* Morena, good morning, and welcome to Q+A, the home of Sunday morning politics. I'm Corin Dann. I hope you are enjoying a good Easter break. We have a bumper Easter show for you today. Plenty to talk about at the family dinner table tonight. The Minister for Broadcasting made the headlines herself this week after a senior Radio New Zealand manager quit, admitting she'd misled her bosses about her meeting with Clare Curran. We're gonna be talking about that plus her plans for RNZ, TVNZ and taking on tech giants like Facebook and Google. The Minister for Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media, Clare Curran, is our lead interview this morning. Then, what happened to free speech? Are some ideas so offensive they shouldn't be heard, or are we all getting too PC for our own good? Whena Owen braves the front line of our culture wars. It's a rather dystopian world we're living in where people are self-censoring because of the fear of social shaming. Commonwealth Secretary-General Baroness Patricia Scotland is on the programme as we warm up for two weeks of intense sporting competition at the Commonwealth Games. Remember them? It's a good time to also ask what else is the commonwealth good for. And our panel is ready to offer their insight and analysis ` Dr Jennifer Curtin, Matt McCarten and Fran O'Sullivan. www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018 Broadcasting minister Clare Curran is here in just a moment. But first, some questions and answers from the week. Question ` which party do you think will be relieved that the RNZ scandal blew up this week? Answer ` NZ First. It's the party that keeps on giving. With all the oxygen sucked up by RNZ and its minister, Clare Curran, that alleged attempt to muzzle a National MP over regional funding, well, that took a back seat. Question ` how do you know when a spy is a spy? Answer ` well, apparently when they're not part of the Russian embassy. Question ` does that mean there are no Russian spies in New Zealand? Answer ` no. There are spies, apparently, just not ones we can send home. Question ` what message was Helen Clark sending to Jacinda Ardern this week when she said Ms Ardern had been let down by staff over Labour's youth sexual abuse allegations? Answer ` well, that is a good question, because Helen Clark took no prisoners as leader and you'd have to think she was saying to the PM she might need to harden up. And was Clare Curren perhaps her first opportunity? The minister has apologised to me for the lack of transparency from the very beginning around the fact that the meeting occurred and the fact that it was not included in that original written question. It should have been; there is no question of that. The minister acknowledges that and has apologised. Joining me now is Clare Curren, the Minister for Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media. Thank you very much for joining us, Minister. Good morning. If I could start first with this meeting you had with Carol Hirschfeld in Astoria. It was a couple of days before a board meeting with the RNZ board. What were you discussing with Carol Hirschfield? Yeah, look, it was at a really high level ` a discussion about the state of the media landscape, which is quite vulnerable, and around the ` in general terms ` the plans that we had for the government's investment and the ability to, I guess, provide more content for New Zealanders; our plans for RNZ and New Zealand On Air, which is the other state-funded entity. So why did you need to have the meeting? Look, that's a good question. Carol is a very highly respected person in the media sector. She's been a journalist, she's been a presenter, she's an executive, and she had a lot of experience. And I've been meeting, ever since I'd become a minister, I'd been meeting to explain where the new government was coming from. And I thought she would be a good person to have that conversation with at a really high level. That was basically it. It was breakfast. I thought it was an unofficial meeting, and I got that wrong. Did she have approval from the CEO of Radio New Zealand and all the board for that meeting? That's a question you'll have to ask her. Well, no, did you ask her whether she had approval? Because that's a question for you. No. No. You didn't ask her whether she had the approval to do that. Because just for viewers' information, that was a breach of protocol from RNZ, but it's also potentially a breach of the Cabinet manual, which says you should've taken some steps to make sure she was OK to have that meeting. Well, look, I've taken advice from the Cabinet office on that, and the very clear advice is that it is not a breach of the Cabinet manual, that ministers are expected and it is perfectly common for them to have meetings on policy matters with senior officials from Crown entities, and that that is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. Whether or not Carol should have asked her bosses for permission is a matter for her. The problem here, Minister, is that we've got a situation where we know that the CEO of RNZ and the board chairman had expressed some concerns about your plans for RNZ+ being a full linear TV station, and we, I guess, could take the impression that you were trying to find someone at RNZ who perhaps had a different view, that you were looking to undermine the board. Well, that impression is completely false, and there have been very positive discussions between myself, the chair, the CEO and the board itself on the progression of the government's priorities, so that is completely false. It was a breakfast meeting. It was what I thought was casual, and I got that wrong. The mistake I made was to not put in a written answer to a written question the fact that I had had that meeting with her. And as soon as I realised that I had made that mistake, I corrected the Parliamentary record and I've since apologised to the Prime Minister. What was your reaction when you found out, after hearing from the Select Committee, that they had misled Parliament, because they'd been led to believe that it was not an arranged meeting, so, in other words, that Carol Hirschfield had misled her bosses, lied to her bosses? What was your reaction when you found that out? My office twice contacted RNZ to correct that, and unfortunately, it wasn't until earlier this week that we've learnt the outcome of that, which is a huge shame, that Carol` With respect, we know that` ...has resigned as a result. We know that your office contacted RNZ, but