MORENA, GOOD MORNING, AND WELCOME TO Q+A. I'M GREG BOYED. TODAY ` THE TPP TALKS ARE BACK ON TRACK, WITH A NEW NAME AND SOME IMPORTANT CONCESSIONS. YOU KNOW, FOUR AND HALF OUT OF FIVE ` WELL, YOU KNOW, THAT'S BETTER MARK THAN I GOT AN AVERAGE AT SCHOOL CERT. THEN WE'VE GOT TWO INTERVIEWS ON CHINA FOR YOU. JACK TAME WILL TALK TO BEIJING-BASED NEW ZEALAND ECONOMIST RODNEY JONES ABOUT CHINA'S GLOBAL ASPIRATIONS AND THEN CHINA EXPERT DR ANNE-MARIE BRADY. IN HER RESEARCH INTO CHINESE POLITICAL INFLUENCE HERE IN NEW ZEALAND, SHE RAISES CONCERNS ABOUT POLITICAL DONATIONS AND LINKS WITH FORMER AND CURRENT POLITICIANS. AND WHENA OWEN CONTINUES OUR COVERAGE ABOUT THE PRESSURE URBAN SPRAWL IS PUTTING ON OUR BEST GROWING LAND ` A CHALLENGE TO THE NEW HOUSING MINISTER. DOES HE BELIEVE THERE'S GOING TO BE A FOOD CRISIS LOOMING IN THE FUTURE? BECAUSE I CERTAINLY DO. CAPTIONS BY VIRGINIA PHILP AND GLENNA CASALME. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2017 AND WE'LL HAVE ANALYSIS FROM OUR PANEL ` JOSIE PAGANI, PUBLIC AFFAIRS SPECIALIST AND DIRECTOR OF THE COUNCIL FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT; CHARLES FINNY, FORMER DIPLOMAT AND TRADE NEGOTIATOR, NOW GOVERNMENT RELATIONS CONSULTANT AT SAUNDERS UNSWORTH; AND LAILA HARRE, FORMER MINISTER, UNIONIST, CURRENTLY A POST-GRADUATE LAW STUDENT. BUT WE'LL START WITH THE TPP TALKS IN DANANG, NOW CALLED THE COMPREHENSIVE AND PROGRESSIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP. AFTER A TUMULTUOUS FEW DAYS, THE DEAL SEEMED WELL AND TRULY DEAD, BUT OVERNIGHT THERE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN A BREAKTHROUGH. PRIME MINISTER JACINDA ARDERN AND TRADE MINISTER DAVID PARKER HAVE TOLD MEDIA THEY'RE CONFIDENT THEY ARE CLOSE TO A DEAL NEW ZEALAND COULD SIGN. THERE HAVE BEEN CONCESSIONS ON THE CONTROVERSIAL INVESTOR STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT CLAUSES, AND MR PARKER SAYS NEW ZEALAND HAS ALSO MADE PROGRESS ON PROTECTING PHARMAC, OUR GOVERNMENT-RUN DRUG BUYING MODEL. THERE ARE 11 COUNTRIES NEGOTIATING AFTER THE U.S. PULLED OUT EARLIER THIS YEAR. POLITICAL EDITOR CORIN DANN IS IN DANANG TO COVER THE TALKS AND SPOKE IN MORE DEPTH WITH MR PARKER. FROM OUR POSITION, WE'VE BEEN CLEAR IN THE FEW WEEKS THAT WE'VE BEEN IN GOVERNMENT THAT WE WANTED TO SEE SOME SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES. WE'VE BEEN CLEAR THAT WE'RE JUST COMMITTED TO STANDING UP FOR WHAT'S BEST FOR NEW ZEALAND. WE HAD A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS, SOME OF WHICH WE'E ALREADY ADDRESSED, LIKE PRESERVING NEW ZEALANDERS' RIGHT TO CONTROL WHO BUYS OUR HOMES. AND WE'VE MADE PROGRESS ON THESE INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE CLAUSES WHICH IS SO CONTROVERSIAL. AND WE'VE MADE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS. YOU COULDN'T GET THE INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE CLAUSES OUT, COULD YOU? OR HAVE YOU? WE'VE GOT RID OF THEM COMPLETELY AS BETWEEN US AND AUSTRALIA, AND 80% OF THE FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT FROM TPP COUNTRIES INTO NEW ZEALAND WHICH WOULD BE COVERED BY THOSE CLAUSES COMES FROM AUSTRALIA. SO WE'VE EFFECTIVELY GOT 80% OUT. WE'VE GOT SOME OTHER BILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS OUTSIDE OF THE TEXT, IF YOU LIKE, THAT ARE ONGOING THAT WE HAVEN'T YET CONCLUDED, BUT WE'RE STILL TRYING OUR BEST TO CONCLUDE. AND INSIDE THE AGREEMENT ITSELF, THERE IS A NARROWING OF THE SCOPE` WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THE NARROWING OF THE SCOPE? I'LL GIVE YOU AN ACTUAL EXAMPLE. AS THE TEXT STOOD, IF A BIG MULTINATIONAL COMPANY WAS BUILDING A BIG INFRASTRUCTURE IN NEW ZEALAND UNDER A CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND THEY BECAME DISSATISFIED AND HAD A DISPUTE, UNTIL THE NARROWING, THEY COULD HAVE USED THESE ISDS CLAUSES TO TAKE THAT DISPUTE TO AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL. THEY NOW NO LONGER CAN, AND IF THEY'VE GOT A BREACH OF A CONTRACT LIKE THAT, THEY'VE GOT TO SUE THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT IN THE NEW ZEALAND COURTS, JUST LIKE A NEW ZEALAND COMPANY. THE FACT IS THOUGH, A BIG JAPANESE CORPORATE UNDER THIS DEAL, IF IT'S SIGNED, COULD SUE THE NZ GOVERNMENT IF WE CHANGED THE RULES ON THEM. NO, THAT'S NOT CORRECT MOST OF THE TIME. IF, FOR EXAMPLE, WE CHANGED THE REGULATION RELATED TO TAXES OR ENVIRONMENT OR LABOUR LAWS OR PUBLIC HEALTH OR DID ANYTHING WITH OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLING SYSTEM OR OUR PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEM, NO, THEY COULD NOT. THERE ARE SOME NARROWER AREAS WHERE THEY COULD STILL MAKE A COMPLAINT UNDER