TODAY, SIGNING OFF FROM THE SECURITY COUNCIL PRESIDENCY WITH A STINGING REBUKE. ACTUALLY SOMEONE'S GOT TO STOP THE FIGHTING, AND THAT'S WHERE THE BIG GUYS ON THE COUNCIL HAVE GOT TO GET OVER THEMSELVES. SO WHAT DIFFERENCE HAS LITTLE NZ MADE IN THE BIG CHAIR, AND CAN NZ PROFIT FROM THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL? FOREIGN MINISTER MURRAY MCCULLY TALKS TO TOVA O'BRIEN IN NEW YORK. THEN ALL POLICE ARE TO BE ARMED WITH TASERS. SO WHY NOW, AND WILL THIS MAKE US SAFER OR JUST BREED MORE VIOLENCE? SUPERINTENDENT CHRIS SCAHILL JOINS US. PLUS ` IS THE US ELECTIONS SET FOR A BUSH-CLINTON RERUN? OR IS THERE ANOTHER TO TRUMP THEM BOTH? NANCY GIBBS, THE FIRST WOMAN TO LEAD TIME MAGAZINE, GIVES HER INSIGHT TIPS AND TALKS ABOUT THE FUTURE OF JOURNALISM. AND LATER ` NZ NEEDS MORE TECH STARS. SO WHY ARE SO MANY WOMEN LEAVING THE FIELD? IS IT NATURE, NURTURE OR JUST THE TOYS WE PLAY WITH? AND CAN NANOGIRL MICHELLE DICKINSON TURN THE TIDE? JEREMY CORBETT AND PAUL EGO BRING THEIR SATIRE, AND ON THE PANEL, HEATHER ROY, MIKE WILLIAMS AND SIMON WILSON BRING THEIR ANALYSIS. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2015 IT'S GOOD HAVE YOU WITH US THIS MORNING. YOU CAN HAVE YOUR SAY TODAY JUST BY TEXTING 3330 FOR 50C; OR YOU CAN EMAIL THE NATION AT TV3; OR WE'RE ON TWITTER AND FACEBOOK AT THE NATION TV3. AND CHECK OUR TWITTER PANEL ` HIVE NEWS FOUNDER BERNARD HICKEY AND BLOGGER LAMIA IMAM ON #NATIONTV3. WELL, FOR THE PAST MONTH, NZ'S HELD THE GAVEL AT THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL, THE BODY THAT SPEAKS ON BEHALF OF THE WORLD. IN THAT TIME, THE HISTORIC IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL HAS BEEN SIGNED, AND IN THE PAST WEEK, RUSSIA VETOED MOVES TO LAUNCH A TRIBUNAL INTO WHO DOWNED FLIGHT MH17 OVER UKRAINE. NOW, THAT PROMPTED FOREIGN MINISTER MURRAY MCCULLY TO SAY THE UN HAD FAILED THE VICTIMS, INCLUDING NZER ROB AYLEY, AND ITSELF. SO WHAT HAVE WE BEEN ABLE TO DO TO REIN IN THE WORLD'S KEY POWERS, AND WITH SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN TO BE LIFTED, IS THERE MONEY TO BE MADE? WELL, 3 NEWS POLITICAL REPORTER TOVA O'BRIEN HAS BEEN IN NEW YORK THIS WEEK, AND WHEN SHE SAT DOWN WITH FOREIGN MINISTER MURRAY MCCULLY ON OUR LAST DAY IN CHARGE, SHE ASKED WHAT HOPE THERE WAS THAT THE FAMILIES OF MH17 VICTIMS WOULD SEE JUSTICE. OH, I THINK THERE'S STILL SOME HOPE, ALL RIGHT. THE COUNTRIES THAT ARE DRIVING THIS` THE JIT COUNTRIES, AS THEY CALL THEMSELVES, LEADING THE INVESTIGATION, ARE CLEARLY GOING TO LOOK AT THE OPTIONS, AND THEY'LL MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHETHER THEY WANT TO TRY AND PIGGYBACK OFF THE JURISDICTION OF ANOTHER COUNTRY AS THEY CAN. THOSE THINGS ALL LOOK OK, BUT THE BRICK WALL YOU HIT IS HOW DO YOU GET YOUR HANDS ON THE ALLEGED CULPRITS? THAT'S WHY THE SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ROUTE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE BEST WAY TO PROCEED, BECAUSE IT DOES GIVE YOU THE BEST CHANCE OF GETTING YOUR HANDS ON THOSE WHO YOU WANT TO HOLD TO ACCOUNT. AND IF YOU HEAR WHAT THE RUSSIAN REPRESENTATIVE SAID IN THE DEBATE, HE WAS QUITE CAREFUL THAT ONE OF THE REASONS THEY WERE RELUCTANT WAS THAT THE INVESTIGATION REPORTS WOULD BE AVAILABLE SOMETIME IN OCTOBER, AND IT WAS TOO SOON TO MAKE A DECISION UNTIL THEY'D SEEN THEM. BUT THERE'S ALSO A CHANCE THAT RUSSIA COULD BE FOUND CULPABLE IN THAT INVESTIGATION. YOU'D THINK THE SECURITY COUNCIL COULD HAVE ANOTHER CRACK AT IT, BUT CAN YOU GUARANTEE THOSE FAMILIES OF THE MH17 CRASH VICTIMS, THAT THEY WILL GET JUSTICE? WELL, IT IS INFURIATING, AND IT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH IN TERMS OF UN PROCESS. LOOK, THE COUNTRIES THAT ARE DRIVING THE INVESTIGATION OBVIOUSLY MADE THE DECISION THAT IF THE RUSSIANS WEREN'T GOING TO AGREE TO A TRIBUNAL NOW, THEY PROBABLY WON'T LATER. WE'RE ON THE COUNCIL, AND SO OUR JOB IS TO TRY AND MAKE SURE THAT WE DO GET RUSSIA TO CONSIDER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL TRIBUNAL LATER ON, BUT THE` THERE'S NOTHING TO SAY THEY WON'T SLAP DOWN THAT VETO AGAIN? NO. NO GUARANTEE, AND THERE'S ALSO THE PROSPECT, IN THE MEANTIME, THE INVESTIGATING COUNTRIES WILL FIND ANOTHER ROUTE, AND WE'LL CERTAINLY SUPPORT THAT IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. IT CERTAINLY RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THE SECURITY COUNCIL IS BROKEN, IS DEADLOCKED AS WELL OVER THE HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN SYRIA. BAN KI-MOON, THE HEAD OF THE UN, YESTERDAY SAID` CALLED IT SHAMEFUL. YOU'VE SAID YOURSELF THAT IT CALLS INTO QUESTION THE CREDIBILITY OF THE COUNCIL. SO IS THE SECURITY COUNCIL NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE? OH, IT'S CLEAR THAT THE SECURITY COUNCIL FAILS FAR TOO OFTEN. AS I SAID, IT FAILED IN RELATION TO THE MALAYSIAN AIRLINER. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A SIMPLE MATTER OF SAYING, 'WE'RE IN FAVOUR OF ACCOUNTABILITY,' BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY ONE ALTERNATIVE, AND THAT'S IMPUNITY FOR THOSE WHO CARRIED OUT THIS ACT. BUT BIG QUESTIONS LIKE SYRIA ` FIVE YEARS NOW ` 220,000-ODD PEOPLE HAVE DIED, AND THE COUNCIL ARE HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT CHEMICAL WEAPONS, WHICH HAS BEEN A BIT MORE FRUITFUL. THE HUMANITARIAN DISCUSSIONS TAKE PLACE, BUT ACTUALLY, SOMEONE'S GOT TO STOP THE FIGHTING. AND THAT'S WHERE THE BIG GUYS ON THE COUNCIL HAVE GOT TO GET OVER THEMSELVES A BIT. AND WE'VE TRIED TO ENCOURAGE THAT WITHOUT BEING UNDULY RUDE ABOUT IT, BUT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY ARE NOT BEING MET. YOU CAN'T HAVE THIS ONGOING SAGA OF SYRIA, IRAQ, YEMEN, LIBYA, WITH THE COUNCIL DECLARING ITSELF TO BE PARALYSED, AND WE'VE GOT TO FIND A BETTER WAY OF GETTING THE COUNCIL TO PERFORM. SO TO THAT END ` I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT LOFTY DREAMS TO REFORM THE VETO, SO WHY DON'T YOU MAKE A COMMITMENT RIGHT NOW THAT DURING OUR TERM ON THE SECURITY COUNCIL, < YOU WILL ACHIEVE VETO REFORM, EVEN IF JUST AT THE MARGINS? I'D LOVE TO MAKE THAT COMMITMENT, BUT I COULDN'T GUARANTEE I COULD CARRY IT OUT. IF I COULD, I WOULD. BECAUSE IT'S TOO HYPER-AMBITIOUS, IS IT? WELL, IT'S AMBITIOUS, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THE FIVE COUNTRIES THAT HAVE THE VETO TO SURRENDER IT. NO ONE BELIEVES THAT. FOR A START, ANY SUCH PROPOSAL'S GOING TO GET VETOED, IRONICALLY, BUT THERE ARE WAYS OF GETTING THEM TO BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY WITH THE VETO. THE FRENCH HAVE ALREADY MADE A START BY SAYING THEY'LL VOLUNTARILY SURRENDER THE VETO IN SITUATIONS WHERE THERE ARE MASS ATROCITIES IN PROSPECT. YEAH, THEY ALMOST NEVER USE THE VETO ANYWAY. WELL, THAT'S RIGHT. AND THE BRITS HAVE ACTUALLY GOT QUITE A MODERATE VIEW ON THIS THEMSELVES. AND SO WE'RE WORKING WITH THEM. WE, AS YOU KNOW, HOSTED AN INFORMAL LUNCH OF THE PERMANENT REPS OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL COUNTRIES TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT NOT JUST THE VETO, BUT HOW WE COULD TRY AND GET THE COUNCIL TO BE MORE EFFECTIVE. THERE ARE A WHOLE BUNCH OF COMPLEX REASONS WHY THE COUNCIL ISN'T EFFECTIVE, AND THE VETO'S JUST ONE OF THEM ` IT'S THE BIGGEST ONE, BUT IT IS ONLY ONE. AND WE'RE TRYING TO WORK ON ALL THESE ANGLES IN THE TIME WE'RE ON THE COUNCIL. WE'RE BEING AMBITIOUS. I'M NOT GOING TO APOLOGISE FOR THAT. OK, I WANT TO MOVE ON TO IRAN NOW. CRITICS SAY THAT THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL IS GIVING LEGITIMACY TO AN ILLEGITIMATE REGIME AND GOING SO FAR AS TO SAY THAT IT'S STRENGTHENING ONE THAT IS OPPRESSIVE, BRUTAL AND EVEN ANTIS-SEMITIC. DO THEY HAVE A POINT? OH, LOOK, I THINK THE IRAN DEAL ACTUALLY GETS US TO A POINT WHERE IF IT'S RATIFIED BY THE US