MORENA, GOOD MORNING, AND WELCOME TO Q+A. I'M CORIN DANN. IT'S BEEN A WEEK ON THE BACKFOOT FOR PRIME MINISTER JACINDA ARDERN. ACCUSATIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AT A LABOUR YOUTH CAMP AND SOME MUDDLED MESSAGING ON RUSSIA. WE SIT DOWN FOR SOME ANSWERS. HE HASN'T EXPLICITLY IDENTIFIED RUSSIA AS BEING A POTENTIAL PERPETRATOR OF THIS ATTACK, AND I WILL PUT IT TO YOU THAT YOU HAVEN'T EITHER JUST THEN. WAS IT RUSSIA? THEN, OUR REGULAR GUEST, RODNEY JONES, A BEIJING-BASED NZ ECONOMIST. CHINA'S MOVE TOWARDS AUTOCRACY SIGNALS A MASSIVE CHANGE FOR THE ECONOMIC POWERHOUSE AND NZ TOO. HE'LL TALK ABOUT WHY ON THE PROGRAMME TODAY. GREEN LEADER AND CLIMATE CHANGE MINISTER JAMES SHAW IS HERE. HE HAS AN AMBITIOUS PROGRAMME FOR CLIMATE CHANGE, GREEN TRANSPORT AND ENERGY. WE'LL FIND OUT WHAT CHANGES HE HAS IN STORE. AND WE'LL HAVE INSIGHT ANALYSIS FROM OUR PANEL. DR JENNIFER CURTIN, DR WAYNE MAPP AND LAILA HARRE. CAPTIONS BY JULIE TAYLOR AND INGRID LAUDER. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2018 TIME NOW FOR SOME QUESTION AND ANSWERS FROM THE WEEK. QUESTION ` DID THE YOUNG LABOUR PARTY SCANDAL THIS WEEK JUST END JACINDA ARDERN'S HONEYMOON AS PRIME MINISTER? ANSWER ` IT LOOKS THAT WAY. THIS WEEK WAS CLEARLY HER WORST IN THE JOB, AND SHE CAN'T AFFORD A REPEAT. QUESTION ` WAS REX TILLERSON'S SACKING AS THE US'S TOP DIPLOMAT A BLOW FOR NEW ZEALAND? ANSWER ` YES. WINSTON PETERS AND HIS BUDDY REX HAD HIT IT OFF IN VIETNAM OVER A BOTTLE OF KIWI SAV. BUT QUESTION IS ` WILL THE WINE BE FLOWING FOR THE NEW GUY, MIKE POMPEO? QUESTION ` WHAT DO YOU THINK? IS PRESIDENT PUTIN GOING TO WIN THE RUSSIAN ELECTION TOMORROW? ANSWER ` AFTER 17 YEARS, IT'S REALLY VLADIMIR PUTIN OR VLADIMIR PUTIN, ISN'T IT? AND RUSSIA IS WHERE I STARTED MY INTERVIEW WITH PRIME MINISTER JACINDA ARDERN. I ASKED HER IF NEW ZEALAND HOLDS RUSSIA RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NERVE AGENT ATTACK IN THE UK. WHEN I CONDUCTED THE INTERVIEW ON FRIDAY, MS ARDERN AND WINSTON PETERS HAD NOT YET PUT OUT THEIR STRONGER STATEMENT ON RUSSIA. WELL, THERE ARE VERY FEW OTHER OPTIONS. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE COME OUT AND SAID, 'THIS IS REPUGNANT. THIS IS A BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.' OF COURSE, FROM THE UK'S ACCOUNT, THERE ARE VERY FEW OTHER PLACES THAT THIS COULD HAVE COME FROM ` IN FACT, ONE. AND WE HAVE BEEN VERY STRONG TO DENOUNCE WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE, AND SO HAS THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS. NO, HE HASN'T, THOUGH, BECAUSE HE HASN'T EXPLICITLY IDENTIFIED RUSSIA AS BEING THE POTENTIAL PERPETRATOR OF THIS ATTACK, AND I PUT IT TO YOU THAT YOU HAVEN'T EITHER JUST THEN. WAS IT RUSSIA? AND THE LANGUAGE IS VERY IMPORTANT HERE, BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN` CORIN, I'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR ` NO ONE ELSE PRODUCES THAT NERVE AGENT. YEAH, BUT THAT` SO WHO ELSE COULD IT BE? YEAH, BUT THAT STILL LEAVES IT` IT SOUNDS SILLY, BUT WILL YOU ACTUALLY SAY THAT RUSSIA IS RESPONSIBLE? BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD WATCHING WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, AND SAYING, 'WELL, WE'RE ON THIS SIDE, 'AND ALL OUR ALLIES ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE.' I'D ACTUALLY CORRECT THAT. WE ARE IN EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION AS OUR ALLIES. WE STOOD UP IN THE HAGUE AND SAID THE SAME THING. WE HAVE CALLED THIS REPUGNANT AND A BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT THE UK'S PRODUCED, IT SUGGESTS THAT NO ONE ELSE COULD BE RESPONSIBLE. I WOULD ACTUALLY SAY THAT IT'S ONLY THE NEW ZEALAND MEDIA THAT SEEMS TO HAVE INTERPRETED US AS BEING UNEQUIVOCAL. WE HAVE BEEN CLEAR ABOUT OUR STATEMENTS ON THIS, AND WE HAVE TO BE. THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED, AND IT IS A BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND WE'VE MADE SURE THAT THE UK IS CLEAR ON OUR POSITION AS WELL. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT ANYONE SHOULD OR COULD TOLERATE. SO, GIVEN THAT, IF YOU'RE SAYING IT IS RUSSIA THAT'S RESPONSIBLE, WILL YOU CONSIDER SANCTIONS OR SOME FORM OF SANCTION AGAINST THEM BECAUSE OF IT? THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE STILL TALKING WITH OUR PARTNERS AROUND. THAT REQUEST HASN'T COME THROUGH. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT AT THIS POINT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED, BUT WE ARE STAYING IN CLOSE CONTACT WITH OUR PARTNERS. HAVE YOU BEEN BRIEFED AS PART OF THE FIVE EYES? HAVE YOU BEEN GIVEN INTELLIGENCE ON THIS ATTACK? I DON'T DISCUSS INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION OR INTELLIGENCE BRIEFINGS. I HAVE BEEN IN CLOSE CONTACT WITH OUR MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE, OBVIOUSLY, ALL THE WAY THROUGH THIS ` ALSO WITH OUR MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND OUR MINISTER FOR TRADE AND EXPORT GROWTH. SO YOU'RE NOT RULING OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT WE WOULD FOLLOW WITH SOME SORT OF SANCTIONS. THIS IS THE PURPOSE OF WHY WE'RE STAYING IN TOUCH. I'M NOT RULING ANYTHING IN OR OUT AT THIS STAGE. IF WE BELIEVE THAT IT WAS RUSSIA RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS ATTACK, WHY ARE WE STILL CONTINUING WITH TALKS WITH RUSSIA ON A FREE-TRADE DEAL? WELL, THOSE FORMAL TALKS NEVER RESTARTED. THEY WERE SUSPENDED IN 2014. YES, THERE HAVE BEEN BILATERAL DISCUSSIONS, AS THERE HAVE BEEN WITH A NUMBER OF OTHER COUNTRIES SINCE WE CAME IN TO GOVERNMENT. MOSTLY THOSE HAVE FOCUSED ON NON-TARIFF