Today on Newshub Nation ` the government's moving towards a carbon-free future, but is it a well-planned transition or a rush job? We ask Energy Minister Megan Woods. The Children's Commissioner says he was 'shaken' by child poverty statistics when he first took office, so does he think this government's going far enough to make real change? And we're about to having an acting prime minister who got 7% of the vote. We look at the arguments for and against MMP. Kia ora. Good morning. I'm Lisa Owen. Welcome to Newshub Nation. The Prime Minister's fronted to the oil and gas sector in New Plymouth as the government tries to dampen down fears about Taranaki's economy following a ban on future oil and gas exploration. The industry contributes about $2.5 billion to the economy each year and is responsible for around 11,000 jobs, but the government says it has plans for a just transition to a low-carbon economy. Energy and Resources Minister Megan Woods joins me now. Good morning, Minister. Morning, Lisa. You have set up a just transitions unit to help with the shift to a low-carbon economy. Why didn't you set that up before you announced the ban? Oh, it was. Prior to me attending the Petroleum Conference, the Prime Minister had asked me to talk to MBIE about getting a team together, so that was a conversation that we'd had two weeks before we made the announcement, when I gave my speech at the Petroleum Conference. And that's something I talked about in that speech ` about how we'd asked MBIE to start with that work and with that planning. We've now got the general manager in place. He's been in place for a week. If you think about the speed of that, in bureaucratic years, that's like lightning speed to get a new unit set up. We're going to have someone on the ground in New Plymouth, and the team's raring to go. So why did you wait to make the announcement, if you were setting up this unit? You obviously knew you were going to make this decision. When I went to the Petroleum Conference, one of the things that I talked about in my speech was the fact that we were going to be doing this transition planning. So that was two weeks before the announcement, where I gave reassurances that, any changes that were coming, we would honour any existing permits, that there'd be a very long time period over this, and that we would be doing this transition planning that would be put in place. your speech did not tell them that you were going to ban new exploration. No. Look, the announcement ` what I started the speech ` I think the first sentence of my speech was, 'I'm sorry, I'm not going to announce a block offer today, 'but what I can do is give you the context in which we're making this decision,' and that's putting in place the transition planning that we need to make sure that this is a planned and measured transition and that we're making sure that we're not going to encounter shocks into the future. OK. So how many businesses in Taranaki have indicated that they're shutting up shop as a result of the ban? I haven't had anyone come and say, 'We're shutting up shop.' Were you not told at the meeting that you had that there are two businesses already, engineering and geoscience businesses, who are pulling out because of this? We weren't told that there were people who were shutting up shop, but what we did talk about quite a bit ` that, actually, since 2014, there have been a number of businesses shut down in Taranaki with the downturn, so particularly engineering businesses, that it's been a really rough few years for that industry because there hasn't been summer programmes for the last two years. What did you hear from those businesses during that meeting? Cos we've been told that it was indicated that two businesses are wrapping up because of this ban. Well, look, that may have been something that was said to someone else in the meeting. It wasn't something that was said to me. But what we were told is that there were some people in exploration that were maybe having to look at fewer staff in that area but no one actually shutting up shop. Right, so it is affecting jobs right now? There could be some jobs, but the point is ` and the thing that people talked about a lot yesterday and something we discussed ` the fact that there have been jobs shedding in Taranaki since 2014, and that's exactly the reason why we have to get in on the ground and support the local efforts around the diversification of the economy. I mean, this is work that the local mayors and local leaders have been putting in place around identifying four alternative areas for economic development before we made the decision, so it's a matter of what we can do now, as a government, to support them in that and to go beyond business as usual. Right. I want to talk about that plan in a minute, but first of all I want to establish a clear timeline. When did you know that you were stopping all new oil and gas exploration permits? What's the exact date you made that decision? Oh, look, I started getting advice before Christmas around what our options were from officials, so I had verbal briefings before Christmas, and the Prime Minister and I both indicated this when we announced the 2017 block offer at the end of last year, just before the wrap-up of the parliamentary year. So March 19th, she came on to the forecourt at parliament and said it was still under active consideration. That's right. So when did you actually make the decision to ban? I don't have the actual date; I'll have to go back and look at my diary, but it was certainly after March 19. We were still getting advice at that period of time, so it was prior to` So somewhere between the 19th of March and April the 12th, when you made the announcement. And you said that you were starting to talk to people about it in December. So what cost-benefit analysis did you do before making this decision? Oh, look, we got a range of advice. We couldn't use the formal cost-benefit analysis tool simply because what we were talking about was an unknown and you need known numbers. So no cost-benefit analysis. Not the formal cost-benefit analysis tool. We certainly looked at a range of implications, and we'll be releasing all that advice in the next couple of weeks. So where was that advice from? The advice you got was from where? From MBIE. From my officials at MBIE. OK. Anything from Treasury? I'm sure that MBIE would have talked to Treasury at this, but the advice that I get from my officials comes through MBIE. But the point about using that formal cost-benefit analysis tool is you've got to have known numbers to plug into it. So you don't know what the cost-benefit analysis is. Not using that tool. That's what you're saying. Not using that formal tool, but certainly you can look at what the costs and the benefits are through other means, just not using the tool that is called cost-benefit. But without the actual numbers. Yeah, exactly. OK, but numbers will be very important to the people in Taranaki. Absolutely. If this was under active consideration... Mm-hm. ...and you say you started talking about it in December ` it was an active consideration as of March 19th, as the Prime Minister stated ` why didn't you consult directly with the industry, the New Plymouth mayor, before making the decision? Look, this is also about leadership. A decision needed to be made. We needed to make a call on what it was. We needed to come out and make a decision about Block Offer 2018. But you can make decisions and still consult people. We needed to