MORENA, GOOD MORNING, AND WELCOME TO Q+A. I'M CORIN DANN. TODAY ` DEFENCE MINISTER RON MARK, A NEW TAKE ON OUR STRATEGIC RISKS AND A WARNING OF TURBULENT TIMES AHEAD. SO WHAT KIND OF DEFENCE FORCE DO WE NEED? WHAT DO YOU SAY TO NZERS WHO WILL HEAR AT SOME POINT IN THE NEXT WEEK, A PURCHASE, WHATEVER IT IS, OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, THAT'S MONEY THAT CANNOT BE SPENT FOR NURSES AND TEACHERS ` WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THOSE PEOPLE? THEN MINISTER FOR WOMEN, JULIE ANNE GENTER. THIS WEEK, NEW ZEALAND REPORTS BACK TO THE UN ON OUR PROGRESS IN ENDING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN. HOW WELL ARE WE DOING? AND AS ALWAYS, WE'LL HAVE ANALYSIS FROM OUR PANEL ` DR JENNIFER CURTIN, DR RUSSEL NORMAN AND FRAN O'SULLIVAN. CAPTIONS BY FAITH HAMBLYN AND CATHERINE DE CHALAIN. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2018. TO OUR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS OF THE WEEK. QUESTION ` WHAT'S THE WORLD COMING TO WHEN OUR 72-YEAR-OLD ACTING PRIME MINISTER STARTS USING LINES FROM LATINO POP STARS TO HIT BACK AT OPPOSITION ATTACKS ON THE ECONOMY? AS RICKY MARTIN WOULD SAY, MACRO, MICRO, INSIDE, OUTSIDE, ` THE WHOLE LOT. ANSWER ` HE'S CLEARLY LIVING THE LA VIDA LOCA. WINSTON'S ENJOYING HIMSELF, AND FRANKLY, HIS LABOUR COLLEAGUES SHOULD BE GRATEFUL. JUST ASK CORRECTIONS MINISTER KELVIN DAVIS, WHO GOT PETER'S BACKING AFTER BLUNDERING ON PRISON STATS THIS WEEK. QUESTION ` HAS PHIL TWYFORD GOT IT RIGHT WITH HIS KIWIBUILD ELIGIBILITY RULES THAT ALLOW HOUSEHOLD'S EARNING $180,000 TO BUY A KIWIBUILD HOME? ANSWER ` WELL IT'S NOT IDEAL, BUT COME ON. WHAT'S HE SUPPOSED TO DO WHEN HOUSE PRICES ARE NINE TIMES HIGHER THAN THE MEDIAN INCOME IN AUCKLAND? IT'S SMART POLITICS IN MY VIEW, BUT ONE THING'S FOR SURE ` WITH 20,000 SIGNED UP ALREADY, THIS IS A MAKE-OR-BREAK POLICY FOR LABOUR. QUESTION ` COULD OUR RESERVE BANK'S NEXT MOVE ON BENCHMARK INTEREST RATES ACTUALLY BE DOWN RATHER THAN UP? ANSWER ` YES, SAY SOME IN THE MARKET. ALTHOUGH CAREFUL FOR WHAT YOU WISH FOR ` IF THERE IS A CUT, IT'LL BE PROBABLY BECAUSE OF WEAK BUSINESS CONFIDENCE IS LEADING TO CUTS IN JOBS AND INVESTMENT OR A TRADE WAR. QUESTION ` SO, AFTER THE POSTURING, CAN WE ACTUALLY NOW SAY THAT A REAL TRADE WAR BETWEEN THE US AND CHINA ACTUALLY BEGUN? ANSWER ` YES, SADLY. THE FIRST SHOTS WERE FIRED ON FRIDAY. IT'S ON AND WE, NEW ZEALAND, BATTEN DOWN THE HATCHES. WHAT'S THE CHINESE CURSE AGAIN, MAY WE LIVE IN INTERESTING TIMES? AND THE RIVALRY BETWEEN GREAT POWERS WAS A THEME IN THE DEFENCE REVIEW RELEASED AT THE END OF LAST WEEK. MORE EXPLICITLY, DEFENCE MINISTER RON MARK RAISED CONCERN ABOUT CHINA'S GROWING INFLUENCE IN THE PACIFIC. I SAT DOWN WITH RON MARK AND ASKED HIM WHY HE FELT THE NEED TO SPEAK OUT. WELL, I'M NOT SPEAKING OUT. THE GOVERNMENT HAS ACTUALLY MADE ITS VIEWS AROUND CERTAIN MATTERS VERY, VERY WELL KNOWN` NOT IN A PUBLIC WAY LIKE THIS BEFORE. WELL, I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE PRIME MINISTER HAS SAID, WHAT THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS` AND LET'S BE CLEAR ` DEFENCE FORCE'S STRATEGIC POLICY IS BASED ON THIS GOVERNMENT'S FOREIGN POLICY. WE HAVE SIGNALLED ALREADY THROUGH PACIFIC RESET OUR CONCERNS AS TO HOW SOME OF OUR PACIFIC NATIONS ARE WORKING` YES, BUT WITH RESPECT, MINISTER, I HAD AN INTERVIEW WITH THE FOREIGN MINISTER, WINSTON PETERS, ON THIS PRECISE ISSUE, AND HE DIDN'T WANT TO NAME CHINA, WHEREAS YOUR REPORT HAS. WELL, THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS HAS HAD DIRECT INVOLVEMENT WITH THIS REPORT, AS HAVE OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, AS HAD THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE` I GUESS I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHAT HAS PROMPTED A` BECAUSE LANGUAGE IS VERY IMPORTANT WITH DEFENCE AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS. WHAT HAS PROMPTED THIS SLIGHTLY MORE EXPLICIT LANGUAGE ABOUT CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT CHINA IS DOING, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA? THE REALITY OF WHAT WE ARE FACING, AND TO IGNORE THE REALITY OF WHAT WE ARE FACING WITH NON-TRADITIONAL ACTORS SEEKING TO INFLUENCE PACIFIC ISLAND NATIONS WOULD NOT BE TO DO JUSTICE TO ANY RISK ASSESSMENT, ANY STRATEGIC DEFENCE POLICY STATEMENT. IT IS IN VERY MUCH THE SAME WAY THAT A NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT IN THE PAST EXPRESSED ITS CONCERNS ABOUT NUCLEAR TESTING AT THE TIME, AND THEY WERE NOT SHY. I THINK IT WAS NORM KIRK. HE WAS NOT SHY TO LET THE FRENCH KNOW THAT WHAT THEY WERE DOING WAS NOT IN NEW ZEALAND'S INTERESTS AND WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY NEW ZEALAND. SO WHAT CAN WE ACTUALLY DO ABOUT IT? BECAUSE` WELL, WE CAN DO WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY DOING. WE WANT GOOD RELATIONSHIPS, AND WE HAVE VERY GOOD RELATIONS. LET ME ASSURE YOU, MY BILATERAL CONVERSATION AND DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CHINESE DELEGATE AT SHANGRI-LA WAS FRANK, HONEST IN BOTH DIRECTIONS AND WAS WARM AND, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE SPENT QUITE SOME TIME TOGETHER. WHAT WE CAN DO IS MAKE CLEAR WHAT WE THINK, FRANK CONVERSATIONS TO THEIR FACE, NOT BEHIND THEIR BACK, AND AT THE SAME TIME, KEEP DOORS OPEN, MAKE SURE WE HAVE GOOD, SOLID BILATERAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHINA. KEEP OUR ENGAGEMENT GOING WITHIN DEFENCE, KEEP OUR EXCHANGES GOING, WELCOME INTO NEW ZEALAND, WELCOME