BARRIERS, BECAUSE KEEPING IN MIND THE EU, THE UK, THEY ALL TRADE WITHIN THE SANCTIONS THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE WITH RUSSIA. SO WE'RE NOT DOING A FREE-TRADE DEAL WITH THEM? BECAUSE WINSTON PETERS SAYS HE IS DEADLY SERIOUS ` THOSE WERE HIS WORDS ` ABOUT DOING A FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WITH RUSSIA. ARE YOU SAYING THAT'S NOT THE CASE? AS I'VE POINTED OUT IN A FEW INTERVIEWS IN RECENT TIMES, AND AS THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS HIMSELF HAS SAID, SALISBURY CHANGES THINGS, AND IT HAS, AND SO HE HIMSELF HAS SAID THIS WEEK, IT IS TOO EARLY TO SAY IF THAT NOW WILL HAPPEN, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT WE'RE IN. HANG ON. JUST ROLL ME THROUGH THIS. SALISBURY CHANGES THINGS. SO YOU'RE SAYING... IT DOES. ...BECAUSE OF THIS ATTACK, YOU WILL NOT DO A FREE-TRADE AGREEMENT WITH RUSSIA? WE'RE IN A POSITION NOW` IT IS TOO EARLY TO SAY IF AND WHEN THOSE TALKS, WHICH WERE SUSPENDED IN 2014 AND HAVE REMAINED SUSPENDED, WILL RESUME. WHY WAS THAT EVEN IN THE COALITION AGREEMENT? THE ISSUE THAT THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS RAISED AT THE TIME, AND HAS CONTINUED TO DO SO SINCE THEN, IS THAT, AS I'VE SAID, THE EU AND THE UK, WITHIN THE SANCTIONS, HAVE CONTINUED TO TRADE WITH RUSSIA. OF COURSE, WHILST MAKING SURE THAT THEY WERE` SO HAVE WE. INDEED. BUT WE'VE ALSO HAD A RANGE OF NON-TARIFF BARRIERS APPLY TO US AS WELL. THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS WAS SEEKING TO HAVE THE SAME ACCESS AS THE EU AND THE UK, BUT, AS I SAY, SALISBURY HAS CHANGED THINGS. YEAH, BUT YOU SAID IN A SPEECH A WEEK OR SO AGO THAT VALUES WERE GOING TO BE A DRIVING FORCE IN YOUR FOCUSES IN TERMS OF FOREIGN POLICY AND OUR PLACE IN THE WORLD. PUTTING ASIDE SALISBURY, YOU AGREED TO PUT THAT IN THE COALITION AGREEMENT THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT FURTHERING A FREE-TRADE DEAL WITH RUSSIA, KNOWING WHAT RUSSIA HAD DONE IN CRIMEA, KNOWING, ARGUABLY, WHAT IT'S DONE IN TERMS OF MH17, THE US ELECTION, ALL THOSE THINGS. THAT'S NOT VALUES-BASED. NO ONE HAS EVER ARGUED THAT WE WOULD IGNORE THE SANCTIONS. BUT THE POINT IS THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT WANTED A FREE-TRADE AGREEMENT WITH RUSSIA; IT DIDN'T WANT TO PUT IT ON HOLD, AND IT DID. IT TOOK A PRINCIPLED STAND. IT SAID, 'WE CAN'T DO THAT,' AND PUT SANCTIONS IN, AND IT STOPPED THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT. YOU, IN THAT COALITION AGREEMENT, AGREED TO WINSTON PETERS' REQUEST TO PUT IT INTO A COALITION AGREEMENT SO THAT WE WOULD PUT IT BACK ON THE TABLE. I NEED TO CORRECT YOU THERE. THEY SUSPENDED FREE-TRADE TALKS IN 2014, BUT THEY CONTINUED. THERE WAS TWO-WAY TRADE, IN THE ORDER OF, I BELIEVE, $500 MILLION, STILL CONTINUING BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND AND RUSSIA. BUT THEY IMPOSED TRAVEL SANCTIONS. AND NO ONE HAS SAID THAT WE WOULD NOT APPLY THE SANCTIONS THAT WERE IN PLACE. AND THE COALITION AGREEMENT TALKED ABOUT 'STRIVING TOWARDS'. NOW, WHAT I'M SAYING HERE, THOUGH, IS THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW MEANS THAT WE DON'T KNOW IF AND WHEN WE WILL BE IN A POSITION TO RESUME THOSE TALKS, BECAUSE WE ARE TAKING A STANCE ALONGSIDE OUR PARTNERS. BUT YOU'RE NOT SAYING THAT THEY'RE COMPLETELY GONE? THEY'RE NOT COMPLETELY OFF THE TABLE? THAT'S NOT THE END OF IT? RIGHT NOW, THAT IS NOT A DISCUSSION. BECAUSE THE OTHER ISSUES THAT'S CROPPED UP IS THAT YOU WILL HAVE HEARD THE LANGUAGE FROM THE UK'S HIGH COMMISSIONER TO NEW ZEALAND, IN WHICH SHE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE, US HAVING A FREE-TRADE AGREEMENT WITH RUSSIA AND HAVING AN EU AND A UK DEAL. AND AGAIN, THE ONLY POINT THAT THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS HAS MADE IS THAT BORIS JOHNSON AND THE UK HAVE UNDERTAKEN THE ORDER OF $5 BILLION WORTH OF TRADE IN RECENT TIMES. BUT, ACTUALLY, THAT'S IMMATERIAL, CORIN, BECAUSE WHAT I'M POINTING OUT HERE TODAY IS THAT WE HAVE MADE THE POINT ` SALISBURY HAS CHANGED THINGS. WE ARE IN AN UNPRECEDENTED POSITION NOW. THAT HAS TO HAVE AN EFFECT, AND IT HAS. BUT YOU MENTION THE $500 MILLION` THERE IS NO BUT. WELL, NO. YOU SAY THAT EUROPE OR BRITAIN IS STILL TRADING WITH RUSSIA, BUT IT'S A DIFFERENT STORY FOR NEW ZEALAND, ISN'T IT? WE'RE SMALLER, AND WE HAVE TO MAKE CHOICES, AND ARE WE WILLING TO SACRIFICE AN EU-UK DEAL IN OUR MEAT EXPORTS FOR FLIRTING WITH RUSSIA? AND WE HAVE. ACTUALLY, WE HAVE MADE CHOICES. NO, WHICH IS WHY I HAVE CONSISTENTLY SAID THAT WE PRIORITISE THE EU AGREEMENT. WE ALWAYS HAVE. IT IS THE NUMBER-ONE AGENDA FOR US. IT'S IN THE ORDER OF $20 BILLION WORTH OF TWO-WAY TRADE. THAT HAS BEEN OUR FOCUS. THE QUESTIONS AROUND THE RUSSIA FTA HAVE PERSISTED, BUT IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING AS A GOVERNMENT, OUR CONVERSATIONS HAVE FOCUSED SOLELY ON NON-TARIFF BARRIERS. WE HAD NOT ` WE HAD NOT ` RESUMED FTA TALKS WITH RUSSIA, AND NOW WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS IN THIS ENVIRONMENT, I CANNOT TELL YOU IF OR WHEN THAT WILL OCCUR. HAVE YOU ASKED WINSTON PETERS? OR HAS HE GIVEN YOU A REASON WHY HE WANTS TO START FREE-TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH RUSSIA WHEN HE...? I MEAN, HE FAMOUSLY VOTED AGAINST THE CHINA FREE-TRADE DEAL, THE SOUTH KOREA DEAL. HE'S NEVER BEEN A GREAT FAN OF FREE-TRADE AGREEMENTS. DID YOU ASK HIM WHY HE WANTS THIS? IT SEEMS VERY ODD. I'M CLEAR ON WHAT HIS ISSUE WAS, AND IT WAS A QUESTION, AS HE'S RAISED BEFORE, OF FAIRNESS. EU AND UK BOTH CONTINUE TO TRADE WITHIN THE SANCTIONS. NEW ZEALAND FACES A RANGE OF NON-TARIFF BARRIERS. HE WANTED