Today, on Newshub Nation ` a letter from the Green Party expressing concern at delays in securing our systems ahead of Election 2020. We ask Justice Minister Andrew Little and author Nikki Hager what it's going to take to get ahead of the game. Then, who owns the water and how much is it going to cost you? We're live with Matthew Tukaki from the Maori authority at the heart of the debate. And she's a mother of five with a fashion business and a chemical engineering degree. Meet Agnes Loheni, the most interesting MP you've never heard of. Kia ora, good morning. I'm Simon Shepherd, and welcome to Newshub Nation. The annual number of suicides has increased yet again, the highest since records began. 685 people took their lives in the year up to July, up from 668 the year before. The number of Maori and Pasifika deaths increased, while suicide by those of European descent reduced. The government boosted funding for mental health by $1.9B in the last budget. A law from the John Key-led National Government that tied MPs' salaries to the average wage is going to be repealed. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern froze MPs' pay last year to prevent a 3% pay rise. The law change will restore independence to the Remuneration Authority. And overseas donations to political parties were thrown back into the spotlight this week, with renewed attention on a $150,000 donation to the National Party from a Chinese businessman via a New Zealand company. The head of the SIS also warned MPs that foreign states are working around our laws in attempts to influence our politics through donations. So what can be done? Normally, after each election, the Justice Select Committee releases a report on how to strengthen our electoral systems for the following election. It's usually completed within a year, but this time around, it's been nearly two years ` still no report. The Green Party is warning that time is now running out for any genuine electoral reform before Election 2020. Co-leader Marama Davidson has sent this- has sent the committee chair, Meka Whaitiri, a hard-hitting letter expressing deep concern about the delay. In it, she reminds the committee that the report is required so that electoral law changes can be made to strengthen our democracy and protect us from outside influence. She warns that the opportunity to implement any changes before the 2019 Local Elections has passed, with the window of opportunity for the 2020 General Elections rapidly closing. Marama Davidson joins me now. Why are you so concerned about the delay? The Greens want to change the rules to electoral reform to ensure ordinary New Zealanders get equal access to an honest democracy, and the Justice Select Committee, by now, should have given us a report to have a look at where we can make those changes to make sure our political system is transparent and is one that people can trust. The committee's aiming to report back probably by the end of the year. Why isn't that good enough? Because we need to be able to allow time to push through some of the solutions to make sure that we're not allowing unelected powers to have influence over our political decisions, and at the moment, our current laws are ripe for dodgy dealing, and so we've got some changes that we've been working hard to get through. Okay, I'll just come to that in a moment. The committee has broadened its scope of work. It's got the local government elections, general elections and foreign interference questions, so they've got a big workload. What's wrong with that? That's good that we have, since October, included political interference, because the minute that big business and outside influence gets their hands on New Zealand politics, it puts the community under threat. We should have seen a report by now. We don't have any Green MP on the Justice Select Committee. That's why I have written. We want to know what is going on. OK, well, so, the head of the SIS says, as you say, 'Donation relationship activity from state actors is spanning the political spectrum,' and you don't have a Green MP on the committee, so are you just feeling shut out of the process? Is this a case of sour grapes? It's really important for New Zealanders to ensure that we've got a democratic system that everyone ` ordinary New Zealanders ` have fair access to so that they have as much influence as big business and big corporation, and so this is change that we've long worked for. This is a position that we've long held. It has just been revealed to us now that the Justice Select Committee is behind where they should be to be able to deliver us the report and do the work to fix up our- strengthen our democratic system. One of the things that your party wants is a total ban on foreign donations, yet the head of the SIS said this week that that just won't work, so what do you say to that? We agree. That's why we're proposing other solutions to fix this up, like putting a ban on foreign donations` sorry, and also to include a $35,000 cap. At the moment, big business can buy influence over our political system. There is no limit to what they can donate. We also want to reduce the amount of secret donations ` anonymous donations ` down to $1,000. At the moment, it's $15,000. We think people deserve to know who's donating to who and what are the strings that are attached. So, what is your fear if there isn't any action soon? And would you like to see the Justice Minister step in and override the Select Committee? I know that the Justice Minister is waiting for the Select Committee. I know that the Select Committee are working to get a timely and judicious report out so that we can start making these changes. The reason why this is important is because the minute big corporations and outside influences get their hands inside New Zealand politics, that threats the best interests of the community, like big oil, who have shown to hamper taking real action against climate change in the US. Big tobacco, even in Australia and the UK, that have steered- Those aren't examples in New Zealand, though. And we don't want to leave that to chance. We need to make sure our laws are not open for dodgy dealing, and currently they are. But isn't there full disclosure already? No, there is not. The limits are very low. So, the limit up to $15,000, you know, that can be kept in secret ` that's not good enough in our view, and certainly we need a cap of $35,000 across the board so that we can even level the playing field for ordinary New Zealanders and their access to democracy. So you want action soon? That's what you want? Absolutely. I think that's what is best for our country. All right. Marama Davidson, thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Listening to that interview is Justice Minister Andrew Little, who is on the phone now. We gave him a copy of the letter that the Greens sent. Minister, what did you think of it? I think Marama Davidson raises some issues that I agree with her on, and that is that the Justice Committee is taking a long time to complete its inquiry into the General Election. It decided to inquire both into the 2016 Local Body Elections and the 2017 General Election at the same time. They've had a big workload anyway, and it has got very slow. I've already introduced some legislation for some changes for next year's election, so we can do Election