MORENA. GOOD MORNING, AND WELCOME TO Q+A. I'M GREG BOYED. JUDITH COLLINS IS OUR TOP INTERVIEW THIS MORNING, TALKING TAX AND ALSO HER ENERGY AND RESOURCES PORTFOLIO. AND WE'LL START WITH YOUR POWER BILL THIS WINTER. THE LAKES ARE LOW. POWER PRODUCERS ARE HOLDING CRISIS MEETINGS. WHAT'S THE GOVERNMENT DOING? THEN ` HOW'S THE ECONOMY TREATING YOU? THE OECD RELEASED ITS REPORT ON NEW ZEALAND THIS WEEK. IT'S A MIXED BAG ` GOOD MARKS FOR SOME THINGS, COULD DO BETTER ON OTHERS. WE'VE GOT A PANEL OF ECONOMIC EXPERTS WITH THEIR TAKE ON HOW YOU AND NEW ZEALAND ARE REALLY DOING. AND IT'S 10 YEARS AGO THIS MONTH THAT THE SO-CALLED ANTI-SMACKING LAW WAS PASSED. NEW ZEALAND FIRST SAYS THEY WOULD REPEAL THE LAW. THEIR MP TRACEY MARTIN IS ON THE PROGRAMME ALONG WITH THE FORMER GREEN MP BEHIND THE LAW CHANGE, SUE BRADFORD. AND WE'LL HAVE ANALYSIS FROM OUR PANEL ` POLITICAL SCIENTIST DR RAYMOND MILLER FROM AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY, MICHELLE BOAG, PR CONSULTANT AND FORMER NATIONAL PARTY PRESIDENT, AND KATE SUTTON, FORMER LABOUR CANDIDATE, NOW A BUSINESS CONSULTANT, SPENDING MUCH OF HER TIME IN AFRICA. BUT FIRST, HERE'S CORIN. THANKS, GREG AND GOOD MORNING TO JUDITH COLLINS. If we could start on the energy portfolio ` the lake levels are low, and they have really dropped off quite sharply. How concerned are you about a dryer winter and a high power bill? The high power bills will be applied to those who do spot pricing. Households are on fixed prices. The fixed-price ones will be the same as what they are doing. In terms of spot prices, Flick or PTTP, they will have increases. But they have had much lower prices earlier in the year. That surely isn't what you want in terms of competition in the industry. That is the reality going to spot prices. There are ups and downs, and they have had a lot of downs. If this continues right into winter and we get into an urgent situation, how worried are you? What have you got in place to ensure we don't have a bigger problem? 57% of our electricity is from Hydro. Natural gas is 17%. Geothermal is the same. There is coal. We are very fortunate because we have resilience. Wind is at 5%. We can ramp up certain things. We always have to be aware of dry years. It happens the farmers and for us. It doesn't really happen in the North Island, where it seems to rain from Christmas on. But in the South Island... we can burn coal and get through? We could do some more there too. As the system in the right shape? It is a good system and we are self-sufficient when it comes to electricity. Because we don't have the capacity to cable across to another country like they do in Europe. We have many diverse parts of their electricity supply. There is more when it comes to hydro. What could be done there? You have a lot of private interest. We could have more in the North Island where there are some stations, but the trouble is to get big hydro would be very difficult. Would you like to see dams built in the North Island? There are small stations around, particularly down the West Coast of the South Island. Technology has changed. Particularly around geothermal. We have a lot of ability geothermal. As the legal framework and environmental roles right to enable the encouraging of more hydro? You would only want to around small hydro. You can't do big. We can't do it now. We have other options. We also have solar, which is about 0.2% of our electricity supply. We have more people moving into that. We have exciting things happening in the electricity sector around people who are installing solar. Also their own wind turbines. We will be fine. The information I have got is that it is anything to 1% to 4% possibility that we may have to ask for voluntary reductions and peoples electricity. That is not a huge amount. That is not the risk people think it is because we have resilience. What other markers that will get you worried? I would be more worried if we found the lake levels continued to drop and we didn't get rates. I am told by experts in the Electricity Authority that the lower lakes are later in the season then one might expect. There will be summer thaw. 1% to 4% chance that people might have to ration power. Voluntary. Retailers may have to pay customers over $10 a week as compensation for that if it happens. This is not something they will rush into because it will cost them money. Exploration, oil ` this government put a lot of stock into making those grow the economy. It has been disappointing. The sector shot up around 13%. There is around the price of oil. If we look at Taranaki, that is a good example of growth and jobs. We shouldn't be saying just because the prices down now, we will shrink. We presume it will go up. The government