GOOD MORNING, AND WELCOME TO Q+A. I'M SUSAN WOOD. ON THE PROGRAMME THIS SUNDAY ` 'DIRTY POLITICS' AND THE NATIONAL PARTY. WE INTERVIEW THE AUTHOR NICKY HAGER, PLUS THE BLOGGER AT THE CENTRE OF THE ALLEGATIONS, CAMERON SLATER. ALSO ON THE PROGRAMME, SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT MINISTER PAULA BENNETT AND LABOUR'S CHILDREN'S SPOKESPERSON JACINDA ARDERN. HOW BAD IS OUR CHILD POVERTY PROBLEM? AND ARE WE DOING ENOUGH FOR OUR MOST VULNERABLE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES? WE'LL TAKE A LOOK BACK AT THE WEEK WITH POLITICAL EDITOR CORIN DANN AND ANALYSE ALL THE ISSUES WITH OUR PANEL, POLITICAL SCIENTIST DR RAYMOND MILLER, POLICY AND RESEARCH CONSULTANT MEGAN CAMPBELL AND PORIRUA MAYOR NICK LEGGETT. DUE TO THE LIVE NATURE OF Q+A, WE APOLOGISE FOR THE LACK OF CAPTIONS FOR SOME ITEMS. GOOD TO HAVE YOU WITH US. WITH VERY LITTLE WARNING, A BOMBSHELL WAS DROPPED ON WELLINGTON THIS WEEK. 'DIRTY POLITICS', A NEW BOOK BY INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST NICKY HAGER, CLAIMS TO SHOW STRONG LINKS BETWEEN THE NATIONAL PARTY AND CONTROVERSIAL BLOGGER CAMERON SLATER. THE LEAKED EMAILS AND ONLINE CONVERSATIONS ALSO SUGGEST NATIONAL WORKED WITH MR SLATER ON A NUMBER OF PERSONAL ATTACKS AGAINST POLITICAL FOES. I SPOKE TO CAMERON SLATER A SHORT TIME AGO AND ASKED, 'WAS HE CONCERNED THE HAGER BOOK COULD DAMAGE NATIONAL?' I'm not concerned at all about that. The one news poll shows very few people'scare too much about it it's being milked considerably by the Labour Party. It leads me to ask questions about whether they've been involved in the activities of Nicky Hager, considering the preface their entire campaign with boat positive. Your language, calling people in Christchurch scum, a range of what I would classify as hate speech is that acceptable to national and John Key? I'm not even a member of the national party, so I don't see how it matters. I work across the political spectrum with politicians from Labour, the Green party, New Zealand first, anybody in the political spectrum. To describe those actions or words to the national party is a bit facetious. If you make those claims, they need to be made against all the other people I work with. Who are you dealing with on the other side? Who else from the least is feeding you information? Probably half of David Cunliffe's caucus. Would it be fair to say you get more information out of national, Judith Collins, is that 80% national 20% Labour? I wouldn't say that at all. I'd probably get more and more vicious information out of the left wing side of New Zealand politics. There's a few nats that won't pick up the phone with me. They are too scared to deal with me. I had to work hard to get the sources and information that I do. I'm not going to let anyone die wondering which side of the political spectrum I'm on. At least I'm honest about that. You are a right wing blogger aren't you? I favour a centre-right government. I think John Key is too soft. When it comes to dealing with unions and left wing people that are around. I certainly would be more in common with the act party and the Libertarian values. I'm a jack of all trades. I'm also willing to help out Labour politicians to get elected. I want to see good strong candidates like Stu Nash and Kel Davis when these seats and moved the Labour Party away from the hard left it's become. How close are you with John Key? The only person who has ever said anything about that is John Key, and I think you should ask him. If I sent a text, I will usually get a reply. That's the same across the spectrum of any number of leaders. Recently I sent a text to a Labour politician who made claims about Fiji, and he was wrong, and I sent a text and 30 seconds later got a reply the Prime Minister has said this week he talks to you four times a year. Earlier, he said was more frequently than that. He rang new to commiserate. The Prime Minister says it's four times a year. At the Prime Minister says that, it's correct. Did the Prime Minister ring you after you described the car crash victim is the rule to commiserate? No, he didn't ring me. We had a text conversation. What did he say in the text conversation? He said the person had been calling me and abusing me down the telephone whose audio details I passed it on my blog after I received to death threats. He had been confronted by her in the Pike River meetings. He recognised the voice. Let's talk about your friend Judith Collins. As she takes did you while you have been in Israel? What did she say in the text? She said make sure with the travel you get some sleep. Make sure you don't get too tired. Just keep going. Any comment about the Hager book on what's been happening here? The comments I've got about his book are that it's the News of the world type scandal. Mr Slater we know that you reliably to documents as does Mr Hager. Your relationship with Judith Collins, she does not look good in this. It brings into this her integrity and to judgement. Will it bring into impact her desire to lead the national party at