Day enrolment ` those sorts of things ` but I specifically asked the committee to look into foreign interference and foreign donations. That was nearly a year ago, and we still don't have a report. I am getting concerned about that too, which is why I foreshadowed this week that if I don't see something soon, then I'd be talking to my colleagues in Cabinet about the government simply just taking the next step and taking some action. All right, so when is the deadline for the committee to come back with something or you actually override them and go to Cabinet? Look, if I don't see something in the next, sort of, couple of months, then it's going to be difficult to introduce legislation dealing with the foreign donations issue that allows the public to have a good say on it and a good public debate about it to pass legislation in time for next year's General Election. The regulated period starts some time between June and September, depending on when the election is called for. You want to have a period of time before that that the law applies from, so you've got to have a law passed by, kind of, earlyish next year if it's going to have a meaningful impact on next year's general election. In April, the head of the GSCB warned the committee about the hacking of MP's systems, threats to core electoral systems, pressure on control of diaspora communities by foreign governments ` months ago. Why isn't there a sense of urgency from the committee? The committee is what they call a split committee, so the numbers on each side are even ` Opposition members and Government members ` so there's no majority that allows to, sort of, cut through and make majority decisions. Everything has to be done by agreement, so one member of a committee can effectively veto a decision to progress things or hurry things up, and I think that's part of the challenge that they've got, but in any event, they've got the issue. I've got to be careful as Minister that I don't look like I'm, kind of, interfering in or trying to boss around the committee. They've got a job to do as representatives of the whole of Parliament. I want them to do that. I want them to have a good examination of it, because most of the committee reports come up with good recommendations, but I have to say in the interests of New Zealanders, given what's happening around the rest of the world, people want to know that our General Election processes have integrity, and if we can't do the things that provide that level of assurance fairly soon, then the government of the day's just going to have to act. All right, so, you've seen the letter, but have you spoken to committee chair Meka Whaitiri since you've read it? I've had a discussion with Meka just about how things are going and what progress they're making. She said, look- she says they are making progress. Meka, in fairness, has only chaired the committee for a few weeks. She's, sort of, getting to grips with the totality of their workload, so, look, she says they are making progress, and I've said, look, I'll just keep an eye on how things are going, but subject to talking to colleagues, you know, we can't wait forever, and I doubt whether being able to report by the end of the year is going to be in enough time to get meaningful change so that we can provide a level of assurance about the integrity of our democratic systems that New Zealanders expect. OK. Minister, I've just got one other quick question for you; you revealed this week that you had a burner phone in China. I just want to know whether you were talking on a legitimate Parliamentary phone today or a burner phone. I'm talking on my standard phone that I've had for a long, long time. Okay, all right. Andrew Minister` Justice Minister, Andrew Little. Thank you. Justice Minister, thank you very much for your time. Well, one journalist who has written about electoral law over several elections is author of the book Dirty Politics, Nicky Hager. Political Editor, Tova O'Brien, asked him whether he believes the Justice Select Committee is leaving it too late to protect our election from outside influence. What I'd say is they've left it very late, and elections only happen once every three years, and they should get on with it like all countries are thinking about at the moment. So it just means that they've left it late, but they need to get on with it and do it. Given the necessary secrecy around security issues, how will we know when our electoral system is protected enough? There's always ways for sneaky money to move around, and so the way we'll know when it's well protected is we're able to see a law which doesn't leave holes left in it. Do you have faith that this select committee process and the noises we're hearing from the government will actually get us to that point where we have a law and a framework that prevents outside influence in our political system? I think we haven't seen enough specific detail yet, but what we know is that companies can be owned by companies, can be owned by companies, can be owned in the British Virgin Islands, in Cayman Islands, in Singapore. And so thinking that if you had a really serious, organised state actor trying to put money into your political system, that it would be easy to find is just not true. The answer to this, which is a simple answer but not necessarily a welcome answer, is that you have to take out the secret money from your whole political system. It's as simple as that, and it's actually a really important principle. At the moment we also money have coming into our political system from the tobacco industry, for example, and no one knows that that's there. And we have it coming in from other industry lobby groups, and we have it coming from people who've decided that they will just have a friendly relationship with an MP, but not let their name go further. The reason that people do that ` why are they doing it? Because it gives them influence. That's why they put that money in. And so the simple, clean answer ` if you want to stop the very dodgy money, is that you stop the rest of the sort of dodgy money. It's a simple solution, and many countries around the world have systems that do that, and we can too. And you're saying this is really quite prevalent in New Zealand? The thing about election donation scandals is that they keep on happening. You just have to think back and you realise, 'Hang on a moment. 