hasn't been able to get that sector cranking. I have just been in France and Norway, and there is a lot of research into exploration and seismic testing. You wouldn't want to be doing too much drilling at the moment because of the cost, but you would want to see how much is there. There has been a huge increase in the work going on to make sure that people know exactly when the time is right to start work. Why bother with this if no one is coming down to do it? Why make it part of our economic strategy?Why not look to green energy? They are. Big companies are now working in New Zealand to see what we have got on the east coast. What I have seen from seismic testing, which is like an ultrasound, is that we have enormous gas reserves. You are worried the legal framework is inhibiting the exploration. You have trans-Tasman, the EPA, if you are re-elected would you change the rules to let these companies do drilling? You think it is quite hard for them to do it, but they say to me we have a good regulatory environment. They are not complaining and say they understand our roles and trust them. One of the issues they have got is that New Zealanders do not know what resources we've got. We are a wealthy country. If you look at Norway. If we don't realise how good we are, what? Where to focus on the environment? We shouldn't have to compromise the environment for economic growth. We should have the economic growth without compromising the environment which is what we are doing. If we look at 40 years of exploration in Taranaki, we have not had an issue at all because of the strict rules around an environment and health and safety. Tax issue ` you have earned a reputation as crusher Collins. Are you taking on the global multinationals that aren't paying their fair share of tax? You are just being provocative now! A whole lot of countries are joining us to try and get our fair share of tax. Some of these companies are like company states. They are so big. The revenue is bigger than us and their reach. I signed up to a multi-lateral instrument in Paris. The United States share information. If you implemented a tough tax on Apple and made it pay its fair share of tax ` 300 million instead of 30 million ` any advice that they would up sticks and leave and we wouldn't be able to use our iPhones? I don't have any advice because we have to be fair and we have to know. Advice from tax professionals is that we don't destroy our economic viability and the growth we have had by being toughest of all. There is no point saying to a large company that we are going to tax you on this. The answer would be "on what?" Basic international service across the border, netflix tax, we are doing that. Doesn't require companies to have a staff presence here, does it? The companies don't need to have staff here. It is around the importation of products. We are looking at products across the border. A lot of product doesn't get GST around $400. We are looking at interest payments and sorts of things that are often use as a way of shifting profit offshore. There is no point in us being this tiny little country having a big go at a multinational unless we have other countries working with us. It is happening. You came in about petrol taxes. When we get answers? This month. I am very pleased we have done the study. It is worthwhile. You will find it very interesting. You have had your feet under the desk in these new roles for a few months. We you continue these if your party is re-elected? I love these roles. I have always taken on any role that I have been asked to. It is nice to be in the commercial and tax sphere. I saw this as a demotion for you when you took on bill for the leadership. Definitely not. I long asked John Key for the revenue portfolio, because I had a Masters in tax which is highly unusual. Bill gave this to me. If National was to lose, would you go back into the mix for leadership? It is not something I aspire to. I am behind the leader. We know you are keen because you are in the race the last time. I am interested in doing the best job I can. 