MORENA, GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO Q+A. I'M GREG BOYED. TODAY ` POLITICAL EDITOR CORIN DANN TALKS FOREIGN AFFAIRS WITH PRIME MINISTER BILL ENGLISH AFTER HIS VISIT TO JAPAN AND HONG KONG. ISN'T THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY` HASN'T THAT NOW BECOME THE NUMBER-ONE URGENT FOREIGN POLICY FOCUS FOR YOU AND YOUR GOVERNMENT? THEN GREEN CO-LEADER METIRIA TUREI IS HERE. AHEAD OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUDGET THIS WEEK, SHE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT A NEW GREEN BUDGET FOR MOTHERS AND BABIES. AND THEN ` FAMILY FIRST HAS BEEN TOLD IT WILL LOSE ITS TAX-FREE CHARITABLE STATUS. THE CHRISTIAN GROUP SAYS IT'S CENSORSHIP, AND IT'LL FIGHT THE DECISION TO THE SUPREME COURT. WHENA OWEN MEETS A CHARITIES LAW EXPERT WHO AGREES. THESE FREEDOMS ARE HARD-WON AND REALLY EASILY LOST. AND WE'LL HAVE ANALYSIS FROM OUR PANEL ` POLITICAL SCIENTIST DR RAYMOND MILLER FROM AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY. MARIANNE ELLIOTT, HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER AND NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF ACTION STATION. AND CHARLES FINNY, FORMER DIPLOMAT AND TRADE NEGOTIATOR, NOW GOVERNMENT RELATIONS CONSULTANT AT SAUNDERS UNSWORTH. LET'S START TODAY WITH PRIME MINISTER BILL ENGLISH, WHO SPENT THE WEEK TRYING TO INJECT A NEW LEASE OF LIFE INTO THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP. NZ AND JAPAN HAVE COMMITTED TO SIGNING UP TO THE FREE-TRADE DEAL DESPITE THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE STAR ATTRACTION, THE UNITED STATES. DONALD TRUMP IS ON HIS FIRST OVERSEAS TRIP AS PRESIDENT AND WILL BE WANTING TO SHIFT THE FOCUS FROM DOMESTIC ISSUES, NAMELY A FORMAL INQUIRY INTO HIS CAMPAIGN TEAM'S ALLEGED CONNECTIONS WITH RUSSIA. THOSE ALLEGATIONS HAVE ALARMED SOME POLITICIANS HERE TOO, BUT IN HONG KONG ON FRIDAY, MR ENGLISH TOLD CORIN DANN THAT NZERS SHOULDN'T GET TOO WORRIED ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE US. WELL, WE JUST, I THINK, NEED TO UNDERSTAND THERE'S A LOT OF DOMESTIC POLITICS IN THE US THAT'S PRETTY ROBUST ` CERTAINLY AT THE MOMENT ` A DIFFERENT WAY OF THE PRESIDENT OPERATING, BUT HOUR BY HOUR FOLLOWING IT WOULD DISTRACT, I THINK, THE GOVERNMENT FROM OUR CRITICAL FOCUS, WHICH IS ON GROWING THE ECONOMY, INVESTING IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT IT, GETTING THESE TRADE AGREEMENTS DONE. SO WHILE THE US POLITICS IS CREATING SOME UNCERTAINTY, WE WANT TO GET ON WITH THE JOB OF WORKING WITH LIKE-MINDED COUNTRIES TO ACHIEVE OUR TRADE OBJECTIVES AND MAKING SURE WE DON'T GET DISTRACTED FROM THE REAL` BUT ISN'T THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY`? HASN'T THAT NOW BECOME THE NUMBER-ONE URGENT FOREIGN POLICY FOCUS FOR YOU AND YOUR GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE IT IS CREATING UNCERTAINTY? WELL, IT DOES HAVE SOME EFFECTS. I MEAN, AN EXAMPLE IS AROUND THE TPP, WHERE THE US HAS PULLED OUT. THAT HAS CREATED A SITUATION WHERE CHINA HAS NOW BECOME A STANDARD-BEARER FOR OPEN TRADE. JAPAN HAS TAKEN A LEADERSHIP ROLE WHICH, JUST FIVE OR SIX YEARS AGO, YOU COULDN'T HAVE IMAGINED WITH RESPECT TO OPEN TRADE AND INVESTMENT FLOWS. SO WE'RE TAKING OUR OPPORTUNITY THAT GOES WITH THAT RATHER THAN FOLLOWING HOUR BY HOUR THE SOMETIMES EXCITING COMMENTARY IN WASHINGTON. YEAH, BUT THAT EXCITING COMMENTARY IN WASHINGTON, SURELY WE SHOULD BE FOLLOWING IT HOUR BY HOUR, BECAUSE IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO INTERPRET WHAT AMERICA IS DOING HOUR BY HOUR, YET IT COULD HAVE AN ENORMOUS IMPACT ON THE ASIAN REGION AND IS. LOOK, IT COULD` IF IT HAS AN IMPACT ON CONFIDENCE IN THE US ECONOMY, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN'T INFLUENCE BUT WOULD CERTAINLY BE CONCERNED ABOUT, BECAUSE THE US HAS BEEN GROWING; IT'S BEEN PULLING ALONG THE GLOBAL ECONOMY. THAT HAS HELPED US. IT DOES APPEAR THAT DESPITE THE DOMESTIC POLITICS, THE US IS STAYING FOCUSED ON THE MOST URGENT SECURITY ISSUE IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC, AND THAT'S THE THREAT FROM NORTH KOREA, WHERE THEY ARE CONTINUING TO WORK WITH CHINA, WITH JAPAN ON BRINGING PRESSURE TO BEAR ON RESOLVING THE NORTH KOREAN SITUATION WITHOUT CONFLICT. SO IF THEY CAN STAY FOCUSED ON THAT, THEN WE CERTAINLY SUPPORT THEM. WHEN DID THE TPP BECOME A STRATEGIC AGREEMENT? LOOK, I` IN TERMS OF THE ASIAN REGION, IN TERMS OF DEFENCE, BECAUSE THAT WAS TALKED UP VERY STRONGLY IN YOUR MEETINGS IN JAPAN. IT ALWAYS HAD A STRATEGIC ELEMENT TO IT, PARTICULARLY WITH THE US SHOWING LEADERSHIP ON TRADE IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC ` IF YOU REMEMBER PRESIDENT OBAMA'S PIVOT TO THE ASIA-PACIFIC ` BUT I THINK IT'S TAKEN ON A BIT MORE RELEVANCE AS A STRATEGIC AGREEMENT AT A TIME WHEN THE US HAS PULLED BACK, WHERE CHINA AND JAPAN ARE TAKING LEADERSHIP AND WHERE THEY'RE ALL FEELING A BIT THREATENED AND DESTABILISED BY WHAT'S GOING ON WITH NORTH KOREA. AND WE'RE FINDING OTHER COUNTRIES REACTING TO ALL THAT INSTABILITY BY TIGHTENING UP THEIR FOCUS AND PROBABLY BEING A BIT MORE INTERESTED AND DETERMINED ABOUT TPP. BECAUSE THAT WAS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST SURPRISING ELEMENTS TO COME OUT OF YOUR MEETING WITH SHINZO ABE WAS THE TALK ABOUT DEFENCE, STRATEGIC RELATIONSHIPS, CLOSER DEFENCE TIES ` THESE TYPES OF THINGS WITH JAPAN. DOESN'T THAT CREATE PROBLEM FOR NZ'S FOREIGN POLICY? JAPAN IS A RIVAL TO CHINA AND SEEMS TO NOW BE COMING INTO THAT VACUUM TO TAKE MORE OF A LEADERSHIP ROLE, AND WE SEEM TO BE SUPPORTING THEM, YET THAT WOULD BE IN CONFLICT PERHAPS NOT ON NORTH KOREA BUT ON OTHER ISSUES, LIKE THE SOUTH CHINA SEA, WITH CHINA. YOU'VE SEEN THIS TERM AROUND FOR A FEW YEARS ` 'THE MULTIPOLAR WORLD'. AS A SMALL OPEN ECONOMY, WE HAVE TO ADJUST TO A WORLD WHERE