Q + A
PANEL DISCUSSION 3
Hosted by SUSAN WOOD
In response to MICHAEL BASSETT INTERVIEW

SUSAN Welcome back to the panel – Jon Johansson, Michelle Boag and Mike Williams. Interesting, Michelle, because Michael Bassett’s saying, ‘Local Government’s got to get cracking. If they don’t, Central Government’s got to make them get cracking.’ A couple of weeks ago on this programme, we heard Len Brown, the Mayor of Auckland, saying, ‘Central Government, keep out of Auckland.’

MICHELLE BOAG – Former National Party President
Indeed, and I think to some extent this is a bit of an ideological battle with the planners. And I recall a remark that Bill English made a few weeks ago, ‘We’re not going to let 20 planners sitting in an ivory tower in Auckland muck up the economy.’ And I think there is this disconnect between what people actually want to happen in a pragmatic, practical way, and what the planners, who would like things to happen in their ideologically perfect way, want it to be. And this is a real conflict. I think the other thing is that this emphasis on ‘everybody should be able to own their own home’ is directly at variance with all the commentary about how we have to encourage people to not regard the home as their only investment, that we want to get people involved in building businesses, in the capital markets. But for as long as there’s this focus on ‘you have to own your own home’, that’s working against investment in other areas. So I think there’s a bit of a realism check. I like the fact that you raised the expectations – that’s the thing. The expectations that young people have these days are very different.

SUSAN Well, we would’ve all grown up, I imagine, in pretty ordinary, on today’s standards, kind of houses.

MICHELLE Absolutely. Or your first few years are spent in a makeshift garage while your parents— You build a Versatile garage with a, you know, a screened-off bedroom while you save and you, you know, gradually get a fridge and a washing machine and all those things. Now standards of living have changed, but the—

SUSAN Thankfully.

MICHELLE …expectations— Thankfully. Yes, especially the washing machine bit. But the expectations of people have just grown enormously.

SUSAN It is sad, though, to think, Mike, that people won’t be able to own their own home if they do want to.

MIKE WILLIAMS – Former Labour Party President
It is, and people want to, but I think it’s actually quite a complicated problem, and there’s no silver bullet. And you would’ve thought from that interview that you whip away the metropolitan urban limit in Auckland and you’ve solved the problem. That’s not true. It’s— The problem is – if you have a look at Tauranga, for example, there’s no metropolitan urban limit there. There’s plenty of space for new housing, many subdivisions and yet no affordable housing. Now, the problem is a part of the marketplace – affordable housing. Now, if you’ve got a completely private enterprise housing market, which we have at the moment, except for the state houses, then you’re going to be profit-seeking. And if you build a house that is worth $700,000, then you’re going to make a couple of hundred thousand on it as a developer. If you build a house that’s worth $300,000, you’ll make $50,000 on it, so the developers are heading towards these expensive homes. Now, the answer would appear to me to be twofold. One is get a capital gains tax in, because I have been at auctions where I’ve wanted a house to live in, and I’ve been gazumped by speculators. And that’s happening all over Auckland. So number one, get a capital gains tax in that exempts the family home, and you’ll get a lot of the speculators out of the market. And the National Party’s starting to admit that that’s the truth. The second thing—

MICHELLE Rubbish. It’s not going to fix anything, because—

MIKE Hang on. Let me just say that—

MICHELLE 75% of the homes involved will not be subject to the capital gains tax, so it won’t work.

MIKE Yeah, but you take that 25% market pressure out, so you’ve actually supported my position. The second thing is—

MICHELLE No.

MIKE …you’ve actually got to get— and Michael Bassett said this, you’ve actually got to get the state back into the market. Now, my parents married before the war, had children after the war. They were allowed either a state house or a State Advances loan. Now, because my father was a skilled worker and earnt too much for a state house, he got a State Advances loan.

SUSAN As many of our parents did. Quick last comment from you, Jon.

DR JON JOHANSSON – Political Scientist
Well, I think the kicker comment in that report for me was, ‘Individuals can get wealthy off housing, but the country can’t.’

SUSAN Very true. All right, thank you, panel.



Q + A
PANEL DISCUSSION 2
Hosted by SUSAN WOOD
In response to SIMON BRIDGES INTERVIEW

SUSAN Welcome back to the panel – Jon Johansson, Michelle Boag and Mike Williams. Michelle, you think it’s fair and more flexible, not an attack on workers’ rights, and people will get their cup of tea or their smoko break?

