CAPTIONS BY JAMES BROWN AND FAITH HAMBLYN. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. WWW.ABLE.CO.NZ COPYRIGHT ABLE 2025. TENA KOUTOU. NAU MAI, HAERE MAI. WELCOME TO Q+A. I'M JACK TAME. TODAY ` AS THE TARIFF TURMOIL CONTINUES, WE ASK HOW CHINA WILL RESPOND? THEN, 18 MONTHS SINCE THE WAR IN GAZA BEGAN, I MEET THE WAIKATO GP REMOTELY TREATING PATIENTS CAUGHT IN THE FIGHTING AND DESTRUCTION. I'VE SEEN A FAMILY OF 10 ` MOTHER, FATHER AND EIGHT CHILDREN ` THEY ALL HAD HEPATITIS A, BECAUSE OF THE UNHYGIENIC CONDITIONS IN GAZA. 'OUR ECONOMIC SECURITY IS INEXTRICABLY TIED 'TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.' THOSE ARE THE OPENING WORDS FROM DEFENCE MINISTER JUDITH COLLINS IN THE GOVERNMENT'S NEW DEFENCE CAPABILITY PLAN, WHICH LAYS OUT A FRAMEWORK FOR INCREASING THE LETHALITY OF NEW ZEALAND'S DEFENCE FORCE IN THE FACE OF GLOBAL TURMOIL. THE PLAN INCLUDES INVESTMENTS IN MARITIME HELICOPTERS, DRONES, MISSILES AND ARMOURED TROOP CARRIERS, AND AIMS TO CLOSELY LINK NZDF WITH AUSTRALIA FORCES. DEFENCE MINISTER JUDITH COLLINS, KIA ORA. GOOD MORNING, JACK. HOW DOES THIS PLAN ALTER THE CAPACITY OF NZDF? IT ACTUALLY IS A HUGE STEP UP, AND IT MEANS THAT OUR DEFENCE FORCE WILL BE ABLE TO RESPONSE AN EVIDENTLY BETTER WITH MORE CAPABILITY. NOT ONLY WITH AUSTRALIA BUT ALSO WITH PACIFIC NATIONS, AS WELL AS NEW ZEALAND. AS YOU KNOW, WHENEVER THERE IS A MAJOR CYCLONE OR ANYTHING, WE ARE CALLING ON DEFENCE. WHENEVER THERE IS ILLEGAL FISHING, WE CALL ON DEFENCE. THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND. WE WILL GET INTO THE STRATEGY THAT UNDERPINS THIS PLAN BUT FIRST OF ALL THE MONEY. $12 BILLION OVER FOUR YEARS, INCLUDING $9 BILLION OF NEW SPENDING. HOW WOULD YOU PAY FOR IT? BESLEY THE FINANCE MINISTER IS WORKING THROUGH JUST WHAT SHE HAS TO DO, TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN, BUT YOU CANNOT HAVE 35 YEARS OF MASSIVE UNDERINVESTMENT, APART FROM THREE YEARS WHEN RON MARK WAS DEFENCE MINISTER, AND SAY THAT WE DO NOT HAVE TO STEP UP. NEW ZEALAND HAS BEEN SPENDING 1.1% OF GDP ON DEFENCE. AND WE NEED TO GET TO AT LEAST 2%, OR WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO KEEP UP. WITH YOUR GOVERNMENT COMMIT TO ALLOCATING ALL OF THE REQUIRED FUNDING BEFORE NEXT YEAR'S ELECTION? IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT WE UNDERSTAND WE ARE NOT BUYING IT ALL AT ONCE. BUT YOU HAVE A BUDGET PROCESS OVER THE BUDGETARY TERM? WE TALK ABOUT THE FIRST FOUR YEARS OF ACTUAL FUNDING, AND THAT MONEY IS WHAT YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT. THAT IS ALWAYS BASED ON THE FACT THAT EVERY LARGE TICKET ITEM HAS TO GO THROUGH CABINET, HAVE A BUSINESS CASE, WE HAVE TO PROVE WHY IT IS THE RIGHT DECISION. WE DON'T JUST GO AND SPEND MONEY LIKE IT IS NO TOMORROW, BECAUSE IT IS ALL TAXPAYER MONEY. THE MONEY WILL BE FOUND, BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE FOUND. WILL YOUR GOVERNMENT COMMIT TO ALLOCATING ALL OF THAT REQUIRED FUNDING BEFORE THE ELECTION? YOU HAVE A BUDGET THIS YEAR AND NEXT YEAR, SO WILL YOU ALLOCATE THE REQUIRED MONEY? WE ARE DOING THAT IN THE FIRST FOUR YEARS, AND WE HAVE SIGNIFIED WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN AFTER THAT. MARITIME HELICOPTERS, THEY NEED TO BE FIRST UP, BECAUSE THEY ARE CRUCIAL FOR MARITIME PATROLS. THE PLAN TALKS ABOUT DEVELOPING ENHANCED LETHALITY. WHO ARE YOU PROPOSING NEW ZEALAND KILLS? ANYONE WHO COMES AFTER OUR PEOPLE. I THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF OUR POSEIDON SUBMARINE HUNTING SHIPS ARE SUDDENLY FIRED UPON, THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO FIRE BACK. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE DON'T LEAVE OUR DEFENCE FORCE OUT THERE WITH NOTHING TO PROTECT THEMSELVES WITH. IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY $9 BILLION OF NEW SPENDING, THERE MUST BE A SPECIFIC THREAT IN MIND. WHEN YOU SAY ANYONE WHO COMES AFTER OUR PEOPLE, BE SPECIFIC. YOU DON'T ALWAYS KNOW, DO YOU? YOU SPEND $9 BILLION WITHOUT KNOWING? THE WORLD HAS CHANGED. WE HAVE A LOT OF STRATEGIC COMPETITION GOING ON IN THE PACIFIC. WE ARE SEEING IT AROUND RESOURCES, PARTICULARLY SEABED MINING AND THE FACT THAT NEW ZEALAND HAS BEEN LEFT SO BEREFT WHEN IT COMES TO DEFENCE FORCE THAT WE NEED TO STEP UP. THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE THE SOLUTION FOR EVERYTHING. WE ARE TAKING US OUT OF THE INTENSIVE CARE UNIT ONTO THE WARD. I AM INTERESTED IN THE DCP AND THIS CHANGE. YOU TALK ABOUT GEOSTRATEGIC COMPETITION. CHAPTER 1, PAGE 10 TALKS ABOUT THE CHANGING GEOSTRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT AND ALLOCATION. YOU PIN THE BLAME ON CHINA. CHINA IS THE DRIVER OF, ADDITION IN THE PACIFIC. OF CONCERN IS THE GROWTH OF CHINA'S CAPABILITY. THE TOP PRIORITY FOR RESPONDING IS TO BE, CAPABLE WITH ENHANCED LETHALITY AND DETERRENT. EXPLAIN THE LOGIC BEHIND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS DEVELOPING A STRAIGHT CAPABILITY TO USE AGAINST OUR NUMBER ONE TRADING PARTNER. THE WORLD HAS CHANGED. WE HAVE TO PREPARE FOR THE WORLD AS IT IS, NOT AS WE WOULD LIKE IT TO BE CHINA HAS BEEN AND IS A VERY GOOD FRIEND TO NEW ZEALAND. BUT WHAT WE ARE SEEING IN THE PACIFIC IS AN INCREASING PRESENCE THAT IS IN MANY CASES UNWANTED. FOR INSTANCE, THE INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE THAT CHINA SHOT ACROSS THE PACIFIC JUST ABOVE FRENCH POLYNESIA IN OCTOBER. THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME THEY DID THAT FOR 44 YEARS. WHEN I ASKED ABOUT IT, I WAS TOLD IT WAS ROUTINE. THAT IS NOT ROUTINE. WE HAVE HAD THE RECENT SHIPS VISIT INTO THE TRANS TASMAN SEA. THIS IS UNUSUAL, NOT BECAUSE CHINA WAS BREAKING LAWS. THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO THAT. WE HAVE ALMOST 40 CIVILIAN AIRLINES HAVING TO DIVERT PLANES WITH VERY LITTLE NOTICE. BECAUSE OF LIVE FIRING. THAT IS UNUSUAL. YOU SAY THAT IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL. A COUPLE OF WEEKS EARLIER, NEW ZEALAND SENT A SHIP THROUGH THE TAIWAN STRAIT. IS THAT UNUSUAL? THEY WENT JUST SENDING IT THROUGH, THEY WERE GOING FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER WITH A REASON. A REASON TO SAIL THROUGH THE TAIWAN STRAIT? WE HAVE SANCTION WORK THAT WE DO, SANCTION BUSTING WORK AROUND NORTH KOREA. WE HAD JUST BEEN IN HAWAII. THAT INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE WHICH YOU TALKED ABOUT A LOT, THE US FIRED A MISSILE ACROSS THE PACIFIC DID YOU PUBLICLY CRITICISED THE US? WHAT WE KNOW FROM THE CHINA ONE IS THE DIFFERENCE THERE IS THAT PEOPLE WERE NOT NOTIFIED. NEW ZEALAND GOT A NOTIFICATION IN BEIJING. MORE THAN LIKELY WE ARE AWARE OF A LOT OF THINGS. WHERE WE NOTIFIED OF THE US ONE? I AM NOT GOING TO GO INTO SPECIFICS. YOU HAVE GONE INTO SPECIFICS WITH CHINA, SO WHY NOT AMERICA? CHINA FIRES A MISSILE YOU ARE CRITICAL. AMERICA FIRES A MISSILE, CRICKETS. AMERICA ROUTINELY FIRES MISSILES. THE ISSUE, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN 44 YEARS CHINA HAS DONE IT. AND IT WENT RIGHT ACROSS A LOT OF NATIONS THAT HAD NO NOTICE. THEY WERE DISAPPOINTED. IF THE PURPOSE OF THIS NEW DEFENCE CAPABILITY PLAN AND OUR ENHANCED LETHALITY IS TO DETER AGGRESSIVE ACTORS IN THE PACIFIC, NAMELY CHINA, CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW HAVING ENHANCED LETHALITY WOULD DETER THE WORLD'S LARGEST NAVY? IT IS NOT ONLY THAT. IT IS BEING ABLE TO CONTRIBUTE PARTICULARLY WITH OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH AUSTRALIA. IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND ANY THREAT TO AUSTRALIA AS A THREAT TO NEW ZEALAND, AND AS A SMALL NATION, WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH THAT. PERHAPS YOUR THINKING MORE ABOUT CHINA AND OTHER NATIONS, BUT WE ALSO NEED TO BE AWARE WE HAVE TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINALS ACROSS THE PACIFIC, PEOPLE SMUGGLING, THINGS LIKE MAJOR DRUG IMPORTATION. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT PEOPLE WHO WE WILL WAVE PAMPHLETS AT THEM. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER WE NEED $9 BILLION ON DEFENCE ASSETS JUST FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMINALS. KNOW, WE HAVE THE NINTH LARGEST EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE IN THE WORLD, THE FOURTH-LARGEST SEARCH AND RESCUE AREA. WE DO SEARCH AND RESCUE FOR MUCH OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC. WE HAVE TO BE CAPABLE, AND WE CANNOT SEND A PAMPHLET. ENHANCED LETHALITY IS THE CENTRAL CONCEPT IN THE NEW PLAN. DO YOU THINK NEW ZEALAND'S ENHANCED LETHALITY, AND COMMENDATION WITH AUSTRALIA, WILL BE ENOUGH TO DETER THE WORLD'S LARGEST NAVY? I THINK IT WILL SHOW WE ARE SERIOUS AND CAPABLE OF WORKING WITH OUR ONE ALLY, AUSTRALIA, AND OUR DEFENCE PARTNERS. DON'T FORGET FOR A MOMENT THAT NEW ZEALAND SPECIAL FORCES ARE 1/10 OF THE WORLD'S TIER 1 SPECIAL FORCES. DON'T WRITE US OFF. WE HAVE SOME EXTREME CAPABILITY. TO PAY FOR THAT NEW SPENDING, WE HAVE TO GENERATE A LOT OF EXTRA NATIONAL INCOME. WITH CHINA LARGEST TRADE PARTNER, A LOT OF THAT WILL REQUIRE LIFTING EXPORT EARNINGS, BUT YOU HAVE SINGLED CHINA AS A KEY THREAT. HOW IS THIS AN HOUR ECONOMIC INTEREST? IT IS, BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROSPERITY WITHOUT NATIONAL SECURITY. I WOULD SAY TO YOU TOO DEFENCE HAS AN ABILITY TO GROW THE ECONOMY AS WELL. WE HAVE 800 SUPPLIERS INTO NEW ZEALAND DEFENCE. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE CAPABILITY AROUND UN-CREWED VESSELS, THESE OTHER THINGS WE HAVE NEW ZEALAND COMPANIES NOW EXPORTING TO OTHER COUNTRIES, SUCH AS THE UK. OUR NEW ZEALAND DESIGNED TECHED VEHICLES ARE BEING USED IN UKRAINE. WE HAVE CAPABILITY AND WE HAVE TO GROW THAT. THAT'S WHY PART OF OUR PLAN IS DIFFERENT FROM PREVIOUS PLANS, BECAUSE WE ARE SAYING WE CAN DO SOME OF THIS FROM HERE. WE CAN TURN OUR DEFENCE CAPABILITY INTO AN EXPORT EARNER, AND WE NEED TO DO THAT. IT IS JUST THAT UNDERPINNING ETHOS. WHAT IS THE POINT OF DEVELOPING A $12 BILLION DEFENCE PLAN TO DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST YOUR BIGGEST TRADING PARTNER? IT FEELS LIKE PULLING INTO DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS. AUSTRALIA'S BIGGEST TRADING PARTNERS ALSO CHINA. THEY HAVE AN FDA WITH THE UNITED STATES THAT WE DON'T. THEY HAVE OVER 2% OF THEIR GDP ON DEFENCE AND ARE LOOKING TO INCREASE IT. THERE ARE MULTIPLE THREATS AT ANY TIME. DID ALL OF EUROPE UNDERSTAND THE THREAT OF RUSSIA BEFORE THE INVASION OF UKRAINE? NO, THEY DID NOT. YOU HAVE TO BE PREPARED. THERE COULD BE THREATS YOU HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT. COULD CHINA PULL A RUSH ON NEW ZEALAND? I AM NOT SAYING THAT AT ALL. I AM SAYING UNDERMINING OF THE LAWS THAT WE HAVE BECOME OUR NORM, AROUND OUR BOUNDARIES. A LOT OF THE PLAN FOCUSES ON INTEROPERABILITY WITH AUSTRALIA. THAT DOES LINK US TO THE UNITED STATES, GIVEN THEIR CLOSE RELATIONSHIP. IS THE US A RELIABLE SECURITY PARTNER? THE US AT THE MOMENT IS GOING THROUGH A SHAKEDOWN. BUT I THINK THE US IS A RELIABLE SECURITY PARTNER. ONE OF THE REASONS ITS CONTRIBUTION IN WORLD WAR II IN THE PACIFIC IS ONE OF THE REASONS WE LIVE IN DEMOCRACY NOW. WHEN WE LOOK AT AUSTRALIA, WE ARE CLOSELY LINKED. THE SECOND-IN-COMMAND IN AUSTRALIA OF THEIR JOINT VOICES IS A NEW ZEALAND GENERAL ON SECONDMENT. THE SECOND-IN-COMMAND HERE IS AN AUSTRALIAN ON SECONDMENT. WE ARE CLOSELY LINKED. OUR PILOTS HAVE TO FLY THEIR PLANES AND VICE VERSA. WHAT PART OF THIS US ADMINISTRATION'S DEFENCE POLICY SHOULD REASSURE NEW ZEALANDERS? THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN SAY ABOUT THE US SITUATION THAT DOES NOT COME DOWN TO THIS ` EVERY COUNTRY NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO SHOW IT IS DOING ITS BIT TO DEFEND ITSELF. THAT DOESN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION. THE US DEFENCE POLICY IS FOR THE US TO TALK ABOUT. WHEN WE ASSESS WHAT COUNTRIES WE WANT TO WORK CLOSELY WITH, AUSTRALIA, THEY ARE CLOSE WITH THE AMERICANS. HOW TO THAT POSITION US WITH THE AMERICANS? WHAT ABOUT THE CURRENT US ADMINISTRATIONS DEFENCE POLICY THAT SHOULD REASSURE NEW ZEALANDERS THAT THE AMERICANS REMAIN A RELIABLE SECURITY PARTNER? THE US AND WE HAVE BEEN VERY CLOSELY