MORENA, GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO SUNDAY MORNING POLITICS Q+A STYLES. I'M CORIN DANN. SWIMMABLE RIVERS, HEALTHY DRINKING WATER, THE END OF DIRTY DAIRYING ` CAN LABOUR KEEP ITS PROMISE TO CLEAN UP THE ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT PUTTING FARMERS OUT OF BUSINESS? I'LL BE ASKING DAVID PARKER, THE MINISTER FOR THE PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING ` ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TRADE. HE'S FIRST UP THIS MORNING. THEN ` THE AUCKLAND LAWYER WHO FACES A LAW SOCIETY INQUIRY THIS WEEK. CATRIONA MACLENNAN CRITICISED THE DECISION OF A JUDGE WHO GRANTED A QUEENSTOWN MAN A DISCHARGE WITHOUT CONVICTION IN A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE. WHY SHE SAYS SHE WON'T BE SILENCED. AND WE'LL HAVE PLENTY OF INSIGHT AND ANALYSIS. JOSIE PAGANI, JOHN TAMIHERE AND CHRIS ALLEN ARE ON OUR PANEL TODAY. CAPTIONS BY JULIE TAYLOR AND ANTONY VLUG. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2018 TO SOME QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FROM THE WEEK. HARD TO IGNORE THE MEDIA STORIES ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF RUMOURS ABOUT THE PM'S PARTNER CLARKE GAYFORD ` THAT ARE NOT TRUE. QUESTION ` WHY IF THEY'RE NOT TRUE, IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORTING THEIR EXISTENCE? ANSWER ` BECAUSE THE POLICE COMMISSIONER WENT ON THE RECORD TO DEBUNK THEM. BUT CALL ME OLD FASHIONED ` ISN'T THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOSSIP AND JOURNALISM? QUESTION ` WHY DID THE POLICE COMMISSIONER FEEL THE NEED TO COME OUT AND CONFIRM THEY'RE NOT TRUE? ANSWER ` I DON'T KNOW, BUT THE QUESTION NOW IS ` WILL THE POLICE BE DOING THIS ON A REGULAR BASIS? QUESTION ` WHY ARE THE GREEN MPS GETTING UPSET OVER WHETHER TO SUPPORT THE ELECTORAL INTEGRITY BILL, ALSO KNOWN AS THE WAKA JUMPING BILL? ANSWER ` IT'S A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE FOR SOME OF THE GREENS, BUT, REALLY, OUT OF ALL THE ISSUES OF CONTENTION, IS THIS ONE THE GREENS WOULD RISK BUSTING IT UP OVER? REMEMBER, THIS IS PART OF NZ FIRST'S AGREEMENT WITH LABOUR. QUESTION ` UNIONS HAVE BIG EXPECTATIONS OF LABOUR GOVERNMENTS. THE NURSES ARE ALREADY FLEXING THEIR MUSCLES LOOKING FOR HIGHER WAGES. HOW LONG BEFORE OTHER UNIONS START GETTING TOEY WITH DEMANDS FOR HIGHER WAGES? ANSWER ` WITH HALF THE POPULATION NOT GETTING A PAY RISE OVER THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND WAGE GROWTH GOING NOWHERE, VERY SOON I'D SAY. ONE GROUP THAT COULD ALSO BE PROTESTING THIS TERM IS FARMERS. LABOUR'S PROMISING A MUCH TOUGHER LINE WITH FARMERS ON WATER QUALITY, NOT TO MENTION GREENHOUSE GAS EMSSISSIONS. FOR MORE ON THIS, I'M JOINED BY THE MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TRADE, DAVID PARKER. You did promise a lot in opposition. And in cleaning up our rivers. Will you deliver on that? I spend a lot of my life fighting for environmental causes. What does success look like? In the short-term, it looks like stopping the degradation getting worse everywhere. Within five years, having measurable improvements and then over the succeeding generation getting back to where we used to be. The question is how will you do it. You have talked about beefing up the current guidelines. How far will you go? The key question is will you the number of cows? In some areas, the number of cows per hectare is higher than the environment can can sustain. That will not be done through a raw cap on cow numbers. It is not just a dairy issue. It will have the same effect won't it. In some areas, it will. How do you allocate the right to discharge nutrients where you have more than the environment can sustain between those who are currently doing it and those who want to do it? In order to get your goal of Swingle rivers in the summersin the dream that you want you are going to have to for some farmers in some areas to de stock. Do the compensation? They do not get compensation for stopping pollution. Land corp is an interesting case in point. In the recent years they have stopped using PKE. It enabled them to intensify the land-use. Those will be the sorts of things. This is where it incorporates of my environmental portfolio. You need environment or solutions here. You need to be increasing the amount that we produce from the land. Some of it relies upon changing land use to things that are currently too expensive in New Zealand this is a massive signal. What work have you done to look at what economic impact of that would be? I think the land Corp example shows that it is not the end of the world for dairying. Have you done the work to show what the impact for some dairy regions would be? We have not done an analysis of what the economic effects would be. It is very difficult to model. The second best from the farmer