make a decision about Block Offer 2018, and that was becoming really critical that we got that information out there for the industry. But you were discussing it since December. What the options were. December, January, February, March ` four months you didn't consult anyone. You didn't consult the mayor. You didn't consult industry. You didn't consult business in Taranaki. What we were doing was getting what our breadth of options were, that we needed to look at what we could do in terms of onshore, offshore, what the different permutations were around that. What also needs to be in mind ` we actually do have an active block offer going on at the moment. There is an onshore block offer that is out for consultation at the moment. Understand that. We're talking about the offshore ban. So it didn't occur to you, or you didn't think that they deserved to be consulted in that four months that you were discussing the decision amongst yourselves? Over that four months, I certainly knew what industry's views were. I was taking meetings with industry where their views were clear. Our views were clear as well. But this was actually a matter of a government making a decision about the future. They don't feel consulted. I mean, the mayor came out and said it felt it was a kick in the guts, and I'm told that you informed them at 7.30 the night before the announcement was made. You gave a speech in which you said this will be clear, transparent, and well-managed. They question whether there has been any transparency, because they haven't been consulted. So, the speech ` the bit that you're pulling from ` that's my Petroleum Conference speech, and that was about the transition planning, and it is clear, it is transparent, and it is consulted. That is exactly what we were doing in Taranaki yesterday. We met with the mayor. After the fact. After the fact. No, this is about the transition planning, this aspect of it ` of what comes next. This absolutely has to be locally led. This has to be drawn from those people, and that's exactly what we were doing on the ground in Taranaki yesterday. So they can be consulted now but not about the decision; they didn't deserve a say in the decision or to discuss it with you before you made it. We made a decision about what the future of offshore drilling was. We've decided we won't be doing any more about that. But what we know in terms of what comes next ` this has to be locally led from local communities, and that is why we're putting in place` We've got someone from MBIE who will be on the ground, working with the local economic development agency, with the local mayors, and with locals about what the future opportunities are. OK. What legal advice did you get about whether you were exposed to court action by this decision? Oh, look, that's something that we had to consider, but, of course` Did you get legal advice? We certainly did get legal advice through` And what was it? Look, I'll be releasing all that in the next couple of weeks. OK, well, just tell us now, then. What I did do was undertake a block offer in 2018 that we are doing an onshore` Yeah, what did your legal advice tell you about the risk? Look, that will all be released. We were complying with the Act. Why can't you tell us now? Well, I am. No, no, the contents of it. We were complying with the Act. So one of the important things to remember is that block offer actually isn't an instrument that's defined in the Act. It's something that start` I think it was Gerry Brownlee, when he was minister of energy, started doing in around 2012. So it's not actually a process` So your legal advice is that there is no risk to you by taking this decision? Look, the purpose of the Act ` what the Crown Minerals Act asks us to do is to actively promote the exploration in New Zealand. We are doing that this year. We, at the moment, have out for consultation an onshore block offer where people will be able to go for exploration permits. Legal experts have told us that you will have to change the Act. Is that the case, in your understanding? Oh, I'm getting advice at the moment around the best way in which we can make effect to that. But you will have to reword it? There will need to be some changes to the Act. And that law requires consultation when you make those changes. There will be a requirement. Whether or not all of it's through the Act or whether some of it's to do with the regulations` So at that point, the industry will get a say, will they? Whether it's to do with the regulations that sit below it. So I'm still getting active advice about the best way in order to do that. What we've also said` So you're not quite sure of the process? No, no, in terms of we're still getting advice around that, about how to implement that. But one of the things that we've also been talking to industry about is the way in which we may need to make some more medium-term changes to the Act to really put in place the commitments that we've given to industry around the fact that we will honour all existing permits. And I think this is one of the things that had really changed yesterday. There was far more` I mean, understandably, people were, you know, initially` They're still not happy. They tell us they're not happy with the level of consultation. I just want to move on. This is all about zero carbon emissions by 2050 and the Paris Accords. So, specifically, how much will this policy lower our greenhouse gas emissions? Specifically? Well, specifically you can't say, because it's an unknown of what's still in the ground, because what we are proceeding with is the ability to explore land` So you don't know whether it's going to have any impact at all on our greenhouse gas emissions? Of course it will have an impact when we stop burning more fossil fuels. In terms of the specifics that you ask for ` a number ` you simply can't put that on it, because it's an unknown amount that's in the ground. So you got some advice` You got some advice, so, generally, what were you told? If they didn't give you a specific number, were you given a ball-park? This is a part of our move to 100% renewable electricity. We know exactly the impacts of what that will have on our greenhouse gasses. No, but I'm asking about this policy specifically and the impact it will have on greenhouse gas emissions. Well, in terms of this policy, the point is we are proceeding with the production permits that are currently there, so that won't have an impact. So you don't know. Oh, it won't have an impact? No. It won't have an impact, because we're still proceeding with those permits; we are still proceeding with the exploration permits. The bit when and why we can't say, and this is really important to understand, is because we don't know what's underground in areas that don't currently have exploration permits. You've actually got to have numbers to calculate, and we're dealing in unknowns. But what you can do is work through and see when you're working to 100% renewable energy, you know the impact that that does have. There seems to be a lot of unknowns here. Unknown the economic impact; unknown whether you'll have to consult; unknown about the law change; unknown what the level of greenhouse gas emissions it will cut. Is that fair? Unknowns, a lot of unknowns. I think that there are lots of knowns. And the knowns are that we have to plan for the future of regions like Taranaki. We could do the easy thing and make three-year decisions, or we could actually have the courage to look beyond the political cycle