some point? We can't put that aside because someone has illegally hacked my e-mails. It is illegal activity. And in the Herald of this morning Kim Dotcom is now claiming he will use this information in a box. You deal with leaked information all the time, so it is the pot calling the kettle black. No, I have never used any information obtained illegally. This information was claimed illegally and a deliberate attempt to subvert a person's` not just my privacy that has been breached, but everyone who has ever e-mailed me. As I said earlier, there has been a range of enquiries underway on that. You mentioned earlier that some people in national are not too comfortable with picking up the phone. Do you think with this they will be more frightened because you may turn on them? How can I turn on them if they haven't contacted me? A lot of squeamish people and politics. I don't care if they distance themselves from me. There is some gutless people involved in New Zealand politics. We aren't playing tiddlywinks here. The left wing is not totally hands clean. I know that from my own sources within the Labour Party and other parties. Will the Prime Minister continued to text you? I'm sure. There are so many errors and things are wrong and Nicky Hager's book. We know that they are errors because he won't categorically state anything. He always phrases everything with it is believed to. He uses weasel words around it to avoid making a categorical statement. That's because he can't be sure and can't guarantee what he is saying is true. You understand politics as well as anyone else. From the Prime Minister's perspective, you are pretty toxic. You will find yourself out in the cold? I don't care whether he does or he doesn't. Prime Minister's come and go. In my lifetime I meet and dealt with almost every prime minister from Robert Muldoon to the present day. Long after John Key has disappeared from the political scene, Austell be involved. All I have written is the book that lays out the evidence of their own actions. Nobody has questioned the voracity of the e-mails. But you have drawn links. Isn't it time to put up the evidence to prove those links? I think I've laid out the information as well as I can. I'm happy to use your program to explain this. In the last few days, journalists have said can we please see the material? John Key said I had made it up at one stage. When I finished the book, I was advised by my lawyer that I should return all the materials to the source because a court judgement came out that I might be forced to hand over the material and expose my source. I have gone back to Mysore's and asked if I can release the information. The source told me know. The source has decided that he is going to release the information. I have asked the source is that he respects what I have already done. And he takes out people's names who aren't part of the story. And he doesn't put in private information. So no collateral damage. I know you are not going to tell me your source. Can you rule out somebody who has been named as Cameron Slater. Can you please rule out Kim Dotcom is your source. Absolutely categorically nothing to do with that. Is there anything beard that has not been released? Have you been through all the e-mails? Is there anything there in those e-mails? I had a very large body of material. I tried to write an interesting book that people would turn the pages on. Of course there is other material via. If it comes out, if people read it, you will be worse than the book. I had to make a readable book. But page after page of cynicism and nastiness was quite an experience. Is there anything there - Mr Slater says he has a lot of relationships with Labour. Is there anything in those e-mails and documents,what correspondence was the with people from the left? I was given a dump that someone got. There was no communication with the Labour Party people. Maybe one or two mentions of him talking to left wing bloggers. Cameron Slater is spinning because he's the son of the national party president. He helps national party. The book isn't about Cameron Slater. It's about the way he gets used by national party leaders to do the dirty work for them. He would say your agenda is Labour Party. People know who I am. I care about human rights. In terms of party Alliance, I have been doing this job is an investigative journalist for 20 years. I don't want to be associated with any parties, and I'm not. If you had come across this information about a left-wing government, you would have written this book. Just like I did about Helen Clark's government and genetic engineering. You hold governments accountable. I was prepared to do it to Labour and I'm prepared to do it in national. If you own a part of the information, how do you know you represented a feeling in the book? To be fair, there is a body of information I didn't see. When you are getting leaked documents, you may not know what you must. But I got thousands of documents so I could check everything against itself. When I said it appears or this is