Q + A
Panel Discussion 1
Hosted by SUSAN WOOD
In response to SIMON BRIDGES INTERVIEW

SUSAN Welcome to the panel this week, Jon Johansson, Victoria University; former ACT MP and commentator Deborah Coddington; and the head of Unite Union, Matt McCarten. Well, Matt, you’ve seen a— well, I should say, actually, thanks for coming in on a Sunday morning, especially… especially Easter Sunday. Matt, you’ve had a protest or two in your life. Is what Simon Bridges talking about – is it about safety or is it about stopping the right to protest?

MATT MCCARTEN – National Secretary, Unite Union
Yes, it’s extraordinary. I’ve never heard anyone, sort of, raise safety as the issue around protesting – we just want to protect the protesters. I think it’s pretty clear who’s asking for these changes. It’s the business. Look, people— and Jessica raised it – it’s The Hobbit story again. It seems to be vested interest, multinationals who want to make money saying, ‘We’re not doing it unless you can tidy this up.’ You know, people like Lucy Lawless – you know, Xena – up with the placard, all that’s embarrassing, and out with the whales. And so in their mind, they’ve got this connection – New Zealanders will fight. And so what they’ve asked for is pretty clear. They’ve said, ‘We want this all closed down,’ and that’s the game. You know, it’s funny in this society like ours, when a guy stands with shopping bags at Tiananmen Square in front of a tank, we celebrate that. The Chinese wouldn’t have actually blinked by saying, you know, ‘Well, this is health and safety we are concerned about.’ You know, it’s about power and money and privilege, and that’s what this is about, and they want to be safer for it.

SUSAN Deborah, I know you’ve looked into the case of captain Elvis Teddy, and it is his real name, which I found quite extraordinary, actually. It is his birth name, it seems. But that case is an interesting one because it does seem to be, and we heard the Minister actually bring that up, this guy was out protesting – it’s in those waters between our territorial— but our economic zone, so it’s a challenging place. And the Minister may have a point, actually. It probably is quite dangerous out there. He was arrested, then he was let go, and now it appears he’s going back to court.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON – Political Commentator
Yes.

SUSAN That’s really the basis of this, isn’t it?

DEBORAH Well, yes, I mean, but New Zealanders have protested— you know, you go back to Mururoa – Barry Mitcalfe took Boy Roel there with— I think Matiu Rata was on board. And I actually can’t remember if they got arrested or—

MATT And there was another Cabinet minister as well.

DR JON JOHANSSON – Political Scientist, Victoria University
Warren Freer.

MATT It was Warren Freer, and they went up there and they parked the frigate in the zone.

DEBORAH Yes, yes, yes. But this is not a biggie. This is just the Government has decided to formalise Justice Woolford’s decision. Under the UN convention on the rule of the sea, a state is responsible – each state is responsible – for its ships beyond the 12-mile zone and the skippers of those ships, and the state must ensure that those ships behave responsibly. Now, up until now, that has been a convention. The Government has decided to formalise that. If it hadn’t— However, if it hadn’t, Justice Woolford’s decision would stand, and the courts here would be able to prosecute under that decision. I’m not—

SUSAN So what you’re saying is in effect that what the Government’s changing is already going to happen anyway?

DEBORAH As I understand. Jon might like to comment on the politics of grandstanding on your programme about it that the minister is doing. I don’t see it as such a biggie as Matt does.

SUSAN So you don’t see it is affecting our right to protest?

JON You should protest more.

LAUGHTER

DEBORAH Those days are over.

SUSAN The protesting days are over.

JON What Deborah is saying is that is an international obligation of which we would have had to respond anyway, right, so the Minister has formalised that through legislation. But the Minister— you know, I mean, there’s politics here. I mean, why this particular issue? Why announce it today? Because the Minister could easily have come in here today and just as easily talked about the dangerous and reckless behaviour of, like, Deepwater Horizon and the, you know, regime he set up of stiff penalties, including legal remedies if there is some sort of spill out there in the deep ocean because of reckless and dangerous behaviour, right? The other thing is that Jessica was pushing the question there about is this sending a signal to overseas corporates that, yeah, we’re open for business. Well, I think they’re already in the know. You’ve got to look at Warner Bros, Sky City and now what’s burst— really the big story – which is Rio Tinto. These people understand that our government will bend over to provide the environment that they want.

SUSAN But let’s be fair. The only piece of research I’ve seen around digging up our minerals, our oil, our wealth in the ground is the vast majority of people, and this is a Herald poll – a reputable poll – say, ‘Yeah, go for it because it gives us jobs, it gives us wealth.’