DIFFERENT COUNTRIES ARE DEMONSTRATING DIRECTION, LEADERSHIP ON DIFFERENT ISSUES THAT ARE RELEVANT TO US. SO IN THIS CASE, WITH THE US PULLING BACK FROM TRADE, IT'S CHINA, JAPAN TAKING AN INTEREST. THEY HAVE THEIR OWN TENSIONS BETWEEN THEM. THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY AS A SMALL COUNTRY TO KEEP THOSE IN BALANCE, AS WE DO BETWEEN CHINA AND THE US. BUT I COME BACK TO THE ISSUE OF TRUMP AND SAY WE SHOULDN'T GET TOO CAUGHT UP IN DOMESTIC POLITICS WITH TRUMP, BUT THE REMOVAL OF THE US FROM THE TPP, THE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE PACIFIC PIVOT HAS CREATED AN IMBALANCE, AND THAT IMBALANCE IS THAT THERE IS NOW NO COUNTERBALANCE TO CHINA'S RISING POWER. SO FOR YOU, AS PRIME MINISTER AND POTENTIALLY PRIME MINISTER AGAIN FOR ANOTHER THREE YEARS, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ENSURE THAT WE CAN NAVIGATE THIS MULTIPOLAR WORLD? I MEAN, IT'S FRAUGHT. WE HAVE TO FOLLOW TRUMP, DON'T WE? WE HAVE TO TRY AND WORK OUT WHAT'S GOING ON. WELL, LOOK, WE HAVE A VERY STRONG INTEREST IN STABILITY OF THE US DOMESTIC POLITICS AND PREDICTABILITY ABOUT THEIR DIRECTION, PARTICULARLY ON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY. WE'RE NOT GETTING ANY PREDICTABILITY. WELL, THEY'RE GOING THROUGH A PROCESS OF WORKING OUT HOW THIS NEW PRESIDENCY IS GOING TO WORK. WE CAN'T INFLUENCE THAT. THEY'VE GOT THEIR OWN CHECKS AND BALANCES, AND I THINK YOU'RE SEEING ALL THOSE WORKING. IN THE MEANTIME, WE CAN GET ON WITH THE TASKS WHERE WE DO HAVE DIRECT RELEVANCE, LIKE THE TPP. DO YOU THINK THAT DONALD TRUMP IS BEING UNFAIRLY TARGETED BY THE MEDIA THERE? I WOULDN'T WANT TO SPECULATE ABOUT ALL THAT. THAT'S US DOMESTIC POLITICS, AND, AS WE CAN SEE, IT'S ALL PRETTY ENERGISED AT THE MOMENT AND SOME PRETTY SIGNIFICANT ISSUES FOR THEM. OUR HOPE IS THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO STAY FOCUSED, PARTICULARLY ON THE NORTH KOREAN ISSUES, BECAUSE THAT'S AN IMMEDIATE SECURITY PROBLEM, PARTICULARLY FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF FRIENDS OF OURS LIKE JAPAN. DO YOU ACCEPT, THOUGH, THAT HAVING DONALD TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE HAS CREATED THE POTENTIAL FOR AN INCREASED LIKELIHOOD OF A MISSTEP, A MISCALCULATION? BECAUSE THAT'S THE REAL RISK, ISN'T IT, WITH NORTH KOREA? I MEAN, BOTH SIDES` THE PROSPECT, AS YOU'VE MENTIONED, OF CONFLICT IS SO TERRIBLE THAT IT'S UNLIKELY, BUT THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF A MISSTEP, AND WITH TRUMP THERE, SURELY THERE IS A GREATER RISK NOW. WELL, ALL THE PARTICIPANTS FACE RISKS OF THOSE MISSTEPS, INCLUDING` BUT HAS IT RISEN NOW THAT DONALD TRUMP IS THERE? WELL, ON THE NORTH KOREAN ISSUE, THE US ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN QUITE DIRECT AND REASONABLY PREDICTABLE, AND THEY'VE BEEN GETTING AROUND THE REGION, EXPLAINING THEIR POSITION. THAT PART OF THE ADMINISTRATION SEEMS TO BE WORKING REASONABLY WELL. OTHERS FACE RISKS OF MISSTEPS. I MEAN, CHINA HAS INFLUENCE OVER NORTH KOREA. THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THEY MIGHT JUDGE THAT. THE REAL PROBLEM HERE, OF COURSE, IS WHETHER NORTH KOREA MAKES SOME MISSTEPS. DID JAPAN ASK FOR ANY SUPPORT IN TERMS OF THEIR ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO CONDUCT PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKES AGAINST NORTH KOREA ` A CHANGE THAT'S NECESSARY TO THEIR CONSTITUTION? WAS THAT DISCUSSED? NOT SPECIFICALLY IN THOSE TERMS. WE'RE AWARE OF PRIME MINISTER ABE'S INTENTION TO TRY` WELL, HE'S FLOATED THE IDEA OF CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION` DID THEY ASK FOR NZ SUPPORT IN TERMS OF JAPAN TAKING MORE OF A DEFENCE ROLE IN THE REGION? OBVIOUSLY, IT'S GOT THE ALLIANCE WITH THE US, BUT THE US IS PULLING BACK, SO DO THEY WANT OUR SUPPORT? WELL, I THINK WE HAVE SOME INTERACTION WITH THEIR SELF-DEFENCE FORCES. WE WILL CONTINUE THAT ON TERMS THAT ARE SUITABLE TO JAPAN, BUT IT'S AN ISSUE FOR THEM AS TO HOW FAR THEY GO CHANGING THEIR SELF-DEFENCE CONSTITUTION. AND... BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY ` COMING BACK TO CHINA ` SOUTH CHINA SEA AND THAT ISSUE WITH JAPAN IS A MAJOR BONE OF CONTENTION. I'M JUST CURIOUS, BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE THE PRIME MINISTER FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LEAD NZ THROUGH THIS TIGHTROPE, AND BY COSYING UP CLOSER WITH JAPAN, SURELY THAT CREATES SOME TENSIONS. WELL, THEY HAVE... LOOK, JAPAN DOES LOOK FOR SUPPORT OVER ITS TERRITORIAL DISPUTES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA AND THE EAST CHINA SEA. THOSE ARE DISPUTES AMONG NEIGHBOURS IN THAT PART OF THE REGION. WE DON'T WANT TO BE` WE DON'T GET INVOLVED IN TAKING SIDES ON THOSE DISPUTES. EACH SIDE CONTENDS THERE ISN'T ACTUALLY A DISPUTE, BECAUSE EACH SIDE BELIEVES THEY'VE GOT THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP. SO OUR FOCUS IS A TRADITIONAL NZ ONE IN THAT RESPECT, AND THAT IS THAT THESE ARE BEST RESOLVED BY INTERNATIONAL LAW ` IN THIS CASE, LAW OF THE SEA AND VARIOUS CONVENTIONS ` AND WE ENCOURAGE THEM TO STICK TO THAT. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT COUNTRIES LIKE OURSELVES KEEP MAKING THAT POINT. IS IT FRUSTRATING THAT WE'RE ESSENTIALLY GOING TO POTENTIALLY SIGN UP TO THE TPP AND OFFER AMERICA UP THOSE SAME DEALS THAT CAUSED SO MUCH CONTROVERSY AROUND PHARMAC COPYRIGHT ` THAT THEY'LL GET ACCESS TO THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVEN'T SIGNED UP? WELL, WE HAVE A CHOICE OF UNRAVELLING THE WHOLE THING, BECAUSE THERE'S BITS THAT EACH COUNTRY DOESN'T LIKE, INCLUDING NZ. IF WE GO DOWN THAT TRACK, IT'LL NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPEN. THIS NEEDS TO MOVE AT SPEED, AND THAT MEANS BEING A BIT PRAGMATIC ABOUT ARRANGEMENTS THAT WERE NEGOTIATED IN THERE WITH THE US. IF THOSE ARRANGEMENTS STAY IN PLACE, IT INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE US WOULD BE INCENTIVISED TO JOIN IT LATER. AND HAVE YOU HAD ADVICE ON WHAT THE ECONOMIC GAIN WOULD BE FROM A DEAL IF YOU CAN GET THE TPP 11? WELL, IT'S STILL QUITE CONSIDERABLE, BUT WE'VE YET TO FORMALISE ALL THE NUMBERS. AND IN JAPAN WE WERE PRESENTED WITH EXAMPLES WHICH SHOW, FOR INSTANCE, THAT THE AUSTRALIAN BEEF IMPORTS HAVE A MUCH LOWER TARIFF THAN NZ BEEF IMPORTS. THAT'S NOW STARTING TO ERODE OUR MARKET IN JAPAN. SO IN THE ABSENCE OF THE TPP, WE COULD END UP LOSING WHAT IS A PRETTY HIGH-VALUE MARKET. SO IS THE ARGUMENT FOR THE TPP STILL THE ONE THAT WE JUST CAN'T AFFORD NOT TO BE IN IT? YES, ESSENTIALLY. IT'S IN OUR INTERESTS POSITIVELY FOR JOBS AND INCOMES AT HOME, AND I THINK IT'S NOW GOT A GROWING STRATEGIC RELEVANCE GIVEN THESE UNCERTAINTIES AROUND THE US ADMINISTRATION, NORTH KOREA AND VARIOUS TENSIONS AROUND SOUTH EAST ASIA. JUST FINALLY, ON THE ISSUE OF THE BELT AND ROAD, 18 MONTHS NOW, I UNDERSTAND, THE GOVERNMENT` FOR 18 MONTHS, NZ AND CHINA WILL NOW WORK ON WAYS IN WHICH THERE COULD BE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS. IS IT LIKELY THAT THERE WILL BE BELT-AND-ROAD-INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT IN NZ FROM CHINESE FIRMS ` JOINT VENTURES OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE ` UNDER THIS DEAL? LOOK, I DON'T SEE IT CONNECTING TOO SPECIFICALLY TO THE CHINESE BELT-AND-ROAD STRATEGY. IT'S GOT, I THINK, A LOT MORE RELEVANCE IN THEIR OWN REGION. WE HAVE OUR OWN RULES ABOUT INVESTMENT COMING INTO NZ. THAT DOESN'T CHANGE. ONE OTHER THING ` THE ASIAN INVESTMENT BANK ` THE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT BANK ` WHICH YOU ACTUALLY WENT UP AND SIGNED NZ UP TO, WOULD NZ EVER CONSIDER TAKING INVESTMENTS FROM THAT BANK IN TERMS OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE DEFICIT? IF WE FITTED THE CRITERIA, WE WOULD. I MEAN, WE ARE KEEN TO INVEST IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A GROWING ECONOMY. WE'RE NOT GOING DOWN THE LINE OF THE OPPOSITION PARTIES OF SAYING, 'WELL, LET'S STOP THE ECONOMY GROWING, 'BECAUSE IT'S TOO HARD TO KEEP UP.' WE WANT TO KEEP UP, AND DIFFERENT SOURCES OF FINANCE, DIFFERENT MODELS OF FINANCING ARE ALL GOING TO BE PART OF HOW WE MAKE THOSE INVESTMENTS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. SO WE WOULD BE OPEN TO THE CHINESE-BASED INFRASTRUCTURE BANK INVESTING IN NZ IN THE RIGHT PROJECTS? IN THE RIGHT PROJECTS. WE'VE GOT A RANGE OF` YOU KNOW, THERE'S CHINESE BANKS IN NZ NOW. THERE'S JAPANESE CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES. THEY'VE HAD A LONG HISTORY OF DOING SOME PROJECTS IN NZ, AND IF IT'S GOING TO HELP US DEAL WITH THE ISSUES THAT ARE RELEVANT TO OUR HOUSEHOLDS, TO OUR BUSINESSES, TO OUR JOBS AND INCOMES, THEN WE'LL USE THEM. AND SHORTLY AFTER THE PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING WITH HIS JAPANESE COUNTERPART, A CHINESE FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESPERSON DESCRIBED THEIR DISCUSSION OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ISSUE AS 'INAPPROPRIATE'. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT WITH THE PANEL AFTER THE BREAK. SEND US YOUR THOUGHTS. WE'RE ON TWITTER @NZQandA. YOU CAN EMAIL US AT Q+A@TVNZ.CO.NZ OR TEXT YOUR THOUGHTS AND FIRST NAME TO 2211. KEEP THEM BRIEF; EACH TEXT COSTS 50C. COMING UP ` CORIN'S INTERVIEW WITH THE CHIEF ECONOMIST OF THE BANK OF CHINA, ONE OF THE WORLD'S BIGGEST BANKS. HOW WILL CHINA'S SLOWDOWN AFFECT NEW ZEALAND? THAT'S NEXT. EARLIER IN THE WEEK, CORIN DANN ATTENDED THE ONE BELT, ONE ROAD CONFERENCE IN BEIJING, CHINA'S AMBITIOUS GLOBAL TRADE AND INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN. THERE HE SAT DOWN WITH THE CHIEF ECONOMIST FOR THE BANK OF CHINA. THE BANK IS THE WORLD'S FIFTH BIGGEST. MAJORITY-OWNED BY THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT, IT HAS BRANCHES ALL OVER THE GLOBE, INCLUDING NZ. WITH OTHER $20B IN TWO-WAY TRADE, CHINA IS UNDOUBTEDLY A CRUCIAL TRADING PARTNER FOR NZ AND ITS FUTURE. BUT WHAT ARE THE PROSPECTS FOR THE CHINESE ECONOMY? AT THE MOMENT, IT IS GROWING PRETTY STRONGLY AT AROUND 6.9%, BUT IT HAS SOME BIG CHALLENGES WITH DEBT AND REFORM IN THE FUTURE. IT IS MY GREAT PLEASURE ON Q+A TO BE JOINED THIS MORNING BY DR CAO YUANZHENG, THE CHIEF ECONOMIST OF THE BANK OF CHINA. DO YOU THINK FOR A COUNTRY LIKE NZ, WHICH SENDS A LOT OF FOOD, DAIRY PRODUCTS TO CHINA, THAT DEMAND FOR THOSE PRODUCTS WILL CONTINUE EVEN IF CHINA SLOWS? OF COURSE, OBVIOUSLY. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A PLAN DURING THE YEAR FROM 2010 TO 2020. WITHIN THREE YEARS, THE PERSONAL INCOME DOUBLED. CHINA IS A LARGE COUNTRY WITH A LARGE POPULATION ` 1.3 BILLION PEOPLE. IF THEIR INCOME DOUBLED WITHIN THREE YEARS, NOW, YOU CAN SEE THIS IS A VERY BIG MARKET, AND THAT IS THE CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBALISATION. AND I THINK NZ HAS MUCH CHANCES TO ENJOY THIS MARKET. liVING STANDARD RAISED, THEY WANT MORE FOOD, MORE MEAT AND MORE, UM... AND OTHER GOODS. AND THAT IS A VERY BIG MARKET FOR NZ TO EXPORT. HOW IMPORTANT FOR CHINA IS 'ONE BELT, ONE ROAD'? IS THIS CHINA'S, I GUESS, PICKING UP THE MANTLE FOR GLOBALISATION, PERHAPS, WHERE AMERICA IS MOVING INWARD? IS THAT HOW WE SEE IT? YEAH, CORRECT. I THINK, YOU KNOW, 'ONE BELT, ONE ROAD' IS AN INITIATIVE BY THE CHINESE ALSO ABOUT FOR YEARS. HOWEVER, WHY THIS TIME IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAN EVER, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST IN THE CRUCIAL TIME FOR DEGLOBALISATION. GLOBALISATION, I SHOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, AFTER WWII, ESPECIALLY AFTER THE COLD WAR, IT'S BENEFICIAL TO THE WHOLE WORLD, BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE AFTER