SIMON SHEPHERD: Today on Newshub Nation ` a big week for Justice Minister Andrew Little. Abortion law passes, and he joins us live with an exclusive announcement. Then ` Police Minister Stuart Nash on guns, drugs and Ihumatao, and racism in the police. And the Secretary General of NATO was in New Zealand this week. His message ` get with the cyber warfare programme. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019 Kia ora, good morning. I'm Simon Shepherd, and welcome to Newshub Nation. In a surprise move, Sir Anand Satyanand has resigned as chair of the Royal Commission into Historical Abuse in State Care. The reason given was the increased scale of work. He's accepted a role as Chancellor of the University of Waikato. Some survivors have taken it as further evidence the inquiry can't be trusted. The government will appoint a new chair by November. The Reserve Bank slashed the Official Cash Rate to a record low of 1% this week, noting that central banks around the world are doing the same. Major banks immediately lowered interest rates on mortgages, which were already at record lows. And on Thursday, sweeping reforms to New Zealand's abortion laws passed their first reading in Parliament, with 94 MPs in favour and 23 against. If made law, it will take abortion out of the Crimes Act. The bill will now go before select committee before its second reading. Well, the minister behind that legislation is Justice Minister Andrew Little. He has also recently been in London, where he met with government ministers from the UK, Australia, Canada and America. Part of the agenda ` how to ensure suppression orders are not breached as they were by Google in the Grace Millane case. And the minister joins me now. Thanks for your time this morning. What concerns did you raise with your counterparts from the UK, Canada and Australia? The issue that we had with the Grace Millane case and the fact that Google, through their automated processes, effectively breached the suppression orders over that case. And I simply raised with my counterpart ministers whether they would be interested in exploring the idea that suppression orders issued by New Zealand courts could be enforced in those other jurisdictions. I got a very positive response. They're very keen to explore that, so I've now asked officials in New Zealand to work with officials in those other countries to see whether we can pull something together. But how would it work? Because they are four different jurisdictions; four different kinds of laws. But I think the idea is that ` particularly with suppression orders and given that they are about protecting fair trial rights ` ultimately to ensure that victims know that the person who's harmed them is going to be fully brought to account. We need, in this day and age ` where a news outlet on the other side of the world can have their news story picked up and published in New Zealand ` to be able to protect the suppression orders that are issued by New Zealand courts. So as we do in other areas ` they're called mutual recognition or mutual assistance ` a decision made by a court in New Zealand, through appropriate agreement, can be enforced in other jurisdictions. I'm simply asking for that to happen in relation to suppression orders. So have they agreed to just work on it, or have they agreed to enforce the New Zealand suppression laws, or suppression orders in their jurisdictions? No, we've agreed that we'll set up a streaming work to do that to set that up. As I say, the response was positive. The ministers I spoke to ` the home secretary from the UK, the minister for public order in Canada and Peter Dunn from Australia ` all were quite sympathetic to the view, and Australia's had their own issues with suppression orders being breached offshore. So they all understood the issue. They're very keen to help, and we agreed that we'd put officials together to work on developing something. So, this has all come about because of the Grace Millane case. What would have happened in that case if this had been in place? It would have meant that` Look, it doesn't` the Google problem doesn't go away, and I did meet with a global vice president. We'll talk about that in a sec. But what it would have meant is that we could then have gone after the Daily Mail in the UK, which was the source of the story that was published in New Zealand, and we could have brought them to book in the UK. OK. You didn't raise it with the US, who is also part of this five countries ministerial meeting. Why not? Their arrangements are slightly different; their approach to suppression orders is different. And to be honest, I had a much more limited time with Attorney General William Barr, and I had other priority issues to raise with them` with him, so I didn't get to it. But it was lower in the order of priority, given their jurisprudence on these sorts of issues. OK, so you say that they have a different, kind of, approach to suppression orders, but is it possible to actually work out something with the US? I mean, Google is based there. Eventually, yeah. I think William Barr was very clear about the issues generally about, you know, outfits like Google and the internet platforms that are now big publishers of news. In the context of what we were talking about there, which was about, you know, internet forums being used as a way to promote terrorism or child sexual exploitation online, he is very firm, actually, that countries have to work together to put pressure on those platforms to minimise the harm that they can cause. All the good they do is one thing, but there is a harmful aspect, and we need to work together. Has anything concrete come out of this discussion? Will we see anything by the end of the year? On the issue about suppression orders? Yeah. Yes, I think we will. People have got to go away and do the work, but I'm confident now that there is a pathway that we can be hopeful about. You also met with Google, as you mentioned. Now, are you happier with the way that they're receiving your criticism over this? I got a good hearing from Leslie Miller, who was the global vice president who I met with. She undertook to go back to the headquarters and do further work, and there's no criticism of the local New Zealand representative, but I think she was certainly receptive to the need to make sure that, you know, our justice system is able to have integrity so that we can dispense justice and protect fair trial rights and protect the interests of victims. Yeah, but you've talked about protecting fair trial rights and not being subject to algorithms and machine learning and those kinds of things. I know Google is all about that. I mean, are they willing to change their, sort of, model to the needs of a small country like New Zealand? Well, I've said, look, if they can target, even just amongst New Zealand users of Google, you know, what hotels I might want to go to, what destinations I might want to travel to, I don't think it's beyond them to manage their algorithms in a way that understands that` So if they can target the ads, they can target the suppression orders? They can target the stories that are suitable for publication. How are you going to keep the pressure on Google? Well, I think with the relationships that, you know, we formed with