CAPTIONS BY BRIGIT KELLY AND KRISTIN WILLIAMS. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. WWW.ABLE.CO.NZ COPYRIGHT ABLE 2025 TENA KOUTOU. NAU MAI, HAERE MAI. WELCOME TO Q+A. I'M JACK TAME. TODAY ` WHY DOESN'T THE FISHERIES MINISTER WANT THE PUBLIC SEEING FOOTAGE FROM FISHING BOATS? BUT THE STATE UNDERTAKES PROSECUTIONS. NOT WITCHES. NOT PEOPLE BURNING BONFIRES. PLUS ` HOW CAN A COUNTRY THE SIZE OF NEW ZEALAND, MILES FROM ANYWHERE, STRADDLING A FAULT LINE AND WITH CRAZY WEATHER, POSSIBLY ATTRACT FOREIGN CAPITAL? IT'S RARER THAN IT SHOULD BE TO BE A STABLE GOVERNMENT WITH AN OPPOSITION WHO'S ACTUALLY HAPPY TO KEEP A LOT OF THE SETTINGS THE SAME IF THEY GET INTO POWER. BUT FIRST THIS MORNING, LIBELLES, A MAJOR PROVIDER OF THE GOVERNMENT'S SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMME THAT WENT INTO LIQUIDATION THIS WEEK, HAS ANNOUNCED THE SALE OF ITS LUNCH OPERATION TO COMPASS GROUP. AFTER WEEKS OF ISSUES, ASSOCIATE EDUCATION MINISTER DAVID SEYMOUR SAYS THE PROGRAMME HAS BEEN SUFFERING FROM TEETHING ISSUES BUT IS IMPROVING. HE'S WITH US NOW. KIA ORA. HE HAD BEEN ACCUSED BY THE OPPOSITION UP DELIBERATELY PUNTING SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM BECAUSE YOU POST AT THE BEGINNING. KNOW THAT ISN'T TRUE. OTHERWISE, I WOULDN'T HAVE DEFENDED THE PROGRESS THAT WE ARE MAKING INSULT ISSUES AS THEY ARRIVED. I THINK IT SHOWS IN OPPOSITION PAT ISN'T PRESENTING ITSELF AS AN ALTERNATIVE GOVERNMENT PRACTICE JUST TAKING SHOTS. LABOUR, 25, 2026 OR ANY OTHER YEARS SUBSEQUENT. WHAT WE HAVE DONE HAS HALVED FORECASTS BY DOING IT MORE EFFICIENTLY. THEY HAVE BEEN PROBLEMS, AND WE HAVE BEEN UPFRONT ABOUT THAT. I THINK WHAT IS INTERESTING ASTHMATIC ASHANTI SITES OF NEW ZEALAND. ONE -- ONE IS TO POINT OUT THAT EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO POINT OUT FAULTS AND DELIBERATELY SABOTAGED IT. THE OTHER ONE IS THAT IT ISN'T WHAT HAPPENS WITH LIFE BUT IT IS HOW YOU DEAL WITH IT. HE HAD BEEN SOLVING ALL THE ISSUES THAT COME UP. THE HAPPY ISSUES. MEALS HAVE BEEN FAILED TO DELIVER IT ALL TURNED OR ATTEND A PLATE. MEALS WITH HAN HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO KIDS WITH HALAL DIETS. TEACHERS HAVE HAD TO GET PRIZE FOR THE STUDENTS. IT IS TRUE THAT I CAMPAIGNED AGAINST THIS POLICY. I DON'T THINK AS FAR AS MY PARTY IS CONCERNED IT SHOULD EXIST.' WHEN IT COMES TO DELIVERY IT IS ABOUT MALICE OR INCOMPETENCE. THE PERSON HE WAS OPPOSED TO THE PROGRAM IS NOW RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. I DO GOVERNMENT POLICY TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY AND I TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. THERE WERE PROBLEMS WITH ON-TIME DELIVERY FOR THE FIRST COUPLE OF WEEKS. SINCE THEN WE HAVE BEEN ACHIEVING MOSTLY ON-TIME DELIVERY MOST DAYS. THIS WEEK THERE WERE 97.3% OF LUNCHES WERE DELIVERED ON TIME. THAT SOUNDS GOOD, IT ACROSS THE WEEK THAT IS ROUGHLY 500,000 LUNCHES. THAT MEANS 13 1/2 THOUSAND MEALS WERE DELIVERED LATE. THAT MEANS YOU HAVE THAT MANY STUDENTS HAVING THE LEARNING DISRUPTED BY A GOVERNMENT POLICY FROM A GOVERNMENT THAT SAID THAT OUR NUMBER PRIORITY IS GETTING KIDS FOCUSED ON THE MATHS AND LEARNING. I CAN DO ARITHMETIC TEA. IT MEANS THAT 13 AND HALF THOUSAND OUT OF 500,000 WERE DELIVERED LATE BUT THE REST WERE DELIVERED ON TIME. THAT IS EVERY WEEK THIS YEAR. THAT IS POTENTIALLY HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF INTERRUPTED LEARNING HOURS. WHAT HE HAD SEEN FOR THE STARTING COUPLE OF WEEK 11% WERE DELIVERED ON TIME FOR THE FIRST WEEK. THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. WE ARE NOW SEEING A LOT MORE DELIVERED NOW. NOT MANY DELIVERING TO 19 9100% ARE NOW SEEING A LOT MORE DELIVERED NOW. NOT MANY DELIVERING ALMOST 100% DELIVERY. AREA TO NEW ZEALAND. PEOPLE WANT TO NIT PICK, BUT I WANT TO TAKE THE OTHER PART OF LIFE. IT IS NOT WHAT YOU GET WHAT YOU DO WITH IT. YOUR SECOND POINT WAS AROUND THE` WHOLE FOCUS OF YOUR GOVERNMENT WAS ABOUT GETTING KIDS LEARNING. EDUCATORS AND KIDS FOCUSED ON LEARNING. ONLY THIS WEEK THOUSANDS OF KIDS HAPPY LANDING INTERRUPTED BY LATE MEALS. YOU ARE FUNDAMENTALLY UNDERMINING YOUR NAME PRIORITY IN LEARNING. ONLY THIS WEEK THOUSANDS OF KIDS HAVE THEIR LEARNING INTERRUPTED BYD OF KIDS HAVE THEIR LEARNING INTERRUPTED BY LATE MEALS. YOU ARE FUNDAMENTALLY UNDERMINING YOUR NAME PRIORITY IN EDUCATION. WE ARE WANTING TO REVAMP CHILDHOOD EDUCATION. IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CHARTER EDUCATIONS -- IF YOU THINK SOME LUNCHES TURNING UP LATE, SOMETIMES A FEW MINUTES LATE, AND I THINK WE ARE NOT REALLY HAVING A SERIOUS CONVERSATION. I THINK HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF LEARNING INTERRUPTIONS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE IN THE EYES OF MOST NEW ZEALANDERS. UNDER THE PREVIOUS ISSUE CONTRACTORS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CLEANUP, DISTRIBUTION ET CETERA. A SKILL TOLD ME THAT IT WAS TAKING THEM THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A YEAR TO COVER THESE. IF YOU ARE SAYING THAT NEW ZEALANDERS ARE SO HELPLESS THAT WE CAN'T SAY LOOK, THE MEALS ARE GOING TO BE A BIT LATE. WE WILL KEEP LEARNING... NEVER CLASS OF STUDENT MEALS HAVE ARRIVED. WE WILL STOP LEARNING. YOU HAVE A HALAL MEAL. WE WILL CLEAN IT UP NOW IT IS A LOT OF LEARNING TIME LOST. THAT IS HOW LUNCH WORKS. THEY ARE NOT CANCELLING LUNCH BEFOREHAND. YOU'RE SITTING IN CLASS, GOOD NEWS KIDS, MEALS HAVE ARRIVED. HE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW CLASS WORKS IF YOU DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS DISTRACTION UNDERSTAND HOW CLASS WORKS IF YOU DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS DISTRACTING. THE SCHOOLS KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO BE LATE? THEY KNOW IF IT HAS ARRIVED. A SENE CAN LEAVE THE LUNCH HOUR IF THEY KNOW IT IS GOING TO ARRIVE/. A SENE CAN LEAVE THE LUNCH HOUR IF THEY KNOW IT IS GOING TO ARRIVE? TO NEW ZEALAND'S OTHER ONES WHERE WE OVER TINY DETAILS, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW YOU ARE JUST THAT BAWLING. I WAS TALKING EDUCATORS THIS WEEK HAS KNOW YOU ARE JUST GUESSING. I WAS TALKING EDUCATORS THIS WEEK HAS BEEN WIDELY... HOW MANY SCHOOLS ARE DIGGING INTO THEIR OWN POCKETS TO COVER DISTRIBUTION AND CLEANUP ET CETERA? THEY PICK UP USED MEALS TWICE A WEEK. THERE ARE SOME SKILLS THAT SAY IT IS TOO DIFFICULT TO TAKE MEALS FROM THE SCHOOL AND GIVE THEM TODAY CHILDREN. THERE ARE SOME SKILLS THAT ARE MANAGING THAT'S JUST FINE. THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION IS GETTING SOME COMPENSATION TO SCHOOLS