Sunday 19th June, 2011

Q+A panel discussions.

The panel discussions have been transcribed below. The full length video interviews and panel discussions from this morning’s Q+A can be watched 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

PANEL DEBATES led by PAUL HOLMES

In response to GERRY BROWNLEE interview

PAUL The panel – Dr Jon Johansson from Victoria University; this week, direct from the war zone, chief executive of the Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce Peter Townsend; and good morning also to Matt McCarten, political strategist and leader of the UNITE Union. All right, then, reaction to Mr Brownlee. Peter Townsend, first of all.

PETER TOWNSEND – Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce
Yes, well, the minister’s got an extraordinarily difficult job. We’re dealing with the biggest natural disaster this country’s ever faced, we’re looking at long-term recovery and we’re looking at very calculated recovery. We have to look strategically, holistically, and together as a community. But I’m an eternal optimist, Paul. We’re gonna get this right and we’re gonna move on.

PAUL You’re an eternal optimist with the rest of the country’s money. I mean, again, no disrespect, I don’t wanna hurt anyone in Christchurch, but this is a serious concern, isn’t it, that we don’t know the extent of this seismic event?

PETER Yeah, but most of the money comes from private sources. Most of the money, as the minister said, will come through insurance and through investment, and the government’s contribution to this is significant – you know, $85 million, a billion dollars, that’s significant – but most of the recovery money will be through private. And we need to create an environment in Christchurch that allows people the certainty of investing and getting a return on their investment.

PAUL He was cagey, wasn’t he, about what the total cost of the earthquake reconstruction’s gonna be. You reckon how much?

PETER I say $30,000 million, and I’ve been saying that since February the 23rd.

PAUL 30 billion?

PETER Yep.

PAUL Jon Johansson?

JON JOHANSSON – Political Analyst
Yeah, the thing about cost is it’s a bit analogous to, actually, war: it’s not the direct cost of ordnance and fighting it, it’s actually the ongoing downstream costs, which are gonna be really significant in this case, because of the psychological state of a lot of— For the first time— I hardly ever use the word ‘beleaguered’, but that is the word that’s stuck with me this week, watching those poor people in what I really thought was cruel and unusual punishment: shovelling silt, liquefaction, for the fourth time, third or fourth time, after their leadership, you know, seemingly aware of the information on land, their preserve – I know they’re trying their best—

PAUL Well, you’ve gotta have a little bit of sympathy for Gerry Brownlee in this, because you’ve gotta make the right decisions in this on the very best information you get, but—

JON Clarify ‘uncertainty’, Paul. And to see these poor people, like, absolutely bereft, has really struck me because it’s like, free pass for the government? Don’t think so. How good was their reaction from September through to February the 2nd? Why isn’t issues like the insurers and EQC and what portion they’re going to foot of the bill, that’s going to the High Court this coming week, why was that not resolved after February? Why did the government not use its legislative threat – it has, after all, given itself more power outside of war than any government has had – brought their heads together so that all those ducks were lined up, ready for the land imaging information?

PAUL But again, Jon, I mean, this is— We’ve never had anything of this magnitude, have we? A thousand buildings alone in the CBD, 12,000 homes possibly got to go. Matt?

MATT McCARTEN – UNITE Union
That’s right, and if anyone thinks that the cost of it is going to be what the minister is saying, they’ll believe in anything. It’s a bit like when we said the World Cup was going to create all this wealth; now it’s going to cost us half of a billion dollars. We always know that all the numbers – I think it’s more 80 billion than 30, to be honest, at the end of it, cos they do it on the cheap, and all that sort of thing. But it is just a terrible thing, and you were quite right to raise the thing about the cost, saying, well, there’s 30% or 40% chance of the earthquakes being at that level in the next 12 months. You’ve gotta say if you were running the business, that’s a huge business risk and you wouldn’t do it. So it is kind of a rock and a hard place.

PAUL What about this very cruel question, really, but it’s again, I think, a valid one. Um, all right, half of Christchurch is not touched, you can go down and, you know, the better-off bits did better off, as always happens, I suppose. But would you seriously put your hand in the back pocket to buy a house in Christchurch?

PETER Well, I can tell you the housing market is alive and well in Christchurch.

PAUL Would you, Matt?

MATT No, and I don’t think that people outside of Christchurch who don’t understand that the perception is that, you know, this is a city and an enormous problem. Our union has a lot of members there, and working with the hotels and the hospitality and the cinemas and call centres and security. And what they’re finding is about a quarter of their staff have actually left. They had to put a lot of them off, or put them on reduced hours, and they can’t find them again; they’ve actually left. So people who are single or don’t have the mortgages or the ties seem to be getting out, and it’s going to be a challenge to get them back in again. But certainly, when the construction happens, there’s gonna create jobs and that could turn it around, but I think that 30% or 40% risk is a problem.

PETER We have to be careful about those figures. We think that somewhere between 8000 and 10,000 people have left the city. That’s in a city of 400,000 people. But you’ve gotta look at this— We’re going through this seismic episode—

JON Do we really know, Peter? You’ve got a good handle on it?

PETER Yes, we do. We’ve done some good research on that.

PAUL Because the figure up here being touted is much greater than that, hasn’t it?

PETER Yeah, and that’s why we have to be careful about figures. And the reality is that Christchurch, whichever form it takes in its future, is going to be the construction capital of NZ for the next 10 years – we know that, and there are going to be huge opportunities, huge cash flow coming in to rebuild the city’s balance sheet.

PAUL I just wanna turn a corner, Jon, if I can, with Peter Townsend. You’ve just been up to look at San Francisco, which was hit a few years back by a big earthquake, or has been several times over the years; Santa Cruz you went to as well. And the figures you’ve come back with there are not… they’re not cheering.

PETER No, they’re not, no. And Santa Cruz is a good example. Santa Cruz got hit by the San Francisco earthquake in 1989. They had their main downtown area destroyed: 50 to 70 buildings, took them seven years to get on top of that. We’ve got 1000 buildings inside our four avenues. So if you look at the numbers, if we were looking at a 10-year recovery plan, we have to complete a new building every three days. So we are dealing with something of unprecedented proportions, and we’re just gonna have to accept that and take a long-term view on our recovery.

JON One of the things I’d just like to add here is that I think that why people feel beleaguered as well is at the moment, especially for those people in those worst-affected suburbs, is there is no hope and, you know, there is no information. It would be good for Cantabrians, I think, if there was that positive vision about, you know, decisions about what the city’s gonna look like in the future, or at least if people have something positive to also cling on to. Cos then they can endure their current circumstances. At least, if it’s not gonna help their lives it’ll benefit their children’s lives. But at the moment, there’s just no hope at all, Peter.

PAUL But I must say it was extremely depressing last night watching the pictures, and the volunteers came out, and God, it made you cry. But to see elderly people – you know, that liquefaction, it doesn’t just sit out on your footpath; it comes into your garage, it’s under the bikes, it’s under the tools, it’s— and so much of it’s water and you can’t shovel it.

JON And it’s now zero degrees at night, and they’ve had this – Portaloos, etc – since September.

MATT Just following on from what Peter was saying about Santa Cruz and… The city we now know is not going to be the same, and one of the interesting things is that the opportunity it creates – It’s not that Christchurch is going to disappear; it’s going to be different – but already the CBD is spread out all over the region, you were saying before we came on the show, about eight or so different areas. I think that’s the modern city now. The cities have always been, ‘There’s the CBD, everything comes to the centre.’ When we live on a hurling ball which flies through space, you know, we are always on the edge. But I think the cities have been built—In a different time, we didn’t know about these risks. We can’t have our CBD in one place, it’s gotta be spread.

PAUL And there I’ve gotta finish it. Matt, thank you.

================================

In response to WINSTON PETERS interview

PAUL Well, what did you make of that? He finds he can work with himself very well. (CHUCKLES)

PETER He can work with himself very well. Look, I think there are some fundamental issues about the future of this country that we need to deal to, and the politicking and the superficiality of that I find quite disturbing.

PAUL God, it was entertaining, though.

PETER It was entertaining, but we need more than entertainment to save this country.

MATT It was entertaining, but it didn’t answer one single question. I mean, there’s the vintage Winston of old, but it’s kind of now cantankerous. It’s almost like, you know, what’s all this all about? So, you know, I think he will be back, I think even if you take the most conservative polls at 3%. But I think it has more to do with that you’ve got Key very solid and you’ve got the opposition vote all over the place. And so it just goes round. And so Labour isn’t strong enough to be seen the only point where votes are going to, so I think both Greens and NZ First and other parties on the non-National scene, that they’ll do well. And on that basis, cos Winston is seen to be what he is, there’s a market for that, and I think he’s appealing directly to that.

PAUL There’s a market for that, but I wonder, when we look at—

MATT There’s no principle involved, it’s only that there’s a market for it.

PAUL When we talk about selling shares in Auckland Airport or selling state assets, all this kind of stuff, and raising the pension to 72% -- we’ve had Christchurch, and Christchurch is gonna cost us billions, and we know it’s gonna cost us billions and billions for many years to come. We know we’re borrowing 350 million a week, over a billion a month anyway, just to survive.

MATT I think that Winston also knows that these are just numbers. You know, whether it’s 80 billion or 30 billion, it’s a lot of money. So I know that the serious politicos take the numbers very seriously, but I think to the public, as Winston’s counting on, you just make it up as you go along.

PAUL Well, all business is show business, as Lord Grade once said, and there was plenty of show business there. Do you think there’s still a place for him?

JON Well, I think the constituency still exists for those who, you know, support the economic nationalist ideas of Winston. And also, you know, he competes with Brash on some of the race stuff as well, both domestically and in terms of immigration. And we’ve seen that, uh, dear old Don’s soufflé has not appeared to have risen twice – yet. So Winston’s absolutely in the market for that. And people might pour scorn on that Horizon poll, but the one thing it does that the other polls do not is it does probe undecideds. And whenever you do that – and this reinforces Matt’s critique – it shows that people that aren’t sure where to vote at the moment are contemplating Greens, they are contemplating, seriously, NZ First, and that’s why NZ First does very well in that poll. So if you get into that washing machine that Matt’s talking about in the election campaign, ‘How are we gonna moderate National?’ that’s how it’s gonna be done.

PAUL But what’s he gonna do? Key won’t work with him – he’s made that absolutely clear again, hasn’t he? Will Goff?

JON Oh, look, I think Winston would actually be a cross-bench proposition. Even if there was some theoretical coalition that could be cobbled together from the left, that’s where I think Winston would locate himself.

MATT No, but they’re not gonna have— That thing, I mean, is that Labour will either have NZ First, it will need NZ First to govern, or it’s National.

JON Yeah, yeah.

MATT It’s not one of those cross-bench options. I mean, whether Winston will be in a government or not, if the numbers are there, that Labour will need him in there, because in some sense, he actually helps the Labour Party because he is a better attack dog than Phil Goff, and he is more believable, even though.

PETER You can play your politics forever. The fundamental issues we’re facing as a country, we’ve just gotta stop this petty—

MATT But Winston, I mean, he’s a politico.

PETER The country needs to understand that we’re in a situation where if something radical is not done with respect to our economic future—

MATT He only needs five.

PETER ..we end up a small, insignificant Pacific Island nation.

PAUL But he charges a very big price with his five.

MATT Sorry?

PAUL He charges a very big price for his cooperation with his five. Did you find it odd, also, that he turned down an opportunity to advertise his business?

MATT No— Well, I think he was looking very defensive there about the incomes as well. But anyway, that’s typical Winston. Winston never likes to answer a question that he feels uncomfortable about, and he goes on the attack.

JON But I tell you what, he has been filling up halls out in the provinces.

PAUL I’ve gotta wrap it. Yes or no – will he be back? Matt?

MATT Yes.

JON I think good chance.

PETER He’ll be back, but he won’t mean much.

================================

In regards to Te Tai Tokerau by-election

PAUL Te Tai Tokerau – campaign manager, who’s gonna win?

MATT Um, well, oh, Hone, cos— The by-elections are about turnout. There’ll be a very low turnout, as they always are, so it’ll be who’s the most motivated to turn out. Hone has gotta be the frontrunner by a country mile, but, you know, we’ve got a week to go.

JON Well, I haven’t negotiated terms with Matt for an endorsement or not, but I tend to think that Hone will win because of the irreducible logic there that Kelvin Davis is already in Parliament, and two is better than one.

PAUL That people will make the calculation.

JON Whatever happens, it’s not going to be good for the Maori Party.

PAUL Peter, thank you very much for being with us. Despite the hard questions about Christchurch this morning, we’re with you, and a quick word you’d like to say about Christchurch.

PETER Great pleasure to be here, thank you very much. Christchurch is gonna get up and get going again. We’re broken, but we’re not dead, and we’ve got a fantastic future ahead of us. Up to us to make sure that we get Christchurch up as an iconic city.

© Scoop Media