THE CHINESE MILITARY IN IN SUCH EXERCISES AS THE HUMANITARIAN DISASTER RELIEF EXERCISE WHICH WE JUST COMPLETED WITH THEM. IT IS ABOUT DIALOGUE. IT IS ABOUT BEING OPEN AND HONEST WITH EACH OTHER. IT IS ABOUT WHERE WE HAVE CONCERNS, BEING FRANK ABOUT THOSE, AND IT IS THROUGH DOING THAT, WE ACTUALLY ENHANCE OUR RELATIONSHIP. OK. LET'S TALK ABOUT, THEN, IN TERMS OF WHAT WE DO AS A DEFENCE FORCE. YOU HAVE TALKED A BIT ABOUT THE NEED TO BE COMBAT READY. WHY? WELL, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE REASON A NATION, ANY NATION, HAS A DEFENCE FORCE IS TO PROTECT ITS SOVEREIGN INTEREST, TO PROTECT ITS TERRITORY, TO BE ABLE TO PROJECT FORWARD IN THOSE SPACES WHERE IT IS RIGHT AND PROPER AS PART OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO LEND ASSISTANCE TO OTHER NATIONS. FOR WHATEVER REASONS, WE ARE DOING THAT. WE HAVE BEEN DEPLOYED IN MANY PLACES` BUT THE ISSUE IS IT COSTS MONEY, DOESN'T IT? THERE'S A DIFFERENCE. WELL, YES, IT DOES. SO, LET'S TAKE` YOU'VE GOT A PURCHASE TO REPLACE THE ORIONS, WHICH IS A PURCHASE COMING. YOU'RE DUE TO ANNOUNCE IN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO THAT DECISION. WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY IF YOU WERE TO TAKE A LESS MILITARISTIC OPTION WITH THOSE PLANES, IT WOULD BE A LOT CHEAPER? WHEREAS IF YOU HAVE THE SUBMARINE CAPABILITY IN THOSE PLANES, IT'S GOING TO COST YOU A LOT MORE MONEY. BILLIONS FOR NEW ZEALANDERS. WELL, YOU DON'T KNOW THAT, ACTUALLY, AND YOU DON'T KNOW THE COST OF TAKING KIT OUT. BUT FUNDAMENTALLY MARITIME PATROL, INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, RECONNAISSANCE IS A MILITARY FUNCTION. WE HAVE MILITARY PLATFORMS FOR OUR MILITARY TO OPERATE FOR MILITARY PURPOSES. WE ALSO PICK UP THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PROTECTING OUR ENVIRONMENT, OF ENABLING OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES LIKE FISHERIES AND MINISTRY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, MPI, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION TO DO THE WORK THEY NEED TO DO. THE WONDERFUL THING ABOUT MILITARY CAPABILITIES IS THEY DELIVER A HIGHER LEVEL OF CAPABILITY TO NGOS AND OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. BUT IT COULD BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WHEN WE'VE GOT NURSES, TEACHERS ON STRIKE, LOOKING FOR MORE MONEY, AND YET YOU'RE HAVING TO GO TO YOUR CABINET COLLEAGUES AND ARGUE FOR WAR PLANES WHEN MAYBE WE COULD HAVE PLANES THAT DON'T NEED THAT CAPABILITY. NAME ME AN AIRCRAFT THAT WOULD DELIVER THAT CAPABILITY. I MEAN, THERE IS A LOT OF CONVERSATION IN GENERAL TERMS ABOUT APPARENTLY HOW MUCH MONEY ONE WOULD SAVE. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS WE HAVE AN ARMY, A NAVY AND AN AIR FORCE. THEY ARE MILITARY. CARRY OUT THEIR WARLIKE FUNCTIONS. IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A NATION AND AS A GOVERNMENT TO EQUIP AND RESOURCE AND TRAIN OUR DEFENCE FORCE PERSONNEL SO THAT WHEN WE DEPLOY THEM INTO AN OPERATIONAL THEATRE, THEY ARE ABLE TO COMPLETE THEIR MISSION SUCCESSFULLY WITH DISTINCTION AND COME HOME SAFELY. AND HOW MUCH OF IT IS ABOUT OUR ALLIES AND OUR RELATIONSHIPS? IN THIS REPORT, YOU MAKE IT PRETTY CLEAR WE MUST ACQUIRE ASSETS THAT CAN BE RELEVANT TO OUR PARTNERS, NOT JUST SOME ALSO-RAN. AND THAT WOULD SUGGEST TO ME YOU'RE LOOKING, FOR EXAMPLE, AT THE P-8S, THE POSEIDONS, THE BOEINGS. THOSE ARE THE ONES THE AUSTRALIANS AND THE US USE. THAT'S NOT AN UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTION. WHAT'S THE POINT IN US HAVING A PLANE IF IT DOESN'T WORK WITH THEM? WELL, THAT'S PRECISELY THE QUESTION. WE ARE AN ALLY OF AUSTRALIA. THE DEFENCE OF NEW ZEALAND IS TIED TO AUSTRALIA'S INTERESTS, AND THE DEFENCE OF AUSTRALIA IS TIED TO NEW ZEALAND'S INTERESTS. WE HAVE A COMMITMENT AND OBLIGATION, SHOULD AUSTRALIA NEED US, TO GO TO THEIR DEFENCE, FOR OUR DEFENCE FORCES TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE TOGETHER JOINTLY AS THEY HAVE ALWAYS DONE GOING BACK TO 1914, 1918. WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO INTEROPERATE. BUT THE POINT I'D COME BACK TO IS $2.4 BILLION POTENTIALLY, ISN'T IT, FOR FOUR PLANES? BUT IF YOU ADD INTO THAT` AT THE END OF THE DAY, PART OF THAT PURCHASE WILL BE FOR INFRASTRUCTURAL REASONS AS WELL WHEN THAT DECISION IS MADE AND WHEN THAT DECISION IS ADVISED. SO WHATEVER WE PURCHASE HAS TO BE FOR MILITARY PURPOSE. BUT I THINK ONE OF THE GREAT THINGS ABOUT THIS GOVERNMENT ` AND I MEAN ALL OF THIS GOVERNMENT ` IS THAT IT TOTALLY ACCEPTS AND UNDERSTANDS THE NEED TO EQUIP OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM WELL, TO LOOK AFTER THEM. WE HAVE HAD TOO MANY EXAMPLES IN THE PAST WHERE PROCUREMENT DECISIONS HAVE BEEN THE WRONG DECISIONS, WHERE WE HAVE TAKEN A COMMERCIAL OPTION ONLY TO FIND THAT IT DOESN'T WORK THERE IN THE MILITARY ROLE. IN FACT, SOME OF THEM DON'T EVEN WORK IN THE CIVILIAN ROLE. WE'RE NOT GOING TO CUT CORNERS. YOU'RE SAYING, ESSENTIALLY, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET SOMETHING UNTRIED. OH, NO, ABSOLUTELY. WHICH MEANS THE JAPANESE PLANES ARE OUT, RIGHT? THE ONE THING THE DEFENCE FORCE HAS LEARNED, UNFORTUNATELY THE HARD WAY, IS THAT WE HAVE MADE PROCUREMENT DECISIONS IN THE PAST THAT HAVE BEEN A COMPROMISE, THAT HAVE BEEN A SHORTCUT BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF MONEY AVAILABLE ` ALL THESE THINGS THAT YOU RAISE ` AND THEY'VE PROVEN TO BE BAD DECISIONS. WHERE WE HAVE GOT OURSELVES INTO PURCHASING PRODUCTS THAT WERE NOT TRIED, NOT TESTED` SO