ALIGNED EVER SINCE WORLD WAR II. IF I LOOK AT THE FIVE EYES ARRANGEMENT, WHICH WE ARE PART OF, STRAIGHT AFTER WORLD WAR II, THAT IS CRUCIAL TO SECURITY RIGHT NOW. WE ARE FORTUNATE TO BE PART OF THAT. WE WORK CLOSELY WITH THE US, STRAIGHTER CANADA AND THE UK, ALSO SINGAPORE AND MALAYSIA, ALSO JAPAN AND THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA, AND INCREASINGLY THE PHILIPPINES. WE LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE WE NEED TO HAVE RELATIONSHIPS. THERE ARE MANY COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD WHO WOULD LIKE TO GET THE SORT OF INTELLIGENCE ADVICE THAT WE GET THROUGH FIVE EYES. FIVE EYES AS AN INTELLIGENCE SHARING ARRANGEMENT, RATHER THAN EXPLICITLY A SECURITY ARRANGEMENT, BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. THIS IS CRUCIAL FOR A SECURITY. WHEN WE LOOK AT CYBER SECURITY, CYBER IS SOMETHING THAT WASN'T AROUND MANY YEARS AGO. NOW IT IS CRUCIAL TO OUR SECURITY. THAT MAKES PART OF THE PLAN? UP TO $300 MILLION FOR ENHANCING CYBER SECURITY. WITHIN NZDF. WILL YOU DEVELOP AN OFFENSIVE CYBER CAPABILITY? WE HAVE SAID WE WILL NOT DO THAT, FOCUS ON DEFENDING IN THE NZDF. WE HAVE OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, WHICH I AM NOT AT LIBERTY TO TALK MUCH ABOUT TODAY. BUT THEY WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH OUR FIVE EYES PARTNERS. DO THEY HAVE AN OFFENSIVE CAPABILITY? I WON'T TALK ABOUT THEIR CAPABILITY, BUT THEY SPEND A LOT OF TIME DEFENDING NEW ZEALAND AND NEW ZEALAND BUSINESSES AGAINST CONSTANT ATTACKS. IF DETERRENCE IS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE FOR MILITARY HARDWARE, THE REASON YOU WANT TO BUY MISSILES AND DRONES, THAT REQUIRES OFFENSIVE CAPABILITY? WHY WOULDN'T THE SAME CONCEPT APPLY TO CYBER. IT IS CYBER AND IT IS SECRET. HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT? IF YOU HAVE A DETERRENCE POSSIBLE FOR MILITARY HARDWARE, THE SAME APPLIES FOR CYBER. WHAT I CAN SAY ABOUT THE WORK OF THE SIS AND GCSB AS LIMITED. THEY PULL THEIR WEIGHT AND ARE VALUED WITHIN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. SHOULD THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S TREATMENT OF THEIR NATO PARTNERS BE A CONSIDERATION FOR NEW ZEALAND, WHEN IT COMES TO AUKUS PILLAR 2. WE HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT. I THINK NO DOUBT CABINET WILL CONSIDER THAT IN DUE COURSE, SHOULD WE TAKE IT TO CABINET. THE POINT IS EVERYBODY NEEDS TO PULL THEIR WEIGHT IN DEFENCE. I WAS AT THE MUNICH SECURITY CONFERENCE WHEN THAT MESSAGE WAS GIVEN BY VICE PRESIDENT VANCE. PEOPLE WERE SAYING, WE WILL BE PULLING OUR WEIGHT IN DEFENCE. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT BECAUSE THE US SAYS SO. WE HAVE TO DO IT BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR NEW ZEALAND. OUR PACIFIC FRIENDS SAY CLIMATE CHANGE IS THEIR BIGGEST CONCERN, BUT THIS PLAN PUTS A BIGGER EMPHASIS ON LETHALITY, RATHER THAN DISASTER RESPONSE. IS THAT IN THE INTEREST OF PACIFIC COUNTRIES THAT LOOK TO NEW ZEALAND FOR LEADERSHIP? I HAVE PHONED DEFENCE MINISTERS AND THE PACIFIC THE DATE I LAUNCHED THE DCP. THEY WERE OVERWHELMINGLY POSITIVE. THEY ARE NOT STUPID. THEY UNDERSTAND THE WHAT HAS CHANGED, AND THEY KNOW OUR CAPABILITY IN DEFENCE HAS TO BE AROUND DEALING WITH INTRUSION INTO THEIR WATERS OF UNRELATED FISHING, ANY THREATS TO OUR UNDERSEA CABLES. THEY ARE FULLY AWARE OF THAT SITUATION. THEY ARE AWARE ALSO THAT WHEN DISASTER STRIKES, IT IS NOT THE SOCIAL WORKERS WE ARE CALLING TO GO AND HELP SORT OUT THE MUDSLIDES IT IS A NEW ZEALAND DEFENCE FORCE. IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND, PEOPLE IN THE PACIFIC ARE AWARE OF THE DANGERS AND THEY NEED OUR HELP. WHY HAVEN'T YOU PRIORITISED REPLACING THE FRIGATES? WE COULD IF WE HAD EVEN MORE MONEY, BUT THE FACT IS, AT THE MOMENT THEY HAVE UNDERGONE UPGRADE, SO WE BELIEVE WE CAN GET MORE TIME OUT OF THAT. IF WE TAKE THE FRIGATES, MARITIME HELICOPTERS THAT MUST BE REPLACED, AND THE UNCREWED CAPABILITY, YOU HAVE SOMETHING WORTHWHILE. WHY REPLACE THE 757S? THEY ARE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. 75% OF THE WORK LAST YEAR WAS NOT AROUND VIP TRAVEL, IT WAS AROUND SHIFTING OUR PEOPLE. CAN'T WE JUST FLY COMMERCIAL FOR THAT? SERIOUSLY, JACK? YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE WEAPONS ONTO COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT? IF IT SAVES $100 MILLION. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. WE ALSO DON'T HAVE THE SECURITY WE HAVE. WE HAVE OTHER TRANSPORT PLANES THAT COULD TAKE WEAPONS. HAVE YOU BEEN IN THE BACK OF A HERCULES? I HAVE. IT IS LOUD. IT IS CHEAPER. THE POINT IS, THAT IS NOT HOW WE WILL TAKE TRAVELLED ALLEGATIONS. WHY NOT CHARTER A JET FOR VIP STUFF? IF I TOOK TO A NEW ZEALAND, IT IS EXPENSIVE. THEY DO NOT HAVE SPARE PLANES FLOATING AROUND, WAITING FOR US TO CALL THEM UP. WHEN WE HAD NOUMEA, PROBLEM LAST YEAR, WE WENT IN WITH THE 757S. OUR PLANES ARE OFTEN USED TO TAKE BACK AUSTRALIAN TROOPS AS WELL, BECAUSE THEY ARE A GOOD SIZE. WHEN THEY WORK. THEY WORK THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TIME. HAVING BEEN ON COMMERCIAL AIRLINES RECENTLY, AND HAVING HAD SOME DELAYED, OTHER PEOPLE'S PLANES ALSO BREAK DOWN. WE JUST GET USED TO HAVING A GO AT DEFENCE, WHEN WE GIVE THEM A 32 YEAR OLD PLANE AND ASKED THEM TO MAKE IT WORK PERFECTLY EVERY TIME. PEOPLE ARE CRITICAL OF THE VIABILITY OF THE PLAN. WHO? PEOPLE ARE CRITICAL. THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT. HOW COULD ANYONE BE CRITICAL OF THAT PLAN? MAYBE THIS IS HOW. AT THE SAME TIME AS YOU ARE PLANNING A MULTIBILLION DOLLAR SPEND, YOU ARE MAKING 300 STAFF REDUNDANT. 80, CIVILIANS. BASICALLY, RAW NUMBERS ARE 80 PEOPLE THAT THE CHIEF OF DEFENCE FORCE HAS DECIDED HE NEEDS TO REALLOCATE HIS RESOURCES. WE ARE TALKING A SITUATION WHERE OUR DEFENCE FORCE HAS UNDERGONE MASSIVE ATTRITION OF UNIFORM STAFF. 