GOOD MORNING, AND WELCOME TO Q+A. I'M SIMON DALLOW, WITH HEATHER DU PLESSIS-ALLAN. TODAY ` AUCKLAND MAYOR LEN BROWN ON THE CITY'S HOUSING CRISIS. THOUSANDS OF CONSENTS, BUT HOW MANY HOMES HAVE BEEN BUILT THROUGH THE HOUSING ACCORD? THERE'S A REPORT THAT SAYS THERE ARE JUST 20 BEING BUILT. DOESN'T MATTER ABOUT THE THOUSANDS OF CONSENTS. JUST 20 ARE BEING BUILT. AND THE PORTS OF AUCKLAND STOUSH ` DID THE PORT CONSULT THE COUNCIL? HE SAYS YOU ABSOLUTELY DID NOT DO THAT. WELL, THAT'S NOT TRUE. I'M INTERVIEWING ACT LEADER DAVID SEYMOUR THIS MORNING, AND JESSICA MUTCH REPORTS ON THE NIGEL FARAGE EFFECT. HIS UKIP PARTY IS SUCKING UP VOTES FROM BOTH THE CONSERVATIVES AND LABOUR. WHAT'S HIS APPEAL? MOST OF THEIR POLITICIANS HAVE NEVER DONE REAL JOBS, NEVER BEEN IN THE REAL WORLD. WE HAVE. WE'LL ANALYSE ALL THE ISSUES WITH OUR PANEL ` POLITICAL SCIENTIST DR GRANT DUNCAN; DR DON BRASH, FORMER NATIONAL AND ACT LEADER AND FORMER RESERVE BANK GOVERNOR; AND FIRST UNION GENERAL SECRETARY ROBERT REID. YOU HAVE TO FEEL SORRY FOR AUCKLAND HOUSEHUNTERS. PROPERTY PRICES HAVE SURGED YET AGAIN. OVER THE PAST YEAR, THE AVERAGE PRICE WENT UP 13.9%, COMPARED TO AN AVERAGE 7.7% FOR THE REST OF NZ. THE HOUSING ACCORD ` AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUCKLAND COUNCIL AND THE GOVERNMENT TO ENCOURAGE NEW HOUSING ` HAS SO FAR APPROVED JUST OVER 16,000 BUILDING CONSENTS. BUT HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE NOW HOMES? WITH PEOPLE LIVING IN THEM? I ASKED THE MAYOR, LEN BROWN. WE CANNOT CALCULATE IT. YOU CAN'T CALCULATE? NO, IT'S NOT. IT'S A HUGE FRUSTRATION TO ME, SIMON, BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW RIGHT DOWN TO THE LAST NUMBER, AND WE COULD CALCULATE TO SOME EXTENT OFF THE CODE OF COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATES GIVEN WHEN THE HOUSE IS COMPLETED, BUT THAT IS NOT CORRECT IN ITSELF. SO WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT THERE IS BUILDING SUPPLY. WE KNOW THE AMOUNT OF HOUSES THAT ARE BEING BUILT IN AND AROUND THE AREA ANECDOTALLY, BUT WE CAN'T GIVE YOU THE PRECISE NUMBER. THERE'S A REPORT THAT SAYS THERE ARE JUST 20 BEING BUILT. DOESN'T MATTER ABOUT THE THOUSANDS OF CONSENTS. JUST 20 ARE BEING BUILT. NO. NO, NO, NO. YOU DISMISS THAT? ABSOLUTELY. SO, WE KNOW ANECDOTALLY, AND SO UNDER THE SPECIAL HOUSING AREAS, WE KNOW THAT OF THE SECTIONS CREATED AND THE BUILDING CONSENTS GIVEN, WHICH IS AROUND 1200, THERE HAVE BEEN 170 HOUSES BUILT AS A CONSEQUENCE. AND THE REASON WHY WE KNOW THAT IS BECAUSE WE ARE ACTUALLY HOLDING MUCH, MUCH CLOSER FOCUS ON THOSE SPECIAL HOUSING AREAS. OK. IN TERMS OF THOSE SPECIAL HOUSING AREAS, WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF CONSENTS, YES? YEP. SIMON WE'VE ALSO SEEN IN THOSE 18 MONTHS PRICES RISE ABOUT 20%. ACCORDING TO PHIL TWYFORD, THE DEVELOPERS ARE JUST SITTING ON THEM BECAUSE IT'S WORTH LAND BANKING. IT'S NOT EVEN WORTH BUILDING ON THEM. SO LOTS OF CONSENTS BUT NO ACTUAL HOUSES. PRICES UP 20%. NOTHING'S WORKING. 