THAT, WORLDWIDE, NO HEAVY DISEASE, NO HEAVY STARVATION AND NO WORLD WAR. AND IT'S BETTER FOR THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; THEIR PERSONAL INCOME VERY MUCH INCREASED AND THE GROWTH RATE IS HIGH, AND EVERY PEOPLE ENJOYED THAT. SO THAT'S WHY WE BELIEVE GLOBALISATION IS A HUMAN'S FATE. AND NZ IS SUPPORTING AND HAS SIGNED UP TO THE 'ONE BELT, ONE ROAD' INITIATIVE. HOW DOES A COUNTRY LIKE NZ, A LONG WAY AWAY FROM CHINA, DO YOU THINK, FIT IN? WHAT CAN WE OFFER? YOU KNOW, 'ONE BELT, ONE ROAD' IS NOT ONLY A GEOGRAPHICAL IDEA; IT IS AN IDEA FOR THE WORLD, FOR GLOBALISATION. YOU KNOW, BEFORE PREVIOUS TO GLOBALISATION, YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A DOCTRINE FOR COMPETITION. THAT MEANS THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE WHITE AND BLACK. YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT DOCTRINE, OTHERWISE YOU WILL BE PUNISHED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT FOR 'ONE BELT, ONE ROAD', IT IS THE CHINESE PHILOSOPHY THAT WE DO NOT NEED CONFLICT; WE JUST NEED TO TALK, NEGOTIATE AND TO FIND A WAY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS. THAT IS THE... YOU KNOW, THE BASIC IDEA FOR THE 'ONE BELT, ONE ROAD' ` WHAT WE SAID ` INCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT. DO YOU THINK IT COULD MEAN THAT BANKS LIKE YOURSELF WOULD BE MORE INTERESTED IN HELPING NZ WITH SOME OF ITS INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEMS? OBVIOUSLY. NOW WE HAVE THE BRANCHES IN NZ, AND IT IS A NEW START OF PROGRESS. THAT MEANS, YOU KNOW, BANK OF CHINA TRY TO HELP NZ TO BUILD EVEN CLOSER COMMUNICATIONS WITH CHINA. AND DO YOU THINK WE MIGHT SEE MORE CHINESE EXPERTISE IN THINGS LIKE RAIL AND STEEL AND CONCRETE COMING TO NZ TO HELP? BECAUSE NZ NEEDS` IF YOU HAVE THE DEMAND. IF WE HAVE THE DEMAND. WE'RE WILLING TO. DOES CHINA WORRY ABOUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY WITH THE UNITED STATES STARTING TO TALK ABOUT PROTECTIONISM? IS THAT A CONCERN? YES, THAT'S NOW A CONCERN. BUT, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO OUR IDEAS, WE DO NOT NEED CONFLICT; WE NEED NEGOTIATION. SO YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE A 100-DAYS PROGRAMME WITH THE US. AND THE LAST DAY, YOU CAN SEE THEY ANNOUNCE 10 PROGRAMMES, FOR INSTANCE, THEY RELEASED THE BANS FROM THE BEEF IMPORT, AND THEN THEY RELEASED BANS TO IMPORT GASOLINE ` GAS. THAT IS IN ORDER TO REBALANCE THE DEFICIT BETWEEN THE US AND CHINA. AND DO YOU THINK THAT PERHAPS RELATIONS ARE BETTER THAN PEOPLE THOUGHT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA? NOT AS BAD AS IT LOOKED IN THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN, PERHAPS? NO. IS THERE ANY RISK, I GUESS, OF A HARD LANDING FOR CHINA IF IT DOESN'T GET ITS REFORMS RIGHT? MM. ALTHOUGH WE DO NOT BELIEVE CHINA WILL ENJOY A HIGH GROWTH RATE, BUT, NO, THERE IS NO RISK. LET'S BRING IN OUR PANEL ` POLITICAL SCIENTIST DR RAYMOND MILLER FROM AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY, MARIANNE ELLIOTT, NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF ACTION STATION, AND CHARLES FINNY, FORMER DIPLOMAT AND TRADE NEGOTIATOR. Marianne, I will start with you. Bill English is very keen on keeping TPP alive. What are your thoughts on what he had to say? It is interesting. There has been a lot of resistance to the TPP in NZ. Action station was involved in the campaign. We presented to the Ministry of foreign affairs thousands of individual submissions against it. At the time, the government representatives on the committee conceded that they hadn't done a good job of bringing the public along with them, and I don't know that that has shifted. What I do not hear in any of the conversation as any genuine response to the public concern, because the public concerns about the steel are the same as we make and domestic policy. People are concerned about public health and medicine prices and the environment, and we continue to hear the government talk about the steel in terms of economic growth without being really interested in the kind of economic growth` is it the kind of economic growth and the jobs we want? I still don't hear any real response to the real public concerns. Charles, it seems that the rules haven't changed despite the star attraction not being part of it any more. No one actually knows what the final product is going to be, but certainly no one is wanting to open up the negotiation` the agreement for renegotiation, the Japanese will say take out agriculture and we will get nothing. What is really interesting is listening to that last comment ` TPP is one of the few agreements that does have chapters and at about labour standards, about the environment. It was not very well consulted, it was designed to be something that is actually reflecting the wider interests of society. In terms of the process that is going ahead with and alternative being negotiated, I hope that they do keep consulting. Should this still be a going concern for NZ? To me it's like beating a dead horse. I cannot understand why the government has gone back to this. The major appeal of it was the access to the American markets. That is gone. For the foreseeable future. Canada and Mexico, to other partners, are preoccupied with negotiating NAFTA. Others we are hearing very little from, so why NZ is trying to assert leadership and this I am not sure. You have to ask what the benefits are for NZ. It is hard to know because of the secrecy around the document. As Corin pointed out in his interview, major concessions were made to NZ businesses in areas of pharmaceuticals, for instance, even though NZ is denied access to the American market. Is this a dead or deeply unconscious horse? The argument about secrecy is rubbish. The whole agreement is in public, it is all there. In