perspective might still be very similar to the same outcome profit wise. One of the answers to this in South Canterbury for example lies in land use change towards more horticulture. The reason they do not currently happen is that we have high labour costs in New Zealand. Why is it in central Otagowhere we grow the best apricots in the world, we are not growing apricots and we are importing them from overseas? It is because we have a labour cost disadvantage. We are going to bringing forward robotics. You will incentivise them. We are not going to subsidise land-use change. We will enable it through the new technologies that we are willing to subsidise. We have got sensors and positioning systems. That is great. Non-would argue with that. How are you going to make farmers change if they do not want to? Economics will drive that change. Where economics don't, regulation well. We can't change the past. We will only change the future. There are three ways to change behaviour. Education, regulation, price. You do it under the RMA to a national policy statement. At the moment it's as to the regional councils by 2025 they have got to have their water plans in place. Or you spend that up? Also increases in land use intensity will no longer be permitted. Already that is the case in some parts of the country. It will also bring forward a methodology for the allocation of nutrients we have nutrient enriched catchments. How do you do fairness between undeveloped land holders and existing people who have got capital expenditure based on their nutrient inputs? When you add at these things, you have got much tougher restrictions on water quality for farmers, which could cost some farmers. You are also looking at putting farmers into the emissions trading scheme. Only 45%. CORRECTION: 5%. You are hammering the regions. How can you continue to do this? Part of this is about money. I think we have already proven with what we did well last in government with electricity that getting to a cleaner future is not necessarily more expensive than the way we do things at the moment so long as you have a gradual transition. Stopping things getting worse does not cost anything. Reversing the environmental damage does require changes in behaviour. I do not think it is unreasonable for New Zealanders to expect that their rivers are clean enough to swim in. You're quite fired up about this. You have basically said that you would be prepared to make this decision. In other words, if farmers do not agree you are gonna push on and do it anyway. We have never been able to get complete consensus and respect of these difficult issues. And you are the man to do it? We have fought an election on this issue. Now it is the implementation. Close to the farming sector agree with that. There is the occasional outlier. One farmer recently denied that dairy farming cause pollution of rivers. There are some people that are in denial. Those people will have to be regulated to do the right thing because they might not be willing to do it voluntarily. That is the purpose of environmental regulation. It must be due to your heart if you know the region. For you stop it if you have the power? That is a landscape issue more than a water quality issue. What has gone wrong up there is some poor outcomes and tenure review after the last national government reversed what we had done when in government. But you could stop it. Not easily. Do you want to? I think we should be protecting the landscape of the Mackenzie Basin. They are interested in landscapes. I think the changing lenses worry me. I do not want the extent of landscape change, no. I love those landscapes. The government owns a lot of that land and leases it to farmers. Will you stop tenure review? That is a decision that is being worked through at the moment. We have not yet taken the decision. These are some big calls for the regional New Zealand. Have you got New Zealand first on board with what you want to do with water quality? They were the ones who forced you to can the water tax. Have they agreed to your demands? Absolutely. They recognise that under grading rivers are a problem. They do not like that either. Where they are strong is that they want us, for example the sort of cultural transition that we need in parts of the country, which will make as a wealthy country, they have pointed out that we need small water schemes. We have canned the bigger ones. They have said and, and they are right, that there is a case for smaller ones. I have made the point that not if it is going to increase and agriculture. Have a really got a problem here? There was a report out saying that water seems to be getting better in our rivers. There are some rivers that are getting better. There are some that are still getting worse. It is still true that