THESE CLAUSES, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE INSTRUCTED OUR NEGOTIATORS NOT TO AGREE THEM IN FUTURE. BUT WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY REMOVE THEM COMPLETELY FROM THIS ONE. THAT'S THE KEY POINT, ISN'T IT? WHEN YOU WERE IN OPPOSITION AND LABOUR ALIGNED ITSELF IN SOME WAYS WITH A LOT OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE TPP WHEN YOU WERE IN OPPOSITION, IT WAS THAT TYPE OF THING YOU RAILED AGAINST, AND NOW HERE YOU ARE AGREEING IN PRINCIPLE TO BACK THE TPP 11. WE HAD FIVE PRINCIPLES THAT WERE REALLY IMPORTANT TO US. LAND SALES, WHICH THE GOVERNMENT SAID THEY COULDN'T FIX. WE'VE ALREADY FIXED IT. WE WANTED A DECENT TREATY CLAUSE. THE TREATY CLAUSE IS A VERY GOOD ONE AND HAS BEEN FOUND ACCORDINGLY BY THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL. WE WANTED THE PRESEVERVATION OF DECENT TARRIF REDUCTIONS FOR OUR EXPORTERS. WE WANTED TO GET RID OF ISDS CLAUSES AND WE WANTED TO PROTECT PHARMAC. THE ONLY ONE OF THOSE WE HAVE ONLY PARTIALLY SUCCEEDED ON IS THE ISDS CLAUSES. ISN'T THAT THE ONE THAT MOST PEOPLE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT? I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE TO MOST PEOPLE Is about controlling New Zealand homes. There is the fear that corporate's could take our government to court like the tobacco case. Isn't that the one that they are very concerned about? It is an example about where the investment protocols in trade and investment agreements have gone too far. They think you are a traitor for backing this. That is pretty harsh language. I don't think they think that. I think they realise that we have been handed this very close to completion and at a stage where the negotiations are nearly complete and we have improved substantially for New Zealand. 4 � out of five. Better market than an average that I got in school cert. Is this a sign that your government and the US trade Minister are going to be pragmatic about these things? I will always stand up to the interests of New Zealand. The interests of New Zealand include trade. In order to buy the cars and the Tvs and the medicines that we need from overseas, we have to sell things overseas in order to get the money to pay for our imports. Trade has always been important and it will ways be important. There is an interesting thing happening in the world at the moment with precedent trump and others talking more protectionist language then we have seen before. They have been quite dismissive of some of the multilateral agreements. It is deeply worrying for New Zealand. We are a little country and we rely on the rule of law. We do not have a lot of power to force our way in the world. APEC as a vehicle for free-trade. I think one of the things and there are some things that have gone wrong with free-trade in the world. ISDS clauses is one of the examples. You are quite right. New Zealand relies on the international rule of law and we think of we are dealt with unfairly overseas to the detriment of New Zealand, we should be able to go to someone to sort it out. We think government should have rights to sort out things. The last government put huge effort into multilateral deals. Is it time to be pragmatic and go that the world is moving away from that and we should put our energy somewhere else? Or should we focus more determinedly on one-on-one deals> if we had a one-on-one deal with America, that would be a good thing but we are unlikely to achieve that in the short-term. SEND US YOUR THOUGHTS. WE'RE ON TWITTER. YOU CAN EMAIL US, OR TEXT YOUR THOUGHTS AND FIRST NAME TO 2211. KEEP THEM BRIEF. EACH TEXT COSTS 50C. WE'LL TALK TPP AND TRADE WITH THE PANEL AFTER THE BREAK. LET'S BRING IN OUR PANEL ` JOSIE PAGANI, PUBLIC AFFAIRS SPECIALIST AND DIRECTOR OF THE COUNCIL FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT; CHARLES FINNY, FORMER DIPLOMAT AND TRADE NEGOTIATOR, NOW GOVERNMENT RELATIONS CONSULTANT AT SAUNDERS UNSWORTH; AND LAILA HARRE, FORMER MP. Does this sound different? Better? Very marginally. The minister's description of some of the changes warrants closer scrutiny. For instance the suggestion that labour and environmental changes will now be excluded from investor state dispute settlement which is the process by which private companies can sue the New Zealand government for making regulartory changes is simply not the case. Environmental law changes or the application of existing laws can still be subject to ISDS. So I think that was a fairly misleading description of what the government has achieved with these changes. ISDS is something that was not quite across the line but everything else has been