IN ORDER TO DO THAT THEY FEEL THEY CAN DO THAT. IT IS NOT BEYOND THE WETS OF PEOPLE IN NEW ZEALAND TO BE ABLE TO DISTRIBUTE MEALS TO STUDENTS WHO WE ARE TOLD THAT ARE SO HUNGRY THAT THIS IS ONLY MEAL THEY ARE GETTING, AND THEN TAKEN BACK. THEY COST MONEY DOESN'T? KNOW IT DOESN'T. SOMETIMES IT IS TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS WHO SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON EDUCATING. I HAVE VISITED SCHOOLS, AND SOME STUDENTS TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MEALS, AND THEY TAKE PRIDE IN THAT. IN THIS CASE THE STUDENTS HAVE TAKEN THE TIME TO LEARN LOGISTICS, RESPONSIBILITY. I SEE THAT AS A POSITIVE. WE HAD THIS IDEA THAT NEW ZEALANDERS ARE HELPLESS AND UNABLE TO SOLVE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS. BUT I'M GETTING FEEDBACK THAT SCHOOLS ARE ABLE TO SOLVE HIS PROBLEMS THEMSELVES. AND GET MEALS FROM THE SCHOOL IT DATES BACK TO THE STUDENTS. HE KNOWS THAT WE COULD ACHIEVE AS A COUNTRY. HOW MANY SCHOOLS ARE TOPPING UP THE COST OF THE SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS? WE UNHAPPY INFORMATION, BECAUSE THAT IS INFORMATION THAT COMES FROM A LARGE AMOUNT OF SKILLS, AND THAT HASN'T COME UP FROM ONE PLACE. THERE WERE EARLY CHALLENGES AROUND THE QUALITIES OF THE LUNCHES, AND WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT THAT SINCE HE RAISED IT. IT IS AN ISSUE THAT WE ACKNOWLEDGE CHALLENGES AND OVERCAME. BECAUSE OF THE SHORTAGE OF MEALS THEY HAVE BEEN BRINGING IN SUBSTITUTIONS, AND SOME ISSUES LIKE THE BURNING OF PLASTIC, OCCURRED BECAUSE THERE WERE MEALS SUBSTITUTED BECAUSE OF A LACK OF SUPPLY THAT WOULDN'T OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN IN THE SYSTEM. WITH THE CLOSURE AND TAKEOVER OF THAT FACILITY, THEY HAD BEEN UP THIS WEEK TO 50,000 MEALS A DAY TOWARDS THE END OF THE WEEK. BE A TARGET IS TO GET TO 70,000. AT THAT POINT, YOU DON'T HAVE MORE SUBSTITUTIONS. YOU DON'T HAVE SOME OF THOSE RUNS OF REPETITIVE MEALS, BECAUSE THEY MAKE THE MEALS THEY WERE ORIGINALLY CONTRACTED FOR. AGAIN, ON-TIME DELIVERY WAS A PROBLEM -- WE SOLVED IT. WE DISAGREE ON THAT. 13,000 KIDS HAPPY MEALS LATE. WE TOOK TO THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION ON FRIDAY. THOUSANDS OF KIDS ACROSS FIVE DAYS. IF YOU WANT TO DO MORE MENTAL ARITHMETIC, DEBTORS 2600 2780/8000 STUDENTS, JACK. THAT IS THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING. THERE HAS BEEN A PROBLEM WITH QUALITY THAT WE ARE OVERCOMING. THE LUNCH DELIVERED TO MASSEY PRIMARY SCHOOL ON FRIDAY WAS ROCK SOLID, FROZEN. THE SKILL IS WITHDRAWING FROM THE PROGRAM BECAUSE THEY CAN'T RELY ON THE LUNCHES, NOT BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED THEM. IF A SCHOOL AGREED TO SUBSIDISE THE PROGRAM, WOULD YOU AGREE TO GIVE THEM THREE DOLLARS A HEAD? NO. WE CONTRACTED FOR THE PRICE AND WE GET TO GO. WE HAD A SCHOOL LAST WEEK WHICH MADE A BIG SONG AND DANCE ABOUT PULLING OUT. THEY GAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT ON SOCIAL MEDIA, AND OVERWHELMED BY STUDENTS AND PARENTS SAYING I DON'T DO THAT. NOW THEY ARE RECEIVING AGAIN. THIS WHOLE SAGA HAS SHOWN THAT THE WAY PEOPLE DECIDE TO JUMP ON EVERY DETAIL OF THE LARGEST FOOD DELIVERY PROGRAM IN NEW ZEALAND HISTORY, WHEN THE REALITY IS THAT MANY PEOPLE ARE SAYING THAT THEY ENJOY THE MEALS AND THEY ARE BETTER THAN THEY WERE LAST YEAR, AND THAT QUALITY IS IMPROVING, IT IS ACTUALLY A POSITIVE STORY. AFTER IT WAS SHORTLISTED FOR YOUR PROGRAM, BOTH COMPANIES LOST SUPPLY CONTRACTS OF ALMOST 60% OF SCHOOLS ON THEIR BOOKS. THEY GOT MIXED RESULTS. IT HAD FAILED ALMOST HALF OF ITS NUTRITION STANDARD QUESTS, AND INDICATED INCONSISTENT PORTIONING, MEALS NOT MEETING NUTRITION STANDARDS... WHAT DID YOU DO REGARDING THE COMPANIES IN THE SCHOOL LUNCH COLLECTIVE? I TAKE ADVICE FROM THE` VIDEO EXPLICITLY ASKING OFFICIALS ABOUT THE PREVIOUS PERMISSIONS OF VIDEO EXPLICITLY ASKING OFFICIALS ABOUT THE PREVIOUS PERMISSIONS OF BOTH OF THOSE COMPANIES? BOTH OF THOSE COMPANIES? PEOPLE CAN JUMP ALL OVER WHAT WE DID ON THE PREVIOUS SYSTEM, HOWEVER, IF YOU WERE TO CAREFULLY -- THERE WERE SEVEN -- AND THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS I ASKED ABOUT -- THERE WERE SEVEN FOOD ENQUIRIES FROM THE OLD SCHOOL FOOD PROGRAM. NONE OF THEM WERE FROM EITHER OF THOSE COMPANIES. THERE WERE 40` YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE SAID THAT THESE COMPANIES WENT THROUGH PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND THESE WERE THE RESULTS? KNOW BECAUSE I WAS MORE FOCUSED ON HOW THEY ARE PERFORMANCE NOW. AND PERFORMANCE FOR THE LARGEST FOOD PROGRAM THAT NEW ZEALAND HAD EVER HAD -- WE HAVE DOUBLED PRODUCTIVITY AND ARE INCREASING QUALITY. WE NEED TO DO THAT IF WE WANT TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS WE WANT THE COUNTRY TO BE WEALTHIER, HAPPIER AND HEALTHIER. I THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD STRONGLY DISAGREE THAT THE SAME QUALITY HAS BEEN DELIVERED ACROSS THE BOARD. CAN YOU GUARANTEE THAT YOU WILL SEE THIS OUT ACROSS THE YEAR WITH THE SAME PROVIDERS? CAN YOU GUARANTEE THAT? OF COURSE I CAN'T, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. THEY COULD BE LOTS OF EVENTS. HOWEVER, RIGHT NOW I SEE NO REASON WHY THAT WOULD NOT BE THE CASE. IT IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW HOW WE CAN RULE OUT THE BIGGEST FOOD PROGRAM IN NEW ZEALAND HISTORY. THAT WE CAN HALF COST, DOUBLE PRODUCTIVITY... YOU SAY DISAGREE WITH THAT. I DIDN'T SAY DISAGREE WITH THAT. I AM SAYING THAT MANY PEOPLE WOULD REASONABLY DISAGREE WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT THAT THE QUALITY IS THE SAME OR BETTER. SHE SHOWED THE PHOTO UNDER THE PREVIOUS LABOUR GOVERNMENT, AND SAID THAT THIS LOOKS UNAPPEALING. HERE'S SOMETHING THE MEDIA COULD DAYS, THEY COULD GO OUT AND TALK TO THE PARENTS THE OTHER 70% TO MAKE THE LUNCHES AND ASKED IF THEIR KIDS ARE SUFFICIENTLY HAPPY WITH THE FED PROVIDED. I THINK YOU'LL GET SOME INTERESTING ANSWERS. YOU HAVE ASKED IF IT IS THE PARENTS RESPONSIBILITY TO FEED THEIR KIDS. I THINK MOST WOULD AGREE. FOR WHATEVER REASON THOUGH, KIDS WERE GOING HUNGRY. PARENTS WEREN'T ANY KIDS -- WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT THAT PROBLEM? WHAT IS ASKED TO COMPLETE THE THOUGHT, THE OTHER THING THAT THE MEDIA COULD BE -- THE OTHER 180 DAYS A YEAR THE SKILLS AREN'T OPEN -- ASK WHAT SKILLS AREN'T BEING PROVIDED... IF YOU CAN SEND THE OVERALL WEALTH, POVERTY AND INEQUALITY IN NEW ZEALAND THE GOVERNMENT HAS A RANGE OF INITIATIVES, PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE IN MY MIND IS THAT WE ARE