rivers that I used to swim in as a child, and I still in the rivers, that is a lot dirtier that they were when I was a kid. When you sit on this issue? We help farmers by taking some leadership to give them the tools? There are new cultivars coming forward. They are already helping and that. There is a form of plantain which has been bred using conventional means. It is got deeper root zone. It absorbs nitrogen well and it is really good and weak conditions. Those sorts of technologies are coming forward. If people do want to pursue GM outcomes, they can do. They can do the trials in New Zealand. There is a lot of science denial and a lack of leadership. Would you step into that? I think we New Zealand will put its toe in the water as to where we should go will actually relate to pest eradication Rather than agricultural crops. In my assessment, that is where it will start. I am willing to look at that issue. If we move on to trade, how disappointed are you that the United States have not given New Zealand an exemption on the steel tariffs? Very. It is hard to fathom the reasoning. It is also hard to know how real some of those exceptions are. Or whether they come with volumetric limits. We are still trying. We have done everything we can. The prime minister has written to president Trump. You have not gone there. I did offer to go there but I was advised by officials that it would not make a difference. At what point do you say we have got to go to the WTO and take them to the world court on this? Look, the rising protectionism in the world is worrying us in New Zealand. I think it is worrying a lot of New Zealanders because they know we have to sell a lot of stuff to the rest of the world in order to pay for the cars and computers and phones and medicines that we import. It is one of the reasons why we think the relative importance of some agreements are more important than they were years ago. When you say we'll take the US to court? I'm not going to speculate much on that. Other than to say that we are very careful about not escalating these disputes because... you still think you have a chance? We are still trying. I've had a number of conversations with the US ambassador. I have another meeting coming up with him. What about the WTO itself? The US has been blocking appeal balance on that body. There is some suggestion that is being undermined by the US. Maybe also China. I you worried that the US is going undermined at? Yes, we are. The rule of law and international trade as it is important as the criminal code and other laws. When international laws relating to trade are undermined, it is not a New Zealand interest. At that point, the WTO rules are enforced by what is the appellate body. It can only work that has judges. Soon it stops the function. That means that alternatives to the WTO... shouldn't we as the country that needs it to be screaming from the rooftops and trying to lead a bit of action? We are not a superpower. We cannot force other countries towards a well. We are influential. I think we're probably more influential than a size would suggest. We do our utmost to do our best on that. I must ask you about Singapore. Is there going to be an exemption that allows people from Singapore to buy houses in New Zealand? It is the one free trade agreement other than Australia agreement that we have a problem with our ban on foreign buyers. We are working on through. We are getting closer to negotiation. It is been difficult. We were willing to make various offers. We have not resolved it yet. It is not the be all and end all for New Zealand given that there are only a few dozen houses sold every year to Singapore buyers. It was an important point of principle. Optimistic? I'm sure we'll get a resolution, but I do not know. Thank you for your time. SEND US YOUR THOUGHTS. WE'RE ON TWITTER AT N-Z-Q-AND-A. YOU CAN EMAIL US AT Q+A AT TVNZ.CO.NZ. STAY WITH US, THE PANEL'S TAKE ON THAT INTERVIEW, AFTER THE BREAK. LET'S BRING IN OUR PANEL. JOSIE PAGANI ` ONE OF OUR REGULAR POLITICAL COMMENTATORS, ALSO DIRECTOR OF THE COUNCIL FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. JOHN TAMIHERE ` A FORMER POLITICIAN, CEO OF THE WAIPAREIRA TRUST. AND CHRIS ALLEN ` FEDERATED FARMERS' ENVIRONMENT SPOKESPERSON. Chris, I think you might have drawn the short straw here. Your reaction to David Parker's interview. That is a minister who seems determined to push through some tough changes on farmers. He does. There is nothing you and what he said. His aspirations are as Ackley the same as mine. I want to be up to storm in the rivers. There is no different there. He wants to maintain. He has not said what maintaining water looks like, but the whole argument that is lost on most New Zealanders. People and downtown Auckland do not give a damn about it. They