'We were thinking about this a few years ago, and then we were thinking about it 10 years ago.' And it's bonkers. We're so careful about` We don't let somebody give an MP a free car, for example. We don't allow that kind of corruption from our MPs, and then we allow them` allow people, to give election money, which is a thing that the MP wants most of all, which is a way to win an election. We let them give them that without accountability and transparency. So we just have to face up to it, I think, and the good thing is that in normal circumstances, no parties want to face up to this because some of them do very well out of it, and it's a difficult, extra issue, but since there's a problem of foreign interference ` which is urgent and unavoidable and has to be dealt with ` and you can't deal with that without really dealing with the rest of the problems. We should just clean it up. And also deeply concerning to the broader electorate. Why is it so important that we need accountability and transparency around political donations? Well, this is about why do people give money to parties? Now, some people give money because they support the party, and they want it to do well. That's an ordinary person, but they might give $50 or even $500. But most normal people don't give tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands or more to a party. You move out of the realm of the democratic system to buying of influence. We've once again, we've come around to where there's a scandal and where it's got attention on it, and it's the right time to sort it out. You're talking about the $150,000 donation` Precisely. ...facilitated, in a way, by Todd McClay, to the National Party in 2017. It was legal, so what's the issue? So the point is that things are legal because we've got bad laws, but it wasn't transparent. We should've known` You're talking about the influence. So what was the quid pro quo? Can we point to something that shows that this person did get undue influence within the National Party? No. The whole point is that the system is set up so legally you can do things which no one will ever know what happened. Donations from foreigners are banned over $1500. This particular donation was from a Chinese national, funnelled through a New Zealand business. Does the law need to be changed specifically around that loophole? Yes. The law needs to be closed around that loophole, but then there'll be another loophole. That's what I meant by, 'This keeps coming around.' What's the answer? What is the political system that we need? The political system is that we shouldn't have large political donations. That's a start. We can have little political donations from real people who, you know, support this or that party. Maybe $500, maybe $1000, but then stop it there because after that no ordinary person is doing it anyway. That means that we've got a deficit, that parties don't have enough money to run themselves at election time. But rather than them going off to get it all sorts of slightly dodgy, slightly ` mildly ` legally, but corrupt kind of ways from everyone who's got lots of money, you just pay some public money. Why should the taxpayer have to pay for a select few political parties? Who determines who gets that money? It's just like we pay our police so they don't have to collect bribes. We pay our judges and we pay our` We pay for things. We pay our MPs so they don't have to work on the side. The reason we do this is to have a non-corruptible system. The same reason you put money into election campaigns is so that you don't have unseen influence, which is really` You know, when a government's elected, it's spending tens of billions of dollars of public money. Why would you want to have any possible corruption or influence in that for the sake of a tiny fraction of a percentage of the money they're going to spend in government? You just clean it up. Among other things, though, the Green Party say no political party wants this framework around political donations, but the Green Party has said it wants a blanket ban. The head of the SIS is saying this week a foreign donation ban wouldn't, on its own, be effective because, basically, people can find proxies, I suppose, like we saw in the National Party $150,000 case. So would that work ` a foreign donation ban? No, I completely agree with the head of the SIS, and that is to say that just closing up the current sort of creaky, little piece of law which has got a loophole in it isn't going to solve the problem. If we didn't get that, what about moving to the Canadian model ` so only individual citizens or residents can make donations? Could we follow suit in that regard? Would that help enough? I think that the Canadian system would be an improvement, but it wouldn't solve the problem because what would you do when there was suddenly very large donations coming from people who were truly citizens, but you didn't know who was behind them? That's the trouble with money. Money is so moveable and fluid, and you don't know where it starts from. If you're trying to stop unseen, unaccountable money in your political system, that doesn't work either. Nikki Hager there. If you've got something to say about what you see on our show, let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram ` NewshubNationNZ. Our Twitter panellists this week are Mark Thomas, Josiah Tualamali'i and Lewis Holden. They're using the hashtag #NationNZ, or you can email us at nation@mediaworks.co.nz. But, still to come, we take a close look at the week in political news with our panel, plus should Maori receive water royalties, and will that put up the price? their ownership rights and economic interests in freshwater recognised by the crown. They also said the way that water is allocated should be revamped, and that Maori may be owed royalties. So what does that all mean for water users? The Maori Council was behind that water claim to the Tribunal. Executive Director Matthew Tukaki joins me now. Thank you for your time this morning. Good to be with you. So, the Waitangi Tribunal recommends proprietary rights. Does that mean that Maori would own freshwater? Potentially, yes, or a portion of the freshwater allocations that are currently in play. But, I mean, the Waitangi Tribunal recommendations spend a lot of time, though, honing in on a whole lot of stuff before we get to that conversation. So, the Resource Management Act is an absolute mess from beginning to end, and also, it was an indication, and probably an indictment, about just how dirty our waterways are across the country, and also the disconnect between central government and local government when it comes to this part over here, bringing in legislation like the RMA, and local government going about implementing it. And don't forget, of course ` it's not just about water allocation and rights. It's the overabundance of over-allocation of water rights by some local governments. Well, there's a whole lot of issues. Right, OK. So it's a complete mess. But we're talking about the endgame here, where people are saying, 'OK, if Maori own water, 'what does that mean for me? Or if they own a portion of the water ` 'if they're allocated a portion of the water ` what does that mean for me?' Well, it might mean that local governments don't get the sort of revenue that they're getting now. It might mean that local governments are forced to both share the resource with Maori, iwi, and hapu, and it could also mean that local governments begin to become a little bit recalcitrant in their view of how this should all unfold. But, I mean, let's be honest here ` how things have been working now over the last couple of decades, across successive governments, both blue and red, has not been working, and that gets to the point about how the resource is being managed, as opposed to how the resource might be owned. OK. So, there's two things there. Let's just go back to how the resource is owned, and if Maori are allocated a percentage of water resource, depending on the catchment, depending on the iwi, all sorts of things. What does that mean for me with my water bill in my house? Well, see, I think this is a bit of a non-event. I think that if we get the model right, and we're still a long way from understanding what that might be. So we're getting wrapped up in the endgame