CONGRESS, WE MIGHT SEE A RESETTING OF RELATIONSHIPS IN THE REGION AND OPEN THE DOOR TO SOME SORT OF RESOLUTION ON SYRIA IN PARTICULAR, AND SOME OF THE OTHER BIG PROBLEMS IN THE REGION. YOU'VE GOT THE SAME ACTORS, ACTUALLY, INVOLVED IN MOST OF THESE DISPUTES ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, AND SO IF YOU CAN ACTUALLY HIT THAT RESET BUTTON, ALL SORTS OF OTHER THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. NOW, I CAN'T SAY THAT I'M CERTAIN THAT THE BALL'S GOING TO BOUNCE IN A POSITIVE DIRECTION, BUT IT COULD. CERTAINLY, I THINK IT'S IN IRAN'S INTERESTS THAT THEY SHOULD SEIZE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO RESET RELATIONSHIPS IN THE REGION. THE SORT OF LEVEL OF ECONOMIC WEALTH THAT THEY ARE GOING TO ACHIEVE AS A RESULT OF THE SANCTIONS GOING GIVES THEM A CHANCE TO SPEND THAT MONEY ON GOOD THINGS OR BAD THINGS. AND I'M AN OPTIMIST, AND I HOPE IT'S GOING TO BE THE FORMER. YOU'RE KIND OF AVOIDING MY QUESTION, BUT YOU TOUCHED ON IT A BIT THERE. IRAN DOES FUND TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS. LIFTING ECONOMIC SANCTIONS COULD BOOST` RELEASE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO THEIR ECONOMY. THEY COULD USE THAT TO BUILD A BOMB IN 15 YEARS WHEN THE DEAL LIFTS. THEY COULD EVEN BUILD A BIGGER BOMB BECAUSE THEY'RE GOT MORE MONEY THEN, SO SURELY THAT'S WORRYING. LOOK, THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM FOR NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION ON EVENTS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE, BUT I GUESS THE QUESTION THAT I KEEP ASKING IS WHY WOULD THEY BOTHER SPENDING SO MUCH TIME NEGOTIATING IN VIENNA AND OTHER PLACES TO COME TO AN ARRANGEMENT YOU'VE SEEN THE DIFFICULTIES` THEY DO IT BECAUSE IT'S BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. YEAH, BUT ACTUALLY, IF THEY'RE NOT SERIOUS ABOUT IT, COUNTRIES ARE GOING TO NOTICE. THOSE SNAPBACK PROVISIONS IN RELATION TO THE SANCTIONS SENT A PRETTY CLEAR SIGNAL ` THAT IF THERE'S NO FOLLOW THROUGH, THEN THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES. YOU KNOW, WE KNOW THEY'RE INVOLVED IN SYRIA; WE KNOW THEY'RE INVOLVED IN OTHER TROUBLE SPOTS THERE. WE NEED THEM NOW TO ACCEPT THAT THE LIFTING OF THE SANCTIONS PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY THAT THEY HAVE GOT TO TAKE, AND THEY'VE GOT TO SHIFT THE WAY THEY BEHAVE IN THE REGION AS WELL. WHAT'S TO SAY THEY WON'T BUILD A BOMB IN 15 YEARS? WHERE'S THE LINE THAT SAYS 'IRAN WILL NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR BOMB IN 15 YEARS'? YEAH, LOOK, I ACTUALLY THINK THE 10-YEAR HORIZON'S PROBABLY NOT SO IMPORTANT IN THIS. I THINK THAT YOU'LL FIND OUT IN THE FIRST FEW YEARS WHETHER THE PARTIES ARE SERIOUS ABOUT WANTING TO GET ON WITH EACH OTHER, WHETHER THEY ACTUALLY CAN SEE THAT THEY'VE GOT BETTER THINGS TO DO WITH THEIR TIME OR THEIR MONEY THAN FIGHT WITH EACH OTHER. AGAIN, WE CAN'T BE SURE, BUT WE'VE GOT TO` IF THERE'S A SERIOUS CHANCE THAT WE CAN SEE SOME SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT THERE, WE'VE GOT TO TAKE IT. SO WHAT ABOUT TRADE WITH IRAN, BECAUSE THERE'S HUGE POTENTIAL THERE, ISN'T THERE, FOR NZ? WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE TRADE BOOSTED WITH IRAN? YEAH, NZ ACTUALLY HASN'T BEEN FORMALLY AFFECTED BY THE SANCTIONS TOO MUCH, BECAUSE THE SORT OF FOOD WE PRODUCE HASN'T BEEN THE SUBJECT OF SANCTIONS. BUT THE IMPACT OF THE BANKING SANCTIONS ON OTHER COUNTRIES HAS BEEN THAT NZ BANKS WHICH ARE OFFSHORE-OWNED HAVE BEEN PRETTY MUCH UNABLE TO HANDLE THE TRADE. SO, YES, THERE'S A CHANCE FOR NZ AGRICULTURE IN PARTICULAR, BUT OTHER SECTORS AS WELL, TO DO WELL IN WHAT IS A PRETTY BIG, SOPHISTICATED MARKET. BUT, OF COURSE, EVERYONE ELSE IS QUEUING UP THERE TOO. IN THE '70S IRAN TOOK 60% OF OUR LAMBS, SO THERE IS POTENTIAL THERE. THERE IS. AND THE NATION UNDERSTANDS THAT BIG NZ COMPANIES LIKE FONTERRA, TEGEL, SILVER FERN FARMS, THEY'RE ALL LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITIES, SO WHAT ARE YOUR HOPES FOR NZ COMPANIES TRADING WITH IRAN? LOOK, THOSE COMPANIES ARE MOSTLY INVOLVED THERE NOW BUT NOT IN THE WAY AND ON THE SCALE THAT THEY WOULD HOPE. BUT, LOOK, PEOPLE HAVE SEEN THIS OPPORTUNITY COMING. WHAT NEXT FOR THEM? WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO GET? WELL, I KNOW THAT NZ TRADE AND ENTERPRISE AND THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS HAVE BEEN GIVING A LOT OF THOUGHT TO THIS. FONTERRA HAVE. ALL I CAN SAY TO YOU IS THAT IF THIS THING DOES STICK, AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE A WHILE ` THERE'S ANOTHER FEW MONTHS TO GO BEFORE WE SEE ANY SANCTIONS LIFTED ` BUT IF THAT DOES HAPPEN, THE OPPORTUNITIES ARE SIGNIFICANT IN THE SHORT-TERM AND EVEN BIGGER LONG-TERM. SO ARE THERE NO CONCERNS ABOUT BOOSTING TRADE WITH A COUNTRY WITH AN ABYSMAL HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD < AND A COUNTRY THAT FUNDS TERRORISM? WELL, I MEAN, AGAIN, WE APPROACH THESE THINGS ON THE BASIS THAT IF WE'RE ABLE TO TALK TO OTHER COUNTRIES AND TRADE WITH THEM, WE'RE BETTER ABLE TO INFLUENCE THEM. THE QUESTION I ALWAYS ASK MYSELF ABOUT THESE THINGS IS ` IF I DO WHAT'S PROPOSED, WILL WE BECOME PART OF THE PROBLEM OR PART OF THE SOLUTION? SO BY TRADING WITH IRAN, WE'RE SOMEHOW GOING TO BE ABLE TO PERSUADE THEM TO STOP BEHEADING PEOPLE, TO STOP FUNDING TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS? NOT WITHIN A WEEK OR TWO, BUT I THINK THAT IS THE IMPACT. WE SEE THIS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS AS WELL ` WHERE COUNTRIES SEE THEMSELVES HAVING A STAKE IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, THEY START TO ACCEPT ITS RULE. NOT IMMEDIATELY ` TAKES TIME ` BUT AS I SAY, I THINK WE BECOME PART OF THE SOLUTION IF WE HAVE DIALOGUE, IF WE HAVE ENGAGEMENT. AND JUST A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS TOUCHING ON THAT. BENJAMIN NETANYAHU IS BITTERLY OPPOSED, OBVIOUSLY, TO THE DEAL. HE SAYS THAT ISRAEL WEREN'T AT THE TABLE BUT WERE, IN FACT, ON THE MENU. IS NETANYAHU RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED, OR IS HE COMPLETELY OUT OF ORDER? YEAH, LOOK, I'VE HAD A MEETING WITH PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU IN JERUSALEM ONLY A FEW WEEKS AGO, AND I GOT THE BENEFIT OF HIS VIEWS IN SIGNIFICANT DETAIL AND WITH SOME FORCE. AND, LOOK, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, YOU CAN SEE WHY ISRAEL IS CONCERNED, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD MAKE THE MISTAKE OF THINKING NO ONE ELSE CARES ABOUT ISRAEL'S SECURITY EITHER. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN ON EVERYONE ELSE'S MINDS, AND I KNOW THE US, IN PARTICULAR, WHO HAVE A STRONG SECURITY RELATIONSHIP THERE. WE ACTUALLY NEED ISRAEL TO TRY AND SEE ITS WAY THROUGH THE IMPASSE THAT IT HAS WITH MANY OF ITS ARAB NEIGHBOURS. THERE IS, IN FACT, NOW, IF THE IRAN DEAL STICKS, AN OPPORTUNITY` AND IF IRAN FOLLOWS THROUGH, PROVING ITS RELATIONSHIPS IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD, THERE REALLY IS A CHANCE FOR ISRAEL NOT JUST TO FIND A PEACE WITH THESE COUNTRIES BUT ALSO TO BECOME A SIGNIFICANT TRADING PARTNER. WE ARE ONE OF THE FEW COUNTRIES THAT HAS VERY GOOD RELATIONS WITH BOTH ISRAEL AND PALESTINE. WE NEED TO PUT SOME VALUE ON THAT AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ACTUALLY PLAY A CONSTRUCTIVE ROLE. WELL, JUST AHEAD ` IS EVERYTHING COMING UP TRUMPED? WE TALK TO TIME MAGAZINE EDITOR NANCY GIBBS ABOUT THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND THE FUTURE OF THE MEDIA. BUT NEXT ` IS THE POLICE DECISION TO ARM THEMSELVES WITH TASERS A STEP TOWARDS GUNS? BACK SOON. WELCOME BACK. WELL, ON FRIDAY, POLICE COMMISSIONER MIKE BUSH ANNOUNCED ALL FRONT-LINE POLICE OFFICERS WILL NOW BE ARMED WITH TASERS. WELL, FOR A COUNTRY