REPLACING THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT AND GETTING SERIOUS ABOUT BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE. IF YOU LOOK OVER THE LAST FEW DECADES ABOUT 1/4 OF INCOME IS SPENT ON HOUSING AND POOR HOUSEHOLDS. NO AMOUNT OF TAX AND TRANSFERS AND BENEFITS IS GOING TO SOLVE YOUR UNDERLYING PROBLEM. IT IS INTERESTING THAT YOU SEE IT AS A PUBLIC ISSUE RATHER THEN A RESPONSIBILITY ISSUE. CHARTER SCHOOLS BRUSH LAST YEAR YOU SET ASIDE MONEY FOR 35 SCHOOLS TO CONVERT TO CHARTER SKILLS IN 2026. HOW MANY STATE SKILLS HAVE CONVERTED? AT THIS POINT WE HAVEN'T CONVERTED ANY,BECAUSE` THERE ARE A DOZEN. ONLY A DOZEN? YET PUT ASIDE MONEY FOR 35. HE SAID THERE WAS QUOTE HUGE DEMAND. THAT THERE WERE MANY THAT WANTED TO CONVERT FROM A STATE SKILL TO A CHARTER SCHOOL. THAT MONEY HAS BEEN ALLOCATED AND YOU HAVE ONLY RECEIVED APPLICATIONS FOR A DOZEN? I THINK TO BE ABLE TO CONVERT SKILLS IN SIX MONTHS WITH A TOTALLY NEW` WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ALLOW SKILLS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR STUDENT ATTENDANCE. THAT IS AN APPEALING OPPORTUNITY FOR EDUCATORS AND PARENTS. IF YOU PUT OPPORTUNITY FOR EDUCATORS AND PARENTS. IF YOU PUT ASIDE MONEY FOR 35. BE HONEST WITH US. IT HAS BEEN OPEN FOR MONTHS NOW. 12 SINCERITY. I THINK THERE'S MORE THAN THAT, BUT AT LEAST A DOZEN. ALAN TALKS WITH THE MINISTRY. THERE IS NO TELLING HOW BIG UPTAKE WILL BE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS. HE SAID THERE WAS HUGE DEMAND. DON'T HAVE A BASIS FOR UNDERSTANDING HOW MANY WILL EXPECT. I JUST SAID THAT IT IT A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR STATE SKILLS. THERE IS FRUSTRATION AROUND CONSTANT CHANGE OF POLICY AND THEY WOULD LOVE THAT ABILITY TO TEACH THEIR OWN WAY. LOTS OF PARENTS WANTED DIFFERENT WAYS OF TEACHING. PEOPLE AND LEAVING CITIES TO GO TO CHARTER SKILLS, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT GETTING WHAT THEY WANT FOR THEIR KID CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE SMALL ROLES. I'M SURE THERE WILL BE SOME NEW ONES THAT ESTABLISHMENT SOUTH NEXT YEAR, BUT JUST A DOZEN WHEN YOU HAVE 78 PEOPLE APPLYING FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS` YOU PUT ASIDE MONEY FOR 35 TO CONVERT. THAT IS THE MAXIMUM ENVELOPE THAT YOU CAN HAVE. AFTER THE BREAK ` REGULATION. AND DAVID SEYMOUR'S PLANS HOKI MAI, WELCOME BACK TO Q+A AND DAVID SEYMOUR. I WANT TO PUT THE RIGHTS OF NEW ZEALANDERS TO IRON COMEDIES AND EXCHANGE PROPERTY IN THE LAW, SO THAT IF YOU ARE SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO INVEST IN TODAY, SATAN HAD A BETTER TOMORROW, YOU KNOW YOU WON'T GET INVEST IN TODAY, AND HAVE A BETTER TOMORROW, YOU KNOW YOU WON'T GET SOME CRAZY LAW, THAT YOU ARE OWNING A BUSINESS AND HOME WITHOUT SPENDING MORE TIME ON THE COMPLIANCE SIDE OF YOUR BUSINESS RATHER BEEN ON THE PRODUCTIVE SIDE. THIS ALL THE TIME. I WAS TALKING ESSENTIAL DISTRICT FIELD DAY, US TALKING TO SOME FOLKS AND THEY SAID THEY HAD MORE PEOPLE UNDER COMPLIANCE SIDE THEN BE PRODUCTIVE SIDE STOP IF WE WANT TO ASK ALICE AUSLANDER STRUGGLE TO AFFORD MEDICINE AND DEFENCE AND THE FUTURE OF AN AGEING POPULATION AND HOW PENSIONS ARE DIFFICULT TO AFFORD, WELL, THE ONLY WAY WE CAN SQUARE THOSE CIRCLES IS THROUGH GREATER PRODUCTIVITY. I THINK ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS WITH PRODUCTIVITY IS HOW MUCH TIME AS WE SPEND ON COMPLIANCE. PEOPLE HAVE BEEN BURNT BY THAT. THEY SAY, LOOK ACTUALLY IT ISN'T WORTH IT. SAME SATELLITE OPPORTUNITIES. THREE, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, IS HOW OUR CULTURE CHANGES. FOR EXAMPLE, FOR MY MONEY EDMUND HILLARY WAS THE GREATEST NEW ZEALANDER EVER -- CERTAINLY, THAT I HAVE MET -- AND I HAVE BEEN TO THE WALLS WHERE AS I UNDERSTAND THAT HE BEGAN LEARNING TO CLIENT. AT THAT SKILL THEY PUT UP SIGNS SAYING IT CAN'T CLAIM. YOU THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MOMENT -- WE HAVE TAKEN A CULTURE OF OVERREGULATION THAT GETS US TO A POINT WHERE WE PROBABLY COULDN'T PRODUCE ONE OF FOUR PROBABLY OUR GREATEST SECTORS AND BECAUSE WE SAY YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO IT. THE IMMEDIATE COST OF BUSINESS AND THE COST OF BUSINESS THAT DOESN'T GET AN AND IN THE LONG CAN IT IS KIDS THAT GROW UP WITHOUT HEROES OR EXAMPLES THAT SHOW THAT IF YOU TAKE A RISK YOU CAN HAVE A BETTER TOMORROW. THE MINISTRY OF REGULATION HAS PUBLISHED ITS REGULATORY REVIEWS INTO CHILDHOOD REGULATION... TO SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN NEGLECTED FOR A WHILE AND HAS CRAZY RULES AROUND HAVING TO HAVE DIFFERENT HAND BASINS FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, AND TANS OF HAIRDRESSING. IT MAKES IT BASINS FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, AND TERMS OF HAIRDRESSING. IT MAKES IT HARDER TO OPEN UP. THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE SO CRAZY THAT YOU CAN'T FOLLOW THEM. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CAN'T GIVE PEOPLE GLASSES OF WINE WHEN THEY HAVE FOILS AND. PEOPLE DO THAT. AS I HAVE REGULATIONS WITH HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS IN CHILDHOOD REGULATION, WE NEED TO GO IN AND AND SEE WHAT IS EATING YOU GUYS AND WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE. RULES AND REGULATIONS COMING AT THEM FROM DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS. IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THERE ARE LOTS OF RULES THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THAT AREN'T NEEDED. LET'S GET RID OF THOSE, AND THEN YOU CAN GET BACK TO DOING WHATEVER YOU DO -- CUTTING AND COLOURING, BRINGING IN PRODUCTS LIKE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY SPRAYING EDUCATION ET CETERA GOOD LUCK TO THEM. A LOT OF PEOPLE LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND SAY THAT IS AMAZING, WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT? I THINK WHAT THEY MAY DISCOVER IS THAT THE PROOF OF THE PUDDING IS IN THE EATING. I THINK THE AMERICAN SYSTEM IN PARTICULAR IS SET UP WITH CHECKS AND BALANCES MAKE IT DIFFICULT -- AND THIS IS WHAT GEORGE WASHINGTON AND FOUNDERS WANTED -- IS THAT NO ONE COULD BECOME A DICTATOR IN THEIR POLITICAL SYSTEM, SO THEY HAVE MADE ALL THE RIGHT NOISES, BUT LET US SEE HOW THEY DIE. I LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE DONE WITH AN EARLY CHILDHOOD REGULATION. WE HAVE TALKED TO 2 1/2 THOUSAND PEOPLE. WE HAVE PRODUCED AROUND 100 AND PAGES, 15 RECOMMENDATIONS AND GOT CABINET TO SIGN OFF ON THAT. WE ARE IMPLEMENTING THAT. WE ARE NOT GOING TO HARM CHILD SAFETY OR SLASH AND BURN. MAKING