and put in place the planning that's required for these communities so there are jobs and industry and security for them in 10, 20, 30 years, when these changes will take effect. In terms of that courage, the courage that you're referring to, some of our biggest emitters are agriculture and transport. Transport is growing. Energy emissions are, quote, 'fairly static', according to the environment ministry, so why is oil and gas first on your hit-list? Why not do something around importation of petrol cars, subsidising electric vehicles? Why not go for something that will make a very specific and fast impact? Oh, look, we're going to have to do all of them. So you'll subsidise electric cars? No, no, no, what I'm saying is we're going to have to look at this sector by sector. And that's exactly what we're doing with our Interim Climate Committee and then the Independent Climate Commission. So why this one first? Because what we need to be doing is making sure that we're not causing shocks to communities, like Taranaki, 20, 30, 40 years down the track. If we're gonna start adequately planning for the industries that need to replace these fossil-intensive industries, we have to start that now. This doesn't have to be the kind of disruption that we've seen in English coal towns in the '80s, when they were shut down under Thatcher, or even here in New Zealand in the 1980s, when we had abrupt change. So, we've got about 80% of our energy from renewables at the moment. Your manifesto commits to reaching 90% by 2025 and close to 100% by 2040. How are you going to do that and guarantee supply? Yeah, and, look, that is something that is a really important question, and one of the things that we've given the Interim Independent Climate Commission, one of the two initial jobs it's been given, is charting out that pathway. So you don't have a plan for that yet? No, of course we have a plan. And what we know is that we need to up` What we need to do is start looking at the consents that we already have in place for consented energy that have yet to be built. And one of the reasons why those consents haven't been taken up is that there's been a great deal of uncertainty for those consent holders, particularly around whether the 15% electricity from Manapouri was going to come back into the grid depending on decisions down at Tiwai. Some of that certainty has been delivered with the decision to turn on the fourth pot. So, we already have a third of what is already built there in consent, so that's the first cab off the rank. We also know technology is changing. We know we're getting summer peaks, so solar becomes a far more important thing. So, what is the split going to be? If you know the plan, what's the split of our renewables? How much investment is it going to take? Well, it's going to require a split between wind, which is one of our strategic advantages into the 21st century. We can build some of the cheapest wind energy in the world. I mean, being at the bottom of the Southern Ocean has some huge advantages in terms of access to that resource. So, in terms of the split that you asked about, we are also hugely blessed, in terms of our geothermal resource, that we have the ability to have thermal baseload going in through the geothermal resource. Are you still going to keep a backstop? Are you still going to keep Huntly's coal-fuelled power station online as a backup? You had to resort to that during Cyclone Gita. Yeah, look, we need to get beyond the fossil-thermal peaking. That is something that we've always had to do in terms of the 2035 and 2050 targets. And that is exactly what a transition is about. A transition isn't the maintenance of a status quo; the transition has a different endpoint. A transition also has implications as well, and one of them is cost. And the Productivity Commission has said that it will be very expensive to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation. So how do you make a move to 100% renewable when you've got people who are already rationing heat because they can't afford it? So how are you going to deal with that? And affordability is one of the critical questions. And in terms of the Electricity Pricing Review, one of the things that we are looking at is the future technologies and the impact on that. We have to be thinking, and this is why having the managed transition over a period of time is so important. What is the contingency contracting in renewables that we need to put in? Are you guaranteeing people they won't be hit in the pocket by this change to 100% renewables? Are they going to pay less for their energy? We have to make the plans so that this doesn't become unaffordable for people. That is a bottom line for us, and that is what we are looking at actively not only in this work stream, but also in the Electricity Pricing Review. So are you telling people they're not going to pay more for their energy when you switch to 100% renewable? Well, it won't be because of the switch, and that is one of the things that we are looking at. Look, one of the things that we know we have the opportunity with renewables is to actually build that capacity where it's required. We produce so much of our electricity at the moment in the South Island and have to transmit it to the centres of demand, which are north of Taupo. We have the ability with renewables to actually put that capacity in place where it's required so that, actually, transmission pricing becomes less of an impact on there. And in terms of distributed generation, solar energy, all those kinds of things, these actually offer real opportunities for people in terms of more affordable forms of electricity, and that's why we're not seeing any of our work streams in isolation. That Electricity Pricing Review is absolutely critical as we consider the switch to 100% renewable. Let's circle back round to Taranaki. Those people want $42 million over three years to get them started on other opportunities. Are you going to stump up the cash? Look, one of the things we spoke with the mayors and the economic development leaders yesterday about is the fact that we need to work through exactly how that's delivered. We've put a person on the ground. So are you going to give them the $42 million or not? We're not just stumping up with 42 initially, and I think the Prime Minister made that really clear. How much are you? Because you've been planning this for a while, even though you didn't consult them, so you must know how much you are going to give them or should give them. One of the things we've done in Taranaki ` is the only region to have this ` is we've put an MBIE official on the ground whose job` That's not money, though. That's not money. I'll just finish this, Lisa. I'm asking you about the money. Can I get an answer on the money? The job of that person will be to help prepare the cases for the Provincial Growth Fund. There's $1 billion a year in that fund. The $42 million that we talked about yesterday ` it could be more that's required. And we see huge opportunity around projects within that Provincial Growth Fund. $20 million has already been allocated. That wasn't in response to this and included things like doing up a church and some other bits and pieces, so it wasn't in response to this. No, but there are some elements that are. So, in response to this, what do you think is the ballpark? What have you counted on? Because you've had a discussion; you say you've planned. What's the plan in terms of money? The plan is to have the person there