THAT HAS LONG PRIDED ITSELF ON HAVING POLICE ON THE BEAT WHO WEREN'T ROUTINELY ARMED, IT IS A HUGE CHANGE. AND TO DISCUSS IT NOW, I'M JOINED BY NATIONAL OPERATIONS AND RESPONSE MANAGER SUPERINTENDENT CHRIS SCAHILL. THANKS FOR JOINING US. WHY NOW? WHY THIS DECISION NOW? WELL, LOOK, I GUESS WE'VE HAD TASERS IN PLACE NOW FOR FIVE YEARS, AND WE NOW FEEL WE HAVE A REALLY ROBUST EVIDENCE BASE WITH QUITE A LOT OF DATA OVER THE USE AND CARRIAGE OF TASER OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS BY OUR STAFF TO NOW MAKE THAT DECISION TO HAVE STAFF ROUTINELY CARRYING TASERS. AND THIS IS FRONT-LINE RESPONSE STAFF. SO WHY DO THEY NEED THEM? IS IT MORE DANGEROUS FOR POLICE OFFICERS OUT THERE? ARE WE SEEING MORE ASSAULTS? THIS IS AROUND JUST ENSURING THAT SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC AND THE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH AND OFFICERS THEMSELVES. ASSAULTS ON POLICE HAVE BEEN COMING DOWN OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, BUT THIS IS ABOUT ENSURING THAT THE TASER IS ACCESSIBLE TO ALL OF OUR FRONT-LINE STAFF FOR THOSE HIGHER-LEVEL ASSAULTIVE TYPE SITUATIONS WHERE THEY MAY BE CALLED UPON TO GIVE A RESPONSE. BUT IF YOUR OWN STATS SHOW THAT ASSAULTS ON POLICE OFFICERS ARE TRENDING DOWNWARDS, AS ARE YOUR CRIME STATS TRENDING DOWNWARDS, WHY DO YOU NEED THIS? WHY DO YOU NEED EVERY OFFICER TO BE ARMED WITH A TASER ON THE FRONT LINE? WELL, I WOULD SAY AROUND OUR OFFICERS, ONE ASSAULT ON POLICE IS STILL TOO MANY, AND ONE VIOLENT SITUATION OR HIGHLY VIOLENT SITUATION INVOLVING VICTIMS, OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, IS OBVIOUSLY ONE TOO MANY. THIS IS AN EXTREMELY EFFECTIVELY TACTICAL OPTION AT THE HIGHER LEVEL FOR OUR STAFF, WHICH EFFECTIVELY RESOLVES SOME FAIRLY TENSE AND UGLY SITUATIONS THAT OUR STAFF ARE STILL DEALING WITH UP AND DOWN THE LENGTH OF THE COUNTRY EVERY DAY. WELL, THIS IS A 50,000-VOLT, POTENTIALLY FATAL WEAPON. I MEAN, WHAT UNDERTAKING CAN YOU GIVE THE PUBLIC THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SEE MORE CASES LIKE THE ONES THAT WERE AT THE IPCA LAST YEAR, WHICH FOUND THAT YOU HAD USED TASERS ILLEGALLY AND EXCESSIVELY? HOW CAN YOU GUARANTEE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE MORE OF THOSE CASES? LOOK, GUARANTEE-WISE, EVERY TACTICAL OPTION IS STILL GOING TO CARRY ITS RISKS NO MATTER WHAT IS BEING USED. WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT WE'VE HAD AN EXTREMELY LOW RATE OF UPHELD COMPLAINTS IN RELATION TO THE USE OF TASER. WE HAVE USED THE TASER AS` SHOWN THE TASER, PRESENTED THE TASER JUST OVER 4000 TIMES IN THE FIVE YEARS THAT IT'S BEEN INTRODUCED. WE HAVE ACTUALLY DISCHARGED THE TASER AROUND 500 TIMES IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS. SO FOR EXAMPLE, OVER THE LAST 12 MONTHS, WE HAVE ONLY HAD NINE COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE USE OF THE TASER. AND OF THOSE, THE VAST MAJORITY WERE NOT UPHELD. ONLY TWO OUT OF THE NINE WERE ACTUALLY UPHELD. SO, CAN I GIVE YOU 100% GUARANTEE? OBVIOUSLY NOT. BUT THE RATE OF INJURY, THE RATE OF RISK WITH THIS TACTICAL OPTION IS EXTREMELY LOW. WELL, CAN YOU GIVE 100% GUARANTEE THAT VIOLENCE AGAINST THE PUBLIC WILL COME DOWN AS A RESULT OF THIS NEW POLICY, THEN? (CHUCKLES) YEAH, I'M SORRY, LISA. I'M NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF GIVING GUARANTEES, BUT I HAVE TO SAY THAT ALL INDICATIONS` BUT YOU DID SAY. YOU DID SAY THAT EVIDENCE WAS IT WOULD COME DOWN. SO CAN YOU GUARANTEE THAT? I THINK ALL INDICATIONS ARE THAT IT WILL COME DOWN, WILL CONTINUE TO COME DOWN ` BOTH VIOLENT SITUATIONS ENCOUNTERED BY THE PUBLIC, AND ALSO THE ASSAULTS ON STAFF. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, FOR EVERY NINE PRESENTATIONS OF TASER THAT AN OFFICER MAKES, IT'S ONLY NEEDING TO BE FIRED ONCE; THE OTHER EIGHT OCCASIONS, THE SIMPLE PRESENTATION OF THE TASER EFFECTIVELY RESOLVED THE SITUATION, WHICH MAKES IT SAFER FOR ALL. CRITICS OF TASERS WOULD ARGUE THAT THIS IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE. IF YOU HAVE A TASER ON THE HIP OF EVERY FRONT-LINE OFFICER, IT'S MORE LIKELY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO USE IT TO SOLVE SITUATIONS. OH, LOOK, NO, THE POLICY AROUND OUR USE OF TACTICAL OPTIONS AND THE LEVEL AT WHICH WE WILL USE THEM REMAINS THE SAME. SO THERE'S VERY CLEAR CONTROLS AND GUIDELINES AROUND THAT FOR OUR STAFF. THEY USE THE TASER FOR HIGHER LEVEL ASSAULT SITUATIONS AND BEYOND. THAT'S A CLEAR MODEL WITHIN OUR TACTICAL OPTIONS FRAMEWORK. AND FIRST AND FOREMOST, OUR STAFF ARE COMMUNICATING WITH PEOPLE. THAT'S STILL OUR GREATEST TACTICAL OPTION. DOES THIS MEAN WE'RE A STEP CLOSER, THEN, TO HAVING FIREARMS ON EVERY OFFICER ON THE FRONT LINE? NO, NOT AT ALL. AND I THINK YOU HEARD THE COMMISSIONER SAY ON FRIDAY MORNING ` AND I CERTAINLY HAVE THE SAME VIEW ` THAT I WOULD HOPE THAT WE DO NOT MOVE TO THE GENERAL ARMING OF POLICE. AND CERTAINLY, IT WON'T BE, AT THIS STAGE. THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A SIGNIFICANT DEGRADING OF OUR ENVIRONMENT TO SEE THAT HAPPEN. OK, WELL, IT'S GOING TO COST ABOUT, I THINK, $600,000 TO GET THE EXTRA TASERS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO ARM THE OFFICERS. THAT WOULD PAY FOR 13 EXTRA FRONT-LINE POLICE OFFICERS. WHICH WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE ` THE TASERS OR THE EXTRA POLICE OFFICERS? I THINK THE EXPONENTIAL POSITIVE IMPACT WE WILL HAVE FROM THE TASERS GIVES THE CLEAR ARGUMENT AS TO THE ROUTINE ARMING AND EXPANDING OF OUR TASER FLEET TO MEET THE LEVEL OF BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE A TASER TO EVERY FRONT-LINE RESPONSE STAFF MEMBER IN NZ POLICE. THIS WILL PROVIDE POSITIVE BENEFITS FOR OUR STAFF, FOR THE PUBLIC. AND AS I SAY, I AM QUITE CONFIDENT WE WILL SEE A FURTHER REDUCTION IN THOSE VIOLENT INCIDENTS, A DECREASE OF VICTIMS, AND SAFER FOR STAFF. THANKS FOR JOINING US TODAY. THAT'S SUPERINTENDENT CHRIS SCAHILL. THANK YOU. NOW, CHANGING TACK NOW. NANCY GIBBS IS THE FIRST WOMAN TO LEAD THE ICONIC TIME MAGAZINE. WHAT'S MORE, SHE'S LEADING IT INTO THE DIGITAL AGE, WITH HER APPOINTMENT IN 2013 HERALDING A SHAKE-UP IN THE MAGAZINE'S ONLINE OFFERINGS. AND IF THAT WASN'T ENOUGH, HER COVER STORY THIS WEEK IS ONE OF HER MANY WORKS ON US PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS, WHICH INCLUDES TWO FASCINATING BOOKS. SHE'S IN NZ AS THE FULBRIGHT FELLOW, AND SHE JOINS ME NOW. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. NICE TO BE WITH YOU. THIS WEEK'S TIME COVER. WE'VE GOT IT HERE WITH BUSH AND CLINTON ON THE FRONT COVER. JUST NOT HILLARY AND JEB. SO IS THIS AN APPLIED PREDICTION OF HOW IT'S GOING TO END UP? IT'S NOT, ALTHOUGH WE JUST NEVER COULD HAVE IMAGINED A MOMENT IN HISTORY, WHERE YOU COULD HAVE TWO FORMER PRESIDENTS FROM DIFFERENT PARTIES WHO HAVE BECOME FRIENDS WITH ONE ANOTHER NOW SITTING ON THE SIDELINES, WITH THE PROSPECT THAT ONE MAN'S WIFE AND THE OTHER MAN'S BROTHER MIGHT BE` END UP FIGHTING IT OUT TO GET THE JOB THAT BOTH OF THEM HAVE HELD. YOU JUST COULDN'T MAKE THIS UP IF YOU WERE WRITING A SCREENPLAY. AND SO WE WANTED TO SIT DOWN WITH THE TWO OF THEM AND SEE WHAT THIS CAMPAIGN, AT THIS VERY EARLY STAGE, LOOKS LIKE FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE THEY REALLY DO HAVE A UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE ON IT. YEAH, AND AS YOU POINT OUT IN THIS ARTICLE, NINE OUT OF THE 10 LAST PRESIDENTIAL RACES, YOU EITHER HAD A BUSH OR A CLINTON FEATURED IN IT, AND YOU'VE GOT GEORGE CALLING BILL 'THE BROTHER FROM ANOTHER MOTHER.' IS THIS KIND OF SOMETHING THAT IS WRONG WITH AMERICAN POLITICS ` THIS SORT OF DYNASTY AND POWER CONCENTRATED IN A HANDFUL OF FAMILIES? IT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT A LOT OF AMERICAN VOTERS HAVE EXPRESSED SOME