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. WE'LL BRING IN OUR PANEL AFTER THE BREAK. How do you think the Minister did? I thought it was a good-humoured interview. She comes across quite scary, was the term that was used. It wasn't me. I thought she was relaxed. There were some jokes. She was anticipating a question about leadership so she batted that off comfortably. I think Judith is the consummate politician. She is on top of her portfolios. You will never ask her question she can't answer. She has always been very good at making ad like as if the job she has got is the job she has wanted all her life, and she has done that with a number of portfolios. She is a very instinctive politician. She knows what to say to really bring out the best in the portfolio work she is doing, what the government is doing. She is a skilled politician who has been around for a while, and she knows her stuff. Let's talk about the power side of things. If you are listening to that, you would say we are doing fine. It is interesting saying she comes across well. I am worried about what she is doing. She mentioned all the great things in terms of energy that New Zealanders can do. I have worked in the Pacific Islanders with some amazing Kiwi energy companies doing disruptive and good things there. We are not seeing this innovation being used. Governments can create policy and regulate, and we are not doing that in terms of the generation side. The disappointing for her to say there are things going on. We have had nine years and we should get on with it. We have the technology to do it and have the incentives to do so. Every couple of years we get the same thing ` lakes are low and power is going up. We talk about wind but nothing is being done. Wwe can go all out and do solar energy but it is always the economics of the cost versus other forms of production. In the last decade that has shifted significantly. Yes but not to the extent we all have solar panels. The solar panel thing has dropped to � than what it was six years ago. It is very expensive. To what degree do you get ahead of those economics. To what degree do you encourage people and provide incentives for people to go towards these new forms of energy? For someone who has been in Auckland all year, to hear the lakes are low, it is unbelievable because it is very wet. We see rain coming and we can't reconcile the two. That is about economics. Why doesn't everybody have a water tank capturing the rain? It is economics. Is that all the government could be doing? I'm sure there is a lot more. Tthere is so much more that could be done and the area of renewables. They have to look beyond the season. It is not the question of conservation in 2017 and pushing up prices. They have to have long-term plans, and not every government is good at that. If you had any big American multinational company coming here not paying tax, they would be laughed out of the country. What do you do about Google and Facebook? It is fairness. I pay tax in New Zealand and other countries. We pay tax so why shouldn't companies that use our resources and sell goods here pay tax? It is $600 million we are missing out on; the government says 300 million. We are in the middle of the housing crisis and terrible levels of child poverty. We have got stuff we can spend this money on. She has been in Paris, but she hasn't picked up on the fact that this has moved in the last decade. Feels like National 10 years ago is national now. No other country except America is doing it. Companies use transfer pricing and interest rates and chargabilities across borders. You can keep these things quite transparent before you bring in accountants to fill with the box and take the money offshore. It just takes courage. Labour have some policy around this and are looking at different instruments to collect our fair share of tax. Does the public care? This company paying X amount of tax or not having Facebook, do they care? In New Zealand we do care about fairness, so they do care. That is the basis of our society. That is why we have the support system for people who aren't as well off as others. These companies now are bigger then a lot of countries in terms of their economy. GDP doesn't match to the value and turnover of these companies. When has New Zealand ever shied away from being world leaders? We don't. This is an issue every country is dealing with. The approach Judith described is that we can't do it on our own, because they can shift from jurisdiction to jurisdiction very easily and very swiftly. It is not easy to tackle this, and we have to do it with other countries because we can't do on our own. If you look at what other deals have been struck by other countries, the deal we have struck is a very conservative one. 50 million rising 200 million, estimated by Inland Revenue at half $1 billion a year is lost. Australia has done much better too. There needs to be better international cooperation. We shouldn't be held at ransom because we are small. Judith is promising things are coming. Jim Anderton has has taken the song before. It was good of her to say that she was in control of this and she was putting those guys under scrutiny. She says at was out this month. It'll be interesting to see any scrutiny in the way pricing happens in the fuel industry and how it will come up with possible discrepancies. We don't hear