I'm interested in your reaction. Were you disappointed? Were you outraged? I mean, that's a serious matter ` having someone mislead Parliament. Yeah, I'm certainly disappointed. I guess I don't understand the reason for that, but that is a matter that you'd have to take up with Carol and RNZ. It's an operational matter for them. Could you, though, have been more proactive? Gone public? Made that much clearer? Because there seems to have been some miscommunication through the CEO if it took another 20 days after the first time you raised it before it was raised a second time. What's going on? My office twice made contact with RNZ. I believe that we did the right thing. Did you do enough, I guess, is what I'm asking. I think we did the right thing. I didn't believe going public would serve any purpose, so I believe we did the right thing. Do you have a good enough working relationship now with the management at Radio New Zealand, given what has happened? Is there going to be a severe lack of trust? No, I don't believe so. I think that the issues that we're dealing with in New Zealand media are too important for this. It's a really huge shame that Carol Hirschfield has left her job as a result of this, but the issues in New Zealand media are too important and the issues aren't just about RNZ. There's the whole of the media landscape. You've got an active minister with an active government that really believes that media is important and that we have to protect it, particularly the public investment in it. But I wonder how you've helped that, because the perception- You know, for a long time, there have been critics, particularly on the right, of Radio New Zealand and its political- Well, unfair critics, I would argue. But some would argue they're Red Radio ` call it what you want. Have you not inflamed that criticism of Radio New Zealand by being seen to meet with the head of news just before we're getting near a $38 million funding round for Radio New Zealand? Well, look at it like this ` the media this week has been doing its job holding the executive to account and asking lots of questions and having lots of scrutiny. That is the job of media. We need more of that. We need more news and current affairs. We need more content; we need more New Zealand-made content for children, for Pacific, Maori, people with disabilities. We don't have enough of it, and I would argue that that's what we should be having the discussion about. This was an unfortunate occurrence. I made a mistake in not including that meeting in a written question put to me, which is on the record of Parliament. I corrected that. That is where it ends. Will the RNZ roll-out in the money, in the budget process be affected by what has happened this week? I don't believe so, but I would also make the point that we're in a budget process, and so there's a lot of things up in the air. No matter which minister you hit on today, you'd probably get that response. So, no, just to be clear, there's one thing I don't understand here. You've got this commission in place, or this interim commission, which is looking at the wider landscape. Putting that aside, what is the actual process in terms of money for RNZ this budget? I mean, are they potentially in line for $20 million or $30 million or not? Well, I can't answer that, Corin, because we're in the last stages of a budget process. There is a plan in place to evolve RNZ to become RNZ+, also to invest in NZ on Air so that there is more New Zealand content made available across the media spectrum. But also to turn RNZ into a more evolved multimedia media entity. That plan has not changed. The quantum of the investment in this budget cycle is still unclear because we're still in that process. So they may not get $38 million. I can't comment on that because we're in a budget process. Ask me in a few weeks. What I can ask you is ` are you sticking to the view you've expressed numerous times that there is going to be a linear free-to-air non-commercial TV station run by Radio New Zealand? So that is in the policy that was released before the election. That is ultimately part of the longer term intention. Getting there is what I'm calling an evolution ` an evolution of RNZ to become RNZ+. How long does that take? I can't answer that either. I've put in place- We're five months into government, this is the biggest investment and concept around media in New Zealand for a long time, which has been starved of funding in an environment where it hasn't been valued. I've put in place an interim media advisory committee to provide advice to the government on how any division of money should occur, but also how a permanent commission could offer quality advice to the government in the long term. Sure. So it's still too early to say how long that would take. Too early to say. OK, an evolution. Some years? Well, what I-. Do you still want a stand-alone TV station that will effectively be in competition with TVNZ, MediaWorks and everyone else, eventually? 'In competition' is a curious way to put it. Not competition. Let's take that off the table. Will there be a non-commercial TV station? We're talking about a non-commercial television, which we don't have in New Zealand. Will there be a TV station one day? Yes. Don't forget we have digital media, so we already have audio visual happening with RNZ. It is not adequate. It needs to improve. So does it need to be on a linear platform, though, so people can go to the TV channel? That is the intention in the longer term, yes. So you've got a problem, though, don't you? Because at the moment, the current chair of Radio New Zealand and the CEO have expressed some concerns about that. They don't see a fast evolution to that from the language that's certainly been reported. So the- Can I just reassure you and the listeners that there is no division between RNZ and the minister on this issue. There is an acknowledgement that evolving RNZ into RNZ+ is going to take time, and the focus will be on moving the platform's multimedia in a gradual way, depending on how much money is available to do it. It's going to take time. I just urge everybody to hold your horses and wait for the evolution of those plans to start to unfold. Will you proceed with those plans if it hurts your other main broadcasting asset ` TVNZ? Because presumably you could take audience off them. Yeah. I think it's a good question to ask about TVNZ, also to ask about any other television entity operating in the media sector. What New Zealand is missing, though, is