15.5% OF THE LAST FEW YEARS, PARTICULARLY COVID WORK. CIVILIAN NUMBERS HAVE COME UP. WE HAVE TO REFRESH THE UNIFORMED NUMBERS. THE OTHER POINT IS, THE CHIEF OF DEFENCE FORCE NEEDS TO DEPLOY PEOPLE. I AM TOLD THERE WERE PEOPLE IN THE CIVILIAN TEAM WHO WANTED TO GO AND HELP DURING THE CYCLONE GABRIELLE AND WERE TOLD THEY WENT ALLOWED TO, BECAUSE IT IS PART OF THE CONTRACT THAT THEY DON'T DEPLOY. THAT IS THE SORT OF THING THAT IS DEBILITATING FOR A DEFENCE FORCE. WE NEED TO BUILD OUR UNIFORMED PEOPLE. AFTER THE BREAK ` THE COURT OF INQUIRY HAS PUBLISHED AN ASTONISHING REPORT INTO MANAWANUI. HOW DO WE KNOW THIS WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN? THE COURT OF INQUIRY INTO HMNZS MANAWANUI WAS RELEASED LAST WEEK, DETAILING A SERIES OF FAILURES THAT LED TO THE SINKING. JUDITH COLLINS IS BACK WITH US. WE SPOKE TO A NUMBER OF EXPERTS, AND UNIVERSALLY, THEY WERE FLABBERGASTED AT SOME OF THE DETAILS IN THIS REPORT, THE SCALE OF INCOMPETENCE IN SOME INSTANCES. HOW DID YOU FEEL WHEN YOU READ ABOUT THE FAILURES IN THIS REPORT? I READ THIS REPORT AND I ALSO WAS FLABBERGASTED. I WAS SHOCKED AT THE SITUATION THE NAVY HAD BEEN ABLE TO GET INTO. AT THE SAME TIME, I WAS DEEPLY HEARTENED BY THE DETAIL AND THE TRANSPARENCY AND HONESTY IN THE REPORT. THERE HAD BEEN ALLEGATIONS THERE WOULD BE A WHITEWASH. THAT WAS NOTHING LIKE IT. IT WAS BRUTAL AND IT NEEDED TO BE BRUTAL. THERE IS A LOT OF DETAIL IN THE REPORT. I SUPPOSE I AM INTERESTED IN SOME OF THE DETAIL. YOU WERE VERY QUICK TO DEFEND COMMANDER YVONNE GRAY AFTER MISOGYNIST COMMENTS WERE MADE ABOUT HER. THE REPORT WAS SCATHING. IT SAID SHE DIDN'T HAVE THE APPROPRIATE PLATFORM ENDORSEMENT TO COMMAND THAT SHIP. I WAS VERY QUICK TO DEFEND COMMANDER GRAY'S GENDER, THAT SHE WAS NOT THERE FOR BEING A FEMALE. AND BEING A WOMAN DID NOT HAVE A PART TO PLAY. AFTER READING THE REPORT, VERY CLEAR, NOTHING TO DO WITH GENDER. IT IS ONE OF THE THINGS I FOUND MOST UPSETTING ABOUT THE MANAWANUI, APART FROM THE FACT THAT THERE IS A SHIP AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA, WAS HOW SOME PEOPLE WERE SO QUICK TO GO STRAIGHT TO HER GENDER, FORGETTING THAT ALSO MEN CAPTAIN SHIPS. SHIPS ARE LOST. NO ONE QUESTIONS THAT IF A MAN IS IN CHARGE, AND IT IS SUNK. THE WHOLE POINT OF GENDER EQUALITY IS THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE JUDGED ON INDIVIDUAL MERITS. BUT SHE WASN'T PLATFORM ENDORSED, WHICH MEANS SHE WAS UNQUALIFIED TO COMMAND THAT VESSEL. WHY ON EARTH WAS SHE COMMANDING IT? THERE HAS BEEN INDICATION FROM CHIEF OF NAVY THAT THREE PEOPLE WILL BE SUBJECT TO COURTS MARTIAL. THAT IS PART OF THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS. BUT YOU HAVE JUST SAID SHE WASN'T COMMANDING THAT VESSEL, BECAUSE SHE WAS A WOMAN. BUT SHE WASN'T QUALIFIED, BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T HAVE THE PLATFORM ENDORSEMENT. WHO PUT HER IN CHARGE? MY UNDERSTANDING FROM NAVY IS THAT THE ENDORSEMENT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE NOT QUALIFIED, IT IS ANOTHER STEP THEY TAKE. A PROCESS THEY GO THROUGH ONCE THEY GET COMMAND. WHO WOULD APPOINT SOMEONE TO A ROLE WHO DOESN'T GET THE PLATFORM ENDORSEMENT? HAVING LOST SO MANY QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED PEOPLE, THE NAVY GOT TO 17.7% LOSS. I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WERE TRYING TO STEP UP. BUT IT IS FRANKLY NOT GOOD ENOUGH. WE NEED A HEALTH AND SAFETY MANDATE. IT HAS TO BE ALL THE WAY THROUGH. WE COULD HAVE LOST 75 PEOPLE. BASICALLY, WE DIDN'T, AND THAT IS GREAT. BUT IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THAT SITUATION. AND LEARNING THAT COMMANDER GRAY WASN'T PLATFORM ENDORSED, CAN YOU SEE HOW THIS REPORT WILL EMBOLDEN THOSE ARMCHAIR ADMIRALS WHO WERE MAKING THOSE MISOGYNISTIC COMMENTS? THEY WILL SAY THIS WOMAN SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN COMMANDING THE SHIP, THAT SHE WAS ONLY APPOINTED TO THE ROLE BECAUSE SHE WAS A WOMAN, AND NOW THEY HAVE THIS DETAIL THAT IN A SENSE BACKS THEM UP, AND THAT SHE WASN'T NECESSARILY QUALIFIED TO COMMAND. MY UNDERSTAND AS SHE WAS QUALIFIED, BUT THE ENDORSEMENT IS SOMETHING THAT COMES LATER. THERE ARE TWO MEN ALSO SUBJECT TO THIS INQUIRY. I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD WAIT UNTIL THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS GOES THROUGH, BECAUSE IT IS A VERY SERIOUS THING. IF I GO CHARGING IN THERE, I DON'T WANT ANY SUGGESTION I HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT. THE DEFENCE FORCE NEW STAFFING LEVELS WERE LOW. HOLLOWNESS HAD BEEN RAISED AS A RISK IMPACTING MANAWANUI. THE CREW WENT QUALIFIED TO DO THE JOB. THERE WERE 20 PERSONNEL DEFICIENCIES, SUBSTANDARD TRAINING, A SHIP THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN DOING THAT WORK. WHO TAKES RESPONSIBLY THE? IT IS NOT UNUSUAL FOR PEOPLE TO BE LEARNING ON THE JOB, BECAUSE THAT IS NORMAL. YOU DON'T SUDDENLY BECOME AN EXPERT IF YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN THERE. 20 PERSONNEL DEFICIENCIES IN A CREW OF 45. NO PLATFORM ENDORSEMENT. IT ALL COMES BACK TO THE SITUATION THE NAVY WAS IN. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT SITUATION? THREE PEOPLE ARE FACING DISCIPLINE, THE COMMANDER BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO SENT MANAWANUI OUT? I'M SURE THAT WILL BE LOOKED AT. ARE THOSE SENIOR MEMBERS FACING DISCIPLINE? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF, BUT YOU WILL FIND THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESSES, THESE SAME ISSUES WILL BE RAISED. IT IS NOT FOR ME TO GO CHARGING INTO THERE. IT IS IF YOU ARE THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE. DOES ANYONE ABOVE THE RANK OF THE COMMANDING OFFICER BARE RESPONSIBLY? IT IS NORMAL ON NAVY SHIPS AND OTHER PLATFORMS FOR PEOPLE TO WAIT FOR ENDORSEMENTS TO COME THROUGH OR TO BE LEARNING ALONG WITH OTHERS ON THE JOB. IN THIS PARTICULAR REPORT, IT WAS CLEAR MULTIPLE THINGS WENT WRONG. IT IS UNFORTUNATELY A SITUATION WHERE WE LOOK AT THE FACT, THAT WAS REALLY A DISASTER THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED. NOW, WOULD WE HAVE SAID, THAT THE MANAWANUI SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE? THE ANSWER WOULD BE BETTER IF IT HADN'T BEEN. BUT IS IT UNQUALIFIED TO DO THAT JOB? I DON'T THINK SO. IT