about price gouging. We know the job of the petrol company is to try and capture as much money out of us as possible. There will be no price fairness etc. If Gull is in town, there will be prices down a bit more. Competition will work. It is putting in regulation and incentives. She needs to say we will regulate you if your prices aren't fair. If National does fall in September, will she have her eye on the top job? She will always be a contender for the leadership. She won't just sit back and defer to others. She will have a lot of support in the party at grassroots level but also elsewhere. She has been a good performer over the years. Good place to leave it. AFTER THE BREAK, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ECONOMY. BY ALL ACCOUNTS WE'RE DOING PRETTY WELL. BUT HOW'S YOUR JOB? AND WHEN DID YOU LAST GET A DECENT PAY RISE? IS IT ENOUGH TO LIVE ON? LOTS TO TALK ABOUT AFTER THE BREAK. THIS WEEK'S OECD REPORT SHOWED THAT TOURISM AND IMMIGRATION ARE THE STRONG DRIVERS BEHIND OUR ECONOMIC GROWTH, WHICH HAS AVERAGED AROUND 3% FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS. BOTH LABOUR AND NEW ZEALAND FIRST HAVE VOWED TO CUT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE MOVING HERE, SAYING THE MASSIVE GROWTH IN MIGRANTS IS PUTTING TOO MUCH PRESSURE ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOUSING. IMMIGRATION IS ALSO MASKING A FEW ISSUES FOR OUR ECONOMY, NOT LEAST GROWTH IN GDP PER PERSON IS STILL LOW. NATIONAL HAS MADE A FEW TWEAKS TO THE RULES, BUT CLAIMS THE ECONOMY CAN'T COPE WITH A DRASTIC CUT IN NUMBERS. WILL YOUR TWEAKS TAKE 30,000 OUT OF IT ANNUALLY? I WOULDN'T THINK SO, NO. THEY'RE NOT AIMED AT DOING THAT, BECAUSE 30,000 REDUCTION IN MIGRATION RIGHT NOW WILL STALL THE ECONOMY. IT WILL DEPRIVE BUSINESS THE SKILLS THEY NEED TO ENABLE THEM TO MAKE INVESTMENTS THEY NEED TO GROW NEW ZEALAND. JOINING ME NOW ` MAX RASHBROOKE, JOURNALIST, AUTHOR AND RESEARCHER; HE'S WRITTEN A LOT ABOUT INEQUALITY IN NEW ZEALAND; ZOE WALLIS, KIWIBANK CHIEF ECONOMIST; AND DR OLIVER HARTWICH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE THINK TANK, THE NEW ZEALAND INITIATIVE. ZOE, HOW GOOD IS THIS ECONOMY? You have to think about how the economy has been performing over the last few years on the back of a net migration boom in New Zealand. That is one of the factors underlying supporting GDP growth. It would have an impact and slow capacity and demand in the economy. OLIVER, OECD THIS WEEK URGED PATIENCE ON IMMIGRATION AND THAT IT WOULD LIFT GROWTH, BUT WHEN WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS? Migration has already worked for the New Zealand economy. We demonstrated the average migrant pays more taxes. I agree with Zoe that the economy needs migrants because we are lacking skills. The last six months we have been a recession. We are missing skills in the markets, so if we can bring in more people, it's good for everybody. MAX, WE ARE GROWING WELL, BUT WHILST THE INEQUALITY GAP ISN'T GETTING BIGGER, IT'S NOT CLOSING, IS IT? SO WHAT'S THE POINT? You have to question where the benefits of that growth are going. If you go back 10 years or so, the number of New Zealanders in property was one and seven. People are struggling. That number is the same today. For all this economic growth, we haven't made progress on that. At the most extreme and, you see the number of people and organ doubling. You have to ask why hasn't it been a priority that we ensure that the roots of this economic growth has gone to those who need it most. We have us seen the benefit levels grown. They have promised to distribute 2 billion to New Zealanders. That makes sense if you think the government can only do one thing at a time. Governments can go for growth, where it is compatible with environment limits, but at the same time saying how are we going to distribute it? That something this government hasn't put much attention to. They are making moves that are welcome, but last year's $25 a week increase in benefits, a lot of people on benefits are $200 below what they need. ZOE, IN THE MARCH QUARTER, A BIG DROP OF IN CONSTRUCTION AT TIME WHEN WE NEED MORE HOUSING ` WHAT'S HAPPENING? If you think about wages, you need to talk about real wages. Inflation has been low over the last four years. Real wage growth have been better than headline numbers suggest. That has turned around with wage growth remaining sluggish. Waste growth is set to pick up. The labour market will tighten more. Unemployment will head lower. It's looking at 1.5% wage growth at the moment. Willit get stronger? If you look at shortages of workers, 40% of firms say it is hard to find deploys. When you see a market that takes, you see wage growth builds. Underlying this is productivity. The