non-commercial public interest television. We're the only country in the OECD that doesn't have it. Sure. We get that. But will you allow the creation of a non-commercial channel to hurt the revenue, the standing, the brand of your main asset in that TV area ` TVNZ? Well, its revenue wouldn't be hurt in terms of competition for advertising money, because it's non-commercial. There is a thirst in New Zealand for more New Zealand-made content in the public interest. So there is a huge gap. I don't believe that TVNZ in the short term will be hurt by that. Beyond that, though, there is a question about TVNZ's future, and I've acknowledged that. I've said that we have to have those discussions. I have already started having some initial discussions with TVNZ. So let's look at that, because we're hearing rumours that Spark and TVNZ might be looking at some sort of joint venture on the Rugby World Cup rights. Is that a model you are comfortable with as broadcasting minister? Well, I have told TVNZ to carry on in the model that they currently operate in and to look for opportunities. A joint venture is one of those opportunities. I can't comment on the specifics of that, because it's commercial and it's ongoing. Sure. But that's important, though, because this could be the start of something bigger, presumably, if the model works, for TVNZ and Spark. It's been talked about in years before ` a way for TVNZ to get access to capital and someone with deeper pockets. They can start to compete with the Netflixes of this world. Would you be comfortable with that? I'd certainly be open to talking to TVNZ more about it. I have, as I've said, told them that my expectation is that they will continue with the current model that they have, looking for opportunities within that. And they are operating within a commercial set of circumstances, and that's how I'm expecting them to continue in the short to medium term. One other way you could of course help them and other media in New Zealand is by looking at Facebook and Google, who get the majority or the lion's share of online advertising revenue yet don't really provide content. Is there any thought that you will look at that issue and regulate? I certainly think that's a valid question. It's sort of probably one of the most important issues that are out there in our community and our society at the moment, is to the extent to which these great big giants ` technology giants ` are actually accessing our data. So will you regulate? The first thing that we're doing is a much-needed upgrade of privacy law, which is currently waiting in the House for its first reading. That will provide submitters an opportunity to say whether or not the proposed change in our privacy laws are going to be adequate as regulation` Sorry to interrupt, Minister, but could you look at requiring them to meet the same sorts of broadcasting media standards that other companies in New Zealand face? In what sense do you mean? They would be demanded to behave a bit more, like, in terms of what they're putting on, their editorial content ` the sort of thing other companies face which they don't. Well, I've certainly been having discussions with entities like Facebook, with Amazon, with Netflix, around their compliance with classification standards and content regulation, yes, I have been having those conversations with them. So what could that look like if that followed through? That could look like a consistent set of classification codes across content on those platforms; the ability for people to make complaints; and for there to be some way of having those complaints heard. Clare Curran, minister for Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media, thank you very much for your time. We appreciate it very much. Thank you. Our panel is ready to have their say. They will be right with you after the break. * Welcome back to Q+A. The panel's with us now ` Dr Jennifer Curtin, Auckland University political scientist, greetings to you; Matt McCarten, former Labour Party chief of staff, now the employment advocate for Migrant Association; and Fran O'Sullivan, head of business for NZME. Welcome to you all. Another very interesting week in politics. It just seems to be at the moment. Jennifer, do you think that Clare Curran is safe? I think for the moment she is. I think what we have to remember is this is still a government that's learning how to look after itself, and probably there's more pressure, in a way, on the Prime Minister than there is on Curran in the sense of managing all of this. What we know when we look back at the National Government after a long time in Opposition, there were there calls for resignation in their first 12 months, and only one resignation happened. So we know that the media is always on the lookout for missteps, and it's their job to do that and then to hold the government to account. Really, what we normally see is that prime ministers work out just how much political fallout is gonna continue before they'll call for a resignation. Matt McCarten, you know all about that as a former chief of staff of Labour. Is that the right decision from Jacinda Ardern to stand by her minister? Is it a storm in a teacup? Of course. Of course. There's no reason for any resignation or even talk of it. That's why the Nats haven't called for it. I think what we've had this week and last week was it's been a bit messy. Their honeymoon is over. And I think they've all got used to it, complacency. When an Opposition has been out there for nine years, they're kind of used to being in Opposition. They're lucky they've got the long weekend now. They've got to get their head right and say, 'We are the government and we are accountable.' And I think Clare was the one who initiated these discussions; it wasn't Carol. But this is part of being an Opposition MP; you always wanna talk to the players. What you've got is the Budget round, and all the ministers' job is to advocate to get more money for their departments. There has been some conflict inside RNZ about whether they want to pursue down the TV line. Yeah. And Clare's sort of fudging that. Was she fudging it? Yeah, yeah. But she would've gone to Carol, cos Carol's the expert, you know, she's done Maori TV and TV3. She's the person in there who knows about TV. So I know she's not saying it` But there's a direct line of reporting, which is the CEO or the board. Yes, I know. And this is where, as Opposition, you see everyone` I don't think this is Clare's fault at all. She's just