MICHELLE BOAG – Former National Party President
Well, I think workplaces have changed. There’s no doubt about it. Most people don’t have a defined morning tea or afternoon tea break. Normally, they have a coffee at their desk or they go out. There are some jobs, I agree, where people are fixed at one particular place, and they need to have defined breaks. But I think the issue here is, obviously the unions are protecting their own interests, and this legislation was put in place by a union-friendly Labour Government, and, of course, the unions are saying they don’t want any changes. But the fact is for all the labour changes that have been made by this government, every time it happens, the unions cry, ‘It’s going to be the end of the world.’ And I think they’ve just got to the point where they’re crying wolf, because, in fact, these are minor changes. They’re not going to end the world. The 90-day probation period was going to end the world for employees. It did not happen. I don’t think the world is going to end with these changes either. I think it’s just part of the gradual development of our labour market, and our labour market is becoming much more flexible.

SUSAN And, Mike, I’m sure you don’t think the world’s going to end over this either?

MIKE WILLIAMS – Former Labour Party President
I don’t, but it’s part of pattern of a relentless downward pressure on wages by this government, and it’ll end in tears.

SUSAN How does this impact on wages, these changes?

MIKE Oh, it just weakens unions.

DR JON JOHANSSON – Political Scientist
It weakens collective bargaining is the argument, so—

MIKE That’s right, and this is a boss’ government. But the core of Simon Bridges’ argument, and I’m normally quite impressed with him, is nonsense. And that is by reducing wages, you will ultimately increase wages. Now, this is a sort of trickle-down economic effect – you know, if you make the rich really rich, then some will end up in the hands—

MICHELLE He wasn’t talking about reducing wages. Come on, Mike.

MIKE But this is the effect of that.

MICHELLE It’s not the effect.

MIKE If you weaken unions— Look at Australia, Michelle. The unions are much stronger in Australia. The place works, and yet wages are much higher—

MICHELLE It’s got something to do with the mining industry.

MIKE …and the gap is— wages between Australia and New Zealand is blowing out, and we’re losing our population to Australia.

JON And there’s also a long-term curve that I saw this week that shows, like, productivity gains goes up like this. Workers’ wages and so share of that bounty of higher productivity is a much flatter curve, and that gives the lie also to what the Minister was saying about this somehow magically raising wages. I mean, you weaken collective bargaining, and the—

SUSAN I don’t think he was overstating that fact. Corin was pushing on him.

JON Yeah, but look at the workers affected here, Susan.

SUSAN He himself said he would not overstate the benefits of it.

JON Yeah, okay. Well, let me look at this from a different perspective. I spoke to a practitioner, you know, in the labour market as a lawyer and asked him, and he’s completely ideological— ideologically agnostic.

MICHELLE Just like you, Jon.

JON Huh?

MICHELLE Just like you.

JON Let’s not go there, Michelle. And, you know, he talks about this pendulum, right? And I certainly, you know, laud the Minister for his ‘full moderates’ and ‘full fairnesses’ today – rhetorically, very focused. But this lawyer, he says, clearly, as the Minister said, pendulum like this under the old regime – Employment Contracts Act. Pendulum like this, and now it’s heading back this way. He did not think this was balanced. Now, the kicker here is about the quality of public policy. Now, because it’s not a collaborative exercise between capital and labour and we’re lurching from one model to another, from government to government, how is this good for anybody?

MICHELLE Well, the fact is, though, it is not the government that can provide all these jobs for people. It is employers that have to create jobs—

JON No argument from me there, Michelle.

MICHELLE …and employ people.

MIKE No, no, you’re stating the obvious, Michelle.

MICHELLE Well, I’m glad you agree with that. The fact is that if employers are disincentivised to create jobs, that’s bad for everything— everyone. And all the Minister’s trying to do, as you say, your lawyer says the pendulum swings to the left with a Labour government, a National government tries to bring it back, and, of course, that’s going to mean changes in all the times that the labour— that the unions have said, ‘It’s going to be the end of the world.’ It hasn’t happened, and it won’t happen this time.

SUSAN We will leave it there. Thank you, panel.

© Scoop Media