84 SPECIAL HOUSING AREAS HAVE BEEN CREATED, AND HALF OF THOSE ARE GOING THROUGH THEIR CONSENTING PROCESS RIGHT NOW. SO, OF COURSE, WHEN YOU GIVE- BUT IT'S NOT KEEPING PACE WITH DEMAND, IS IT? I MEAN, PRICES ARE RISING, DEMAND IS RISING. NOTHING IS HAPPENING, REALLY. THE VERY LEAST THAT WE CAN DO IS ENSURE THAT THE RIGHT PLATFORM IS IN PLACE. AND SO, OF COURSE, IF WE'RE NOT BUILDING THE HOUSES- SO, THE COUNCIL'S NOT BUILDING THE HOUSES. THE RATEPAYERS OF AUCKLAND DON'T WANT US TO BUILD HOUSES. SECONDLY, IF THE GOVERNMENT IS SORT OF A PART OF THE HOUSING BUILD PROCESS GOING ON THROUGH STATE HOUSING AND ALL THAT SORT OF STUFF, WE ARE STILL NOT THE SUPPLIERS. THE VERY BEST WE CAN DO IS PUT IN PLACE THE PLATFORM TO MAKE SURE THE CONSENTS ARE GIVEN WITH PACE. SO UNDER THE SPECIAL HOUSING AREAS, THE CONSENT HAS TO BE GIVEN WITHIN SIX MONTHS. NOW, AS AGAINST THE OLD DAYS, WHERE IT WOULD BE THREE, FOUR, FIVE YEARS. THAT'S HUGE. WITH THE 84 SPECIAL HOUSING AREAS, POTENTIALLY 50,000 NEW HOMES COMING THROUGH THERE. NOW, WE DO KNOW THAT EVEN IF WE CONSENTED IN SIX MONTHS' TIME, IT STILL TAKES ABOUT A YEAR, ON AVERAGE, TO GET THE FIRST HOUSE BUILT. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FIRST SPECIAL HOUSING AREA IS WAIMAHIA IN MANUREWA. WELL, WAIMAHIA'S YOUR OUTSTANDING SUCCESS, BUT EVERYWHERE ELSE, YOU'VE GOT DEVELOPERS SITTING ON LAND-BANKED PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S NOT WORTH GOING FORWARD. THEY MAY AS WELL JUST SIT THERE AND WAIT FOR THE PROPERTY VALUES TO RISE AND THEN SELL. SO CONSENTS ARE ONE THING, BUT WE NEED COMPLETION. YOU ACTUALLY NEED HOUSES, AND, AS I SAY, YOU'RE 20% ADVANCED HOUSE PRICES OVER THIS PERIOD. DOES THE GOVERNMENT NEED TO STEP IN AND DO SOMETHING ELSE? WELL, THAT'S FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO SAY. WHAT WE'VE DONE` DO YOU WANT THEM TO DO SOMETHING? I THINK THAT IN TERMS OF WHAT WE CAN HAVE THEM DO, WE COULD SAY, 'LOOK, GO BACK TO THE GOOD OLD DAYS OF THE 1930S AND THE 1970S 'AND BUILD A LOT OF STATE HOUSES.' BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE GOVERNMENT HAS SET ITS OWN PRIORITIES, AND THAT IS AROUND PRIVATE HOUSE BUILD, SO I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE THAT. IN TERMS OF THOSE SPECIAL HOUSING AREAS WHERE YOU'VE GOT THE CONSENTS, WHAT PROPORTION OF THOSE FIT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRITERIA? SO, THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT WE WOULD HAVE UNDER SPECIAL HOUSING AREAS WOULD BE 10% OF THE SPECIAL HOUSING AREAS. SO OF THE 50,000, WE WANT 5000 AT LEAST WHO ARE IN THAT 30% OF YOUR GROSS INCOME RANGE. THAT IS 5000 OVER THREE YEARS. 