Q+A: Labour’s stance on water: “It belongs to everyone"
Q+A: Labour’s stance on water: “It effectively
belongs to everybody.”
New Zealand
national interests and Maori rights can be accommodated, but
with asset sales “being rammed through”, “that process
of negotiation cannot happen.”
Shearer says
national standards “inferior” and no good for children,
but Labour won’t abolish them and “turn the whole
applecart upside down”.
Focus in schools should
be on the under-achieving tail: “National standards is
somewhat of a side issue.”
On Kawerau mill
closure, Shearer says if he was PM, “I would not rule out
becoming involved.”
Labour wants to look at
volatility of NZ exchange rate
.
Foreshore and Seabed:
“In retrospect,… we would have done it
differently.”
Q+A, 9-10am Sundays on TV
ONE and one hour later on TV ONE plus
1.
Thanks to the support from NZ On
Air.
Q+A is on Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/NZQandA#!/NZQandA
and on Twitter, http://twitter.com/#!/NZQandA
Q+A
SHANE
TAURIMA INTERVIEWS DAVID
SHEARER
SHANE
TAURIMA
Mr Shearer, thank you. Good morning. Welcome to the
programme.
DAVID SHEARER - Labour
Leader
Morning, Shane.
Thanks.
SHANE
Let’s start on water, because John Key says the
Maori King’s got it wrong, that nobody owns it. What do
you say?
DAVID
Well, under our law, under common law, it’s
nobody’s resource. It effectively belongs to everybody, if
you want to take it that way. So that’s the position where
we stand. But we have to point out that this would never
have come about if we weren’t about to sell off rights in
water to a rather exclusive club that can afford to buy
those shares in Mighty River
Power.
SHANE
Going back to my first question, Eddie Durie says
Maori law is different, and actually Maori can own
water.
DAVID
Well, we’ve had these sorts of situations before,
and actually this week we had the Tuhoe settlement
realised.
SHANE
Water, Mr Shearer. Let’s talk about what Eddie
Durie has said.
DAVID
I know,
but-
SHANE He
says that Maori law says that Maori can own
water.
DAVID
What I’m saying is that while we have different
views of looking at water, over the last 20 years or more,
we’ve been able to work out a regime where both Maori
rights and Maori concepts of water and the New Zealand
interests have been able to be accommodated together very
well. And I give you the example of Tuhoe, who have been
owning Lake Waikaremoana, for
example. That is for their benefit. It ensures their mana,
but it also doesn’t impact in any way on New Zealand and
New Zealanders as a whole. I can still walk and use that
lake as much as I like. So there are ways of getting through
this. The problem that we have is with state asset sales
being rammed through as they are, if you ram them through,
that process of negotiation cannot happen, and that’s what
we have at the moment where people are being pushed into
corners.
SHANE
And I will cut you off with state asset sales,
because you’ve made the point. But let me ask you would
you do anything different to what the government’s doing
currently?
DAVID
We wouldn’t be selling state-owned assets, and I
know you’re going to cut me
off-
SHANE I
am, because I think you’ve made that point
clear.
DAVID
We wouldn’t be in this situation right now if the
government did not decide that it wanted to sell off
assets.
SHANE
But we are in this situation, Mr Shearer. And how
would you do things
differently?
DAVID
Well, first of all I would say we are not going to
be selling Mighty River Power, so therefore we in fact
diffuse the entire issue. And then we go back to the way
we’ve always done this, which is we actually sit down and
negotiate and we’re able to work through this together and
get to a common resolution. And that has been the way that
we’ve done it in New Zealand, and it’s
worked.
SHANE
Well, it’s not the way Labour did it with the
seabed and
foreshore.
DAVID
I know. I completely agree, and I think in
retrospect when we look back on that, we would have done it
differently. Absolutely. But what I’m saying now is we
look forward. If the government continues along the way that
it is, there’s going to be a court case. But, most
importantly, the asset sales will be derailed. They will
have so much risk associated with them that the price that
government wants to get for those asset sales will be low,
and New Zealand taxpayers, New Zealand people, will be the
losers.
SHANE
You mentioned the court case. Let me just ask you
very briefly then we’ll go and move on to your speech. Do
you think the government could
win?
DAVID I
don’t know, but what I do know is that this will be long
and drawn out. It won’t simply stop there. And the big
issue is the risk around the investment that will be
associated with Mighty River Power, not to mention the other
SOEs that are being sold as well, which will lower the price
and mean that we, as New Zealand, won’t get anything like
the value for our
resources.
SHANE
So, a big speech this week on education. Let’s
jump into it. Why are you keeping National
Standards?
DAVID
Well, what we’re saying is that in another two
years’ time, National Standards will be in our schools,
and while a lot of schools believe that those National
Standards are certainly inferior to what we had before and
the measurement that we’ve used before, other schools have
got used to it. And what we’ve said to the schools is,
‘Look, if you have a better system of being able to report
to parents in clear English on the progress of their child,
you go ahead.’ But we’re not going to turn the whole
apple cart upside down. The big thing for us if we’ve
spent four years talking about how we measure kids in the
schools. In the meantime, we’ve had 80,000 kids turn up to
schools not fed, hungry. We’ve got kids slipping behind,
and the dropout rate at 16 is so high that we’ve got kids
that are not going into work and not going on to get other
skills. That’s the priority for us; not dreaming up yet
another system of how to measure
people.