want to know if they can form in the harbour and drink the water out of the tap. That is what we're trying to get to. How will farmers feel about this? In some areas they will be told they can't run the same amount of dairy cows. The minister is also talking about the effects of what our land use activities have. Different soils respond in different ways. Different intensities of stock do different things. Some of it will make its way to water. He was being a bit hard on a member of the Federated farmers. Altogether, lots of cumulative effects to have an effect. What he did not talk about is the Manawatu river. There is a large sewage outlet. That sort of stuff has really got to be addressed. There was a tax on leadership, and make sure we're all in this together we'll have a part to play. Josie, do you think that there is a political world there. He will have a fight. I think there was a big focus their own science rather than farmer bashing. He was open to even GMO. He is open to really supporting any science that is going to go how do we take the salt out of seawater? How do we have crops that are less thirsty? Politically it is interesting. Your response Chris is interesting. On safer territory, when they took him on the environment rather than climate change. I think the focus group data I have seen is that when they talk about climate change, and I think a ban on oil and gas, I saw a survey where it is basically 50-50 support for that. When you talk about environment & rivers, then you get a lot more broad-based support. I think that is interesting in itself. John, do you think that the New Zealand 1st to be comfortable on this It is kind of been all added up. As their political risk there? I think they are wild in themselves together as we speak. Some of the things in the campaign can be over identified when you're in a coalition. There are three quick points I want to make. There is context here. This is not a revolution. Everything has been portended over time. It is gradualist. People do have to make changes and decisions. Farming is not a sacrosanct bubble. It has to change. It will not be revolution like the Lange government. And Taranaki, there is a generational shift is to come with this. We will endeavour to ensure that the pain is not as great as it could be. But we do want change. There has been talk for decades about moving from volume to value. We should be making $16 a kilogram of milk powder rather than six dollars. We are making high-value products. He has been beating the drum for many years. So was the last government. But you also have to look at Frontera. It is still a model. It has the monopoly of the dairy sector. It is still focused on shifting. If you're gonna go down the volume of milk powder line we're going to end up with more intensive farming. Farmers are responding to the incentives. What was going on in my from 25 years ago was completely revolutionised by 3G telephone network. What I can do from my cell phone now is something that used to dream about 30 years ago. This is actually happening on farms. There are some aspects of what I can do I found that I connect to different myself own. That is all stuff that is part of the jigsaw. When he was talking about the plantains, I have already planted 25 ha of our farm. Not because it is proven that it is going to do something, because I'm a sheep farmer it is more to do with dairy cattle. Every part of that jigsaw puzzle and my catchment is going to be better water quality. Find a problem for scientists in the room. They come up with solutions. If we want to put a national policy statement and to plan, it will take about seven years to get it through. The Lincoln dairy farm satisfied some of the stuff where they have reduced their herd count but for the same productivity. It is possible. All of the stuff can be up taken voluntarily. Voluntarily is much faster than regulation. He has made it very clear that he has been to regulate. There will be good farming practices. It came out of the land and water forum. Every farmer is going to be doing all sorts of aspects of good farming practices. Some who aren't going to get hurt is that what you are saying? It regulation doesn't have to come from central government. It can come from industry groups. The water pricing issue is just a Pandora's box. What is hard to price it is hard to charge for. People think it should be free. If you're not going to deal with the ownership issue... this debate segues into water. You can't have one without the other. I think that the politics of this are to get the country ready for a growing, more sophisticated conversation about water quality. In terms of water use, and pricing regulation then starts to grow. When they can tackle that? It is a matter of building a political consensus. You