170 AFTER 18 MONTHS. IS THAT ADEQUATE TO ADDRESS THE DEMAND? WE KNOW THAT THE CITY IS GROWING FLAT OUT. OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS, 70,000 NEW PEOPLE IN AUCKLAND, AND THAT'S A CITY THE SIZE OF PALMERSTON NORTH. SO THE CITY'S GROWING VERY, VERY FAST, AND SO WE KNOW THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE FOR US TO KEEP UP WITH DEMAND BECAUSE OF THE PACE OF THE CITY. PART OF THE PROBLEM WE FACE WITH RISING COSTS IS COMPLIANCE COSTS, THE COSTS OF CONSENTS. I MEAN, WE SEE ISSUES LIKE THE MEDICAL CENTRE THAT'S SPENT $50,000 ON FEES AND CONSULTANTS FOR APPROVAL FOR SEVEN NEW BIKE STANDS. THESE SORTS OF STORIES COME UP ALL THE TIME. SOME ARE APOCRYPHAL, I'M SURE. YEAH, THEY ARE. BUT IS THE COUNCIL ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE PROBLEM? WE'VE GOT TO BALANCE OFF TWO THINGS. SO, WHEN WE'RE BUILDING HOUSES AND WE'RE ALLOWING FOR SIGNIFICANT URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY, AS IT IS AT THE MOMENT, THERE ARE COSTS RELATING TO THAT. WATER, WASTEWATER, STORM WATER, TRANSPORTATION COSTS, AND YOU EITHER TRY TO SHEET A BALANCE OF THOSE HOME TO THE DEVELOPER, OR YOU MAKE THE RATEPAYERS PAY. AND SO WE TRY AND FIND THAT BALANCE, AND SO THE AVERAGE COSTING, INCLUDING CONNECTIONS FROM WATERCARE, FOR EXAMPLE, IS ABOUT $33,000 PER SITE. SO WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S APARTMENT OR A STAND-ALONE HOME. FIGURES I HAVE SAY $60,000 PER HOUSE. UP TO $110,000 FOR AN APARTMENT. THAT'S NOT RIGHT. I MEAN, MY FIGURES ARE CLEARLY $33,000 PER SITE. THAT'S AN AVERAGE. YOU'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT PER SITE, AREN'T YOU? WHAT ABOUT CONSENTS ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING PROCESS AS WELL? THAT IS IT. THAT'S IT. HAVEN'T YOU GOT ANOTHER PROBLEM TOO IN THAT DEVELOPERS CAN MAKE MORE MONEY BUILDING EXPENSIVE HOUSES? THEY'RE NOT INCENTIVISED, REALLY, TO OFFER THE AFFORDABLE HOUSES. WELL, IF THAT WAS THE ARGUMENT, THEN WE WOULD SEE NO APARTMENT BUILDINGS BEING DEVELOPED. IN NOVEMBER, DECEMBER LAST YEAR, NEARLY 1000 BUILDING CONSENTS GIVEN ` BUILDING CONSENTS GIVEN. AND OF THAT NUMBER, 40% WERE APARTMENTS. SO YOU'RE PUSHING INTENSIFICATION AS THE ANSWER? THE UNITARY PLAN STYLE INTENSIFICATION AS AN ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM? IT'S A PART OF THE ANSWER. BILL ENGLISH SAYS CALLS FOR INTENSIFICATION ARE ABOUT AS POPULAR AS EBOLA IN AUCKLAND. YEAH, WELL, I LOOK FORWARD TO BILL COMING TO SEE US ON OCCASIONS. (LAUGHS) AND, LOOK, THE EXAMPLE I'VE GIVEN YOU ` 40% OF THE CONSENTS THROUGH THE BACK END OF LAST YEAR WERE FOR APARTMENTS. AND