Q+A 2 June, 2013

PANEL DISCUSSIONS

Hosted by SUSAN WOOD

In response to PAULA BENNETT interview

SUSAN Well, Matt McCarten, something the government really had to do with Hone’s bill in the wings, in terms of feeding kids.

MATT Well, they had to because of the embarrassment and the pressure of the Māori Party. If Hone had got a win on it, you know, very bad in the Māori seats at the next election – puts them on the defensive. So they did it— They got away with it very cheaply. There's no question. It’s not a feeding-the-kids bill; it’s a PR bill, you know, for 2 million bucks. It was, you know, I mean, the government— The 78 recommendations from the report – it’ll cost $1.5 billion. That’s what it will cost. That what they said – a year. 2 million and the rest of them are “actioned”, going away to the committee for, you know, further discussion. I mean, this is Sir Humphrey stuff, so I think the government has been able to put it away to the side. But I think the only thing you need to know with people – can I just say this – the tax cut which we’ve had in the last term is 2 billion bucks a year. To actually solve the poverty, from the committee’s report saying it’s 1.5 – the government has made a priority: tax cuts or resolving poverty. It’s as simple as that. It’s as simple as that.

MICHAEL That’s not solving it. That’s taking some money from me and giving it to somebody else.

MATT No, it’s—

MICHAEL Hang on a second.

MATT It’s away from the poor and it’s gone to the wealthy.

MICHAEL Well, and that doesn’t fix the problem. So if we take a values-based—

MATT They can buy houses.

MICHAEL …values-based judgement. So we have children who are coming to school hungry and so on. Problem needs fixing, plug the problem. Where’s the solution that’s going to ensure that I don’t have ongoing poverty, that I don’t have ongoing problems? I haven’t seen the policy for that and I should, and I don’t see any point in taxing me more—

MATT No, no, but I’m just saying that’s where the money’s going to come from.

MICHAEL Wait on. In the name of policy.

SUSAN Matt, let Michael finish.

MICHAEL In the name of fixing poverty when in fact I’m not fixing it, I’m just plugging it with my money. I think that’s totally different, so I think you’re wrong.

MATT This is the cause, though. This is the cause, and I want to say it, right, is that the problem is we think we still live in the ’50s when we had a parent at home. What we have as a society now where everyone’s got to work just to make a living – people have got two jobs, people aren’t at home, and they’re struggling. Real wages in the last 30 years have gone down 20%. People just struggle. And so therefore as a consequence, society has fallen apart.

MICHAEL But then you're turning around and you're saying now give people a living wage, which means all of the wages go up, which means the cost of business goes up, which means products and services and prices go up. That’s inflation and people aren’t going to be able to afford to live it anyway, so you're encouraging—

MATT So things are winning? So we’re winning? This has been a success? Wages have been going down, incomes have been going down, poverty’s increasing. They’re saying, “Come on, let’s go with Sanitarium and throw some sandwiches around.”

MICHAEL You're saying that families have to work in order that they can live, and I’m saying on the other hand we’ve got people turning around and saying push, push, push on the wages and the costs, but what are the consequences? The consequences are—

MATT Wages are going down.

MICHAEL …higher living costs.

SUSAN Let’s bring Raymond in here.

RAYMOND Yeah, I think all governments struggle a bit with this issue, because they feel a sense of guilt about the whole thing, and I think that’s why John Key is saying, “Well, of course when Labour was in government, these are the figures” and so on. That’s why I think you have to have agreed measures, and this is where I think the expert panel made a very good point. Unless we have agreed measures, it’s very difficult. The second point I want to make is really this shows that there's an ideological debate going on within National. There are those within National who do believe the government has a responsibility, and I think John Key is probably one of them, but within National you also have those who really struggle with the whole idea of the state taking some, because they see abuse, they see what they think is parents refusing to take responsibility for their children and so on.

SUSAN And I think also what we saw there from them was a very clear message: it would be targeted support. That’s what they’re really talking about.

RAYMOND Yes, and, you know, I think this is where the child payment that the expert panel was talking about is quite a good one, because what it says is it’ll be universal for the first five years, and then it becomes targeted. So they’re not discounting the idea of targeted help. But I think what they are saying is that in those first five years, every child— It’s like the old child benefit. You know, every child deserves to have some protection.

SUSAN Very good. We’ll leave it there with the panel.