terms of access to the Japanese market, we are talking about tens of millions of tariff reductions against some slight increase in prices for medicines. We are talking about two or $3 million a year. Even without the United States, there are huge gains for NZ. With the United States not there, one of the gains for NZ? There are also concessions to those corporations in the United States in terms of being able to challenge the laws we have NZ's, to protect workers and ensure they have decent conditions. Will they have jobs? That has yet to be seen. There is also a risk of NZ workers losing the few remaining protections they have. Raymond, less than four months out from an election, should there be some hay on this? The public concern should be captured by labour. It should exploit that as much as possible, because I think, if anything, the TPP is weaker than it was a year ago because the US is not there. NZ is pretty much out on its own with Japan on this. I think labour has the cover position of opposition to the TPP. I would be very surprised if they went along with it under its current terms. As this primarily a trade agreement or is it a strategic agreement? For NZ, it is primarily a trade agreement, because we do not have a trade agreement with Japan like the Australians do. But for a number of other countries in the Asia-Pacific, this is become more strategic in its importance. It is all about trying to demonstrate that Trump is wrong and there is still interest in free trade and globalisation, and there is a strong desire by Japan and others to try and keep the United States engaged in the Asia-Pacific region. One belts one Road ` is this something we should be focusing on more? I would not push TPP to one side, but certainly one belts, one Road is something we should be focusing on. 18 months ago, we were not paying enough attention to it. I was glad that it was part of the premiers visit to NZ's a few months ago. The South China Sea issue was brought up. This is a delicate tight rope for us to be walking. I felt that the Prime Minister made the response that you could make ` that NZ's position on this and many other issues that are contested globally as to refer to international law. It is a delicate tight rope. Referring it to international law is probably the only answer he could have given in that context. That is a tight spot. How should we be playing this? We depend upon a fully functioning international legal system. For NZ, it is very important for everyone to remember that it is crucially important for us in terms of our economic future that we have peace and stability and that we should be a player in the debate, encouraging the different parties to do sensible things. We do not want military confrontation in North Korea or the North China Sea. Bill English was very keen to not say anything about Donald Trump and the United States. What did you think of his comments? I understand why he is fairly tightlipped on this. The American allies must be very concerned. Here is someone in the US presidency who was both erratic and impulsive in his behaviour. Just a few days ago, he gave Israeli intelligence to Russian officials. He is described the former FBI director as a nut job. You have to be very concerned about major issues like North Korea and the North China Sea with Donald Trump as the leader of the free world. So I think there is reason for a real alarm over what is happening, remembering that NZ is a member of the Five Eyes and subject to receiving and disbursing information and intelligence to the other members of the Five Eyes network. Because of Five Eyes, should we be taking a stronger stand on this? Should Bill English publicly expressed alarm at the US president? I think the public of NZ are alarms, so their prime minister is going to be in a very difficult position where he has to continue holding this line where he doesn't express any criticism. He will have to work out how to resolve that and address the fact that here in NZ, we sit in this Asia-Pacific region. We are affected by any sudden changes in politics in the region. Charles, given what he did not say about America, what has actually been achieved out of this visit? In terms of the visit to Japan? In terms of the whole visit to Hong Kong and Japan. In terms of Hong Kong, it was to meet the new administration there but also to say we open floor investment from China. But in terms of Japan, it is a relationship that is changing quite fast. The Japanese are playing a leadership role which is very unusual but very positive. I think we will need to invest more in that relationship AFTER THE BREAK ` I'LL BE TALKING TO GREEN PARTY CO-LEADER METIRIA TUREI AND HER NEW POLICY FOR PARENTS AND BABIES NEXT. WELCOME BACK, AND WELCOME TO GREEN PARTY CO-LEADER METIRIA TUREI. First of all, if I can just get your reaction to what billing which had to say about the TPP? First of all, he refused to give Corran the numbers of the deal to NZ. They must know what those numbers are. The last numbers that they made public was less than 1% of GDP. Now that the US is gone, the question is what is the value to NZ? NZ would have to bear the cost of the US demands like the length and copyright protection, like Pharmac, but the invested disputes process will undermine any of the benefits of the agreement. The public do not want a bar of it. The Greens have an announcement. Tell us what this is. This is the budget for all mothers, and what it does is it provides support for boast time and money. Parenting is difficult at times but an incredibly important job. Parents need more time and more money to be able to do a great job of taking care of their kids. The budget for all mothers has four parts to it ` extending the parental tax credit, extending sick leave, a