IS NOT A WARSHIP. IT WAS A 15 YEAR OLD COMMERCIAL TENDER. WHY WAS IT SENT OUT? SHOULD SOMEONE ABOVE THE COMMANDING OFFICERS RANK THEIR RESPONSE ABILITY FOR THAT DECISION? THE DECISION WAS MADE AT THE REQUEST OF CHOGM. WE CAN SAY NO. OUR DEFENCE FORCE NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO SAY NO WHEN IT DOESN'T WORK. WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT, PEOPLE WOULD SAY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER NOT TO GO. THE MIGHT OF BEEN BETTER TO HAVE A WARSHIP WITH RESILIENCE. TO BE CLEAR, IN YOUR VIEW, SHOULD ANYONE ABOVE THE RANK OF THE COMMANDING OFFICER FACE DISCIPLINARY PROCESSES OR GREATER CONSEQUENCES, AS A RESULT OF THIS DISASTER? IT IS A BIT LATE. WE HAVE CHANGED THE CHIEF OF NAVY. MARITIME COMPONENT COMMANDER? COMMANDER OF THE JOINT FORCES? A LOT OF PEOPLE ABOVE THE COMMANDER. A LOT OF LESSONS HAVE BEEN LEARNED. THEY TELL ME THIS IS ACTUALLY QUITE NORMAL IN THESE SITUATIONS FOR PEOPLE TO GO ONTO SHIPS THAT HAVEN'T IN ENDORSED, ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE DONE ALL THE WORK. AND THE CAPTAIN SITUATION, 32 YEARS IN THE NAVY, PLENTY OF EXPERIENCE. BUT NO ONE BECOMES A CAPTAIN UNTIL THEY BECOME THE CAPTAIN FOR THE FIRST TIME. IT IS LIKE IF YOU LEARN TO DRIVE WITHOUT EVER ACTUALLY DRIVING A CAR. YOU DON'T START DRIVING A BUS WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT YOU ARE DOING. WE WILL WAIT AND SEE. JUST FINALLY, SALVAGE COSTS. WILL YOU MAKE THEM PUBLIC? THE SALVAGE IS MOSTLY PART OF THE INSURANCE, SO IT IS SOMETHING WE WOULD MOSTLY NOT TALK ABOUT. IF THERE IS AN EXCESS? WE HAVE TO HAVE TRANSPARENCY. WHEN WOULD THAT BE MADE PUBLIC? WHEN THAT IS DECIDED. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. IF YOU WANT TO CONTACT Q+A TEAM, PLEASE, KORERO MAI. FLICK US AN EMAIL ` QANDA@TVNZ.CO.NZ UP NEXT ` AS CHINA AND THE U.S. RATCHET UP THE TARIFFS, WE ASK, HOW LONG THE CHINESE PUBLIC CAN WITHSTAND THE ECONOMIC PRESSURE? TURNS OUT AMERICAN CONSUMERS DON'T WANT TO PAY THOUSANDS MORE FOR THEIR APPLE PRODUCTS. WHO KNEW (?) PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP HAS MADE A TARIFF CONCESSION OVERNIGHT, EXEMPTING SMARTPHONES AND COMPUTERS FROM THE BULK OF HIS CHINA TARIFFS. SO IS HE FOLDING? AND HOW WILL THIS STANDOFF END? ANNA FIFIELD IS THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDITOR AT THE WASHINGTON POST. SHE'S WITH US NOW. KIA ORA. WHAT YOU MAKE OF THAT CONCESSION? I THINK IT IS GOING TO MAKE THE CHINESE LEADER FEEL LIKE HE HAS EVEN MORE OF AN UPPER HAND IN THIS STAND-OFF TWEEN THESE TWO LEADERS, BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP HAS SAID THROUGHOUT THIS TARIFF WALL THERE WILL BE NO NEGOTIATIONS, THERE WILL BE NO EXEMPTIONS. IN THE PAST WEEK, WE HAVE SEEN HIM WELCOME NEGOTIATIONS WITH 75 COUNTRIES WHEN THE STOCK MARKET TANKED. NOW HE HAS DONE ANOTHER FLIP-FLOP ON ELECTRONIC GOODS, EXEMPTING THEM FROM TARIFFS THAT HE IS IMPOSED ON CHINA. THAT IS BECAUSE COMPANIES LIKE APPLE, THE CHIPMAKER AND THE UNITED STATES HAVE BEEN REINFORCING TO THE WHITE HOUSE JUST WHAT AN IMPACT THESE TARIFFS WILL HAVE ON BUSINESSES, PRICES. THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER $700 ON AN IPHONE FOR AMERICANS CONSUMERS, SO THERE IS PANIC AMONGST AN AMERICAN COMPANIES. THEY HAVE BEEN LEANING ON DONALD TRUMP TO CHANGE HIS MIND ON THIS, AND HE HAS. WE ARE IN A GAME OF CHICKEN BETWEEN THE LEADERS OF THE WORLD'S TWO BIGGEST ECONOMIES, AND WE ARE WAITING TO SEE WHO BLINKS FIRST, AND DONALD TRUMP HAS BLINKED TWICE THIS WEEK. HOW IS THIS SITUATION BEING RECEIVED BY PEOPLE IN CHINA? IT IS HARD TO TELL WHAT PEOPLE IN CHINA ACTUALLY THINK, BECAUSE THE NEWS THAT THEY GET ABOUT ALL OF THIS IS VERY HIGHLY CENSORED. THE CONSISTENT MESSAGE FROM THE COMMUNIST PARTIES IN BEIJING IS ONE OF DEFIANCE. THEY HAVE SAID THEY WILL FIGHT TO THE END ON THIS. THEY HAVE MATCHED THE TARIFFS EVERY ROUND THAT DONALD TRUMP HAS IMPOSED. THE LEADERSHIP IN BEIJING REALLY SEES THIS AS A STARING COMPETITION, AS A CHANCE TO PROVE THEMSELVES. DONALD TRUMP'S EQUAL. WE HAVE SEEN OVER THE YEARS, DECADES THAT THE CHINESE LEADERSHIP WILL SACRIFICE PEOPLE'S WELL-BEING, COMFORT FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, FOR THE STRENGTH OF NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE ECONOMY. THEY WON'T BE TOO WORRIED ABOUT WHETHER CHINESE PEOPLE FEEL THE PINCH AT THE MOMENT. THEY HAVE A LOT OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS IN THEIR QUIVER AT THE MOMENT AS WELL THAT THEY COULD UNLEASHED IN TERMS OF BOOSTING CONSUMPTION, GIVING PAYOUTS TO HOUSEHOLDS IN CHINA THAT THEY CAN TRY TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE IMPACT. TALK TO US ABOUT THAT. IF THIS TRADE WAR DRAGS ON, WHAT IS LIKELY TO BE THE IMPACT ON CHINA'S ECONOMY? IT IS GOING TO BE ENORMOUS ON BOTH ECONOMIES. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 145% TARIFFS ON ALL CHINESE GOODS, APART FROM ELECTRONICS THAT WERE EXEMPTED. THE CHINESE ECONOMY IS NOT IN GREAT SHAPE. THEY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO HIT 5% GROWTH EACH YEAR. THAT HAS BEEN TRICKY. THE ONE BRIGHT SPOT IN THE ECONOMY HAS BEEN IN EXPORTS, HAS BEEN THE SOLAR PANELS, BYD CARS AND GOODS THEY HAVE BEEN SENDING OUT TO THE WORLD. THAT HAS HELPED SOFTEN THE IMPACT OF THIS WEEK DOMESTIC ECONOMY INSIDE TONY. THEY ARE STOCK INSIDE A PROPERTY MARKET SLUMP. THE JOBLESS RATE IS HIGH. EXPORTS HAS BEEN THE ONE THING THAT HAS BEEN SOFTENING THE BLOW. NOW THAT TAKES A HIT WITH THIS TRADE WAR, THAT IS GOING TO HURT THEIR ECONOMY. IT HAS BEEN FASCINATING OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS TO LOOK AT DIFFERENT RESPONSES FROM AROUND THE WORLD. THERE IS A PHOTOGRAPH THAT CAUGHT A LOT OF ATTENTION THAT WAS THE LEADERS OF SOUTH KOREA, CHINA AND JAPAN SHAKING HANDS. WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT WE SEE SOUTH KOREA, JAPAN AND CHINA WORKING MORE CLOSELY TOGETHER AS A RESPONSE TO THE TARIFFS? THAT MEETING, THE VOTING YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, WAS SET UP BEFORE THESE TARIFFS CAME IN. IT