working around the opportunities` So no commitment to a dollar amount. Taranaki has a history as an energy producer for New Zealand. We want to build on that with the local leaders. Look, it could well be more than $42 million. We don't want to short-change the region. The most important way to do it` So are you saying you'll give them more, then? No, what we're saying is that we're putting the capacity on the ground to work out things for the Provincial Growth Fund. There are huge opportunities. We know that there is an expertise in engineering in that region and a proud history of providing energy. We're gonna have to leave it there, Minister. Thank you, Lisa. Thank you for joining me this morning. If you've got something to say about what you see on our show, do let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram ` NewshubNationNZ. Our Twitter panel today is journalist Jenee Tibshraeny, economist Eric Crampton, and Auckland councillor Richard Hills. Now, you can also email us at nation@mediaworks.co.nz Up next ` the government has made reducing child poverty one of its major goals. We ask Children's Commissioner Judge Andrew Becroft if they're on the right track with their first budget. Plus ` as Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters prepares to take over as leader while the Prime Minister is on maternity leave, we look at whether MMP is working as intended. When Judge Andrew Becroft first stepped into the role of children's commissioner in 2016, he admitted he was shocked at the level of child poverty in New Zealand. So with a couple of years under his belt, does he see things improving? And how does he rate this government's first budget. Judge Becroft joins me now. Good morning. Ata marie. Good morning. So, on a scale of one to 10, in terms of being child-friendly, how would you rate the budget that has just been delivered. 10 being stellar. Sure, eight plus. Really? Excited, yeah. I think this is a good first step, and to have a government who's prioritising child poverty reduction, has set targets, has a bill before the house to oblige targets, to have a long-term plan to halve poverty in 10 years for children. I mean, that's massive. Fantastic news. So, aside from the family package and those targets, there was no more specific funding necessarily to address child poverty. Why does it get such a high score? Two reasons. It's the first concentrated budget, I think, that's really addressed the issue of the families package. There's a best start payment for new children, doctors' visits for 14, more commitment to social housing. But I'd rather not obsess about analysing in detail one particular budget. That's what we've done in the past, Lisa. I think we're now need to say, 'We need a concentrated, systematic commitment to addressing child poverty and child well-being.' So I'm looking, really, at this is the first step. If this was all there was, it would be about a three or a four or less, but I'm seeing it in the context of an ongoing commitment. We need to be more and more of these budgets every year. We can't just say 'this has done it. 'This is a seven or an eight' ` and I said eight. There's got to be eight after eight after eight. I want to see scorecards like in the diving competitions ` eight, eight, eight, eight, eight for the next 10 years. That's what we need. So sustained increases and sustained commitment. Absolutely, yes. Well, in saying that, you had a wish list, and there were a couple of things on it. One was ending sanctions, was one of the things that you wanted. And indexing benefits to the median wage was one of the things top of your list. You didn't get either of those. So, we've got a $3 billion surplus. You know, that is a lot of money. Is that good-enough not to get those things? What we have got is a commitment to a review of the benefit system. So I haven't given up on that, and if we don't get that, I think it will be a very retrograde step. We need to have benefits for children indexed to wages. If you look at the graph, early '80s they're together. And then gradually wages go up and benefits stay pretty flat. The gap is now massive. We dropped the ball on policy for children. I think one of the big, I guess, platforms of our office, the one thing I have to say clearly, is we need to have a community-wide consensus on policy for children. We haven't had that. We could do it. Other countries leave us behind. Scandinavian countries have parental leave for 16 months. They have free school lunches for preschool and school children for the whole community, free doctor and dental visits, good social housing, free early childhood education. That's what we need. We've never had the systemic commitment to a good policy for children. There's a couple things in there. If this review happens` Well, the review is happening. But if you don't get indexing, would you see that as a fail? Absolutely. E minus. It's crucial. Government on notice, then, Judge Becroft? Absolutely. That's been clear. I'm not shrinking from that. Everybody in the sector has said we've got to link benefits for children to wages. And we've got to get rid of some of the huge inconsistencies. I mean, why is that children from mothers who won't disclose their father who are on the DPB, why is it that those children, and there are 13,000 mothers involved ` nearly 18% of solo mothers. Why do those children lose $22 a week? That is not a child-friendly policy. That's got to change. OK, so you have regular conversations with people in government. What's` Are you going to get that, do you think? Are you going to get indexing? I genuinely hope so, you know, because unless we do, we're going to continue these year-by-year analysis of 'have budgets delivered?' Have you heard anything from them that specifically gives you that hope? Nothing. Right. But I remain an optimist, and I'm an advocate. OK, so you` But if they don't do it, that would be a complete fail, you believe? Yep, and I think that's one of the key reasons that we've got so` the children have got so out of kilter with the economic growth that the country's experienced, and they've missed out on it. And look, Lisa, I was recently in Mangere. I met a mum who lived on the back of her father's section in a portable constructed unit with her two kids ` poorly insulated, cold, wet, mould on the inside. The 5-year-old boy going each week to the doctor for a chest issue. She's in tears. The children go to school with wet clothes. She's struggling to move them around with a beaten-up car. We cannot have that. I mean, when I got the job, I said I was shocked at how profound some of the issues are. I still am. In the context of 70% of our kids doing pretty well. In fact, world-leadingly well. But we've got a group of 20% and 10% at the core, 80,000 to 100,000, who really do it tough, and that's got to be our focus. OK, so you have applauded the government for the targets that they do have, but I know you think there should be more measures around children and poverty. So what kind of things? Should they measure educational achievement, disease ` what? Well, we start with child poverty. I utterly applaud that approach, because that's what's required. You might say the tentacles of child poverty reach out everywhere, so it's necessary to start there, but it won't be sufficient. And you're right. The theory is that when child poverty's addressed, all the other, they call, social gradients, where poor families experience worse outcomes for children, Yeah. they all start to