start where you believe you can achieve it, and I think Parker is a very capable minister. I think this is the first step. It is very difficult though because, in my right Chris, that most of the beef farmers are Maori owned farms? You cannot put a tax on those farmers coming beef. That gives a right to do something. In actual fact, it is a responsibility to look after the land. The Minister didn't even talk about how he's going to deal with the government and the relationship with the iwi. That is hanging over everyone in this country. It is very hard and that is why no one has sorted out so far. On the issue of trade, John, do you think this minister is doing enough? He has an unusual Washington to deal with. I just came back last week. It is very difficult because This president has brought change that Obama never could have brought. I do not use that term disrespectfully. We have no idea on the size scale and leverage of the American farming community. It actually bears in quite heavily with regard to anything coming cross the border. We are in a very difficult situation. It is more about protective measures. I think the bigger problem is not the tariffs, Because we are relatively small. It is the potential for trade war. And you refer to that. For New Zealand, if we end up with a tip for tat trade, We are in trouble on a whole range of fronts. You'll have to look at some sort of collective complaint. Chris, do you want to enter gneiss the US by going after the monster when the could be bigger things coming down the pipe? 15 or 16 years ago we had a massive tariff on lamb. It took for five years to turn that over. The biggest problem, icy, as the pork industry. All the pork is going to have to flow somewhere. That affects our beef and a lamb. We are involved in this. That is why we have international rules. I back the Minister. There was a survey that came out this week about a thousand Economist that said in the 1930s Where this happened. MENTION OF SOME OF THE EXTRA CONTENT AVAILABLE ONLINE THIS WEEK. AS PART OF HER ONGOING TE TARI SERIES, WHENA OWEN CHECKED OUT LABOUR MINISTER KRIS FAAFOI'S OFFICE. HERE'S HOW IT WENT. MINISTER, I THINK, OUT OF ALL THE OFFICES I'VE VISITED THIS YEAR, THIS IS THE MOST STUNNING VIEW. PLEASE DON'T TELL ANYONE. (LAUGHS) NO, IT REALLY, REALLY IS. OTHERWISE I'LL GET SHIFTED SOMEWHERE ELSE. SO YOU'RE A MINISTER OUTSIDE CABINET. YEP. SO DO YOU GET TO HAVE A CROWN CAR? HOW DOES THAT WORK? I DO. I DO HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF GETTING ALL OF THOSE ` PEOPLE PROBABLY CALL THEM PERKS. SO WE GET THE CROWN CARS. AND RECENTLY, WE'VE BEEN PLAYING SOME AKA-DAKA. SOME WHAT? AC/DC. OH, HAVE YOU? YEAH. (STRUMS GUITAR) SO PEOPLE WILL KNOW WHO THAT IS. MY LATEST BUSINESS PODCAST IS ALSO READY FOR A LISTEN ON SOUNDCLOUD AND ITUNES. THIS WEEK I'VE INTERVIEWED VISITING US ACADEMIC DR MICHAEL CAROLAN ABOUT THE FUTURE OF FOOD. ALL THESE EXTRAS ARE ON OUR WEBSITE TOO. TVNZ.CO.NZ/SHOWS/QANDA THAT'S TVNZ.CO.NZ/SHOWS/QANDA. AFTER THE BREAK ` THE AUCKLAND LAWYER FACING A LAW SOCIETY INQUIRY AFTER CRITICISING A JUDGE'S DECISION IN A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE. I'M SPEAKING TO CATRIONA MACLENNAN NEXT. TOMORROW IN THE QUEENSTOWN DISTRICT COURT A 58-YEAR-OLD MAN, WITH NAME SUPPRESSION, WILL BE SENTENCED FOR ASSAULTING HIS WIFE, HIS DAUGHTER AND A MALE FRIEND. WHEN HE FIRST FACED A JUDGE AT THE END OF LAST YEAR, HE WAS GRANTED A DISCHARGE WITHOUT CONVICTION. THE JUDGE, JOHN BRANDTS-GIESEN, EXPRESSED SOME SYMPATHY SAYING, 'THERE WOULD BE MANY PEOPLE WHO WOULD HAVE DONE 'EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE AGAINST THE LAW TO DO SO.' THE POLICE APPEALED THAT SENTENCE, BUT NOT BEFORE THE JUDGE'S COMMENTS AND DECISION WERE CRITICISED BY A NUMBER OF PEOPLE, INCLUDING LAWYER CATRIONA MACLENNAN. MS MACLENNAN IS NOW FACING A LAW SOCIETY HEARING AS A RESULT OF HER CRITICISM. MS MACLENNAN IS WITH US. This case, it belongs to any convention that no one should criticise judges. You had no choice? We are obliged by the rules of conduct that govern us to uphold the rule of law and facilitate administration of justice people properly think the first duties is to their clients, but first duty is to the rule of law and the administration of justice that is how seriously that duty is seen. That means that if I am doing a court case and I am doing research and I find the case completely against my client's interest, I still have to disclose that to the judge. That is the top priority. My view is that upholding the rule of law an facilitating Administration of Justice means acknowledging when judges get it wrong. Judges like anyone else can get things wrong. And I think that enhances public confidence in the system of people can see that when something is obviously wrong will be put right. And