Q+A:Panel Discussions: 21 October 2012
Hosted by Greg Boyed

In response to MARK SOLOMON interview

GREG BOYED
Good morning to our panel this morning. Claire Robinson from Massey University, good to have you along. Matt McCarten, head of Unite Union; and philanthropist and economist and environmentalist as well, Gareth Morgan. Welcome to you all. If it is a divide-and-conquer strategy by the government - you’ve got Maori Council going to court, iwi leaders not happy, Ngai Tahu giving it a good old think about - is it working as a strategy like that?

MATT McCARTEN - Unite Union
To divide and conquer, absolutely. Of course. And the iwi group only has one job, and that’s actually to increase the wealth of their iwi. That’s their job, as Mark Solomon’s saying. You’ve got the Maori Council that’s taking the view that it’s actually wrong to sell and it shouldn’t be done, and that if it’s going to be done, there’s the Treaty rights. So there’s different agendas being played out here. So Mark Solomon, being an iwi boss, if you like, he goes, ‘Ok, well, what’s our strategic, our role here?’ I thought the Maori Council had done a very good job in corralling them all in to actually support it, but now we’re seeing a fray. So I think that Mark is being a little bit disingenuous when he’s kind of looking puzzled. ‘Divide and conquer? I don’t know what you’re talking about.’ Winston [Peters] knows exactly what’s going on, and I think most of New Zealanders would too.

GREG Gareth Morgan, is it naïve of the government to have thought that all iwi, all Maori, were going to accept and it was going to be a level playing field and to not take into account the variation of opinions and responses they were going to get?

GARETH MORGAN - Philanthropist
Oh, yeah. I mean, I think the government actually ignored Maori going into this process at the start, which is absolutely jaw-dropping, really, that they would do that. They have an obligation. I mean, it’s the old thing - Article II, Other Properties. You know, government properties. If stuff in New Zealand hasn’t been sold by Maori in a fair, willing-buyer, willing-seller deal, then it belongs to Maori, or at least Maori have an interest, a claim, you know? How that’s defined is up to the Tribunal and the courts. But it does have a claim. So as soon as they go to commercialise the asset,… [GARETH RAISES HIS HAND] obviously Maori do that. That’s what the whole Treaty’s about. So how government could ignore that and just ride roughshod, um, it’s just astounding in this day and age, you know, so many years after the Waitangi Tribunal Act. So they’re now trying to catch up for the balls-up, really, and, at the end of the day, it will come down to a negotiated process. Whether that’s done through challenge in the courts and they have to do it, or whether it’s done off to the side, like Mark Solomon’s really talking about, um, I don’t know. But Maori have a claim.

GREG Claire Robinson, how closely will other iwi, other Maori, be looking at the approach Ngai Tahu are taking on this? They’re heading towards being our first billion dollar iwi - they know what they’re doing. How much will their lead set the pace?

CLAIRE ROBINSON - Political Analyst
I don’t know about that. I’m not close to iwi groups. But I think that the government itself likes to deal with the Iwi Leaders Group because they are speaking about economic growth, jobs. It is very much on the government’s agenda. They are walking the same line on this one. For Ngai Tahu and what Mark Solomon was saying about the Land and Water Forum, from their perspective, from the government’s perspective, there has been a process that’s been in place for many years which is not just simply talking about rights to water, but it is talking about the management of water. And I think that you’ve got parallel streams going. You’ve got the process that’s been going in place for a while. You’ve got this kind of more emotional, ideological claim that’s now going through the courts, and it’s like a parallel track, parallel universe - things going on at the same time.

GREG Matt, he says government have recognised Maori water rights. The sales don’t put that at risk. But later he said he wants more negotiation to clarify those rights. Which was is that going to go?

MATT Well, in the end, it will come down to money and land control whichever way you dress it up. I thought he was very good in how he pitched that. Very careful about how non-Maori will see it. And I think that both sides have a very strong interest in not turning this into a Maori, sort of, stepping over the mark. So he’s very careful in keeping it commercial. There will be a deal. The only question is what he’s saying. Of course they’ve got a proprietary right. And then that’s hard to argue against. And then he covers it by saying it doesn’t necessarily mean about ownership, and that then relaxes people. So I think he would have won a lot of non-Maori this morning listening to that.

GREG Claire, do you agree with that? How do you think people at home will react to what he’s had to say?

CLAIRE I think he is one of the most persuasive, articulate Maori leaders that we’ve got in New Zealand at the moment, and he has this incredible gift of not only being able to speak at a government level, but he can speak at a level that ordinary people can really understand. He’s not confrontational, he’s not about, ‘We’ve got to take this and nobody else can have it.’ He is about looking for ways that are going to please both sides of the argument. So I think he’s a very convincing man.