the countries I was meeting with, there is a very clear and cohesive commitment amongst those companies to keep the pressure on those internet and tech and social media platforms for a whole bunch of reasons ` for them to get their moral settings right. OK. Let's move on to abortion legislation. So, it passed its first reading with an overwhelming majority. First of all, did those numbers surprise you in the House? To be honest, they did, yeah. Look, we had done our own assessment of where the numbers would fall; we thought we might have a slim majority. I have to say, once the legislation had been tabled and publicised, the feedback I was getting from all corners of the House was quite positive. So I got a sense, as the week wore on, that maybe these numbers could be quite good. But I was still surprised that it was over 90. OK. You were also surprised by Winston Peters this week. He had a referendum, and then he accused Labour of negotiating in bad faith. So how do you feel about that whole relationship now? Yeah, look, things spun a wee bit out of control. The reality is I had extensive negotiations with Tracey Martin, senior Cabinet minister from New Zealand First. They were constructive; they were good; we arrived at the package; it went right through the Cabinet process. Nothing about referendums was raised, and we got the package out there. Now, I can't account for New Zealand First's collective behaviour. The members of New Zealand First I deal with, when I deal with them one-on-one, are excellent, and Tracey is someone who acts with absolute and utter integrity. I absolutely trust her. We've forged a good relationship, and we'll proceed with this legislation. And, look, if New Zealand First wants to put a referendum up, let them put it up. They stand in the queue with everybody else. Right. But you don't think it's got any chance of passing, for a start, do you? You said that. If I was looking at those numbers, I'd say... You know, I don't think it's got much chance, but... So New Zealand First is just playing politics for its base, and it's hanging Tracey Martin out as a sacrificial lamb for that? That's an interpretation that's being placed on it. I don't care to go there. I'm focused on this legislation now. It's in the hands of the select committee. It's an excellent select committee ` members of all different opinions and from all parties in the House. I think they'll do a good job. What does this behaviour mean for the coalition relationships going into election year? Look, it doesn't mean anything. We've forged a very good relationship. Jacinda Ardern and Winston Peters have an excellent chemistry, in my view. You look at it, and actually, this is a government that has made some very bold decisions, embarked on some bold policies. OK, they've formed a nice relationship, but in the past, you've called Winston a 'blowhard' and various other things. So your particular relationship with Winston Peters is what? Is fine. Absolutely fine. He's a veteran politician, someone who commands an enormous amount of respect. I work very well with New Zealand First MPs. The coalition relationship has a very good heart. All right. So, just one thing more on the abortion legislation. The debate seems to have focused on late-term abortion since you announced the legislation. That's only 1% of abortions. What do you say to people who feel that 20 weeks is too long? The Law Commission recommended 22 weeks. You've even got jurisdictions that have recently enacted changes in New York State and made it 24 weeks. Queensland last year in Australia made it 22 weeks. New South Wales is looking at 22 weeks. 20 weeks is what we are used to here. 98.5%... or, in fact, 99.5% of abortions in New Zealand currently happen within 20 weeks. It's a very small percentage happen after that, and it happens after that because of extreme threat to the woman or to the foetus, and you've got to have that little bit of flexibility. But the extravagant language we get of 'fourth-term abortions' and a woman walking in at 36 weeks saying, 'I want an abortion' ` it just doesn't happen. It's fictional stuff. OK. Can I move on to the dispute at Ihumatao? Now, you've already said that private land and Treaty settlements ` as Treaty minister ` is off the table. So how is this going to be settled, do you think? Well, I have great faith in the Kingitanga and King Tuheitia, who has stamped his imprimatur on the issue. I think as a real expression of tino rangatiratanga is that Maori and all Maori interests are gathering together. The Crown, in my view, has a role to support and to facilitate, but the Crown can't provide a solution, because the number of stakeholders and those with an interest in that piece of land is extensive, even amongst Maoridom. So that discussion needs to happen. I think, um, the occupiers there, SOUL ` they have an absolute passion for protecting the heritage value of the land. I think everybody understands that. But we can't ignore the legal complications and complexities that go with this in relation to the Treaty settlement programme, in relation to land generally. So there's no way that you could buy the land, because that would just open up a can of worms ` that is correct? That would effectively open up 88 settled Treaty agreements, as well as completely change the landscape for about 50 others. OK. Justice, Courts, GCSB, SIS, Treaty negotiations and Pike River ` they're all your portfolios. So why are you carrying such a big load in this coalition government? Well, um, I deal with the issues that turn up on my desk and deal with that. I'm, you know, very satisfied with the responsibilities I've got, the support that I have and the progress that we're making. And is it that range of portfolios that you would hope to carry on with? I'm very happy, given the workload I've got, the support that I have, the leadership that the prime minister and my senior colleagues are providing. I could not be more content. OK. And just quickly ` your party's been the subject of harassment claims, raised by Paula Bennett, actually. You've been leader. You're a senior minister, a senior figure in the Labour Party. Have you been aware of the problems within the Labour Party in terms of treating these kinds of allegations in the past, and are you still aware of that? I was certainly aware of the allegations that came out of the summer camp and the work that went on for us to reflect on what we needed to do to make our meetings and the way we deal with each other respectful and safer. So it is disappointing to see the news about what has happened more recently. There are others who are taking responsibility for reviewing that and making sure that what we do is correct. No one wants to be part of an organisation that has caused harm to others, and we've all got to take an element of responsibility to make sure that we're doing the best we can to create good, safe workplace cultures. All right. Justice Minister Andrew Little, thank you very much for your time. Thank you. And if you've got something to say about what you see on our show, let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram ` NewshubNationNZ. Our Twitter panel this week is Josiah Tualamali'i and Mark Thomas. They're using the hashtag #NationNZ. Or you can go old-school and