TO SEE THOSE REMOVED, AND HE WANTED FAIRNESS APPLIED. BUT, LOOK, THAT'S THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING PREVIOUS TO THIS LAST WEEK OF EVENTS, WHICH HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT, WHICH OUR MINISTER OF TRADE AND EXPORT GROWTH IS CONCERNED ABOUT, WHICH, OF COURSE, AS I SAY, HAS CHANGED THINGS. WHO SETS FOREIGN POLICY IN YOUR GOVERNMENT? US, AS A GOVERNMENT ` WE DO COLLECTIVELY. OF COURSE, BOTH OUR MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, TRADE AND MYSELF ALL HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY. BECAUSE IT DOES SEEM THAT WINSTON PETERS IS MAKING COMMENTS AROUND RUSSIA, AROUND OTHER ISSUES ` POTENTIALLY CHINA. THEY SEEM A BIT OUT OF SYNC WITH THE OVERALL GOVERNMENT. I WOULD DISPUTE THAT. THE LANGUAGE AROUND THE REPUGNANT ACTS IN SALISBURY, OUR STATEMENT OF IT BEING A BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND OUR POSITION ON WHERE WE STAND IN THE FUTURE ON TRADE, WE'RE BEING CONSISTENT ON. WELL, HE'S NEVER GONE AS FAR AS YOU'VE GONE TODAY, IN WHICH YOU SAID THAT THERE'S NO ONE ELSE WHO IT COULD HAVE BEEN. HE HAS NOT BEEN PREPARED TO GO THAT FAR. WELL, AT THIS POINT, THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS IT COULD BE ANYONE ELSE. BUT HE'S BEEN SAYING HE WANTS TO WAIT FOR THE INQUIRY. REQUIRED UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW. ON THAT, HE'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. INTERNATIONAL LAW, WORK IS DONE. BUT AT THIS POINT, OF COURSE, THERE'S NOTHING TO SUGGEST IT COULD BE ANYONE ELSE. THOSE ARE SIMPLE STATEMENTS OF FACT. MOVING ON TO THE OTHER ISSUE WHICH HAS DOMINATED THIS WEEK, WHICH HAS BEEN LABOUR'S INTERNAL ISSUES WITH THE YOUNG LABOUR PARTY. ARE YOU DISAPPOINTED IN HOW YOU'VE HANDLED THAT THIS WEEK? DO YOU FEEL`? YOU'VE HAD SOME CRITICISM THAT YOU COULD'VE BEEN STRONGER. I MEAN, WE SAW JUDITH COLLINS COMING OUT TODAY SAYING SHE WOULD'VE RIPPED THEIR THROATS OUT. I MEAN, WAS SHE ACTUALLY ENCAPSULATING THE MOOD THAT WAS NECESSARY HERE? I GUESS THE QUESTION IS ` WHOSE THROATS EXACTLY? BECAUSE, OF COURSE, WHAT I'M MINDFUL OF IS THAT THIS WAS, ULTIMATELY, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY ` WRONGLY ` A CAMP THAT WAS RUN BY YOUNG PEOPLE THEMSELVES. YES, MISTAKES HAVE BEEN MADE, AND WE'RE TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT, AND WE'RE WORKING VERY HARD TO MAKE SURE IT NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. BUT I'M ALSO MINDFUL THAT I'M NOT GOING TO HEAP BLAME ON YOUNG PEOPLE THEMSELVES WHO MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED, BUT INSTEAD TAKING RESPONSIBILITY AS LEADER ` LEADER WITHIN THE LABOUR PARTY ` FOR WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE. WELL, I THINK THE POINT SHE WAS MAKING WAS THAT YOUR GENERAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS, WHO, WHEN THEY FOUND OUT ABOUT IT` AND, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUES AROUND NOT TELLING PARENTS AND POLICE AND THESE SORTS OF THINGS. THAT'S THE POINT SHE'S MAKING IS THAT THERE WAS A MASSIVE FAILING THERE. I MEAN, DO YOU STILL HAVE CONFIDENCE IN ANDREW KIRTON? YES, I DO. AND I'VE SPOKEN WITH HIM AT GREAT LENGTHS ABOUT THE AREAS WHERE WE HAVE FAILED, WHERE HE ACKNOWLEDGES HE HAS MADE MISTAKES. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE ISSUE OF THE POLICE, FROM THE ADVICE THAT I'VE HAD PROFESSIONALS IN THE AREA SHARE, THAT ULTIMATELY ALWAYS HAS TO BE DRIVEN BY THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED. LOOK, AS A PARENT, WOULD I HAVE WANTED TO KNOW? ABSOLUTELY. BUT IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN COMPEL OR FORCE OR SHOULD WE COMPEL OR FORCE? NO. WHY DO YOU STILL HAVE CONFIDENCE IN HIM? HE LET YOU DOWN BADLY. IT'S NAIVE TO THINK THAT HE DIDN'T NEED TO TELL YOU, ISN'T IT? I MEAN, IT JUST SEEMS CRAZY. YEAH, AND, AGAIN, LOOK, I DOUBT WE'LL EVER HAVE A SITUATION IN THE FUTURE WHERE I WOULDN'T HAVE THAT KIND OF INFORMATION SHARED WITH ME, BUT AT THAT TIME, THE CALL WAS MADE THAT THE MOST SENIOR PERSON IN THE LABOUR PARTY, WHICH IS ACTUALLY OUR PRESIDENT, WAS INFORMED, OUR SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT, AND THEY SWUNG IN TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE FOCUSED ON THE YOUNG PEOPLE. SO THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T TELL YOU EITHER? AND THEY WERE FOCUSED ON THE YOUNG PEOPLE RATHER THAN POLITICAL MANAGEMENT. AND I STAND BY THAT BEING THE MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION HERE. SO, LOOK, ME BEING TOLD A FEW DAYS EARLIER ` EVEN IF THAT HAD BEEN THE CASE, MY FIRST QUESTION WOULD'VE BEEN, 'WHAT ARE WE DOING FOR THESE YOUNG PEOPLE?' RATHER THAN, 'HOW DO WE POLITICALLY MANAGE A SITUATION?' BUT THEIR JUDGEMENT ` THE JUDGEMENT OF YOUR PRESIDENT AND GENERAL SECRETARY ` WASN'T UP TO THE MARK. WELL, IT DEPENDS ON WHOSE TEST. ON THE TEST OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE FOCUSED ON THOSE YOUNG PEOPLE AT THE TIME THEY FOUND OUT, I'VE SEEN EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT, YES, THEY DID SOME OF THE RIGHT THINGS THAT THEY SHOULD'VE. ON THAT, WE ARE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR; WE SHOULD'VE BEEN MUCH FASTER TO RESPOND ` NO DOUBT. BUT AS I SAY, CORIN, IT'S A MOOT POINT AROUND WHEN OR WHERE I SHOULD'VE KNOWN. THE FACT IS WHAT HAPPENED STILL HAPPENED TO THESE YOUNG PEOPLE. WHETHER I WAS BROUGHT IN DOESN'T CHANGE THAT. THEY'RE THE ONES WE'VE A DUTY OF CARE TO. TELL US WHAT YOU THINK OF WHAT THE PRIME MINISTER HAD TO SAY. WE'RE ON TWITTER @NZQANDA. YOU CAN EMAIL US AT Q+A@TVNZ.CO.NZ. THE PANEL'S TAKE AFTER THE BREAK. LET'S BRING IN OUR PANEL ` UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND POLITICAL SCIENTIST DR JENNIFER CURTIN, FORMER NATIONAL MINISTER DR WAYNE MAPP, FORMER MP AND MINISTER LAILA HARRE. So much to cover off there. Do you think Jacinda dropped the ball this week? Has she recovered? I think she was slow to get clarity around the message. She was put in an extremely difficult position. Having that's wrong on her quickly. I thought your reactions were pretty slow. Even in the interview today, it was a little bit confusing to me about what the real priorities were here. Did she misread middle New Zealand? No, I do not think so. I do not think the middle New Zealand has or has had a period of time when we were 16. We know the complications around that. That is a can of worms. Are you saying this is the the normalisation of team drinking? I think there are mixed views on that. I don't think there will be a consensus among parents that they should necessarily have to be informed. I think in this case the general public are not going to give a toss about Andrew Kirtin's role. Wayne, do you agree? I think it is been a shambles. The Prime Minister has taken a long time to get this thing right. She did not get right in this interview we just or. We seem to have two parallel streams of foreign policy. She took a whole week on an issue that is pretty important. The issue of Russia. Why would you be, as Winston Peters appeared to be doing initially, she has finally accepted authority on this issue. She needed to. It took until Saturday to do that interview. On the other issue, why she has confidence in Mr Curtin she must have her reasons to do that. Why they do not think it was important to inform the prime ministers baffling to me. You always inform your prime minister on a sensitive issue like that. She was put in a difficult position. People not being held accountable. Do you think this will hurt her? Is it just the first rough and tumble of politics? I think because of the me to environment that we are in, they have to be demonstrating clear processes in place and events in the future. Youth wings need to be connected in with the hierarchy of the party. There are risks associated with young people being involved in these events. I would say the political management this week has been a really difficult one. I think it differs from the key government and the sense that they are balancing a much different proportional arrangement in the cabinet. They did look slow on Russia. They were four days behind Australia on it. Even though they are in the five eyes network, you wouldn't they could have sought something out in terms of the statement quicker than they did. Is that going to be an ongoing problem dealing with the Foreign Minister who looks like he has the potential so what he wants they really met sort this out. They need to be on the same message. Just as they, too, that the labour camp did actually get international coverage. Are we being too hard on Winston? I am relieved that there was not this immediate jump to the five eyes. Let's look at what is happening in the UK. Theresa May is under extraordinary pressure. Her popularity has an plummeting. There is evidence that supports that proposition. Where a few days out from the event. Why should we draw conclusions or take action? Because the UK shutdown relationships with France and the Rainbow Warrior was bombed? No, of course it did not. Countries are entitled to figure out ` whatever their view of the evidences, to figure out what the best way to those countries to respond. It would be a big call not to take the word of our oldest ally. You mean of a colonising ally? The only people who are committing these kind of acts at the moment a rush and North Korea. They are the only people ago one poisoning people. Have you heard of Thrones? There are accidental killings every day. Laila is simply wrong on this. Two is initially look like we disbelieved, is wrong. The prime minister has understood that when you are giving credible, evidence she has over seven given it from intelligence agencies, this is a weapons grade agent. She has done the right thing. But it took the whole week. I hope in the future that her and Winston work together much more collaboratively. This cannot keep happening. The bigger point is do we just follow always? You can feel the pressure come on. The UK had a briefing for New Zealand journalists. Was it just the case that New Zealand was like, we have to fall into line? I don't think so. I think what underpinned it for New Zealand was that the free-trade agreement was still on the table. I think that's what, catered it. On the idea of whether we will continue in this environment. I think there is that. I think there is a degree of independence still there. I think Winston Peters has shown that around the Pacific reset. Independence, fine. I think in terms of thinking how long we can take ` in speaking about Teresa May's unpopularity ` Jeremy Corbin took a really long time an urge caution. We can see what has happened in the UK. In terms of political management, I would just say this is with this issue is. BEFORE WE GO TO THE BREAK, MY SECOND Q+A BUSINESS PODCAST IS OUT AND AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE AND ANY GOOD PODCAST APP. TIM GRAFTON FROM THE INSURANCE COUNCIL WAS MY GUEST. IT'S AN INDUSTRY THAT'S CHANGING RAPIDLY TO MEET THE CHALLENGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE. SO THE QUESTION IS ` WILL THE DAY COME WHERE INSURERS WILL BE SAYING IN SOME PARTS, ACTUALLY, IF YOU WANT FLOOD, THEN THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'LL HAVE TO PAY SOMETHING ADDITIONAL FOR BECAUSE YOU'RE IN A HIGHER RISK AREA. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CHANGING POLITICAL LANDSCAPE IN CHINA WITH BEIJING-BASED ECONOMIST RODNEY JONES NEXT. THE NATIONAL PEOPLE'S CONGRESS HAS OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED TO ABOLISH THE TWO TERM LIMIT IMPOSED ON THE CHINESE PRESIDENCY. WHAT THIS MEANS FOR US. THAT'S COMING UP. WELCOME BACK, AND GOOD MORNING TO RODNEY JONES, PRINCIPAL OF WIGRAM CAPITAL ADVISORS IN BEIJING. Great to have you back on the show. Give us a sense of what is going on the ground in China. We have this two-term limit stopped. President Xi Jinping has his grip on things. Should we be worried? We have the National People's Congress this week. It ends tomorrow. They have change the Constitution. This has been to mulch was event. We have the end of the two-term limit. President Xi Jinping could be there for life. He might retire in 2037 One article suggested. We have a new VP, who is over the previous retirement age. The older norms have been thrown overboard. Xi Jinping has strengthened his grip. He was pushing through anticorruption measures and he was supposed to reform the economy. Is he doing either of those things? The family planning commission is gone. That is good. It was a brutal organisation. The NBRC which is the State planning commission is De powered we are looking at upgrading our free trade agreement with China. Are they likely to get pushy with us? We have to find that out. We don't know what foreign policy will be like. We have the Trump tariffs may be announced as soon as this week. We don't know what that will look like. We have been talking over the last five years that this is a direction we have been heading. This is the talk of 60 billion in tariffs that might get targeted to China. That would be a massive escalation. Absolutely. Trade war? It depends how China respond. Although China's tariffs are high, we want China to open up. But they are not under President Xi Jinping. Before we move on to New Zealand with the trade war issue affect our free trade agreement negotiations? It is hard work anyway. It has gone off the boil. We are trying to make water run uphill. Under President Xi Jinping it is personal. It is his personal leadership. It will be harder work for countries dealing with China. It is tough of New Zealand going forward. Absolutely. Amory Brady and others have raised concerns about China's influence in New Zealand. Are you worried about that? Yes. Why it is a surprise that Xi Jinping has gone for a lifetime rule that was a direction they were headingin. This is what we have to live with. This is our future. The issue is how we respond. We are not doing a good job with responding. We did remarkably well for 30 years but we have to think about a different China going forward. We have to reorganise the way we do things. Stand up to them? No it is about what we do at home. Our New Zealand Chinese community - they are 5% of the population. They are underrepresented in Parliament. They will be competing with us at home and in the Pacific, China. We have to meet that. Our political parties have managed that by focusing on China. It is having MPs who can raise money and open doors in Beijing. That will not fly. We have to strengthen ourselves to deal with a highly competitive China. But as a Chinese operation in New Zealand are they worried about China watching them? It is difficult because things are monitored. It is not a free society. That impacts here. There are voices in the community here. We have so many strands of the Chinese community here from families that have been here from 150 years, from be an arm and from Malaysia and recent arrivals. How does New Zealand navigate that without becoming across a xenophobic or anti-Chinese? That is why we have to get the Chinese committee more involved and promote them. We need to have independent voices. Political parties need to deal with this. You don't have to raise money. You don't have to open doors in Beijing. You think a political parties have failed so far in that regard? The political parties are our biggest problem at the moment. Both presidents from Labour and National are going to Beijing and that is completely inappropriate. That is what we need to change. We need to recognise China for what it is and understand and change ourselves. Does that mean following Australia's aggressive line and crackdown on political funding? We need electoral law reform. We need to be more transparent. And Australia the debate as a tone that would make New Zealanders uncomfortable. We don't want to follow the US and Australia on this debate we want to do our way. It is about dealing with the issues. What you make of Winston Peters as Foreign Minister. His rhetoric is difficult to understand at times. It seems to be even if it is targeted at a New Zealand first audience, it would be more anti-China. I would not say it is anti-China. It is creating more distance. We have to be partners in China not friends. He said he was not so keen on the belt and road forum. It was a significant thing that we signed up to a China that they would have liked. How do they react? They will not like that. But we need to do things they do not like. We need a more robust relationship. It makes sense in Central Asia and South Asia, and that is the focus of the strategy. Used to be the deal that we were Western nations signing up to it. Fonterra will give the interim results and they will have to deal with the infant formula situation. They will be writing down almost 100 Million dollars potentially. How big of a problem is that? It was reckless. It is a big problem. It looks easy but it is not. Living there, that deal made no sense at all. They had to get some skin in the game. But you can't rush in and do a joint deal like that we have no control over management. It never made sense. It never fromday one made sense. It was bricks and mortar when things were going online. It was an old economy investment. They had no control. It was an unknown character. We are doing it wrong. What we do in the future? It is hard work. We have an office in China. Operating in China is hard work and always will be. We need to be realistic. We have had too much hype. $26 billion in two-way trade. It has been fantastic but it is slowing. We were number one for a long time for exports to China. But now we are number nine. We are slipping down. We look through the rearview mirror and we did an amazing job. We are dealing with a different China going forward. STAY WITH US. GREEN PARTY LEADER JAMES SHAW IS HERE NEXT, AND HE HAS AN ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT HOW THE GREENS WILL BE DOING POLITICS DIFFERENTLY AND FOSTERING AN INTERESTING RELATIONSHIP IN THE PROCESS. GOOD MORNING, GREEN PARTY LEADER AND CLIMATE CHANGE MINISTER JAMES SHAW. Before we get is the news that you have got, how do you think Jacinda Ardern has gone this week as party leader as a support partner. Are you satisfied with how it is all gone about Russia and her message question mark yes she was very strong in healing which. She talked about the language that Winston Peters has used, and we want to be treated fairly in the way that the EU and others are. What about his stance on Russia and free trade? I think where we have ended up as a really good place. The trade negotiations will not be going ahead at the moment. We have voiced her concerns about trade negotiations with countries that have a poor human rights record. There is no other explanation other than Russia being behind this attack. It is clearly a violation of human rights. I am of the understanding that the Green Party is going to announce that you will give your patsy questions in Parliament, you get one per session, to the opposition for the rest of the term. That is correct. It is about 42 questions this year and 50 questions next year. That is because the patsy questions are a waste of everyone's time. They make the government look good. Yes but question time should be about holding the government to account. This is what we said in opposition and other we are in government we felt it wasgood to act consistent. Why are you giving the opposition an extra chance to bash you? It sounds crazy but we are crazy about democracy. It seems like a weird move but I think the democracy will be better served if question time will does what it is supposed to do which is hold the government to account. We are members of the government. I expect us to be held to account Not to use cryptic questions to tell some bright and shiny story. But if you want to promote what you are doing with climate change and one of your MPs ask you to tell us about time a change you get the floor and you get the exposure. But I do not. When was the last time you reported a patsy question? Fairpoint. I am very excited. If I want to do an announcement, I will do one. The purpose of question time is to hold the government to account. That is what we're doing. For people not familiar with question time, normally the opposition would get two or three primary questions, 12 questions at 2 o'clock And they were cut the lines of attack and they get a bunch of supplementary questions. They will get an extra question from you. One of their MPs or shadow minister will get the chance to attack your Government. Will you give them supplemented questions as well? Up to a point. We will hold those in reserve. We will see what the emerging questions are. There might be things we want to jump in on. When Steven Joyce was having a go at Grant Robertson, I would use our supplemented questions to point out that the $11 billion hole wasffake news. How does Labour feel about this? Reaction was mixed. The idea of handing the opposition a bigger stick to beat us with was not thought of as a great idea universally. But they do not believe we should not do it. Can this be interpreted as an olive branch and a step towards National? No. I know it is not convenient for us, but this is a point of principle for us. In 2008 we opened up our expenses and said we would tell people what we are spending every month in Parliament. Other political parties or there was not a great idea and now it is standard practice. It is part of standing orders. I am trying to get my head around us. Are you trying to differentiate yourself? There is a coalition government with Labour and New Zealand first.It's like you are on the crossbenches. What I'm trying to do is act consistently in government with what we said in opposition. In opposition we consistently called for reform of Parliamentary institutions including question time. We often said the patsy questions did not serve the purpose of a better democracy. Now that we are in government I'm trying to make sure we are doing what we said we would do. One of my producers said it was attention seeking. I think people will read all sorts of things into this. Are we trying to do a deal with National? Are we trying to seek attention? Are you are you happy for people to read that into it? People say what they will say. It comes with the territory. It is not convenient for us giving National a stick to have a go at us. But it is part of what the Green Party has always tried to do - push the boat out. Experiment with ways of trying to promote democracy. You are doing Zero Carbon Act and climate change, all the laws that we have to meet a climate change target will be written in? I put into law the goal of being a zero emission economy by the year 2050. It establishes an independent climate commission To help guide the pathway towards the target of zero emissions by setting carbon budgets. That would be a pollution limit. That would be over five or six years? Yes. You are locking and future governments to their policies and their laws, you're locking them into a certain framework. There is a constitutional issue here. Don't we need bipartisanship or for a change of this magnitude? Years. That is why I'm undertaking such a comprehensive and thorough approach to the design of the legislation. I want to make sure that the concerns that the National party and the ACT Party represent and that we hear those concerns and make the best effort to address those concerns. I'm not saying I'm relying on that boat or that we will do loot the legislation, but they have genuine and valid concerns and they represent real people and real industries out in the regions. If there is a recession in the future and a future National government in 15 years time decide that needs to put us in breach of the carbon at someone to go to the court and challenge that. The exact nature of the Zero Carbon Act and the balance of powers between the commission and parliaments it is yet to be determined. It is massive. It is like the Treaty of Waitangi. It is a bit like the reserve bank. You have a spectrum. You had the Parliamentary Commissioner for the environment who publishes reports and they are very thorough. But it is take it or leave it. At the other end of the spectrum you have the reserve bank which has a series of powers and is very difficult for the executive to interfere with those. There is a range of options and between those. Are you leaning towards a reserve Bank? It depends. The UK have a model more like the other one. Not the reserve Bank. The Parliament have to adopt those budgets and if it does not the government have to come up with a better offer. That is the built intention they have created there. But also in the UK , because they are currently part of the European Union they are part of the EU emissions trading scheme. They need to decide if they will continue to remain in that once Brexit happens. Once they had their own emissions trading scheme they might adopt a more reserve Bank type mode. What happens in the future when a hypothetical government decides it will not pass a law but it wants to come up with a policy that would allow mining for example, what happens when it is a breach of the carbon act? Parliament is always supreme. A future government could come at a long and abolish the whole thing. We want to make it difficult for them to do that. It is not strictly entrenched that is what we want bipartisanship. We have are all nicely set up at the moment but no one has been prepared to show some bite and come up with policies that will hurt us a bit because we have to make the sacrifices. Are you the man who will make the sacrifices and make New Zealand do the hard work? We have put the architecture for the transition to the low carbon economy. It is not all sunk costs. It is about investing in a high-value economy. That is a tremendous opportunity. We will bring you back later to talk about the Green fund and the Green card. It is fascinating. THE FINAL WORD FROM OUR PANEL AFTER THE BREAK. PLUS, A LOOK BACK TO THE FIRST VISIT OF A CHINESE PREMIER TO NZ AND THE VERY EARLY DAYS OF OUR TRADE RELATIONSHIP. WHAT ROB MULDOON HAD TO SAY ABOUT THAT. YOUR FEEDBACK NOW. KERRY'S TWEETED, RAQUEL BLACKBURN SAYS I am still getting my head around the Green Party proposal on Patsy questions. What do you make of them giving away their primary questions? I think it is a ridiculous move. The timing is very interesting. The Green Party are having a co-leadership election. Marama Davidson is campaigning that her strength as she is not a minister and will be able to represent the Parliamentary side of the Green Party. She loses the ability to stand up in Parliament now. They are taking away from the second coleader potentially and effective new young MPs to stand up and have a voice. I think they are confusing the relationship between government and opposition And the relationship between Parliament and the executive. I think they are wrong that these questions either have to be Aggressive and attack questions on a government or Patsy questions. There is plenty of room in the two. And there are plenty of issues the Green Party could be raising through question time. James Shaw made the point that if he wants to make an announcement he can just do it himself. Does he need question time? Does seem pretty amazing. I think that the point Laila made about Marama Davidson might be the point. Simon Bridges has signalled an approach towards the Greens. He talked about the Greens when he talked about a coalition partnership not New Zealand first. And James Shaw denied that. But there is a lot of water under the bridge. As an opportunity to build some trust? That is an interesting way to put it. Government is dynamic. We are not settled. We have an evolution to go. That evolution will go beyond the 2020 election. How do you interpret this Jennifer? Question time has always been for those outside parliament a bit of a farce. They call them Dorothy Dixs in