REGULATIONS BETTER, IS NOT ABOUT SLASHING AND BURNING AND SEEING WHAT HAPPENS, IT IS ABOUT ASKING WHAT RULES MAKE SENSE IN WHICH RULES IN PLACE DON'T MAKE SENSE. FROM THERE, DOING YOUR BEST. NEW ZEALANDERS NOTICE ANY DIFFERENCE? IF YOU ARE A LICENSED FIREARM OWNER OR A FARMER OR BASICALLY ANYONE MAKING A DIFFERENCE OR TRYING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN OUR OWN LIFE, YOU OFTEN HAVE MARGINALISED OR BEATEN DOWN BY THE GOVERNMENT` AND THEY STILL BEING MARGINALISED AND BEATEN DOWN BY THE GOVERNMENT? I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO CHOSE TO GET THE PARTY VOTE TO US, BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THAT ANYONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THE MOST OF THEIR TIME ON AND REGARDLESS OF THEIR BACKGROUND, PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT THAT IS IMPORTANT AS A SYMBOL. THAT PRACTICES DEMOCRACY AND THINGS WORK OUT. WHO KNOWS, IT MAY GIVE MORE INFLUENCE ON HOW THE GOVERNMENT GUYS. WE ARE ALREADY THREE SHEETS TO THE WIND ON THAT METRICS. IF YOU WANT TO CONTACT THE Q+A TEAM, PLEASE, KORERO MAI. FLICK US AN EMAIL ` FISHING GENERATES MORE THAN $1.5B IN EXPORTS EVERY YEAR, AND THE GOVERNMENT'S SEEKING FEEDBACK ON A RANGE OF REFORMS TO THE FISHERIES ACT WHICH COULD SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE COMMERICAL OPERATIONS IN NEW ZEALAND'S WATERS. I SAT DOWN THIS WEEK WITH FISHERIES MINISTER SHANE JONES AND ASKED HIM WHAT HE WANTS TO ACHIEVE WITH THE REFORMS. WELL, THE QUOTA SYSTEM CAME IN IN '86, '87. COLIN MOYLE WAS THE MINISTER OF THAT TIME. FOR MANY YEARS THERE HAVE BEEN BUGBEARS IN THE INDUSTRY, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS, UM... BRINGING FISH THAT HAVE BEEN KILLED BACK TO SHORE. AND I THINK WITH THE ARRIVAL OF CAMERAS, WE SHOULD CUT SOME SLACK TO THE INDUSTRY BECAUSE THEY'RE UNDER STATE SURVEILLANCE NOW. SO MORE BROADLY, THOUGH, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO ACHIEVE WITH THESE REFORMS? BECAUSE` WE CAN TALK ABOUT CAMERAS IN A MOMENT. THERE ARE LOTS OF DIFFERENT ASPECTS TO YOUR PROPOSED POLICY CHANGES. WELL, THE MOTIVATION IS TO ` WITHIN THE GUARDRAILS OF SUSTAINABILITY ` GENERATE BETTER ECONOMIC RETURNS, MORE JOBS, AND QUITE FRANKLY, GREATER CERTAINTY IN THE COMMERCIAL SEA FISHING INDUSTRY. OK. TALK TO US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT TENSION OR THE BALANCE THEN BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND ECONOMIC RETURNS, BECAUSE COMMERCIAL FISHING IS ALWAYS A BALANCE OF THOSE PRIORITIES. HOW WOULD THESE CHANGES IMPACT THAT BALANCE? WELL, THOSE CHANGES COME INTO SHARP FOCUS WHEN YOU SET THE QUOTA. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S DECISIONS ON THE WAY PERTAINING TO CRAYFISH QUOTA IN THE HAURAKI GULF. THEY OUGHT TO BE PUBLIC IN THE NEXT MONTH OR SO. SO IT'S WHEN YOU SET THE QUOTA THAT YOU HAVE TO ASCERTAIN A LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE TO MATAITAI CUSTOMARY FISHERIES, THE VERY LARGE AND NOISY RECREATIONAL FISHERIES, AND THE COMMERCIAL GUYS. THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IN THESE REFORMS THAT IS GOING TO DEPRECATE OR WEAKEN THE STATUS OF THE RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SECTOR. WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO IS ENABLE BETTER EFFICIENCIES IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR. WILL IT WEAKEN THE STATE OF THE FISHERY BEYOND THE RECREATIONAL SECTOR? SO IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR IN ANY WAY, CAN YOU SEE THESE CHANGES POTENTIALLY CAUSING PROBLEMS IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR? WELL, THE PROBLEMS WOULD RELATE TO THE QUALITY OF THE SCIENCE AND THE TECHNICAL APPRAISAL OF THE STRENGTH OF THE FISHERY. I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT OUR QUOTA SYSTEM HAS WORKED. NOW I ACCEPT THAT ELEMENTS IN THE RECREATIONAL FISHERY WOULD LIKE TO SEE PARTS OF THE QUOTA SYSTEM DISMANTLED. I DON'T HAVE A MANDATE TO PURSUE THAT OUTCOME. SO I WOULD SAY TO EVERYONE, THE WATCHERS OF THIS SHOW, THAT THESE CHANGES ARE BASED ON AN ONGOING, ROBUST, SCIENTIFIC BASIS AS TO WHO SHOULD GET WHAT FISH AND HOW MUCH FISH IN THE AGGREGATE SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT OF THE OCEAN. CAMERAS ON BOATS. WHY SHOULD FOOTAGE TAKEN FROM CAMERAS ON FISHING BOATS BE EXEMPT FROM THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT? YES, THAT'S THE STATUS AND THE ARGUMENT THAT I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO RUN. IF IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH WHEN ALL THE EAR TAGS GOT PUT ON THE COWS FOR THAT TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT, I THINK THAT THE FOOTAGE FROM CAMERAS OUGHT TO BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE REGULATOR OR TO BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR PROSECUTORIAL DECISIONS. HOW ARE THOSE COMPARABLE INDUSTRIES? OF COURSE THEY ARE. THEY'RE BOTH PRIMARY PRODUCE INDUSTRIES, AND I DON'T` WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME A DAIRY FARMER CAUGHT A DOLPHIN? WELL, WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THAT A FISHERMAN CONSENTED TO STATE SURVEILLANCE OF INDUSTRY? IT'S NOT ABOUT CONSENTING, THOUGH, IS THAT IT'S ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT ACTUALLY THESE` THESE FISHERS ARE OPERATING AS THEY SAY THEY DO, AND WHETHER OR NOT THE THE PUBLIC ACTUALLY HAS A RIGHT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE DOING ON THESE BOATS. BUT THE STATE UNDERTAKES PROSECUTIONS, NOT WITCHES, NOT PEOPLE BURNING BONFIRES AND NOT SALEM TRAIL TRIAL` TRAILS. TRIALS RATHER. THAT BELONGS WITH THE STATE. SO WHAT SPECIFICALLY ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE SEEING? WELL, IT'S LESS ABOUT THE SPECIFIC, UH, FEATURES THAT THEY MIGHT SEE. IT'S ABOUT A PRINCIPAL. FOR EXAMPLE, I DO NOT ACCEPT STATE SURVEILLANCE OF INDUSTRY. NOW, I KNOW THAT'S A RHETORICAL STANCE TO PUT FORWARD, BUT I'M GOING TO TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, I'M GOING TO ADVOCATE, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, THAT CAMERA FOOTAGE BE RESERVED FOR THE STATE TO UNDERTAKE PROSECUTORIAL, REGULATORY AND EDUCATIONAL... MY QUESTION IS WHY, THOUGH? UM, BECAUSE I DON'T SUPPORT STATE SURVEILLANCE OF INDUSTRY. BUT, I MEAN, YOU COULD BLUR THESE PEOPLE'S FACES. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. YES, YOU CAN. YOU'LL GET` IT'S A VERY SIMPLE` VERY SIMPLE TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTION. IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT PRIVACY, YOU COULD GET THE FOOTAGE FROM THE BOATS AND BEFORE IT'S RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC, YOU CAN BLUR THEIR FACES. BUT YOU'RE INVITING ME TO HOP ON AN EXORABLY SLIPPERY SLOPE, AND I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT. WHAT DO YOU MEAN ` HOW SO? WELL, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE, NUMBER ONE, FOR STATE SURVEILLANCE OF INDUSTRY. IT'S UP TO MPI AND THE COURT SYSTEM TO ESTABLISH WHETHER OFFENCES HAVE BEEN COMMITTED; IT'S NOT UP TO TIKTOK. LET'S THINK ABOUT` LET'S CONSIDER WHAT WE'VE LEARNED FROM STATE SURVEILLANCE OF INDUSTRY. SO YOU HAVE OBVIOUSLY CONSISTENTLY OPPOSED CAMERAS ON FISHING BOATS. AFTER THOSE CAMERAS WERE FINALLY INTRODUCED, AFTER YEARS OF OPPOSITION FROM THE INDUSTRY, REPORTED BYCATCH MASSIVELY INCREASED OVERNIGHT ` THERE WAS A 46% INCREASE IN REPORTED FISH DISCARDS, A 350% INCREASE IN ALBATROSS INTERACTIONS, A 700% INCREASE IN REPORTED DOLPHIN CATCHES. SO WHY DID IT TAKE STATE SURVEILLANCE, AS YOU DEEM IT, TO GET AN HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT WAS ACTUALLY HAPPENING ON FISHING BOATS? SO... NOW IT'S A MATTER OF LAW THAT WE HAVE CAMERAS. AND GOING FORWARD, IT'S 'HOW DO WE USE THAT FOOTAGE?' DO WE USE THAT FOOTAGE SO THAT IT CAN BE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT AND PERHAPS USE TO CONTINUE TO DEMONISE THE INDUSTRY? AND AS THE FISHERIES MINISTER ` AND I'LL MEET ANYONE AT THE BALLOT BOX ON THIS ISSUE ` I DON'T AGREE. HANG ON. YOU JUST TOLD ME THAT IT WAS STATE SURVEILLANCE THAT WAS YOUR ISSUE. YOU SAID IT WAS THE ISSUE OF STATE SURVEILLANCE, THE PRINCIPLE OF STATE SURVEILLANCE; YOU SAID IT WAS NOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING ON THE BOATS. NO, WHAT I SAID IS THAT WE NOW HAVE CAMERAS, AND I HAVE LOST THAT DEBATE. AND I ACCEPT THAT THE STATE SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THE SURVEILLED DATA FOR PROSECUTORIAL DECISIONS. I DON'T BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE RECKLESSLY OR INDISCRIMINATELY SHOVED ON TIKTOK, AND I'M NOT GOING TO CHANGE MY MIND. SO WHAT ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE SEEING ON TIKTOK? OH, NO. THE REALITY IS THAT IF` IF AN OFFENCE HAS BEEN COMMITTED, THEN THAT'S A MATTER OF THE STATE AMASSING THE INFORMATION, ARRIVING AT A PROSECUTORIAL DECISION AND IF CAMERA FOOTAGE HELPS THEM WITH THAT, THEN THAT'S FINE. BACK TO THE QUESTION, BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY ANSWER IT. WHY DID IT TAKE GETTING CAMERAS ON BOATS TO GET AN HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT WAS ACTUALLY HAPPENING? OH, IT'S A DYNAMIC SITUATION IN THE INDUSTRY, AND I'M SURE THERE HAVE BEEN PEOPLE IN THE INDUSTRY` CERTAINLY DYNAMIC TO GO FROM ` OVERNIGHT ` A 700% INCREASE IN DOLPHIN CATCHES. YEAH... BUT LOOK` WHY DID THAT HAPPEN? THE REALITY IS, UM... IT'S A DYNAMIC SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE SENSE NOW THAT THE CAMERAS ARE HERE; AND THERE WERE FORMERLY, IN MOST CASES, OBSERVERS; AND WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN BAD EGGS... MATTERS ARE IMPROVING. YEAH. SO BACK TO MY QUESTION, THOUGH ` WHY DID IT TAKE CAMERAS ON BOATS TO GET AN HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING? WELL, YOU'D NEED TO GO TO THE INDUSTRY ABOUT THAT. ALL I'M TELLING YOU IS THAT THE CAMERAS ARE NOW A MATTER OF FACT AND LAW, AND IF THEY'RE IMPROVING OUTCOMES, THEN` YOU'RE THE MINISTER. YOU'RE THE MINISTER, AND YOU'RE SOMEONE WHO'S GIVEN A LOT OF CONSIDERATION TO POLICIES AROUND CAMERAS ON BOATS. YOU MUST UNDERSTAND WHY IT TOOK CAMERAS ON BOATS TO FINALLY GET AN HONEST PICTURE. UH, NO. WHAT I'M SAYING TO YOU IS THAT IT'S THE LAW. WE'VE GOT CAMERAS, AND THERE'S NO POINT IN ME REHEARSING WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN TAKING PLACE BEFORE I WAS THE MINISTER. IT'S NOT A LOT OF CREDIBILITY IN THE SPACE FOR THE INDUSTRY, IS THERE? YEAH, BUT YOU SEE, THAT'S` THAT'S PART OF THIS SORT OF WOKE INTELLIGENTSIA. ANY WILDLIFE INDUSTRY` YOU PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO DRIVE MEN AND WOMEN OUT OF THEIR JOBS. IT'S A WILDLIFE INDUSTRY. YOU'LL ALWAYS GET A FEW INDISCRETIONS. I DON'T THINK WE'RE TRYING TO DRIVE MEN AND WOMEN OUT OF THEIR JOBS. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT, ACTUALLY ` SURPRISE, SURPRISE 700% MORE DOLPHINS ARE BEING CAUGHT THAN PREVIOUSLY WERE UNDERSTOOD. YEAH, BUT I MEAN, THAT'S THE OTHER THING THAT YOUR GENERATION DOES. YOU DEIFY THESE DOLPHINS. THEY'RE PART OF AN ECOSYSTEM. NO ONE GOES OUT THERE TO DELIBERATELY CATCH A DOLPHIN. AND AND FOR THE RECORD, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MAUI'S DOLPHIN; THEY'RE JUST HECTOR'S DOLPHINS. SHOULDN'T WE` WE SHOULDN'T UNDERSTAND THEM WHEN WE'RE CATCHING ENDANGERED BYCATCH? NO, I THINK THAT MPI AND THE REGIME DOES A VERY GOOD JOB AT ENSURING THAT PEOPLE USE BETTER TORREY LINES, BETTER TECHNIQUES TO AVOID CAPTURE. AND I'M ALL FOR SAVING SEABIRDS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE'VE GOT TO HAVE BALANCE, AND PERHAPS THE BALANCE IS GOING TO BE BETTER ACHIEVED NOW WITH THE CAMERAS, AND THAT DATA CAN BE USED, JACK, BY THE STATE TO EFFECT BETTER PROSECUTORIAL OUTCOMES WHERE NECESSARY. SO, LET'S TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE OTHER PROPOSED CHANGES. IF QUOTA OWNERS DON'T REACH THEIR LIMITS, YOUR PROPOSALS WOULD MEAN THEY CAN CARRY FORWARD THEIR CATCH INTO THE NEXT YEAR. BUT WOULDN'T A FISHER NOT CATCHING THE LIMIT INDICATE THAT, ACTUALLY, THE FISHERY IS ALREADY UNDER SIGNIFICANT PRESSURE? NO. IT MAY ALSO INDICATE THAT, UM, WEATHER-RELATED CONDITIONS OR THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A FIRM OR THE LACK OF CATCHING CAPACITY MEANS THAT THE THE QUOTA WASN'T CAUGHT. NOW, THESE` THAT IS ONE PARTICULAR ISSUE THAT I'M REALLY KEEN TO HEAR BACK FROM THE PUBLIC ON. OK. WHY THAT ISSUE? WELL, THERE'S TWO SIDES TO THE COIN. ONE ` IT'S AN EFFICIENT USE OF THE FISHERY RESOURCE. AND THE OTHER SIDE, COMING FROM THE PEOPLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE OVERREACH OF THE COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY, IS THAT IT MAY ENABLE THEM TO CATCH TOO MUCH IN ONE YEAR AS OPPOSED TO THE YEAR THAT IT WAS MEANT TO BE CAUGHT. NOW, THERE'S A TRAIN OF THOUGHT, SUCH AS IN THE TARAKIHI OFF THE HAWKE'S BAY. NOW, THE FISHING INDUSTRY WOULD SAY THAT THE SCIENCE IS FLAWED. THE REGULATORS WOULD SAY, NO, THE SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH TARAKIHI THERE TO JUSTIFY THE CATCH LIMITS. AND I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THAT SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, THAT'S A GOOD CASE OF WHETHER OR NOT CARRY FORWARD WILL WORK OUT IN PRACTICE, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING A DISCUSSION. AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE, YOUR GOVERNMENT WEAKENED SOME OF THE MARINE PROTECTIONS IN THE HAURAKI GULF SO THAT A SELECT FEW COMMERCIAL FISHERS CAN CONTINUE OPERATING THERE. BUT INFORMATION OBTAINED BY NEWSROOM SHOWED THOSE FISHERS ARE BRINGING IN JUST $14,000 WORTH OF FISH, AS PER THE LAST YEAR OF RECORDED DATA. SO WHY UNDERMINE WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPREHENSIVE MARINE PROTECTIONS FOR THE SAKE OF JUST $14,000 WORTH OF FISH? NO, THE NEWSROOM INFORMATION WAS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. HOW SO? I HAVE CHECKED WITH THE FISHING INDUSTRY, AND THEY HAVE TOLD ME THEY CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR HOW THAT $14,000 FIGURE WAS ARRIVED AT. I THINK IT WAS A FIGURE THAT WAS TOSSED AROUND IN LOOSE DISCUSSIONS. AND OTHER THAN THAT, I HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING HOW NEWSROOM ARRIVED AT THAT FIGURE. WHAT WOULD BE AN ACCURATE FIGURE IN YOUR VIEW? WELL, IT DEPENDS ON HOW MANY RING NET FISHERS ARE PERMITTED TO OPERATE THERE, AND THAT MATTER IS STILL BEING WORKED THROUGH BY MYSELF AND MINISTER TAMA POTAKA. I SUPPOSE THE PRINCIPLE REMAINS, THOUGH. WHY UNDERMINE WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPREHENSIVE PROTECTIONS FOR THE HAURAKI GULF FOR THE SAKE OF A FEW FISHERS? BUT OUR PARTY NEVER CAMPAIGNED ON THAT. BUT YOUR GOVERNMENT APPROVED THIS. OUR PARTY DID NOT CAMPAIGN, DID NOT SUPPORT THIS BILL. ARE YOU THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES? INDEED. SO IT IS QUITE IN ORDER FOR NEW ZEALAND FIRST TO LOOK AT A BILL THAT WAS INTRODUCED BY LABOUR WITHIN SPITTING DISTANCE OF THE LAST ELECTION, AND ESTABLISH WHETHER OR NOT IT TREATS FAIRLY PEOPLE THAT HAVE HISTORICALLY EARNED THEIR LIVING FROM AROUND KAWAU BAY AND OTHER SUCH PLACES. MY QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S ACTUALLY WORTH UNDERMINING WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPREHENSIVE MARINE PROTECTIONS FOR THE SAKE OF A FEW PEOPLE, IN WHAT IS A JEWEL IN THIS PART OF THE COUNTRY. THE REALITY IS THE HAURAKI GULF IS DEARLY LOVED BY ALL AND SUNDRY. AND IF THE PROPONENTS GET 98% OF WHAT THEY WANT, THEY SHOULD BANK IT. I'M NOT SURE IT'S 98%. WELL, THE TINY AREAS WHERE THE RING NET GUYS WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE, IT'S LIKE A BEAUTY SPOT. IT'S SO SMALL. WELL, NOT ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, WHO SAYS, OF COURSE, THAT IT WILL UNDERMINE BIODIVERSITY OUTCOMES IN THEIR OFFICIAL ADVICE TO YOU. BUT THEY OPERATE UNDER THE CONSERVATION ACT, AND I RESPECT THEIR ADVOCACY. I'M THE FISHERIES MINISTER. AT LAST MONTH'S SOUTH PACIFIC REGIONAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION MEETING, NEW ZEALAND OPPOSED A MEASURE PUT FORWARD BY THE US AND AUSTRALIA TO FURTHER RESTRICT BOTTOM TRAWLING IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC. WHY? WELL, SPRFMO ` SET UP, WELL, NIGH ON 20 OR 15, 16, 17 YEARS AGO ` HAS WORKED REASONABLY WELL, BUT IT'S HAD THE EFFECT OF TRYING TO DRIVE NEW ZEALAND OUT OF THE TINY COMMERCIAL FISHERIES THAT REMAIN IN THE SPRFMO AREA, AND THAT'S NOT IN NEW ZEALAND'S INTEREST. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT BY FURTHER EDGING NEW ZEALAND OUT, THAT BETTER INFLUENCES ARE GOING TO OCCUPY THAT VOID? NO, THEY'RE NOT. AFTER A NEW ZEALAND FISHING TRAWLER, THE TASMAN VIKING, WAS FOUND GUILTY OF HAVING FAILED TO REPORT CATCHING BAMBOO CORAL IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS, THE VESSEL WAS GRANTED PERMISSION TO FISH AGAIN IN THE SAME AREA, WHEREUPON IT CAUGHT 37KG OF CORAL IN THE SAME PLACE, AND TRAWLING HAS NOW BEEN SUSPENDED AT THAT LOCATION. IS THAT THE RIGHT CALL? WELL, I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW THE AREA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REPRESENTS 1% OF THE ENTIRETY OF THE PACIFIC AREA, AND THE AMERICANS` PACIFIC'S BIG, THOUGH. SO 1% IS STILL SIGNIFICANT, RIGHT? NO, THE AMERICANS AND THE AUSTRALIANS... WELL, IT'S HARD TO KNOW WHERE THE AMERICANS STAND NOW, SO I'LL LEAVE THAT TO THE SIDE, BUT THE AUSTRALIANS ARE NOT A FISHERIES NATION. THEY'RE A MINING NATION. AND WE ARE ENTITLED TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. AND WE TOOK A DIFFERENT VIEW AT SPRFMO. I THINK THAT THE THRESHOLD AT WHICH YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE CORAL NEEDS TO BE REVISITED. RIGHT. SO WAS IT THE WRONG CALL TO BAN FISHING IN THAT AREA OR TO SUSPEND FISHING IN THAT AREA AFTER THE TASMAN VIKING HAULED IN CORAL FOR A SECOND TIME? NO. KIWIS HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE RULES OF THE SPRFMO, AND THOSE RULES ARE AGREED TO AS THE MEETINGS TAKE PLACE YEAR BY YEAR. AND THE RULES, IN MY VIEW, ARE SO RESTRICTIVE THAT THEY THWART ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. AND I'M AN ECONOMIC GROWTH POLITICIAN. WHAT DOES IT SAY, THOUGH, ABOUT THAT VESSEL AND ABOUT BOTTOM TRAWLING IN PRINCIPLE, THAT THAT VESSEL HAS REPEATEDLY HAULED UP CORAL? SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SEAMOUNTS. THESE SEAMOUNTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN FISHED IN THE PAST. THESE SEAMOUNTS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED. SADLY, THERE WERE OTHER GOVERNMENTS WHO ARE MORE WOKE-RIDDLED THAN I AM ON THIS BUSINESS OF INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES. AND I'M IN THE BUSINESS OF RE-ESTABLISHING THE CREDIBILITY OF NEW ZEALAND FISHERS TO OPERATE LEGALLY ON THOSE AREAS WHERE THE AUSTRALIANS THEMSELVES HAVE HANDED OVER THEIR FISHERIES QUOTA TO KIWIS TO CATCH. AGAIN, THOUGH, TO MY QUESTION ` WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT BOTTOM TRAWLING AS A PRACTICE, AND THIS VESSEL, IN PARTICULAR, THAT THEY'VE REPEATEDLY HAULED UP CORAL IN EXACTLY THE SAME PLACE? SO, WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT THE RULES NEED REVISING. YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO ACCEPT THAT COMMERCIAL FISHING INTERACTS WITH ECOSYSTEMS AND WITH WILDLIFE. AND IF WE WANT A FISHING INDUSTRY, WHICH I DO, IN THAT PART OF THE WORLD, AND THE RULES ARE SO RESTRICTIVE THAT IT'S UNDERMINING OPPORTUNITY, THEN WE NEED TO PLACE AS MUCH ACCENT ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AS WE DO FOR OBSCURE PIECES OF CORAL. HAVE YOU EVER RECEIVED DONATIONS FROM ANYONE CONNECTED TO THAT VESSEL, THE TASMAN VIKING? ALL OF MY DONATIONS, JACK, ARE DEFINITELY PUBLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION'S LEGAL OBLIGATIONS, AND I'M SURE THE PARTY THAT I BELONG TO DOES THE SAME THING. SO ALL VIEWERS ARE MORE THAN ENTITLED TO GO AND HAVE A CHECK AT WHO HAS FUNDED ME. SO, THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION. MY QUESTION WAS ` HAVE YOU EVER` NO, NO. I'VE JUST TOLD YOU. GO AND FIND IT OUT YOURSELVES. HAVE YOU OR YOUR PARTY EVER RECEIVED DONATIONS FROM ANYONE CONNECTED TO THAT VESSEL? AS I SAID, ALL OUR DONATIONS ARE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. OK. YOU RECEIVED $7000 IN DONATIONS, YOU AND YOUR PARTY, FROM COMPANIES THAT WERE CONNECTED TO THE CEO OF THE COMPANY THAT OWNS THAT FISHING VESSEL, THAT YOU ARE DEFENDING, NOW THAT IT'S HAULED UP CORAL TWICE AND BEEN LAMBASTED BY A JUDGE AS CAVALIER. BUT AREN'T YOU CATASTROPHISING THINGS, MATE? WELL, I MEAN, THE JUDGE IN THAT FIRST CASE, AFTER THEY MISREPORTED THE CORAL CATCHES, HE DESCRIBED THEM AS CAVALIER AND THE VESSEL WAS ACTUALLY IMPOUNDED FOR A PERIOD. YEAH, BUT THAT DECISION TO ENABLE THEM TO HAVE ANOTHER GO WAS MADE BY OFFICIALDOM. IT WASN'T MADE BY THE MATUA. MY QUESTION WASN'T ABOUT THE DECISION TO GIVE THEM ANOTHER GO. IT WAS ABOUT BOTTOM TRAWLING AS A PRACTICE. YEAH, BUT OBVIOUSLY` BUT NO, NO, NO, NO. IF THEY WERE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK THERE AGAIN WITH OVERLY RESTRICTIVE RULES, WHICH IS WHY OUR OFFICIALS ARE NOW BEING A LOT MORE PRAGMATIC, BECAUSE THE WOKE-A-MANIA OF JACINDA'S GOVERNMENT HAS COME AND GONE. JUST TO TAKE A WIDE PERSPECTIVE HERE, THOUGH, YOU ARE OPPOSING INTERNATIONAL MEASURES PUT FORWARD BY THE U.S AND AUSTRALIA TO RESTRICT BOTTOM TRAWLING IN OUR PATCH IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC. YOU OPPOSE MAKING CAMERA FOOTAGE AVAILABLE. YOU'RE STANDING UP FOR A COMPANY THAT WAS CONVICTED OF MISREPORTING CORAL CATCHES, WHICH A JUDGE DESCRIBED AS CAVALIER, WHICH JUST HAPPENS TO HAVE DONATED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO YOU AND YOUR PARTY. SO HOW DO I AND HOW DOES ANYONE WATCHING THIS KNOW THAT YOU'RE NOT JUST DOING THEIR BIDDING? BUT THE ENTITLEMENTS THAT THE COMPANY ENJOYS WERE NOT ISSUED BY SHANE JONES. THEY WERE ISSUED BY OFFICIALDOM, WHO MADE THOSE DECISIONS ON THE BASIS OF CRITERIA THAT I NEVER WROTE. MY QUESTION, THOUGH, IS ` HOW DO WE KNOW YOU'RE NOT JUST DOING THE INDUSTRY'S BIDDING? YEAH, BUT STUDY THE FACTS. I NEVER SIGNED OFF ANY FISHING PERMIT AUTHORITY FOR ANY COMPANY TO GO THERE. WHAT I'M SAYING ON BEHALF OF NEW ZEALAND IS THERE HAS TO BE MORE PRAGMATISM AND BALANCE. NOW, I KNOW THE AUSSIES TOOK A DIFFERENT VIEW, BUT THEN WHY DID THEY GIVE THEIR FISHERIES QUOTA TO NEW ZEALAND TO CATCH. WHY DID THEY DO THAT? YOU SAID THAT YOU'VE HAD NO ROLE IN THIS. I MEAN, YOU'RE ON THIS SHOW RIGHT NOW HAVING ARGUED THAT WE DIDN'T NEED CAMERAS ON BOATS. CAMERAS ON BOATS WERE INTRODUCED. WHAT DO YOU KNOW? MASSIVE BYCATCH REPORTING GOES UP. YOU'RE NOW SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THAT FOOTAGE COS YOU THINK THEY'LL BE DEMONISED. YOU SAY IT'S A PRINCIPLE, BUT ACTUALLY THAT IT'S GOING TO BE THE COURT OF TIKTOK THAT WILL DECIDE IF THAT FOOTAGE IS MADE AVAILABLE. NO, IT SHOULD BE THE STATE THAT MAKES PROSECUTIONS ` NOT TV1. THE QUESTION, THOUGH, IS JUST ` HOW DOES ANYONE KNOW WHOSE INTEREST YOU REPRESENT? HOW DOES ANYONE KNOW WHOSE INTEREST YOU REPRESENT? WHETHER IT'S VOTERS, THE NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC, OR THE INDUSTRY. BUT NEW ZEALAND FIRST WAS VOTED IN WITH A PRO-INDUSTRY OUTCOME ` JOBS, ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, EXPORT EARNINGS, LESS RED TAPE. WE ARE SEEKING TO BRING SOME MORE PRAGMATISM TO WHAT IS A VERY VEXED AREA. LOOK, I KNOW THAT GREENPEACE AND OTHER AREAS DON'T SHARE THE SAME LEVEL OF ZEST I HAVE FOR INDUSTRY, BUT I STOOD AT THE BALLOT BOX. THAT'S FISHERIES MINISTER, SHANE JONES. WE ALSO HAD A GOOD CONVERSATION ABOUT HIS AMBITIONS FOR MINING IN NEW ZEALAND. YOU CAN SEE THAT ON OUR YOUTUBE PAGE. JUST GO TO @NZQ+A. AFTER THE BREAK ` WE ASK A BIG MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTOR WHAT MORE IT'LL TAKE TO BRING IN FOREIGN CAPITAL. ONE OF THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE HAD A UNIQUE INSIGHT INTO NEW ZEALAND MARKET AND HOW WE COMPARE TO OTHER COUNTRIES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTORS. PAUL NEWFIELD IS THE CEO OF MORRISON, WHICH INVESTS IN PROJECTS AROUND THE WORLD AND BOASTS ASSETS WORTH MORE THAN $40B. I STARTED BY ASKING HIM WHY OVERSEAS INVESTORS WOULD BOTHER COMING HERE. YOU WANT TO KNOW THAT YOU'RE WELCOME. WHEN YOU'RE FOREIGN CAPITAL OR EVEN WHEN YOU'RE DOMESTIC CAPITAL, YOU WANT TO KNOW THAT ACTUALLY THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE WANT YOU TO BE INVESTING. SO GETTING THE WELCOME MAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT. SO A LOT OF OUR GLOBAL INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS CAME HERE BECAUSE THE PRIME MINISTER SENT THEM AN INVITATION, AND THEY SAID, 'ACTUALLY, THIS MEANS YOU'RE OPEN FOR BUSINESS.' SECONDLY, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE GLOBALS TO KNOW THE LOCALS. SO, VERY FEW OF THEM ACTUALLY WANT TO GO IT ALONE; THEY WANT TO PARTNER WITH IWI, WITH LOCAL PEOPLE LIKE US, LOCAL PEOPLE LIKE THE NEW ZEALAND SUPER-FUND OR KIWISAVER FUNDS. SO GETTING THOSE RELATIONSHIPS GOING IS SUPER IMPORTANT. NEW ZEALAND IS, I THINK, THE 54TH LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD. WE HAVE A RELATIVELY SMALL POPULATION. WE ARE GEOGRAPHICALLY EXTREMELY ISOLATED. WE ARE VULNERABLE TO SEISMIC EVENTS, EXTREME WEATHER. WHY WOULD A BIG MONEY FUND FROM OVERSEAS ACTUALLY WANT TO SPEND MONEY HERE? YEAH, IT'S A REAL CHALLENGE, RIGHT? AND ACTUALLY, WE SHOULD KEEP THINKING ABOUT THOSE CHALLENGES, BECAUSE THE WORLD DOESN'T OWE US A LIVING. WE'RE KIND OF IRRELEVANT UNLESS WE MAKE OURSELVES RELEVANT. BUT YOU COULD ALSO SAY LIKE, 'WHY WOULD ONE OF THE WORLD'S BIGGEST 'INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FIRMS HAVE STARTED IN NEW ZEALAND?' IT'S ACTUALLY BECAUSE NEW ZEALAND WAS PIONEERING, DECIDED TO GO HARD AT SOMETHING, AND WE'RE SMALL ENOUGH THAT WHEN WE DECIDE TO DO SOMETHING WELL, WE CAN REALLY FOCUS ON IT. THE OTHER THING IS RIGHT NOW IN THE WORLD, ACTUALLY, IT'S RARER THAN IT SHOULD BE TO BE A STABLE GOVERNMENT WITH AN OPPOSITION WHO'S ACTUALLY HAPPY TO KEEP A LOT OF THE SETTINGS THE SAME IF THEY GET INTO POWER, RULE OF THE LAW, STRONG INSTITUTIONS. AND ACTUALLY NEW ZEALAND'S GOT A REAL ADVANTAGE RIGHT NOW. THE NORTHERN EXPRESSWAY ` LAY IT OUT FOR US. HOW WOULD A FOREIGN