WAS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY. CHINA HAS MADE A MEAL OUT OF THIS. WE ARE ALREADY WORKING MORE CLOSELY. JAPAN AND SOUTH KOREA BOTH VERY STRONG SECURITY ALLIES OF THE UNITED STATES. THEY WERE DOWN FOUNDED, FLUMMOXED TO BE HIT BY A HUGE TARIFFS, 24 AND 25%. THAT HAS CAUSED SOUL-SEARCHING IN BOTH COUNTRIES. THEY BOTH DO A LOT OF TRADE WITH CHINA, SO THEY ARE JUST TRYING TO REBALANCE AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO READ THIS NEEDLE. IT IS INEVITABLE THAT THERE WILL BE SOME CLOSER ECONOMIC TIES, BECAUSE THE CERTAINTY OF THE US MARKET HAS BEEN CALLED INTO QUESTION. NEITHER OF THESE COUNTRIES IS GOING TO WANT TO BECOME A DUMPING GROUND FOR CHINESE PRODUCTS THEY CAN'T SELL IN THE UNITED STATES. WHO WOULD YOU SAY HAS THE UPPER HAND IN THIS FACE-OFF BETWEEN CHINA AND THE US? CHINA HAS THE UPPER HAND. HE FEELS THAT HE HAD IS ON SOLID GROUND IN STANDING UP TO DONALD TRUMP. IN BOTH COUNTRIES, WE HAVE THESE POPULIST, NATIONALIST LEADERS, WHO ARE BOTH TRYING TO MAKE THE COUNTRY'S GREAT AGAIN. CHINA LOOKS AT THE PRESSURES ON DONALD TRUMP, THE STOCK MARKET, THE HEAD OF JP MORGAN, THE BOND MARKET, APPLE, ALL OF THESE COMPANIES AND MARKET FORCES PUTTING PRESSURE ON HIM AND CAUSING HIM TO FLIP-FLOP, CHANGE COURSE FROM TIME TO TIME. CHINA FEELS LIKE HE CAN HOLD OUT FOR LONGER. WE ARE NOT GOING TO SEE MANY CONCESSIONS FROM THE CHINESE SIDE. THE REALLY SCARY THING AT THE MOMENT IS THAT I DON'T SEE WHERE THE OFFRAMP FROM THIS CRISIS IS. THIS IS RAPIDLY BECOMING ABOUT SO MUCH MORE THAN TRADE. DECOUPLING IS NOW WELL UNDERWAY. THIS CONCEPT THAT DONALD TRUMP HAS TALKED ABOUT FOR A LONG TIME. THIS IS GOING TO HAVE RAMIFICATIONS. IN THE TAIWAN STRAIT, AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY SPEARS, IN THE MILITARY SPHERES, TECHNOLOGY SPHERES AND ON THE KIND OF THINGS WHERE CHINA HAS BEEN COOPERATING WITH THE WORLD, LIKE CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRESS. THIS IS MUCH BIGGER THAN TRADE ALREADY. THE TARIFFS ALMOST DON'T COUNT ANY MORE, BECAUSE THE NUMBER IS SO HUGE THAT IT IS GOING TO BRING THE TRADE BETWEEN THE WORLD'S TWO BIGGEST ECONOMIES TO A HALT. WE ARE" KERRY TERRITORY. FASCINATING TIME TO BE AN OBSERVER OF THE WORLD, ESPECIALLY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. WE APPRECIATE IT. THE WASHINGTON POST AND. AS THE TRADE WAR CONTINUES, CANADIAN TECH WRITER PARIS MARX SAYS THE LAST FEW WEEKS ILLUSTRATE WHY AMERICA IS NO LONGER A RELIABLE FRIEND, AND IT'S TIME FOR COUNTRIES LIKE NZ TO ADDRESS AN OVER-RELIANCE ON U.S. TECH PLATFORMS AND INFRASTRUCTURE. PARIS WAS IN NZ FOR A GUEST LECTURE AT AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY THIS WEEK. YOU CAN SEE OUR FULL INTERVIEW ON YOUTUBE, BUT HERE'S PARIS MARX DISCUSSING SOME OPTIONS FOR REGULATING TECH GIANTS. SO, I THINK THAT THE MOVE TOWARD DIGITAL SERVICES TAXES IN A LOT OF COUNTRIES IS NECESSARY, BECAUSE WE SEE THESE FOREIGN PLATFORMS ` IT'S NOT ALWAYS AMERICAN ONES, BUT USUALLY AMERICAN ONES, OPERATING AND NOT PAYING THE DEGREE OF TAX THAT THEY SHOULD, RIGHT? AND A LOT OF COUNTRIES WERE WAITING FOR YEARS FOR A GLOBAL TAX FRAMEWORK THAT WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO ALLOW A MINIMUM GLOBAL TAX TO BE APPLIED TO THESE LARGE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS. THROUGH THE OECD. EXACTLY. AND THE UNITED STATES, YOU KNOW, WAS ALREADY DELAYING IT UNDER THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, AND NOW UNDER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS SAID THEY ARE JUST NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH IT. AND WHAT'S MORE, IF INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES WERE TO PURSUE THEIR OWN DIGITAL SERVICES TAX, LIKE HERE IN NEW ZEALAND ` I THINK WE STILL HAVE ONE ON THE ORDER PAPER THAT CURIOUSLY DOESN'T COME UP IN PARLIAMENT FOR DEBATE AT THE MOMENT ` ESSENTIALLY, IT IS OUR LEGISLATORS' EXPECTATION THAT THERE WOULD BE CONSEQUENCES, THAT THE U.S. WOULD RETALIATE. YEP. WE HAVE SEEN THAT IN CANADA. THE U.S. HAS RETALIATED AGAINST CANADA WHEN WE BROUGHT IN OUR DIGITAL SERVICES TAX, WHICH WAS DELAYED FOR YEARS, BECAUSE WE WERE HOPING THIS PROCESS WAS GOING TO WORK OUT. AND THEN THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION TOOK US TO AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL BECAUSE THEY HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT, RIGHT? THE DIGITAL SERVICES STILL OPERATES RIGHT NOW. THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY HAS SAID IT SUPPORTS IT AS WELL ` IT'S KIND OF BIPARTISAN, IN THAT SENSE. BUT WE SEE WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, AS IT'S CURRENTLY OPERATING, WITH THE ALLIANCE WITH SILICON VALLEY, THAT THEY ARE GOING TO PUSH BACK ON ANY COUNTRY THAT TRIES TO BRING IN SOMETHING SIMILAR. AND THEN THE OPEN QUESTION IS, OK, DO WE JUST KIND OF BOW DOWN TO WHATEVER THE UNITED STATES ALWAYS WANTS US TO DO? OR DO WE PUSH BACK AGAINST THE WAY IT'S TRYING TO LEVY ITS POWER? IT'S A COLLECTIVE ACTION PROBLEM, RIGHT? ABSOLUTELY. IF IT'S A CASE OF INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES PUTTING FORWARD TAXATION OR HEAVIER REGULATION THAT IS GOING TO INCUR SOME SORT OF A RESPONSE FROM THE U.S., THEN NO COUNTRY IS GOING TO BE INCENTIVISED TO DO THAT. SO HOW DO YOU GET THOSE COUNTRIES TO WORK TOGETHER? WELL, THIS IS THE THING, RIGHT? THIS IS WHY I'VE TALKED ABOUT AN INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE BEING SO KEY TO THAT. AND I THINK ESPECIALLY IN THIS MOMENT, THERE IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I FEEL LIKE WHEN WE THINK OF THIS KIND OF WESTERN ALLIANCE THAT WE OFTEN TALK ABOUT OUR COUNTRIES AS BEING IN, OFTEN THAT ACTS KIND OF LIKE A HUB-AND-SPOKE MODEL, RIGHT, WHERE WE'RE ALL TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE UNITED STATES, GET ACCESS TO THE US MARKET, AND THEN IT IS KIND OF DEALING WITH EVERYONE ELSE ON THEIR OWN. I THINK WE NEED TO START LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, HOW WE DEAL WITH CANADA AND NEW ZEALAND AND AUSTRALIA AND EUROPE AND JAPAN AND SOUTH KOREA