MICHAEL So long as the child gets that protection.

SUSAN Well, that’s I think what everybody wants.

Q+A 2 June, 2013

PANEL DISCUSSIONS

Hosted by SUSAN WOOD

In response to LEN BROWN interview

SUSAN Michael, you were making a good point there – I’ll let you pick it up – that you don’t think there's any evidence yet that an upper compact city is the right way to go.

MICHAEL I don’t think the evidence is there, and I think they would have been able to tell their story a lot better if the evidence was there. I think this has been a communication strategy that’s full of surprises. Anybody knows in business, anybody knows in leadership – no surprises. I think they’ve come out as a city and they’ve said as a city “we know best”. And yet they’ve got all of the community boards, they’ve got a whole range of people who they could have socialised some of this with before it came out. They chose not to. It seems a little arrogant. It also seems a little fast, and I think all combined, you’ve got Aucklanders sitting back and saying, “We don’t feel comfortable with this.”

SUSAN And yet, Matt McCarten, if the Mayor now takes all this feedback and leaves it until after the election, doesn’t he leave it open to “we don’t know what you're going to do next time”? Doesn’t he leave himself open to those sort of allegations?

MATT That’s true, and of course his political opponents will say it, but of course he’s got the other problem – Michael’s right, they’ve got a PR problem. It’s a political management problem. Look, he’s getting the words right: “a bit up and a bit out.” You know, so he’s understanding—

SUSAN That covers all bases, doesn’t it?

MATT Of course, of course. And everyone goes, “Well, yes, you’ve got to fit these people in. Now what's the best way to do it?” And we’re assuming that people know what they’re doing. But when they hear things like “three-storeys on my street without any notification”, that’s the PR thing, and it’s whether the bureaucrats and the political management of this has been any good. That’s what frightens people. Now, he may have no choice but to delay as much as possible – one, to get past the election, but by saying this, to try and rush it through on his original timeline, that’s just going to increase the hysteria and concern. What I think he’s against, which everyone who’s trying to do this would know: “Yes, we need intensification, but I’d rather not have it in my neighbourhood.” And that’s the political management.

RAYMOND Yeah, but I think, you know, for most people, their house is the one major investment they make in their lifetime.

SUSAN It certainly is.

RAYMOND And no one wants to see their house devalued in any sense – and their community. One of the interesting things I think is this has been a demonstration of kind of grassroots democracy. For the last four decades, I’ve been looking at New Zealand politics, and one of the things that I’ve been observing has been the decline of political parties as mass-membership organisations. People are turning their backs on political parties. And yet in Christchurch, and now here in Auckland, we see the people wanting to be involved. And to take Michael’s point, if you're going to have genuine grassroots democracy, it’s not just an exercise in group therapy, and that’s what so many politicians think it is, but rather it’s being involved right from the very beginning in the process, and also of course having some influence over the final plan. And people will get deeply suspicious if the plan is not being released before the election, because they see it as yet another exercise in public relations.

MICHAEL So if you take the fact that there's been 15,000 submissions and they're saying that we will deal with these in six weeks, would you be sitting there saying to yourself, “Are they really listening or are they going through a process?” And I think it comes back— When Susan did the interview starting off from a point of trust. You know, and when I have a look at what they’ve come out with – “we know what's best” – and people are starting to discover that this isn’t what we’ve thought and it’s full of surprises, I don’t think the trust has been maintained.

SUSAN And incredibly complicated. I mean, they brought the document here. So complex!

MATT I think you're right in terms of the management and, you know, what is it – 236 communications people? It might be the problem’s too many committees and not enough action. But I think what— It is political management now, and I think that Len Brown – he did a reasonable job this morning, but he’s got to relay the fears. And unless he does that, he’s going to have a real political problem. He’s going to lose.

SUSAN Mind you, he doesn’t have a candidate to stand against him at the moment, does he, Raymond?

RAYMOND No, no, he doesn’t.

SUSAN Unless anyone would like to make an announcement this morning, we don’t seem to have one.

RAYMOND Well, Michael certainly, and Matt’s, of course, a political organiser.

MATT Just stop all this mischief.

SUSAN We could have it here beside us.

RAYMOND But I’m a hand-wringing academic, so I don’t…

(laughter)

RAYMOND I’m not part of it.