GREG He said right at the very, very top of the interview, ‘It’s nothing but a concept at this stage,’ which is the first time we’ve heard that pulled back to that level. What did you make of that?

CLAIRE Well, that’s what he does. He thinks at a very strategic level about things. The way he describes it, it’s not until it’s one the table and it’s being negotiated that it becomes actual or real.

MATT He actually knows perfectly well that the government, what Gareth was saying, has got itself into a pickle. It needs to get out, and the government needs to keep non-Maori New Zealanders onside, because they’d do anything now. It looks like they’re caving in. What’s Solomon’s doing is he’s leaving openings, and he’s doing it in a way so the government’s got to come to them for a deal, not they’re knocking at the door, saying, ‘Where’s our cup.’ Because that’s how it looks at the moment. He’s been very careful with his words - is not to be put into that framework.

GREG $800 million in the bank - hard to argue with that man. [MATT LAUGHS]

In response to SHANE JONES AND GARETH HUGHES interview

GREG BOYED
You’re back with Q+A and the panel, Claire Robison, Matt McCarten and Gareth Morgan. Gareth, we can start with you on the Ross Sea. This is something near and dear to your heart. You’ve spent a fair bit of time down there. Should we just back off and have the Ross Sea as a no-go zone for any fishing at all?

GARETH MORGAN - Philanthropist
Wouldn’t that be just wonderful?

GREG Why can’t we?

GARETH I’d love that, um, but it’s not the reality. The 25 countries in CCAMLR, you have some fishing countries like Ukraine, Korea, Russia, New Zealand. And then you have non-fishing countries like the US, for example. The reality is, the fishing companies are going to fish it. So if New Zealand is one of those fishing companies that pulls out, it’s going to make no difference whatsoever. It will be fished. What concerns me is that New Zealand’s done a hell of a lot of work, actually. This is one of the best maintained fisheries in the world, far better than any of the fisheries around the New Zealand coast, by the way. Far better. Light years ahead. And New Zealand’s played a huge role in that, in getting those nations like the Ukraine and Russia and Korea inside the tent and, you know, doing it in a sustainable way. And the Greens - well, I call them the Green Extreme on this - are wanting to throw all that to the wind and say, ‘We want to take the holy high ground here.’ And if, at the end of the day, we can puff our chests out and say, ‘Well, we did that,’ but the Koreans and the Ukrainians go in and gut the whole fishery, which they will do within five years, these people aren’t going to take any blame. They’re unbelievably cavalier about it. I think they’re irresponsible.

GREG From a scientific point of view, Professor Storey from Canterbury University says we don’t know enough about the toothfish and whether this is a sustainable thing or not. Are we-?

GARETH We know as much about the toothfish as we do about hapuka, which is what I fish in New Zealand. The state of knowledge is about the same. The Marine Stewardship Council, which, by the way, WWF formed, has given the toothfishery down there one of the highest marks of all fisheries. Higher than any in New Zealand. So to say that is to say no more than most fisheries. We haven’t got perfect science, but on this one, our science is as good as on many of the fisheries around New Zealand. Better, actually.

GREG Claire, are we naïve to think if we pull out-? I mean, it’s a massive hunk. There’s 25 CCAMLR, and there’s people outside CCAMLR who are going to see some money there, see money to be made. We’re naïve to think that if we pull out, it’s going to make a jot of difference.

CLAIRE ROBINSON - Political Analyst
Yeah, I think we are. Um, the issue at the moment is around this, ‘Should we be in bed with the Americans and having a deal that is negotiated along the same lines’? But, as Gareth was saying, the Americans aren’t fishing there, so they can be on the moral high ground, they can say it’s all about conservation, whereas we can’t. Again, it’s those parallel tracks. You know, you’ve got the idealistic, and you’ve got the more pragmatic, economic. And at this stage, under this government, this is a government that’s going for the more pragmatic approach. So, yeah, the jobs, the fisheries, the industry, that’s what is going to be our priority over simple and idealistic conservation values.

GREG Matt, are we wanting a buck each way on this one? We’re looking like we’re conserving, but we’re not conserving the bits where there’s lots of fish to be had. We are wanting our fish and to eat it too, aren’t we?