underinvestment in new machinery that will enable us to grow faster will lift wages. The OECD report pointed out that we have one of the worst records and investment. Why do we need foreign direct investment? We are a small economy. The connections to other economies and access to forest foreign markets. We need to get more FDI into the country to increase. MAX, WAGE GROWTH HAS BEEN MILD COMPARED TO HOUSING? A lot of the issues around foreign investments to a large extent are a division. For me one of the big stories is that New Zealand, productivity has increased massively and people are working harder and smarter, but wages haven't kept up with that. If wages had increased with productivity, the average person would be earning 10,000 a year more than they are. A lot of that is company profit that used to go to people who rely on wages, and now it is going to capital to investors and banks. Those big shifts play a big part in an equality. I want to highlight a different point here. When you talk about productivity performance, that is important, but there is a difference between how the economy performs and feels. For people, it doesn't matter if your pay packet goes up 5% of the housing market goes up 15. We lost some of the equality that New Zealand used to enjoy through the housing market. It affects how people feel about our economy. Zoe, the housing picture. We are seeing it come off? Sales are declining in Auckland. If you look at the fundamentals of supply and demand in New Zealand, and our population growth, we haven't been investing enough to prepare for that. Interest rates as the other part of that. Presumably that will keep pressure on the housing market. Low interest rates and encourage people to borrow to invest in the property market. Because interest rates are so low, people have bought houses because it has been affordable. Whether it remains the case is the big?. Inequality hasn't gotten worse in New Zealand over the last 10 years is that good enough? We have to do something about inequality, the housing market. We have pressures in the housing market because of the interest rate environment. We have pressure because our supplies are not flexible enough. You have to supply the market housing that our country needs. Max, do you agree that the root of all this problem is housing? No, it is right to highlight that as an issue, but it is not the only issue. We saw a massive increase in inequality in the 1980s and 90s. We have seen little since then. It is now increasing a little bit under this government. Is about housing and also about people's wages, the fact that our government now does much less to reduce. The OECD report said it does little to reduce inequality. What about our skill mix? We seem to be overqualified and in the wrong jobs. OECD FOUND THERE WAS REAL WAGE GROWTH, BUT LOTS OF KIWIS AREN'T GETTING PAY RISES AT ALL? We have a skills mismatch. To many bachelor of arts degrees? It is important to think about mathematics, core competencies for jobs in the future. We have to think about putting more emphasis on knowledge. That will enable us to do the jobs in the future. So we, corporate taxes do we have the right to grow the economy? One thing that is a big hurdle is what is going on in terms of residential construction. That seems to be one of the biggest issues we are facing. They raise concerns, Stephen Joyce, the crackdown on investment might be hurting our construction activity. GDP data shows construction has pulled back in the first quarter of this year. Those numbers can be volatile. Given the supply and demand, construction. Anecdotally, Reddit growth has been pulled back. That must be a great concern at a time where we need more houses, the industry is going backwards. The other concern is how difficult it is to find infrastructure to accommodate housing developing. We should make it possible for the government to share the proceeds of tax revenue. We are leaving local government alone to finance housing development. All the taxes are put into central government stuck max, the skills mix ` is there a problem in New Zealand that we have too many people doing Bas, and we need to be doing more maths, engineering and science? It is true that we do a poor job of other kinds of education in New Zealand, vocational education. We don't regard that as a desirable thing to do. If you are at high school, that is the best thing for you to do. It's not clear what the pathways are and what you should be taking, how the transfers through to tertiary education. We need to copy the lead of other countries like Australia. We need green skills, helping people up skill to work in new areas of renewable energy. We could take a lead from other countries and do a