THOSE APARTMENTS ARE SELLING OFF THE PLANS, NOT WHEN THEY'VE BEEN BUILT. THEY'RE SELLING OFF THE PLANS. SO THE DEMAND IS THERE. IT'S ABOUT THE SUPPLY LINE, AND WE'RE REALLY NOW STARTING TO SEE THAT SUPPLY LINE BUILD. BUT JUST REMEMBER, SIMON, WHAT I SAID TO YOU. IT TAKES A YEAR TO GET THE FIRST HOUSE OF THE APARTMENT UP EVEN UNDER A SPECIAL HOUSING AREA, WHERE YOU GET YOUR CONSENT IN SIX MONTHS. SO, YOU KNOW, WE ARE PUTTING EVERYTHING IN PLACE TO ENABLE THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO GET IN THERE AND BUILD WITH PACE, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY ASKED FOR` YOU SAID THEY SHOULD BE BUILT IN A YEAR. WE'RE 18 MONTHS DOWN THE TRACK. THEY'RE NOT BUILT. THE CONSENTS ARE THERE. THEY DON'T WANT TO BUILD BECAUSE THEIR PROFITS LIE IN NOT BUILDING. AND IT'S TAKEN A WHILE- HOW CAN WE OBLIGE THE DEVELOPERS TO GET ON WITH IT? ONCE YOU FAST-TRACK THE CONSENTS, CAN'T YOU PUT SOME MEASURES IN PLACE TO DEMAND THAT THEY COMPLETE IT? THE GOVERNMENT COULD WELL REGULATE OR LEGISLATE AROUND- SO IT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S PROBLEM? (LAUGHS) IT'S NOT` CAN YOU IMAGINE? WHAT CAN THE AUCKLAND MAYOR DO OR THE AUCKLAND COUNCIL DO TO FORCE A DEVELOPER INTO ACTUALLY DEVELOPING AHEAD OF THE TIME IN WHICH THEIR OWN MARKET ANALYSIS TELLS THEM TO DEVELOP? AUCKLAND'S WAY FORWARD IS BASICALLY PROVIDING CHOICE, AND WE'RE GOING TO SEE INCREASING HEIGHT DEVELOPMENT IN AUCKLAND, AND WE'RE SEEING IT RIGHT NOW. IF YOU'RE AT A POINT WHERE 40%, 50% OF YOUR CONSENTS ARE ABOUT APARTMENTS AND COURT HOUSE DEVELOPMENT OR DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT, THEN YOU KNOW THAT THE CITY IS CHANGING, AND THAT'S WHAT WILL HAPPEN. BUT WE'RE NOT FORCING THAT. WE'RE MAKING CHOICE AVAILABLE. SO IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP IN AND AROUND GREENFIELDS, WE'RE PROVIDING FOR THAT ALSO UNDER THE NEW UNITARY PLAN. SO IT'S A COMBINATION OF EVERYTHING. IT'S UP AND OUT. ABSOLUTELY. IT'S ABOUT CHOICE. WHY DON'T YOU RELAX THE METROPOLITAN URBAN LIMITS, THOUGH? THEN THERE IS MORE SUPPLY, THEN THE PRICES DON'T NECESSARILY GET ARTIFICIALLY FORCED UP? YEAH, AND TO SOME EXTENT, WE HAVE DONE THAT. UNDER THE NEW UNITARY PLAN, WE'VE GOT WHAT'S CALLED A RURAL URBAN BOUNDARY IN PLACE, AND IT HAS A SIMILAR DYNAMIC TO THE METROPOLITAN URBAN LIMIT, BUT IT IS A BIT MORE FLEXIBLE AROUND GROWTH` SO IT BASICALLY SAYS INSIDE THAT LINE IS THE CITY, THEREFORE PRICES ARE MORE EXPENSIVE. OUTSIDE THAT LINE, IT'S CHEAPER. YEAH. THE FURTHER YOU GO AWAY FROM THE CITY CENTRE, NO MATTER WHAT'S GOING ON IN AUCKLAND` IF YOU GO TO POKENO, IF YOU GO TO HUNTLY, IF YOU HEAD UP TO WHANGAREI, YOU'LL FIND CHEAPER HOUSES. IF YOU WANT TO COMMUTE OUT OF THOSE AREAS, THAT'S THE CASE. BUT THE CLOSER IN