- Tena tatou katoa. I am Rebecca Wright. - And I'm Simon Shepherd. Nau mai. Welcome to Newshub Nation. On the programme today ` the latest from the Prime Minister's meeting with President Xi in Thailand. - Justice Minister Kiri Allan reveals the government's changes to hate speech law. - And Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta on foreign affairs and Three Waters as tensions escalate in both portfolios. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2022 - Well, the Prime Minister met last night in Bangkok with China's President Xi Jinping. The meeting was scheduled for 20 minutes, but took nearly an hour. - It was their first face-to-face meeting since April 2019, and the Prime Minister says she raised concerns regarding Xinjiang, Hong Kong, the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait. - Just returned from what was scheduled to be a 20 minute bilateral but turned into the better part of a 50 minute bilateral with President Xi Jinping. You know, the way that I would describe that meeting was constructive. As I have repeatedly said, I raise privately what I raised publicly. We are absolutely consistent and predictable in the bilateral issues that we raise, and so all of those issues that you would expect and that I've raised publicly, I raised in that dialogue. Actually, the bulk of the meeting was spent on issues of the day. We are obviously at an inflection point in the region where you see today DPRK's, uh,... decision to launch another missile, one that is allegedly within the EEZ of Japan, is, again, another step up in the escalation in the region and is deeply concerning to New Zealand. It's in no one's interest for us to see a loss of peace and stability in the region. So, really, bulk of the meeting, really, talking about some of those issues of the day and those global tensions. Just to cover off quickly ` obviously, Kamala Harris, we spent the time as a group across Canada, Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the United States discussing the escalation we saw by DPRK this morning. There's been an expression or a registering by the United States of the need to convene the Security Council. We openly support that and will be encouraging all parties to respond positively and to engage through the UN Security Council to discuss those most recent actions by North Korea. When I say that there is a general consensus amongst APEC economies that it's in no one's interest to see an escalation of tensions or a loss of peace and stability, that is a general view. Of course, North Korea's China's neighbour. It's in no one's interest that we see those tensions increase and an ongoing exchange of missiles or, indeed, just the singular launching of them by North Korea. - The Prime Minister there, immediately following her meeting with President Xi. - After the break ` Justice Minister Kiri Allan joins us live to reveal her long-anticipated hate speech law reforms. - Welcome back. Well, overhauling hate speech legislation has provoked one of the most divisive policy debates of the current parliament. It began with a recommendation by the royal commission into March 15 that religious groups be covered by the law. But in July last year, the government proposed going much further than that. Justice Minister Kiri Allan joins us now. The reform around hate speech that you're announcing today, it has been significantly watered down from what was floated last July, hasn't it? - Oh, yes and no. So, I think what we are doing ` first, we are making a simple change to the Human Rights Act, which expands the incitement provision to include religious groups. Secondly, on some of those issues that I think really spiked the ire and were complex, they're challenging. They go to the heart of one of our fundamental freedoms that we all cherish and uphold ` our right to freedom of our speech. And that rubs up with our obligation to protect those that are most vulnerable within the community. So what we're doing with some of those more challenging areas, we're asking the Law Commission to do a deep dive. Help us strike the right balance. - But you have been working on this now for two years. And so why do you need the Law Commission to do a deep dive? You have been in this process already for two years. It looks like you're kicking it to touch. - Yeah, I'd push back against that. I think you had somebody on last week who said something pretty intelligent, I thought. He said, 'You've got to take New Zealanders with you.' You've got to make sure that when you're making amendments in this area, that you don't cause more harm than you do good. And that's been an overarching principle, I think, that has helped us to get to this point. We're talking about some of the most vulnerable members in our community. We've got to stand here as a government and say, are these changes that we're going to introduce? Will they help New Zealand and take us to a better place? Or do we run the risk of really exposing, lifting off a... A scab, if you will, within our society that will have a counterfactual benefit for those that need our protection. - But what that tells me, Minister, is that actually you've failed to do that for two years in this process. - Well, I would push back strongly against that. - Why? You've gone from six proposals that you've floated out there which caused that social upheaval and ripped the scab, as you say, off these issues. And now you're changing one word? - Well, we're doing exactly what the Law Commission asked of us, right? - Yes. - They said, if you make this simple change to the incitement provisions and the Human Rights Act, you extend it to include religious communities, that will have a significant impact for situations like we saw in March 15, and it's not just that community either. - Mm. - You know, we've grappled with anti-Semitism here in New Zealand. We've grappled with a whole range of religious conflicts. So we're saying, okay, what can we do now that's immediate, but also we're cognisant ` when we took those proposals out to the country, that's exactly what good lawmakers do. New Zealanders, what do we think of these provisions? You heard New Zealanders, we received 19,000-ish submissions and there was a real strong overlay ` Make provisions, make amendments to look after those that are most vulnerable, but get that balance right. Make sure you uphold that collective right that we all have, which is of course, our right to freedom of speech. - Yeah. - If I look across at other jurisdictions that have been grappling with this, you've got New South Wales, you've got Ireland, they've been grappling with these same