big push on trade training and skills. NEW ZEALAND FIRST SAYS THE SO-CALLED ANTI-SMACKING LEGISLATION HASN'T WORKED AND IT WANTS THE LAW REPEALED. WE'LL DEBATE THE ISSUES WITH SUE BRADFORD, THE FORMER GREEN MP BEHIND THE LAW, AND NEW ZEALAND FIRST MP TRACEY MARTIN. THAT'S NEXT. 10 YEARS AGO THIS MONTH, SUE BRADFORD'S SO-CALLED ANTI-SMACKING BILL PASSED INTO LAW. THE BILL REMOVED SECTION 59 FROM THE CRIMES ACT. THIS SECTION PROVIDED A STATUTORY DEFENCE FOR PARENTS WHO PHYSICALLY DISCIPLINED THEIR KIDS AS LONG AS THEY USED 'REASONABLE FORCE'. SUE BRADFORD'S LAW GOT RID OF THAT AFTER A NUMBER OF CONTROVERSIAL CASES WHERE PARENTS SUCCESSFULLY GOT OFF ASSAULT CHARGES USING THE DEFENCE. ONE INVOLVED A MOTHER USING A CANE AND A HORSE WHIP AGAINST HER SON. THE BILL HAD CROSS-PARTY SUPPORT, ALTHOUGH NOT ALL NEW ZEALAND FIRST MPS VOTED FOR IT. AND NOW THAT PARTY HAS VOWED TO REPEAL THE LAW. SUE BRADFORD IS HERE ALONG WITH NEW ZEALAND FIRST MP TRACEY MARTIN. Good morning to you. You put up a referendum 10 years on from an issue that has been sorted? It hasn't necessarily been sorted. It's simmering away underneath. The evidence is in every day we have parents who are saying to us and others that it has had a chilling effect on their parenting. It has an effect on their ability to be free to raise their children. After 10 years there was some good reasons why so put up the bill, we think there is a opportunity for a referendum and we will go with what the public vote. Between 2017 and 13, there were eight prosecutions. The difference is, article 59 is still there, but what it did was the police were always involved and the courts had to go and, and CYFS became involved. CYFS advice is that light snacks aren't going to get parents in trouble. That is my understanding. Cases of violence against children are reported to the police, and that is good for our kids. I am in a sense of disbelief that New Zealand first would put this policy up. Winston Peters said New Zealand first would repeal it. They have decided they would do it for a referendum. What's wrong with putting it to the people? It is tragic for our kids that a major political party like this would open this whole issue up again. They are saying to those people who say they should have a right to hit their children, it is like giving them license again. I find it hard, Tracy, because I know you have done amazing job, that someone with such a good understanding of children and young people would support laying this into the public arena again. There is quite a lot of support for repealing this law. They may do, but from protecting our children, our young kids should have the right to grow up without violence. If New Zealand first did this, it is saying to those people we believe you should have a license. Is that you you think Tracy? It is the use of words that continues to mean that parents have looked at what Sue was trying to do, as a threat. If you look at article 59 subsection 1, if you took away subsection 2 and three, and left just the four bullet points, parents would be comfortable with what had been put forward 10 years ago. It is subsection 2 that overrides everything. People are worried about overall message. That is the problem. What is the message you are sending to New Zealanders and the rest of the world if you repeal that act? If people get off with the defence when they have hit someone? We had a problem with our judges not with 90% of the people. Subsection 1 that Sue's put in is clearer. Subsection 2 makes criminals. It causes an assault if you discipline your child. You are not seen born out in the prosecution. I challenge the numbers. I have people coming into my office is saying my child went to school, we have mandatory reporting, and a child says mum smacked me last night, they are required to report it. CYFS is required to investigate. It is with light smacking. They are not going to investigate that. They will investigate every case but no prosecution will happen. Every case where the parents physically assault their children, there should be scrutiny. I am not going to get into protecting children from danger. So it is okay to smack them? We made it very clear from the groups that support no violence against children that we would not get into defining the level, nature or ages of children. This is a license to torture. I haven't heard Tracy speak on this, but perhaps this is what New Zealand first wants is a definition. Do you want definition of what is okay? I think what Sue has put into legislation, if it is in the course of good in quality parenting ` it covers it. It is the subsection which says it is illegal to use physical discipline on your child. How would you feel if we had a law like that for