email us at nation@mediaworks.co.nz. The address... should be on your screen right now. Still to come ` our panel discusses the weekend news and politics. Plus ` Police Minister Stuart Nash on guns, drugs and the police presence at Ihumatao. Welcome back. New law passed this week means police won't charge someone found with drugs unless it's in the public interest. It's part of the government's push to have drug addiction treated as a health issue, not a crime. But what is actually being defined as being 'in the public interest?' I ask police minister Stuart Nash. Addiction is a health issue; it's not a criminal issue. So we're still going really hard on the suppliers and the dealers and the importers. In fact, we've moved synthetics from Psychoactive to Misuse ` life sentence; gives the Police more powers... Right. ...to go after the bad guys. So you've toughened up there, OK. In terms of this particular discretion test, there's talk of an actual test that there may be developed. Can you give us any details of that? Well, that's still being worked through, but Police do have to use the Solicitor General's prosecution guidelines. And, you know, is it minor? What's the harm? Like, for example, if they've arrested someone maybe three times and they haven't taken up any of the options available around addiction services, then they may say, Well, hell. 'Maybe we do need to take another course of action.' But this is a fundamental shift in the way we deal with addiction, keeping in mind` So is there an actual definition of public interest in this? No. Or is it just a broad term? Police will use their discretion, and Police are developing guidelines at the moment, and they'll be sent out. In fact, after the bill was passed, on the Police noticeboard, there was a message from an acting deputy commissioner. They said, 'We are developing guidelines for what this will look like, but this is what the law actually says.' The thing is that discretion is nebulous; it's fallible. It's different to everybody, and so we're going to see a whole range of inconsistency through this, aren't we? No, I don't think we are, and that's wh` It's going to take about a month to come up with guidelines. Keeping in mind you've got the national-health referral service that the Police can use, we've got to make sure we get that right across the country. There's 20 DHBs, as we know. We need to ensure that it is reasonably consistent across the country. Yeah. But the main` You know, and I do want to stress this. The main thing we're doing here is we're saying that those who are caught in the web of addiction aren't necessarily bad people. Yup. They may find themselves just in a really bad situation or they've made a really bad decision. And I understand the purpose of that. I understand the purpose of that, but I'm just trying to drive down into the discretion and the decision-making in a tight situation. One of the things I wanted to ask you about is the fact that Maori are over-represented in, sort of, crime statistics. It's sort of accepted that there's an unconscious bias in the police force. How are you going to ensure that that discretion's applied equally? Yeah, and that's a really good point. Police have accepted there is unconscious bias. They do a lot of training around this at Police College, and they're working to ensure that, you know, you weed out unconscious bias. I mean, it is called unconscious bias because it is unconscious. But, you know, I believe that the cultural change that is taking place in Police at the moment is fantastic in terms of treating everyone equally, and you've seen some cases of this recently up north, actually. OK. I'm just going to say that Maori make up 15% of the population but 40% of apprehension. So the statistics don't belie what you just said. No, look, we're well aware of this, and as a government, you know, one of our` one of the promises we have made is to reduce Maori reoffending. And, you know, we've got some really innovative partnerships going on at the moment. I mean, let me give you an example ` Operation Notus up in Kawerau. When the police went in there, arrested about 40 mobsters. This was a massive P problem. It's a town of 6000. They found about 600 people had some form of addiction to P. So the Police work very closely with Tuhoe. I mean, you know the history of Tuhoe. So this was a real breakthrough to say, 'Hey, how can we work together as a community to solve this problem?' So, you know, what we're saying is ` we can't arrest our way out of this. We need to have various partners ` Well, that's a... NGOs as well as other government agencies. Sure. The relationship of police with Maori ` now let's talk Ihumatao. Mm. Do you believe that the police action this week has eroded that relationship? No, I don't, and the reason I say that is there is very good, proactive dialogue between the Police and the, you know, manawhenua there. And, sure, that's at the end of this week. But at the beginning of this week, we had a tense stand-off, and so that was a bit of a blowout, wasn't it? What happened there is Police got very reliable intelligence that people` the manawhenua or` no, some of the protestors who weren't necessarily involved, you know, or manawhenua were going to try and break that police line. And, you know, Police need to look after the health and well-being and health and safety of their own officers. They brought reinforcements in, and as it turned out, there was a bit of a mobilisation; there was a bit of a stand-off ` dissipated and de-escalated. But Police have a very proactive relationship and dialogue with those up there. So you` Do you stand by the police actions on Monday? Yes, I do. OK, do you believe that you have, uh, sort of softened the approach, then, as a result of this, though? I mean, because if you stand by the police actions, why has then Wally Haumaha had to go in and sort it all out? Because this is what Police do. So Wally didn't go in and say, you know, with a baton and a shield and a helmet and say, 'OK, we're going to sort this out,' in the way that people might have expected in the 1980s. He went in there in complete good faith and said, 'Hey, look, 'how do we work together to ensure that we preserve, you know, public safety, that the protestors can protest?' Because Police, of course, um, understand the right to peaceful protest, and they'll always uphold that right. Yeah` But they are there to uphold the law and enforce the court order. But, you know, in the old days` On Monday night when you saw the protestors come up ` you know, and some, they didn't treat the police particularly well ` what did the police do? They stood there in a really non-confrontational way, whereas I would argue a generation ago, you would've seen police with shields and batons and helmets, and you would've seen protestors, and it could've got really ugly. Do you think that... That has changed. ...the approach that Wally Haumaha has taken this week should've been what you should've taken before Monday? What happened on Monday was Police protecting the health and safety of their men and women who were on the front line. There were about 40 there. They got information ` good intelligence ` that protests ` and some who weren't actually involved in the actual, you know, initial occupation