my conclusion, that's because sometimes I wasn't totally sure what it meant. Sometimes a separating what I was totally sure of and sometimes it means this is my conclusion. Thank you for your time this morning. SEND US YOUR THOUGHTS. WE'RE ON TWITTER AT NZQANDA. YOU CAN EMAIL US AT Q+A@TVNZ.CO.NZ. OR TEXT YOUR THOUGHTS AND FIRST NAME TO 2211. EACH TEXT COSTS 50C. OUR PANEL'S NEXT, AND LATER WE LOOK BACK TO WHAT WAS MAKING THE POLITICAL NEWS THIS WEEK IN 2004. HOW DARE YOU USE THE CLOAK OF CHRISTIANITY WHEN YOU ARE IMPARTING TO YOUR CHILDREN PREJUDICE, DISCRIMINATION TOWARD PEOPLE LIKE ME ` GAYS AND LESBIANS. LET'S GO TO OUR PANEL NOW. POLITICAL SCIENTIST DR RAYMOND MILLER FROM AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY; MEGAN CAMPBELL, A NATIONAL PARTY MEMBER, A FORMER NATIONAL STAFFER, NOW POLICY AND RESEARCH CONSULTANT; AND LABOUR PARTY MEMBER AND PORIRUA MAYOR, NICK LEGGETT. Raymond, I will start with you. The big question it seems to me around this book is John Key. Yes. We know he's not directly implicated in the book, but it does expose the potential weakness in his leadership. Leadership has got a moral or ethical dimensional to it. The problem with this book and what it reveals is that John Key allowed all was unaware that people around him were behaving in ways that he probably thought in retrospect were most unfortunate. You teach the ethical tone for your government. The problem with what has happened here is that close to the Prime Minister and in the Prime Minister's office, things were going on. A senior Cabinet minister. As John Armstrong describes them, the little helpers - the Cameron Slater's and the others. It exposes something the Prime Minister has to address. Coming out with wishy-washy condemnation of Nicky Hager and saying it's nothing to do with me, I think is a mistake. Nick Leggett, what damage do you think it is done to the Prime Minister? One in 10 voters said it had damaged him. It's the issues that fall out of this that will be damaging. When they are identified and looked at by the public in a more official way, that's what will cause the damage. That could take a while to play out. Judith Collins on her final warning - it used to be the last right the her. John Key has to draw a line under this, and sacking Judith Collins would be one way of doing that the him. New Zealanders are smart. This distracts from the real issues of the election campaign. Real extremes of the political spectrum going at each other and using underhand tactics. New Zealanders want clarity of policies so voters can to side which party has the best plan them. Labour is running boat positive. I was on staff and national in 2002. We had Nicky's sense of distrust Carmen in 2002. The polling is similar to them. We had 52 policies ready to go and needed to be communicated. Instead we got derailed looking at the seeds of distrust. Labour needs to get back on message and do the policy. Is there any indication Labour has been off message? They have been in the background over the last few days. This is National's problem. Cunliffe has been going hard on this. They have made John Key the brand for the national party. It's a presidential style campaign. Emphasis is on leadership and integrity. Let's go back to Nicky admitting himself he was handed this drive of thousands of pages. He admits himself but there's no Labour material on the. That's just rubbish. Anyone who's read while oil knows them well be have been guest blog posts is that not amongst? This is all distraction. For political hangers on, it's all really exciting. ARe Labour on message? We've seen policy from Labour in the last few weeks - health being one of them. We want the political debate to get back to the issues. One of the issues in this book confidential information is being released to whale oil, not going the media bar. Mainstream media checks and balances and tries to get it right, where is Cameron slated to spotted out however he wants. Very often the comments are anonymous and it is skewered. They have greater liberty to be able to say anything they like. Then mainstream media feeds of this. Why would John Key feed that particular based? I don't think Prime Minister John Key is feeding this based. Cameron told you (!) He admitted 3 to 4 times. John is no different to Helen Clark they love gossip. If they hear tittle tattle they want to find out more. It's more than gossip. There are questions about we're official process has been bypassed. Or speed up. Those questions will have to be asked after the election. There are absolutely questions to ask via. And I hope they do happen there are more documents. Whoever the sources and apparently not Kim Dotcom now. There are more documents in there may be more to come. The unfortunate thing and to get back to the comment made earlier this will continue to be a distraction. Let me challenge you on that. Our snap poll last night - 12% more people say they're likely to vote now they could vote left or right. The danger the National as they are currently polling in the 50s. In 2002, Helen Clark was polling in the 50s. And she was struck down by Nicky Hager's book seeds of distrust. It doesn't take many people to become dissuaded from voting the National for it to become a very close race. John Key will be worried about that. What does John Key need to do about Judith Collins? It's hard to imagine him dismissing her from the ministry right now. She has become a liability to national. She is a millstone around his neck. The tainting his to continued he has to show leadership and show this behaviour is unacceptable. The job of a leader is to draw a line in the sand. Judith Collins exiting would be a swift wafer him to demonstrate that. I don't like her chances in the event that national winds of her getting a position in the panel. COMING UP AFTER THE BREAK ` NATIONAL AND LABOUR FACE OFF ON WHAT TO DO ABOUT OUR POOREST FAMILIES. HOW BIG IS THE PROBLEM? AND WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO HELP OUR MOST VULNERABLE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES? SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT MINISTER PAULA BENNETT WE ALL KNOW THERE ARE FAMILIES DOING IT TOUGH IN NZ. WHAT WE CAN'T SEEM TO AGREE ON IS HOW BIG THE PROBLEM IS, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE, AND ULTIMATELY, WHAT SHOULD BE DONE. BOTH PARTIES ARE CLAIMING TO HAVE THE RIGHT APPROACH THIS ELECTION. CORIN IS WITH SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT MINISTER PAULA BENNETT AND LABOUR'S CHILDREN'S SPOKESPERSON JACINDA ARDERN. Good morning to both of you. Bill English is very keen to try and getresults from the public service. We are trying to make sure we get rheumatic fever under control. Violence against children. Those are the things that matter. We can have this broad child poverty and it sounds a bit wishy-washy to me. We have this huge debate going on in the public are not sure what is going on. We have the household incomes reports that make sure we are on track. We have a 3% decrease. We are heading in the right direction. I am involved in what is happening on the ground and in the lives of these children. Warming up their homes, rheumatic fever. You want to target. We know there is poverty. We want to make sure there is a Set in stone set of measurements. We can use international measures of poverty. It is about putting three healthy meals on the table. How much would they be living off A week? A sole parent gets about $550 a week on a benefit. For one child. Are they considered In poverty? On the sole parent benefit, 75% of them are in poverty. I think there is hardship in those households. Yes, they are poor. They are certainly not rich. The way to conquer there is to get into work and for us to address those hard issues right at the very beginning. I would not think they are living a great life on the benefit. Compare that to someone living in a slum in Mumbai. But it is relative. We have got to look at the housing costs that the people in Auckland are facing. I want to give you an example. I was doing research. One researcher said poverty might be a child who misses out on the cards that you get in the supermarket - the game cards. Is that poverty? I think that trivialise is what is an incredibly important discussion. I think a discussion like that demeans what is an incredibly important issue. I want to come back to what the Minister said about work being the answer. That should be true. One in five children who are in poverty have parents who are working. Under our policies, you will see wages increasing. The average wage will increase by another $7000 over the next few years. It is about giving people the right skills so they can get better paid jobs. Getting people off welfare and into work is the best way to get out of poverty. There is no two ways about it. It might give them all the social benefits and the dignity of having a job, but for the children, they might not be better off. That is where we come in with working for families and accommodation supplements. Breakfast in schools. That extra ` under 13s free for doctors visits. We acknowledge there are some families that are doing it hard. At the end of the day, our focus is on getting people the right skills in the right support so they can get into jobs and we are having is huge success with that. We are having the lowest number of people on sole parent benefits since 1988. We are interested in changing benefit numbers by making sure that people are indecent work and decent wages. All of us want to see people to work. Unless you have an economy where people are being paid decent wages, that transition into work won't make people better off. We have talked about raising the minimum wage to $16.25. An extra two dollars does make a difference. At the moment, taxpayers are subsidising our low-wage economy. We need to start changing the fundamental shape of New Zealand's economy. We are chasing and mopping up and subsidising. We throw billions of dollars at this problem and we still got it and it's really bad. What I would say is we are actually making a difference. I want to go back to be challenged on sole parents being on been Benefits since 1988. I have tested that by every number. The overall system is not working. You still have 200,000 people in poverty. I would say that the system is working. It is complex and hard. We have the lowest number of teen parents. Quick response from you. THAT'S A GOOD PLACE TO PAUSE. WE'LL BE BACK AFTER THE BREAK. Welcome back. The child poverty debate. Paula Bennett, government super for over 65 is is generally regarded as a good programme. Why can't we have a universal payment for children? I believe in targeting. There are many pensioners that don't need the pension either. I believe that families want to get on and be independent from state support. I will focus on them. Is this government doing enough? KidsCan ` you can sponsor children. Most New Zealanders would think that is something you can do with a kid in India. I do not compare the over 65s to what we're doing with children. I think communities want to get involved. They have skills that they can bring in the community to tackling the problem. We have seen into generational poverty in many respects. Your party is quite keen on the idea of universal payments. We have said that we will backs the fact that the government has announced free doctor visits for Under 13-year-olds. What about a baby bonus to someone who was on $140,000? We decided that at year one, that is when most parents experience a change in income. We put on a cap. Can I are some quick questions about the benefit. Is it time to raise the benefit? We have looked at the hardship assistance, but we will not be raising the core benefit. What would you do? The Minister talks about targeting. We have children who are in the lowest form of poverty. They are young children. That is the most important stage of development. There is the one year payment at the beginning, but at years two and three, it becomes targeted. Are you going to increase benefits? THE PANEL'S BACK AFTER THE BREAK, Hang on a second, Paula. The benefits have not been raised since the Ruth Richardson budget. What can we expect in this area? I am not going to tell you that. It is a about us getting ready for a campaign. We have announced on Monday that we are increasing our youth services. I also announced this week a low interest and no interest community fund. You cannot survive once you get into debt. Let's tackle it. How our children live in this country is the top priority for this government. Work, home, families. We will even have a Minister for children at the Cabinet table. We have said we will put into law out targets to reduce poverty. It sounds weak. It sounds like someone who was just going to sit there and angst about children. It is one of the reasons why I am in politics! The benefit of children. Water quality ` bring everyone together and chuck them in the room and come up with an answer. Why can't we do that? I think the economy is most vital to children and their families. It matters the most compared to anything we can do. Children are top priority for our government. If you want us to hold hands and have some cross-party agreement and get on board with some minor thing that happens on the side, when the thing that matters most is Getting a solid job. We have said that in government, we will invite other parties to work with us in finding solutions to child poverty. We need a higher wage economy. There will be situations like the one woman who e-mailed me it was pregnant and her partner left her and she was on sole parent benefit through no fault of their own. Someone in the supermarket said to me because of the policies you put in, I am now working. I have better access to childcare and thank you. Thank you very much for your time. The camera has got here now. THE PANEL'S BACK AFTER THE BREAK, AND WE LOOK BACK AT WHAT WAS MAKING THE POLITICAL NEWS IN 2004 THE DAY DESTINY CHURCH MARCHED ON PARLIAMENT. HOW DARE YOU USE THE CLOAK OF CHRISTIANITY WHEN YOU ARE IMPARTING TO YOUR CHILDREN PREJUDICE, DISCRIMINATION TOWARD PEOPLE LIKE ME ` GAYS AND LESBIANS. WELCOME BACK. Raymond had said to me earlier on that child poverty is an issue that needs cross-party support. No party has got a monopoly on concern for children. Children are voiceless, politically powerless, didn't choose to grow up in the families they grow up in. I do believe that they should be opportunities for the two major parties to come together. Let's look for the issues that we can agree on and I still believe that that can happen. That appeared to be diametrically opposite, but there was some agreement. National does things like universal free children's visits. Even some of the univerality is targeted. You are removing a barrier and it is not just poor children, but also families with high needs children. It is not about throwing a whole lot of money at an issue but if we get to young people and mums early enough, their future is massively changed. Since 1998, there is the lowest number of women on the DPB. It depends how you classify benefits. Governments are quite good at reclassifying things to make things look better. It is a lack of understanding that child poverty is an economic problem. As we have an ageing population, can we afford to condemn a quarter of children? Unless we invest now, we're not going to have a country where people are going to be at their 100%. That is where universality won't work. In Norway, universality does work. We want to tinker and pick groups and target them. Fine. But, actually the results don't change. It does work for the over 65's. Nick is absolutely right. Our children can't be in the workforce and contribute. This is a 20 year big, scary problem. Who was going to support those baby boomers? We need to fix this now. That is why we are targeting a lot of those children in poverty and various young people. Talk about rheumatic fever. The government is trying to identify rheumatic fever and treated early. A small classroom of children and Porirua are condemned to having rheumatic fever each year. It has not changed. Why do you think that is? A lack of coordination. They are not weak words. The kids that are most were vulnerable, if we can invest and make them productive and society in the future, we are all going to win. The government have done things here and there. It is not tinkering. What difference has this made in six years? Let's go beyond Labour and National. Children for the last 30 years have continued to slide downwards. It is how government services are coordinated. We have every agency and every NGO. Why is that? We have not put children at the centre of the agenda. It needs to change. It needs to be all parties. At a community level, the collaboration is so important. Breakfast in schools is so important. It is in partnership with Fonterra, KidsCan and the like and government. It can't be all about government. We have to take some responsibility and look after each other. If you put children at the centre in Newport community is looking after each other amongst it, they know what they need. I think that children have a fundamental right to be fed, clothed and educated. We have the resources to solve these problems. We are a wealthy country. There is no excuse. There are good examples. Politically, I am interested to know what Raymond things about this. Why doesn't it get more political heat in it? I think people get hung up on numbers. We need a good definition of what it is to be poor. The politicians come up with different ideas. We think of poverty as children in the street. People say they have travelled through wherever and they have seen genuine poverty. It is absolutely relative. Here we are arguing over the definition. The numbers of it. I will probably get in trouble for saying this, but I think you will get the Greens climbing into this this afternoon at the campaign launch. In light of this dirty politics debate we are having, it would be good for the greens to climb in with some good policy. BEFORE WE GO, LET'S LOOK BACK AT WHAT WAS MAKING POLITICAL NEWS THIS WEEK IN 2004. THE LABOUR GOVERNMENT WAS PLANNING TO GIVE GAY AND DE FACTO COUPLES THE SAME RIGHTS AS MARRIED COUPLES, PROMPTING DESTINY CHURCH MEMBERS TO MARCH ON PARLIAMENT WITH THEIR 'ENOUGH IS ENOUGH' PROTEST. HERE'S HOW IT UNFOLDED. MARCHING WITH A MESSAGE ` ALL CHANT: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! MORE THAN 7000 CHRISTIANS TAKING TO WELLINGTON STREETS IN PROTEST AT THE CIVIL UNIONS BILL. THEY'RE UPSET AT THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANS TO ALLOW GAY AND DE FACTO COUPLES TO REGISTER THEIR RELATIONSHIP, GIVING THEM THE SAME LEGAL RIGHTS AS MARRIAGE. IT'S NOT A RIGHT; IT'S A WRONG WHEN IT COMES TO PUTTING THIS ALONGSIDE OF WHAT GOD REQUIRES OF GOOD RELATIONSHIPS. BUT THAT MESSAGE, AND THE STYLE OF THE MARCH, UPSET SOME ONLOOKERS. MY GRANDMOTHER WAS LIBERATED, FREED FROM A GESTAPO PRISON! OK? AND THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY'RE PLAYING WITH. THEY'RE PLAYING WITH FIRE, THEY REALLY ARE. IT JUST FRIGHTENS THE HELL OUT OF ME. ABOUT 500 OTHERS SHARING THAT CONCERN ALSO TOOK TO THE STREETS, PASSING JUST METRES FROM THE DESTINY CHURCH CROWD. CROWD CHANTS: HEY-HEY, HO-HO. HOMOPHOBIA'S TIME TO GO. IT IS A MORAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE, AND IT AFFECTS ALL OF US, YOU KNOW? THE PROTEST WAS MOSTLY PEACEFUL. BUT EMOTIONS WERE CLEARLY RUNNING HIGH. CROWD CHANTS HOW DARE YOU USE THE CLOAK OF CHRISTIANITY WHEN YOU ARE IMPARTING TO YOUR CHILDREN PREJUDICE, DISCRIMINATION TOWARD PEOPLE LIKE ME ` GAYS AND LESBIANS. MARAE IS NEXT WITH A REPORT INTO THE LABOUR HELD SEATS OF IKAROA-RAWHITI AND HAURAKI-WAIKATO. HOW SAFE ARE THEY THIS ELECTION? AND Q+A REPEATS TONIGHT AFTER 'SECRET STATE' ON TV ONE. THANKS FOR WATCHING, AND THANKS FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS. THOSE WERE THE QUESTIONS AND THOSE WERE THE ANSWERS. THAT'S Q+A. SEE YOU NEXT SUNDAY MORNING AT 9. CAPTIONS BY JESSICA BOELL AND VIRGINIA PHILP. CAPTIONS WERE MADE POSSIBLE WITH FUNDING FROM NZ ON AIR. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2014