DISCOMFORT WITH, AND THE POLLING GOING IN THIS CAMPAIGN HAS CONSISTENTLY SHOWN THAT PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE A MUCH WIDER RANGE OF CHOICES THAN JUST PEOPLE WITH TWO VERY FAMILIAR LAST NAMES. SO, YOU KNOW, HAVING SAID THAT, REPUBLICAN PARTY SO FAR HAS SERVED UP 16 CANDIDATES RUNNING, AND SO IF IT ENDS UP THAT ` AND IT'S WAY TOO SOON TO KNOW ` IF IT ENDS UP A BUSH IS RUNNING AGAINST A CLINTON, IT WILL NOT BE BECAUSE VOTERS DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE TO GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. BUT IS THERE`? IS THERE A PATH TO VICTORY FOR A PARTY THAT CHOOSES TO THROW UP A REALLY FRESH FACE? I THINK THERE ABSOLUTELY IS, AND THE EVIDENCE OF THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED, YOU KNOW, IN 2008, WHEN HERE COMES BARACK OBAMA, WHO HAD BEEN VIRTUALLY COMPLETELY UNKNOWN. HE HAD ONLY BEEN ELECTED TO THE SENATE TWO YEARS BEFORE, WHO VIRTUALLY COMES OUT OF NOWHERE. AT THAT POINT HILLARY CLINTON WAS AHEAD BY 30 POINTS IN THE POLLS, AND HE ENDS UP WINNING THE NOMINATION. SO THERE'S AN IMMEDIATE PRECEDENT FOR SOMEONE COMING FROM BEHIND AND ENDING UP PREVAILING AND GETTING THE NOMINATION OF THEIR PARTY. BUT DO WE SEE THESE NAMES AND THESE FAMILIES OVER AND OVER AGAIN BECAUSE IT COMES DOWN TO MONEY ` THE PEOPLE WHO CAN RAISE THE MONEY TO RUN IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? WELL, THE ROLE OF MONEY IN OUR CAMPAIGNS, AS YOU KNOW, HAS BEEN QUITE A CONTENTIOUS ONE, AND AT THE MOMENT THE ABILITY OF A LOT OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE TO RAISE MONEY OR TO FIND A BILLIONAIRE TO SUPPORT THEM HAS BECOME MORE AND MORE COMMON. SO, NO, THERE REALLY ISN'T A FINANCIAL MONOPOLY EVEN TO THESE TWO FAMILIES WHO BOTH HAVE EXTREMELY SOPHISTICATED AND EFFECTIVE FUNDRAISING NETWORKS. SO I DON'T THINK IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO MONEY. I THINK IT'S A FUNNY THING THAT IN SOME WAYS, YOU KNOW, A BRAND NAME IS VALUABLE AND COMFORTABLE. IT SORT OF DEPENDS ON THE MOOD OF THE COUNTRY WELL, WHILE WE'RE ON THE TOPIC OF MONEY ` DONALD TRUMP, BECAUSE HE'S GOT LOTS OF MONEY` AS HE KEEPS TELLING US. AND HE'S AHEAD IN THE POLLS. IS HE A FLASH IN THE PAN, OR IS THERE SOMETHING MORE TO HIM? WELL, SO, LAST TIME AROUND IN THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATING RACE, THERE WAS A DIFFERENT SUPERNOVA EVERY WEEK, AND SO WE ARE SORT OF ACCUSTOMED TO THIS. THAT ESPECIALLY AT THESE VERY EARLY STAGES, PEOPLE WILL RISE AND FALL ` SOMETIMES VERY SURPRISING FIGURES. I THINK FOR SHEER ENTERTAINMENT VALUE, IT'S HARD TO BEAT SOMEONE LIKE DONALD TRUMP, WHICH IS WHY HERE WE ARE IN NZ TALKING ABOUT HIM, AND IT` ONE RECENT SURVEY FOUND OUT THAT HE HAS HAD MORE AIRTIME ON THE EVENING NEWS IN THE US THAN ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES COMBINED. WELL, WHEN HE SAYS THINGS LIKE THIS` I MEAN ONE OF THE THINGS HE SAID IS 'WHEN MEXICO SENDS ITS PEOPLE, THEY'RE NOT SENDING THEIR BEST. 'THEY'RE BRINGING DRUGS, AND THEY'RE BRINGING CRIME, AND THEY'RE RAPISTS.' AND THEN YOU'VE ALSO GOT MIKE HUCKABEE TALKING ABOUT OBAMA AND THE IRANIANS, SAYING THAT OBAMA, 'HE WILL TAKE THE ISRAELIS AND MARCH THEM TO THE DOOR OF THE OVEN.' IS THAT KIND OF POLITICS OF OUTRAGE WHAT IT HAS COME DOWN TO? IS THAT HOW YOU GET NOTICED IN THAT POLITICAL LANDSCAPE? I THINK THAT THE ISSUE OF OUTRAGE` WE'RE LIVING IN AN AGE OF OUTRAGE. ALL ANYONE HAS TO DO IS GO ON TO TWITTER AND LOOK AT THE CONTINUOUS VOLUME OF FURY THAT MANY OF OUR POLITICAL SYSTEMS SEEM TO BE GENERATING, AND IT'S EASY TO BE DISTURBED BY THAT. IT'S ALSO TRUE, I THINK, AGAIN AT THIS VERY EARLY STAGE, YOU DO HAVE CANDIDATES WHO ARE DESPERATELY TRYING TO SEPARATE THEMSELVES AND GET ATTENTION. AND AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE FIRST OF THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES IS HAPPENING NEXT WEEK, AND BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY CANDIDATES, ONLY THE ONES IN THE TOP 10 CAN BE IN THE DEBATE, WHICH REALLY GIVES THEM ALL AN INCENTIVE TO SAY SOMETHING THAT IS OUTRAGEOUS AND THAT GETS THEM A LOT OF ATTENTION JUST IN HOPES OF GETTING OVER THAT THRESHOLD. IN THE TIME WE'VE GOT LEFT, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT CHANGING MEDIA. NOW, WE'VE GOT YOUR MAGAZINE FROM THIS WEEK, AND HOLDING IT IN YOUR HAND, IT'S A DIFFERENT KIND OF EXPERIENCE. IT'S A REAL TACTILE EXPERIENCE, DIFFERENT TO READING SOMETHING ONLINE. BUT DO YOU THINK ANYONE WILL BE WAVING A MAGAZINE AROUND IN 20 YEARS' TIME? I DO. IT'S AN` IN A WAY, I DON'T CARE. WHAT I CARE ABOUT IS THAT THE AUDIENCE FOR IMPORTANT, SERIOUS, FASCINATING STORIES CONTINUES TO GROW. AND SO WHAT'S MOST EXCITING TO ME IS THAT I HAVE THE BIGGEST AUDIENCE THAT TIME HAS EVER HAD IN ITS ENTIRE HISTORY, AND SOME OF IT IS CONSUMING OUR CONTENT IN PRINT AND SOME IN DIGITAL AND SOME IN VIDEO, AND THERE HAS NEVER BEEN MORE WAYS TO TELL IMPORTANT STORIES. SO HOW MUCH OF OUR AUDIENCE IS ON WHAT PLATFORM, I DON'T CARE AS MUCH ABOUT. MANY OF THEM AREN'T PAYING FOR IT. SO HOW DO YOU MAKE THE JOURNALISM PAY? SO THAT IS A DIFFERENT AND VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION THAT ALL OF US ARE FACING ` WHAT IS THE BUSINESS MODEL TO SUPPORT JOURNALISM GOING FORWARD? AND IT KEEPS ON SHIFTING. FORTUNATELY, OUR PRINT PLATFORM IS STILL VERY ROBUST. IT'S ACTUALLY GROWING THIS YEAR, EVEN AS THE DIGITAL IS GROWING EVEN FASTER, AND THE VIDEO IS GROWING FASTEST OF ALL. I THINK THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE SHIFTING AND RISING AND FALLING AS BUDGETS SHIFT. I DON'T WANT TO GET A POINT WHERE JOURNALISM BECOMES A SORT OF A CHARITABLE ENTERPRISE THAT HAS TO BE SUPPORTED BY BENEVOLENT PATRONS OR FOUNDATIONS. OR WEALTHY FAMILIES. OR WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS. I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE'D BE ABLE TO DO THE HARD, DIFFICULT, EXPENSIVE WORK OF COVERING BIG, IMPORTANT STORIES; COVERING THE FRONT LINES OF SOME OF THE CONFLICTS AROUND THE WORLD, WHERE THOSE STORIES MUST BE TOLD. BUT I'M VERY- I'M ACTUALLY VERY CONFIDENT THAT WE'RE GOING TO FIND OUR WAY THROUGH WHAT HAS BEEN A DRAMATIC PERIOD OF TRANSITION FOR ALL OF US AND TO A PLACE WHERE THERE IS FINANCIAL STABILITY AROUND US. BUT YOU ALSO TALK ABOUT INFORMATION OVERLOAD, AND I'M GOING TO QUOTE BACK TO YOU HERE, WHEN YOU SAY, 'ALL THAT DATA CAN HAVE THAT PERVERSE EFFECT OF MAKING US FEEL LESS AWARE, 'LESS INFORMED, UNSURE WHAT TO BELIEVE OR WHO TO TRUST.' SO ISN'T EVERY WEBSITE THAT WADES INTO THAT, INCLUDING TIME AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS, AREN'T YOU JUST ADDING TO THAT KIND OF DATA THAT WE'RE NOT SURE WHICH WE SHOULD BE READING, WHAT WE CAN TRUST? WELL, I THINK IT IS TRUE THAT THE MORE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE, IN A WAY MORE SCARCE UNDERSTANDING BECOMES, AND THAT'S ACTUALLY` THAT'S OUR OPPORTUNITY, WHICH IS THAT PEOPLE ARE SO FLOODED BY INFORMATION THAT THEY DO NEED SOMEONE WHO CAN HELP SORT THROUGH WHAT'S WORTH PAYING ATTENTION TO AND WHAT ISN'T, AND SO` WELL, THE POINT IS THAT YOU USED TO GIVE US THIS ONCE A WEEK AND TOLD US WHAT WE NEEDED TO KNOW. IT WAS IN A PACKAGE. 