before trying to understand how we arrive at a point that has all parties engaged and all parties agreeing to something. Now, I'll give you an example about how this might work. So, even if you have a look at a royalty sort of structure around this ` so, a percentage of the allocation of water ` well, that might simply mean that we're able to economically develop, which is another part of the Waitangi Tribunal report that came in pretty damning. So what could we use to economically develop a piece of freshwater or land around that freshwater in a much more meaningful way that could create economic activity and jobs? There's that part. The second part is the royalty angle. OK, if we do own something, does that mean that Maori might be able to then allocate it either to themselves or allocate it to a third party? What could that impact be? Is a down-flow going to be an increase in water rates? Is it going to be an increase in rates? I mean, I think we're jumping the gun with this sort of stuff. I don't believe that local governments necessarily will lose a huge amount of revenue on this, because, let's face it` OK, but what about businesses then? Businesses that use a lot of water, like, you know, we get all of our electricity` well, not all of it, but a lot of our electricity from hydro power. For businesses that use a lot of water, what kind of potential impact could there be from this for them? Well, again, I think it's not so much about them. It will be about the end consumer. I mean, will this hit the pocket of everyday New Zealanders? And there are examples right across the world where that isn't necessarily the case. So, is it a case of business and industry needing to absorb the cost? Well, what would that look like? In Australia, for example, when the Carbon Emissions Scheme came in, we had something called Pastoral legislation, which mean that the business would have to absorb it or be more efficient in the way that they deliver the product to the end consumer, and the end consumer wouldn't have to wear the burden of an increase in cost. So you could see a law like that here, where the business might have to suffer the costs, but I don't get it in my water bill? Well, no. I don't think that necessarily business needs to suffer a cost here. I think this is more about also having a conversation about how we can produce something that is more efficient, therefore delivered to the end consumer in a much more meaningful way, but at the same time, in the middle ground here is a need to clean up our waterways. So, have a look at this, for example. We know that the government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in cleaning up waterways right across the country, both the foreshore sort of thing and the freshwater side as well, including freshwater ecology, where we have significant species degradation and loss. So they're spending that money already. Maybe, it could also just be a case of having a look at what is our role as Maori in helping them to achieve that endgame? Will that make things better for all New Zealanders in terms of quality of life? Absolutely it would. OK. What about if we go to the fear that this is a money-grab by Maori over a resource that everybody owns? Oh, yeah. That old chestnut. Well, let's address that. What do you say to that? So when has there been a money-grab for Maori, with the exception of legitimate Treaty settlements related to land? So, I would for somebody to tell me exactly where all these billions of dollars have somehow magically been squirreled away out of claims like this. Let's not forget that we have had more than 100-plus Waitangi Tribunal reports and recommendations over the years that many governments have not even responded to. We call those the kaupapa claims. Now, there has not been, unless I'm completely wrong, one of those claims that has meant that a significant amount of money has passed to the hands of an individual iwi or hapu, or Maoridom more generally. So, I think we get wrapped up in the money-grab sort of nonsense, but I'd also argue too ` let's be fair ` Maori are large contributors to the national economy, both through rates and taxes, both personal and individual taxes and incorporated businesses. Agreed. Agreed. OK, let's just finally` the government says it's concentrating, as you say, on cleaning up the freshwater, and that the debate over ownership, or potential ownership, is really unhelpful. National calls it divisive. What's your message to them? No, we have to. We have to have a conversation about proprietary ownership, because, essentially, it spans a number of different claims. It's a spectrum claim, it's a freshwater claim, it's a Wai 262 claim that's been around for many, many years. My recommendation to government is let's just be bold and be brave here. Let's make sure that we're doing something meaningful, not just for Maori, but for all New Zealanders. We can clean up our waterways, and if we don't do it, well, who's going to do it? Our kids are going to hate us if we don't take action on this. But my message to government is let's have a look at compacting some of the recommendations across all of these different claims in regard to proprietary ownership. Let's have a look at seeing where there is a connection between 262, the water claim spectrum, and others, and say- So all of these resources? Just wrap it all together? All of these resources. Absolutely. Let's just define this once and for all, and just get the job done. It's not going to happen soon, but Matthew Tukaki, thank you very much for your time this morning. Good to be with you. Up next, Backstory ` who's the MP mother of five with a fashion business and a chemical engineering degree? Plus, ahead of the government's announcement of its national cancer strategy tomorrow, we ask opposition health spokesperson Michael Woodhouse what his priorities would be if he were Health Minister. Welcome back to Backstory, where we ask how well do we really know our MPs? Agnes Loheni has been a National MP for just over six months. She's also a successful businesswoman, with a clothing label she established with her mother and three sisters. And she has a degree in chemical engineering. We joined the mother of five for the after-school pickup to hear her backstory. Hey! Hello! (CHILDREN YELL, CLAMOUR) Say bye to your friends. Did you have a good day? Yep. Run in. Back seat. (SIGHS) My sisters and I founded this business about 17 years ago with our mother, and so it's been a fantastic journey, and to get to this point where we've got this store in Auckland has been quite a long one, an arduous one, but one that we're really, really proud of. My mother is a dressmaker, and` so I'm the eldest of four girls, and so, it was very normal for me to hear her sewing machine running late into the night. My sisters and I just organically just started printing our own fabric and making dresses. And so, over time, we just eventually opened a shop in Samoa. And the business just sort of grew over time, and we got more interest from other people in other Pacific Islands. So, this has really been a 17-year journey. I've only been an MP for six months, so there's lots of parts to it that are new, but I also know that I can add value. I've come from a family that has historically voted Labour. You know, Labour was the party that Pacific people knew as the party for workers. Over the course of time now since then, I've started to see that, actually, I think that had changed, and I think not that I had left Labour. I felt that Labour had left me, and the key values of the National Party that resonated with me was hard work, personal responsibility, and just being enterprising, and the rewards that you get from being enterprising, cos that actually was my life. This is my home. I've got five children. So, the oldest is Mia. Mia's now actually almost 21. And then, it's Hanapete, and Hanapete is 18. And Waiana's 13. Here's an old photo of Lelei, and Lelei is 11. Are you 11, Lelei? (LELEI EXCLAIMS) And then, it's Taupotiki, our baby, and he is now 9. 