baby pod for all newborns, and extending the Oscar subsidies to give parents more time during the after-school and school holidays. How will the parental tax work? All families are entitled to paid parental leave or parental tax credit, but that excludes all families who are on the benefit or who receive NZ superannuation or who are on ACC or student allowance. So there are about 20,000 newborn babies who do not get access to any of that support that other families do. We will extend the parental tax credit to those families who are currently excluded. Many of those families need as much up as possible when their babies are very little. It means $220 a week for the first 10 weeks that their baby is born. About 20,000 people affected, around 44 million is the bottom line. Where will that come from? It will come out of government budgets. In September of this year, we will have more information from Treasury about all of that. We know that it is necessary. We can't have systems like the parental tax credit currently, which discriminate against their families that have the greatest need. Especially for families who are bringing home a newborn baby. It is very difficult and they need as much support as possible. $2000 a family is not much for the government to be providing assistance. It is not means tested. Some people will not need this, but they will apply anyway. It is not means tested, is that right? There is a debate at the moment. For those high income families, doesn't always mean that because someone is earning a lot of money that the mother and the baby are getting what they need. So then you have to decide ` is it worse that some people don't need as much won't get it, I want all mothers and babies to have the best financial support when they come from from hospital. It is universal, less complicated and we know that no baby or their mother will suffer. What difference will this make? Even government papers are saying that when families bring the new baby's home, they are the most financially constrained. Mothers and their babies will spend that money on what they need for the baby's. Also better quality food for the breastfeeding mum. These are ways of making sure that mums and babies have the best chance of a great start of life ` good food and less parental stress ` this is all really important. This will hit business owners? The sickly provisions are essential. The one thing that mothers talking about this say is yes please, more leave. Not only do they need it for themselves but they needed to take care of their kids. Any parent who has had a baby with a three-day vomiting bug knows that you need to have more leave. 80% of workers who are on collective agreements get more than the minimum five days anyway, so we are saying that you should bring it up to 10 days a year and that means that people have the chance to have sick leave, to take care of their kids, but also grandparents taking care of the grandchildren and people of our generation taking care of their parents. But if you are a small business owner and all of a sudden it goes from 5 to 10 days of sick leave, that will hurt business owners. For some business owners that might be true. It's also true that business owners are parents or will be parents. We know for low income parents who are working in very insecure employment that they are very nervous about taking extra days to take their kids to the doctor because they are worried that they will be fired if they take extra days and paid days. We also know that kids do not get to the doctor soon enough other ones most likely to end up in hospital with serious illnesses that will affect them for life. If we want to make sure that our babies are getting access to the best health support they need, then parents need time to get to the doctor. Have you spoken to labour about this? I know they know about this policy. I am not sure what the responses. This is why we need to be talking about the value of parenting to the NZ community. If New Zealanders want parenting to be valued and this new government that we intend to form with labour, then we need the greatest amount of support for the Greens to get these policies through. A lot of people would say Greens are environmental. Is this the sort of policy you should be pushing? Particularly given you have an understanding with labour. The selection, we will be talking a lot about families, the cost of living that families are suffering and making sure that families have got what they need to take care of the kids. And will be be talking a lot about the environment and especially clean water, and it is critical to our communities. Four months out from election, too many plates spinning? This is where we get to talk about the great ideas that Greens will put in place. The more we can talk about the breadth of policy that will take care of families and take carE of our environment, the better. New Zealanders really value their families and the environment. If there is a Greens and labour government, what about the Trump administration? The Greens did not support the notion of congratulating Trump when he took the presidency, I think the Bell English as the Prime Minister, and any Prime Minister, should reflect the concerns of the NZ public. The public is very concerned about what Trump's collection has meant, and we have seen major disasters happen in America as a result of that election. I think our political leaders should be reflecting our public concern more openly. Thanks for coming in. AFTER THE BREAK ` FAMILY FIRST HAS BEEN TOLD IT CAN NO LONGER CALL ITSELF A CHARITY. THE CHRISTIAN LOBBY GROUP WILL LOSE ITS TAX-FREE STATUS, BECAUSE THE CHARITIES BOARD SAYS ITS FOCUS IS POLITICAL. WE'RE A VERY CHARITABLE LOT IN NZ, IT WOULD SEEM, WITH NEARLY 28,000 