were going to` the numbers were going to swell. They did. They held the line, and now numbers have reduced. So I think Police have been working in a really proactive way, and I back them 100%. And what do you say about the way` I mean, you reference some of the protestors being not particularly nice, basically ` you know, being allegedly racist towards the officers ` what do you say to those protestors? That is not the way to conduct protest in this country. I mean, I've seen a video where a guy went up to an Indian police officer ` well, he looked like he was from Indian extraction ` and racially abused him. Now, that is just totally unacceptable. And what did the officer do? He just stood there and did his job, and I thought that just epitomised how professional the police are these days. Very proud of the police service ` you know, they really do do a fantastic job. So your message to those kinds of protestors is what? Is, you know, if that's the way you're going to conduct protest, I think you're going to lose good faith, if you've got any at the moment, but, you know, Police always will back the right for peaceful protest, without a question of a doubt. Okay, I want to move on to the gun buy-back. Now, today marks four weeks of community firearm collection events. How many guns collected? How much have you spent? We've collected just under 9500. Just under 20,000 have actually been registered. We spent about $17.2 million. Okay. You forecast a spend of $150 million for this. Is it tracking below expectations? Are people not actually handing their stuff in? Well, what we're finding is people are handing stuff in. What we always said is, you know, one of the problems of not having any formal register is we just have no idea how many firearms are out there. We did know there's about 14,300, what they call, military-style semi-automatics, because those weapons did actually have to be registered. Yup. But in terms of your AK-47 and your AR-15 ` the type of weapons that were used last weekend in the States for both those massacres ` you used to be able to buy those with your stock-standard firearms licence, but we have no` They're now banned. Yep. We have no idea how many are out there. The Council of Firearm Owners says that a large number of firearms parts and accessories were sort of left of the list, because it was a bit rushed. What do you say to that? No, I don't` I don't agree with that. I think the Police have done an incredible job ` very professional, and you talk to anyone` And, you know, Mike Clement ` who's the deputy commissioner responsible for this ` on the first couple of days, he was down in Christchurch, and he said he deliberately sought out people who had a negative experience and couldn't find one. There's a very well-known gun dealer, for example, who said he has been looking for negative stories and can't find one. So` So there's no concern of a sort of pushback? Because at the time it was announced, frustrated gun owners were out there. One even used the term 'revolution'. Has there been any sign of that whatsoever? Well, 'revolution' was used by one gentleman, and he decided that probably wasn't a particularly apt term to use. Mm. But the other thing that we do say to those who believe they've got a banned firearm that isn't on the list ` give the Police a call, and, you know, and if it isn't on the list, then Police will do whatever they can to get it on the list. So this is a` this is a moving thing, so it's not a list that we've set in stone and nothing will ever change. Right. And Police are being, I believe, really responsive to what they're seeing out there. Do you think that people are actually safer because of this gun buy-back? Or should you be focusing on criminal activity and gangs' possession of firearms? We're doing both; it's not either/or. I think this will make our community safer. And are you focusing on the right kind of firearms? Because a lot of the 105 gun-related homicides ` as a report by Stuff found ` was basically, two-thirds were .22 rifles or shotguns, not the semi-automatics. Look, any gun can kill. One bullet can kill someone. But, you know, again, I'll reference the last two massacres in the States. Both were AK-47, AR-15. Both those guns used to be legal in this country; now they're banned, and there is a reason ` because these are firearms specifically designed to kill people. Your .303, you know, that's a hunting rifle; your .22 ` rabbits. So what we have done is we've left firearms in place that we know are tools for the trade or are used for recreational hunting. The guns that are designed to kill people, we don't think there's a place for them` OK, your coalition agreement with New Zealand First says you have to investigate a volunteer rural constabulary. Is that actually going to happen? Or is it just a pie in the sky? No, so what I've said at the moment is, you know, we're putting 1800 officers into our community. Well, yeah, but you've only got 800 so far. Is that right ` only 800 extra officers? We've trained 1500. But they're not actually out there? No, you know, the trained 1500 are out there. But` 1500 extra officers? No, new officers. Right. There's about 800 extra officers out there,... Yeah. ...because there's a bit of attrition. It's some of the lowest in the state sector. Are you going to put a rural voluntary constabulary out there as per New Zealand First's wish? No, what I'm going to do is once those 1800 are rolled out ` and a significant amount are going into our rural and provincial areas ` we'll look at if there is still a need after that for an auxiliary force. And if there is, then we will investigate it. If there isn't ` because 1800 is a hell of a lot of cops into our rural and provincial areas ` then we'll probably pull back from that, but always done in consultation with New Zealand First. Police Minister, thank you very much for your time. Thanks, Simon ` much appreciated. All right, up next ` our panel; Paula Penfold, Kylee Quince, and Brigitte Morten on the news and politics of the week. Plus, the Chinese Embassy response to claims made on this show about alleged Chinese government interference in the lives of New Zealanders. Welcome back. The Chinese Embassy has rejected claims its staff have made threatening phone calls to outspoken Chinese living in New Zealand. This follows our report on a Uyghur man who said he'd been threatened here for questioning the whereabouts of his family back in China. Shawudun Abdul-Gopur believes his relatives are among the one million Uyghurs being detained in Chinese prison camps. China says the camps are 're-education schools', and they even offered to show Newshub Nation the facilities for ourselves. As Mike Wesley-Smith reports, questions remain over their denials. Two weeks ago Shawudun Abdul-Gopur invited us into the personal hell he says his life has become. It's been three years since he last heard from his mother and brothers back in China. Shawudun believes his family are being held without charge in the Chinese province of Xinjiang, simply for being Uyghur ` a Muslim minority group. It's believed up to a million people are being detained in what the United Nations calls internment camps run by the Chinese government. Shawudun is one of a growing number of Chinese people across the world pleading for protection from the international community. This Uyghur man we will call Ali is another. VOICE MODULATION: Since 2016, I know some of my cousins and a few of my relatives were taken. He is so concerned for his family's safety that he has asked that we not show his face and re-voice his words. He describes here the last phone call he had with his mother. She struggled to speak, and I just asked, 'Should I not call?' And she said yes. She prayed for me to be safe, and then said, 'Please don't call.' That was the last message. Ali has no idea what happened to his family after that. I can't call them. I don't know. And he told us Chinese police pressured his relatives back in China to send him threatening messages saying,` 'Whatever you do, we are watching you here. 