive this cancer, I might as well put my effort into learning more about medicine. I saw what my GP had had done in terms of my sort of treatment as well as what the oncology and orthopaedic surgeons were doing So yeah, it just really got me motivated and trying to learn more about what happened to me as well. Everything that I do now is a bonus, because number one in my life that the biggest achievement that I could do, and all this medicine, all this politics stuff, yeah they're great. But my number one achievement is, yeah, being still here. (LAUGHS) - His dad said to me, when he's sick, if God want to take him, that's fine. If he want to, that's fine. But to me, you know, the mother, I wouldn't... - Obviously he had a strong will to survive. We know that he'll pull through, somehow, and trust in God, he did. When we grew up in Grey Lynn, we went to the local church there in Grey Lynn, Efakasa, a traditional Samoan Church. Given me that faith to have that positive outlook as well. You know, all I ever wanted at that point was to be normal. But then I started thinking, well, I want to be better than normal. You know, and I don't want to be average. And I thought, you know, pursuing a career in medicine, and just being out there and helping the community, I thought, you know, that's going a step further and then, you know, giving back as well. That's my dad there. - That's your dad. Yeah, OK. - Yeah, he served the family quite a bit. So because he held a Matai title, so the chief title, Faleafa, when the head of state would come here, he would help out and be the orator on behalf of him. So that's where I get a lot of the sense of advocating and helping the community, because Dad always showed it. I guess he had that slow decline. He had that lung condition at that time. So had a lung transplant. So I was in my, I guess my fourth year of med school. So I had already knew that, you know, it wasn't looking to great. Some things happening. So it wasn't a surprise for our family as well, but still devastating that they had left. Malo ma fa'afetai, Mr. Speaker, God bless and thank you. So being a politician wasn't on the radar. Again, you know, I wanted to be a professional sports player, and then becoming a GP. My wife Olivia has been good about it, I guess. You know, I had to get the go ahead before I'm going to Parliament. and I've got my 9-year-old son Peter and my newborn baby, now, Ellie. She's two and a half months. So I guess, just because it's my first term, just trying to get used to the whole schedule of things. But I always knew that my family had a deep tradition in history in Samoa. So this is my great grandfather Tupua Tamese Lealofi tolu, uh, the third. My middle name was actually named after him as well. He lead the Mau movements in the 1920s. And New Zealand was the administration at the time. The Mau movements were having their parade, so a peaceful movement in Apia. So my, my Great Grandpa was leading that group, and I guess the New Zealand police were, were set up at that time, and the gunshots started firing.. My great grandpa was shot, so had his back turned to whoever was shooting the gun, and was fatally wounded. That's a huge history for all our Samoan communities, that we can look to independence because of the bloodshed that was done beforehand. And yeah, so I'm proud of I guess what my family was involved with. So I spent my junior doctor years here. But even before the injury, my medical training as a med student, I was in and out here and also at Auckland Hospital. So I got to work with the teams that worked on me as a medical student and then as a junior doctor, as well. Definitely a full circle. You know, those sort of bad memories turned into good memories at the end, and really just felt like I was giving back where, you know, a lot of the healthcare professionals here really poured a lot into me. Whether it be, you know, down the line, a minister, who knows, further on. You know, I'm always open to growing in this field, always made sure that whatever area I get to, I want to excel in it. Like any of my journeys in medicine or now in the political field, I want to go as far as I can get to, and just really give it my all. Dr. Anae Leavasa there. Stay with us, we're back after the break. This week, the government broadened access to potentially life-saving antiviral medications like Paxlovid. We asked Dr Amesh Adalja from Johns Hopkins University about Paxlovid, which is 90% effective at reducing hospitalisation and death from COVID-19. - So Paxlovid is an oral pill that can prevent people from needing to be hospitalised for COVID-19. So it has a major role when you're talking about treating high-risk individuals who get infected, irrespective of vaccination status. And it basically makes death and severe disease very, very unlikely. So Paxlovid is a major component of how the United States is moving forward with this pandemic. And it is a cornerstone for why many people in the United States are confident about our ability to move forward, even in the face of something like the BA5. So Paxlovid is effective against Omicron. It's effective against Delta. It's effective against all of those variants, because it's not going after the part that's been mutating. - Well, closer to home, experts are praising the government's response, but say still needs to be easier to access antivirals. Otago University infectious disease expert Kurt Krause joins us now from Dunedin. Professor Krause, thanks so much for your time this morning. Numbers obtained by Newshub Nation show that about 8000 courses of Paxlovid have been dispensed of the 60,000 we have on order. That's not good enough, is it? - No, we need to improve that. I mean, I kind of want to start out and say it's great what the government has done. It's great, and I'm excited about a lot of the steps. But they needed to do something, right? Because we had this big influx in COVID, and we have this medicine that's 90% effective, as you've heard, preventing hospitalisation or death. We really hadn't done a good job of utilising it. Out of the 60,000 uses of