FIRM OR FUND MAKE MONEY OUT OF A PROJECT LIKE THAT? YEAH, IT'S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION. THE FIRST THING TO SAY IS WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT TOLL ROADS. TOLL ROADS ARE REALLY HARD TO INVEST IN ANYWHERE, BUT PARTICULARLY HOW TO INVEST IN IN A LONG, SKINNY COUNTRY WITH ONLY 5 MILLION PEOPLE. SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CHARGING PEOPLE TO USE THE ROAD. WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS IS 'WE WANT YOU TO DESIGN THIS, 'BUILD THIS, AND THEN MAINTAIN IT FOR, SAY, 30 YEARS AND THEN HAND IT 'BACK TO US.' AND WHAT THAT DOES IS IT FORCES US TO THINK ABOUT OPTIMISING LONG-TERM COSTS, SO YOU MIGHT SPEND MORE UP FRONT TO KNOW IT'LL BE CHEAPER TO MAINTAIN OVER THE 30 YEARS. AND THEN THE GOVERNMENT SAYS, 'WE'LL PAY YOU A FIXED AMOUNT EVERY YEAR 'TO MAKE THAT ROAD AVAILABLE, TO MAKE SURE IT'S EFFECTIVE, 'THAT THERE'S NOT DANGEROUS CORNERS ON IT', FOR EXAMPLE. RIGHT, AND THEN AT THE END OF 30 YEARS, THAT ROAD RETURNS TO THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION, EFFECTIVELY, AND RESPONSIBILITY. EXACTLY. ARE THERE MARKETS OR ECONOMIES THAT YOU THINK NEW ZEALAND SHOULD BE MODELLING ITSELF ON AS IT TRIES TO ATTRACT FOREIGN INVESTMENT? ONE OF THE MOST OBVIOUS ONES IS AUSTRALIA. IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENED IN NEW SOUTH WALES OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS, THEY'VE DONE SOME REALLY SMART THINGS THAT ACTUALLY GOT PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR PRIVATE INVESTMENT. SO, THEY DIDN'T TALK ABOUT PRIVATISATION, THEY TALKED ABOUT ASSET RECYCLING. SO THEY SAID, FOR EXAMPLE, IN NEW SOUTH WALES, 'WE OWN THE POLES AND WIRES THAT BRING POWER FROM THE COUNTRY 'TO THE CITY. WE OWN THE LAND REGISTRY, 'SO WHEN YOU BUY AND SELL YOUR HOUSE OR REGISTER A MORTGAGE, 'WE'RE THE ONES RUNNING THAT REGISTRY.' THOSE ARE NOT THINGS THAT THE PUBLIC REALLY WORRIES TOO MUCH ABOUT ` WHO OWNS IT ` AS LONG AS THEY'RE GETTING A GOOD SERVICE AT AN AGREED PRICE. WHEN WE PAID FOR THOSE THINGS, THE GOVERNMENT TOOK THAT MONEY AND THEY BOUGHT` THEY BUILT STADIUMS. THEY BUILT SCHOOLS. THEY BUILT NEW LIGHT-RAIL. THEY BUILT THIS AMAZING NEW METRO. AND SO IT WASN'T, 'LET'S FLOG OFF THE ASSETS', IT'S 'WHAT CAN WE BUILD IF WE TAKE SOME CAPITAL OUT OF THE STUFF 'WE ALREADY OWN AND PUT IT INTO NEW THINGS?' THAT'S INTERESTING AND INTERESTING THAT YOU MENTIONED THE KIND OF CULTURAL LAW ` SOCIETAL DYNAMICS THERE. DO YOU THINK, WITH YOUR INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF NEW ZEALAND, DO YOU THINK THAT THERE ARE POTENTIAL BARRIERS WHEN IT COMES TO THE PUBLIC'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS FOREIGN INVESTMENT? YEAH, DEFINITELY. AND SOME OF THAT FOR GOOD REASON, RIGHT? NEW ZEALAND HAS HAD BAD EXPERIENCES. WE'VE HAD` IN THE '80S, SOME PEOPLE WERE KIND OF FAST MONEY, PRIVATE EQUITY. UM, NOT GREAT OUTCOMES FOR SOCIETY ALWAYS. AND YOU LOOK AROUND NEW ZEALAND RIGHT NOW, YOU CAN SEE KIND OF UNFINISHED PROJECTS; PEOPLE HAVE WALKED AWAY FROM THINGS. SO IT DOES CARE` PEOPLE SHOULD CARE ABOUT WHO OWNS THESE THINGS, BUT YOU SHOULDN'T JUST SAY, 'WELL, ALL FOREIGN MONEY IS BAD.' SO YOU THINK ABOUT THE CLIENTS WE'VE BROUGHT TO THIS EVENT ` THEY TEND TO BE PENSION FUNDS, SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUNDS, INSURANCE COMPANIES WHO ARE SAYING 'WE WANT TO BE PATIENT INVESTORS. 'WE'RE HAPPY TO GIVE YOU OUR MONEY FOR 30 YEARS. 'WE DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, EARN THE HIGHEST RETURN, 'WE WANT TO EARN A SAFE RETURN, AND WE WANT TO PARTNER WITH LOCALS.' LIKE, WHY SHOULDN'T WE WANT THEM IN NEW ZEALAND? YEAH, RIGHT. THAT'S INTERESTING. SO YOU MENTIONED THE KIND OF POLITICAL STABILITY ` OR RELATIVE POLITICAL STABILITY ` IN NEW ZEALAND, AND THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIPARTISANSHIP AND A BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE PIPELINE OVER THE NEXT THREE DECADES. I MEAN, CRITICS WOULD NOTE THAT THIS GOVERNMENT CAME TO OFFICE AND THEN SCRAPPED THE LARGEST INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS THAT WERE BEING PURSUED BY THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT. HOW CAN YOUR CLIENTS HERE, AND THE FUNDS REPRESENTED HERE, HAVE FAITH THAT THAT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN? YEAH, IT'S A REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTION, AND I'VE BEEN REALLY ENCOURAGED BY WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THE PRIME MINISTER, FROM MINISTER WILLIS, AND ACTUALLY THE FACT THAT BARBARA'S COMING HERE FROM LABOUR TO SPEAK AS WELL. I THINK THEY ARE PUTTING IN THE EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THESE THINGS ARE BIPARTISAN, THAT THERE IS A COMMITMENT TO A PATH THAT LASTS A LONG TIME. AND THE PIVOT EXAMPLE IS WHAT JAMES SHAW DID WHEN HE WAS IN GOVERNMENT ` 'NOW WORKS FOR US'... YES. ...AROUND CLIMATE CHANGE. I REMEMBER GOING TO SEE HIM WHEN HE WAS A MINISTER AND SAYING 'WE REALLY CARE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE, HOW CAN WE SUPPORT THIS?' AND HE SAID, 'CAN YOU GO AND TALK TO NATIONAL? 'BECAUSE WHAT I WANT IS SOMETHING THAT WILL SURVIVE THE END OF MY 'POLITICAL CAREER.' AND ACTUALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE DONE ON NET ZERO, THAT HAS BEEN REINFORCED AS THE GOVERNMENTS HAVE CHANGED, NOT BEEN TORN UP. MORE GENERALLY, AS A KIWI BASED IN OZ TRAVELLING THE WORLD, HOW DO YOU LOOK AT OUR, KIND OF, ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AT THE MOMENT ` HOW DOES NEW ZEALAND RATE? BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE FEEL LIKE WE ARE IN A BIT OF A SORT OF DEPRESSED STATE AT THE MOMENT. YEAH, NEW ZEALAND IS IN A FUNK. LIKE, WE COME BACK HERE A LOT. WE HAVE FAMILY HERE; A LOT OF OUR OLD FRIENDS ARE HERE. I THINK NEW ZEALAND HAS REALLY DONE IT TOUGH. NOW, ONE OF THOSE REASONS IS ACTUALLY A GOOD ONE ` THAT I THINK OUR RESERVE BANK WAS FASTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD AT TRYING TO GET ON TOP OF INFLATION, AND THAT MEANT WE HAD HIGH INTEREST RATES. WE'RE COMING BACK OUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, SO I AM QUITE OPTIMISTIC THAT THE NEXT YEAR COULD BE QUITE EXCITING IN NEW ZEALAND. THAT'S PAUL NEWFIELD, THE CEO OF MORRISON. KUA MUTU. THAT'S Q+A FOR THIS WEEK. FROM THE Q+A TEAM, THANKS FOR WATCHING AND NGA MIHI KI A KOUTOU I NGA KARERE. HEI TERA WIKI. SEE YOU NEXT SUNDAY AT 9AM. CAPTIONS BY BRIGIT KELLY AND KRISTIN WILLIAMS. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. WWW.ABLE.CO.NZ COPYRIGHT ABLE 2025