SUSAN Nothing you want to tell us, Michael?

MICHAEL No, no, Matt’s only run failed strategies so far. Anyway, coming back—

SUSAN Oooh!

(laughter)

MATT I’ll come and help you, Michael.

MICHAEL Thank you very much! That makes me feel a lot better! But I really do. I come back to the point that we need to re-install trust. All of the other signals coming in – central government coming in, doing accords. Why are they there? It’s the argument of intimidation as they come in and say “this isn’t happening quick enough” and so on. You know, all the signals are on and the public are watching. As I say, I think there is some vision in that plan. I have to agree with that. But the way it’s been articulated, the way it’s been thrust on people and “we know best” I think is failure.

SUSAN Raymond, with the election campaign coming up, and it’s only a few months away, the centre-right are leaving the candidacy very late. We of course heard on Friday Maurice Williamson wouldn’t be standing. What are they doing?

RAYMOND Yes, well, of course I think they’ve been doing their own polling, and they see that it’s an impossible dream, basically. Because, one, Len Brown is the incumbent, and while he may have offended a lot of people, he still has huge support in South and West Auckland – areas that are now part of the major city. And I think that they’ve decided that it’s really an effort that is not worth making.

SUSAN Are you suggesting they won't stand a candidate?

RAYMOND Well, I hope they do for the sake of democracy, but we haven’t seen any names yet, and I think Michael would agree it has to be someone who’s got instant name recognition, someone who’s well known to the voters so that they can start in June, July and get it from there.

SUSAN If Paul Holmes was still here…

MICHAEL But in the name of democracy—

MATT But, but, but, but here’s the problem – it was an own-goal by the National government. See, here’s what they did – they got a mayor, gave them executive powers. A third of the country gets to elect the person, therefore resourcing – it’s huge. And then they have the councillors who actually are the one opposing the mayor – you know, like any process. If they stand, they’re not allowed to run for the council. So therefore it has to be an outsider against an incumbent, against a third of the country. The resources – it’s going to cost millions to run, and they need a party machine, and there's the problem.

SUSAN OK, we’re going to have to leave that there.

MATT That’s why whoever was the incumbent was always going to win.

SUSAN We’ll leave them to argue amongst themselves.

Q+A 2 June, 2013

PANEL DISCUSSIONS

Hosted by SUSAN WOOD

In response to METIRIA TUREI interview

SUSAN Time now welcome the panel: Raymond Miller from Auckland University; Matt McCarten, head of the Unite union; Michael Barnett from the Auckland Chamber of Commerce. Very good morning to you all. I liked Jessica’s question: “a perky little election promise”. Actually, Michael, I’ll put that one to you. Interesting, though, they’ve told Labour about it. They don’t do anything without Labour. They can't do anything, effectively, without Labour, can they?

MICHAEL They can't, and they won't be anything unless they’ve got Labour, and I think they’ve sent some really strong signals over the last little while that they’re going to be friends with Labour. And the thing that surprises me when I have a look over the last two years is that Labour and National have not tried to green their policies just a little bit more than what they have, which, in my opinion, is simply making the Greens stronger than what their true position might be.

SUSAN But how close, Matt McCarten, are they getting? Because we heard Metiria there: “Oh, sometimes we tell them what we’re doing. Sometimes we don’t.” How close are they?

MATT No, no, no, they’re very close. If you looked at the other part at the end of her interview, which was telling: “After the election, we’ll have a talk with Labour about what portfolios we’ll have.” You know, it wasn’t, “We’ll sit down with the winning party.” It’s pretty clear. I think that’s why Key is taking this position. I don’t think there's anyone misunderstanding. There are two blocs. There's the Labour-Green bloc and there's National and maybe they might get someone else. That’s the two blocs. And that’s where you’ve got to see the polls. You shouldn’t see the polls of the individual parties. The two blocs. What's the difference of this election—

SUSAN Yes, but the polls do impact on the power that they have to negotiate.

MATT Of course, of course, but what Michael’s saying about Labour not trying to take the Green space – that’s actually deliberate, because it’s in their interests. Labour needs to move to the centre, leave the ground to the Greens. Because they want the Greens to have votes, they need to go off to “oh, we’ll do the centre”. In the election, though, the Greens have learnt they are in a hug with Labour, so it’s Labour-Greens now, not Labour-led. Yes, Labour’s got a bit nervous about that. Recently they’ve started talking about Labour-led. Up till now, it’s been Labour-Green. And so, yes, there is a bit of nervousness. And New Zealand First is always the factor which Labour wants to keep that option open. Keep the Greens under control.