AND OTHER POTENTIAL PLAYERS THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF VALUES IN COMMON WITH. IT'LL BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THE EXPERIENCE WITH TARIFFS IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, AND INDEED SOME OF THE BIG QUESTIONS AROUND SECURITY, UKRAINE, THE PACIFIC, THAT KIND OF THING, WHETHER OR NOT THAT WILL SPUR COUNTRIES TO ACT TOGETHER. WHAT IS YOUR SENSE FROM YOUR REPORTING? DO YOU GET THE SENSE THAT COUNTRIES ACTUALLY HAVE THE APPETITE FOR THIS? I THINK WE'RE STILL AT A MOMENT NOW WHERE A LOT OF COUNTRIES ARE HOPING THAT WHERE A LOT OF COUNTRIES ARE HOPING THAT THIS IS ALL GOING TO KIND OF SMOOTH OVER, AND WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO HOW THINGS ARE OPERATING. BUT I THINK WITH EVERY PASSING WEEK, WE GET CLOSER TO A POINT WHERE THE RECOGNITION IS, THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNITED STATES HAS FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED, AND WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO THINK ABOUT NEW APPROACHES TO DEAL WITH THAT. EVEN IN CANADA RIGHT NOW, WE'RE KIND OF, LIKE, ON THE FRONT LINE OF THIS. YOU KNOW, OUR CURRENT PRIME MINISTER ` WE'RE IN AN ELECTION AT THE MOMENT, OF COURSE ` IS SAYING WE WANT TO HAVE A NEW DEAL WITH THE UNITED STATES, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE NEED TO LOOK ABROAD, BECAUSE EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED NOW. AND I WOULD IMAGINE THAT MORE AND MORE COUNTRIES ARE GOING TO FIND THEMSELVES IN THAT POSITION, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT THEY WOULD BE OPEN TO WORKING TOGETHER ON THINKING ABOUT SOMETHING NEW, ABOUT HOW WE ALL COLLABORATE, EVEN IF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT AT THE CENTRE OF IT. IF YOU WANT TO SEE THAT FULL INTERVIEW, YOU CAN GO TO OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL BY SEARCHING 'NZ Q AND A' ON YOUTUBE. OR YOU CAN FIND US ON TVNZ+ ` IT'S WHERE YOU CAN FIND ALL OF Q+A'S WORK, PLUS THE BEST OF TVNZ'S NEWSROOM. NEXT ` AS THE CONFLICT IN GAZA GRINDS PAST ANOTHER GRIM MILESTONE, I MEET THE KIWI GP WHO'S TAKING HER TRAINING FROM WAIKATO TO A WARZONE. THE PALESTINIAN RED CRESCENT SAYS AUTOPSIES OF 15 MEDICS AND RESCUERS KILLED IN GAZA SUGGEST THEY WERE SHOT BY ISRAELI FORCES WITH 'INTENT TO KILL'. AS THE CONFLICT CONTINUES, AN INTERNATIONAL TEAM OF DOCTORS IS TRYING TO SUPPORT GAZA'S REMAINING HEALTH WORKERS, BY PROVIDING TELEHEALTH SERVICES FROM AROUND THE WORLD. ONE OF THOSE DOCTORS IS A NEW ZEALAND REGISTERED GP, WHO, AS WELL AS WORKING FOR HER COMMUNITY IN WAIKATO, HAS BEEN TRYING TO SUPPORT PEOPLE IN GAZA. WE SHOULD WARN YOU ` THIS STORY HAS SOME DISTURBING PICTURES. FROM WAIKATO TO A WARZONE, THE CONTRAST IS SURREAL. BUT ALTHOUGH HER FAMILY'S BUILT A LIFE IN NEW ZEALAND, DR RUBA HARFEIL IS ALWAYS THINKING OF GAZA. AS YOU WOULD KNOW, WITH THE ONGOING ISRAELI AIRSTRIKES, 90% OF THE CONSTRUCTIONS HAVE BEEN DESTROYED, AND THAT INCLUDES THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE HOSPITALS, HOUSES, MEDICAL CENTRES. SO IT'S NOT EASY FOR THE PATIENTS TO REACH OUT AND ASK FOR MEDICAL ADVICE OR ASK FOR MEDICATIONS, WITH THE ONGOING GENOCIDE. IT'S 18 MONTHS SINCE HAMAS LAUNCHED THE OCTOBER 7TH ATTACK IN ISRAEL, IN WHICH THE TERRORIST GROUP KILLED MORE THAN A THOUSAND PEOPLE AND TOOK HUNDREDS HOSTAGE. IN THE TIME SINCE, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, INCLUDING THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN, HAVE DIED IN GAZA, AS ISRAEL HAS SOUGHT TO DESTROY HAMAS. ISRAEL DISPUTES THE CHARACTERISATION OF THE WAR AS A GENOCIDE, AND BOTH ISRAELI AND HAMAS LEADERS HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH WAR CRIMES BY THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT. THROUGH IT ALL, AS THE FIGHTING HAS CONTINUED, DR RUBA HARFEIL HAS VOLUNTEERED THROUGH A TELEHEALTH SERVICE TO TRY AND HELP HER FELLOW PALESTINIANS WITH PRIMARY CARE. FOR THEM TO REACH OUT AND ASK FOR MEDICAL ADVICE DOES NOT BECOME A PRIORITY FOR THEM ` TO LIVE AND MAKE IT TO THE NEXT DAY, IS A PRIORITY, RATHER. THERE IS ANOTHER CHALLENGE HERE. WHEN YOU CONTACT THE PATIENT, WHEN THEY MADE THE REQUEST, MAYBE THEY HAD ELECTRICITY OR INTERNET; WHEN YOU CONTACT THEM, THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE THE ACCESS OR THIS LUXURY ANY MORE. MAYBE THEY ARE BEING DISPLACED, MOVING ON FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER. OR MAYBE THEY'VE TOO FAR TO GO TO THE AREA, WHERE THEY CAN HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET, SO THEY CAN'T ACTUALLY REPLY TO YOUR MESSAGE. OR MAYBE THEY GOT KILLED. USING MESSAGING APPS, SOCIAL MEDIA, AND INTERNATIONAL PHONE CALLS, RUBA HARFEIL IS ONE OF APPROXIMATELY 200 DOCTORS WORKING FOR THE GAZA HEALTH TELEHEALTH SERVICE. TOGETHER, THEY SAY, THEY'VE CONSULTED MORE THAN 5000 PATIENTS LIVING THROUGH THE WAR. FIRST, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE AIR POLLUTION. BECAUSE OF THE 90% DESTRUCTION OF THE STRUCTURES OR CONSTRUCTIONS IN GAZA, THE AIR IS SO POLLUTED, AND THAT MEANS WE WILL END UP SEEING PATIENTS WITH INHALATION PNEUMONIA, INHALATION PNEUMONITIS, SEVERE ASTHMA FLAREUP THAT WE DON'T NORMALLY SEE IN A NORMAL SITUATION. IN TERMS OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, THAT IS A DISASTER. IT'S A COMPLETE DIFFERENT STORY. GAZANS ARE CURRENTLY LIVING IN TENTS, SO THEY ARE LIVING ON DUMPSITES, AND THEY'RE LIVING ON SEWAGE SITES. THEY BASICALLY LIVING BETWEEN THE RUBBISH AND THE SEWAGE. AND YOU WOULD IMAGINE HOW UNHYGIENIC THIS IS AND THE HEALTH CONDITIONS, THE INFECTIOUS DISEASES THAT THEY WOULD END UP WITH. I'VE SEEN A FAMILY OF 10 ` MOTHER, FATHER AND EIGHT CHILDREN ` THEY ALL HAD HEPATITIS A, BECAUSE OF THE UNHYGIENIC HYGIENIC CONDITIONS IN GAZA. SO WE MANAGED TO PROVIDE THEM WITH A LITTLE BIT OF ELECTROLYTES, THROUGH OUR ON-THE-GROUND TEAM, A LITTLE BIT OF CLEAN WATER. BUT THEIR 4-YEAR-OLD CHILD WAS SEVERELY DEHYDRATED, THAT WE COULDN'T ACTUALLY ASK THEM TO TREAT HIM AT HOME. WE TOLD THEM TO GET HIM TO THE HOSPITAL. AND THE NEXT DAY, I