THIS, TO ME, LOOKS LIKE A CRITICAL PURCHASE, THESE P-8S, FOR MANY REASONS. ONE, BECAUSE YOU SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO CUT CORNERS, BUT ALSO IT SENDS A VERY CLEAR SIGNAL, DOESN'T IT, TO OUR PARTNERS AND ALLIES THAT IF WE GO DOWN THAT ROAD, AND, GRANTED, I GET THAT YOU HAVEN'T MADE THE FINAL CABINET DECISION, BUT IF WE GO DOWN THAT ROAD, WE ARE SIGNALLING A CLOSER WORKING RELATIONSHIP, A RELATIONSHIP WHERE WE CAN WORK WITH AUSTRALIA AND THE US IN A CONSTRUCTIVE WAY. SO THAT SIGNALS, TO ME, QUITE A CRITICAL SHIFT. WELL, AND YOU LOOK AT PEOPLE THAT WE PARTNER WITH AND OTHER NATIONS. I GUESS IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT A PROCUREMENT DECISION BASED ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THAT PLATFORM IN THEATRE, HOW MANY OF THEM EXIST THERE? WHAT IS THE CURRENT HISTORIC MAINTENANCE RECORD? WHAT IS THE RECORD OF AVAILABILITY? WHAT IS THE RECORD OF RELIABILITY? HOW HAVE THEY PERFORMED? HAVE THEY UNDERPERFORMED ON SPEC OR ARE THEY NOW EXCEEDING SPEC? THOSE ARE ALL THE QUESTIONS. IF IT ALSO HAPPENS IT ALIGNS PERFECTLY WITH INTEROPERABILITY, THE ABILITY TO CROSS-TRAIN, TO SHARE PILOTS AND CREWS, THEN THAT IS A VERY GOOD THING, AND THAT FITS ALSO WITH THE PROCUREMENT POLICY DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE UNDER THE LAST TERM OF GOVERNMENT. SO, JUST FINALLY BEFORE I MOVE ON FROM THE PLANES, WHAT DO YOU SAY TO NEW ZEALANDERS WHO WILL HEAR AT SOME POINT IN THE NEXT WEEK A PURCHASE, WHATEVER IT IS, OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT HAS TO BE BOOKED UPFRONT, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING. YOU CAN'T JUST WEAVE IT OUT OVER 15 YEARS OR WHATEVER. THE ACCOUNTANTS WANT IT BOOKED UPFRONT. THAT'S MONEY THAT CANNOT BE SPENT FOR NURSES AND TEACHERS. WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THOSE PEOPLE? I THINK NEW ZEALANDERS HAVE A BROADER VIEW THAN THAT VIEW. I THINK NEW ZEALANDERS UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN THEY SEND THEIR SONS AND THEIR DAUGHTERS OFFSHORE IN PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS THAT ARE INCREASINGLY FRAUGHT ` WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO MALI OR SOUTH SUDAN, WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO THE MULTINATIONAL FORCE AND OBSERVERS IN THE SINAI, IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN ` NEW ZEALANDERS WANT TO KNOW THAT KIWIS, WHEN THEY'RE PLACED IN DANGER, TO COME HOME SAFELY. THAT'S WHAT NEW ZEALANDERS FOCUS ON, AND I'M PROUD OF THEM. I'M PROUD OF THIS GOVERNMENT FOR BEING BOLD ENOUGH. SEE, THE PROBLEM WE HAVE HAD IS THAT WHEN YOU HAVE TIMIDITY IN THE RANKS OF CABINET, SUCH AS WE'VE SEEN IN THE LAST NINE YEARS, YOU END UP KICKING A CAN DOWN THE ROAD, AND THEN AIRCRAFT ARE EITHER GROUNDED OR, AT WORSE, THEY FALL OUT OF THE SKY. WE ARE FACING REALITY, AND EVERY NEW ZEALANDER KNOWS THAT. WE DEPLOY TO PAPUA NEW GUINEA FOR A TWO-DAY OPERATION, AND THE AIRCRAFT IS GROUNDED FOR 50% OF THAT TIME BECAUSE IT FAILS. THE PRIME MINISTER DEPLOYS ON PACIFIC RESET, AND THE CREWS ARE WORKING OVERNIGHT TO GET THE AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL SO IT CAN FLY OUT THE NEXT MORNING. ARE YOU GOING TO GET THE $20B THAT WAS PROMISED? ARE YOU GOING TO GET THAT? WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT IN THE COALITION AGREEMENT WITH LABOUR, AND I HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THAT WILL NOT BE HONOURED. BUT THAT IS $20B OVER 30 TO 35 YEARS` WELL, IT WAS OVER 15 YEARS, WASN'T IT? THAT WAS NATIONAL'S PLAN. WELL, YOU'RE LOOKING AT CAPABILITIES THAT DELIVER OVER 30 TO 35 YEARS. HANG ON. LET'S BE CLEAR HERE. ARE YOU SAYING THAT COULD THE TIMEFRAME ON THAT $20B BE EXTENDED? NO. SO, THE CAPABILITY PLAN IS OUT TO 2030. SURE. CORRECT. IT MAY WELL BE THAT UNDER THE REVIEW THAT WE'RE GOING TO KICK OFF THIS MONTH, IT MAY WELL BE THAT WE MIGHT END UP STRETCHING THAT BUY, ITS WHOLE OF LIFE WILL BE 30-35 YEARS. NOW, IF YOU TAKE WHAT SOUNDS LIKE A LARGE SUM OF MONEY, IF IT'S $2B FOR A PLATFORM, AND FACTOR THAT OVER THE 35 YEARS AMOUNT, REALLY, ISN'T IT? OK, LET'S PUT IT IN ANOTHER WAY. YOU'VE TALKED AS A NZ FIRST PARTY, WITH YOUR NZ FIRST HAT ON, THAT YOU WANT TO SEE THE AMOUNT OF SPENDING ON DOUBLED TO, WHAT, 2%. SIMILAR TO AUSTRALIA. YES. HAVE YOU LOOKED AT WHAT THAT WOULD COST TO DO THAT? HAVE YOU LOBBIED FOR THAT? WE DON'T NEED TO. WE DON'T NEED TO. SO WHAT ARE WE AT AT THE MOMENT? IT'S NOT IN THE COALITION AGREEMENT. SO WHAT ARE WE AT AT THE MOMENT? WE'RE UNDER 1%. AND ARE WE GOING TO GET OVER 1%? WELL, IT'S NOT IN THE COALITION AGREEMENT. PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND. CORIN, YOU'RE A MAN I RESPECT. MEDIA NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS A COALITION GOVERNMENT WITH A COALITION AGREEMENT. IT'S IS NOT THE LABOUR PARTY MANIFESTO. IT IS NOT THE NZ FIRST MANIFESTO. IT IS THE COALITION AGREEMENT. NZ FIRST WOULD DEARLY LOVE TO HAVE EXPENDITURE UP TO 2% OF THE GDP. LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT` BUT YOU AIN'T GONNA GET IT. IT DIDN'T COME THROUGH IN THE COALITION AGREEMENT. IT'S NOT THERE. BUT THERE'S NOTHING TO STOP YOU, FOR EXAMPLE, ASKING DEFENCE TO HAVE A LOOK AT WHETHER WE COULD BRING BACK THE STRIKE CAPABILITY FOR AIR FORCE. OH, YEAH, I KNOW` WHICH YOU WANT. ABSOLUTELY. OUR PARTY WOULD LIKE THAT, BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN THIS TERM AND NOR AM I FOCUSED ON THAT. ARE THERE OTHER WAYS TO SAVE MONEY? COULD YOU LOOK, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH OUR MARITIME SURVEILLANCE, AT DRONES? LOOK, IF YOU LOOK INTO THE CAPABILITY PLAN AND IF YOU LOOK AT OTHER PAPERS THAT WERE PRODUCED BY THE OTHER GOVERNMENT, THAT WHOLE COMPATIBLE CAPABILITY MENTIONS THE POTENTIAL USE OF DRONES, THE POTENTIAL USE OF SATELLITES, THE POTENTIAL USE OF SMALLER AIRCRAFT DESIGNED TO MEET THAT LOWER LEVEL OF SURVEILLANCE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT. THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT ARE STILL` SO YOU'RE OPEN TO DRONES, OPEN TO SATELLITES? THE REVIEW OF THE CAPABILITY PLAN WHICH WE'RE GOING TO KICK OFF THIS MONTH WILL LOOK AT ALL OF THOSE AVENUES, AND I FULLY EXPECT DEFENCE FORCE PERSONNEL TO BE TALKING ABOUT THAT AND WHAT OPPORTUNITIES EXIST IN THERE. SEND US YOUR THOUGHTS. WE'RE ON TWITTER @NZQANDA. YOU CAN EMAIL US AT Q+A@TVNZ.CO.NZ WE'LL BRING IN OUR PANEL AFTER THE BREAK, AND WE'VE GOT MORE ON LAST WEEK'S STORY ABOUT TRANSGENDER RIGHTS. THE DEBATE CONTINUED LONG AFTER WE AIRED ` AN UPDATE ON THAT AFTER THE BREAK. LET'S BRING IN OUR PANEL ` POLITICAL SCIENTIST DR JENNIFER CURTIN FROM AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY; GREENPEACE NZ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DR RUSSEL NORMAN; FRAN O'SULLIVAN, HEAD OF BUSINESS FOR NZME. Welcome to you all. Fran, you have been a long-time observer of China in New Zealand. Will China be upset at the language being explicit about what they are doing in the Pacific and human rights? China has been playing a more aggressive game with our diplomats in recent months. It is time New Zealand stood our ground. It is going to be of value space foreign policy. We need to have straight talking over South China Sea. That will cause some wrinkles in the relationship. Ron Mark and Winston Peters have talked about it behind-the-scenes. It signals to the US and Australia that we are not going to be seen as a vassal state of China. That has been the concern out of those nations in recent times. Jennifer, we have talked about China influence. Is this a push back at the criticism that has risen? It is push back against criticism from here and Australia about being too soft in not being explicit enough. When we saw the defence White Paper last year, there was an allusion to China. Nothing was said. In this statement it was clear. There is a page dedicated to the risks. The strength of our relationship of China, but also risks with China's rise economically and what that means militarily. It is about shoring up this reaction to China. It is about shoring up our relationship with Australia. Russell, you have had tussles with the Chinese government in the past over Tibet. Have we been to quite on this issue? The concerns raised are legitimate and it is important. What concerns me about the document as that we are flip-flopping back to the US. We have said China no, we will flip flop back to the US. One of the underlying themes of the paper is about protecting and international rules-based system. Who is tearing up the international rule based system is Donald Trump. Who is ripping it up? At the moment Donald Trump is doing a trade war in ripped up the deal with Iran. At that moment we have attached ourselves back to the US. They do talk about that in the paper. But there isn't much discussion or critique of the current US Administration and what they are doing to the international rules-based system. This is the point we have gotten to with the planes. It could be these US Boeing planes. They are warplanes. There is a point to that. One point coming through loud and clear if you go back to 2001, Helen Clark said we were benign. That is long gone. One of the interesting issues as the trap of if you get a rise in power about to displace an old power. There has been some interesting work done by Harvard, which has informed work out of the Pentagon and Australia. 12/16 cases in the last 500 years war has broken out. It could be over concern about Taiwan or something else. This is what Winston Peters has referred to in some of the speeches as a period of potential existential threat. He uses this most dangerous time in 70 years, institutions under attack the United States, and the rise of a new power, which the US is not prepared for. He talked about New Zealand being self-reliant. That comes back to the issue about China and 20% of our exports going there. We expose ourselves if we attack them. There is an economic market that says to be quieter. This argument about being frank and upfront is important in that broader diplomatic network. We have been seeing by the Australians that their domestic policies are hard New Zealand. They think we focus too much about foreign policy on trade and not enough on defence. We talk in all our documents about them being our friends, but they see us as free riders in this relationship. If we want to sort out our relationship with Australia and if Peters is going to go in and say you can't lock up our 17 year old children, if he wants to have the strength and those statements, in the government more generally, then we have to be seen to be doing defence. Russell, if you look at the defence White Paper, there is a question why we would need to buy those warplanes. Well the greens be comfortable ` because they will have to sign off with that decision? They are not in cabinet. The option they have is, if it is about Maritain surveillance in the Pacific, you don't need warplanes. You could have much cheaper plans. As you made the point, it is about