that is why I made my comments. I did make them lately. I didn't make them lightly. These are the strongest comments I have ever made. If the law society are seen to circle the wagons and defend judges no matter what, I don't think that helps confidence in the legal system. Should we not have confidence that the system deals for itself? There should be mechanisms. That is our system, and in criminal cases it is fine. And in this case the police did that. They referred to the Crown and the High Court quashed the sentence. But what people might not know is that is different in the family Court. If someone is not satisfied with the judgement, that individual has to take the appeal. And my main area of expertise is domestic violence. You can appreciate that domestic violence victims are just trying to stay alive and keep themselves and children safe. Might have fled the home with no resources are nowhere to live. They don't have the money time and energy to go pursuing appeals. In the family Court my view is that corrective mechanism doesn't operate as well. What about the law society being to step in? The role of the Law Society I think itself should have her made comments. And said that the judge's remarks were not appropriate. And that would have enhanced confidence. People will sympathise with your position but worried that it opens the door to anyone with a grievance for it to adjudge and it becomes open season. I don't think that is the case. And how many lawyers do we see criticising judges in the media? And that is why there's been issue with me because it doesn't actually happen. And I think we have a very good system and as long as people see that appeals are working and this is correct, then that's fine. Last year there was a Court of Appeal decision, which I think was the most important on the act in a decade, and they said that an experienced lawyer misinterpreted the act and as a result the woman was not granted a protection order. And by following that case it should have been a review of the judges domestic violence decisions, because how do we know what has happened in other cases. I know that we can say everybody should be hands off. But my experience is that is and that's not enough. Do you want something to happen and changes in the system? I want lots of change. David Parker is probably at the back. I think there is a number of issues that the Law Society are dealing with in relation to sexual assault and harassment and the Law Society have just done a questionnaire. I was disappointed that and include domestic violence, because that is in every corner of our society, including in the legal profession. And I would like to society take leadership on that. Because you can imagine a domestic violence victim married to a lawyer as an even in a more scary position. Because the perpetrator is friends with lawyers and judges and people making decisions on the case. The Law Society last week said it at abhores domestic violence, it makes me question what is happening. Olivia should be the New Zealand of the year with what she has done. For the law society, a lot of blowback from the public and dealing with these issues it kept saying it was confidential. It needs to drop that attitude. If the public has confidence we need to be more open and explain better what is going on. Why do you think the law profession seems so ancient in its attitudes around sexual harassment? I think it's an incredible hierarchical system, and that is obviously why I've never been suited to a proper career in law. I think they are very used to precedence. Lawyers are referring to cases that are 50 years old. And we think it's important to uphold that system. Some parts of the system are very good but a lot of it is not. And the secrecy and deference to authority and hierarchy our resulting in sexual harassment and assault going unpunished. We need male lawyers to speak out. There has been a deafening silence from them. These are not women's issues. We need male lawyers to step up and engage with this. And they need to make culturally unacceptable to behave like that. As you're concerned that it's a systemic issue with judges in terms of domestic violence? I have been saying for a long time that I think judges need more training in domestic violence and this decision confirms what I and other advocates have been saying the domestic violence act as excellent law but is not being interpreted correctly by judges. Thank you for your time. THE PANEL'S BACK AFTER THE BREAK. Great to have you along. Let's get to the panel on this issue. Criticising judges, have we got the balance wrong. There are two systemic problems. A lawyer should have a right to criticise a judge. Judges are appointed for life and protected from the consequences of their action, so they can be neutral and act fully without consequence. But the quid pro quo has to be that we can criticise them. And I think it is very undemocratic that she can't. Should she be investigated for doing that. And I question the idea that lawyers investigate lawyers. We don't have that in other professions. We have independent bodies. What are they supposed to do if there is a principle that says we shouldn't criticise judges. Then the law society should. archaic rules. The judge in the first instance made an observation from 40 years ago. Where he says that the man was provoked. The male assaults female must be found guilty and then you look at the tariff. When the judges so far out of the way back from the conversation in society and law, then you have to call it. She has been banging the drum for 20 years and finally society is caught up. She has done an outstanding job. And we have to change the rules. You call them conventions but they are stronger. Under the act it is statutorily there and they have to be reviewed. The profession has to have a look at itself. This is sexual harassment all the way through. It needs an independent body that investigates issues. She talked about the secrecy and close shop in the legal profession. It beggars belief that she should be disciplined for raising this issue. And you would think that the law society would have handled that better. It is a fascinating case and it is not OK. For me at assassinating that we have to have a justice system beyond reproach. I agree with the points raised that we need independence. But she has a process that she can follow through the complaints. The right outcome was made with the police. I was in my in the court room but there was a process she could have followed. If that was exhausted, but she said she wanted to be an advocate, she has both options available. I think there needs to be independent oversight and make sure we are fit for purpose. If the principle is that lawyers can criticise judges, because otherwise there is no public accountability. It is all senior judges holding themselves accountable. You have to be prepared to say that in principle that lawyers can criticise judges for not handing out sentences. In principle the ability to be able to publicly critique the decision of a judge should be upheld. It is either that or it is appealed. And that it's not in the family Court, it is in all courts. If you have deep enough pockets you can litigate. The system costs. And legal aid as a way through as a joke. The whole system needs a review. It is wired the last century. This is a healthy debate. I don't want to bash judges but I do think a whole legal system needs to be reviewed on a countless number of issues that can lead to unsafe verdicts. There is good reason why judges content decisions won't be debarred for making mistakes. Bad judges make more mistakes. But if therefore you are gonna say that they are immune from consequences, there has to be a quid pro quo. And that is where the system stuff comes in. There needs to be more transparency to hold judges accountable if there making repeated mistakes. That's why have multiple layers of court systems. A separate issue was her highlighting the problems of the legal profession around sexual harassment have you been shocked about what's happened in the last year? She mentioned that professions that have that level of secrecy and where you have hierarchy where you have lawyers investigating lawyers. Do you think the law profession is different? Where professions don't have the light of day shone on them well create issues where you have power imbalances. I do think and when I read her article you have to make a distinction between woman and the legal profession asking to be treated politely at one end and at the other end being free of sexual harassment or any kind of power imbalance. Those are quite distinct. I don't want to be treated like a wilted violet. We need to be careful that on the spectrum we all have to be polite. You have to be careful that it doesn't become a woman only debate. Men have to pile into the discussion because a lot feel excluded because they put their head above the parapet and get hit on the head you have to make it unusually safe for them. How do you encourage men to do that? I do think it's part of their being a difference in anger and bullying. And flirting and sexual harassment. The system is based on a combative approach. I don't have to be meek. It has the be respectful. And being very clear what the problem is. And it's a Spectrum monoculture where bad behaviour might be countenanced. If to distinguish what is office culture, THE PANEL WRAPS UP THE WEEK IN POLITICS AFTER THE BREAK, AND WE'LL PICK UP ON THE CLEAN WATER THEME AND LOOK BACK 30 YEARS WHEN THERE WAS GROWING CONCERN OVER THE STATE OF ONE OF OUR MOST POLLUTED LAKES. THAT'S NEXT. NOW, YOU'VE HAD A LOT TO SAY REGARDING OUR LEAD INTERVIEW WITH THE MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TRADE DAVID PARKER. ELIZABETH CORLETT TWEETED THAT ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION IS WHAT'S HAMMERING THE REGIONS AND HAS HUGE COSTS. REGULATING & PUTTING A PRICE ON THIS ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION IS WHAT WILL RESCUE THEM. THANK GOD AT DAVID PARKER AND THE GOVERNMENT UNDERSTAND THIS... GERRY HILL EMAILED IN TO SAY LET'S JUST GET ON WITH CLEANING OUR WATERWAYS. THIS APPLIES TO URBAN AS WELL AS RURAL. AS A NATION WE WILL BE BETTER OFF, APPLY EU REGULATIONS. PHILIP MULVEY TWEETED MR PARKER ADMITS THEY HAVE DONE NO WORK ON THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE CHANGES TO THE RURAL SECTOR BUT GOES ON TO SAY THE ECONOMICS WILL WORK. JOSH LUCAS POSTED ON OUR FACEBOOK PAGE SAYING PARKER DID BRILLIANTLY THIS MORNING HOLDING STRONG ON THE GOVERNMENT'S ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRADE POSITIONS. Back to the panel. HITS AND MISSES FROM THE WEEK. Chris Hipkins who appointed Lockwood Smith two under view the education review. That was like Bolger overseeing Kiwi bank. An interesting article about local elections in the UK and the times. People were voting to what they think and not according to the incoming class. We are seeing a shift in voting patterns, and if you apply that to New Zealand with issues like climate. It's very interesting that values are important. They end up the same way. Hits was the Warriors. I think outstanding is the way that Shane Jones is dying to work a new ministry in terms of the coalition and become a citizen of the provinces. Even telling public servants to do what he wants. If you don't have a judicious disregard for bureaucrats, there is something wrong for you. Let's park that up. The other hit is the way that Parker is going around the work. He is being careful and hitting all the right spots. In terms of misses we have to be clear of what's going on in social media with trolling. New bullies of new era. We need the know what is fair to be reported in the public space. With talk about the Clark issue. The new thugs and bullies own social network. Hits a couple of weeks ago was the environment reports that came and said we have waterways improving and that is a good signal that we are making a difference. And that's big to the farmers are taking this seriously. This is underdone job but if we could turn the ship around, a quick miss. The Mycoplasma Bovis. We have farmers bleeding their hearts out. This thing has to be sorted and settled. There is a lot of work going on, but my heart goes out. IN THE 1960S, LAKE ROTORUA WAS DESCRIBED AS AN UNFLUSHED TOILET. IT'S LONG BEEN REGARDED AS ONE OUR MOST POLLUTED WATERWAYS. THESE DAYS FARM RUNOFF IS THE BIGGEST CONCERN, BUT BACK IN THE '80S, ENVIRONMENTALISTS WERE CALLING ON THE COUNCIL TO STOP PUMPING TREATED SEWAGE INTO THE LAKE. THIS REPORT IS FROM 1986. LAKE ROTORUA, IN THE HEART OF THE COUNTRY'S TOURIST DIAMOND, IS SLOWLY DYING. FOR YEARS NOW, IT'S BEEN THE REPOSITORY OF THE CITY'S WASTE. ADD TO THAT RUN-OFF FROM FARMLAND, SULPHUR FLATS, FOULING BY BIRDLIFE, AND YOU HAVE A LAKE WHICH HAS DETERIORATED INTO A VAST SOUP OF NUTRIENTS. MOST FINGERS POINT ACCUSINGLY IN THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY'S SEWERAGE PLANT AS THE BIGGEST SOURCE OF POLLUTION. ABOUT 18.5 MILLION LITRES OF WASTE FLOWS INTO THIS PLANT DAILY TO BE TREATED BEFORE FINAL DISPOSAL. THE PLANT'S NOW OUT OF STEP WITH MODERN THINKING ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL AND UNDER PRESSURE FROM A GROWING POPULATION. BUT IT STILL DOES THE JOB IT WAS DESIGNED YEARS AGO TO DO. THIS IS WHAT COMES IN, AND THIS IS WHAT GOES OUT. THE FINAL EFFLUENT MAY LOOK CLEAN ENOUGH, BUT WHAT FLOWS INTO THIS STREAM ON ITS WAY TO THE LAKE IS FAR FROM PERFECT. RICH IN NUTRIENTS, THE WASTE OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS HAS ASSISTED MASSIVE WEED GROWTH AND ALGAL BLOOMS, WHICH ARE CHOKING THE LAKE'S OXYGEN SUPPLY. (LINE WHIRRS) PEOPLE LIKE FISHING GUIDE ROGER FORRESTER MAKE THEIR LIVING OUT OF TAKING PEOPLE ON THE LAKE IN SEARCH OF THE BIG ONE. YOU GET A LOT OF EMBARRASSING SITUATIONS AT TIMES, WHERE CLIENTS ON A BOAT ASK YOU WHAT THE STUFF IS FLOATING AROUND ON THE LAKE. WELL, YOU'VE GOTTA MAKE UP ALL SORTS OF EXCUSES. THE COUNCIL SAYS IT NEEDS MORE TIME TO UPGRADE THE PLANT OR EVEN IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL. AND A TREATMENT PLANT AND A LAND DISPOSAL OPTION WAS PUT IN PLACE IN 1990. MARAE IS NEXT. REMEMBER Q+A REPEATS VERY EARLY MONDAY MORNING, JUST AFTER MIDNIGHT IN FACT. 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 ANTONY VLUG. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2018