TO THE HUB OF THE CITY, WHETHER IT'S NEW LYNN, WHETHER IT'S TAKAPUNA, WHETHER IT'S IN NEWMARKET, WHETHER IT'S IN THE CITY CENTRE, THE CLOSER TO THE CENTRE, THE HIGHER THE PRICES. IT'S THE SAME FOR ANY CITY AROUND THE WORLD. ABSOLUTELY, BUT YOU CAN, TO A DEGREE, INFLUENCE SUPPLY, AND THEREFORE YOU CAN INFLUENCE THE COST OF LAND. AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING THROUGH THE SPECIAL HOUSING AREA, AND IT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON UNDER THE UNITARY PLAN. AND PRICES ARE STILL INFLATING AT A MASSIVE RATE. DOUBLE-DIGIT HOUSE-PRICE GROWTH. BECAUSE THE CITY IS GROWING FLAT OUT. YOU SAY THE CITY'S GROWING FLAT OUT, AND THAT GIVES ME A PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE `THE PORT. THE PORT HAS TWO CONFLICTING DEMANDS, DOESN'T IT? YES, IT DOES. ONE IS FINANCIAL. IT'S THE ASSET THAT RETURNS MONEY TO AUCKLAND AND THEREFORE HELPS KEEPS RATES DOWN. ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT, IT'S A WONDERFUL ASSET TO THE CITY IN TERMS OF ITS SOCIABILITY, ITS LIVEABILITY, AND IT'S A TOURIST ATTRACTION. IT'S OUT THERE ABSOLUTELY LOOKING GORGEOUS THIS MORNING. YOU OWN IT, THOUGH. WHY DON'T YOU TELL THE PORT WHAT YOU WANT IT TO DO? BECAUSE THE LAW IS PRETTY CLEAR ON THIS, AND THAT IS THAT WE CANNOT DIRECT THE PORT, PASS RESOLUTIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS INTERFERING IN ITS OPERATIONAL MANDATE. THE PORT` SO YOU OWN IT, BUT YOU CAN'T INTERFERE WITH IT? THE PORT RUNS ITS OWN BUSINESS. THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. DON'T YOU FIND THAT FRUSTRATING? NO, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND WHY THOSE RULES ARE IN PLACE, AND I RESPECT THEM. THE RULES ARE IN PLACE BECAUSE THAT PORT CHANNELS 37% OF THE NATION'S TRADE. IT'S NOT JUST IMPORTANT TO AUCKLAND. IT IS CRITICAL TO NZ'S ECONOMIC WELLBEING. IF THE PORT IS NOT HERE IN THE FUTURE, IF SOME TIME THE PORT IS NOT HERE, HOW DO YOU ACTUALLY PROVISION A CITY OF TWO MILLION, TWO AND A HALF MILLION FROM 250KM AWAY EFFECTIVELY? SO THERE ARE A RANGE` WHY 250KM AWAY? IT WOULD EITHER BE NORTH PORT OR TAURANGA. WHY NOT A NEW PORT? AND THAT IS ALSO GOING TO BE A PART OF THE CONSIDERATION- $5 BILLION OR $6 BILLION. YOU CAN'T CONTINUE TO GROW THIS PORT, CAN YOU? BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU END UP WITH A SERIES OF CANALS AND DOCKS OUT THERE EVENTUALLY. THE PORTS OF AUCKLAND IS SAYING WE NEED THIS TO BE ABLE TO SERVICE THE GROWING DEMAND. THAT'S A CONTINUING PROCESS. AT SOME POINT, THAT HAS TO STOP. AT SOME POINT, YOU HAVE TO LOOK BEYOND THAT. ARE WE LOOKING AT ANOTHER PORT? WHY NOT, IF NOT? SO, THE SHORT-TERM ISSUE OF, OK, WE'VE GOT PORT GROWTH. AND THAT'S GREAT. SO, THE PORT IS DOING WELL FINANCIALLY AND RETURNING US