interoperability and aligning with the US. We are going to spend a lot more money to align with the US war machine. One point in the paper was climate change. One of the key threats facing us is the impact of climate change in the Pacific. We have the US Administration doing everything they can to stop progress on climate change. If we think change is a threats, we should be stronger. It is really important first step in that regard. It is important to our role in the Pacific. One thing I would say in response to this is a pandering to the US is in the document there is a clear statement about the rise of populism and the risks associated with populism and what that means for potential flicked potentially. Whilst they are not out in the US as complicit in this new and secure environment, it is in the document. In a way, it is ironic that it is the New Zealand first partner in the government that is calling up populism as something that is high risk. It is there, and we have to acknowledge that. Fran, Ron Mark is military and passionate about defence. Is that right? If you look at potentially that we might be heading toward a perfect storm, as you say climate change, refugees, population projections, China's 16 of the world as it currently stands. Climate change, what will that do? There are so many issues at the moment. We have two be ready for anything. It is being combat ready. He has not suggested we will march after war, but he has changed the language. It has changed from being focused on peace keeping. We shore up other people that get into fights. That is how it has been projected in recent years. US has in at war for a long time. A lot of blood and shoring up the Middle East and not elsewhere. The former US Secretary of State said he was one of the authors of Asia against the US. That never happen because they were fixated on the Middle East. There has been some interesting projections, there is a case? China has taken some steps on the South China Sea. New Zealand hasn't been belligerent in the way that Julie Bishop and others have been. That was a realism to a degree. But it was also not aggressive. It's not like China is ripping up the international order; it is trump. The US just pulled out of the UN subcommittees. China is the one that is trying to obey most of the rule of international. Will they buy into the levels of spending? It depends how much that general public has taken on board in terms of what the last government was promising, which was $20 billion. While we haven't seen the full commitment yet from this government, we don't know from the election surveys how people feel about military expenditure in large amounts of hardware being purchased. It has been a generation since we last had major purchases. LAST WEEK, WE BROUGHT YOU A STORY ABOUT A TRANS WOMAN, PENELOPY MANSELL, WHO WAS REFUSED MEMBERSHIP AT A WOMEN'S-ONLY GYM IN WELLINGTON. WE GOT A LOT OF FEEDBACK ON THIS ISSUE. WHILE THERE WAS A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR PENELOPY, WHENA'S REPORT HIGHLIGHTED THE FACT THAT TRANS RIGHTS ISSUES ARE NOT SIMPLY A BATTLE BETWEEN THE LIBERAL LEFT AND CONSERVATIVE RIGHT. SOME FEMINISTS ARE CONCERNED TRANS RIGHTS WILL COMPROMISE THEIR OWN. I'VE HAD A LOT OF SUPPORTIVE RESPONSIVE AFTER APPEARING. I THINK A LOT OF WOMEN ARE RELIEVED TO SEE THE FEMINIST POSITION I THINK A LOT OF WOMEN ARE RELIEVED TO SEE THE FEMINIST POSITION BEING AIRED FINALLY, BUT OBVIOUSLY, ALSO A LOT OF BACKLASH. BUT THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF WOMEN ISSUED A PRESS RELEASE SAYING PITTING TRANS WOMEN AGAINST WOMEN ASSIGNED FEMALE AT BIRTH WAS 'DANGEROUS'. IT STATED THAT TRANS WOMEN'S RIGHTS ARE WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND WOMEN'S RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS. MEANWHILE, THE WOMEN'S-ONLY GYM AT THE CENTRE OF OUR STORY TOLD US THAT THE ABUSE THEY HAD BEEN RECEIVING HAD STOPPED. THEY'VE HAD A LOT OF SUPPORT THIS WEEK AND WERE NOW WAITING TO HEAR BACK FROM THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. AFTER THE BREAK ` MINISTER FOR WOMEN, JULIE ANNE GENTER. SHE'S SET AN AMBITIOUS GOAL FOR EQUAL NUMBERS OF MEN AND WOMEN ON ALL STATE SECTOR BOARDS, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PRIVATE SECTOR, WHERE WOMEN'S REPRESENTATION IS MUCH WORSE? WELCOME BACK, AND GOOD MORNING TO THE MINISTER FOR WOMEN, JULIE ANNE GENTER. Before we get into issue around boards, the issue of transgender rights for women. What is your position on this issue? I very much agree with the National Council of women. Trends women are women. Feminism is about equality for everyone. It is absolutely our role to champion the rights of everyone. When the likes of Germaine Greer and those types of feminists push back, what do we make of it? The last thing we need to be doing is putting more barriers in the place of people who are already facing significant discrimination that white women might experience. When you get tough and bring in a quote on private-sector boards? We have to start with what we can control, but setting a target in making the explicit decision to go and look for talented women works. We have made it to 45.7%. We are increasing the target. The last government reduced it to 45 from 50. We are increasing it to 50% across all boards. We will see where the private sector has got to. When you raise the issue about older white men on boards there was a big backlash. If you were good to go down the road of a quota you could probably expect a backlash