adults for domestic violence? That's not what your wedding says. I am arguing for your wording in 2007. Subsection 2 should be removed and we go back to the courts have oversight, the police have oversight, and we will keep CYFS in there. There is a referendum. If you repeal the law, would you enable people getting off the charge with that law? Under your changes, would you allow that? No one is arguing that. It is about judges and their interpretation of the law. We have court cases now where adults are getting off with manslaughter or murder you would be happy to remove that law and then allow that to be in the interpretation of judges? I would be arguing that the original wording about subsection 1 stay, but section 2 goes. If that happens, will you return to politics? I'm still in politics. When this law went through, we were 18th in the world to get defence for children. Around 52 countries have laws like this. For New Zealand first want us to go backwards, I find it incredible. We have always argued for 25 years around binding referenda on issues like this. We have a representative democracy. The parents of New Zealand's need to be able to speak on it. Does New Zealand first feel like it has been lectured to by the liberal majority of New Zealand? Why bring this back? I remember being a parent when this bill went through, and I felt that the language that was being used, the the politicians were telling me that if I lately smacked my child, it was abuse. I believe a lot of parents feel the same. OUR PANEL'S TAKE ON THAT DEBATE, PLUS YOUR FEEDBACK. AND WE'LL LOOK AT THE POLITICAL WEEK ` THE HIGHS AND THE LOWS. OUR PANEL HAS THEIR SAY ON THAT TOO. Kate, your take on New Zealand first pushed to do anything about this. I am disappointed in the fact that we spent 10 minutes talking about that. New Zealand kid should be entitled to live violence free. I didn't like her attack on our judiciary. What I would have loved to see that energy and enthusiasm and passion about is what we are going to do about child poverty in New Zealand now. We have high levels of domestic violence. Kiwi families have amazing tools to ensure that kids are disciplined appropriately. I felt it was disappointing to see this conversation come up now, 10 years on. It's not going to stop these murders and beatings? No, but there was hope from people who felt that this might instill a change in attitude amongst those worst offenders. That was a naive hope, and we have seen that over 10 years. The people who inflicted violence 10 years ago are still the same people who are doing it today. Is New Zealand first on to anything at all? It is antiestablishment. We don't trust the politicians, but we trust the people. In this case, there are two ways to go. We can have a referendum, and the downside to that is that we need signatures. The other is for Winston Peters to extract a confession from one of the major parties that they will have a government initiated referendum. Neither of the two major parties have shown any inclination to revisit that. Winston Peters did have a referendum on compulsory superannuation after he did a deal with national and 1996. You would have to take it into the national arena, and I'm not sure the people would want to revisit that. LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF YOUR FEEDBACK NOW. Hits and misses. I would have to say my political mess has to be Theresa May. She went before her Mps and said this time last week, I have made a mess of things. I will clear it up. She has been struggling to get a confidence and supply agreement together with an unpopular party. She has to prepare for Brexit greatly weakens in her stance. She refused to meet survivors of the London fire. She would have to take my hits and mess of the week. My hits as Macron of France. Eat your heart out, Gareth Morgan. I was going to choose Gareth Morgan as a mess. He has worked hard. He had an initiative about spending money on charity, not advertising. It does not seem to have achieved. As for the hit, Andrew Little announcing the reduction and immigration policy was a real hit for Winston Peters. Your hats? My hat is labours immigration policy. I am an internationalist. The low quality under degree courses, 85% of this policy will be targeting those people coming into the country. We should be shifting our focus on to high skills. Increasing our refugee quota, that wasn't picked up by the media. That's 1500 people. It seems cynical, but that is important. My mess was definitely National party Jonathan Coleman Miss $34 million that they gave out to DH bees that they have to do clawback. That seems like PR spin. '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. SEE YOU NEXT SUNDAY MORNING AT 9.