JON Yeah, but then again, if we’re having a long-term view about this, there’s two things I’d respond to that. One is the mineral wealth appreciates every day we leave it in there, so, okay, if we’re not— and as Simon says, these are very long-range exploration projects as well, so there’s that aspect to it, but also the intergenerational side of it with a wealth fund.

SUSAN But, Deborah, we had John Howard on the programme, former Australian prime minister, last week. We asked him a question about mining – should we be digging up? He looked at me like I was mad. He said, ‘Of course. Why wouldn’t you?’

DEBORAH ‘Why leave it there?’ But that’s for New Zealanders to decide, and there’s two issues. You know, do you leave— do you mine, or the thing about protesting, which is what this law is about, and Simon Bridges was saying, you know, ‘We want to protect the protesters. It’s very dangerous out there.’ Now, I don’t see that this law stops people from protesting. It does alert them to what’s the consequences if they—

SUSAN They can be arrested and fined a lot of money, and Greenpeace could be fined $100,000.

MATT What the new law says, right, you’ve got to stay 500 metres away. Is that right? Half a kilometre away, and so you’ll have to take a boat out— far out of the way and put your signs out and go, ‘Ooh, boo. We don’t like you.’ It’s nonsense. The whole thing of protesting on the seas is to actually draw attention to make it difficult. It is. That’s what protest is always about and that people have a right. Now, whether you like it or not, you know, there’s no—

SUSAN But people don’t have a right to board ships. I mean, they don’t.

DEBORAH But if they’re—

MATT But what they do is they do engage and they do make it difficult, and you say, you know, we’ve always done that in a protest. Well, the Springbok Tour or anything like that—

SUSAN Let’s change the subject here because we could probably argue that one all day, and this is a huge story – Rio Tinto, Meridian Energy – just give us— the Government between a rock and a hard place. You’ve got 3000 jobs and possibly more importantly for this government, you’ve got all these partial privatisations on the agenda.

JON The Prime Minister has told the New Zealand public repeatedly that he would not go ahead with asset sales at any cost. Now, it seems to me that Rio Tinto – we’re now in this territory that we’re going ahead with assets at any cost, because they’re coming in to take their gouge and we’re going to say because of the haste and determination of the Government to get these partial privatisations through, we’re in the weakest possible negotiating—

SUSAN But, Deborah, I mean, Rio Tinto – they have actually done the same to the Australian Government – the Federal Government and two state governments. These are tough negotiators.

DEBORAH Why are the Labour Party and the Greens sticking up for a multinational company with a $9.3 billion 2012 earnings, which gets our energy – it sucks up, what is it, 7% of our energy – subsidised by the taxpayer while superannuants crouch over a one-bar heater? Come on. And meanwhile, they want to talk down the share price of Mighty River Power? Why? So they can buy back the shares? Come on. We need to know what Labour and the Greens are going to do.

MATT Well, that’s a good try to deflect it, but—

DEBORAH Well—

MATT This is complex, right? There are 3000 jobs, you know, and you can’t just say let the market rule. There’s number one.

DEBORAH Till 2016.

MATT But the Government knew about this. It’s a bit like—

SUSAN Yeah, but these guys have a long-term contract, Matt. They had a 30-year contract.

MATT But what they’re asking for, you know, they’re blackmailing the taxpayer. The Government will pay it not because it’s the right thing to save 3000 jobs, because they need to get the prices up—

SUSAN Yeah, but the Australians have already paid it.

MATT And consequently the power prices will stay up to make a profit. So what we’ve actually got now—

JON You have to prop up this distorted market.

MATT The distorted market, exactly.

DEBORAH Have you got a crystal ball?

MATT No, no. Come on, we all know that’s exactly what’s being done here. It’s that these guys have got us over a barrel. They say to the Government, ‘You subsidise us or we’ll close down—‘

SUSAN Deborah. Last quick comment from Deborah.

DEBORAH They can’t close it down overnight. It’s there till 2016 at least, and it will cost Rio Tinto a bomb to close that place down.

MATT And the Government needs it there to keep the prices of power up—

DEBORAH Oh, they do not. Look, that’s just such linear thinking. You—

JON Linear?

LAUGHTER

MATT You should try it sometime.

DEBORAH I got up very early.

Q + A
PANEL DISCUSSION 2
Hosted by SUSAN WOOD
In response to NEW PRENATAL TESTS

SUSAN Welcome back to the panel, Jon Johansson, Deborah Coddington and Matt McCarten. Any hint of eugenics in there, Deborah, you’re seeing?