MATT McCARTEN - Unite Union
Yes, of course we are, and I think most New Zealanders would come on the side of conservation. I think the idea that we’re preserving it for future generations should mean no fishing, but they’re going to be in there anyway. We’ve got to be at the table. We’ve got to get whatever agreements we can and then trade that for enforcement. Because there’s no point in having rules without enforcement. I think most New Zealanders would go along with that. I don’t think the Greens are saying that we’ll just throw it all away. And that would be totally irresponsible. But I think that most New Zealanders, like us in the room, they want enforcement. Because if the cowboys are going in there, you know, the pirates, well, who is going to stop it? Well, it would be quite good for our Navy, our frigates to be down there, actually, instead of sitting over in Devonport.

GREG This does come back to the environmental vs industry argument, doesn’t it, Claire?

CLAIRE Absolutely. And as I said before, this is a government that acknowledges conservation, it acknowledges green issues, but it doesn’t say that it’s its number-one priority. If you were the Green Party, of course it’s going to be your number-one priority. But this is not a government that does so. Interestingly, you know, Shane Jones - that could have been a government representative sitting up there talking to you. He was so much along the lines of what the government might say.

GREG I was going to say Greens and Labour so at odds over something like this. That is something new as well.

MATT Yes, yes, but we need to understand the individuals at play here. What you’ve got is you’ve got the Green Party, and you’ve got Shane who is the Sealord man. You know, he was the chair of the fisheries. So he’s got a vested interest, like Mark Solomon had. You know, certain things - which cap have you got on? Is that Labour’s position, or has Shane sort of got a view of his history? ‘We want to catch fish. We want jobs for our people, and, you know, the Greens are stopping us from doing it.’ Shane Jones has got an argument going for a century around the world when it comes to fossil fuels, when it comes to fisheries. It’s the same argument.

GREG Gareth, is there a compromise to be reached in Hobart? What sort of a deal could be struck?

GARETH Well, we’ve got to have all 25 countries agree, otherwise there’s no deal. And if there’s no deal, then the consequence of that eventually will be it’s open slather, and you can say goodbye to the toothfish.

GREG So what is likely to happen in Hobart?

GARETH So I think what will happen is the New Zealand proposal, which is about a 16% reduction in the fishing effort which is there now, I think that or a variant of between that and the US will get the nod. And, you know, that’s important, because it keeps the Koreans and the Ukrainians with some control on their fishing. This is a very rugged environment down there, so they’re better to go down and just hoover the whole bloody lot up and get out of there. That’s what they’d love to do because it’s a high-cost fishery. We’re stopping that, so we should be applauded for what we’re doing.

GREG All right. We will leave it there.

In response to GREG KING interview

GREG BOYED
Back to our panel now. Do there need to be changes to the bail law?

MATT McCARTEN - Unite Union
Well, yes, of course. But, you know, you don’t want to make it a populist thing, but, actually, the law is to serve the community. Here’s a young woman pleading for this guy who had stripped her, held her, kidnapped her, had a knife, pleading with the judge, ‘Don’t let him out.’ And the family. You had the cops saying, ‘Don’t let him out.’ And then we’re kind of, ‘Oh, poor judges. Losing some sleep at night.’ You know, I think that what happens is the lawyers and judges get so swept up in their detail, and they look at their books and about precedence. Common sense will tell you if the cops say, ‘We oppose bail,’ and the victim and the family. And to put this guy 300m away from her home, I mean, what law would actually legislate for a judge to kind of get real?

GREG Greg King said you can’t, as a judge, and as a legal system, you can’t make it on populist opinion. Having said that, 58,000 people have signed this. A lot of MPs are behind this. That has to count for something, doesn’t it, Gareth?

GARETH MORGAN - Philanthropist
He did actually allude to once they’ve had one strike, like in this case, they should really be guilty. So precautionary principle. You should err on the side of protecting the victim. The other thing I would ask about this particular case is the guy was obviously mentally deranged. And we know that when it comes to mental illness, New Zealand is not good at this, at, you know, assessing it and what the consequences are. And I wonder if he slipped through this because he is insane, was insane right through that, and the judge is really applying a set of criteria that don’t put anything like enough emphasis on the fact that the guy’s insane. For goodness sake, protect- you know, lock him up.

GREG Claire, let’s talk about at the end of this whole horrible process, the judge’s accountability, of which at the moment, there appears to be none. Does there need to be some of that?

CLAIRE ROBINSON - Political Analyst
Yeah, there probably needs to be more. I think in this case, the judge made a serious error, absolutely. He shouldn’t have made the decision he did. So what happens at the end? At the moment, nothing, apart from his personal cost to him of feeling really bad about it. But there probably, like you said before with doctors, you do need to have something more built into the system that says to judges, ‘Actually, you are really dealing with a very serious issue of life rather than, necessarily, ‘the law’.

GREG All right. To all three of you, thank you very much.

ENDS