as well. Why do you think men reacted that way to your comments? I think those comments were not reported exactly as I said them. What I said was that 81% of people on private-sector boards in New Zealand are men and mostly white and over a certain age. Some of them will have to move on if we going to get genuine diversity. I don't think that there is no role for them. They could have 50% of roles on the boards. But the difference between 50% and 80% is quite a lot. More diverse groups make better decisions. The Westpac report clearly shows that. But are you saying that some of those men got into those positions because they were white men? I think the reason that there is not diversity on boards is because we have not actively sought to overturn the status quo, which is a result of historical bias and discrimination. Through attrition people can be replaced. There is a role for men to play in terms of identifying people they can mental or and bring on, the key question though is who is going to be responsible for this. The private sector is responsible for making those changes. But they are going to have to get there themselves. You will not force them to do it. The evidence is mixed on how successful that is. Quotas have been successful in some places but they can also have perverse consequences. Let's start with putting out the challenge. NZ X did have a diversity policy that they released. This has increased diversity to some extent. We are awaiting the next report. If they are not going to make progress and it was that at 19%, we might have to start thinking about ways government can incentivise them. There will be a range of tools available, but we want to do what's most effective. Whatever will be most effective at motivating that change and ensuring it doesn't have any perverse consequences. I want to talk about something that's very interesting. It is our report to the UN about the progress that we are making in terms of discrimination against women. You would have been going there today to make reports to the UN. It seems that there are many areas when not making progress, particularly around violence towards the women. What will we be saying to the UN? We have sent my colleague, Jan Logie. The new government made a huge commitment, 76 million, towards supporting women's refuge. We have a working group plan to reduce violence against women. I think that the Convention on the elimination of discrimination against women is a fantastic opportunity for us to show leadership in the world and own up to where we haven't been good enough. One area that was raised by the National Council of women was the issue of gender budgets or gender analysis. If the government proposes a law or some new spending, it would be assessed as to whether it had positive benefits for women or negative and then that was clearly explicitly stated. Will you go down that road? I think gender budgeting has shown to be effective overseas. It shows how policies and spending affect people. It can highlight inequalities that we might not notice otherwise. New Zealand has laid behind other countries on this. I have been discussing with the Minister of Finance how we can implement this. We want to take a much more holistic approach to analysing how our policies and spending are affecting people. We know there is still quite a bit of inequality in our society. Some of it is around gender. A lot of it is around Maori and Pacific outcomes. If you were to put into the budget that each piece of spending needs to analyse how it will affect gender, would you also do that was not in Pacific issues? Everyone wants this to be a country where everyone has great outcomes and great opportunities, and we are not there yet. The only way we will get there as if we take an objective approach to analysing and being real about how government spending is addressing these problems. Would it be all legislation? We already look at the impact on gender, people with disabilities and someone with legislation. A lot of other countries do a more robust analysis than we do. We need to make the analysis more meaningful. One area where it seems Jackie blue and others have raised concern is that the top-level CEOs have kind of moved around in the jobs. Those jobs were not even advertised. I have had extensive discussions with the State services Commissioner and I am completely confident that he has a plan to get to gender equality in the top layers of the public sector. As the Minister of women you can ever view on that. We are in the process of trying to respond to a lot of change. This government has come in want to change a lot of things and there will be five or six new vacancies at the very top. We are at 45 or 47% of the top three layers of senior management are women. The key thing is making sure that it's balanced in terms of responsibility and job size. I am confident that the Commissioner has a plan and will achieve gender equality in the top three layers of senior management. Finally, you are all set and ready to go. I am done with Parliament. I will be very close to the due date after a two week recess. LOTS TO TALK ABOUT WITH THE PANEL AFTER THE BREAK. Welcome back. Let's get the panel into some of these issues. One that struck me was the issue of she certainly seemed open to the idea of gender budgets, which was some sort of proper analysis of whether a spending priority would help women or disadvantage them. This is something that has really been taken up in Europe. A lot