'You be careful.' The Chinese Embassy denies these claims, and says it strictly follows the laws of New Zealand. It says the threatening phone calls were actually a phone scam, had nothing to do with them, and that they reported it to police late last year. Police have confirmed that Chinese officials notified them about what they said was a problem with fraudulent callers claiming to be from the Chinese Embassy. Enquiries indicated that the calls were coming from overseas locations, which police say limited their ability to take any action. China under Xi Jinping is being ruled in crisis-mode. So the public sphere is very strictly controlled. Ethnic minorities, religious groups are under strict control. Professor Anne-Marie Brady is an expert on China. She, too, has been told by New Zealand Uyghurs that they've been harassed by officials linked to the Chinese government. The government's really concerned about the diaspora as well, the 60 million-plus Chinese living abroad, because potentially they could be supporting Chinese dissidents or a critical perspective on China. So China's political obsession is having an impact on our political environment because our New Zealand Chinese people are finding that their freedom of speech or freedom of association is being affected. We are a group of University of Auckland students from Hong Kong who love the city whole-heartedly. This week our government again raised concerns with Chinese officials. This time about the alleged interference with anti-China protests on New Zealand university campuses. It's an allegation denied by the embassy. We want countries here to respect the rule of law and our freedom of speech, and we expect every country, no matter how big or small, to understand that. Do you think they understand that now? I hope so, yes. The rebuke follows New Zealand joining more than 20 other countries in July to sign a letter to the United Nations, raising objections to the camps and human rights violations occurring in Xinjiang. The reports that are coming out are of torture and forced labour in these camps. People are not there voluntarily. People haven't committed any crimes. They've been profiled. People who've got family members overseas are in these camps ` just for having a family member overseas. So the analogies of concentration camps do come to mind. But the Chinese government has always pushed back against such descriptions of its facilities. The Chinese Embassy here declined to be interviewed for this story, but sent us a statement saying that, 'In Xinjiang, the Chinese government runs education centres to re-educate people guilty of minor crimes 'and to eradicate terrorism.' I don't think over a million Uyghurs have committed terrorist attacks. There have been some really horrific terror attacks in China, and obviously those people should be put before the criminal court. As I understand, they have been. Last week the Embassy invited Newshub Nation to travel to China to visit the camps. Other Western media agencies have already made that trip, including the BBC, which sent a film crew to Xinjiang in 2019. Is it your choice to be here? We showed this story to Ali and Shawudun. The are liars. Evil, deceitful. They don't have an ethical code. None of the detainees featured in this story have been charged or convicted of any crimes. Chinese officials told the BBC that's because they can predict people's guilt in advance. And professor Anne-Marie Brady remains sceptical of how the Chinese government is portraying the camps to the Western media and to the world. There is a massive effort involved. It's been going on for quite some years. It's called 'big propaganda' ` (SPEAKS CHINESE), and this project is about trying to re-shape global perceptions about China, to set the frames about China. It's now up to New Zealanders and the New Zealand government to decide what to believe about what is really happening to the Uyghur people. As for Shawudun, he had this simple challenge to Chinese authorities. Well, I'm joined now by our panel. Stuff Circuit journalist Paula Penfold, AUT associate professor, Khylee Quince, and Silvereye Communications, Brigitte Morten. Thank you for your time this morning. Paula, a million Uyghurs are being held in Chinese prison camps, and we've signed ` the Prime Minister's signed ` a group expressing their concern to the UN, but how much influence could we really have as a small nation? Yeah, that's the question, isn't it? But may I also pay respect to the men who spoke out on Mike Wesley-Smith's story. What a horrible situation they and their family members find themselves in. Good on them for having the courage to speak out. Absolutely that's the question, especially when relations are so tricky, so delicate, at the moment. In terms of any kind of effort that we might make on their behalf, we leave ourselves exposed in terms of those other important issues like trade. Well, that's right. It's a balancing-act there, isn't it, Brigitte? Do you think there's a reluctance to call China out? I mean, Winston Peters was saying things there, and Jacinda Ardern was quite careful in her words. Tricky. Yeah, and there's definitely a reluctance to call China out. That's probably the appropriate balance. I think we need to be appreciative of the fact that within the boundaries of our country, people do have the ability to have this freedom of expression and do have the ability to speak to the media and expose these issues. That's something that we, really, should be appreciative of. Well, that's true. There seems to be a growing number of complaints, more broadly, Khylee, from Chinese New Zealanders that the Chinese government is trying to influence or harass them right here in New Zealand. What should we make of that? So, as Brigitte said, she's flagged the fact that we do have the right of freedom of expression, political opinion and association in New Zealand, although that seems to be encroached upon by the criticism and attempted influence of the Chinese, in respect of both Auckland universities, both of which I've worked at and one I'm currently working at. And that needs to be strenuously pushed back, and of course, Professor Brady has been subject to personal harassment and intimidation in respect of the work that she does. In the domestic sphere, our universities, and particularly the vice chancellors of those universities, need to be pushing back against the encroachment on university spaces. Are you seeing that pushback or do the dollars