9. So I remembered it! (LAUGHS) This is my lovely husband, Ward. So we've been together, you know, close on 20 years. We met, actually, in Wellington. So at the time, I was working in Samoa for the New Zealand High Commission, and he was working in Wellington. He was a New Zealand diplomat with Foreign Affairs and Trade. Over the years, we've had lots of ups and downs, and he's just been my rock. So I'm just so grateful to Ward. And hiding behind here ` so, I got the Bachelor of Engineering from Auckland University in chemical and materials engineering. It wasn't easy, particularly when you're a working mum and you've got five children and you've got just so many other competing responsibilities. Dishes never go away, and housework never goes away. Although, I admit I'm doing a little bit less of it now, cos I'm not here as much. Look, I always look to my parents, and particularly, when I think about the time when they came to this country. They just came with a suitcase of clothes. So, if I find it quite hard sometimes, I always look back to say, 'Well, look what they did.' They just up and left with a bag of clothes and came here. And what they had was each other. So, they had the strength of family, and they knew they could work and stick it out together. So we want to instil the same values that we had around our faith ` so, we got to church regularly ` around the strength of family, and we always say to them, 'Education will provide the opportunities for you if you're prepared to work hard 'and to strive for it.' I always look back fondly on it. You know, it was a state house, but I don't ever remember being cold. There wasn't a lot of money. I mean, the adults were working, but I still didn't feel like I went without. My parents and I and my sisters were in one bedroom, and we had family in the other two bedrooms, my grandmother and sometimes family in the living room. As family came over from Samoa, stayed in this home, and then, were able to move off into their own private rentals, and then, eventually, into their own homes. And so that was in Mt Albert. So, it was a very full house. The only language spoken in the house was Samoan, and the only book in the house was a bible. I mean, I think I had some tricky times as a teenager. When I was sort of trying to balance the expectations that my parents had of me in a very traditional Samoan household, where, um... the culture is very strong in the home, but we live in New Zealand, and everything else around us is, um, is not Samoan, and so, I found that a bit challenging in terms of wanting to make sure that I was respectful to my parents, but also wanted to push some of the boundaries in terms of what I saw other people my age were able to do. It is so surreal to be standing here in parliament, speaking to you all. I had my parents there for me on my first day. So they made a special trip to Wellington to be with me, and I felt the enormity of that, because I felt, for my father, he could never have expected, in terms of his journey from Samoa to New Zealand, that one of his children would become a New Zealand member of parliament. Hey, hey! ALL: Ho! I want to be able to leave at the end of the time that I'm there, whatever length of time is there, and for, you know, for someone to say, 'Actually, Agnes really made a difference 'to the Pacific community in New Zealand.' You know, I also think of the lessons that I learned in business around being enterprising, around having an idea, and just going for it. It's risky, and you've got your skin in the game, and you just want to give up, cos it's a really hard road, particularly if you're starting off, but just really wanting to inspire people, because, actually, we need more people with their great ideas to want to take that step. Agnes Loheni there. Up next, the news and politics of the week discussed with our panel. Plus, we give opposition health spokesperson Michael Woodhouse five minutes to try and convince us he'd make a better health minister than the incumbent David Clark. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel, Jennifer Curtin, politics professor at Auckland University, Fran O'Sullivan, head of business at NZME and Merepeka Raukawa-Tait who chairs the Whanau Ora Commissioning Agency. Welcome to all of you this morning. Jennifer, I'm going to ask you first, how concerning is the delayed reporting of the Justice Committee on our electoral system? Well, I know we usually expect it in a year, but they have been asked to look at this more extensive area in terms of foreign donations, and how we manage that. The concern is that we don't have anything in place in time for next election. We are looking, as a country, a little bit behind on this. So Australia passed their ban on foreign donations in 2018. So` So Australia has a total ban on foreign donations, don't they? Yeah, yeah. So they did that, and we've seen Canada` There's only four European countries in the EU that don't have foreign bans. So overall, 121 countries are banning foreign donations and 56 are not, and that's globally. So we're talking Africa, South America and so on. So New Zealand is now looking, in terms of who it likes to compare itself to, a little bit behind the eight- ball on this. Absolutely. Merepeka, I don't know if you heard Andrew Little there, but he seems a little bit unhappy as well, that he wants a bit of a push on. Well, I think if we're being honest, that certainly no change will come in before next election. Really? No. I think to make changes in the electoral system, to make it better, you have to be off the mark a lot quicker than what has happened. And I think we should be concerned because all around the world we're now hearing the influence of other countries ` well, big business ` on governments. And so it is a concern, and I think we've just left it somewhat` I don't know whether we've taken it seriously or not, but I don't believe any changes will come in prior to next election. Well, Fran, Merepeka just mentioned business there. How influential really is big business on our electoral system? I mean, in terms of these donations, and would they really care if they weren't allowed to do it? Well, in some cases they might feel quite grateful not to have party bagmen coming around putting their hands out all the time. (LAUGHS) It's not always a good look with the shareholders, frankly, but you know, I think often businesses do support both sides of the House. But you know, there have been instances in the past and periods of radical reform in the 1980s for instance, where there were issues about big business influence, arguably. Even TVNZ tried to get up before