'THAT'S WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW THIS WEEK.' AND WE STILL DO THAT, BUT WE ALSO DO THAT NOW FOR THE DAY AND FOR THE HOUR WHAT WE'VE ALWAYS DONE FOR THE WEEK. SO AT ANY GIVEN TIME, IN THE MORNING IF YOU LOG ON TO TIME.COM, THE FIRST THING WE WILL PRESENT IS, 'THESE ARE THE FIVE MOST IMPORTANT STORIES THAT YOU WANT TO KNOW 'BEFORE YOU WALK OUT THE DOOR, JUST SO THAT YOU'RE SORT OF UP TO DATE.' AND SO FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE BRIEFED, ESSENTIALLY, AT ANY GIVEN TIME, WE CAN CUT THROUGH AND DO THAT KIND OF FILTERING FUNCTION. AND PEOPLE ARE REALLY BUSY. THEY DON'T HAVE TIME TO READ, YOU KNOW, 50 BLOGS AND A HUNDRED NEWSPAPERS ONLINE. AND SO I DO THINK THAT IN A WAY THE DEMAND FOR WHAT WE DO IS ONLY GROWING AT A TIME WHERE INFORMATION COMES AT YOU SO FAST. YOU TALK ABOUT HOW WE GET ON SOME FIRM FINANCIAL FOOTING SO THAT WE CAN FUND THE JOURNALISM. GIVE ME ONE MATERIAL WAY THAT WE CAN DO THAT. TO GET ON A FIRM FINANCIAL FOOTING? I THINK TO BE MUCH MORE CREATIVE ABOUT HOW` WHAT IT IS THAT BOTH READERS WANT FROM US, BECAUSE ONE SOURCE OF OUR SUPPORT IS FROM OUR READERS, AND ONE SOURCE IS FROM OUR ADVERTISERS, AND I THINK WE HAVE TO THINK JUST AS CREATIVELY ABOUT WHAT IT IS THEY NEED FROM US AND NOT BE SORT OF LOCKED INTO WHAT HAS WORKED IN THE PAST. IF WE ARE NOT INNOVATING CONSTANTLY, IF WE ARE NOT HAVING A CONSTANT CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW ALL OF OUR CHALLENGES ARE CHANGING, THEN I DO THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE LEFT BEHIND. BUT I THINK THAT IF WE ARE SMART AND NIMBLE AND FEARLESS THAT THERE IS A WAY` ABSOLUTELY A WAY FORWARD, BECAUSE THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT THE DEMAND AND THE AUDIENCE IS SO HUGE AND SO GLOBAL. I LOVE THE FACT THAT THIS TIME I'VE BEEN IN NZ THIS WEEK, I HAVE ENCOUNTERED SO MANY TIME READERS, AND PEOPLE TOLD ME, 'I'VE BEEN READING TIME SINCE I WAS A CHILD,' OR, 'I START EVERY DAY WITH TIME.' AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A FANTASTIC THING. < ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US, NANCY GIBBS. AFTER THE BREAK ` WHY ARE WOMEN ABANDONING THE TECH INDUSTRY, AND WHAT'S NANOGIRL MICHELLE DICKINSON DOING TO TURN IT AROUND? BUT FIRST ` HERE ARE JEREMY AND PAUL. THE BIG QUESTION THIS WEEK ` WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF THE TPP? WELL, THAT DEPENDS. WHAT IS IT? WELL, THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP. OH, THAT. WELL, THE ADVANTAGES ARE MANY AND VARIED, JEREMY. FOR NZ? NOT FOR NZ, NO. I THOUGHT YOU MEANT THE OTHERS. THEY'LL DO VERY WELL. WE'RE SUPPOSED TO OPEN UP OUR DAIRY EXPORTS AND CLOSE DOWN THEIR DRUG IMPORTS, ISN'T IT? WELL, THEY'VE BEEN OPEN AND CLOSED, ALL RIGHT. JUST NOT IN THE ORDER YOU SAID. AH, SEEMS IT'S GOOD FOR EVERYONE IN NZ EXCEPT THOSE THAT HAVE THE WORD 'FARM' IN THEIR NAME, DOESN'T IT? TRUE. FARMERS, PHARMAC, AND IF YOU HAVE A FAMILY. TOTALLY A WIN (!) WELL, WE'VE ALREADY GOT THE FIRST CHANGE IN OUR NATIONAL ANTHEM. WHICH IS? WELL, WE'RE GONNA REPLACE SHAFTS OF STRIFE AND WAR WITH A SHAFTING FROM OUR MAJOR TRADE PARTNERS. THAT LINE DOESN'T EVEN FIT. WELL, THAT'S THE TPP. THE US GETS TO WRITE OUR NEW ANTHEM. WHAT DO WE GET IN RETURN? I DON'T KNOW. AN EAGLE? SOUNDS PRETTY COOL. STILL DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A GREAT DEAL, THOUGH, PAUL. MUST BE SOMETHING WE CAN DO. YEAH, THERE IS. WE CAN DO WHAT ANY GOOD KIWI DOES WHEN THINGS AREN'T GOING THEIR WAY. WHICH IS? RELEASE A STRONGLY WORDED PAMPHLET. (CHUCKLES) BAM. I RECKON. WOMEN MAKE UP HALF THE WORKFORCE, THEY OUTNUMBER MEN IN GAINING DEGREES AND DIPLOMAS BY TWO TO ONE, YOU'D BE FORGIVEN FOR THINKING THAT THINGS ARE GETTING BETTER FOR WOMEN, BUT THE LACK OF WOMEN IN STEM ` NOW, THAT'S SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND MATHEMATICS ` IS AN ONGOING PROBLEM. SOME SAY THINGS ARE GETTING WORSE, AND THERE ARE CONCERNS IT'S HOLDING BACK INNOVATION. OUR REPORTER LUCY WARHURST CAUGHT UP WITH ONE WOMAN WHO'S TRYING TO CHANGE THINGS. TECHNO MUSIC SHE'S THE GOLDEN GIRL OF SCIENCE, AND SHE'S MAKING WAVES IN THE SECTOR. WE'RE USED TO SEEING HER ON TV AND IN THE CLASSROOM, BUT THIS IS HER HAPPY PLACE. I USED TO DO A LOT OF STUNT WORK, AND MY STUNT COORDINATOR TRIED IT, LOVED IT, TOLD ME ABOUT IT, AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH HOW I GOT INTO KITE-SURFING. AND THERE'S A SCIENCE TO IT. IT'S REALLY PHYSICS-BASED; YOU HAVE TO CALCULATE THE CURRENT, THE WIND SPEED, THE WIND DIRECTION. SO IT'S QUITE MATHEMATICAL AND I THINK THAT'S WHY IT'S ONE OF MY FAVOURITE SPORTS. SO, YOU'RE JUST GETTING COOLER AND COOLER. (LAUGHS) SCIENTIST, ENGINEER, STUNTWOMAN. ALTER EGO ` NANOGIRL. AS A CHILD DR MICHELLE DICKINSON WANTED TO BE A SUPERHERO. SHE WANTED TO FLY. YOU'D HAVE TO SAY SHE'S WELL ON THE WAY. SHE'S NOT YOUR STEREOTYPICAL ENGINEER, BUT SHE'D LIKE TO BE. SHE'S CONCERNED THERE AREN'T MORE WOMEN IN HER FIELD. 13% WOMEN IN INDUSTRY, AND THAT'S 40% THAT NOT MAKING IT, BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY HAVE AROUND 25% STUDY ENGINEERING. AND IT'S NOT JUST ENGINEERING. WOMEN ARE SEVERELY UNDERREPRESENTED IN MOST STEM-RELATED CAREERS ` SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND MATHEMATICS. DR DICKINSON SAYS THINGS ARE GETTING WORSE. AND THE NUMBERS ARE SHOCKING. IF YOU LOOK AT IT; IN 1983 IT WAS BETWEEN 30%-40% PER CENT FEMALES. WE'RE NOW AT BETWEEN 11%-12% PER CENT. WORSE STILL, ICT INDUSTRIES ARE SHORT OF AROUND 10,000 SKILLED WORKERS. IF WE'RE LOSING 40% OF THOSE FEMALES WHO ARE NOT ENTERING EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE TRAINED, WE'RE NOT HELPING THE PROBLEM. OK, SO THERE ARE LOTS OF INDUSTRIES THAT ARE MALE DOMINATED ` CONSTRUCTION, MANUFACTURING MINING. AND THERE ARE OTHER INDUSTRIES DOMINATED BY WOMEN ` BUT WHY? IS IT APTITUDE OR ATTITUDE? IS IT JUST THAT MEN AND WOMEN HAVE DIFFERENT INTERESTS, OR IS IT MORE A CASE OF INGRAINED STEREOTYPES IT'S THE AGE-OLD QUESTION OF NATURE OR NURTURE. AND WHY DOES IT MATTER? WELL, THE CONCERN IS THAT WOMEN ARE BEING LIMITED BY UNCONSCIOUS BIAS, AND THAT IN TURN COULD BE HOLDING BACK THE COUNTRY, AND OUR ECONOMY. DR ANNETTE HENDERSON SPECIALISES IN EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT. SHE SAYS GENDER STEREOTYPING STARTS RIGHT FROM BIRTH, AND THE TOYS WE PLAY WITH AS CHILDREN COULD SHAPE OUR CAREER PATH. THE PLAY HERE WOULD BE VERY GENDER NEUTRAL. YOU'RE TEACHING CHILDREN TO STACK THINGS AND PRESS BUTTONS AND SEE THEMSELVES IN A MIRROR. SO WHY DO THEY CHANGE IT AT A LATER STAGE? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHANGES THAT HAPPENS IS AROUND THREE YEARS OF AGE, CHILDREN ARE REALLY AWARE OF THEIR GENDER. CUE THE PINK AND BLUE. HERE WE ARE IN THE GIRL TOY AISLE, AND WE HAVE SHOPPING HERE SO GIRLS WILL PLAY WITH THINGS THAT ARE SHOPPING, THEN WE HAVE PRINCESSES OVER HERE, AND THE IDEA ABOUT BEING RESCUED AND PRETTY, AND THEN WE HAVE OUR LEGO HERE, WHICH IS HAIRSTYLING AND PRINCESSES... (MEOWS) AND PUSSYCATS! AND PUSSYCATS! # GI JOE! # BOOM! BUT IN THE BOYS' TOYS SECTION, THERE ARE ACTION FIGURES, SOLDIERS, COPS AND CONSTRUCTION. THE CONCERN IS, IF GIRLS' TOYS ARE LESS ENGINEERING-BASED, LESS TECHNOLOGICAL, THEY DON'T LEARN THOSE SKILLS EARLY. SOME MIGHT SAY THEY'RE JUST TOYS, BUT THEY'RE ACTIVITIES THAT ARE SCAFFOLDING YOU THROUGHOUT LIFE. ISN'T IT JUST THAT MANUFACTURERS ARE GIVING PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT AND BOYS AND GIRLS HAVE DIFFERENT INTERESTS? EXACTLY. THIS IS THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG QUESTION. SO WHAT CAME FIRST? MICHELLE DICKINSON BELIEVES OUR INTERESTS, OUR TALENTS, START WITH OUR NATURE, BUT NURTURE IS THE KEY TO DEVELOPING THAT, WHETHER YOU'RE MALE OR FEMALE. I WAS BORN, I THINK, TO EXCEL IN MATHS AND SCIENCE. I HAVE QUITE A THEORETICAL THINKING BRAIN, AND IT'S NOT VERY CREATIVE, RIGHT? I WAS NEVER GOOD AT THE CREATIVE STUFF, SO THE ARTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, SO I THINK WE NATURALLY ARE GOOD AT CERTAIN THINGS, AND THEN IT'S HOW DO YOU TURN THAT INTO SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO DO FOR A CAREER AND DO FOR LIFE. IT WAS HER FATHER, AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, WHO TAUGHT HER TO SOLDER CIRCUIT BOARDS AND PROGRAMME COMPUTERS. IT WASN'T UNTIL I GOT TO UNIVERSITY THAT I WAS LIKE, 'OH, WHERE ARE ALL THE WOMEN?' SO IS IT NATURE OR NURTURE? NOBODY CAN DENY THAT BIOLOGY HAS AN INFLUENCE. BUT RIGHT FROM BIRTH PEOPLE ARE INTERACTING WITH BABIES OF DIFFERENT GENDERS IN DIFFERENT KIDS OF WAYS, SO IT'S DEFINITELY A MIX OF BOTH. NATURE AND NURTURE ARE SO INEXTRICABLY LINKED FROM SUCH AN EARLY AGE THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW FOR SURE THE EFFECTS OF ONE FROM THE OTHER. WE PRAISE BABY BOYS FOR BEING STRONG AND ROBUST AND HAVING A GOOD GRIP, WHILE BABY GIRLS ARE CELEBRATED FOR BEING PRETTY. HOW MUCH DO THESE ATTITUDES, FROM THE MOMENT WE ENTER THE WORLD, MOULD US AS WE GROW UP? YOU ARE BEAUTY, AND BEAUTY IS PERFECTION. FRANCO GODINICH IS A BIT OF AN EXPERT WHEN IT COMES TO TOYS. HE SAYS THEY TRY NOT TO MAKE IT A GIRL/BOY THING, LAYING OUT STORES ACCORDING TO AGE AND FUNCTION. I THINK TRADITIONALLY BOYS AND STILL PLAYING WITH VEHICLES AND GIRLS ARE TRADITIONALLY STILL PLAYING WITH DOLLS, BUT THERE'S MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR BOTH GENDERS TO PLAY IN ALL AREAS. BUT OF COURSE, OUR CAREER PATH IS NOT SOLELY DOWN TO TOYS. I THINK WHAT TOYS DO IS GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EXPLORATION AND IMAGINATION AND WHAT THEY CHOOSE AFTER THAT IS DICTATED BY A NUMBER OF OTHER FACTORS. I THINK TOYS PERHAPS HAVE A PART TO PLAY. AND THERE ARE WAYS AROUND IT. MANUFACTURERS DO MAKE UNISEX TOYS. MECHANICAL VOICE: MY PURPOSE IS TO TEACH ABOUT HOW FUN AND SIMPLE ROBOTICS CAN BE. BUT NOT ALL ATTEMPTS TO CHALLENGE GENDER STEREOTYPES HAVE BEEN WELL RECEIVED. AT THE BEAUTY SHOP, EMMA IS STYLED AND READY TO GO! LEGO'S BEEN CRITICISED OVER ITS FRIENDS RANGE, BUT SAYS IT'S A TOP SELLER, AND AT LEAST IT GETS GIRLS INTO CONSTRUCTION. MATTEL HAD GOOD INTENTIONS WITH COMPUTER ENGINEER BARBIE BUT SLIPPED UP WHEN SHE ENDED UP NEEDING TECH SUPPORT FROM HER MALE FRIENDS. SO THERE'S STILL SOME WAY TO GO. THE INSTITUTION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS LISTS THE MOST COMMON BARRIER TO WOMEN IS STEREOTYPE, BIAS AND THE CULTURE. SO WHO IS THE TYPICAL ENGINEER? IF YOU DO A SEARCH ON GOOGLE IMAGES FOR SAY IT ENGINEER, THIS IS WHAT YOU GET ` ALL OF THE TOP HITS ARE MEN. WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH IS PROBABLY SOME STEREOTYPE. THAT THERE'S A CERTAIN TYPE OF PERSON THAT MIGHT WORK IN IT, AND THAT MIGHT NOT BE ATTRACTIVE TO A BROAD SPECTRUM. DATACOM IS NZ'S LARGEST IT COMPANY. IT EMPLOYS 2500 PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY, AROUND A THIRD OF THEM WOMEN. BUT THERE ARE NOTABLY FEWER IN THE TECH AREA. WE NOTICE THE DISPARITY IS IN NEW GRADS, PARTICULARLY COMING OUT OF UNIVERSITIES. THE VAST PROPORTION THAT COME THROUGH ARE MALE. BUT IT'S NOT JUST A NZ PROBLEM; IT'S A WORLDWIDE ISSUE. WOMEN MAKE UP ONE THIRD OF FACEBOOK'S GLOBAL STAFF, YET IN THE TECH SPACE ONLY 16% ARE FEMALE. IT'S A SIMILAR PICTURE AT GOOGLE, WITH 18% WOMEN IN TECH. BUT THE LACK OF DIVERSITY DOESN'T JUST AFFECT WOMEN. IT CUTS ACROSS RACE, CULTURE AND CLASS. ERICA LLOYD SAYS THEY'RE KEEN TO MAKE THE SECTOR MORE APPEALING TO A WIDER RANGE OF PEOPLE, MALE OR FEMALE. A RANGE OF SKILLS AND A RANGE OF THOUGHT AND A RANGE OF PEOPLE PROVIDE THE RESILIENCE TO SOLVE REALLY HARD PROBLEMS. I THINK BY HAVING ONE TYPE OF GENDER PREDOMINANTLY IN THE TEAM, YOU'RE MISSING OUT ON A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF INNOVATION THAT YOU CAN HAVE. A GREAT EXAMPLE OF THAT WAS THE INVENTION OF AIRBAGS. AIRBAGS IN CARS WERE INVENTED BY A PREDOMINANTLY MALE SET OF ENGINEERS, AND IT RESULTED IN THE DEATHS OF MANY WOMEN AND CHILDREN, BECAUSE IT WASN'T DESIGNED FOR THE FEMALE FORM OR THE LIGHTER BODY FORM. I THINK HAVING MORE DIVERSITY WOULD BENEFIT NZ AND ITS ECONOMY. SO WHAT'S THE SOLUTION? MORE ROLE MODELS, CREATING A FEMALE-FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT AND GETTING KIDS INVOLVED EARLY. IN AN ATTEMPT TO COMBAT THE PROBLEM, DICKINSON'S CO-FOUNDED OMG TECH! WHICH ORGANISES WORKSHOPS TO ENCOURAGE YOUNG PEOPLE, GIRLS AND BOYS, FROM A RANGE OF BACKGROUNDS, TO GET INTO TECHNOLOGY. DATACOM ALSO BELIEVES CAREER CHOICES START EARLY, SO IT'S STARTED A PILOT, PUTTING SPECIALIST COMPUTER SCIENCE TEACHERS IN SCHOOLS. IN THE UK CODING'S A COMPULSORY PART OF THE CURRICULUM FOR CHILDREN FROM THE AGE OF 5. HERE IT'S OPTIONAL, AND NOT ALL SCHOOLS OFFER IT. FOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER EMILY WANG, THAT EARLY INTERACTION WITH IT WAS KEY TO HER CAREER. EVER SINCE I WAS A KID, WE ALWAYS HAD DIFFERENT GADGETS AT HOME. I WOULD HAVE A NINTENDO ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM. MY DAD ALSO BOUGHT BACK A LAPTOP. SHE SAYS BEING A GIRL WASN'T AN ISSUE THEN AND IT ISN'T NOW, EVEN THOUGH SHE'S THE ONLY WOMAN WORKING IN HER TECHNICAL TEAM. TO ME IT'S NEVER ABOUT GENDER. IT'S REALLY ABOUT YOUR PASSION. FUNDAMENTALLY, THERE'S PROBABLY A HIGH DEMAND IN PEOPLE IN THE IT INDUSTRY, SO REGARDLESS IF YOU'RE A MAN OR A WOMAN, IT'S A GOOD INDUSTRY TO BE IN RIGHT NOW. AND SHE SAYS TECH SHOULD BE GENDER BLIND. I WOULD SAY TO ALLOW YOU KIDS TO PLAY WITH DIFFERENT THINGS, BE IT DOLLS OR TECHNOLOGY OR ANYTHING ELSE, IT'S JUST TO LET THEM EXPLORE WHAT THEY ACTUALLY LIKE. AT THE END OF THE DAY IT'S THEIR INTERESTS THAT WILL DEFINE THEM IN THE FUTURE, SO JUST DON'T RESTRICT THEM; DON'T PUT THOUGHTS; DON'T CATEGORIZE THEM AS A PARTICULAR TYPE OF PERSON. LET THEM EXPLORE AND LET THEM BE WHATEVER THEY WANT TO BE. WE'LL BE BACK WITH OUR PANEL ` MIKE WILLIAMS, SIMON WILSON AND HEATHER ROY, RIGHT AFTER THE BREAK. BUT FIRST, HERE'S SOME TWEETS THAT GOT US LAUGHING THIS WEEK. MURRAY MCCULLY WAS MEETING DIPLOMATIC BIGWIGS AT THE UNITED NATIONS THIS WEEK, INCLUDING THE APPARENTLY TERRIFYING CHIN OF US SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY. NZ FIRST STAGED A WALKOUT OF PARLIAMENT AFTER LEADER WINSTON PETERS WAS EJECTED ON TUESDAY. ACT'S DAVID SEYMOUR WAS QUICK WITH A MOCKING TWEET, BUT OTHERS WERE JUST AS QUICK TO HIT BACK ABOUT HIS LACK OF A CAUCUS. AND LABOUR KICKED INTO THE TPP THIS WEEK, SO WAS FORMER TRADE MINISTER PHIL GOFF STUFFED INTO A TRUNK TO KEEP HIM QUIET? THIS IS THE NATION, AND ON OUR PANEL THIS MORNING, I'M JOINED BY FORMER LABOUR PARTY PRESIDENT AND NZ HOWARD LEAGUE CHIEF EXECUTIVE MIKE WILLIAMS, FORMER ACT MP, NOW CHAIR OF PHARMACEUTICAL LOBBY GROUP MEDICINES NZ HEATHER ROY AND METRO MAGAZINE EDITOR SIMON WILSON. GOOD MORNING TO YOU ALL. MIKE, CAN I COME TO YOU FIRST? MURRAY MCCULLY THERE, WE SEE` WE'VE COME TO THE END OF OUR MONTH IN THE PRESIDENCY AT THE UN, HAVE WE ACTUALLY ACHIEVED ANYTHING? YES, I THINK WE HAVE. I THINK THE DEBATE ABOUT THE FATE OF THE SMALL ISLAND NATIONS, WHICH WAS CLEARLY PAYBACK FOR THEM VOTING FOR US TO BE ON THE SECURITY COUNCIL, I THINK IT HAD SOME VALUE BECAUSE IT FOCUSED THE LARGER NATIONS ` RUSSIA, BRITAIN, EUROPEANS, AMERICA ` ON CLIMATE CHANGE, AND THESE COUNTRIES COULD ACTUALLY GO UNDERWATER, AND I THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A FEW STATES LIKE THAT IN THE PACIFIC THAT WE KNOW ABOUT, BUT TURNS OUT THERE ARE QUITE A LOT OF THEM IN THE CARIBBEAN AND PLACES LIKE THAT. SO I THINK THAT HAD VALUE. SIMON, HE'S CONCEDED THAT HE WON'T BE ABLE TO WRESTLE THE VETO OFF THE PERMANENT MEMBERS. THE` OBVIOUSLY, RUSSIA EXERCISED ITS VETO THIS WEEK. BUT IT IS IT MORE ABOUT NZ BEING SEEN AS RELEVANT THAN THOSE BIG SUCCESSES? THERE ARE SOME REALLY SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THE UN, BUT THE UN IS AN INSTITUTION THAT WE'RE BETTER OFF FOR HAVING, SO THOSE PROBLEMS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. NZ CAN'T FIX THEM. MURRAY MCCULLY WAS LAUGHED AT ` AND I THINK I WAS PROBABLY ONE OF THE ONES WHO DID THAT ` FOR IMPLYING THAT HE WAS GONNA GO IN THERE AND FIX IT. HE ALLOWED US TO THINK THAT, BUT OF COURSE HE CAN'T FIX IT. BUT HE'S QUITE RIGHT TO RAISE THE ISSUES. HE'S QUITE RIGHT