influence? Well, the dollars have to influence, don't they? Management, governance of those universities are under pressure, of course, by those external influences. You know, they need to` This should be the place on which there is freedom of expression and association to the` Of all places, that's right. Of all places. OK. If I can move on to the abortion reform legislation this week. Andrew Little was pleasantly surprised by the size of the support. Paula, were you surprised? I was, actually. I thought it might be a little bit closer than that. But, you know, obviously the numbers will dwindle a bit as it passes through the House further. And so I don't think anybody should be complacent about any absolute passage guaranteed here. OK, there was debate, though, this week, when the legislation was revealed, and the debate seems to have centred on the 1% and around the 20-weeks area. So Andrew Little was sort of disappointed about that, Khylee, do you think? I think he hit the nail right on the head there. It's really the tail wagging the dog. If that's the only issue that people can really take, only matter that people can take issue with, then it looks like a pretty robust piece of legislation. It's our first go at reform in 40 years, so I think I'd be pretty happy with that, and I think he probably is too. You also mentioned the tail wagging the dog ` so let's talk about New Zealand First. The eleventh hour, 'Let's have a referendum' call, Brigitte, from New Zealand First. Did they hang Tracey Martin out to dry? Uh, I think they definitely did leave Tracey Martin out to dry. And I think it probably came back to realising at that, sort of, last minute that they do have an older constituency, and some of those would have concerns around how far the reform was going. And they needed to, kind of, fly the flag to say that they were listening. I don't think they're serious that they think that the referendum's going to pass. They've got the opportunity, like everyone else, to put in an SOP, but I think it was pretty much a political move, just to make sure that their base know that they were listening. Paula, what do you take from New Zealand First trying to get in there? It's almost like either a plea to their voter base or an attempt to just say, 'Hey, look at me', really, isn't it? 'Hey, look at me!' Yeah, 'Hey, look at me.' But does it debase the debate? Of course it does, of course it debases the debate. It was an attempt by Winston Peters to show how politically important he is. To show what currency he has. And I think that's a mistake on his part because I think he underestimates the pulse of the nation. He hasn't taken it in terms of the strength of desire for change in this legislation. And were you` I mean, all three of you` Were you surprised` You talk about the pulse of the nation, in terms of this legislation, the overwhelming majority. You say you can't take it for granted, Paula, but... Really, it seems to have gone to a different stage in the nation's collective eyes or thinking. I think the debate was very respectful. Even, you saw from people that were opposing, MPs who were opposing and stakeholders who were opposing, it wasn't that, sort of, level of misinformation and things that we've seen in previous years or you see in other jurisdictions. Having said that, there was some of that. We saw tweets saying, 'Abortion right up till birth.' I mean, those kinds of things which Andrew Little pushed back on. Those bits of misinformation were out there, weren't they, Paula? Yeah, absolutely, and I fear that as it progresses through Select Committee there might be, in terms of the information coming in from public submissions, more misinformation. And that would be the plea that I would make, actually, is that this needs to be a respectful and factual-based discussion because the rhetoric around the late-term abortions is just incredibly disrespectful, for one thing, to the women who have had to undergo those, and who are being demonised now because of it. And they presumably already feel pretty bad. Let's keep this clean and factual. OK. Can I just move on to other kinds of facts, which are suppression orders. Khylee, I'm going to bring you in here. I mean, you have experience with the law. Andrew Little's trying to get the Commonwealth counterparts to agree to getting suppression orders made here agreed to in other jurisdictions. That's very hard, isn't it? Extremely difficult. Anything in which we attempt to exert extra-territorial jurisdiction or even mutual enforcement of domestic orders in other jurisdictions, is inherently a difficult thing. And particularly in an age of easy access to information. So` I mean, big up to him to attempt to try and rein in the giant that is Google and the Daily Mail. I mean, you know. Both of those are pretty hard. He didn't include the U.S. in this, so, Paula, do you think it's going to work without the U.S. so far? I mean, yeah, big ups to him, absolutely. But it's really hard to imagine a jurisdiction of that size and disinterest, really, in us and our legal process wanting to be involved in this. I think he's really got a difficult battle ahead. (CHUCKLES) Yeah. And that's not to mention big tech, you know. He's got some engagement from Google so far, but, yeah... I'd like to see a commitment on the table. I mean, and let's talk about Google being so big, big tech, as you say. Brigitte, I mean, you've got four ministers saying, 'Yeah, we're gonna work on it.' Will they actually go, 'Oh, yeah. We're going to take you seriously', or it's just like, 'Oh, god!' I think they'll definitely go away and have a look at it, and they have made that commitment as the minister articulated. But in terms of our laws being able to keep ahead of where the tech companies are, it's almost impossible. So I think we need to be thinking more constructively in terms of working with the tech firms, as opposed to trying to impose things on them ` which may not be, you know, our preferred approach. I think if you're going be realistic about actually using these issues and the way that we want to see them, we're going to have to do it that way. All right, and just quickly ` some drug amendment came through where police are going to have discretion, Khylee, over whether they can charge somebody if they have personal use of drugs. Are you concerned that the police will have this discretion and they will apply it fairly? The police have always been the gatekeeper of the majority of ` you know, the most important gatekeeper in the criminal justice system in New Zealand. There is some concern about the threshold or the discretion test that they're going to apply. They do need to be really rigorous in terms of, you know, assessing whether or not that threshold is appropriate because there are concerns. The overall amendment is a really positive move, and it seems to have passed, really, with a bit of a whimper, which is interesting. But they're talking about developing a test, but there's no detail, Brigitte, of any test as yet. How is this going to operate operationally? And it is kind of confusing because on the one hand you've got the government saying that this is just clarifying the law, and this is a situation that's always been there. And on the other hand you've got Greens MP Chloe