Public Good programme, and they kind of didn't manage that well, and ended up with an avalanche of legal suits. But I think we have an issue, really, where we have now got politicians back in the funding circle whether or not we say they 'facilitated' or they got ` in the case with Tom McClay ` Jami-Lee Ross to step in there and do the actual phone calls, I don't think sitting politicians and particularly political leaders or Cabinet ministers should be anywhere near that. And there were rules that came in place after the fury of the late 1980s reform period, where, essentially, a lot of people said later, a lot of these guys who donated actually ended up buying major assets, and they argued for state assets to be sold. Now, I don't disagree with that myself, with that particular policy, but I'm just saying the upshot of that was that most of the big parties did have some rules in place where the funding was driven by the president and the party, not anywhere near the parliamentary camp, and I think that is a real weakness at this moment. OK, what about the idea that we just scrap the possibility of private donations, unless it's a very small amount ` what Nicky Hager is talking about, Jennifer, in that the shortfall that parties need to campaign on is paid for by the public. So I think we need to be thinking about it as a mixed model. I don't think we should go to full public funding. In Australia they do have public funding of political parties. So political parties receive approximately $3 per eligible vote that they get. And they get that after the campaign has finished, but it's` Even if we were to say full public funding, I think political parties and the way campaigns are run now, they want more money than what the public would be prepared to give. One thing I would say is that we have to be really careful about linking access to politicians to influence. So we have to be able to measure influence to be sure that donations are equating to influence on policy. Right. That's a really difficult empirical evidence-base to get. I mean, we can see with the example of, 'Oh, let's give some money, 'and in return can you give us a candidate?' That's one thing, and that's clear influence. But sometimes it's about, 'If I donate to both sides of politics, it might mean that when I want to see a minister, I'll get in the door.' It doesn't necessarily mean that what they then want is taken up by the political party. But even though you donate to both sides or all parts of the political spectrum, Merepeka, should it mean that I actually do get access to somebody above somebody who hasn't donated? Well, I mean, you're giving money, and you do expect that you're going to be remembered, you expect that there's going to be an opportunity for you to possibly have the doors open for you. All money is given with the expectation of a return. Absolutely. And we'd be naive to think that that's not already happening in New Zealand. So` But it's very murky now, and that's the problem. It's getting murky. And when the politicians are in there, assisting in the fundraising, well, or facilitating, I think that's where it doesn't become open and` Well, I was going to say open and honest, but I don't think it go as far as to say. That is right, you know, because people will give expecting something back in return. OK. Particularly big dollars. A point I'd like to make. I mean, I sat in on the Parliamentary Select Inquiry looking at the donations. I thought, actually, the inquiry was quite pathetic. It's had six chairs over the space of that time. I mean, this is not good governance. Somewhere along the line, you know, Andrew Little needs to be cracking the whip. He said today that he's not happy with the progress. Well, he shouldn't be happy. But also the inquiry process ` it, kind of, seems to rely on people putting in submissions. The inquiry ` a proper inquiry ` would actually be calling for exactly the evidence they want not just simply head of GCSB and SIS but also digging down in real inquisitorial processes. If there is a funding link in any aspect of potential corruption, it needs to be brought out. And that's` It's just lots of allegations of squirmy stuff, but no concrete facts. I've got to move on to water now because, you know, another big topic. Merepeka, the tribunal recommended the Crown recognise Maori proprietary rights over water. Do you think the government's going to listen? Well, the government hasn't listened in the past, but water is the new goal. But it is a scarce resource, and it's not effectively managed right now. You look at all the local authorities around the country, they've got aging infrastructure, it needs repair, it needs maintenance, it needs to be new, even new ones, and so that's big money. And it's not so much about the RMA, it's the allocation of the resource. The big one ` the big resources with consents ` that have always been rolled over in the past, well, you can't do that any longer. And the community is upset. When they see a water bottling company just getting access to the water and a consent issued without any input from the community, they are reacting to that. The tribunal's report, I think the government should look at it. But we don't even now have a national freshwater policy statement. Which` Which is coming from the government soon. Well, yeah, it's coming. (LAUGHS) The government is saying that it's going to concentrate on how to clean up water rather than get into a debate over who owns the water. Jennifer, is that just kicking the can down the road? Well, the proprietary issues are long-overdue. Maori who have appeared in front of the tribunal ` scholars and professors and experts in this area, have been arguing that it's really important from a perspective of tino rangatiratanga to engage with the proprietary issue. And as a partner in the Treaty of Waitangi, this is a really important process to engage with. So it's not just about what it might cost businesses or what it might cost us. There is a broader issue that this government said it was committed to, and it would need to follow through on that. Yeah, but on that particular point, Fran, I mean, is there a fear or a worry that the whole shake-up of the water allocation which has been proposed by this report, would shake up businesses and` Sure and farmers. Yes, there is. They rely on water allocation themselves for their businesses. Yes, there is an issue, but at some stage it does need to be worked through. In terms of consolidation, I'd like to also pick up on the point that Merepeka that raised about, you know, the selling off of water ` the pure water, the artisanal water ` you know, fed over many years, purified through the ground system, and then you have this sort of situation where we, as taxpayers, are going to have to pay to clean up the slush that we all drink that comes through the system, and the nitrates are a bit of a worry ` that level now, for our own health. And we're selling off the nice, pure stuff. (LAUGHS) Yeah, but that should be seen as a real national resource, to my view. That is very` I mean, it's rare today. So it's around the efficient use of the resource, but it's also around the priority that we have to give to the cleaning-up of our freshwater systems and our lakes. That has to be the priority as well, so this is a major issue. And it's not just going