seen... Carol would not be the only one it would be everyone in broadcast. She's going around as a new minister. This is in December, before Christmas, going around trying to find out. It was in the Astoria Cafe, which we know there's about 200 there at any time. It's not a secret. If she was meeting in some faraway place, then you'd think, 'There's a rat.' But this is above board. She's doing her job. Fran, what do you think? I thought, 'What an awful amount of flannel,' to be honest. You asked her fair and square that question about the Cabinet manual. The Cabinet manual is completely specific. If there is a minister ` and I can quote from it, section 3.81. If a minister wants to talk to an employee, you know, State agency, they've gotta make sure` She should've made sure that` She should've checked. ...Carol Hirschfeld had that. The Cabinet` I know your mates in the media are saying it's a big deal. The Cabinet office said that's not true. She's saying she got their advice. The Cabinet office is saying it's totally fine. A minister can't not meet anyone... No, no. ...without them going through the CEO. It's ridiculous. Well, actually, that's splitting hairs. That's not what she said. You work for the Herald sometimes. Does that mean I'm not allowed to talk to you unless I get the editor's permission? Let's hear Fran on this one. I guess the bigger question` We're talking about Cabinet manuals, we're talking about specifics. Is any of it gonna resonate beyond the beltway? No. Uh, possibly not, but I think it ought to resonate. And I think one of the things that, to me, coming through that conversation was the frankly quite pitiful response to what's happening with Google and Facebook, talking about regulation on privacy concerns, but this government and its predecessor government are a long way from what's happening in the rest of the world. In Australia, the ACCC, the competition authority, is looking at the market dominance of these players, which effectively are gutting the commercial media. And this is something that someone worth their salt should be looking at. And it's all here in her advice. It is an issue. When she set up this public media funding commission and empowered a ministerial advisory group, I mean, this is here as a concern. But the thing is she's clearly still more interested in getting this non-profit TV station up and running. Yes, but what's not being considered in this environment is what is the impact on TVNZ, MediaWorks, others, on giving $38 million to RNZ to launch a TV channel. Of course it's going to impact on already existing players. So I think this is the thing. It needs to be talked out in a much bigger totality than it is so far. Jennifer, do you think that the communication is good enough on this issue, on what's happening with RNZ+, on where it's going? Because the message seems to be changing. What we heard today was that, yes, she still eventually wants a stand-alone TV station. I think on the back of the Commerce Commission decision not to allow the newspapers to merge, it does indicate that the environment is really tough, and there are other options out there. I think the other thing is that, really, she needs to be communicating better just at a general level and needs to look like she's up to speed with the complexity of the issue, because if this is gonna have traction with voters and a belief that it isn't more than perhaps the right-wing narrative that it's just ploughing more money into something pinko in terms of media outlet, then she has to be much more up to speed and across, like Fran says, the totality of what this issue is. Matt, do you think the process of RNZ+ has been set back? She couldn't commit on the money. Maybe they'll get it, maybe they won't. This has been unhelpful for her to be able to put the case. It is an irony, if she didn't have the issue around Carol Hirschfeld she wouldn't have been on today to be able to even talk about it. No, that's not true. We booked that interview prior to that issue blowing up. Oh well, then I take it back. But she's always been passionate about a stand-alone, non-commercial TV station, like TVNZ used to be, but it's become a commercial entity. So is there a need in the community for a non-commercial TV? I think that with TVNZ` I was 7 when we had it. It actually got good (INDISTINCT). The National Radio is the same sort of thing. I think there is a need for that non-commercial place, and I think there has to be a debate, and this is part of it. But let's not do it in an environment where at the same time you're not taking all the measures that other Western nations are taking to ensure predator companies ` that's what they are. I mean, these are giant behemoths; they're predators` But to be fair to her, she was signalling some sort of action that I hadn't heard of before. On privacy. On privacy. What she wasn't signalling was the broader picture. And this is the point. You look at the actions the EU is taking; you look what's happening in Australia. Australia is debating, for instance, having things like taxes on content that Facebook use and funnelling that money back to help support the companies that produce it in the first place. And I think this is the point. There's no point having the Commerce Commission banging on and wringing its hands and saying, 'We want plurality' and not actually making sure that these companies survive in the first place, in the case of NZME and Stuff, and neglect the broader picture about what else can happen. If they say no, what else can happen? What do you think, Jennifer, about the politics around Google and Facebook? I wonder if it's turned a little bit, the mood on Facebook, whether there is an opportunity now. The government might feel a bit braver. Well, they should feel brave, because the UK and the US want to talk to Facebook, the #deleteFacebook is out there, and it's big, and people are deleting their Facebook accounts by the minute. And so this is an important time to get a handle on whether or not this is an opportunity to be doing more and protecting our local media industries and enabling them. Is it a bit rich, though, to be arguing for the government to regulate to help private companies? Why can't these private companies survive by themselves? Well, I think you'll find if you look at most commercial landscapes, when a monopoly player arises` look at the Seven Sisters, look at everything else ` we have large companies disrupting and eating the lunch of small companies all around the world. So some