REGISTERED CHARITIES. BUT ONE IN PARTICULAR HAS BEEN IN THE SPOTLIGHT THIS WEEK. FAMILY FIRST HAS BEEN TOLD IT CAN NO LONGER HOLD ITS TAX-EXEMPT CHARITABLE STATUS BECAUSE OF ITS POLITICAL FOCUS. AS WHENA OWEN REPORTS, A CHARITIES LAWYER IS WARNING THAT THE FAMILY FIRST DECISION WILL STOP OTHER CHARITIES FROM SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS TOO. RADIO: # SO LET'S START GIVING. EVERY DAY, YOU COULD BE GIVING TO A REGISTERED CHARITY WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING IT. LIKE EATING SANITARIUM WEET-BIX, OWNED BY THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH. JUMPING ON A GO BUS, OWNED BY NGAI TAHU AND TAINUI HOLDINGS, A REGISTERED CHARITY. # WE'RE SAVING OUR OWN LIVES. OR DRINKING MISSION ESTATE WINES, A CATHOLIC CHARITY. A STAY IN THIS HOTEL ` TAINUI. TAKE A DART RIVER JET SAFARI ` NGAI TAHU. OR IF YOU REALLY WANT EXCITEMENT, ORDER THIS NATURAL VIAGRA, OWNED BY ANOTHER REGISTERED CHARITY, THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH COMMUNITY TRUST, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS GLORIAVALE. # WE ARE THE ONES WHO MAKE A BRIGHTER DAY, # SO LET'S START GIVING. # THE ACT PARTY'S DAVID SEYMOUR WANTS AN OVERHAUL. THESE COMPANIES THAT ARE ACTUALLY NOT COMPANIES. MOST PEOPLE WOULD THINK THAT GO BUS AND MISSION ESTATE AND SANITARIUM ARE BUSINESSES. IN ACTUAL FACT, THEY'RE REGISTERED AS CHARITIES. BUT SEYMOUR IS MORE CONCERNED WITH OTHER CHARITIES MEDDLING IN POLITICS. FAMILY FIRST LOOKS SET TO LOSE ITS CHARITABLE STATUS FOR LOBBYING ON SOCIAL ISSUES, AND DAVID SEYMOUR SAYS 'GOOD JOB'. THEY SPEND A HUGE AMOUNT OF THEIR TIME CAMPAIGNING, FOR INSTANCE, AGAINST MY EUTHANASIA BILL OR CAMPAIGNING PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT SEXUALITIES WHO WANT TO BE RECOGNISED AND HAVE THEIR RIGHTS RECOGNISED. WHO WANT TO BE RECOGNISED AND HAVE THEIR RIGHTS RECOGNISED. NOW, THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT WHEN PEOPLE TRY TO PROMOTE THOSE CAUSES, THEY HAVE TO ACTUALLY PAY TAX ON THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS, AND I JUST WANT THE PLAYING FIELD TO BE LEVEL. BUT IN WELLINGTON, CHARITY LAW EXPERT SUE BARKER IS DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FAMILY FIRST DECISION. IF YOU DEREGISTER FAMILY FIRST BECAUSE YOU DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT THEY'RE SAYING AND WITH THEIR VIEW OF THE FAMILY AND THEIR VIEW OF GAY MARRIAGE, WHERE DOES THAT STOP AND WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE? AND WHAT WORRIES ME IS THAT IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE. AND THESE FREEDOMS IN NEW ZEALAND THAT WE HAVE, WE'RE SO LUCKY. THESE FREEDOMS ARE HARD WON AND REALLY EASILY LOST. TO BE REGISTERED, CHARITIES MUST FULFIL AT LEAST ONE OF THESE FOUR PURPOSES ` SUE BARKER THINKS THE FAMILY FIRST DECISION WILL CONSTRAIN OTHER CHARITIES. CHARITIES FEEL THEY CAN'T SPEAK UP IN FURTHERANCE OF THEIR CHARITABLE PURPOSES BECAUSE THEY RISK LOSING THEIR REGISTERED CHARITABLE STATUS. (COINS JANGLE) I'VE SEEN CHARITIES THREATENED WITH DEREGISTRATION BECAUSE THEY MADE SUBMISSIONS TO THEIR LOCAL REGIONAL COUNCIL ABOUT WATER. I MEAN, THE POINT IS IS THAT CHARITIES ARE AT THE COAL FACE. THEY SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING. WE WANT THEM SPEAKING UP. IF THEY SEE SOMETHING ABOUT GOVERNMENT POLICY OR LAW OR WHATEVER THAT'S NOT RIGHT, WE WANT THEM SPEAKING UP. I MEAN, WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY. GREENPEACE DEFENDED ITS CHARITABLE STATUS ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT. SEYMOUR WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE REGISTRATION OF ANOTHER ENVIRONMENT CHARITY, FOREST & BIRD, REVIEWED. YOU SEE UNDER KEVIN HAGUE, THEY BEGIN TO BECOME MORE AND MORE OF A POLITICAL ORGANISATION, AND THAT'S ABSOLUTELY FINE; THEY'VE GOT EVERY RIGHT TO DO THAT. BUT I DON'T SEE WHY THEY SHOULD GET TAX-FREE LOBBYING. THE ACT LEADER ALSO HAS AN ISSUE WITH VEGANS. KUMARA AND LENTILS. THERE ARE TWO REGISTERED VEGAN CHARITIES. HE SUSPECTS THEY'RE PUSHING A POLITICAL AGENDA. THEY'RE ATTEMPTING TO PUSH THEIR PARTICULAR VIEW OF THE WORLD ON OTHER PEOPLE, AND I THINK THAT'S WRONG. THE VEGAN SOCIETY OF AOTEAROA IS MYSTIFIED AS TO WHY SEYMOUR HAS SINGLED THEM OUT. WE ARE SURPRISED, REALLY, BECAUSE WE'RE JUST TRYING TO ACT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND TO MAKE NEW ZEALAND A BETTER PLACE, WE'RE TRYING TO SUPPORT PEOPLE, AND WE ACT WITHIN THE REMIT OF THE CHARITABLE PROVISION, AND, YEAH, WE'RE JUST THERE TO BE HELPFUL. SUE BARKER SHARES SOME CONCERNS WITH THE ACT LEADER AROUND THE TAX ADVANTAGE OF CHARITIES OVER OTHER BUSINESSES. WHERE I THINK THERE IS AN ISSUE IS IF A CHARITY IS USING THOSE FUNDS THAT IT'S BEEN ABLE TO ACCUMULATE FASTER THAN A FOR-PROFIT PAYING BUSINESS IN AN ANTI-COMPETITIVE WAY, AND I HAVE SEEN THAT IN PRACTICE, AND THAT SEEMS TO BE AN ISSUE THAT FALLS THROUGH THE GAP. THE SIMPLE SOLUTION WOULD BE FOR THEM TO SPIN OFF THEIR BUSINESSES, RUN THEM AS COMPANIES, AND THEN IF THEY DONATE MONEY TO THEIR CHARITABLE ARM, THEN THEY CAN GET A TAX RECEIPT FOR THAT, BUT THEY CAN'T CONSTANTLY SPIN CAPITAL AROUND IN ONE ORGANISATION THAT IS TAX-EXEMPT. IT'S UNFAIR. BUT ALL UP, BARKER SAYS WE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING CHARITIES AND ENCOURAGING THEM TO SPEAK OUT BECAUSE THEY'RE A CORNERSTONE OF A STRONG CIVIL SOCIETY. Who picks on Vegans? Should family first be allowed to keep its charity status? I read and ecellent op-ed today. If the sole purpose is advocacy, doing nothing other than advocate for policies, Then there is a question about whether it is a charity. If the prime purpose is for doing good deeds in accordance with the charities act, they should be able to advocate for policies as well. I think there is an issue here about family first. I am not particularly worried about that charity being deregistered. I share Sue Barker's concern about the silencing of charities who are speaking out about important issues and I agree that a lot of charities who areGiving services to communities that enable them to articular problems with government policy, and I would be very of any chilling effect. Certain charities in New Zealand have been singled out, I air on the side of protecting the rights of charities to be able to advocate on social issues. Is this a slippery slope to democracy question mark I agree with Maryanne. Any review suggested along the lines of David Seymour has the potential to bring about government interference. One of the government ministers a week ago said that he believed that anyone who disagreed with the government should be loses government funding. This is an unfortunate thing before 2012 on two occasions, family first was able to argue for retention of its charitable status. In 2012, the commission was brought into the internal affairs department, and since then there have been two or three attempts to remove the writer family first for this funding. I do think there is the potential, even if it is not true, the perception of the chilling effect is taking place as a bad thing. You wonder whether line is. I would think a lot of churches have a lot to say about same-sex marriage. Are they political lobby groups all of a sudden? What is a family first do other than that? I am not an advocate for family first by any means, but it claims to be involved in research and education, as do other such groups. It comes to where you draw the line when it comes to political advocacy. Because many people disagree with family first, tthey might take a different line with Greenpeace or Amnesty, the danger is if you start drawing this line, where do you draw? The assumption as well, David Seymour said he wanted a level playing field. It is the assumption that anyone lobbying is doing for commercial gain. I wasn't sure what point he was trying to make there. I didn't understand who he was trying to compare family first two. Perhaps he was saying that the others are therefore commercial purposes. The sanitarium's, that would seem to be a fairly clear line. I think what David Seymour actually suggested before is spot on. If they want to have a commercial arm, form a company. If they want to give all the profits to a charitable organisation, do it and then get a tax credit. Who makes those decisions? If there was an independent body that was given the power to make such decisions, I could accept that. Anyone that lies within a government department, I think that is very dangerous. Let us talk about Metiria Turei it did sound like a good policy to me. Absolutely, there is plenty of evidence that those early days, weeks months and years in the life of a new baby are absolutely critical to the future well-being of that baby. Any support we can give to families to relieve that stress and get them through that period with a healthy baby is good. The Greens on social issues. Is that where they should be putting their energies? That it is a fine balancing act. What makes them truly distinctive is their environmentalism. Labour, multi-party are parties that have strong social agendas. We are four months out from an election. There are many voters as well who may be considering whether they will continue to support the current government. Will they be more likely to support the green party on a central policy agenda or support it because of its environmental agenda. It is a difficult line for the Green party to cast, and I think it can create problems for them where people feel they are being overgenerous with certain sections of the community and then lose the focus on environmental motives. Charles, do you think it is going to be different and the government will answer this week in the budget? I will be surprise if the government does not do policy in that space. I think it was a very good interview with Metiria Turei. And me, I was there! WE'LL HAVE YOUR FEEDBACK AFTER THE BREAK. AND THEN OUR PANEL HAS ITS FINAL SAY. A BIG WEEK IN POLITICS ` WHAT WERE THEIR HITS AND MISSES? YOUR FEEDBACK NOW. IN RESPONSE TO OUR INTERVIEW WITH PRIME MINISTER BILL ENGLISH, SUE POCKETT EMAILED AND SAID... JO TWEETED... DEIRDRE KENT ALSO TWEETED, SAYING... We are going to get our political hits and misses now with our panel. whoever it was in the US who leaked the information about the trump, Comey discussion. The actual detail, they are moving too far left, they are not going to do well. My hat is from last week. The associate Minister of health, Peter Dunn, taking a strong stance on mental health. Saying there is no health if there is no mental health. A miss? My miss is Trump he thinks he is running away from his problems why running to Saudi Arabia, but he is preaching to them about the need of tolerance. The stunning hypocrisy is my miss of the week. Andrew B Croft, the children's Commissioner, he released a report called the state of care. It is something of a national treasure, I believe. My miss is the minister who last weekend suggested tthat people who criticise the governmentin social services should lose their funding. This suggests complacency and arrogance that is not befitting of the national government. If John Key had been Prime Minister, I suggest he may well have been given a seat at the back benches until after the election to demonstrate that this is something national is very strong on. That did not happen. Thank you very much for that. MARAE IS NEXT. REMEMBER, Q+A REPEATS TONIGHT AT 11.35PM. THANKS FOR WATCHING AND THANKS FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS. THOSE WERE THE QUESTIONS, AND THOSE WERE THE ANSWERS. THAT'S Q+A.