of the OECD writings on this really promoting it out of those countries. Canada is also leading the charge. It's something that we know Treasury have worked written a working paper on. It can be implemented in a slow way, so you can have analysis of your expenditures in advance of putting your proposals to Treasury forward. Or you can do an analysis of past budgets. What would be the outcome of this? It is a more efficient way of actually allocating resource. What we have to remember is when we are talking about gender, we are not just talking about women. We are talking about women relative to men or different groups of women relative to different groups of men. A good gender analysis would enable you to take account of diverse groups of women who are missing out, but also in areas like mental health for example or all areas of suicide, we would reveal how expenditure might be disadvantage in men. So it would be able to target the money better. Fran, do you think this is going to fly? National was not interested in this under the Clark government. The trick would be to get it in while this government is an. It takes a government that is more revolutionary to move on the sorts of areas. Do think this is something that is worthwhile in terms of a way of looking at policy? If you do it for gender, why wouldn't you do if other groups that are also disadvantaged? And then you look across all the cohorts from age to whatever. It is probably worthwhile having a look. It is so radical from the status quo even though it is happening in Europe. We are pretty slow in these areas. She didn't rule out the possibility of some quotas in terms of the private sector. Which means more of her pale white stale men will have to move over if that is the case. It is an interesting issue. A lot of men are in the vanguard in the corporate sector are champions for change. There are quotas that have worked elsewhere in France and other places, but so far here overall I don't think it's going to get there without a push. Russell, what do you think? It is certainly moving pretty slowly at the moment in terms of the private sector. What she was saying in the interview was that it was kind of a threat of looking at quotas if they don't get movement through using a more gentle means in the private sector. On the gender analysis of government interventionsm the value in it as if we all agree that if we want to improve gender balance in our society and we look at a piece of legislation or a budget proposal that says it's really bad for women, there is power in that. If you don't do the analysis then it can just slip through. There is power in just doing the analysis. I wouldn't dare to suggest what might be the analysis in terms of $2 billion in warplanes being spent instead of on nurses and teachers. Does that then open a real can of worms? If you use that military example? While you should look at it. Why not? It's also not just about women. We can look at the impact of government policies on other groups. What is the impact for Maori and Pacific people of specific policies? Are we behind as a country on these issues? We are going to front up to the UN on how we are making progress. Are we perhaps not quite as good as we think we are? I think the UN's questions back to the government they have had for five months to put together the responses. There are a lot of questions of us in there. If we are not going to use legislation to close the gender pay gap, what are we going to do? The new government is now armed with lots of responses to that. We look good on some measures, like this global gender Gap report that the world economic Forum puts out. But the reason why we are high and that is because we have 30% women in cabinets and have had since Helen Clark. The way they put those measures together overshadows the fact that actually we still have a gender pay gap. Some people don't like the UN though, do they? It raises concerns about abortion in terms of it being in the health act. There will be some in New Zealand who are uncomfortable with that. Why is the UN asking about that? We signed up to CEDOR, we promised we would be open to scrutiny every five years. We can explain why we don't want to do things the way they have suggested that we do. Ultimately we have sovereignty over our domestic policy and law. But this is holding us to account and asking for a please explain. There are some who don't like the UN preaching to us. But I think getting back to the fundamental question of the advancement of women, most advancement here has come after a huge amount of activism by women who have also managed to enlist male protagonists to support the change. One of the things we are starting to see in corporate sector the more female executives. Typically boards come from people who have held more high roles. Women on boards of come in from advisory firms and so forth. There are not a lot of people who have driven large P&L. We are seeing enlightened CEOs shifting people out of those staffing roles and getting them to run big chunks of the business. You just can't pole vault people in their. There is a genuinely held belief that it helps if you have a gender balance on your board. At every step of the way the banks have properly been quite enlightened by insisting that at every step of the way, you should put women in the works. You have to go out and find that woman. LOOK AT WHENA'S LATEST TE TARI. THIS WEEK SHE'S VISITING THE OFFICE OF PAKURANGA MP SIMEON BROWN, THE YOUNGEST NATIONAL MP AND THE SECOND YOUNGEST MP IN THIS PARLIAMENT. IT JUST LOOKS OUT TO A GREY WALL. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT? I KNOW. I KNOW. WELL, LOOK, I'M A FIRST-TERM MP, AND` BUT LOOK ` YOU'VE GOT AN ESCAPE LADDER. HAVE YOU SEEN THAT? I DO. I'VE GOT AN ESCAPE LADDER UP ON TO THE ROOF OF PARLIAMENT. AND, OF COURSE, THE SUN SHINES THROUGH THERE IN THE AFTERNOON, WHICH IS ALWAYS LOVELY. There are actually worse offices than that. AND YOU CAN WATCH THE REST OF THAT EPISODE ON OUR WEBSITE, ALONG WITH MY LATEST BUSINESS PODCAST. THIS WEEK I CATCH UP WITH RYAN JENNINGS, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE BUY NEW ZEALAND MADE CAMPAIGN. HE'S GOT A NEW BOOK ON SOME SUCCESSFUL KIWI BUSINESSES. YOU CAN FIND THAT ON YOUR PODCAST APP AND AT TVNZ.CO.NZ/SHOWS/QANDA THAT'S TVNZ.CO.NZ/SHOWS/QANDA AFTER THE BREAK ` A LOOK BACK IN POLITICAL HISTORY TO WHAT WAS DESCRIBED AS THE BIGGEST SHAKE-UP IN OUR DEFENCE POLICY SINCE WORLD WAR TWO. THE AIR COMBAT FORCE WILL BE DISBANDED. YOUR FEEDBACK NOW REGARDING OUR INTERVIEW WITH THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE RON MARK. FORMER NZ DEFENCE MINISTER MAX BRADFORD HAS SENT US AN EMAIL SAYING THAT RON MARK'S INTERVIEW ON Q&A THIS MORNING IS THE BEST INTERVIEW ON DEFENCE POLICY AND PROCUREMENT HE HAS SEEN IN YEARS. MICHAEL MCKEE ALSO EMAILED SAYING THAT RON MARK IS A DREAMER, CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME, WE ARE 5 MILLION PEOPLE, WE NEED TO PAY WAGES AT HOME BEFORE WE HELP PROP UP AUSTRALIA AND USA, VERY EASY TO SPEND OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. Thank you for your feedback. Let's bring the panel and for some hits and misses. My miss is the Australian Department of foreign affairs announced 15 patrons who represent friendship between Australia and the US. They were all white men. They have retracted the list now and are having another look. My hat is that Angela Merkel house once again managed to patch up her failing coalition. She has had to give some ground on borders. It is an fragile moment for her government but an important one in the sense that she is surrounded by populist rate governments that want to shut down silent seekers coming in altogether. It was an interesting week from the point of view of water. We had an action in the McKenzie. What was interesting was the unity between environmentalists and dairy farmers who agreed that there should not be this giant mega farm. A lot of dairy farmers came out and said there are enough cows in New Zealand now. I think there is a growing consensus that we have reached the limit in terms of dairy farming. This is been going for years though hasn't it? The government has powers. We need a legislated cap on cows. There is a growing consensus, but the government needs to take action. My major must is President Trump for proceeding with the tariffs against China and potentially sparking a trade war that might go beyond China and the US. He said $500 billion at one point, didn't he? At the moment it is only 34 billion but it is still quite a lot of money. My hit is probably China for taking a restrained approach. They retaliated but not too harshly. There is too much at stake for them. There is too much at stake for everybody. AS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT DEFENCE TODAY, IT'S INTERESTING TO LOOK BACK TO ARGUABLY THE BIGGEST SHAKE-UP OF OUR DEFENCE FORCES SINCE WWII. IN 2001, PRIME MINISTER HELEN CLARK ANNOUNCED THAT THE AIR FORCE'S AGING SKYHAWK JETS WOULD NOT BE REPLACED. IT WAS A CONTROVERSIAL DECISION AT THE TIME, CRITICS SAYING NEW ZEALAND WOULD NOW BE BLUDGING OFF ITS ALLIES FOR DEFENCE. THE AIR COMBAT FORCE WILL BE DISBANDED. IT'S THE BIGGEST CHANGE IN NEW ZEALAND DEFENCE STRATEGY SINCE THE 1930S. FEW OTHER WESTERN COUNTRIES EXCEPT THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN DEFEATED IN WAR HAVE GONE THROUGH CHANGES LIKE THIS ` DISARMING, IN ESSENCE, A FULL COMBAT SIDE OF THE ARMED FORCES. THE AIR FORCE IS CERTAINLY DISARMED. WHILE THE LAST GOVERNMENT WANTED TO UPGRADE WITH F-16S, THIS GOVERNMENT HAS GONE THE OTHER WAY. NO STRIKE AIRCRAFT. THE SKYHAWKS ` GONE. SO TOO THE AERMACCHIS FOR TRAINING COMBAT PILOTS. THERE ARE PROBABLY PERSONNEL REDUCTIONS OF UP TO 700 IN THE AIR FORCE. MOST COULD BE TRANSFERRED TO OTHER JOBS IN THE SERVICES, BUT UP TO 250 AIR FORCE REDUNDANCIES. THE NAVY HAS BEEN CLIPPED AS WELL. NO NEW FRIGATE. INSTEAD, A NEW MULTI-PURPOSE VESSEL. AND THE CHARLES UPHAM, THE BELEAGUERED TROOP-CARRYING SHIP, IS NOW TRANSPORTING ORANGES IN THE MED. THAT WILL BE SOLD. THIS NEW DEFENCE PLAN DOES AIM TO DEVELOP ADEQUATE DEPTH IN OUR DEFENCE CAPABILITY RATHER THAN TRY TO CARRY ON WITH INADEQUATE BREADTH. BUT SCRAPPING THE FIGHTERS MEANS WE NEED TO DEPEND ON OTHERS. THIS IS BLUDGING ON OUR NEIGHBOURS, NOT CARRYING OUR SHARE OF THE LOAD. IT'S TERRIBLE. IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING A BLUDGER AND NOT BEING A BLUDGER NOT HAVING 1700 CLAPPED-OUT SKYHAWKS? NOT HAVING THE SKYHAWKS RAISES THE QUESTION ` WHY HAVE AIR BASES? OHAKEA AND WHENUAPAI ARE UNDER REVIEW. BOTH MAY HAVE TO SHARE WITH CIVILIAN OPERATORS TO SURVIVE. AND THE SKYHAWK DECISION WON'T IMPRESS OUR ALLIES. It only took us about 10 years to actually get rid of them. They sat in storage for a very long time. MARAE IS NEXT. REMEMBER Q+A REPEATS AT 11:20 TONIGHT. 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 FAITH HAMBLYN AND CATHERINE DE CHALAIN. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR.