Sunday 8th May, 2011

Q+A’s Guyon Espiner interviews Russel Norman

Points of interest:
claims Mana Party is not a threat to Greens in this year’s election; hopeful Mana Party will mobilise many non-voters
typical Green party support “liberal progressive” people in cities with higher incomes and higher education
challenge is broaden voter base, grow Green support in suburbs
apologies for claim Mana Party members are “relics”; regrets personal remarks but insists political argument correct
forming coalition with National post-election “extremely unlikely”
refuses to rule out working in a coalition including Winston Peters and NZ First
Greens happy for NZ troops to train with US, Australian and British, even though policy says no training with militaries that have suppressed human rights or seized resources
believes US preferred to kill bin Laden rather than catch him alive, in part due to fear of embarrassing revelations
does not support assassinations, as this undermines Western tradition of rule of law
has “deep concerns“ over allegations of SAS handing over prisoners to be tortured
wants independent inquiry into “very serious allegations“, including the involvement of incoming Governor General Jerry Mataparae; claims “clouds” hang over his appointment
supports findings of Law Commission report on drug laws; prosecuting cannabis users “a complete waste of money”



PANEL EXCLUSIVE: More analysis from Jon Johansson, John Pagani and Michael Barnett will be posted exclusively online tomorrow – you can find the web-only panel on Q+A’s homepage on Monday, http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news

The interview has been transcribed below. The full length video interviews and panel discussions from this morning’s Q+A can be watched again on tvnz.co.nz at, http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news

Q+A, 9-10am Sundays on TV ONE. Repeats at 9.10pm Sundays, 10.10am and 2.10pm Mondays on TVNZ 7

Q+A is on Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/NZQandA#!/NZQandA and on Twitter, http://twitter.com/#!/NZQandA

Russel Norman interviewed by Guyon Espiner

GUYON Many political leaders around the world have, I guess, welcomed with relief the death of Osama bin Laden. Do you welcome the death of Osama bin Laden?

RUSSEL NORMAN – Greens Co-Leader
I don’t welcome the fact that they went in— On the face of it, it was a kill mission. Um, we would’ve preferred that they tried to capture Osama bin Laden alive and put him on trial. We think that would’ve been a better outcome.

GUYON And why don’t you think they did that?

RUSSEL Uh, I think the Americans probably didn’t prefer to put him through a trial. Um, but obviously, I don’t know what happened at that point.

GUYON Do you think that would have been embarrassing for them?

RUSSEL I think it could have been embarrassing for them, but I think it would have been better for the world had they taken him alive and taken him to the International Criminal Court.

GUYON Why would it have been embarrassing for the Americans?

RUSSEL I think that it could have been embarrassing because of the contact between the bin Laden’s and the US government over a number of years. But more importantly, I think the main issue is that we want to have international law governed by rule of law, and that’s a fundamental thing.

GUYON Sure. But just to clarify that point. So you’re saying that they killed him to avoid a trial to avoid embarrassment about their previous collusion with Osama bin Laden?

RUSSEL No, what I’m saying is that my preference would have been to take him alive so that there would have been a trial in the International Criminal Court.

GUYON Do you think that if we commit an assassination, in your words, does that make us as bad as the people that we are supposed to be fighting?

RUSSEL I think the thing that makes us different, or I think the thing that I like about our Western traditions is we believe in rule of law. And I think we should defend rule of law. So when we lower ourselves to the level of assassinations, if that’s what happened, um, then I think it isn’t good for us.

GUYON Because some people see the leaders who were involved in the Iraq war as terrorists, don’t they, and they say that they are as bad as the people on the other side. Is that your view?

RUSSEL Well, I think the broader pictures is if the United States can start to identify people they don’t like all over the planet and start to use drones to effectively assassinate them, I don’t think that’s a good development for international law, and I don’t think we should support it.

GUYON Your own party has some fairly strong views on defence, foreign policy and international relations. I guess a lot of this was driven by Keith Locke, but it’s something that your party does hold strongly to. When you look at your existing defence policy, you say that the NZ government has a responsibility to ensure that the NZ Defence Force does not engage in training joint military operations with nations who are using their military to suppress human rights or unjustly seize natural resources in their own or other countries. I mean, given Iraq, would that presumably discounts us from training with Australia, the United Kingdom and America?

RUSSEL I think that it does put us in a difficult position in a world in which the United States has engaged in particularly Iraq and Afghanistan. And we were really pleased that we didn’t join the war in Iraq. Um, we have deep concerns about the role of the SAS in Afghanistan and handing over civilians, or appearing— I mean, there is some evidence they’re handing over civilians to be tortured. Um, I think that that is a real issue for us, and I don’t think that’s what NZ wants to participate in. I think it puts the NZ Defence Force in a very difficult situation.

GUYON So should we not be training with Australia, Britain or America?

RUSSEL I think it’s OK to train with Australia, Britain and America, but it’s not OK to join in wars that involve capturing people and handing them over to be tortured. I don’t think that’s right.

GUYON Cos in some ways you could argue that your party has a fairly isolationist stance on some of these issues. I mean, and your policy specifically excludes NZ from participating in the Five Power Defence Arrangement: NZ, Australia, UK, Malaysia and Singapore. I mean, why would we wanna pull out of that?

RUSSEL For us it’s about we put our main emphasis on the multilateral organisations such as the United—

GUYON That’s a multilateral arrangement, isn’t it?

RUSSEL It’s the United Nations that we think is the most important.

GUYON Why would you want to pull out of that arrangement?

RUSSEL Well, because we think that the most important framework is the post-war United Nations framework. Like we now have the International Criminal Court, which we think is a progressive development. That kind of framework actually makes the world safer for NZ, a small country in a big world with a lot of dangerous people in it, um, actually, a multilateral United Nations framework is the best place for us to be.

GUYON Before I leave the security strand of your policy, you mentioned before the SAS in Afghanistan and handing over, um, suspects who may or may not have been tortured. Given Jerry Mataparae’s role in that as former Chief of NZ Defence Force, do you believe that he’s an appropriate choice as Governor General?

RUSSEL I think that we need an independent inquiry so that we can remove the cloud that’s now hanging over Jerry Mateparae. I mean, these are very serious allegations.

GUYON And until that is done, do you not think that he is an appropriate Governor General?

RUSSEL Uh, I think he’s coming in in July, so we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. But what we’re saying right now is that we need an independent inquiry, because a Defence Force inquiry is insufficient. He’s gonna be our Governor General; we can’t have this kind of cloud hanging over him.

GUYON The other reason you were in the news, to a degree, this week was you were critical of Hone Harawira’s new Mana Party, saying basically that it was a relic, a throwback to the ‘80s and ‘90s. You said, I’ll quote you, ‘We’re in 2011, for God’s sake. We need a progressive force that actually deals with where we are now and doesn’t try to re-fight the 1980s, 1990s. I don’t think a lot of people are really hanging out for a Hone Harawira, Sue Bradford, John Minto, Annette Sykes type party.’ Do you stand by those comments?

RUSSEL Um, I don’t stand by the personalisation of it. I think that was a mistake, and I apologise for that.

GUYON Well, it’s the truth, though, wasn’t it? You were saying what you believed. I heard you say as much around the press gallery this week.

RUSSEL What I said was that I think I over-personalised it, which I did, but the political dimension, the political argument I do stand by. I mean, the political argument is that, um, the progressive movement out of the ‘80s and ‘90s, what is it that’s new in 2010? And I’d say for the Greens it’s about the centrality of the environment and resource limits. When you look at what’s happening in the global economy now, um, the price of commodities as a result of resource limits has gone through the roof. So the environment and resource limits is new. And also, I think, the role for markets and business. We think that there’s a very positive role for well-regulated and green businesses to actually produce progressive change. So that’s new.

GUYON And you see these guys as fighting the old battles as, sort of, Marxists and Maori nationalists?

RUSSEL Um, I think that’s up to them to say what it is that they’re battling, but—

GUYON Well, that’s what you said when you were telling the truth.

RUSSEL But what I’m trying— And I’m telling the truth now, and what I’m saying is that’s what’s new as far as we’re concerned. Cos I was around in the ‘80s and ‘90s as well, remember, right? And I’m committed to opposing inequality, opposing poverty and trying to actually support progressive unions. But I’m also very conscious of the fact that this is a new world with environmental limits and resource limits, and that’s what’s different.

GUYON I wonder if your comments weren’t spurred by the fact that you see this as competition. I mean, this is the first time you’ve had a party on the left of the Greens, if you like. You’ve got competition now and you are slugging into your opponents.

RUSSEL I think that I don’t really see it as a threat to our vote for a couple of reasons.

GUYON You are going after the same voters, though, aren’t you?

RUSSEL No, I don’t think so. If you look at the Maori voters, I think they’re quite distinct. I think there’s a distinct vote there. And I think if you look at the general, um, population, I’m hopeful that the Mana Party can actually mobilise a bunch of people that currently aren’t voting. Because remember, there’s a big non-voting group. And I think that if Hone Harawira can reach out to people who are lower-paid or who don’t currently engage in the political system, then that would be a good thing for democracy.

GUYON Are you still holding his proxy vote in Parliament, this guy you called a relic?

RUSSEL Uh, well, we’re holding two proxy votes, as a matter of fact. We’ve got both Chris Carter and Hone Harawira. The reason we’re doing it is because we think it’s important that the people in those electorates have a representative in Parliament, a representative who votes on all the bills. That’s why we’re doing it.

GUYON Let’s talk bigger picture in terms of coalitions. I mean, you have a remit circulating now among members that says that you have a preference for supporting Labour with a confidence and supply agreement, and I think you say it’s extremely unlikely that you would do a confidence and supply agreement with National.

RUSSEL That’s right.

GUYON Why are you tying yourself to Labour when most of the polls tell us they can’t win?

RUSSEL We think it’s important to be straight up and down with the voters before the election about where we stand. And where you look at the policies of the Greens versus the policies of Labour and National – these are the three parties that all have over 5%, the three stable forces in NZ politics – we think it’s important to be straight up and down about the differences.

GUYON OK, well, let’s be straight up with our viewers, then, this morning. Can you rule out National?

RUSSEL What I’ve said— Rather, what’s in the remit, and the members haven’t even voted yet; the members vote at the AGM, is that it would be extremely unlikely. And I think that’s fair. We work with National—

GUYON What does that really mean, though? I mean, you’re actually opening the door ajar, aren’t you, because you previously ruled them out and now you’re saying it’s extremely unlikely.

RUSSEL I think most people looking at the Greens and National would see that that’s a pretty fair estimate of the situation.

GUYON Why is that? Because in 2008 at your conference you called them Coke and Pepsi, and your analogy meant that Labour and National were exactly the same.

RUSSEL And it’s also true that we’ve pointed out the differences between the Greens and National while working with National. I just wanna make one point—

GUYON But you can barely— But the analogy is you can barely taste the difference between Coke and Pepsi. So what’s changed?

RUSSEL Well, it’s true that we worked with Labour while they were in government; it’s true that we’re working with National now that they’re in government. I mean, I actually think the home-insulation scheme that we’ve got with National – we’ve done 100,000 homes retrofitted with insulation – is a really great scheme. And that’s something we’ve done by working with National, and we’ll do that again.

GUYON So why wouldn’t you do a confidence and supply agreement with them, then?

RUSSEL Because as you know, there’s a difference between working with on common policy areas, which is what I think MMP is all about, and taking the next step, which is to actually give power to, or confidence and supply, and that’s a bigger bar. And I think that it should be taken more seriously.

GUYON And one that you’re not prepared to give at the moment?

RUSSEL It’s one where there’s a draft remit that’s going to our members which says it’s extremely unlikely.

GUYON Do you wanna be in government? Because back in that 2008 speech to your Green conference, you said, ‘The Greens want to be in government, the Greens want to be in a position to make things better for NZers. That’s what we want to do.’ Do you actually want to be in government? Have you got the courage as a party to actually make that tough call and go into government? Because it is a lot harder.

RUSSEL I think if you look at the success of the Greens, we are the third party in Parliament, have been for some time. There’s only three parties that get over 5%, we’re the third one. Um, there’s probably only three parties in Parliament where if the leadership changed tomorrow those parties would be enduring, right? Labour, National and the Greens. And we’re a stable progressive force, and we’ve done that by having smart political tactics, right? And so smart political tactics mean that you make sure you do the right thing.

GUYON But that’s just about surviving. I mean, isn’t that abhorrent, in a way? That’s just about surviving as a political party without actually ever achieving anything.

RUSSEL I actually disagree with you. I think 100,000 households is an achievement.

GUYON Your strategy’s just based on getting back into Parliament without ever taking the step to actually getting into government, to actually really achieving some green solutions.

RUSSEL Well, we got into Parliament in order to make change. That’s why we’re there. We’re not there just to become ministers, or whatever, we wanna make change.

GUYON That’s what I asked you, whether you still believed you should be in government.

RUSSEL So yes is the answer. But we also know that we can make change from outside government if that’s where we are. So if you look at the home-insulation scheme, if you look at stopping mining in national parks. We are an effective political force, if you look at just those two examples, even though we’re not in government. So we try to do the best we can from whatever situation we’re in.

GUYON If this government does what the last government did, which was, uh, a nine-year term, you’d be waiting till 2017. Are you prepared to wait that long?

RUSSEL Uh, I certainly hope that the Greens are in government after the next election, but it’s up to the voters to decide how the numbers fall.

GUYON OK, well, a way those numbers could fall to have Labour in government, probably the most likely way given the polling, is a Labour, Green, NZ First government. Are you prepared to work with NZ First, a party and a leader you had grave doubts about at the last election, given his secret-donations row?

RUSSEL We haven’t ruled it out, I think is probably the straightest answer. We’ve actually just said, ‘Look, he’s not even 5%, there’s no guarantee he’s gonna make it. We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.’ So we’ll see what happens. But like you say, from our point of view we wanna make change. And so we’ll work with people as best we can to make change. I mean, I actually think that there are very significant challenges— I’ve talked about the transition to a green economy on many occasions. But those are the challenges facing NZ. If we don’t do that transition, then we are going to be left behind in a world which is moving on with clean technology and green technology. I don’t want NZ to be left out of that.

GUYON One of the factors that has been an issue in the past is whether the Greens are taken seriously by mainstream voters. Um, when we had Nandor Tanczos in Parliament there was a big focus on the cannabis issue. Your existing policy on that is still to introduce a legal age limit of 18 for personal cannabis use. Is that gonna remain the position for the Green Party?

RUSSEL The emphasis, actually, on our cannabis policy has been towards a decriminalisation model, like they do—

GUYON You think 18-year-olds should be able to smoke cannabis legally?

RUSSEL Uh, we’ve gone towards decriminalisation like they have in South Australia and the ACT.

GUYON Let’s not be cute about this, cos your policy says ‘introduce a legal age limit of 18 for personal cannabis use’, so should 18-year-olds be able to smoke cannabis?

RUSSEL I think that the criminalisation of cannabis users—

GUYON Should they be able to smoke cannabis, Dr Norman?

RUSSEL …is not helping anybody, so we support a decriminalisation model, and moving towards that model.

GUYON So it would be legal?

RUSSEL I’ve lived in Adelaide, right?

GUYON Don’t be embarrassed about it, if that’s your policy—

RUSSEL I’m not embarrassed about it. I’m saying that if you’ve lived in Adelaide, where they have this decriminalisation model, the world hasn’t fallen apart. If you look at the latest Law Commission report, it says, ‘let’s have a rational, evidence-based approach to how we deal with drugs.’ And I think that throwing lots of people using cannabis into jail is a complete waste of money.

GUYON Just finally, in terms of who the Greens actually represent, I mean, you spend a lot of time talking about less-well-off NZers. But when we look at who actually supports the Green Party, on the party vote, Wellington Central, Rongotai and Auckland Central scored the highest proportion of the party vote for the Greens, all of which are electorates in the upper deciles in terms of income. So is it really true that the Greens and the supporters of the Greens are actually an upper- and middle-income-based party?

RUSSEL Well, I think it kind of goes back to your earlier question as well, about the Mana Party, um, and why they’re not really a threat to the green vote. I mean, when you look at the green vote, basically, the higher your level of education the more likely you are to vote green, just when you look at the straight numbers, that’s how it works. Um, and so we have strong support amongst what you might call progressive liberal, kind of, NZ who have higher incomes and higher education, and also amongst students and so forth. So there is a distinction between what a Mana Party vote might look like and what a Green Party vote looks like. The challenge for the Greens, I think, is to actually move out, move more into the suburbs and to appeal more to suburban NZers, if you like. And that’s why I think policies around making transport affordable at a time of rising oil prices, for example; making housing more affordable through using a capital gains tax, excluding the family home; making sure that the government doesn’t go into a fiscal deficit by actually having an earthquake levy to pay for it rather than borrowing lots of money; I think those kind of policies are the ones that hopefully will take us out into suburban NZ and broaden our appeal.

GUYON Russel Norman, thanks very much for your time.

© Scoop Media