issues. They've taken this track as well, made smaller amendments which enable those protections for those religious groups in particular. - Yeah. - But then actually, as we evolve as a country, what the Royal Commission asked us to do, ensure that we're looking after the social cohesion aspects. - Absolutely. - And that's what we're doing. - And I want to talk to you a little bit about that as well. You're broadening protection under 61 to include religion, which is, as you say, a direct response to the Royal Commission, but not rainbow or disability communities. Why not? - This is something I think we grappled with to a great extent. I think where I've personally landed, and I know my Cabinet colleagues supported this, is that we have to make sure that we do no further harm as legislators and policy makers. This is such an issue that is delicately balanced. - So what harm would you do... - And I need to ask for that independent Law Commission help us to get the balance right. And what we also need to do in the interim, we've got to take our country folk with us. We have to make sure that New Zealanders are going to support these types of reforms. If we're introducing greater protections for those communities that most vulnerable, but also limit that right to freedom of speech. - Well, this process, arguably has already caused harm, it's caused polarisation, division and social upheaval, and it's probably caused harm for those groups that's put this right into the spotlight. But there's no pay off for them, right? - I disagree with that. - Why? - I think that there's been a lot of really positive discussions that have come out. Just two weeks ago, I was up here in Auckland at a meeting called The Hui, which was one of the recommendations from the Royal Commission as well. You had advocates from religious communities, the rainbow community, takataapui community, disabled communities, communities that have been impacted significantly by the lack of social cohesion. What they've been tasked to do is help us navigate our way forward. That's where we're at as a nation. I can't, hand over heart, turn to my nephews, my nieces in my takatapui community and say, 'If I introduced or broadened these provisions, 'that I'm going to have` that these decisions will mean less harm 'for those that I particularly love and care about.' And that's the duty of, I think, a good legislator. - So what is your message to those communities this morning who will be finding out for the first time that, even though they are marginalised groups and they are harmed in the same way as religious groups and you've explained that, why they won't` - There are differences. - Yeah, but what is your message to them if they find out that those protections won't be afforded to them? - Yeah, no, there are differences, and this was particularly one of the recommendations directly from the Royal Commission ` that we focus on expanding the provisions for religious belief, race and religious belief. We already have these laws in place for race. What we don't have them in is for a faith-based community. So that's a direct response. Yes, there are a broad range of other groups that we are actively working to promote and, I guess, limit the harm. But how we do that, Rachel, is going to be so great. - Rebecca. - Sorry, Rebecca. Goodness gracious me. But how we do that is going to be critical. - So why not just do it back then when the royal commission said, 'Hey, listen, you need to put religious groups into that category'? Why not go, 'OK, we're going to do that right now, and we don't have to go through this process, these proposals to get` to sort of incite all of this angst, I suppose'? - Because we had to take it to New Zealanders. So the Royal Commission made broad ranging recommendations. We as a government said we will pick up those recommendations and put them to New Zealanders. - But they didn't put those proposals out there ` the ones that you put out for discussion. - Yeah, well they did. So there were six recommendations, right, that went out to New Zealand. They built on; they went further to test what the appetite was for New Zealanders. We heard that loud and clear, and so` - What did you hear loud and clear? - We heard, loud and clear, that people wanted to protect some of those that were most vulnerable in our communities, that religious-based communities in particular should be extended the protections that are applied to race. And it was a simple amendment to the Human Rights Act that we could make now. - But did you also hear loud and clear from New Zealanders that they did not want those protections extended to those other groups, or made into crimes or any of the other things that that were in those proposals? - Yeah, what we heard loud and clear is that if you're going to do this, then you better do it right. And, look, I can't, hand over heart, say that if we were to introduce further laws in this area, that they would be well held by New Zealanders and not create more harm. - Do you have cross-party support for this? - We've got some support from across various parties, and I think that various parties would be grappling with them in particular. Oh look, all the other political parties speak for themselves. I'm sure my colleague Paul Goldsmith will give his views in terms of National's views on this. I will say ` I've reached out across the aisle with the intent of getting support, because these are small amendments that the Royal Commission have said will have a large benefit for our religious-based communities. What I've seen over the course of the last year is some pretty divisive, poor politicking that, in my mind, has created more harm than good. So why I've reached across the aisle as we bring about these small changes to the Human Rights Act is to ask political leaders to do what they can to minimise harm, make sure that we are looking after those most vulnerable within our communities and let the debate that we have ` let it be an intelligent, well-versed debate that's based on principles, not snap, grab one-liners for media soundbites. - OK. I want to talk to you about youth crime now. It is making headlines again this week. National has said it will reboot military boot camps. I know that you are not in support of that idea. But they're for our most serious young offenders. What is Labour doing in that space? - Yeah. look, I think that what National have identified is something that we've been talking about for months. You know, there is a spike when it comes to some of our worst youth offenders. And we've been making several announcements, and there's programmes underway