tweaked to New Zealand's advantage. Explain what the possible impact of ISDS could be. When America was in the room, That has remained unchanged. Australia has an FTA with Japan. We would be in serious trouble if we did not have the same access as Australia into the Japanese market. I think in terms of exporters this is a very good thing. The new government has had some concerns and they want to try negotiate those into the agreement. They have had some limited success given the amount of time that they have had to do this. I think Minister Parker can be very pleased and the prime minister will be pleased with what they have achieved. There were problems right at the end. New Zealand was not the cause of those problems. We are back into a leadership role which is fantastic to see. This was all off because of Canada and Vietnam. Is this Mickey Mouse now? I think there were a lot of different things going on. Canada is in the process of negotiating and renegotiating with America. Vietnam is balking at some of the labour standards and the enforcement of those labour standards. I think what labour leadership really deserves some credit for is ditching the nativist and protectionist language around trade that labour under Little was promoting. They are reframing the whole debate on trade. What are the benefits for the many not the few? The rights of unions to have access to the workplace in places like Vietnam. These are the first times that these clauses have been. You are smiling late you don't agree with that, Laila Harre. We have seen a total inflation and the rhetoric. Let's remember that the labour standard provisions that are in the TPPA have been constructed by the US with numerous countries who have since 1994, violated every form of labour standards. The US has had one case against Guatemala, and they lost, because these standards are not strong. Let me say one thing. Can I just finished here? The job of a progressive government is to protect the rights of New Zealand workers and to make sure that we benefit from the global food chain. Different components are made in different places. You cannot protect the rights of New Zealand working people if you are not in these agreements. Laila Harre, I just want to go to the absolute basics. You are not happy and you don't think it's any better. The history of these provisions has been that they have actually had no impact in countries where they have applied an effect countries have been able to undermine their own labour laws within unities. I think it is incredibly naive. I think it is window dressing to use these standards as a way to cover over other objectives of the agreement. I think it is good if trade deals cover things like environmental protection and labour rights. Just because it is has failed in the past but now TPP has environmental standards about Endangered Species Act and lifts tariffs off wind turbines. David Parker says he got 4 � out of five. As they can be enough to appease people? There are some people who I suspect are never going to be satisfied with this agreement. If the Labour Party are going to support this, we have got national saying they are going to support the deal and there is overwhelming support in parliament and I am anticipating a relatively easy process in parliament but I think there will be people who will have their opposition outside Parliament. Who else is going to benefit from this beside the exporters? The exports create jobs and better paying jobs, so the whole society will be benefiting from this. It is also going to be good for economies such as Vietnam to have the external pressure imposed upon it by the rules and the economic impacts of those rules in terms of their reform processes and that is long-term very good. It is not a perfect deal but it does not... In New Zealand we have already lifted all our tariffs. It benefits us to have some of these access to markets where some of the tariffs are still there. It is access for our services and access for our ability to be in that global food chain where we can... If we are not there, that is covering what ` 500 million consumers ` if we are not there that is more damaging than anything. I think that is totally contestable. The problem here is a much, looking at it from a higher level, the impression is created that we are on some kind of evolutionary path toward some kind of ideal state and that these agreements are helping us to get there. In fact, and every part of the world there is huge questioning going on about the ideal state that we are so-called heading towards. And these agreements are very soon going to be seen as part of the past and