Swarbrick saying this is the most transformational reform in 40 years of drug law. And you're like, 'Well, which one is it?' So it's not` And I think that's true. I think as citizens, what we need to know is the laws that will be impacted on us, and when we do interact with the police what are going to be the consequences of that. And the problem is that when you provide that wide discretion without those guidelines, it's really difficult for citizens to know how to act. OK. Paula, just quickly, it is a step towards the government treating these drugs as a health issue not a criminal issue, so that's important? Of course that's important. I mean, it's long overdue. I think, as Khylee has alluded to though, one of the really important aspects is going to be how fairly, including racially, that discretion is applied. OK. All right, from the panel. Thank you very much for your time for the moment. Up next ` hearts on our sleeves in the House this week during debates on abortion law reform. Plus ` NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg on Trump, China, New Zealand and cyber warfare. Welcome back. Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary-General of NATO was in New Zealand this week. He was the Prime Minister of Norway when far-right terrorist Anders Breivik killed 69 people in 2011, and he visited Al Noor Mosque during his visit here. But during his visit, he also got New Zealand to agree to expand its military presence in Afghanistan, so I asked him what the three new roles in Kabul will entail. We know that women are vulnerable in many armed conflicts. One of the main reasons why NATO has gender advisors in all our military operations, including in Afghanistan, is that we will make sure that we are protecting women, but also that we are including women as much as possible in our missions and operations. And, for instance in Afghanistan, this is about also recruiting women to the Afghan security forces, to the police, to the army. And I've seen myself, for instance, Afghan female pilots being trained by NATO trainers, and this is part of the broader picture supporting the role of women in a country like Afghanistan. But in terms of New Zealand's involvement in Afghanistan, will this be the last NATO request or can you see that happening again in 2020 and beyond? That remains to be seen. We are closer to a peace deal, a negotiated political settlement, in Afghanistan now than we have been ever before. At the same time, I think there is a need for continued support for Afghans. We strongly believe that prevention is better than intervention, and that's the reason why we train local forces, train the Afghan forces, to enable them to stabilise their own country. NATO's military presence in Afghanistan is about sending a message to the Taliban that they will never win on the battlefield. They have to sit down at the negotiating table and agree to a political settlement. The good news is that that's exactly what's happening now, and hopefully we will reach an agreement which enables us to reduce our presence. OK. New Zealand is a small, isolated nation with not a very big military presence. What does New Zealand actually offer to NATO, and what does NATO offer to New Zealand? New Zealand is an important partner for NATO. You are far away, but we are faced with the same security challenges, the same threats. Cyber is a global threat, and also the fact that we have more great power competition, and the balance of power in the world is changing, that affects New Zealand, and it affects all NATO allies, therefore I welcome that we are working together. NATO was established post-World War II, and President Donald Trump has called it 'obsolete' now. What do you think about those comments? Well, President Trump has clearly stated that he is a strong supporter of NATO, and he has also stated clearly that NATO is not obsolete, but the most important thing is that the U.S. commitment to NATO is something we see not only in words, but also in deeds. After years of reducing its military presence in Europe, the United States is now increasing its military presence in Europe. And the thing also ` we see the importance of U.S., not only in Europe but in this part of the world. So you're confident the U.S. will remain a supporter of NATO? Absolutely. You mentioned before cyber war and cyber terror. How important is that, in terms of the new face of war, and how NATO is strategizing for it? Cyber, but also new technologies, destructive technologies, in general. They are now changing the nature of warfare as fundamentally as the industrial revolution changed the nature of warfare before the First World War. It's hard to imagine the consequences, and it's obvious that cyber will be an integrated part of any potential armed conflicts in the future. Therefore, we have stepped up our efforts to defend cyber networks, to learn from each other, to share best practices. We also strongly believe that the cooperation we already have with New Zealand on cyber is an area where we can do more together, learn from each other, exercise together, and improve the way we protect our networks in cyber space. What is NATO's position in terms of dealing with China, which is becoming more and more of an assertive power in the South China Sea? China is an important economic partner for New Zealand, for NATO allies, for many countries around the world, and the growth of China has been important for our economic growth, and also for alleviating poverty in China and elsewhere. Having said that, we see the increased military presence of China, we see that China is coming closer, also, to NATO allies because they operate ` for instance ` in cyberspace, they invest heavily in critical infrastructure in many parts of the world. This poses some challenges which we now have to assess and look into the consequences for our security, for the security of our partners like New Zealand, and then find a right balance between utilising the opportunities, but also responding to the challenges we see. Jens Stoltenberg there. Stay with us. We're back after the break. Uh, Khylee, this` The police minister stood by the police strategy at Ihumatao, especially even the standoff on Monday night, do you agree? In terms of this being a response to some kind of perceived ramping up of activity at Ihumatao? Absolutely not. We've had no info` no intel or information about that. It seems to be` This is a tactic that has been used in other similar situations. This is exactly what the law enforcement authorities did in South Dakota in Standing Rock ` is you turn up at night-time, you ramp up, and then you send in Wally Haumaha to do the, sort of, peace-making reconciliation stuff afterwards. No, don't believe it for a minute. OK, so he shouldn't be standing by that tactic? No. Why? Well, I mean, if you're talking about` if there's a fear about a lack of Maori trust in the police, you know, we've got almost 200 years of that, you know. This is` This is just beginning to look like Bastion Point, Pakaitore, Operation 8, Maungapohatu ` you know, where do we stop? You know, they have such a low baseline of trust, and then they act like that. I thought it was completely inappropriate. So what does the panel think should happen in this kind of situation? Paula? I saw an interview the other day with Moana Jackson` do you mean in terms of the police response or` Yeah, yeah, yeah. The police response. I mean, I kind of had` you know, Stuart Nash said that it's not like Bastion Point in terms of that there are no... Shields and things like that, yeah. ...shields and that kind of thing. There is a very different vibe there. It's a very peaceful vibe there, but I mean if the police are in an invidious position, aren't they? Because there is a crown response required in some respect, and they're in the middle to some degree. I agree with Khylee, though, that there ` from what I've seen and heard ` there was no ramping up of any action that required the response the other night. Mm, OK. All right, in terms of the broader Ihumatao negotiations, Brigitte, I mean, can` The government seems to have to sit on the sidelines and say, you know, mana whenua have to sort it out. I mean, is that the right response or should prime minister Jacinda Ardern be there front and centre? Well, I think that probably is the right response, particularly at this time, because if the response is that we're going to be respectful of the dispute and the issue, and hear all the voices, they need to be able to decide, sort of, what that voice is and what they want to say on this. I don't think a government response coming over the top is going to do anything to resolve it; more likely to inflame the situation. And that's what Andrew Little said. Khylee, do you agree? Um, not necessarily. I mean, if we think about` it seems a bit convenient to leave it to ` and I don't like the term 'mana whenua', the term's 'tangata whenua;' mana whenua's the exercise of tangata whenua rights... OK. ...in a territory. But there is a role, I do agree, that he said there's a role in terms of facilitation, and that is the appropriate role of the treaty partner. The treaty partner should not just be leaving iwi groups to scrap it out in terms of Article Two, Rights of Tino Rangatiratanga; Mm. that` that where they are in an unequal position, that is the role of the treaty partner` partner in terms of Article Three ` come in and help facilitate a solution. I think there is good` there is a good case for Ihumatao exceptionalism. Remember, this is a site that was listed as an UNESCO World Heritage site. It doesn't have to be dealt with... Yeah, and yet the government` ...with the Treaty Settlement solution. Well` But that's the way that Andrew Little seems to be focusing on it. He says, you know` As does Minister Henare, and I don't think that that's the case. OK, but negotiations ongoing (CHUCKLES) with that one. Can I point to, um` just move on to another issue this week ` Sir Anand Satyanand, who was the Chair of the Royal Commission to historical abuse. He's stepped down. He's said that the scale of work is just too big now. Paula, do you think it's surprising that the chair's stepped down in the middle of this massive workload? Really surprising. I mean, I have a lot of respect for Sir Anand, and perhaps it's a good thing that he's confident and able to be honest in his assessment of what's coming, but I think it spells trouble for the Commission, because the scale of work required, and the difficulty in engaging with the people who need to be engaged with is going to become even more problematic, and I wonder whether he's` with all due respect, bailing, cos it's just too hard. (LAUGHS) Do you think, Brigitte, that it's not going to be a surprise to him that people who have stories of abuse are not going to be trusting of the Commission now? Well, I think it is really difficult, because it is very delicate in terms of them being` feeling that they have the trust, sort of, construct in which to make their voices heard. You know, up until this point there hasn't been, you know, that availability, and this is the danger with the extension of the scope was that it was always going to be that there was going to be a crowding out, and that it was not going to be proceeding in a nice, sort of, coherent, safe, sort of, manner, and I do think they're absolutely right ` that it does undermine it a little bit in that confidence. So, Khylee, it needs to get back on track. What kind of person is in need to get it back on track? Well, it's a bit of a fear that this is a poisoned chalice, isn't it, (LAUGHS) or a bit of a hospital pass, so I do think it needs to be someone who's in it for the long haul. I think Sir Anand did a good job in terms of setting up, as he said in his exit speech, the` really, the remit and exactly how this was going to run. You need someone really robust who is going to be able to withstand criticism in relation to this not being a safe space for survivors to speak. It's inherently` you're on a hiding to nothing, really. Right. It's an inherently` a difficult kaupapa. Victims of abuse are` they live messy lives, they are complicated stories, and you are going to hear, really, you know... Yeah. ...um, yeah. (CHUCKLES) It's` yeah, I don't know how that's going to end. It's a tough job One you don't want to end up in. It's a tough, tough job. Tough job. All right, we're going to leave it there. Khylee Quince, Paula Penfold and Brigitte Morten ` thank you very much for your time. Thanks, Simon. Well, a vote on abortion reform meant a rare conscience vote in the house this week leading to some emotional speeches from MPs of every party. Here's Finn Hogan with the week that was in parliament. The usual politics were put aside this week, as MPs debated abortion reform not as party members but individuals. The time is right for this debate. The time is right for us to finally put women's dignity and their rights at the centre of this discussion, and I ask as we do so that we do so with dignity. However, one member was forced to tow the party line. Tracey Martin delivering a much different speech than she expected. I was gonna speak about Beverley Williams, my mother's birth mother. I've talked about Beverley in this house before. We never knew Beverley. My mother doesn't really remember Beverley. Beverley left her 2-year-old daughter and 5-year-old son in 1943, and it took well into the 1980s for us to find out what happened to her. (SNIFFLES, GASPS) But that story will have to wait, (ALL MURMUR) because, as often happens in this place, Mr Speaker, events have moved on, and so this speech must change. Despite the gravity of the vote before them, one veteran MP still found a place for a joke at her own expense. I was never placed in that position. I was never in that position, and so I do speak from a position of privilege when it comes to this debate. My mother, though, obviously like Ginny Anderson's mother, like me, had pre-eclampsia, was, you know, almost dead from my sister before me, and when I was` when she was pregnant with me at the age of 39 and I was her sixth child, the doctors recommended an abortion. Many years later, people have thought that they should have gone with that option, (ALL LAUGH) but... I am still here. (LAUGHS) Indeed she is. That's all from us for now. Thank you for watching, and we'll see you again next weekend. Captions by Ella Wheeler, Alex Walker and Annie Curtis Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019 This programme was made with the assistance of the NZ on Air Platinum Fund.