regulation's all right? Everybody else is having a look at it. (MATT LAUGHS) I've never been against regulation, have I? I mean, earlier in the show when you talk about the Russian spies, you think, Facebook sorta sells everyone's information to right-wing... Quite. ...political parties. We don't know that's happened yet. Anyway, we might pick that up in the panel later on in the show. A couple of things before we go to the break. We are not on air for the next two weeks because of TVNZ's Commonwealth Games coverage. Our next programme is on Sunday April 22. But we have plenty of extra content for you to watch or listen to while we're off-air. My latest business podcast is out online and on our podcast app. Here's some of what Kirk Hope from BusinessNZ had to say this week. I do think there are some headwinds. We're going to see a bit of, I think, price inflation pressure because of wage pressure. You're seeing quite a lot of industrial action around the country at the moment, more than we've seen in quite some time. You can find today's programme and all our extra content on our website. Our interviews are also on Facebook and YouTube. Up next, free speech or just plain offensive? Whena Owen on our culture wars. You don't wanna miss this. It's quite different from, say, the 1960s, when liberals wanted to get rid of censorship, they wanted to get rid of authoritarian ways of thinking. This is a new authoritarianism. * Welcome back. OK, I'm issuing a trigger warning about our next story ` you may take offence. God forbid, you may even take to Twitter. You will have noticed a heap of issues that are inflaming debate, mainly online lately. Well, there's a pushback underway. After 10 years of discrimination, marginalised groups are saying 'Enough!' and asserting their voice online and on our campuses. Fair enough. But sometimes those with dissenting views are attacked and shut down in sometimes brutal form. It's called the callout culture, the outrage machine, and some fear it's putting free speech in mortal danger. Well, Whena Owen bravely put this together. # Finally the tables are starting to turn. # Talking 'bout a revolution. There's all sorts of issues that are starting to bubble to the surface. And it just feels to me like we're in an age of action. Singer and social media queen Lizzie Marvelly is right, something is in the air; ignited, many political theorists claim, by the Global Financial Crisis 10 years ago, a rejection of the old model and unleashing of new political forces. Whether its populist anti-establishment politics of the likes of Trump or Brexit, the Occupy movement, the rising gender politics, feminism, Me Too, the Black Lives Matter. And these are positive moves towards a more equal society says political scientist Dr Bryce Edwards. But it's also ignited a culture war. And so we get identity politics, we get call-out culture. They're really about making things more conformist. 'You can't say that', 'You should use these words'. It's quite different from, say, the 1960s, when liberals wanted to get rid of censorship, they wanted to get rid of authoritarian ways of thinking. This is a new authoritarianism. (FUNKY MUSIC) You may recognise this Masters student, Justine Rose. She encouraged Lorde not to play Israel. She hasn't heard from the Israelis yet, by the way, but today she's talking us through a new world where it's not a matter of being politically correct but correct, and many people will have to catch up. People are still gonna be thinking this stuff is OK, so it's about patience. I mean, like, look, I'm gonna explain, I'm gonna educate, but at the same time we do call it out, cos that's how we make change. And I think people are saying, 'We're ready for a change. 'We're ready for New Zealand to be more diverse, more inclusive, more tolerant.' But this student, Jelena Middleton, questions that tolerance. After holding an anti-euthanasia stall on Auckland University campus last year, her pro-life group was voted out of the Students' Association. A university is supposed to be a place where all ideas get an equal playing field, basically. And for it to be even possible to disaffiliate or put down a club in this way, just for a legitimate point of view, it was really quite shocking, yeah. We felt that their presence on campus infringed women's rights. You don't like freedom? You don't like liberty? (PEOPLE ARGUE) The discourse around censorship has been highly charged on North American and British campuses. So, we don't have that situation here, but it might be a case of when rather than if that happens. To use an identity politics term, historian Professor Paul Moon has been 'non-personed' by a small section of society for his views. The people who've criticised my work, they will not debate it. Moon recently released a book which questioned the health of the Maori language. He was called out and piled on. There were a lot of racist slurs, a lot of accusations. What do you mean by racist slurs? Well, exactly that. People making racist comments about` About you? Yeah. 'It's inappropriate for Pakeha to do this,' 'He should go back to where he comes from,' this sort of thing. Which is Auckland, by the way. (SPEAKS MAORI) Almost every week in New Zealand now there's a new offence, a new outrage ` too much te reo, a cartoon, a column. Some fizzle out. But this week the issue around Sir Bob Jones' NBR column calling for a Maori gratitude day was taken all the way to Parliament. I started this petition to revoke Bob Jones' knighthood because his words were an act of violence. Who are your detractors online? Generally speaking, they are Pakeha men of a certain age. So older Pakeha men? Older Pakeha men. I'm often having my analysis rejected on account of my identity, and therefore my arguments are seen as discredited or seen as carrying less weight, because, I guess, I'm an old white male, perhaps. It's been the week of the 'old white men'. Minister for Women Julie Anne Genter said the words because she wants more diversity on boards. But is it a racist and sexist label? I mean, if someone called me 'a young Maori woman', I wouldn't be upset about it because that is a correct description of who I am. But it's not said as an insult. To specifically use the words racism and sexism, as a... Pakeha European person to a person of colour, or a man to a woman, is just patently ridiculous, because they're power relationships. So racism is a system of power. Editor Leonie Hayden has seen how online backlashes can limit opportunities. The social media pylon absolutely has really long-lasting effects on people. I would consider myself to be, in common parlance, a hard-arse. But when I start feeling a niggle, clearly I'm being got to. And I have. I'll admit I have, and I've seen the impacts most certainly on people around me who see what is being said of me, so that impacts on my family, my son. It's a rather dystopian world we're living in where people are self-censoring because of the fear of social shaming. So is it now time to really examine our laws around free speech? The Human Rights Commission told us it's now doing some work around hate speech or, as it calls it, 'disharmonious speech'. You can imagine a time in the future if I find one of your questions disharmonious. Have you committed an offence? I mean, this is a possibility. So we've gotta be very careful that the laws don't intrude on to how we react, how we try to discover the truth. When you've got people like Susan Devoy that is telling us what to think and say and how to take part in debate, I think that is going into dangerous territory. Back with Lizzie Marvelly, we're discussing more culture-war labels ` virtue signallers, PC enforcers. Bring on the criticism, she says. Part of what motivates me is if I'm there kicking through the doors and getting hammered for it, I can withstand it and I hope that I can hold that door open to bring other young women of colour` or young women in general through behind me. You're a woman of colour? You consider yourself a woman of colour? Would you consider yourself a social justice warrior? (LAUGHS) In some ways. I think there are worse things to go to war for. After the break, the Commonwealth Heads of Government will meet in London this month. 53 countries, nearly all former British colonies. But history aside, what else do we really have in common? I'll ask the Secretary-General, Patricia Scotland, next. * Welcome back, and welcome to Baroness Patricia Scotland, the Commonwealth Secretary-General. Great to have you with us, Secretary-General. Great to be here. I know you get this question probably every interview you do, and you're probably dreading it, but can you remind viewers who have perhaps forgotten a little bit about the role of the Commonwealth, why we still have this? Well, there are 53 countries. We're 2.4 billion people. We come from six different regions from right across the world, and 60% of that 2.4 billion are under the age of 30. And we're joined by so much. We have a common language, common law, common parliamentary structure, common institutions. And as a result, we are a hugely complex, diverse, quite wonderful family of nations. Everyone who is a member of the Commonwealth has chosen to be a member. We have a charter which we all signed up to in 2013 which speaks of our values. And those values are reflected in the sustainable development goals which the rest of the world signed up to two years later. How do you get the Commonwealth to promote, enforce, push those values? Because there are clearly some countries with human rights records in the Commonwealth that are not so good as others. The whole thing is that we are, all of us, on a journey. There's not one country in the 53 who can say, 'I'm absolutely perfect. I've got nothing to learn. I have arrived at where I should be 'on all of the areas where we have committed ourselves.' And the good thing is every single one of those countries are willing to help each other. We share common law structures, we share templates, and we are enabling each other to do much better than if we were on our own. So this collective has been really, really impressive. How does the Commonwealth put pressure on a country, for example, that isn't playing ball? You know, in the past, the likes of Sri Lanka with its human rights record. Or Zimbabwe ` I know that's a bit complicated. But how do you actually achieve anything? We give technical assistance, we help them to draw the laws, we assist in relation to constitutional change, we help in terms of the preparation for their human rights record. We have created champions in Parliaments to champion human rights and other matters, and really doing very practical things to make things better. And if you look at where we are now, there are many countries who have reformed the laws, who've changed the positions. And if you just look at the journey that Sri Lanka and other countries have been on, you'll see it's a journey of improvement. And that support has been respectfully given, but actually therefore very welcomed and acted upon. So persuasion is the name of the game. Yeah. Do you see the Commonwealth evolving over time? Say, for example, if New Zealand and Australia were to become republics in the future but stay in the Commonwealth, do you see the Commonwealth becoming something slightly more removed from the royalty, that the head of the Commonwealth is no longer the Queen or a hereditary peer or...? Do you see that happening? One thing to recognise is we have so many republics already in the Commonwealth, and yet they've chosen to stay together in this alignment, chosen to be part of the family, not least because of the advantages that come from that. So is it appropriate to keep the Queen as the head of the Commonwealth? Everyone has welcomed the Queen as head of the Commonwealth, and there's never been any suggestion ` and of course, what will happen is the 53 heads of state are the ones who will decide what shape the Commonwealth takes and how we work together. And there is a huge opportunity for the Commonwealth now, particularly in relation to trade. Mm. We've identified that there's a 19% advantage in Commonwealth countries trading together. And the most recent trade review we've just had indicates that if those countries are also part of a same trade area, the opportunities are threefold better. So this is a huge financial prosperous opportunity that all our countries are wanting to take advantage of now. So do you think it's possible we could one day see some sort of Commonwealth free trade area a la the CPTPP, that maybe starts, obviously with the UK and a few others, that grows? Is that a potential? I think what we are much more interested in concentrating on is the trade facilitation package. Because that's something we can do now, today. 49 countries of our Commonwealth are members of the World Trade Organization, and of those 49, 42 have signed up to the new WTO trade facilitation package. And then if we look at what's just happened in Africa with the 53 members of the African Union, 19 of those members are our members of the Commonwealth` There's gonna be some difficulties there, though, isn't there? Because countries like New Zealand` just the profile of countries is going to be so vastly different when you've got countries from the Caribbean, from Africa, from Europe, from Asia-Pacific. Trying to marry the trade interests there would be pretty difficult, wouldn't it? But I think what we're looking at is the way in which we do business. Because all those countries are common-law countries. And so when we're looking at trade facilitation, we're looking at the barriers to trade and how we deal with that, we're looking at the regulations, the laws, and the opportunities to work together. And the fact that we all have the same common law, we all have the same structure, that is what makes the facilitation of trade easier and better. I've already talked about that 19% advantage. And what we're doing is looking at creating legal instruments which will make it easier for us to trade between our countries. Small and medium-sized enterprises are increasingly having to trade across borders. So we're asking the question, 'How do we make that better?' Our countries all speak in the same language ` English. We have the same opportunity, therefore, to mirror proceedings and mirror processes. And the trade review that we've just undertaken shows that that will increase trade flows potentially by up to three times. So this is a real rich vein which we haven't explored. Huge opportunities for intra-Commonwealth trade. Just before you go, Secretary-General, I wonder if you'd just comment on the Commonwealth Games that are coming up. New Zealanders have probably forgotten that they're coming, but they're gonna be a big deal. How important are they? And I guess they're the best way of reminding people of the value of the Commonwealth. Absolutely. And that's going to take place in the Gold Coast next couple of weeks. We've got the sports ministers' conference. All of them are coming together. And remember, too, that this is an important moment for us in terms of climate change. Because our countries are incredibly committed to it because of the essential threat. Look at what's happening here right in the Pacific. But the Games are an opportunity for us to put on display all the family has to offer. And they're called the Friendly Games because our countries really root for each other and are able to deliver really good things. So the Commonwealth is alive and kicking. Thank you very much for your time, Secretary-General. We appreciate it very much. Thank you. After the break, we look back to a broadcasting first, when the NZBC introduced colour TV to the country just in time for the 1974 Commonwealth Games. Welcome back. Let's bring the panel back in. And we're gonna open up the floor here. Commonwealth, culture wars, politics of the week. Jennifer, the Commonwealth first. Is it relevant? Is it still important for us, do you think? I don't think voters really see it until the Commonwealth Games do happen, and it's a reminder of the symbolic power and the opportunity for our sportspeople to do really well at a level that takes them to the Olympics. Um, I think too we have to remember that, while the baroness was talking about family and friendly nations, that... that she's not taking into account the indigenous perspective and a lot of the narratives that have gone on. You know, there's a subtext to a lot of the Commonwealth narratives that aren't always as friendly as what it sounds. And so we know that, for example, the UK took a really long time to come to terms with the Declaration on Indigenous Rights because they have no indigenous peoples, and yet here they are, the colonisers of countries that a lot of them have indigenous peoples. So I would suggest it's a great network and a bit of a club that enables a lot of that policy and ideational transfer to happen. And in that sense, it's still really valuable. But I don't think that that's what people see. Matt? It's a post-war club which... It's over. And we're going through the death throes. The Commonwealth Games now... In 1974 when colour TV came, I remember it was a big deal. It was a big deal in Christchurch. I remember it well. It was. Now no one even thinks of it; it's not real. Because as sport has got more global and everything, it's the big world cups now which dominate. The Commonwealth Games is like a school games. Let me throw something back at ya. This time round, of course, it's free-to-air. And will we see... I'm not pushing my own barrow here. Well, everyone will watch the TV. But I'm just saying it might be different. That's fine. The sports channels have gotta have some quality, so, yes, good on them. But in terms of the institution itself, it's a club for the elites. She was struggling, right? Trade now is in blocs. Asia-Pacific... Our future is sort of Asia-Pacific. You've got the African Union, the North American, you've got Europe. The trade things are all there, you know? The Commonwealth ` there's not gonna be a trade deal with the Commonwealth. It's a nonsense. And to say it's English, we're stretching. We all speak English because we were colonised by the same people. That's what it was, and we're trying to make out it's something more. When the Queen dies, it's all over. What do you reckon, Fran? Well, I think it's worthwhile looking when things break down, and the UK has come out of Brexit. I think the Commonwealth, if there is the opportunity to do some sort of deal around` you know, based on common law, and in fact, that actually is quite a major thing to have. Well, it helps with border disputes, doesn't it? It does help. And at a time when you're seeing the potential trade wars again, the United States putting up barriers, to even act as a force to ensuring worldwide competitive pressures to bring tariffs down and to open markets, I think that is a good thing. As for the Commonwealth itself, I think the old thing about CHOGM, the annual meeting, was 'Chaps Holidaying On Government Money' was how we used to do it. Jacinda will be there this time. She will be there. She is. That's a good point to pick up. Jacinda Ardern is going to the CHOGM meeting in a couple of weeks. Coming back to the week and the narrative and the politics, which seems to have been bad for the government again, how are they going to get the agenda back? Jennifer? Is that one way to do it, going overseas? That always used to help John Key. Yeah, no, I don't think going overseas is necessarily going to fix it. I think there` Something else might happen (LAUGHS) Yeah, I think there just needs to be a lot stronger internal political management across the coalition partner divide. That can be fixed, though, can't it? But it needs to get fixed. Two of the ministers have been in a Cabinet before. Mm. Jacinda has been the leader of the party for just months. So people are going to be OK. A bit of time. Nothing serious. But here's the thing. Jacinda said, 'I'm going to make climate change my issue.' Nuclear free action. At CHOGM, when she goes over there, she's gonna have to have something. But a bloc offer will have to be done. Exactly. We all know that as you run into the Budget, a lot's going on. And I think this budget's going to be her budget, and that's gonna set the direction. What Labour` the mistake I think they may have made is there's too much of the big issues like housing and roading, all these are gonna be in the Budget. And a lot of work's going on there. They've left a vacuum so that things like these issues, they bubble up. So I think what Jacinda and this government are gonna have to do ` there's things like housing, with Phil Twyford. Make more decisions. Make more decisions. Don't send them off to commissions and committees. OK. Fran, I wanna bring in a point here. How much of it comes back to Jacinda Ardern and her judgement and her leadership and her ability to stamp her authority on things? She needs to step up. There's the old thing which is always said about political leaders in difficult situations ` at some stage they need to sack someone. And they need to sack someone when they're errant, and every politician has either stood them down` Helen Clark for all sorts of transgressions. But she cannot afford to wind up` There's no smoking gun with Clare Curren, though, was there? Or any of them. Here's the thing. There's nothing to sack. Well... No, no, it's a media invention because it's about Carol. When you talk about a journalist and Astoria cafe, everyone gets excited. The point I'm making is does the Prime Minister need some sort of smoking gun? The Prime Minister needs to be much more clear-cut about where the line lies. And it was all very friendly. 'I've heard what the minister said.' Well, actually, the Cabinet manual is pretty specific. And there's the question of - is the judgement tainted by this sort of behaviour? But the point being she cannot keep on making excuses for people. Someone in the Cabinet needs to be the enforcer, whoever. Make sure that people are tidy. Whether it's a really good Chief of Staff, she does need help. Do you agree, Jennifer, from a poli-sci perspective, that sacking a minister would help? Oh, no, I don't think sacking a minister's gonna help, but I do find it strange that they don't know their Cabinet manual back to front as soon as they walk in that door. Like, the process is really important. The Cabinet office said that Fran wasn't right; that Clare was right. So let's just park that there. But anyway, it needs to be tidier than management. I think Jacinda herself has not done anything wrong. What's happened is we're so used to` I don't think that Helen Clark's intervention helped. Everyone talks about, 'Oh, Helen is Helen.' For the first few years, Helen was a pussycat. It's only when she got more solid that she started to be a bit more` I want to come back to Jennifer. Is Jacinda different, a different leader? We've got this expectation that the leader's gonna be tough and they're gonna sack people and all this, but maybe she's different. Well, but it's a different coalition environment. So when Peters was last in Cabinet with Clark it was a different arrangement. Now this is a full coalition, it's more like, in a way, '96 to '99 than anything we've had since then. And she's doing it differently to Jim Bolger. Perhaps we could think of it like that. But I do think that around Russia, for example, there just doesn't look like there's good communication between the deputy prime minister and the foreign minister and the prime minister. And you would wanna be reassured as voters that they're on the same page. Quickly, Fran, cos we have to go. I think the message needs to be tighter and tidier. Because it's actually been commented on a lot, unfavourably, overseas. And there's no need for that. We'll see if they can sort it out over the Easter break. Thank you very much for your time. The Gold Coast Commonwealth Games get underway this week, and you'll be able to watch across TVNZ's many platforms live as it all happens. 44 years ago, the Christchurch Games were remarkable for the fancy new technology, too. Colour TV, that is. The New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation rushed through the introduction of colour just in time for the Games, as you can see from this report by 1 News reporter Alex van Wel. We've got for you a new` one of the brand new Ultimate Vidmatic colour television sets. (PEOPLE EXCLAIM, CLAP) There it is! There was a time when colour TVs were as rare as Mercedes coupes. Television had come in 1960, but it took 13 years to lose the grainy images in black and white. Cars were grey; clothes were grey; everything in the commercials was grey; drama was grey; news was grey. It's really hard to remember what that was like. And once the colour came in, grey could not compete. This is what one of the first colour televisions looked like ` a solid wooden box. In 1973, it would cost you around $700 ` so back then, not something everyone could afford. COMMENTATOR: The women in tangerine A-line dresses. The move to colour was accelerated by the 1974 Commonwealth Games in Christchurch. New Zealand was desperate to have it in place before the start. I mean, that opening ceremony was just magnificent. For the first time, we saw the colours of flags, the colour of the costumes of the competitors. They just added greatly to that atmosphere on that opening day. Since then, we've not looked back. Television's gone from strength to strength, but for some, the excitement of those first colour broadcasts may always be difficult to match. Yes, great year, 1974; that was the year I was born. Right, Marae is next. Remember Q+A repeats tonight at 11.45pm. We'll see you next on April 22nd. That's right. Enjoy TVNZ's extensive Commonwealth Games coverage over the next fortnight. Thanks for watching, and thanks for the contributions, as always. Those were the questions, and those were the answers. That's Q+A. Have a great Easter. Copyright Able 2018