flatten off. So, yes, in health, we'd expect to see less abuse and neglect. We'd expect to see less rheumatic fever, less hospitalisation for accidental injury and illness. We'd expect to see educational achievement improve significantly. I'd like to think that youth suicide, which really perplexes our country, starts to come down. So I'd hope to see a huge comprehensive suite of measurements that tells us ` is the theory actually coming right in practice. Actually, we'd like to see reduced prison. It's going to flow on throughout the whole economy. So how many measures? You're talking, what, 10, 20, 30 additional measures in there? Absolutely. We had a first crack at this on Thursday, where we had a national discussion with about 100 experts in the field, and those who experienced poverty, the prime minister chaired a session on exactly what her well-being strategy looks like. And you know, you start of by saying, 'We need to measure children who are without abuse and neglect, 'bad housing and the like, then we look more aspirationally,' but if you ask children, they talk a lot about values. They want a loving, safe home with good play facilities, good friends, secure in their own identity and connections to culture. We're not good at measuring those, so when you ask me for my wish list of what could be measured, we've got to find a way of measuring those important values for children as well, and we've got no system for that at the moment. So, given that you want a continuation of emphasis on this, should those measures be entrenched in legislation as targets? No, I think the obligation to set measures for child poverty, and then what's not known is the children poverty reduction bill includes the obligation to set a child well-being strategy. Now, that's potentially game changing. That obliges the government not only to set a strategy, but say where it will be focusing on and what are the measures that will show improvement, so I don't want to get bogged down with a legislative number enshrined forever. I want government of the day to own an obligation to set their own targets and make progress. The` I want to talk about the justice system. So youth court, the age is now` You can go to the youth court up to the age of 18. We've done the right thing, yes. Have we gone far enough? You know, I was really, I guess, perplexed and distressed during my time as principal youth court judge that we didn't include 17-year-olds. I couldn't say that publically. I now can. I'm an advocate. And one of the big things that our office campaigned for was to include 17-year-olds. So many people did. We've done the right thing. But you know, Lisa, I think I've probably lacked courage. I think we should now have the ability to move some 18- and 19-year-olds who are facing developmental issues or other neurodevelopmental difficulties, foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, learning difficulties. There should be a discretion in the adult courts to move 18- and 19-year-olds into the youth court. They'll get a much better wrap-around youth-focused service. Just as, in fact, we have the ability now to move some 14-, 15- and 16-year olds out of the youth court and into the adult court. We've got a very arbitrary age cut-off. We need flexibility each way, so that's something that we'll be advocating for. So you'd want it in law that judges have discretion? Absolutely, and the adult courts to consider moving 18- and 19-year-olds in to the youth court. Perhaps I'm even then lacking vision. Perhaps I should be going further, but I think bit by bit, we can establish that what we do works and is the right thing, we'll make progress. So, when you look at youth court stats, the latest ones show us that appearances have dropped about 12% for the general population, but Maori youth appearances are up 23%. We know there is a problem with disparity, so why does the gap persist? Yeah, you ask a good question. I'm not principal youth court judge any more. We've got a good new principal youth court judge. I don't want to tread on his toes, but we can say a few things. Numbers are coming down for Maori, but not as quickly as for Europeans, so the over-representation continues. Secondly, it's quite a small group numerically, and it's troubling if we label all Maoris being a Maori problem. Most Maori children thrive and do well. I guess the main thing to say, Lisa, it's not a youth-justice issue; it's an issue in every system of government, health or education. We see that over-representation, and you know, I think we have to own this. Is there any country in the world where the colonisation process has been other than bad for children? I mean, that's the reality. So no` Bad for indigenous children. So, and there's a combination now of systemic discrimination, unconscious bias. I mean, they are the big issues, and the stats you quote are replicated in all other areas. The challenge for our country is to look at it system wide. How can we do better for our indigenous children? In saying that, seeing as it's your job to advocate for children, and these children have worse outcomes. Do we need to bring back targeted funding for Maori? Well, we certainly need to begin with child poverty, and we also need to reflect the legislative intent, which is in the bill before the house, which is to look at children with particular need and from particular groups. And the bill also provides an obligation to consult with Maori and to consult with children. So in the well-being strategy, there's a crystal-clear obligation to set targets, which will include targets for Maori, and in the new Oranga Tamariki Act, the new chief executive has got a whole suite of new and quite powerful obligations to set targets for how Maori over-representation is going to be brought down. So in fact, what you are asking for is there in the legislation, and I think it's exciting. It could be a game changer. Before we go, because we're almost out of time ` police chase, these have been in the news media quite a bit lately. Three teenagers have been killed in the last 10 months during fleeing driver incidences, and I know a report in 2009 showed that 40% of people who were chased by the police were under 20, so they're part of your domain as the children's commissioner. Do you think the police should pursue? Actually, under 18 ` my domain. Yeah, exactly. But first of all, it is a tragedy whenever a child in New Zealand is lost in these circumstances. I'm glad that there is a review that is being carried out by our very trusted independent Police Conduct Authority. It's required, because I don't think we've got the settings right, and from my point of view as children's commissioner, I hope we bear in mind that the cohort we're talking about with the frontal lobe of the brain that's still developing, is that group that can make the most reckless and irresponsible and foolhardy decisions under pressure, and I think that's got to be factored into any review, but I'm not going to prejudge that, but we'll certainly be, I hope, involved from the perspective of children in New Zealand, because that's got to be a front-and-centre consideration, and we can't afford to lose children in this way any more. Always interesting to talk to you, Judge Becroft. Thank you. Thanks for joining us this morning. And still to come ` we dissect the week's political news with our panel, plus, he's about to be our acting prime minster. Elected by 7% of the vote, so has Winston Peter's rise to the top job exposed flaws in our electoral system? With the prime minister Jacinda Ardern's baby due in the next few weeks, Winston Peters is preparing to take over the reins. That's despite New Zealand First getting little more than 7% of the vote at the election. So is MMP still working or is it undemocratic? Well, John-Michael Swannix reports. Since the election, there's been a lot of debate about whether we've got our voting system right. Not only has Winston decided who the government would be, but now he's going to be the prime minister for an undefined period of time. And it really highlights a very, very big flaw in the political system that we're currently operating under. Anti-MMP campaigners have been pushing to get rid of the voting system since it was introduced in 1996. Reject MMP. Former Prime Minister John Key was among them. He held a referendum on the issue in 2011. The result ` more Kiwis back MMP now than they did when it was introduced. It actually is delivering for us, because we are getting a much more representational democracy in terms of the parties, but also in terms of the types of people that are making it through, which is what you hope from proportional representation. However, even staunch MMP supporters agree there are ways it can be improved. This election saw the majority of voters swing towards the major parties, putting all the minor parties in danger. New Zealand First and the Greens just managed to clear the 5% threshold to enter parliament. The Act party only got 0.5% of the vote but managed to hang on because leader David Seymour won the Auckland seat of Epsom thanks to a deal with the Nats. So, we've settled at around five political parties in our parliament, which is relatively few in the history of MMP. But for people like me that study this, this is sort of around about where we thought it might eventually settle out. It's nearly impossible for new parties to enter parliament due to the 5% threshold. In fact, not a single party has ever made it to parliament that wasn't led by a breakaway MP. New Zealand First was created by former National MP Winston Peters. The Maori Party, United Future and Act also stemmed from Labour party defectors. The Greens were originally part of the Alliance party, which was led by former Labour MP Jim Anderton. The Electoral Commission looked into the issues with MMP in 2012. It recommended the threshold be lowered to 4%, and the coat-tail rule, which encourages dealmaking for the likes of Act be abolished. The commission toyed with the idea of dropping the threshold to 3% or removing it altogether, but decided against it. We bring in thresholds because there are reasons to think that we shouldn't have, say, 100 political parties in parliament, that it might give rise to extremist political parties or it might hamstring the ability of parties to form government or for parliament to do its job effectively. Labour and the Greens backed lowering the threshold to 4% in 2012. But New Zealand First did not. However, all three parties wanted to get rid of the coat-tail rule. The then National government didn't agree with either proposal, as its support partners, Act, United Future and the Maori Party, had the potential to benefit from the existing rules. On the face of it, a majority of the parliament now want to abolish coat-tailing. However, National's continued opposition means change is very unlikely. There's a longstanding expectation in New Zealand politics, and it's not an out-and-out rule, because we've seen it broken a few times, but there is an expectation that any reasonable significant change to electoral law will be either be unanimous or near unanimous. So, what about other solutions? Well, a fairly simple one is to allow voters to rank their preferred parties and candidates. This is called a transferable vote system. It is mainly used in New Zealand for health board elections. The positives of this system is that the majority of votes end up counting, because if a voter's first choice doesn't make it into parliament, their vote gets given to their second choice and so on. This would help address issues like tactical voting, where people will vote for their second choice party or candidate out of fear their first choice won't receive enough support to clear the threshold or win an electorate seat. People want to get bang for their buck, you know. They don't want to cast a wasted vote or give a vote to an unelected minority. They'd rather choose their second-best choice and have it count for something. How much of a barrier, do you think, wasted vote` the idea of a wasted vote is to voters in New Zealand? It's hard to quantify, but it is certainly an effect that we observe. People will make different electoral choices based on their perception of whether or not their vote is likely to be wasted. This election, the largest proportion of wasted votes went to The Opportunities Party. It secured 2.4% of the vote, well short of the 5% threshold, so didn't make it into parliament. There would have been people that probably preferred to vote for The Opportunities Party, that it matched their beliefs closely, but felt that considering the Labour and National competition or the decline in support for the Green party, for example, that their vote would be better spent elsewhere. While listing parties and candidates in a preferred order may seem like a simple solution, there are fears it could suppress voting by those with poor literacy and numeracy. So, you'd look at some of the migrant population and some of the Pacific Island populations where, you know, it's actually really difficult to get them to the polls anyway. And if you make it harder to vote, then they'll go, 'I don't want to make a mistake.' So if we had a transferable type system layered with the MMP party list proportional system, it would make it one of the most` one of the more complex electoral systems in the world. So, yes, our democracy isn't perfect, and it's pretty hard to change things. But to be fair, we actually have it pretty good. Kiwi voters are much better represented now than they ever were in the past. Prior to 1996, New Zealand used a first past the post electoral system, where MPs had to win electorate seats to enter parliament. While this gave more decisive results, it also came with its problems. In 1978 and 1981 for example, Labour actually received more votes than National throughout the country. However, because National won more electorate seats, it got to form the government. It was even worse for minor parties, who would sometimes command more than 20% of the vote nationwide, but only win one or two seats. These problems worsened in the 1990s, and the last election under first past the post, National was governing on its own with the support of just one in three votes. Even prominent anti-MMP campaigners like Ashley Church don't want things to go back to the way they were. I'm a fan of proportionality, just not this particular system. There were better systems put forward in '93, and we missed an opportunity. However, Victoria Woodman says MMP is only starting to mature. What would you say to someone who's concerned or upset that Winston Peters is about to take over the reins? Just because they don't like Winston Peters becoming the acting prime minister, it doesn't mean that MMP should just be thrown out because of that. There are small things that we can do in other areas that I think would seek to satisfy far more peoples' preferences around improving the system. Listing parties and candidates, lowering the threshold and removing coat-tailing are just some of these solutions. However, changes to electoral law often require a big groundswell of voter support. And MMP has only been around for 22 years, so maybe like most adolescents, it just needs more time to sort out its issues. And still to come, we look back at a tumultuous week in parliament and we catch up with our panel ` PR consultant Trish Sherson, Green Peace's Russel Norman and business journalist Thomas Coughlan. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel, Trish Sherson, Russel Norman and Thomas Coughlan. Good morning to you all. Trish, we've heard from the Energy Minister this morning, Megan Woods. Some people in Taranaki feel they weren't consulted enough prior to the announcement. Do they have a point? I think they have a point. I mean, that's that great old saying, 'People don't remember what you say or what you do, they remember how you make them feel.' And I think around this, Taranaki was made to feel like, you know, they weren't to be trusted in terms of consultation. This decision was made. And now we've got ministers trying to backfill. And, you know, we've got an MB official on the ground in Taranaki. Well, that's going to be the worst job in the world for that guy. But I think the bigger point is this ` I don't see any sector in New Zealand who is not genuinely engaged and up for changing the way we do things. Everyone see's what the opportunity is. But in order to do that it's gotta be a partnership with government and business. And I think what really put the chills up business around this was the way that that decision was made and announced, when the Minister had previously just been at the, you know, that industry's conference. And now I hear the Minister this morning saying, 'Oh, well, 'this has got to be now led by local communities.' Well, that's going to be pretty hard. You sort of kneecap people and then you go back in and you say, 'Hey, now it's over to you guys 'to help work this through.' I think probably what Taranaki and other people are struggling with is where is the bigger story around this? Where is the narrative that says, 'Hey, this is just a part of a bigger plan that we're working through.' And that, for me, I think is they are not taking people on that journey. Russel, you think there is a plan, don't you? Yeah. I mean, 'the bigger story', the bigger story is climate change, of course. And so if we're going to take climate change seriously, we can't afford to burn even half of the known fossil fuel reserves. So anyone that's looking for more fossil fuel reserves wants to profit from climate catastrophe. We have to change direction. Transpower just released a really interesting report which looks at how do you electrify a lot of the energy sectors. So electrify transport, right? So you'll electrify industrial process and then you increase supply through, particularly, distributed solar but also in increasing wind and geothermal. And also much more use of batteries within the network. So it's a great plan. It raises some questions about how we deal with the dry year challenge, and there's questions we have to answer. Yep. Surety of supply. That's right; but you can see that they're planning how we decarbonize the energy sector. And the economic opportunity is fantastic. Think of the billions of dollars we spend importing oil for the transport fleet every year. We will be generating that energy domestically, it's fantastic. But it raises the question, Thomas, about whether the government is communicating its plans sufficiently. And should anyone be surprised? Because the government, specifically Jacinda Ardern, said that climate change was the nuclear-free moment. Exactly. So why is everybody surprised? Well, I think the problem with communication is 'when?' and 'how clear?' And obviously she did say it was the nuclear-free moment of her generation. But she also, I was there at this press conference after she received the petition, and she seemed to be equivocating on whether or not this decision would be made now or some time in the future. Obviously, the big thing for this government, the thing that keeps it up at night is the business confidence numbers. And this has severely dented that metric; because business likes to have a long lead time. These decisions require a lot of capital to be invested upfront. They're big decisions and not giving that lead time does frighten them. The latest business confidence numbers show declining confidence from 20-23%, which has been stubbornly low since this government took power. So that's the thing that's really been dented by this decision, I think. The other problem is, of course, the regional problem which is coming into this decision. And Taranaki has, I think, 5.1% regional unemployment, which is higher than the national average of 4.4%, much higher than the cities, obviously. So you've got this regional/business issue playing out against the backdrop of this huge environmental moment which the government is trying to seize. How much does Taranaki deserve or should get in order to go forward into other businesses. I mean, they're asking for $42 million, the Minister wouldn't commit to that, but she said maybe they'll get more after the analysis. Should they? Should the government be paying up that kind of money to give them another path? No, look, Jacinda has consistently said 'just transition.' Right? So she's, kind of, said, 'This is` Yeah, so what does that mean? That's right. But first of all, she said it's a legitimate consideration. People have a legitimate concern to see how their jobs will look in the future, how it works. And so they've got the billion dollar provincial growth fund. That's one billion a year; it's massive, right? Obviously the Minister can't go announcing stuff on the program; we'd all criticise her for making decisions on the fly, right? But obviously there does need to be support for the transition in Taranaki as in other regions. It is kind of interesting, though, that in spite of all rhetoric from the oil industry, that this has one of the highest unemployment records. Since 2014, they've had a huge drop-off in the oil industry. The oil industry is not the great be-all and end-all of the, kind of, economic salvation. It's so unstable. So does it mean that Shane Jones has not got free reign with his billion dollar fund now? Well, it's a good question, isn't it? But I think the bigger point here is this, that we've had this announcement. What, sort of, became clear this morning is there's a lot of backfilling going on, now this announcement has been made. And those decisions around the kind of support, whether it's financial or others, that would come pretty quickly after this announcement. I think, you know, they should've been well in play. We seem to be, now, there's that classic vacuum left, right? Where we've had a big announcement, people are really worried about it, it's not going well and now we're trying to, you know, fix and talk to people about what's happening. All right, we've gotta leave it there. We'll be back after the break, so do stay with us. Welcome back. You're with Newshub Nation and our panel. Russel, if I can come to you first. Andrew Becroft, the children's commissioner, he would like benefits to be indexed to the average way, same way that super is. Can we afford to do that? I think the question is can we afford not to? The embedded poverty ` long-term poverty ` that we have now in this country is incredibly expensive in the long-term, so, in fact, we need to try to pull our way out of it. If you think about where are we now, In the 1980s and '90s, we made a whole series of policy changes that produced dramatic poverty and inequality, and now we're trying to dig ourselves out of it, and it is expensive, but it's more expensive not to. He said it'll be a fail if they don't do it. Do you agree with that? I do think the government needs to do it. I agree with him. Thomas, the other thing he talked about was the youth court. He said that, as a judge, he felt that maybe they weren't brave enough to say that you should be sending older kids to the youth court ` up to 20, he says, is what he reckons. At the moment it's just shifted, so you can go to the youth court right up to the age of 18. Is that politically palatable? Oh, it's hard to know, to be honest. We've got this difficult decision at the moment that's being made over Waikeria Prison. At the same time, we're looking at trying to cut the prison population overall. That's a political football, and always ` always ` when we have this going through the house, you get the tough-on-crime argument being made. And they are in coalition with Winston Peters. And they are in coalition with Winston Peters. So it's hard to see there being the political bandwidth for some more, I guess, leniency on the crime issue when they've got this Waikeria issue, which is just so big for this government. What do you reckon, Trish? I don't think it's about leniency; I think this is recognising, actually, the work that's going on in neuroscience currently around the teenage brain. At the moment, this is an arbitrary age definition about when you're in or out of the youth court. What Judge Becroft is talking about, which I totally agree with, is there are a lot of 18- and 19-year-olds who, developmentally, might be at a 13, 14, 15 level, and we need to have a system with that kind of smart thinking and flexibility, not just when you reach an age, you reach that. So I am totally fangirling on Andrew Becroft this morning, I have to say. (LAUGHS) I think it's fantastic to have a champion for kids like that, and if there's one thing we've missed in New Zealand, it is a conversation which puts kids and their future at the forefront of everything we do. Yeah, and he's unafraid to start that conversation. Let's move on to Mycoplasma bovis, M. bovis. On Monday we're gonna find out whether we're gonna carry on with the government's plan to completely eradicate it or just manage it. Has this been a stuff-up so far, Russel? I think MPI, of course, who are at the centre of this once again ` having just spent a week dealing with MPI over fishing and the lack of prosecution of the fishing companies ` they just don't fill me with confidence. When you deal with them and look at what they're doing, I'm just not confident that they know what they're doing. Trish? I don't think it's as simple as that. This is a very difficult disease. The analogy in humans is like herpes; you could have this disease for 12 months and there would be no symptoms, so it's a silent stalker. I think the big thing for New Zealand is, thankfully, this is not foot-in-mouth, cos we have had huge gaps showing up in the system. In particular, we have no tracking system for animals' movements on and off particular farms, so` Well, we do, but 70% of farmers haven't been using it, according to the minister. Yeah, that's right, because it's called NAIT and it was watered down because there was a fear it was around Big Brother. Well, you need a system like that when you've got an issue like this; you should be able to know every single stock unit and where that's gone over time. So, Thomas, what responsibility do farmers need to take for this? The issue is obviously going to be around cost. We've got this latest assessment being around $1 billion. I don't think the government's going to be that excited to front up with that money. So it's gonna be shared. It's a question of who pays what. It'll be a question of who pays what. And on Monday the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are meeting with the tripartite stakeholders ` Federated Farmers, Dairy NZ, and... someone else. And I think they'll flatten it out, that issue. We'll get an announcement at 4 o'clock on Monday, so it'll be interesting to see how those costs are shared, because, again, it's a huge political issue, and I don't think it's looking good for this government to open up the chequebook for farmers again. OK, let's move on to Phil Twyford on a plane. Trish, do you use your cell phone when the doors are closed? No. I'm quite nervous about the rules on a plane. I don't know why. It's one of the things where` So you stick to them. I tend to stick to the rules. Is this a momentary lapse of reason on his part, or is it early onset arrogance? Yeah, but why didn't he front up straight away? That's my thing which puts me into the arrogance camp, because if it was a mistake at the time, he would have gone, 'Oh, gee, had a mistake.' Or maybe he didn't recognise it as a mistake, Russel. Well... He probably didn't. He probably didn't give it another thought until it came back to bite him. I don't think it's a huge deal. I don't do it myself, and, obviously, he shouldn't do it and he knows he shouldn't do it, but I don't think it's a huge deal. It's probably not a big deal, but it's not great when it happens so early in the life of a government. It's gonna be compared with the Brownlee security, Helen Clark and the speeding, those sorts of things. The allegation of hypocrisy, though ` because he was pretty tough on Gerry Brownlee for walking in through the out door at security. Which, to be fair, was quite a bit worse. Why was it worse? LAUGHS: Come on, he was pushing his way in through the out door through the security checkpoint. And said, 'Do you know who I am?' 'Do you know who I am?' But also it's because he had the CAA portfolio. That's really what made it difficult, cos they set those rules, and he should be following them. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, a higher standard. All right, we'll leave it there. It was a tumultuous week in parliament with National's deputy leader, Paula Bennett, booted from the house just 24 hours after she stormed out during question time. She wasn't the only National MP to clash with Speaker Trevor Mallard; there were some terse exchanges with Gerry Brownlee and a reluctant apology from David Bennett. PAULA BENNETT: Speaking to the point of order` No, there's no point of order. If the member wants a further supplementary, she can take it. If not, we'll move on. No. I'm leaving. What a waste of time. For how long? ...isn't simply requiring members to withdraw and apologise without some explanation. Oh, for goodness' sake. Mr Brownlee, this has got to the point of being ridiculous. The member is a` (OVERLAPPING CHATTER) Paula Bennett will leave the chamber. The member will leave the chamber. DAVID BENNETT: Mr Speaker, I need your explanation. Order. Order. The member will withdraw and apologise now, or I will take more serious action than has happened in the house for quite some time. Withdraw... and apologise. Thank you. CHUCKLES: And that is all from us for now. If you didn't catch all of the show, you can watch now on Three Plus One. We'll see you again next weekend. Thanks for joining us. Captions by Able. www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018 This programme was made with the assistance of the New Zealand On Air Platinum Fund.