not the future and while it is disappointing that labour have decided to cut and run and not challenge the overall direct at this point, the overall direction as being challenge and it is been challenged at the centres of orthodoxy. You have no idea what I have said about the China FTA. Were you in favour of the China FTA? What about the political blowback for labour? Is there going to be a lot of people who voted for labour and thought that the TPP is over and think that that is not what they wanted? I would be very surprised if there is huge blowback. The Labour Party has been supportive of international trade agreements. The second generation of CER and the work done on WTO and the China Free trade agreement and the Thailand free-trade agreement ` these were all things that happened on the later administrations and we have had a bipartisan approach in this space for many years and I think what we are seeing is the re-establishment of that bipartisan. BEJING-BASED ECONOMIST RODNEY JONES IS NEXT. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE TPP AND APEC, PLUS CHINA'S AMBITION FOR A NEW TYPE OF GREAT POWER RELATIONSHIP. WHAT DO THEY WANT? WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR US? THAT'S NEXT. WELCOME BACK, AND GOOD MORNING TO RODNEY JONES, PRINCIPAL OF WIGRAM CAPITAL ADVISORS IN BEIJING, BACK IN NEW ZEALAND FOR A VISIT, BUT KEEPING AN EYE ON THE EVENTS IN VIETNAM AND CHINA THIS WEEK. What do you make to the changes in the TPP? It is good. It keeps the dream alive in the sense that we had lost the US and China is going on a different direction. How different is the proposed deal now compared to the deal that was on the table 5 days ago? It is taken out a lot of the provisions that the US wanted. Does it make it harder for the US to come back and in four-year time? It is anaemic compared to what it used to be. But it is least it is alive. In Canada it seems about timing and Justin Trudeau not wanting to cast a shadow on Trump. What is China's response going to be to the ongoing negotiations? I think now we have seen China wants great power relations and the US is acquisition to that under trump. The China and not as different to the US. I want to talk about Xi Jinping more. He has described as the so-called paramount leader of China. What does that mean? It is remarkable the change in the last five years in China. If you went back 10 years we could not have envisaged the China we have today. Xi Jinping has elevated and the party as well. What is the significance of that? It means it is a different system now. It was always there beneath the surface but it is transparent. We have to deal with the common in this party and the Chinese Communist Party is the most important institution in the country rather than the government. We think of the premier, but now it is not clear what he does. The power is now with Xi Jinping as president. The premier used to look after the economy and now Xi Jinping has put all that under him. The rhetoric is at odds with his actions. The key phrase in China since the 1980s is reform and open up. Xi Jinping in his speech a couple of years ago said the age of reform and opening up is over. This is a new era of Chinese socialism. New Zealand benefited and normally from the reform and opening up. The way opening up means has changed now. It used to mean the world coming to China. Now it means the world coming to China. Remarkable story since 1982 and trade has grown at an enormous rate. The last five years have been our worst trade performance with China since the 1980s. This is where the TPP matters. Where we can grow going forward as non-commodity exports. With China, our trade is all about commodities. Meat, dairy, logs. How do we broaden that? Things like the TPP but this is where we are at a disadvantage with China dealing in a bilateral way. This is why multilateral agreements is important. It is going to be really hard on this new age of great power relations and we saw that with the way China managed trumps visit to Beijing. What is it about Xi Jinping that does not allow diversification? In some ways it is very French like and like France in the 1950s and 60s. It is about China first and not about opening up and allowing access. Can you give us an example. We are commodity focused and we send toward and meat and dairy. What should we be doing? We cannot do it but it should be services. Companies like Xero selling platforms in China. We cannot sell services yet our universities produce students who will work and services. Is there the space for that? That is closed. Cyber Security rules ` and China is closing off. What can we do about