TO SAY THIS ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH. AND PEOPLE NEED TO DO BETTER. THAT'S A` THAT'S A GREAT ROLE FOR NZ TO PLAY. I FEEL VERY PLEASED THAT HE DID IT. AND, OF COURSE, WE GET THE CHAIR BACK AGAIN. HE CAN HAVE ANOTHER GO. YEAH, AND HIS LINE IS, 'I'M GOING TO BE AMBITIOUS, AND I'M NOT GOING TO APOLOGISE FOR THAT.' WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT IRAN ` THE TRADE OPPORTUNITIES COULD BE THERE FOR US AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THIS DEAL. HEATHER, SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT CAPITALISING ON THOSE OPPORTUNITIES WHEN WE KNOW THIS IS A COUNTRY THAT HAS A TERRIBLE HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD AND ALSO SPONSORS TERRORIST GROUPS? LOOK, I THINK HE MADE A GOOD DEAL OF SENSE WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT HOW YOU'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO BE IN A POSITION TO TALK TO PEOPLE, OTHERWISE YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO INFLUENCE AT ALL, AND THERE MAY BE SOME SPIN-OFF TRADE IMPLICATIONS FOR NZ WHICH ARE A POSITIVE THING, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HIS STARTING POINT WAS. I THINK THAT HE DID ACTUALLY LAY OUT A PLAN THAT I THINK DOES HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF CREDIBILITY, AND IF THOSE OTHER THINGS COME TO PASS, THAT'S A GOOD THING FOR NZ. UM, DO YOU` WHAT DO YOU THINK, SIMON? COS HE WAS SAYING THAT IT GETS PEOPLE` IT'S AN IN; IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK. IF YOU'RE DOING TRADE WITH THEM, YOU CAN INFLUENCE THEIR VIEWS. HAVING JUST PRAISED HIM FOR RAISING THE ISSUES AT THE SECURITY COUNCIL, I THINK IT'S NONSENSE TO ARGUE THAT YOU WHEN YOU DO TRADE DEALS, IT'S MEANS YOU'RE IN A BETTER PLACE TO INFLUENCE THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS AND OTHER INTERNAL POLICIES. THAT CLEARLY DOESN'T HAPPEN ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, AND THERE'S NO REASON TO THINK THAT NZ TRADING WITH IRAN IS GOING TO MAKE IRAN A BETTER PLACE. YEAH, BUT IRAN IS A BIG MARKET, ISN'T IT, MIKE? THERE'S A LOT OF MONEY TO BE MADE, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE NZ BUSINESSES ARE ALREADY QUEUING UP. IT'S A LARGE AND SOPHISTICATED MARKET, BUT I AGREE WITH SIMON. I THINK THE FANTASY THAT BECAUSE YOU TRADE WITH SOMEONE, YOU'RE GONNA IMPROVE THE WAY THEY TREAT WOMEN, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IS NONSENSICAL, OTHERWISE THERE'D BE CHANGES IN SAUDI ARABIA, AND THERE AREN'T. BUT CLEARLY, IF THERE'S OPPORTUNITY THERE, AND I THINK I HEARD WE SOLD HUGE AMOUNTS OF LAMB TO IRAN. YEP, IN THE '70S. IN THE '70S OR '80S, WELL, LET'S DO IT. YEAH. WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT OF TRADE, TPP. HEATHER, THE TRADE MINISTER ON THIS PROGRAMME SAID IT'S POSSIBLE THERE'LL BE HIGHER DRUG PRICES. IT'S CONCEIVABLE. THE PRIME MINISTER CONFIRMED THAT. YOU LEAD THE PHARMACEUTICAL LOBBY. IS YOUR LOBBY GOING TO COST US MORE AS THESE LEAD-IN TIMES FOR GENERICS ARE PUSHED BACK? OH LOOK, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION THIS WEEK, BUT WE HAVE TO KEEP OUR EYE ON THE FACTS. WE LOOK AT OTHER COUNTRIES THAT HAVE EXTENDED PATENT LIFE ON SOME DRUGS, AND THE AVERAGE PRICES WHERE THIS HAPPENED IN CANADA AND JAPAN, YOU'VE GOT LONGER LEAD-IN TIMES ` YES, THE GENERICS TAKE A WEE BIT LONGER TO COME TO MARKET, BUT THAT WOULD ACTUALLY GIVE PHARMAC, MAYBE, A STRONGER BARGAINING POSITION. LET'S NOT TRY AND SUPPOSE WHAT` HOW? HOW? COS` WHAT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT HAPPEN. UH, IF YOU HAVE A GUARANTEED MARKET FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME, THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET THE PRICE DOWN A LITTLE. LOOK, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD SUPPOSE WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN AS THE RESULT OF TRADE WHEN THE US-AUSTRALIA FREE-TRADE AGREEMENT CAME INTO BEING IN 2005, EVERYBODY SAID GENERICS WOULD STOP, THE COST WOULD SKYROCKET. NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS HAPPENED ` IN FACT, MORE GENERICS WERE FUNDED THAN PREVIOUSLY, SO, LET'S NOT TRY AND SECOND-GUESS WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN. BUT BOTH THE PRIME MINISTER AND THE TRADE MINISTER ARE SAYING, YEAH, WE WILL HAVE TO PAY MORE. NOT` NOT YOU AT THE COUNTER, BUT THROUGH PHARMAC. THEY'RE SAYING WE MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT HAVE TO, AND WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY` THEY'RE ACTUALLY SAYING THEY MIGHT. NO, IF YOU LISTEN CAREFULLY AT THE STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE, IT WAS THEY MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT INCREASE. WELL, IT WOULD BE NICE TO THINK THAT WE COULD HOLD HEATHER ROY TO THAT, THAT THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY IS NOT GOING TO` THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID, SIMON. YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. YOU SAID IT'S NOT LIKELY TO HAPPEN. THEY MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT, AND WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT TRYING TO SECOND-GUESS WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN. LET'S BE CLEAR` WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS SAYING` HANG ON, LET SIMON` THE REASON THIS IS ON THE TABLE IS SO THOSE COMPANIES CAN MAKE MORE MONEY OUT OF NZ AND OTHER COUNTRIES. AND` AND PROVIDE ACCESS TO NZ PATIENTS WHO CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO MANY DRUGS THAT OTHER NATIONS DO HAVE. IF THE GOVERNMENT'S PREPARED TO SPEND A BIT MORE MONEY ON PHARMACEUTICALS, TREAT PEOPLE SOONER, AND` WE HAVE A MODEL` AND NOT HAVE PEOPLE CHRONICALLY AFFECTED` WE HAVE A WORLD-LEADING MODEL. WE HAVE A WORLD-LEADING MODEL OF PHARMACEUTICAL DELIVERY. THE INDUSTRY IS NOT SUGGESTING FOR A MOMENT THAT THAT WILL BE DISMANTLED. IT WILL BE A REAL SHAME IF IT IS DISMANTLED ANYWAY. WHAT YOU'VE GOT TO LOOK AT IS THE RHETORIC OF THE GOVERNMENT. NOW, NOT TWO WEEKS AGO, YOU HAD THE FOREIGN TRADE MINISTER SAY PHARMAC WILL NOT BE AFFECTED. A WEEK AFTER THAT, YOU HAD JOHN KEY SAYING YES, DRUG PRICES COULD GO UP, BUT WE'LL SUBSIDISE THEM BACK TO WHERE THEY WERE. THOSE TWO STATEMENTS ARE INCOMPATIBLE. I THINK WHAT YOU'VE GOT HERE WITH HEATHER, SAYING, 'I'M THE WOLF; GIVE ME THE KEY TO THE HEN HOUSE.' CHUCKLING THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. AND PHARMAC WILL NOT BE DISMANTLED. THE PHARMAC MODEL WILL BE EXACTLY AS IT IS NOW. LET'S MOVE ON FROM DRUGS TO DAIRY. I MEAN, IT'S BEEN DESCRIBED AS WOEFUL AND DISASTROUS, IN TERMS OF WHAT THE DEAL IS THAT'S BEEN OFFERED. YOU KNOW, ARE OUR EXPECTATIONS BEING MANAGED? ARE WE GOING TO EXPECT, LIKE THE BUDGET, SURPRISE! WE'VE GOT A PACKAGE HERE, AND IT'S ALL SORTED OUT. (LAUGHS) WELL, I THINK OUR EXPECTATIONS ARE BEING MANAGED IN THIS. AGAIN, WE HAD THE TRADE MINISTER, TIM GROSER, A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO SAYING THAT IF DAIRY ISN'T IN THIS, WE WON'T SIGN. WE'VE GOTTA GET SOMETHING. MICHELLE BOAD ON RADIO LIVE THIS MORNING, WHO'S WELL BRIEFED BY THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE, WAS SAYING, 'OH, IT'LL BE A WONDERFUL DEAL, EVEN IF DAIRY'S COMPLETELY OUT OF IT.' OK, WE` IT'S THAT NZ BEING THE SAUDI ARABIA OF MILK THING, ISN'T IT? YES. YOU THINK BACK WHEN TIM GROSER WENT INTO THIS. HE MUST HAVE THOUGHT, 'IF I CAN OPEN UP THE WORLD TO NZ DAIRY, 'THAT WILL BE A GREAT THING TO DO.' AND IT'S FALLING FLAT ON ITS FACE. ALL RIGHT, WE'VE GOTTA GO. WE'LL LEAVE IT THERE. WE WILL BE BACK AFTER THE BREAK WITH MORE, WHAT WILL BE` AND MORE ON WHAT WILL BE IN THE NEWS NEXT WEEK. YOU'RE WITH THE NATION, AND WE'RE BACK WITH OUR PANEL. LET'S TALK ABOUT TASERS. SO THE POLICE ARE