CHECKED ON THEM, AND THEY SAID, 'NO, 'WE CAN'T GO TO THE HOSPITAL. THERE ARE LOTS OF, 'UM, AIRSTRIKES, AND IT'S NOT SAFE' AND THEN I'VE LOST CONTACT WITH THEM AFTER THAT. SO I'M NOT ACTUALLY SURE WHETHER THAT 4-YEAR-OLD BOY IS STILL, UM, ALIVE OR NOT. IF COMMUNICATION IS DIFFICULT, ACTUALLY ACCESSING MEDICATIONS IN GAZA CAN BE EVEN HARDER. LAST YEAR, THE UN HUMANITARIAN COORDINATOR FOR PALESTINE CRITICISED ISRAEL FOR BLOCKING THE DELIVERY OF INSULIN INTO GAZA. RUBA TOLD US SHE HAD A 21-YEAR-OLD PATIENT WITH TYPE 1 DIABETES, WHO COULDN'T ACCESS THE MEDICATION AND DIED. THERE IS A NEW TERM IN GAZA CALLED WOUNDED CHILD WITH NO SURVIVING FAMILY. IT'S A NEW TERM IN GAZA, WHEN THEY RECEIVE CHILDREN IN THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS WITH NO ANY OTHER FAMILIES WITH THEM. FOR THESE CHILDREN, TO HAVING TO FACE THIS AND SEEING THEIR BROTHERS AND SISTERS AND GRANDPARENTS OR PARENTS ARE GETTING KILLED IN FRONT OF THEM, THERE IS A PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA THAT WOULD LIVE WITH THEM FOREVER. SO IT'S NOT NOW THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH THE MENTAL-HEALTH PROBLEMS ` IT'S LIKE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DECADES OF DEALING WITH THESE MENTAL-HEALTH ISSUES, BECAUSE OF WHAT THESE CHILDREN AND WOMEN HAVE TO SEE OR TO FACE DURING THE WAR. AFTER 18 MONTHS OF DEATH AND DESPAIR, THE FUTURE OF THE GAZA CONFLICT IS NO CLEARER. DR RUBA HARFEIL IS DETERMINED TO CONTINUE HELPING UNTIL THE WAR ENDS. I DON'T DO WHAT I'M DOING AS PART OF THIS, UH, TELEHEALTH SERVICE BECAUSE I'M A PALESTINIAN ` I DO IT BECAUSE I'M A HUMAN. I'M NOT DOING IT BECAUSE I'M A DOCTOR ` I'M DOING IT BECAUSE I'M A HUMAN. WHEN WE GRADUATED AND WE MADE THE OATH, THAT WE'RE GONNA PROTECT AND TAKE CARE OF ALL THE PATIENTS AND ALL HUMANITY, REGARDLESS OF THEIR RELIGION, THEIR RACE AND COLOUR ` THIS IS OUR JOB, TO TAKE CARE AND... HELP OUR COLLEAGUES IN GAZA AND SERVE THE PATIENTS IN GAZA. IF WE DON'T DO THAT, IF WE DON'T UPHOLD WHAT'S HAPPENING IN GAZA, IF WE DON'T EMBRACE WHAT'S HAPPENING IN GAZA, I THINK WE SHOULD PUT OUR STETHOSCOPES DOWN AND RETRACT THE OATH THAT WE MADE WHEN WE GRADUATED. (POIGNANT MUSIC) STAY WITH US. Q+A IS BACK AFTER THE BREAK. SOMETIMES WORKING RELATIONSHIPS JUST DON'T WORK OUT, AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, SHOULD EMPLOYERS BE ABLE TO OFFER EMPLOYEES MONEY TO PACK THEIR BAGS? THIS WEEK'S FEATURED MEMBER'S BILL IS SPONSORED BY ACT MP LAURA McCLURE, AND HAS JUST GONE THROUGH ITS FIRST READING IN PARLIAMENT. (ATMOSPHERIC MUSIC) HI, I'M LAURA McCLURE. I'M THE ACT PARTY LIST MEMBER BASED DOWN IN CHRISTCHURCH, AND I AM OUR SME SPOKESPERSON. THE NAME OF MY BILL IS THE 'TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT BY AGREEMENT AMENDMENT ACT'. MY MEMBER'S BILL AIMS TO FACILITATE A CONVERSATION BETWEEN AN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE ABOUT A POTENTIAL END TO THE EMPLOYMENT. IN DOING SO, THIS CONVERSATION NEEDS TO BE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE FROM BOTH THE EMPLOYER AND THE EMPLOYEE SIDE. AND IT MAY END IN A SETTLEMENT OF SOME SORT. SO SETTLEMENTS COULD INCLUDE A MONETARY SUM, FOR EXAMPLE. THEY MAY INCLUDE A GOOD REFERENCE. BUT IDEALLY THIS CONVERSATION IS ABLE TO BE HAD AT THE START OF POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITHIN THAT EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP. HAVING BEEN A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER MYSELF AND ALSO BEEN AN EMPLOYEE PREVIOUSLY, I SAW HOW DIFFICULT AND CHALLENGING IT WAS TO NAVIGATE EMPLOYMENT LAW. NAVIGATING EMPLOYMENT LAW AND MANAGING RELATIONSHIPS WITH EMPLOYERS IS EXTREMELY CHALLENGING. EMPLOYMENT LAW HAS BECOME QUITE BURDENSOME AND OVERCOMPLICATED, THAT WE'RE UNABLE NOW TO HAVE A SIMPLE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS IF YOU WERE TO END THAT EMPLOYMENT AND WHAT IT COULD TAKE, FROM THE EMPLOYER'S SIDE, IN ORDER FOR AN EMPLOYEE TO MOVE ON. EMPLOYERS ARE BASICALLY USING THE LIKES OF REDUNDANCY, RESTRUCTURE, OR THEY ARE PUTTING PEOPLE THROUGH PERFORMANCE REVIEW WHEN THEY KNOW WHAT THAT OUTCOME IS GOING TO BE. AND THAT IS EXTREMELY STRESSFUL AND QUITE DEHUMANISING FOR AN INDIVIDUAL THAT KNOWS SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT HERE. I KNOW THAT YOU KNOW I'M BEING MADE REDUNDANT, BUT IT MAY NOT BE... YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE SOMETHING TO DO WITH ME, BUT THE PROCESS IS THAT I'VE GOT TO STAY WITHIN THIS JOB WHILE WE GO THROUGH THIS RESTRUCTURE PROCESS. AND WHAT THAT DOES IS THAT CREATES A REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE WORK ENVIRONMENT, AND THE RISK OF PGs JUST ESCALATE. NEARLY EVERYBODY THAT I'VE SPOKEN TO THAT HAS BEEN THROUGH THIS PROCESS HAS INDICATED TO ME, HAD THEIR EMPLOYER HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THEM ABOUT WHY THEY WANTED TO MOVE THEM ON AND OFFERED THEM A SUM OF MONEY IN ORDER TO DO SO, THEY WOULD HAVE TAKEN IT. EVEN HAVING ENGAGING IN THIS CONVERSATION NEEDS TO BE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE, SO EMPLOYEE CAN ACTUALLY SAY, 'NO, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. 'I DON'T WANT TO ENGAGE.' SO IN SOME WAY, EMPLOYEE HOLDS QUITE A LOT OF POWER IN THAT. THE OTHER THING IS THESE AGREEMENTS CAN HAVE UNION REPRESENTATION, LAWYERS EYES OVER THEM, EMPLOYMENT ADVOCACY, FOR EXAMPLE, TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AGREEMENT IS IN FACT A REALLY GOOD DEAL FOR THE EMPLOYEE. ALL THE OTHER EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT 2000 OBLIGATIONS STILL APPLY AND ARE STILL THERE TO PROTECT THE EMPLOYEE, SHOULD AN EMPLOYER ACT INAPPROPRIATELY, FOR EXAMPLE, OR BREAK THE LAW. KUA MUTU. THAT'S Q+A FOR THIS WEEK. FROM THE Q+A TEAM, THANKS FOR WATCHING AND NGA MIHI KI A KOUTOU I NGA KARERE. WE WON'T SEE YOU NEXT SUNDAY, BECAUSE OF THE EASTER BREAK, BUT WE'LL BE BACK IN A FORTNIGHT. UNTIL THEN, HAVE A GOOD DAY. CAPTIONS BY JAMES BROWN AND FAITH HAMBLYN. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. WWW.ABLE.CO.NZ COPYRIGHT ABLE 2025.