it? We can keep the dream alive. We have to remember in the rise of East Asia has been as a follower and not a leader. We need to reinvigorate that. What is a multilateral agreement like? The problem with the bilateral agreement we have with China is in the 60s or 70s we used to send commodities to the UK and would get rubbish cars in return. It was a colonial trading pattern. With China our agreement is increasingly colonial. I wanted to speak with you about a report from Prof Anne-Marie Brady that we are going to be discussing. It got sort of drowned out and the noise of the election. Potentially New Zealand Mps links to the Chinese government. I think our response is just nuts. Nothing has happened and I don't see how we can be so blase on national security. We are talking about the Chinese Communist Party, not China. We need to be alert about the role that the Chinese Communist Party wants to play in our Chinese community. What does that mean in terms of how we screen Mps and keep an ion political donations? Once you are a member of the Communist Party, you are always a member of it. The only way to give it up is to be detained for corruption in China or something. We should just have an agreement between two parties that a member of the Chinese Communist Party cannot be an MP. Or certainly someone who worked for military intelligence cannot be an MP. Someone who is going to represent the interests of the Chinese Communist Party and not the interest of our local community should not be an MP. I will have responses from the Mps we are talking about when we speak with Anne-Marie Brady. What has been the response in China to the ban on foreign house buyers in New Zealand? Technically has been illegal to take money out to buy a house. Chinese liberalisation happens in an informal and ad hoc way. Between 2014 and 2016, trillions of dollars flowed out. Now what they are doing is enforcing the rules and it is a very difficult to take money out and you cannot buy foreign property. They won't care? They won't care. WE'LL STAY WITH CHINA AFTER THE BREAK. DR ANNE-MARIE BRADY FROM CANTERBURY UNIVERSITY ON CHINA'S FOREIGN POLICY AMBITIONS AND HOW OUR NEW GOVERNMENT SHOULD RESPOND. WELCOME BACK. AND GOOD MORNING TO DR ANNE-MARIE BRADY FROM CANTERBURY UNIVERSITY, AN EXPERT IN CHINESE DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLITICS. Tena koe. You have returned relatively recently from Washington DC. The trip itself, not the report,was sponsored by the Taiwan foundation for democracy. It was an academic conference as a whole bunch of academics were invited to. It is quite common. The Taiwan democracy foundation is an NGO based in Taiwan. For those viewers who are interested in the report, will link to the full copy of it. You begin with what is a Leninist idea of a united front approach to geopolitical influence. In influence a hot topic at the moment. Russian and US influence. What does a united front approach mean to political influence in New Zealand? It is about influencing policy in a particular country, influencing political elite and it's also about accessing strategic information. Also about accessing strategic resources. From China's approach, what does that mean on the ground here? China's united front strategy is always a multilevel approach. It's not just one sort of an angle. So the paper is 57 pages long. It's a lot of detail in there. But it highlights certain points. For example, Chinese language media has now been co-opted. It's gone from being independent having corporation agreements with Shin Hwa and being given propaganda directions. The leading language Chinese media had a meeting in Langham. They were getting instructions from Chinese agencies that manage the local Chinese agencies. Very very close contacts between our political parties after the 19th party Congress, and the impact of this is that the present is the national party and the Labour Party and university figures have all been making pro statements. It's like invasion of the body snatchers. Nobody would be saying this about Trump or Republican Party. But it has become de rigueur for them to make pro Chinese Communist Party statements. When we talk about soft power, and we considered some of those approaches, like low-level political donations, Chinese expect community, Chinese media New Zealand, from the outside, doesn't feel as though those would be particularly influential. But what you are saying is they actually have significant influence. If you want to look at some indicators, for example, as I've said, Those pro Xi statements that have come out which are extraordinary` what is that? We don't make that