SHANE
I want to hone in on your decision around National
Standards, because 12 months ago Labour said it would get
rid of it. Sue Moroney - let me quote: ‘It must stop.’
Phil Goff said it was a shambles. And let me quote again:
‘It doesn’t help our kids’ progress in education.’
So why the
change?
DAVID
Well, the last quote is absolutely right. It
doesn’t help our kids progress in education at
all.
SHANE So
why aren’t you getting rid of
it?
DAVID
Because it’s a measurement system. It actually
doesn’t do anything for the kids inside the classroom.
Those kids that turn up to school hungry or turn up to
school behind in their reading or their maths or whatever,
National Standards doesn’t help those
kids.
SHANE So
if it doesn’t help those kids, why aren’t you getting
rid of it?
DAVID
It’s a measurement system. It’s not a tool by
which you use to bring kids up. It’s simply a measurement
system, and there are lots of measurement systems, and they
are actually better than National Standards. But what
we’re saying is, and we were consistent about this in our
last policy despite what you’ve just said, is that we said
we would give schools the opportunity to go to a different
system if they felt that that was superior to what National
Standards could
offer.
SHANE
Well, I suppose the point is a policy is either
good or it’s not. It just sounds like you’ve said it’s
not good. So therefore the question is why not get rid of
it?
DAVID
Well, what we’ve said is that schools if they
already have it, if they can prove to us there’s a better
system certainly than the system they had before where they
were reporting against all of the curriculum rather than
National Standards, they can go ahead and use that. But the
point is that what we need to be able to do in our education
system- We have a great education system. It regularly rates
in the top five in the world. But we have a very long tail,
and what we need to do is address that tail. And if we
don’t address that tail, then we’re going to have kids
dropping out at age 16, going on to the dole, filling up our
prisons, having health problems. Those are the issues that
we want to tackle. And I think, to be honest, compared to
that priority, National Standards is somewhat of a side
issue.
SHANE
Let’s talk about another issue that I spoke with
the Prime Minister about: the economy. You heard what he
said, that subsidies don’t work. You heard that we can’t
do much about the economy, and things aren’t looking too
great. What practical alternative do you
have?
DAVID
Well, first of all, it sounds like a lot of
excuses. There’s always something that is stopping the
government from actually creating growth. We have had the
worst growth under this government since World War II. There
hasn’t been another government - National or Labour-led -
that has had worse growth than this
government.
SHANE
So I’ve given you your free shot to the Prime
Minister. Tell us your
solution.
DAVID
Let’s look at the issues. At the moment, our
dollar is so overvalued that it’s killing our
manufacturing sector, and you look at around the country at
some of those layoffs, they are all about not being able to
compete. We need to look at monetary policy. We do need to
look at our exchange rate, particularly the volatility of
it. We need to-
SHANE
So what would you actually do? It’s fine to say,
‘We’ll look at it,’ but what will you actually
do?
DAVID
Well, right now we’re working on the ways in
which you can provide certainly the Reserve Bank with a
broader set of criteria by which you could look at the
economy. So rather than just looking at it in terms of
inflation, which was put into the legislation years ago when
inflation was a problem, let’s look at exchange rate. What
is it doing to our exporters? Second thing, let’s look at
pro-growth tax reform. Instead of encouraging our investors
to put money into the Auckland property market, why can’t
we encourage to put it into our business, our thriving
businesses? And that means about a capital gains tax, it
means giving companies research-and-development tax credits
to actually be able to grow as the companies in other
countries of the world that we are competing against. They
have those advantages. We
don’t.
SHANE
Can I just ask you finally, the Australian Labor
Government has given a subsidy to Norske Skog to keep their
paper mill open in Tasmania. Would you do the same for
Kawerau if you were in
government?
DAVID
I don’t know the details in and around Kawerau. I
will not rule out becoming involved. Let me tell you one
thing - last week I was down talking to the miners in
Greymouth about keeping the Spring Creek mine there open,
and it was pretty clear that a lot of what is looking
towards closing that mine is around Solid Energy and Solid
Energy wanting to make its bottom line look a whole lot
better for sale. So if you can look at monetary policy,
exchange rate and you can look at what we’re doing in
selling assets that are not to the advantage of New Zealand,
I believe we can go a long way to saving jobs and creating
the sort of future that we want in New
Zealand.
SHANE
We have to leave it there. David Shearer, thank you
for joining us.
DAVID
Thank you,
Shane.
ENDS
Gordon Campbell: On Pauline Hanson’s Rise, And The TOP Renaissance
New Zealand Alliance Party: Alliance Party Firmly Opposes “Backdoor Privatisation” Of Kiwibank
Taxpayers' Union: New Poll - Coalition Still Ahead; Luxon Regains 'Preferred Prime Minister' Top-Spot
NZ National Party: Judith Collins’ Valedictory Speech
Forest And Bird: Government Biodiversity Credit Scheme Welcomed As Opportunity For Restoration
Office of the Ombudsman: Ombudsman Publishes Findings On Ministry Of Education Sensitive Claims Scheme
Nelson City Council: Mayor Welcomes Auditor-General Decision Not To Prosecute Councillor