SUSAN Because Labour then does leave the door open for Winston Peters.

RAYMOND Yes, that’s right. I do think there is a danger that Russel Norman in particular is going to overplay his hand on this. One is his personal attacks on the Prime Minister, which is very un-Green, actually. But the other is of course the talk about Cabinet portfolios, particularly Finance. It plays into the government’s hand, because what they want to do is scare voters about a Labour-Green government. It also drives a wedge, potentially, between Labour and New Zealand First, which could in the end be a partner to Labour. So there are real problems there. I personally think the talk about Labour-led is interesting, because what it’s suggesting is that Labour is backing off from a formal coalition with the Greens. It knows it has them anyway, and I think it’s more likely that we’ll see some sort of minority government, which has become the pattern, anyway, in New Zealand, and they could well keep the Greens at arm’s distance by keeping them out of the Cabinet and perhaps ministers outside Cabinet, as we’ve seen with Māori Party, ACT and so on. So I think it would be wrong of the Greens to somehow or other assume that they’re going to be brought into the tent after the election.

SUSAN It will all be down to the numbers. Michael, I want to talk about this attack politics. We saw on ONE News last night Russel Norman comparing the current prime minister with Sir Robert Muldoon. You think it’s a fair comparison? I mean, it’s an interesting piece of politics, but you know both of those men. Is it a fair comparison?

MICHAEL No, I don’t think it is, and I think they’re totally different personalities and their style of leadership and management – totally different. Coming back to the point, though, of overplaying the hands, and when I have a look at this personality-based politics, I think Russel Norman to date has, in my opinion, played a reasonably smooth hand. You know, he’s done reasonably well. I think you could start looking at some of the stuff that’s come out this weekend and be cynical about it. Even in the interview that we saw before – you know, that National can sit down and have dinner with the Prime Minister and come up with the Sky City deal. We know that it didn’t happen like that, and we know that when we made the decision on Sky City that it wasn’t against “should I do that or should I do kids in hospital or lunches or something like that?” They’re getting cynical. I think they’ve overplayed their hand.

MATT I disagree with your absolutely.

MICHAEL Good.

MATT I think they’ve actually had to do it, because, one, it cements them in with Labour, because, right, if Labour’s getting nervous, they need to put it in, they need to go after National big time. Don’t forget Key started it – he started to call them the far left. They had to retaliate and not be framed. And so it’s called politics, and I think the analogy of what they had was kids are starving, and yet Key has got time to go and see his mates and give $400 million for pokies.

SUSAN But, Matt, Raymond made—

MATT No, no, no, I agree with you. He did do it over dinner. He did. You know that. I know that. He had dinner with them and said, “Come up with an idea to fund this.” That’s what they did.

SUSAN But, Matt, to Raymond’s point – he made a very good point that it’s quite un-Green to be attacking—

MATT No, no, no. I mean, I agree with that, and I agree with that the Greens need to be careful. The big thing—

MICHAEL See, now you’re agreeing with me.

MATT No, no.

MICHAEL Come on.

MATT I meant the last part about… It’s that Jeanette Fitzsimons always set the bar never make it personal. I think that Russel’s taken it as far as he can. He shouldn’t go any further.

SUSAN Because, Raymond, the history of attack politics in this country – personalising politics – does it work?

RAYMOND Well, it doesn’t. It does in short-term—

MATT Ask old Muldoon. It worked for him.

RAYMOND Ask Muldoon, yeah.

SUSAN Different generation, though.

RAYMOND Yes, exactly.

SUSAN Thank goodness!

RAYMOND But that comes to Michael’s point – the two politicians couldn’t be more dissimilar, actually. Was Russel in the country when Muldoon was prime minister?

MICHAEL Was he born? (laughs)

MATT He was still in high school!

RAYMOND Right, because they couldn’t be more different. One was a polarising figure and the other is a very popular figure. One had strong, strong personality and was very often abrasive, the other you couldn’t describe in that way at all, so I don’t know where Russel is coming from in these attacks, and I don’t know that it’s going to do them any good.

SUSAN Very good. We will leave it there with our panel.