about the US government. Another indicator of impact would be the no surprises policy which was the line of the national government in China, which silenced debate on China in policy establishment and more broadly, in the community. We want to be able to have contestable policy. We need D policy advice. There is a change in global order and there's a lot to think about. This is had a very negative impact. We have to consider all aspects of our relationship with China. Let us talk about the two Mps identified in your papers. Why does China care about New Zealand? Geopolitics is shifting. You have to see the new official map of China, a vertical map. The centre of the map is China. You see the world Island becomes very apparent. You see how the oceans are connecting us and the centrality and importance of Antarctica appearing like a white peacock. So geopolitics is moving in the different direction where it has been in the last hundred years. So the influences moving south. Pacific, Antarctica. To give you an idea, China is rolling out its own equivalent of TPP. It's not just for driving your car. It's also for positioning missiles and timing. China is positioning the satellites in Antarctica, and there is saying it is undetermined sovereignty. Countries like China and Russia are looking into Antarctica very differently than they did in the past. It's not about resources. It's about having the strategic satellite receiving stations which will enhance GPS and Beidu. So that would be useful to New Zealand if we were opposed to China's activities. We have a big maritime space. We are responsible for the foreign policy of defense. Especially the three Pacific states. We are also very influential in the Pacific. Were also very amenable and cooperative to China. A Chinese diplomat even praised New Zealand for have doing a good relationship with China as Albania did in the 1960s. That sounds like trouble. Albania was one of the most isolated countries in the Eastern Bloc. I want to focus more on what a united front approach means to New Zealand. What sort of influences China one through political donations? Fairfax did an interesting study on the issue of political donations in New Zealand. They said about 83% of national and labours donations are anonymous. We do have a system since 2008 where large donations are recorded. But if donations are coming from charities, they don't have to be recorded. We have to reform the electoral finance act again? We need to do that. Other countries, like Norway, they don't count on the nation. It is state-funded. It is one way to protect the country from interference. New Zealand has to be more resilient. What China is doing, other countries are also doing. We need to be sensible. The be more resilient, we need to look at our legislation and see where there are gaps. Australia is way ahead of us, two years, on this. We need to follow them on doing an in-depth investigation and partner with them to see how we can learn from them. How broad should that be? Jian Yang has had deep ties with the communist government. How should the national government have responded to that? They no doubt wanted to minimize the damage. What's going on behind the scenes is probably a bit different. But this is not the time to headbutt China on what's been happening. This is the time for us as a country to pull together as people. We don't want shaming and McCarthyanism. We need to do due diligence on who are partners are. I was interested in labours response. It was not strong at all. I think they are afraid. I think they've gotten burnt by the Chinese surnames. They black China knowledge in the top team. That is a problem in our country. Most of them do not have Chinese language skills. John key taught us diplomats in 2008 that we need to learn more about the language skills. It has to be are setting the agenda, learning from a New Zealand perspective and not having it imposed on us. What is the message to the new government? Now is the time to have a look at the legislation and develop that resilience and be proactive for the changing global order. Jian Yang denies he was ever a spy. He says he was a teacher. He denies any insinuations against his character. Thank you very much for your time. THANKS, JACK. OUR PANEL'S BACK AFTER THE BREAK. AND VEGETABLE GROWERS WHO SAY THE GOVERNMENT MUST STOP HOUSING BEING BUILT ON OUR BEST GROWING LAND OR FACE A FUTURE FOOD CRISIS. Anne-Marie statements, which are going to be on our Facebook page. What is your take on it, those two Chinese Mps. I know them both. It is great we have them. I know Jian Yang better than Raymond. When I talked to Jian, I knew