Australia. They looked just like that. James Shaw was quoted on this desire to see changes to question time in 2015. Catherine Delahunty's question time blues performances all about the problems they have with the way question time is run. They using the opportunity to try to make reforms in terms of parliamentary procedures. We see this from independence to care about democracy in other countries. They are on the crossbenches. Yes they are in government but they are in a very unusual place. When the next election is they will to distinguish themselves in this is a chance to present themselves as somewhere in the middle of National and Labour. They don't want to be too cozy with Labour and New Zealand first? All smaller parties that go into a coalition government need to be able to extract themselves from it when they get to campaign time. But isn't the way to do that to take opportunities in a constructive way to distinguish your policy positions. We had the TPP at the moment. Only the Green Party are standing against that. Just a year ago Labour, the Greens and New Zealand first were marching against it. I don't see how it will change question time. They are giving them to the National party who will use it to have a bit more ammunition to make question time even more nasty and unproductive. That might not be the case. It might be that there is a trade that the question has to be used in a particular way. The understanding is there is some clauses around the ability to ask questions that are trying to highlight a split between the Greens and Labour for example. They have the right to pull that on that particular issue. There are times I have spoken to opposition members and they have complained that they really wanted to get a question in Parliament but they could not because there were two other issues running. It now means that National will have more at its disposal. And it will make question time that more adversarial. I don't agree. They should take the issue to the standing orders committee. They should open up the discussion about the whole process of question time. Doing this is only going to emphasise the adversarial nature of Parliament which is exactly what my understanding was Greens wanted to stand against. We don't know. The fact that they have done itshows that they are different. You would expect the opposition to treated a bit differently as well. They might see the question has to be dealt with in a somewhat different way than the other five they get that are their own primary questions. I don't know if that will be the case. We will have to see. But we should not say that it will make Parliament more adversarial. There is a dynamism about this that is different, and maybe this is an outcome of the way our government got form this time round. It is changing the way Parliament will operate in the future. Jennifer, in the context of the Greens we know they are going through a leadership battle. There are questions of they are moving towards their activist base oor if they are moving towards the blue-Green. James Shaw is animated by climate change but it is hard to know where it is all going for the Greens. I think the Zero Carbon Act and the position on the climate change commission, this is their chance to shine. They will use that. And the Green fund later in the year. There was a moment when National was thinking about a blue-Green breakaway party. That would concern the Greens a little bit. If that were likely to happen, it would be a concern for the Greens. It is around 24,000 votes that they win from the Nats that split their vote and vote Green. With this initiative around question time, they look like they are trying to bridge across Parliament both ways then maybe that vote increases. Maybe the National voters who like to vote greenwwill vote for them. FINALLY, OUR WEEKLY LOOKBACK IN POLITICAL HISTORY. IT'S 1983, AND PRIME MINISTER ROBERT MULDOON IS HOSTING THE FIRST EVER VISIT BY A CHINESE PREMIER. OUR TRADE RELATIONSHIP IS IN ITS INFANCY, HEAVILY IN OUR FAVOUR WITH EXPORTS WORTH AROUND 164 MILLION TO NZ. TO PUT THAT IN CONTEX, LAST YEAR, OUR EXPORTS TO CHINA WERE WORTH AROUND $12B TODAY'S TALK CENTRED MAINLY ON TRADE, WHICH IS HEAVILY A NZ FAVOURITE, $200M A YEAR-PLUS. MR MULDOON SAYS CONCERN WAS EXPRESSED ABOUT THIS IMBALANCE. I RAISED THE ISSUE OF THE IMBALANCE IN TRADE AND WENT OVER SOME OF THE REASONS WHY IT OCCURS, AND HE, IN TURN, WENT OVER SOME OF THE REASONS WHY IT OCCURS, AND WE HAD A LITTLE CHAT ABOUT IT. BUT I THINK WE BOTH UNDERSTAND THE REASON. IT'S NOT A MAJOR ISSUE BETWEEN US. AS FOR ANY JOINT VENTURES ` WELL, THEY'LL BE SITUATED ONLY IN CHINA. HE IS INTERESTED IN FURTHER JOINT VENTURES IN CHINA BETWEEN NZ COMPANIES AND CHINESE INTERESTS IN FIELDS WHERE WE HAVE TECHNOLOGY. EARLIER, MR ZHAO HAD IGNORED WELLINGTON'S WET WEATHER TO INSIST ON GOING AHEAD WITH THE FULL CEREMONIAL WELCOME. AFTER ALL, THIS VISIT MARKS THE 10 YEARS SINCE WE SIGNED DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH CHINA. ALTHOUGH, ACCORDING TO MR MULDOON, THAT'S NOT THE ONLY REASON WHY MR ZHAO IS HERE. BECAUSE HE LIKES US. What a remarkable story China has been over the last 20 or 30 years. MARAE IS NEXT. Q+A REPEATS TONIGHT AT 11.55 AFTER THE PROGRAMME 'MUM' ON TVNZ 1. HOUSING MINISTER PHIL TWYFORD IS ON THE PROGRAMME NEXT WEEK. THANKS FOR WATCHING, AND THANKS FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS. THOSE WERE THE QUESTIONS AND THOSE WERE THE ANSWERS, THAT'S Q+A. SEE YOU NEXT SUNDAY MORNING AT 9. CAPTIONS BY JULIE TAYLOR AND INGRID LAUDER. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2018