DEBORAH CODDINGTON – Political Commentator
Well, his definition – you could apply that to every time someone uses contraception, and it’s such a loaded word. I mean, and to me, it just puts a guilt-trip on every woman who has that test, I think. It would be a terrible decision for them to go through anyway, and I just would not put that guilt-trip on to anyone.

SUSAN Oh, I think you probably all agree it’s a woman’s right to choose.

DEBORAH Yeah.

DR JON JOHANSSON – Political Scientist, Victoria University
I have a really really strong view that it’s absolutely none of my business.

DEBORAH None of my business.

JON It’s wholly and solely a woman’s right to choose.

SUSAN But what is interesting, and I think we saw the Disability Commissioner this point, Matt, is that the ethics haven’t caught up with the medicine, if you like.

MATT MCCARTEN – National Secretary, Unite Union
No, that’s right, and I think that’s what you wrestle with because, you know, where does it stop? You know, when you talk about Down’s syndrome, for a woman to be told, you’re talking about 80% to 90% decide to terminate. It’s kind of a no-brainer. You know, you kind of get that.

SUSAN Although, I’ve thought about it a lot this week.

MATT No, no, no. You understand it, but now, you see, you get the designer-babies stuff. You know, where does that—? Okay, what about a problem with the heart with the child? What about then asthma? How about blue eyes?

DEBORAH There’s a very—

MATT That’s where the ethical decisions—

DEBORAH There’s a very low uptake of the test at the moment, I understand.

MATT Yes, I know, but this is about the future. You’re talking about—

SUSAN About half, 55% of New Zealand women go through some sort of screening, and the things with these sort of tests, you know, when you’re talking about an amnio or those which are invasive and have really big risks of miscarriage, these sort of tests won’t eventually and there’ll be blood and they’ll be a lot easier to go through. So it is a conversation point, for example, in the UK, you’ve got a hundred babies a year, they say, being aborted cleft palate, club foot. I mean—

JON But, I mean, you know, in a way, humans have always grappled with these sorts of choices, right? And there is always going to be more and better information on which to make an informed choice. And, I mean, we also strongly uphold the idea that women should be given as much information as they can to make informed choices about their own bodies. So, you know, I mean, I did do a little bit of research into Down’s syndrome, and one of the things I think is the most delightful article I read was If Down’s Syndrome People Ruled the World. Well, politics would be ruled out because they are unfailingly honest and open, so they’d be pants at politics.

LAUGHTER

MATT At business and management—

JON They’re also very good at—

DEBORAH Look, I think that people who have designer babies would be a very very small majority. I have such faith in human— Minority –I’m mixing my words today, aren’t I?

SUSAN It’s early. It’s Sunday. It’s Easter.

DEBORAH But I think that there will always be a majority of really good people who— Like, when I had my babies, none of the screening was available. You hoped for the best, but you knew that whatever came out, you would love them, you know, unconditionally whatever. And, you know, I mean—

JON And I also remember back in the day when we had residential homes. A lot of Down’s syndrome children were in there. The heartbreak of when the residential home people would go out and pick up the milk in the morning, there’d be a Down’s baby left at the letter box. So, you know, don’t tell me that everybody cares and shares and looks after them either, you know.

SUSAN But, Matt, it’s interesting with society, isn’t it, because you clean out, if you like, what we might regard as abnormal. It doesn’t make us a kinder or a better society. I could put a pretty good argument up, having done some research this week on Down’s babies and children, that they actually add to society. There is, and it’s not just a cliché, that love and that warmth, and also it brings out the best in other people.

MATT All the families I know – three families I know – with Down’s syndrome children in them, they think it’s a positive experience. They think it’s wonderful. The fear that most of them have, like other families with disabled children, they worry when they’re 50 and 60 years old and older. People are too scared of what will happen they die.

JON Yeah.

MATT And so it is part of the conversation. There’s no one answer. You know, it’s one of those difficult things in society which we’ll wrestle with forever.

SUSAN And the law will never really keep up with—

DEBORAH He wanted the law changed so that you couldn’t abort Down’s syndrome, but they also screen for Turner’s, Edward’s and something called Patau syndrome.

SUSAN Oh, there’s a lot. Spina bifida.

DEBORAH And the parents of those children—

JON Huntington’s chorea.

DEBORAH say that they love those children too and they’ve added to their lives, so do you exclude them from abortion as well?

MATT And in the end it just comes down to women have got to be empowered to make those choices.

DEBORAH Make those choices, and we can’t put our judgement on them, I don’t think.

MATT The state can’t rule for them.

SUSAN Very good. We’ll leave it there.