that his associations were closely linked with the Communist Party. I'm always very careful about what I say to the two of them because I know they're very close to the embassies. I think people should also be aware that they're very close to the Chinese government. But they except that in use that. They have excellent connections in China. How would that go down? He would assure them that their loyalty would be to the New Zealand government. I'm sure their first loyalty would be to New Zealand. But that doesn't mean you don't have a close relationship with China. Laila, what is your take? I think the suggestion that Anne-Marie makes and others to look at the structural relationship, is a far better starting point Then without being any real foundation challenge the integrity of these two. Although it is completely appropriate for us to ask those questions. This donation issue, I think is a really good starting point. I think we should all be concerned that political party donations are being used or may be used to obtain influence in the New Zealand system from any other power. And it seems to me would look pretty nave not to have examined that issue before. Perhaps it hasn't been an issue before with other global powers, but it certainly is an issue now. I think it's really sensible advice. I totally agree. The principle here is transparency, and nobody, whether state or corporate, Should be able to buy influence with political donations. I have read the report, and the problem here is that there is an element of singling out individuals of Chinese descent. We are talking about two Chinese Mps here. What about Anne-Marie Genter? No one's asking about her loyalty to the United States. I think that stems from the fact that Julianne Genter is a dissident in the United States. The discomfort he comes in from the suggestion, and this is very well researched and well reported suggestion, that the way that Chinese soft powers operating in New Zealand and elsewhere is to cultivate the relationship, and so these people are playing a Dual role. They are not dissidents from a Chinese point of view. You would ask the same question about a US citizen who is a member of Parliament to was cultivating close relationship through say the CIA. You need to have evidence. And we have a lot of evidence against Russia. Hacking emails, influencing fake news, the electoral process. We have to be very careful here. Before you start besmirching people's reputations, regardless of what you think politically, you have to have the evidence. My aunt was a lifetime member of the Communist Party in China. My mother said we had to hide him in the wardrobe. It concerns me here that there are some things that feel like there are a list of people of Chinese husbands and wives and people who have got connections with China some way or another. You have to be careful to have evidence there. PUKEKOHE FOOD GROWERS HAVE CHALLENGED THE NEW HOUSING MINISTER TO VISIT AND SEE FOR HIMSELF THE PRESSURE AUCKLAND'S URBAN SPRAWL IS PUTTING ON ONE OF NEW ZEALAND'S MOST IMPORTANT FOOD GROWING REGIONS. THE GOVERNMENT HAS CONFIRMED THIS WEEK THAT ABOLISHING AUCKLAND'S URBAN RURAL BOUNDARY IS ON ITS AGENDA FOR THIS TERM. BUT ON Q+A A FEW WEEKS AGO, HORTICULTURE NEW ZEALAND HEAD, MIKE CHAPMAN, WARNED FURTHER URBAN SPRAWL PUTS US AT RISK OF BEING UNABLE TO FEED OUR GROWING POPULATION. THIS WEEK, WE SENT REPORTER WHENA OWEN TO PUKEKOHE TO FIND OUT WHAT'S GOING ON. ALL OF THAT THERE WAS ALL CROP, AND GOOD CROPS THREE YEARS AGO. IT'S ALL RESIDENTIAL. PUKEKOHE GROWER BHARAT BANA IS LAMENTING THE LOSS OF PREMIUM GROWING LAND TO HOUSING IN THE MARKET GARDENING AREA HE GREW UP IN. AS HE SEES IT, HE'S TAKING ME ON A TOUR OF A TRAGEDY. YOU GET A BETTER PICTURE OF WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING AND HOW MUCH MORE LAND PEOPLE WANNA TAKE. RICH VOLCANIC LAND REZONED AND FAST-TRACKED FOR HOUSING. THAT IS ALL RESIDENTIAL ` ZONED RESIDENTIAL ` BEEN REZONED IN THE LAST TWO YEARS. SUBURBS ARE SPRINGING UP ALL OVER PUKEKOHE UNDER THE LAST GOVERNMENT'S SPECIAL HOUSING AREA. (UPBEAT MUSIC) SO, ONE MORE HOUSE FINISHED; ONE STEP MORE TOWARDS SOLVING OUR HOUSING PROBLEM. ONE STEP MORE TOWARDS SOLVING OUR HOUSING PROBLEM. BUT LOOK AT WHAT THE HOUSE IS BUILT ON. THIS IS THE VERY BEST SOIL FOR GROWING OUR FOOD. IT'S CLASSIFIED AS CLASS 1 ELITE SOIL. (ELECTRONIC DANCE MUSIC) DOWN THE ROAD, THE ELITE SOIL IS BEING TRUCKED OFF THIS NEW SUBDIVISION ` LAND THAT NOT LONG AGO GREW CROPS. VEGETABLE GROWER STAN CLARK IS WATCHING THEM FROM HIS DRIVEWAY. CONSIDERING WHAT IT WAS DOING BEFORE THE DEVELOPERS GOT INTO IT IS VERY SADDENING. WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING IS BUILDING ALL OVER OUR INFERIOR SOILS AND KEEPING OUR BETTER ONES. STAN'S BEEN GROWING CELERY HERE SINCE 1960. HE AND HIS SON DAVID HAVE WATCHED HOUSING CREEP CLOSER, BUT NOW HOUSES ARE SPRINGING UP AT A FURIOUS RATE ON ALL SIDES OF THEIR PROPERTY. SO YOU'RE LIKE AN ISLAND HERE, DAVID. WELL, I'M THE MEAT IN THE SANDWICH, WHENA. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION GOING ALL AROUND THE PERIPHERY HERE, AND I'M RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. AND NICK SMITH, HE PASSED IT ALL OFF AS A SPECIAL HOUSING AREA. AND NOW IT'S ALL BEEN BUILT ON, ALL BEEN FAST-TRACKED. I JUST THINK IT'S CRIMINAL. IT'S A SHAME. SOME OF HIS NEW NEIGHBOURS ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FARM'S NOISE AND ACTIVITY. WELL, THAT'S JUST TOO BAD. I WAS HERE FIRST. BUT DAVID HAS OTHER PEOPLE ON HIS MIND, SPECIFICALLY THE MINISTER OF HOUSING. OUR POLICY IS TO GET RID OF THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY. YOU CAN'T JUST SMASH DOWN THE RURAL BOUNDARY YOU CAN'T JUST SMASH DOWN THE RURAL BOUNDARY WITHOUT HAVING A FOOD POLICY PLAN IN PLACE. I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE MINISTER OF HOUSING, PHIL TWYFORD, AND COME AND SHOW HIM WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, AND I'D LIKE HIM TO SPEAK TO THE NATION AND STAKE HIS NAME ON IT ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING ABOUT LOSING ALL THOSE VALUABLE AGRICULTURAL LAND. WE WANTED TO ASK PHIL TWYFORD ABOUT THE GROWERS' CONCERNS FOR THEIR PRIME LAND AND WHETHER HE'D MEET WITH THEM. BUT HIS OFFICE TOLD US HE WASN'T AVAILABLE. DOES HE BELIEVE THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A FOOD CRISIS LOOMING IN THE FUTURE? BECAUSE I CERTAINLY DO. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT IN THE FUTURE. THERE'LL PROBABLY ALWAYS BE FOOD GROWN IN POCKETS AROUND HE COUNTRY, THERE'LL PROBABLY ALWAYS BE FOOD GROWN IN POCKETS AROUND THE COUNTRY, BUT YOU'LL BE PAYING FOR IT. UP IN MANGERE, HOUSING HAS ENVELOPED THE LAST TWO REMAINING MARKET GARDENS. THAT PATTERN IS REPEATED AROUND THE COUNTRY. IN THE PAST 16 YEARS, NEW ZEALAND HAS LOST 4000HA OF FRUIT-GROWING LAND AND 6000HA OF VEGETABLE-GROWING LAND. AND NOW THEY'VE FINALLY GOT PUKEKOHE AND BOMBAY HILLS, BUT ONCE THAT GOES, WELL, THEN WE HAVEN'T REALLY GOT THESE ELITE SOILS ANYWHERE ELSE. HORTICULTURE NZ BELIEVES WE ARE THE ONLY DEVELOPED COUNTRY WITHOUT A FOOD SECURITY PLAN. FOOD SECURITY SHOULD BE AT THE FOREMOST OF EVERYBODY'S MINDS. IN NEW ZEALAND? IN NEW ZEALAND. STAN CLARK SAYS A LOOMING FOOD CRISIS COULD BE COMPOUNDED BY CLIMATE CHANGE. I WOULD'VE THOUGHT, WITH SOME OF THE SO-CALLED GREEN POLITICIANS IN NZ, THAT WE'D HAVE HAD SOME INTEREST SHOWN BY GREENPEACE OR THE GREEN PARTY. AND NONE OF THEM HAVE SEEN FIT TO TAKE THIS MATTER SERIOUSLY, WHICH AMAZES ME. YOU COULD JUST SELL UP AND MAKE A LOT OF MONEY, COULDN'T YOU? I COULD DO, WHENA. BUT THIS IS A VERY GOOD BUSINESS. IT'S VERY PROFITABLE. YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SELLING, THE LANDLORDS, YOU DON'T BLAME THEM. THEY GET OFFERED BIG MONEY TO DO IT ` TO SELL IT AND GET OUT OF IT. (ELECTRONIC DANCE MUSIC) I WOULD JUST EXPECT TO SEE THE POLITICIANS EXERCISE COMMON SENSE AND IN THE MEANTIME, DECIDE VERY QUICKLY THAT SOME OF THE SOILS IN THIS DISTRICT IS SACROSANCT AND IN THE MEANTIME GIVE THEM SOME SORT OF PROTECTION. IF THERE'S NOT A ROADING GONE THROUGH IT, THERE'S NOT CONCRETE BEEN LAID, WELL, IT'S NEVER TOO LATE TO CHANGE AND SAY, 'LOOK, WE MADE A MISTAKE.' IN THE MEANTIME, SECURING OUR FRESH FOOD SUPPLY, BHARAT INSISTS, SHOULD BE A CAMPAIGN WE ALL GET BEHIND. JUST THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE. LET'S THINK ABOUT THE NEXT 50 TO 100 YEARS AND WORK OUT WHERE OUR FOOD'S GONNA COME FROM TO FEED OUR OWN PEOPLE. Let's get our hits and misses. My hit his labour having a different position to trump. That is great. Trevor Mallard holding a baby. That was great. The South Korean President. Doing a portrait of Jacinda Ardern. It was a very good portrait as well. David Parker has done a great job as trade minister. Ms. Was Trudeau not turning up to the meeting. Very rude. New Zealand, labour and the greens getting the paid parental leave despite Bill English vetoing it. Simon Bridges has opened the batting on his leadership campaign. I don't think you should see the kind of stability that national have promise for Bill English is leadership for very long. After having seen that opening gambit this week. SEE YOU NEXT SUNDAY MORNING AT 9. CAPTIONS BY VIRGINIA PHILP, GLENNA CASALME AND INGRID LAUDER. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2017