to be the government. It is local government as well because they're not consistent in applying their policies right throughout the country, so, you know, we've got to put our heads together. But this is a very good report, and it's informed by people who know about the waterways, who know about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and who actually want to see, after so many years, they really want to see something done. I am going to have to leave this contentious issue right there. Thank you very much to the panel. Stay with us. We'll be back after the break. Welcome back to the Pitch, where a member of the Opposition has just five minutes to convince you of their ideas. The Government's announcing its national cancer strategy this weekend. However, it's been gazumped by the Opposition, which recently announced a national cancer agency and a policy to fund $50M worth of new cancer medicines. Reporter John Michael Swannix asked National's health spokesperson, Michael Woodhouse, what his priorities would be as Health Minister. Mental health and certainly our ageing population are two very important areas, but also our health workforce is getting older; it's retiring. I think we need to look at different roles, different professions, so there's gonna be a lot to do, but it will all be about making sure that New Zealanders get the best value for every dollar that's spent in health. Mm. That's long-term planning stuff; what do you want to do in your first, kind of, 100 days? So, the previous National Government had national health targets, and we've had very good outcomes in terms of elective surgery, emergency department waiting times and cancer treatment. We'll be restoring that expectation. So, $50M a year exclusively for cancer medicines ` will this be coming from the existing health budget? No, this will be new money. The money has to come from somewhere. What's going to be cut to pay for it? Well, nothing in the sense of the health sector. I suppose what I'm getting at is that National says it's not going to increase taxes in its first term ` any kind of taxes ` so where is that money going to be pulled from? Oh, slush funds for Shane Jones, fees-free for tertiary students and $300M on reviews has to be reprioritised. And that's into cancer drugs. So taking away from the regions and education? Well, I don't think it needs to take away from it. There hasn't been a single extra person going into tertiary study as a consequence of that policy, but I don't accept that every dollar that being invested right now is being invested well, so there will be a transfer of resources. Who's gonna decide how this money is spent? Pharmac will have absolute autonomy in terms of which cancer drugs are funded. Do you agree with the statement that there has been progress in improving cancer services and that patients are getting better, faster cancer care? Well, there certainly has been over a long period of time, but we're not making enough progress, and I believe now, in the last two years, we've stalled. The reason I brought up that statement is because it was from Health Minister Jonathan Coleman in 2015 when he shut down the Cancer Control Ministerial Advisory Group. In hindsight, was that a good decision? Well, that's a question for the previous government. What I know about that cancer control group was that it was designed to do a very different thing than the independent cancer agency we've announced would do. Obesity, alcohol and tobacco are the three areas, basically, where you could really make a difference to actually stop people from getting cancer. Will you commit to measures like a sugar tax or banning alcohol advertising to try and prevent cancer from occurring? Look, the first thing I would say is that we're not gonna tax people into health. Banning alcohol advertising ` is that something you'd consider? Well, we will consider the things that are proven to work, and a lot of the things that you've discussed are not yet proven to work. Are you more interested in being the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff? No, I don't think it's fair to say that that's how I'm leaning. We` nor were we in the previous government. How many people will this policy help? Well, it'll help every single New Zealander with cancer. So all 130,000 of them? Absolutely. The cancer agency will be charged with articulating what best practice in the prevention, early screening and detection, then treatment of cancer is and holding DHBs to account for delivering them. What about the funding for medicines? How many patients will be able to get their medicines funded? Look, it's going to be in the thousands, I would expect. Most of` Can you be more specific than just thousands? No, I can't, because that will depend on the decisions that Pharmac makes. Do you agree with the Cancer Society that the number of new medicines funded could just be two or three based on a $50M-a-year budget? It's a 25% increase on the cancer drugs spend at the moment, so it has to be a good step in the right direction. Is it the end of the story? Of course not. How could National have let the likes of Middlemore reach such a state? DHBs are given a large amount of money for capital maintenance, and the reality is not every DHB has kept up with that maintenance requirement. What I can say is that every single issue that was brought to the previous Minister of Health and the previous Cabinet's attention was addressed, and one thing I will agree with the Minister of Health on is that we need a better plan for asset management and a better understanding about the state of our buildings. Will National continue this government's billion-dollar investment in mental health? Yes, I think. I am very disappointed that` after a nearly two-year process, that the Minister still doesn't know how he's going to spend it. Where would you spend that money? Mild to moderate mental health issues are the most prevalent and also the best opportunity to prevent people from becoming chronically unwell. Will National continue the government's investment in gender reassignment surgery? We would have no intention of reversing any of the decisions the present government has made. Will you continue the same level of investment into domestic and sexual violence services? Yeah, look, I'm very relaxed about the course of direction that this government is taking on family and domestic violence. What's the main difference a member of the public would notice between a National Government and this Labour-led Government when it comes to health? This Government talks; a National Government will act. All right. We're back with our panel ` Jennifer Curtin, Fran O'Sullivan and Merepeka Raukawa-Tait. The government this week announced a free school lunch trial in schools. Merepeka, will that make a difference? I think it will. I was there in Rotorua when the Prime Minister made this announcement. It's part of her well-being strategy. I think it will make a difference. Young people have said to her, said to our Prime Minister, that they go to school hungry, and thousands of young people have said that, and they can't study, they won't sit quietly and study in the class if they've got an empty puku. So she's taken this initiative. I'm absolutely pleased. Fran, do you think it should be rolled out further? Let's see how it goes