MOVING TO ARM FRONT-LINE OFFICERS WITH TASERS. GOOD OR BAD IDEA, SIMON? UM, I THINK IT'S STILL TOO HARD TO KNOW, AND THAT'S THE EXTRAORDINARY THING. YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY QUITE A BIT OF PUBLIC PERCEPTION THAT TASERS MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA, BUT WHEN SCAHILL GOT UP TALKING TO YOU BEFORE, HE SAID THAT HE'S GOT LOTS OF EVIDENCE, BUT HE DIDN'T PRODUCE ANY OF IT. HOW AND WHY ARE THEY REDUCING CRIME OR MAKING IT SAFER FOR THE POLICE? IF HE COULD TELL US THAT, WE COULD HAVE AN INFORMED DEBATE, BUT HE REALLY DIDN'T. ARE WE CREEPING FURTHER` WELL, CLOSER TO HAVING POLICE OFFICERS ARMED ON THE FRONT LINE? HEATHER, DO YOU SEE THIS AS A, SORT OF, STEP IN THAT DIRECTION? AGAIN, I THINK IT'S TOO HARD TO TELL. BUT I THINK JUST HAVING TASERS AT THE READY, THE TEMPTATION IS GOING TO BE HUGE TO USE THEM INAPPROPRIATELY. AT THE MOMENT, I THINK WE'VE GOT A REASONABLY GOOD BALANCE. THEY'RE THERE AND ABLE TO BE GOT TO, BUT THAT SITUATION NEEDS TO BE THOUGHT THROUGH, WHEREAS` BUT HE SAYS IT'S GOING` HE DOES SAY IT IS GOING TO MAKE US SAFER. DOES THAT MAKE YOU FEEL ANY BETTER ABOUT IT, MIKE? NO, I DON'T. WHAT I WOULD SAY IS AT LEAST IT'S NOT GUNS. THESE THINGS ARE GENERALLY NON-LETHAL, ALTHOUGH A GENTLEMAN WAS KILLED BY ONE IN NAPIER, I THINK IT WAS. WELL, HE DIED AFTER A TASER. HE DIED AFTER GETTING A TASERING, SO I'M GLAD IT'S NOT GUNS. I DIDN'T HEAR A GOOD REASON FROM THE POLICEMAN AS TO WHY WE SHOULD DO THIS NOW. ASSAULTS ON POLICE ARE FALLING; THE CRIME RATE IS FALLING. WHY DO WE NEED TO DO THIS NOW? DOWN 20%, I THINK IT IS, OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS, THE ASSAULTS. IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE WHY WE WOULD DO THIS NOW. SIMON? YOU WERE SAYING? AND IT HASN'T BEEN` IT ISN'T POLITICALLY MOTIVATED, OR IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE. YOU KNOW IT IS QUITE A SURPRISE. IS IT ON THE WAY TO GUNS, OR IS IT A PREVENTATIVE TO US MOVING TO GUNS? IT'S REALLY HARD TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. AND I SUPPOSE THE MONITORING OF HOW IT'S USED FROM THIS POINT ONWARDS IS GOING TO BE VITAL IN MAKING THOSE DECISIONS. BUT POLICE WILL` THE DEFAULT POSITION WILL ALWAYS BE, 'SHOULD I USE THE WEAPON AT MY DISPOSAL?' ALWAYS, ALWAYS, A POLICE OFFICER WILL BE THINKING THAT. SO IT BECOMES MORE DANGEROUS. I WANNA MOVE ON TO CORRECTIONS. UM, WE'VE SEEN SOME RAIDS THIS WEEK WHICH REVEALED THREE PEOPLE WHO WERE IN THE SERCO JAIL WERE INVOLVED IN A POLICE OPERATION. THEY'RE CHARGED IN RELATION TO A METHAMPHETAMINE RING. A FORMER GUARD IS BEING SPOKEN TO ABOUT THIS. THIS IS JUST MORE HITS. THEY KEEP COMING FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AND SAM LOTU-IIGA ` IS HIS TIME CLOSE TO BEING UP, MIKE? WELL, I DON'T THINK YOU'VE SEEN A PARTICULAR HIT ON THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OR THE MINISTER. THESE` THIS IS MALADMINISTRATION IN JAILS. I'M NOT SURPRISED THAT ARRESTS WERE MADE OF PEOPLE THAT WERE ALREADY IN JAIL. THAT'S BEING ARRESTED FOR SOMETHING THEY ALREADY DID BEFORE THEY GOT INTO JAIL. THAT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH CORRECTIONS, THE MINISTER OR SERCO. BUT I THINK WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS FRANKLY UNDERSTAFFING SEEMS TO BE THE CAUSE OF ALL OF THIS. THE KIND OF THINGS THAT KELVIN DAVIS IS TALKING ABOUT COULD NOT REALLY OCCUR IF THERE WAS PROPER VIGILANCE GOING ON IN THAT JAIL. SO WHAT ARE YOU ALLEGING, THAT SERCO'S UNDERSTAFFED? THAT'S WHAT RAY SMITH SAID THE MINUTE HE ARRIVED THERE. HE TALKED TO THE JUDGE` AND YOU DON'T THINK THAT'S THE MINISTER'S PROBLEM? WELL, I THINK THAT SERCO HAS NOT BEEN FEEDING APPROPRIATE INFORMATION BACK TO THE MINISTER. NOW, THE MINISTER CARRIES THE CAN. LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS, AND HE HAD A VERY BAD WEEK, AND I THINK HE HANDLED IT REASONABLY WELL. ONE THING AFTER ANOTHER. BUT, AT THE END OF THE DAY, HE'S GOT TO ANSWER FOR THIS. PRIVATISATION OF JAILS IS A NATIONAL PARTY POLICY. AND HE WAS AS STARTLED AS ANYONE ELSE TO HEAR WHAT WAS HAPPENING, WASN'T HE? AND YOU DON'T EXPECT THAT FROM A MINISTER. A MINISTER SHOULDN'T BE STARTLED AT WHAT HAPPENED. WELL, ACT LIKES PRIVATE OPERATORS. YES, AND I WAS A GREAT ADVOCATE, AND IN FACT, I VISITED THE FIRST PRIVATE PRISON BEFORE THE LABOUR GOVERNMENT REVERTED BACK TO THE PUBLIC SYSTEM ONLY. AND, LOOK, MANY OF THE THINGS THAT WERE PUT IN PLACE THEN ARE NOW COMMONPLACE ACROSS THE BOARD IN OUR PRISONS, AND THEY WERE INITIATIVES THAT CAME FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR. SO LET'S NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, COMPLETELY DISS THE PRIVATE SECTOR. WHEN GOOD THINGS HAPPEN, THEY SHOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGED, AND THEY HAVE BEEN ACROSS THINGS LIKE ROUTINE ASSESSMENT, WHEN PRISONERS COME IN AND OUT OF PRISON. THOSE SORTS OF THINGS NOW HAPPENING ACROSS THE BOARD. SO GOOD IDEAS. NOBODY SHOULD BE THE OWNER OF GREAT IDEAS, BUT THE PRIVATE SECTOR BROUGHT THEM, AND NOW BECAUSE THEY'RE COMMONPLACE, EVERYONE'S BENEFITTING. SO I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO EXTRICATE THE PRIVATE-PUBLIC THING AND LOOK AT THE PRISONS THEMSELVES. WHAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN IS THE STATISTICS FROM EVERY OTHER PRISON IN THE COUNTRY AND THE COMPARISON. UM, NOW TIME TO MOVE ON TO 'TIME', SIMON. SO WE HEARD FROM NANCY GIBBS THERE. SHE'S EXTREMELY OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE FUTURE OF JOURNALISM. DO YOU SHARE HER OPTIMISM? OR IS TIME WE ADMITTED THAT JOURNALISM'S GOT ITS BACK TO THE WALL? WELL, JOURNALISM ISN'T IN AS HEALTHY A POSITION, PERHAPS, AS IT WAS 20 YEARS AGO. BUT THERE ARE` MOST INDUSTRIES IN THE WORLD ARE IN THAT POSITION. YOU KNOW, IN MAGAZINES, 3.1 MILLION PEOPLE IN NZ OVER THE AGE OF 10 HAVE READ A MAGAZINE IN ITS CURRENT ON-SALE PERIOD. THAT'S AN EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH FIGURE. THERE IS STILL AN ENORMOUS MARKET FOR MAGAZINES AND FOR OTHER MEDIA AS WELL. YEAH, THE QUESTION IS AROUND HOW IT'S MONETISED BY THE COMPANIES BECAUSE OF THE IMPACT OF THE INTERNET. < AND SHE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT. THAT'S RIGHT, BUT FOR THE BIGGER COMPANIES, ESPECIALLY, THERE IS THE ABILITY TO DIG IN AND TO PRODUCE SERVICES THAT PEOPLE WANT, AND THE SERVICES THAT PEOPLE DO WANT ARE THE ONES THAT WILL SELL. BUT THE SMALLER COMPANIES, OF COURSE, THEY CAN BE MORE INNOVATIVE MORE QUICKLY, AND THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEM TOO. LET'S DO A QUICK PANEL SURVEY BEFORE WE GO. HEATHER, MIKE, ARE YOU PREPARED TO PAY FOR ONLINE CONTENT? I DO. LET ME TELL YOU A LITTLE STORY. I USED TO GO INTO TOWN AND BUY THE DOMINION POST EVERY DAY, BECAUSE I WOULD GET THE HERALD DELIVERED, BUT I WANT THE DOM POST. YEAH, 10 SECONDS, MIKE. THEY'RE NO LONGER DELIVERING IT TO AUCKLAND. I NEVER THOUGHT I'D READ IT ONLINE. I'M NOW DOING IT EVERY MORNING. YOU'RE A CONVERT. I PAY FOR THE NBR BECAUSE IT'S VALUE FOR MONEY. OK, WELL, LET'S TAKE A QUICK LOOK FOR WHAT WILL BE MAKING HEADLINES IN THE NEXT WEEK. THE DELAYED DECISION ON THE FUTURE OF TIWAI ALUMINIUM SMELTER IS EXPECTED ON MONDAY. JOHN KEY AND ANDREW LITTLE ARE AMONG NZ DIGNITARIES HEADING TO RAROTONGA TO CELEBRATE THE COOK ISLANDS' 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF SELF-GOVERNMENT. AND JUSTICE MINISTER AMY ADAMS GIVES A MAJOR SPEECH ABOUT FAMILY AUDIENCE ON WEDNESDAY. AND TONY ROBERTSON, THE MAN WHO KILLED BLESSIE GOTINGCO WILL BE SENTENCED THURSDAY. BUT THAT IS US FOR TODAY. THANKS FOR JOINING US, AND DO ENJOY THE REST OF YOUR WEEKEND. Captions by John Ling and Alana Cruikshank. www.able.co.nz Captions were made possible with funding from NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2015