right now... - What are they? - ...that go to the heart of ensuring that we're making those interventions. - But what are they? - And over the last couple of months, we've seen a reduction in some of those, particularly ram-raiding. - But, Kiri, what are they? - Yeah, exactly. So what we're doing is that we're working with Police, working with youth aid officers, working with` to provide full wrap-around services to make the right interventions. You know` - But the thing is, you know, this has been spiralling out of control all year` - I've got to push back on that a little bit. - But we haven't seen, you know, concrete policy. You haven't come up with the public. We've seen gangs. - We have. No, no. I disagree with that. No, the gangs came first, and then we had Carmel Sepuloni and Chris Hipkins make a major announcement talking about the double down of investment into these prevention and rehabilitation programmes. We've also said, in the House, that we are looking at whether there are other tools that need to be provided to frontline officers. I'll tell you what we're not doing, though. We're not going to rehash bad policy that has been broadly condemned. Chester Borrows, minister under John Key's government, that introduced boot camps in 2008, come out, resoundingly said, 'Look at the evidence. This stuff doesn't work. It's to grab media soundbites.' What we've said to New Zealand is we're not going to do that. What we are going to do is tackle the issue, but it's got to be based on evidence. And that's things that we're working through. - Minister Kiri Allan, it seems like that is a good place to leave. And we thank you so much for joining us here on the Nation this morning. - Thanks, Rebecca. OK. Joining me now is National's justice spokesperson Paul Goldsmith, who has been sitting here listening to that interview. Paul, tena koe. Thanks for your time. Let's talk youth crime. So the minister says that they` reduction in ram-raiders. They are having intervention investment into rehab programmes. And your answer is to put ankle bracelets on kids as young as 10. - Well, look, I mean, the reality is that there's been a 500% increase in ram-raids this year. And if you go to any shopping centre or talk to anybody working in retail, they are living in fear and really concerned about clearly no consequences for very serious offenders. And so as the Minister said, and as the Prime Minister said, we need new tools to deal with what is a very small group of serious repeat offenders. And we're proposing new tools. - OK, New tools. What is new about ankle bracelets? What is new about youth military offenders camps? - Yeah, it's a combination. So we're coming up with a new category ` serious youth offenders, which is basically sending a signal to the justice sector to actually take this more seriously. At the moment, you know, there's a spectrum from family groups ` a pat on the head, we'll see you next weekend ` through to juvenile prison. And we're far too far down the 'pat on the head and we'll see you again next weekend' end of the spectrum. And we need to push that along. And then for that small group of 15- to 17-year-olds, we want to have the option of sending them off, not to a boot camp, but to a well-thought-through year-long military academy followed up after they leave that by an intensive, focussed support. - So the criticism is that it's been tried. All the reports say it doesn't work, and yet this is the third time the National is proposing this ` introduced once scrapped` - Because, as I said, it's a different proposal. - What's different about it? - That it's a longer structured programme followed up by intensive support once they come out the other end. - So you're going to take these 15- to 17-year-olds away from their whanau, away from their community, and then just reintroduce them later on after a year, isolating them even more and putting them all together. - They need a circuit-breaker to get out of` Quite often it's the communities and the families that are a big part of the problem here. And so what we need is an opportunity. I mean, what are you` You can't just keep on as we are, where you've got a very small group going out and causing absolute mayhem. And when you look at, you know, the eyes of the of the owners of these little shops who have been done over time and time again, we need to have an effective response. And that's not we're seeing at the moment. - A child and adolescent psychiatrist has told us that this is the last thing that these kids need, and it would probably make the problem worse. Have you discussed this with those kinds of people? Have you discussed it with the Defence Force? Have you discussed it with adolescent psychologists? - Look, this this is a highly contested space, and there will always be a wide variety of views. What we're doing is saying` - But have you done that? - We're in constant conversation with a whole bunch of people. When it comes to it, you need to have extra tools. So this is not for everybody. This is for small group and an option that the court can use. There's juvenile prison ` there's one option. Send them off to youth academies another one, ankle bracelets is another option. There's different options available, but we actually have to have consequences for what is a very, very serious crime that has been committed and is causing mayhem in our communities. - So how many` So the youth camp, boot camp, military, whatever you want to call it... - Yeah. - ...is going to be about 60 kids, right? - Possibly, yeah. - Yeah. So $25 million for this roll-out for 60 kids? - It's not just for` the 25 million incorporates the broader effort that has to wrap around what could be a couple of hundred offenders. And yes, it's very expensive. But the whole point of this is that there is a very small group who's causing a lot of mayhem. And so we do need to invest in doing everything we can to try and get some of them back on the straight and narrow. - OK. All right. So that that is your point. But let's talk the politics of this. I mean, it feels like a rehash. It feels like a policy from the '50s and '60s, and it feels like you're just making a big announcement for a very small group of people to score political points. - Well, I would reject that totally. I mean, if you go and talk to people on the street like we did a couple of days ago in Hamilton, or yesterday in Palmerston North, people are really fearful of what's going on. There is a sense of a breakdown of law and order in our shopping malls and our streets, and they want to see an effective response. And the message you get time and time again is, 'There's just no consequences for these kids.' And so we do need to demonstrate that we take this seriously and there are consequences. - What is the measure of success that you are looking for? You get in... - Far fewer ram-raids. - But ram-raids are declining now, apparently. - Oh, so they say, but they're up 500% in the last year. So there might be a slight tick in the last couple of weeks` - And youth offending rates have been declining over the last decade. - If you take a broad` well, I mean, yes, drunk driving convictions have reduced, but they're only doing half the` (CHUCKLES) the` the drunk driving patrols that they used to. I mean, so there are broad figures around crime which don't necessarily show what's going on. What's happening in terms of serious crime is clearly getting worse. And we need to have an effective response to that. - OK. I just want to move on to the hate speech laws that just been announced by the government. They are extending it just to the religious category. Do you support that as a part? - No, we don't. - Why not? - Well, because it is actually quite a significant reduction of free expression and free speech. The phrase that the minister used in consultation with us was 'religious belief'. When you go to beliefs, it's a much broader area, and the Human Rights legislation that they're basing it on in terms of race includes insult and ridicule. And, you know, quite frankly, nobody wants to be insulted or ridiculed. - Correct. - But, you know, that is actually an important part of expression. We do need to be able to ridicule ideas that we don't agree with. And that's what happens in a free and open society. - But the government is responding directly to the Royal Commission into the Christchurch terrorist attacks. - Yes. - OK. And are you being sensitive to those sort of Muslim community because you're not going to support this? - No, no. Look, we are very focussed on the` the overall Royal Commission, and they do a lot of recommendations, and the government hasn't picked up all of them at all. We've supported them around firearms laws and a whole bunch of things, but we've always expressed our concern around the hate speech proposals because we are very concerned to maintain free expression. - But hate speech has been shown to lead to hate crime in some circles. - Yeah, but look, you know, frankly, we don't want our overstretched police running around prosecuting people for ridiculing other people's religious ideas and religious beliefs. We actually want them focussed on the ram-raiders and the other things. - Yeah, but this is` - Well, it's important because you do have to prioritise in government, and we think the priority needs to be on violent crime, youth crime and getting it sorted out. - So if you become the Justice Minister, would you take this away? - Well, look, the Minister talked about trying to get bipartisan support. - Yeah. - We're very uncomfortable with this, and we're not going to support it. - So what you're saying` - Our view is that free speech should be where you need` - So would you take this away if you became the Justice Minister? - Hopefully we're going to get the chance, and our focus, if I become Justice Minister, will be on dealing with violent crime, with youth crime, and dealing with the courts. We're not going to be focussed on this. That's the point. - But you're not answering just that point. I mean, are you saying that National would repeal this particular addition? - Well, and then will be criticised for saying we're going to repeal this and repeal that. All I'm saying is our focus is on youth crime; it's on violent crime, and it's on dealing with the courts. - And just while we're talking about, you know, hate speech, I mean the rainbow and disabled communities have been left out of this as well. - Yeah. - And they want Law Commission work to be done in depth into that. Are you supportive of that? - Well, you know, look, they started out broad with hate speech reform, and they're going to do big stuff. They've drawn it right back to a small thing. And I think, frankly, what they've done is they've just picked something so that they can show that they've done something on hate speech. - What's your position on it? - Well, look, no. I mean, we think we should be focused, like I say, on violent crime, youth crime and the massive delays in the court system. And there are big problems in all those areas, and that should be the focus when it comes to justice. - OK. Justice spokesperson for National, Paul Goldsmith. Thank you very much for you time. - Thanks. - All right, coming up ` plenty to talk about there with our political panel, Dr Lara Greaves, Marg Joiner and Marie Dyhrberg. But first ` Nanaia Mahuta on foreign affairs and Three Waters as tensions escalate in both portfolios. - Hoki mai ano. Welcome back. Nanaia Mahuta is the minister responsible for steering the controversial Three Waters legislation through parliament. - At the same time, as foreign minister, she is walking a diplomatic and trade tightrope with China and leading our response to the war in Ukraine. - Tensions escalated there this week after missiles killed two people in Poland, so I asked the minister whether it was time for a negotiated settlement between Russia and Ukraine. - Well, of course, New Zealand would support, firstly, de-escalation of the current situation and a negotiated settlement, but the two key parties are quite fundamental to achieve that outcome. - But if you support that, that means that Ukraine would have to lose some territory. - Well, that's a matter for Ukraine and Russia to discuss. Obviously, it's important that those two parties can see their way through. It doesn't look like any time soon there will be a de-escalation or a negotiated settlement. But we can hope for that. We can advocate for that. - So in the meantime, is it New Zealand's position to support Ukraine to fight as long as Ukraine wants to? - New Zealand's position has been clear right from the beginning ` Russia's illegal, unprovoked, unjust war in Ukraine contravenes international law. We support Ukraine to defend itself, its sovereignty and territorial integrity, and we've been very consistent all the way through, and that's why we've taken the actions we've taken, alongside the international community, to ensure that those long-held conventions in terms of international law are not contravened in that part of the world and, indeed, in our part of the world either. - You have said that New Zealand's support of Ukraine is a reflection of our values and that rules-based order you talk about. Will you express those values in the same way if China invades Taiwan? - Well, we're very consistent in terms of being a country of our size and upholding international law, the rules and norms that regulate and keep peace and prosperity in our region. - Because this is not hypothetical. President Xi has said he won't rule out using force in Taiwan. - Well, we can only deal with what's in front of us at this stage. Our plea is that all states observe international rules and norms, and we uphold those rules and norms to keep peace and prosperity and stability in our region. - Can you explain to us exactly what New Zealand's 'One China' policy is? - It was a policy that was agreed to some time ago, well before I was a member of parliament, and it does observe the long-standing relationship that New Zealand has and recognition of China and their interests. In terms of our relationship to Taiwan, we recognise the economy of Chinese Taipei. We have an agreement, an economic agreement there. But in terms of our overall relationship, that is within the context of our 'One China' policy. - Right. But I still don't understand ` what does the 'One China' policy mean to New Zealand? Do we recognise China's claims over Taiwan? - We recognise that there are territorial matters in relation to China's interests, but that hasn't prevented New Zealand having an economic relationship with Chinese Taipei. They're included within the APEC economies. And we also have a special and unique relationship ` I think it's Chapter 19 ` where we recognise the indigenous economy, and that's very bespoke to New Zealand. - So are we trying to have it both ways? We're trying to trade with everybody, but just keep China onside diplomatically. - Well, we've had a free-trade agreement with China for some time now, and it has opened up opportunities to a number of New Zealand exporters who continue that particular set of arrangements... - Yeah, so does trade` - ...and are benefitting from it. - Does that trade inhibit New Zealand from taking the side of Taiwan should it be invaded by China? - Not at all. And we can't speak in hypotheticals. We have to look at the now, and the situation right now is that we continue to work` - But it's not hypothetical, is it? - We continue to work with China` - Because President Xi does say he'll use force. - We continue to work with China in the areas such as economic trade and activity under the FTA. We continue to express our concerns in the areas where they contravene our values. We are consistent, predictable and respectful partners with China. - We've been asking you about human rights violations against the Uyghur community in China for a long time. What are you doing now that we don't know about? Is there any further action? - Well, we're continuing to work alongside likeminded partners in relation to human rights abuses that have occurred. We've called for an unfettered investigation. We've acknowledged the report that Michelle Bachelet has put out just before she left office. Many of those recommendations fall to China to take action. And we've observed` - So have we done as much as we can? - We continue to work alongside international partners and bring those issues to light, and we have it as a standing agenda item as we engage with China at all levels. - Early this year, you said that you would be stewarding through an autonomous sanctions bill that would allow New Zealand to sanction countries outside the UN system. What has happened to that? - What I said is that I would be looking at the context of an autonomous sanctions bill within our human rights, values and aspirations. So right now, the CE is` has an expert group that he's established` - The CE of...? - The CE of MFAT has an expert group that he has established, and we'll be taking advice from their considerations. - So it is under development. - I won't` I won't go to that degree to say an autonomous sanctions bill is under development. Further consideration about the context for an autonomous sanctions bill and how that might reflect New Zealand's values and interests... - Because that would give you` - ...is under consideration. - It would give New Zealand flexibility to sanction someone like Iran. - Well, what we want as an alternative to an autonomous sanctions regime is for all states and parties to uphold international rules` - Yeah, but not all states and parties do that. - It is very difficult. It is` It is very difficult. And that is` In the context of Russia and Ukraine, we initiated the Russia Sanctions Act. That is a live area of experience now where we can see how sanctions are playing their part. On the broader question of an autonomous sanctions regime, I'll consider that once the panel comes back with the context that we might go down that particular` - What is the timeframe for that discussion? I mean, when are you hoping to get that briefing back from MFAT? - I think... I'm hopeful that's before the first quarter of next year. But it will take as long as it takes. We are in some very difficult and challenging times. We do have a sanctions regime in place. We have learnt a lot since the establishment of that regime. - Let's turn to Three Waters, the controversial Three Waters proposal. 88,000 select committee submissions, opposition from ACT and National, even the Greens, a lot of councils` most councils don't want it, yet it's poised to become law next week. Have you been listening? - Yeah. Look, of those 88,000 submissions, 82,000 of them were form submissions. And` - Which means what? - Well, which means they were all pretty much the same and they were probably a page long and saying all the same things. So let's put into context the substance of the submissions. The select committee did an analysis of around about the 7000-odd submissions and the content, subject matter and then undertook to hear a number of them, travelled around the country, and then gathered all of that information to consider the workability of the bill that was before them. And I welcome their considerations. - Right, so you're saying you are listening. Are you saying` - We are listening. The select committee process is an opportunity to listen and engage with the legislation that is currently in front of parliament. - So the tweaks that came out of the select committee finding did not change the co-governance model. - No, and neither were there substantial number of submissions, to my knowledge, that advocated for that. And so it's important to put into context the issues that were most import in the submissions that the select committee heard. - Which were what? What was` - Which were about strengthening governance provisions, local voice, ensuring greater transparency and accountability, making sure that big communities weren't overshadowing the interests of smaller communities. Those were but some of the areas of focus that came out through the submissions. - So you're saying the co-governance issue wasn't an issue. - Well, my understanding from the analysis of the submissions, it wasn't as high a priority issue for submitters as it has been in the public domain and certainly in the debate in the house. - The basis for all of this, you say, is to get scale to fix the pipes for New Zealand. In Auckland, the biggest water entity, that's already happening, so why are you pushing that through up here? - Yeah, it is already happening, and that's the point ` it's happening. It has shown some advantages, but there are still constraints in the Watercare scenario in terms of having a tied balance sheet to the Auckland City Council. So if we take Watercare as a really good example of some of the benefits you can get from scale and aggregation, it is not happening in other parts of the country, so we need to learn from that model and ensure that those benefits happen more even-handedly around the whole country for big communities and small communities alike. - Mm. But the new Auckland mayor, Wayne Brown, wants to keep Watercare as it is. - Well, we did a thorough analysis of the constraints on Watercare, and right now, the constraints are` Watercare cannot continue to fund to the degree that is necessary for a city the size of Auckland. It's had to defer a number of programmes by about two to three years because of a tied balance sheet with Auckland City Council. - But the council is pushing back on that, and they say that the figures you're putting out there about the potential rate rises should this not happen are wrong. - Well, those forecasts come from Watercare themselves in terms of their forecast over the next 10 years about what will be required to fund the ongoing pressure to invest in infrastructure in Auckland. - And you're right ` their figures show 7% going up to 9.5% and then dropping away once the investment is done. - There's a lot of assumptions that are built into that as well, and part of that assumption is that, in the future, government will continue to contribute to the infrastructure challenge that Auckland is facing, and what we're providing through these reforms is a solution that takes the pressure off council balance sheets but also enables us to leverage on scale. - I'll just finish on Auckland ` are you accusing Wayne Brown of spreading disinformation about the rate rises? - We have a different view about how to secure the greatest benefits possible in terms of water reform. - Are you saying that Watercare's predicted rate rises of 7% to 9.5% would disappear or be reduced should Three Waters come into play? - Should Three Waters come into play in Auckland in particular, we will only benefit from the current experience of Watercare, further aggregation and the ability to further invest` - But you can't guarantee that those rate rises will go down, though. - Well, actually, we can guarantee that there will be long-term resilience across a bigger area as a result of the reforms. - Three Waters has been a really unpopular, divisive issue, and it's been a big expenditure of your political capital. How damaging has it been to Labour? - Well, let's be really clear, and people need to focus on what are the issues at heart here ` clean drinking water, better environmental outcomes, affordable costs for ratepayers now, going forward into the future, when we know that there's been huge compromises investing in infrastructure. We want better cities and quality of life. Those are the real issues. - Mm. And nobody's` And nobody's arguing that, though, are they? - Actually, they are. The contrary argument that has been put up by a number of advocates who do not want reform is that it's about ownership, it's about assets, and it's` No one's talking about, actually, the cost on ratepayers. - But everybody seems to agree that the pipes need to be fixed; it's just your model of fixing it that has caused the division. - This isn't my model; this is our model that will keep our children safe now, going forward into the future. - Politically, has it been worth it? - You know what? It should have been done probably 20 years ago. - A reshuffle could be on the cards. Would you want to get rid of this local government portfolio now? - I think local government is an exciting space. There's so much happening that affects the daily lives of everyday New Zealanders. But in order for local government to operate effectively, this significant challenge in the area of infrastructure does need to be dealt with. - Do you want to keep the local government portfolio or would you like to hand it off to Kieran McAnulty? - Oh, look, having Kieran is a fantastic addition to the portfolio in terms of the insights that he brings from his communities. I'll do whatever the Prime Minister asks me to do. What I do know is that this particular reform was needed 20 years ago, and it is so necessary. - Nanaia Mahuta, thank you so much for your time today. - Thank you. - E haere ake nei ` will new laws announced this week do anything to stop the loss of our urban trees? Plus ` Finn Hogan with the week that was in Wellington. - Hoki mai ano, welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel, senior lecturer in New Zealand politics, Dr Lara Greaves, public policy expert and partner at SenateSHJ, Marg Joiner and senior barrister criminalising in criminal law, Marie Dyhrberg KC. Welcome. - Indeed, good morning. - So I wanted to start with hate speech. We have finally seen the hate speech reform legislation on this programme this morning. It's very conservative, very pared back. Have they got it right Marie? - I don't think they got it right in the first place. And I think the danger hasn't just come from today, what we're seeing or the last couple of years ` for some reason, we have thought that we can legislate against what people say, what they think, and how far they can really go. I think the real concern and the way that we can protect people, certain groups that are targets, is to focus on criminalising incitement to do actual harm to a particular group because of how they belong there. But we need to be robust. We need to have debate. And you cannot gag people and try and control the community. If you want to say something that may be insulting, if you want to say something that's maybe abusive, you shouldn't be trying to stop that. You may try and educate people, but criminalising it ` and then you've got a real problem. What's insulting? - Well, this is what the government has come up against as well. There are other people that would say that hate speech can lead to hate crimes. Where do you land, Lara? - Well, I'm really interested to see the response from Muslim and Jewish communities in particular to this and whether they think it goes enough, and then, of course, the rainbow and disabled communities, their response, on the other hand, because I just think that this is an incredibly hard issue. It's incredibly hard from a political perspective as well, because the moment anything gets regulated or anything changes in any way, it gets left to that cultural space, which is not helpful, and that doesn't protect marginalised communities at all either. - Yes. - So, that's a hard one. - And we've seen that in the space, haven't we? We've seen real angst, real social upheaval around it. Politically, how do you think this has been managed, Marg? - Carefully, carefully. So the Minister has heeded the voice of the experts in this in terms of you need to be careful with this stuff. And it is, as Lara says, it's always going to be fraught because it goes right to the heart of democracy in terms of our right to freedom of expression. And one person's hate speech is another person's freedom of expression. But is it an election year? That's what it feels like. It really has been a carefully managed and almost the bare minimum. There had to be something done. The awful incident that was the Christchurch mosque attacks lead to the Royal Commission, this was a recommendation. We had to do something domestically. It is one you want to leave, but we can't. And on the world stage, our reputation's important there as well. - Definitely. - Yeah. But I want to talk quickly about the process though, because we could have wrapped this up back at the time of the royal commission, couldn't we? We could have made that adjustment and the government would have` you know, would be able to point directly to that as an explanation to the New Zealand public. But they've gone on this two year, embarked on a two year process and the thing end of it, it landed right back where they started, Marie. - Yes, and legally it was far too wise. And of course you saw these incredible circumstances and situations in the UK of recent times with the police have had to withdraw the most incredibly stupid and facetious prosecutions and although some got publicity because they were so outrageous, unfortunately, thousands got caught by saying 'I only insulted somebody' and most of us were sitting there saying it shouldn't be criminal law. You shouldn't criminalise somebody who wants to insult somebody. - Well, National says that it does not support even this what is, you know, even this small change recommended by the Royal Commission. They're trying to have` But it won't repeal it either. So is it trying to have a bob both way? - Oh, that's a hard one. And I think even going back to what you saying before about the two-year window, it would be a bit ironic if we're talking about speech and then we don't give people speech on the bill. - REBECCA: Certainly. - I think that there are` National's kind of heading on a point there where there are quite a few areas where Labour kind of do need to rip the Band-Aid off and get it done and get something out of the way before election year, before it can become even more of a contested space. I'd say hate speech and free speech is the two of those areas. Finish it, move on, get it done. Move on election year. - You need to feel sorry for your viewers there. So the Minister is repeatedly calling it a small adjustment. And then Paul Goldsmith comes on and sees this is significant. And messaging with such a divisive and high public interest issue like this is so important. And you pressed the Minister on last year's consultation, which did fall flat in terms of consistency and clarity of message. And what we need going forward with this is that exactly. Consistency and clarity of message that's grounded in the intent. - Yes. And an honest assessment, I suppose, of where we're at in this process, not span all politics. I want to talk to you about military boot camps. - (GASPS) - They're back. (ALL LAUGH) Who knew we were going to reboot boot camps? What do you think, Lara? - Well, they're back actually at a time where Jacinda Ardern is looking presidential on the world stage. So to me, that timing is a bit convenient because one of the critiques people have been levelling at Ardern is that she will go off, she will be an international superstar. She is an international superstar. So to bring it back to domestic issues and to bring things back to crime, while I don't think boot camps is very well supported by evidence, I think it was a good move by National to move things back to the domestic space this week. - Well, the numbers struck me, actually, when thinking about this. We're talking about 60 15 to 17-year-olds and about a dozen 10-year-olds that will get into that worst offender group, Marie. Why can't we seem to get a handle on these sort of 70-odd kids that are causing so much mayhem, according to National? - It's how you handle them. And when you start seeing the almost punitive hard line policy that is going to come behind these military boot camps, so that you are taking damaged children, damaged teenagers, putting them in to another situation where they are isolated, they are cut off from their family ` no matter how bad their family is, work with them. If you can just take these 60 main offenders, don't let them get into a situation where they can sit round, plot and plan how they could be better criminals, because that's what's going to happen ` work with the families, put the resources there, but really aim at health, teach them how to have processes and discipline, teamwork so that they can look after their mates, a bit like that Outward Bound philosophy, isn't it? - Mm-hm. - Over long term, and it used to happen with John de Silva's programme, and put them back into a much better environment, which means you've got to include the families as well. - Community seems really important. What do you think, Marg, in terms of what Labour's doing? It's still hard to pin down a policy because it is the great benefit of this policy by National, isn't it? It says 'boot camp.' - It's very visual. - Very visual. - Ram raids are very visual, boot camps are very visual It's clever politics. And what it also is, is a direct challenge to Labour's politics of kindness. So what we've seen is that become synonymous with Labour's greatest asset, that being Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, that distorts the political discourse of kindness. And I think we'll likely see as we go into election year a lot more of this from National in terms of headline policy that is a direct contrast to that politics of kindness. - Is this what the Defence Force should be doing? - Well, look, I kind of do work a little bit in the space. Having a PhD in psychology and with a lot of people in that, and less mental health space. It's just really, like, overall not good. Like they haven't found experts and I'm sure there are experts out there ` we know that in our academic community, there are probably some experts that would agree with this, but they haven't even found them to front. But surely you can find someone to come forward. In terms of the Defence Force, I mean, we haven't necessarily heard from them, I think. Goldsmith and that are justified in saying you can't exactly go knock on the door of the Defence Force and ask them to give feedback on a policy. But, oh, it's just ` I really like Luke Matheson's quote of the reheated Big Mac. (ALL CHUCKLE) - Never tastes quite the same. I want to really quickly touch on the Prime Minister, we have seen her meeting with Xi Jinping overnight. She has raised the issues like China using its influence with Russia, for example, on the war in Ukraine and with North Korea. So she's ticked those boxes. She got 52 minutes with him, that's a long time. Can we call it a success? What are your thoughts, Marie? - Well, I think the world needs China in it and China outside the world and other countries is very dangerous space. So I think she treated the balance very, very well because she did not back down on saying human rights is critical for us and you don't measure up. So she didn't back down on that message, but she's also strengthened` we do want to keep talking about trade and talking about any other relationships we can have. And I think, following what he did` what he did to poor Mr Trudeau, I would think, 'Uh-oh!' And I think she did extremely well with somebody who's extremely powerful. The message was received loud and clear, and maybe that visit to Beijing as well. We are out of time. But thank you so much for joining us here on the panel this morning and for your thoughts and analysis. Stay with us. We are back right after the break. - Three weeks ago, we reported on calls for the government to prevent the further widespread loss of urban trees. - Activists claim thousands are being cut down every week after blanket tree protections were scrapped back in 2013. - We can't let this go on any longer. 2023 has to be the moment that we actually do something. - Go home, brother! - No, you promised! (CHAINSAW REVS UP) - It is just wholesale slaughter, of losing our urban forests. And that is going to accelerate now with the intensification rules in place. - Then it does become a matter of the developer thinking, is this a resource that we can use? - Tamaki Makaurau, Auckland. Not as green as it might seem. - 18% of urban Auckland is covered by trees. - And is that good enough? - It's not good enough. - Losing probably about a thousand trees a week in Auckland. At least. That's a really conservative estimate. But yeah, a problem. - And these are mature big trees, are they? - Yeah, these are big trees. Because they're the ones that are competing for development space. - That's because the race is on to densify New Zealand's cities. Some trees aren't going without a fight. Two years ago, Mana Rakau protesters occupied rakau, trees, for 245 days in Auckland's Avondale. (CROWD CHANTS) - It becomes difficult if you don't have the control to be able to say, 'This works well, this is something we can definitely do.' 'These are the trees, actually, there are reasons why we can't use these trees in these environments.' - Pro-tree activists have been busy lobbying the government. More than 2100 submissions to the Natural and Built Environments Act were about urban trees. - If we don't do something to adjust the balance and put some rules back in to protect the trees we've got left, there will be none left. - Well, this week the Government revealed its new Natural and Built Environment Act and it includes no further protection for urban trees. - However, Associate Environment Minister Phil Twyford says the law will give rise to a new national policy framework which will allow councils to protect special trees of a certain height. - Pro-tree lobbyists say it's not enough and could take a long time to implement while more trees are lost. The Green Party says it's pushing for stronger protections to be added to the legislation. - Well, it's been a while since we've checked in on the House, but you won't be shocked to hear that the MPs are as unruly as ever in there. - From fiscal Bermuda triangles to carbon black holes, the quips have been flowing thick and fast. Here's Finn Hogan with the week that was in Wellington. - Well, the summer recess is fast approaching and this lot clearly want to make political hay while the sun shines. - What we have seen is a National Party falling into the abyss. They are no longer content with wallowing in their fiscal Bermuda Triangle, they're now gone a-tunnelling and they're tunnelling down into a carbon black hole. - But it wasn't all quips ` some substance too. Shane Reti relentless, pressing government on hospital wait time. - Our staffing shortages in our emergency departments contributing to increasing numbers of patients waiting more than 24 hours in ED... - Which did get under the Minister's skin. - They got it wrong. They should have invested more. They know they can't because their policy is to cut taxes and cut spending on essential things like health services. - But an unfazed Reti was ready with a well-timed rejoinder. - What is the waiting time for anger management? (HOUSE LAUGHS, APPLAUDS) - Though National copped its share of flak, the Deputy Prime Minister in his element. - Because what he managed to do was a U-turn on a U-turn on a U-turn. The first politician to complete a policy doughnut in history. - Only a few sitting days left, but plenty of time for substantive debate, though I suspect we're just going to see... - Lots of whingeing, very little ideas. - I'll see you next week. - A policy doughnut ` I feel like that one might enter the political lexicon. - Absolutely. It should. That's all from us, though. Thank you so much for watching. - Nga mihi nui. We will see you again next weekend. Captions by Jessie Puru, Sophie Pearce and Kitty Wasasala. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2022 - He mea tona ki te hotaka nei na te Public Interest Journalism Fund.