first. (LAUGHS) OK. Jennifer` I'd like to see family responsibility step up. OK. So, well, this is a polarising issue, as you say ` family responsibility. Jennifer, why is it so polarising? I mean, Fran talks about family responsibility as well. I don't think it has to be polarising. We've seen countries` other countries where this kind of initiative is rolled out universally at schools for all children under tertiary level. And that's because, actually, if it's about healthy eating, research here that's been published at the Policy Observatory shows that very few children from any background have very healthy lunches, and so, if it's about universal approaches to these sorts of things, they're less likely to create a wedge politics or a NV, or a` And this is about children. It's not about parents. Right. OK. Uh, is that the point then, Merepeka ` it's about the children? We should be focusing on that? Yes, it is about the children. I've heard this week that some people say, 'Well, what are the parents doing? Why aren't they providing lunches for their children?' That's all very well. They're not doing it. Many of them are not doing it. So should the children go hungry? No. Not at all. Fran, it's very on-brand for the government, though, isn't it? Yes. (LAUGHS) You're not a fan, are you? Well, I think it also has to be accompanied with, you know, as I was saying. Um... Family responsibility? Yeah. Yeah. Right, and parental responsibility? Yes. Yeah. But we're already paying dearly. When children go to school, and they haven't had anything to eat, then we pay dearly. We pay dearly later on for truancy, for their health and mental` all of those sort of things. So, if we don't do anything now, we know what's going to happen further down the track. So this is an investment in the future? It is. It is? And also, there are lots of reasons why these children don't have lunches, and it's not just because parents are being irresponsible. In fact, that's probably a really small component. Child Poverty Action Group and others have advocated for, you know, increased incomes, whether they're beneficiaries or others, because, actually, rental prices, as we know, are extremely high, and so, the cost of living for many of these families means that sometimes, lunches might be the things that go missing. That's a good point. Fran, would you accept that` No, I do accept that, but I also think, maybe, also, you need to be looking at the family tax credit system and a whole range of other things. I think, in the long-run, you do want parents, actually, to have enough money to put that food on the table, and to teach them how to do it if they don't` a lot of people, I think, who are parents haven't necessarily come through, you know, in a way where they've learned. I don't know. Like, when I was at school, we were taught domestic studies. Right. Would you believe it? It doesn't happen now. But that was preparing women to be wives and mothers. (LAUGHS) OK, well, thanks` Nah, moving on. I don't know if you're suggesting going back to that. No, I'm not. (LAUGHS) But I'm just saying an element of it wouldn't be stupid. All right. We were talking about money ` the MP pay situation this week. So, John Key's era law tying MP's salaries to average wages is going to be repealed. Politically, MP pay is a difficult one, isn't it? I think this is more polarising, probably, than feeding children. (LAUGHTER) I mean, you know, people don't often` the general public don't always understand what MPs are doing in their days. That's the first thing. They might see Question Time and not much else. I do think, when we look at the leaders' salaries, that's the thing that's getting the headline. But actually, when we compare the baseline salaries of what our MPs get compared to countries overseas, we see that we're not way over anything. In fact, we're under. But it is much higher than the average wage, which is what the baseline sort of conversation seems to be about. Well, just two things there ` do you think, Merepeka, that people don't really realise what kind of job being an MP really is ` a backbencher slogging it out, going up and down the country? Oh, I don't think it's all that difficult. Oh, don't you? OK. (LAUGHS) Not a backbencher, no. And I think a lot of backbenchers probably wouldn't get the salary that they're getting now if they were on, um` In the private sector? Absolutely. Or the public sector. No, they wouldn't. No. And when you look at their range of skills, I mean, we don't even ask them for a CV, do we? So what range of skills do they bring? But I do think it's disproportionate now, you know? People are looking at the value that they get for their members of parliament. We've got 120, for goodness' sake. A lot more than some other countries. So I just think we need to think about, you know, what we're getting in terms of value for money. Are we getting value for money, Fran, considering that Jacinda Ardern earns a base salary of $471,000` Not bad for a part-time PM. (LAUGHS) Fifth-highest paid leader in the` What was that? Not bad for the part-time PM. Oh, part-time PM. Yes. (LAUGHS) Well, is it value for money? I mean, she's the fifth-highest paid leader in the OECD. We're a country of five million. But it's different, isn't it? I mean, if you look at some of the other nations out there, people do take a lower salary. It's seen as part of public service. And often, they've had a very, you know, long career elsewhere building to that point. I actually think there's a case to pay an executive much more money, a la Singapore, and actually get really credible people to run a country, and not have so many MPs, particularly list MPs, who, you know, wouldn't be there without a bit of party machination. We're gonna leave this one too. Thank you very much to the panel ` Jennifer, Fran, and Merepeka. All right. It was a senior minister's birthday in the house this week, but one MP apparently won't be celebrating with him. Here's Finn Hogan with the week that was in Wellington. There's no prize for guessing National's favourite line of questioning in the house this week. To the Prime Minister, does she stand by all her government's statements, policies and actions? Does she stand by all her government's statements, policies and actions? Does she stand by all of her statements, policies and actions? And, as expected, the Prime Minister was standing by all of the above. If the member doesn't want detail on this, then don't ask your question. This cheeky remark from Chris Bishop landed him on the speaker's hit list. Well, I'm not sure that's correct, but OK. Uh, supplementary` I beg your pardon? And, as for the ACT Party this week, well, it turns out Labour MPs don't really want to hang out with David Seymour outside of parliament either. My question is to the Minister of Police, whom I'd intended to wish a very happy birthday. On behalf of the Minister, I thank that member for his birthday wishes, but he won't be invited to the party. To the first part of the question` (LAUGHTER) Poor David. At least Simon Bridges still invites you to parliament as his plus-one... for now. All right. That's all from us for now. Thank you so much for watching, and we will see you again next weekend. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019 This program was made with the assistance of the New Zealand On Air Platinum Fund.