Paxlovid, I think 8000 had been given and even less of Molnupiravir. So it's important that we take steps to correct that now. - Is there a risk that these antiviral drugs will expire? I think they're due to expire early 2023. What a waste would it be if they ended up in the rubbish bin? - Oh, it would be tragic. I mean, we acquired them, and that's a great thing. Let's make sure that we get them into the hands of the people that need them. Some things that I would like to see the government consider doing ` setting up a 1-800 number, so people can find out how they can get them, communicating directly to GPs about, 'Hey, how can you get these into your practice and get them into the hands of patients?' I've spoken to GPs who said, 'You know, I have no idea how to do this,' so liberalising it is great, but let's make it clear how people can raise their hand. The other thing I'd point out is people who are 65 and older are having the big increase in BA5, but it's not till 75 that they're eligible. I'd like to see the government looking at rolling that down to 70 or 65, so that everybody who's involved in this blip could end up being eligible for Paxlovid. - Because, at the moment, you have to be 75 or qualify on some other immunocompromised criteria. That's right, isn't it? - Right. But that's much easier than it was, because it was five different criteria before. So it was very, very difficult before. - OK. But some experts, including the GPs, are concerned that we should be cautious when it comes to prescribing these medications and that pharmacists shouldn't necessarily be able to hand them out. What do you think about that? - Oh, I understand, and that's an important consideration. And we need to make sure that everybody's happy going forward. But here's the issue ` If these medicines get to people late, if you get them after five days, they're worthless. That's why early on, when Remdesivir studies came out and we saw that Remdesivir didn't seem so great` That's another antiviral, Remdesivir` is because it was being given too late in the piece. So we know that if you can get the medicines in the hands of people in the first two or three days after they're diagnosed, then you've got the 90% efficacy. So it's so important that we work to get them into` and I think we can handle those kinds of objections. What they've done in North America is you come with your medical records to show you don't have kidney troubles, you don't have liver troubles. You meet with your pharmacist. And then if there's any question, if anybody says, 'You know, I'm not sure,' then those folks get referred right back to their GPs. - OK. - So it should only be the most straightforward cases, right. - Is there a risk that we could overprescribe these and that they either lose their potency, like we see with antibiotics, or they have complications with other drugs? - Yes, unfortunately there is, and time will tell. When I was in practice, I concentrated predominantly in HIV practice, and we used protease inhibitors, which Paxlovid is ` a protease inhibitor. We use those a lot, and at the start, we thought, 'You're going to get resistance,' and it turned out that we did. But the good thing is they're not going to show resistance now, because there's been no use of Paxlovid` almost no use around the world. So they're going to be highly effective now when we need them. Down the road, if resistance comes, I think we have ways to address that. But we've got the medicines here; we've got people who need them. Let's get them into the hand of New Zealanders who don't want to go to the hospital and don't want to get badly ill from coronavirus. So I think it's a great tool now. - Why do you think we` - At just the right time. - Yeah, but why do you think that we've been slower than other countries in rolling out these drugs? - Well, one, I mean, US has kind of the corner in the market because Pfizer invented it. So it's been hard to source, and there's a worldwide shortage of Paxlovid. Secondly, the early use of the antivirals was not too impressive. Remdesivir failed. Other antivirals didn't look that great. It was only in the last 6 to 9 months that we began to realise if you give these medicines early, they are great; they're fantastic. So that's been the big development. And I think the Government has been a little bit slow to embrace antivirals, but they've come around to it now, certainly in` I mean, one thing I'd say is that if you can come up with a vaccine to cure a disease, that's always preferred. But I know back from my HIV days, vaccines didn't help in HIV, so you had to use antivirals. We were completely dependent on antivirals. And they really saved the day in HIV. - OK. Thank you so much for your time, Professor Kurt Krause from Otago University. - Thanks. - Professor Kurt Krause there. We're back with our panel now ` Isobel Ewing, Agnes Loheni and Jarrod Gilbert. Thanks for your time again. Let's talk COVID. We're not moving to Red, but we have had some tweaks to Orange. Agnes, has the government hit the mark there? - Well, I think most New Zealand sort of breathed a sigh of relief that there wasn't any talk of further lockdowns. And so I think they've hit the mark in terms of the sentiment is that we don't want to go into further lockdowns. Look, people were saying, you know, largely people have moved on. Yes. You know, they've indicated that there's still going be mask wearing. There's still going to be, you know, free RAT tests given out and... but no talk of mandates or anything like that. - And you're happy with that? I mean, because obviously the health system is saying, 'Help!' - No, not happy because actually, at the end of the day, we're still not prepared. So the health system is still under pressure. There's no sign of any abatement there in terms of, you know, immigration and getting health workers in. And we've seen that, you know, with nurses and doctors and their letters to the minister. So look, this` in terms of the health restructure, whether you agree with it or not, really, was this the right time to do such a major restructure when we're going through these health issues, especially with COVID and still with the flu? - Yep, yep. Yeah, just on that, I mean, Andrew Little has to sell it to everybody, Isobel. And nobody seems to be buying it, especially the doctors and nurses. Who would want to be Andrew Little at the moment? - Absolutely no one. I mean, it's a tricky one for Andrew Little, isn't it? Because these issues have built up over years and years, and he's now bearing the brunt of it after we've had three years of a pandemic. I mean, I've got friends who work in hospitals and they say, 'Are we, you know, busier than we have been in the past? 'Maybe, but it's been under pressure for so long.' And so these are just really entrenched problems in the system that need addressing. - OK. In terms of the COVID response, I mean, they're just imploring us, like Ashley Bloomfield, saying wear a mask; do it today; do it now. But are New Zealanders over mask wearing, Jarrod? Are you over mask wearing? - Look, I think we're all probably over mask wearing, right? But we're doing it. Well, most of us are doing it, because it's about community, right? The interesting thing to me is that we've got` and there's a lot of people who've just got a bit lazy, and some messaging will get to them. But the interesting thing to me is that we've got quite a significant chunk of New Zealand that don't see wearing a mask as an act of community to protect the people around us and to stop our hospitals getting over worked, so people can get the treatments that they need, but they see it as a tyranny. - Yeah. - They see it as a tyranny. Now, I think the most enduring thing of this pandemic may well be, sadly, that we're going to have a big chunk of the population that have gone down a rabbit hole from which they may never emerge. Now, that's not just an issue for the pandemic now. I would argue it's going to be an issue for a number of topics` - You're talking about a division in the community for a long time. - Without question. And they're impossible to reason with, and that is trouble. - How do you feel about that, Agnes? Do you think that that's the society that we're going to end up with? - Well, I actually also think that it's to do with the fact that there are other pressing issues for families right now. You know, they've done the mask wearing. They've gone and got their COVID jabs and boosters. But now the pressing issue for them is just cost of living. That is front of mind. It's not to say they don't care about trying to keep safe and self` sorry, distancing and things like that. But these are more pressing issues right on their front door. - Well, on their front door again this week, another 50-point hike in the OCR. So the cost of living is more front of mind than COVID, Isobel? - Well, (CHUCKLES) that's the million-dollar question. I think potentially it is for many people. I mean, I know I'm over wearing masks, and it makes me feel sick when I see a mask on the street in terms of, you know, the hundreds of millions of masks that are clogging up the environment now, but we need to still be wearing them. And I think I'm in a position of privilege of not having any immune issues or anyone in my close friends or family having that. But it's something, as Jarrod says, that, you know, surely New Zealanders want to take care of the people around them. But I think as Agnes says` - But will they? - Maybe they won't when they've got such big issues on the table. - All right. I'm going to pivot to, quickly, one last issue ` local body politics. There was an interview this week between comedian Guy Williams and Auckland mayoral candidate Leo Molloy. Did you see that, Jarrod? - I watched it this morning. My God, that was television, wasn't it? I felt like I was on drugs watching that. (LAUGHTER) In fact, (STAMMERS) in 12 minutes of TV, or whatever it was, I think I got dumber rather than smarter. But the interesting thing about it is that Leo said, probably astutely, if we're talking about him, then he's winning. But if that's winning, I don't think we could distinguish it between losing. - Have you ever seen anything like that interview? - I mean, honestly, I have not been so captivated by 8 minutes of TV in some time, which maybe says something more about me. But, I mean, it didn't make me want to vote for the guy. And` but I can't speak for Aucklanders. Perhaps they want something like Leo to be a cat amongst the pigeons. - Agnes, what` Do you have an opinion on Leo Molloy? I mean, he is an out there kind of candidate for Auckland, and this has proven that. - Look, his polling is not abysmal. And it's not to say` I didn't catch that interview, but, you know,... - You lost. (CHUCKLES) He's a bit irreverent at times ` his use of language. But clearly, you know, Aucklanders are really, really frustrated with how things are moving, or rather not moving, in Auckland. And it may be a case of, 'Look, I may not like the guy, 'but I just want to throw something into that council or, you know, really shake things up.' - Right. Do you think that should be the interviewing style on this programme? - Well, I'll tell you what ` it would bang ratings. So I'm down for it. - (LAUGHS) - I can see you in the ring with some interviewees. - Yeah, yeah. I don't think my boxing's up to it. Thank you so much to the panel again ` Jarrod Gilbert, Agnes Loheni and Isobel Ewing. All right, let's take a look at what's coming up next week in politics. Youth parliament on Tuesday and Wednesday ` 120 rangatahi from around the country will fill the debating chamber as our youth MPs make their mark on political decision making. On Monday, Green MP Chloe Swarbrick will release the results of the people's inquiry into student well-being. More than 4500 students responded to the survey, and the Green Party AGM will take place in one week's time on the 23rd and 24th of July in Christchurch. And that is all from us for now. Thank you so much for watching. Hei tera wiki. We will see you again next week. (THEME MUSIC) 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 New Zealand Public Interest Journalism Fund.