SOMETHING LIKE 12% RETURN PER ANNUM, AND THAT'S FABULOUS. ON THE BACK OF THAT ARE THE ISSUES OF WHAT IS THE PORT'S PHYSICAL FOOTPRINT WITHIN THE HARBOUR AND HOW MUCH THAT IMPACTS ON THE HARBOUR. BUT, SECONDLY, FOR ME, EQUALLY IMPORTANT, IF NOT MORE IMPORTANT, IS HOW DOES THE PORT CONNECT IN IN TERMS OF GETTING PRODUCE, BREAK BULK AND CONTAINERS OFF THE PORT WITH PACE? UNDERSTOOD THOSE FACTORS` AND SO THE ISSUE HERE MIGHT BE THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION HERE IS WHEN CAN WE PUT A THIRD RAIL LINE IN TO THE INLAND PORT AT MANUKAU TO GET AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN OFF THE PORT WITH AS MUCH PACE AS POSSIBLE? WHERE DO YOU PERSONALLY STAND? DO YOU WANT THE EXTENSIONS? OR WOULD YOU PREFER TO NOT SEE THEM? I'M WITH MOST AUCKLANDERS. I KNOW THAT THERE'S ABSOLUTELY A LIMIT THAT WE HAVE TO DRAW AROUND THE PORT IN TERMS OF HOW FAR THE PORT CAN GO INTO THE HARBOUR. PORTS OF AUCKLAND'S STATEMENT OF INTENT SAYS ANY SIGNIFICANT PROPOSED CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IMPACTING ON THE PORT'S FOOTPRINT AND ITS CONNECTION TO AUCKLAND WILL BE DISCUSSED WITH THE SHAREHOLDER. YOU'RE THE SHAREHOLDER. HOW DID THOSE DISCUSSIONS GO? THEY DID NOT. THEY DIDN'T HAPPEN, DID THEY? NO, THEY DID NOT. SO THEY FAILED IN THEIR MANDATE? THEY HAVE CERTAINLY NOT BEEN AS EFFECTIVE AS I WANT THEM TO BE AND AS AUCKLANDERS WANT THEM TO BE AROUND COMMUNICATING THE DRIVERS FOR PORT DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT'S NOT A HARD THING TO DO. THEY HAVEN'T DONE THIS, REALLY, EFFECTIVELY FOR 170 YEARS. SO THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ANSWERING TO THEIR MASTERS, EFFECTIVELY? THEY COULD HAVE DONE A LOT BETTER, SIMON. A LOT OF THESE THINGS HAVE LEAD TIMES. YOU WANT TO SEE SOME RESULTS. THEY'RE A COUPLE OF YEARS DOWN THE TRACK. THAT SAYS THERE COULD BE A NEW MAYORALTY WITH A NEW DIRECTION. ARE YOU GOING TO STAND AGAIN? (LAUGHS) I'M NOT ANSWERING THAT QUESTION. WHY NOT? LOOK, BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE WHAT WE'RE DOING AT THE MOMENT EVERY DAY- BUT TO SEE THESE THINGS THROUGH` YOU TALK ABOUT THE PASSION OF THESE LONG-TERM PROJECTS. TO SEE THEM THROUGH, SURELY YOU NEED TO STAND AGAIN. THAT'S BETWEEN ME AND THE PEOPLE AND` THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM. WE'RE ALL PART OF THE PEOPLE. I'M ASKING ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE. AND AT SOME POINT- THE PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW. ARE YOU GOING TO STAND AGAIN? THERE'S NO HURRY. NORMALLY WHEN I'VE ANNOUNCED WHETHER OR NOT I WILL PROCEED, AND I'VE RUN FOR FOUR MAYORALTY CAMPAIGNS NOW AND WON THREE OF THEM, AND I NORMALLY ANNOUNCE SORT OF THE BACK END OF THE YEAR BEFORE. SO WE CAN EXPECT THAT ANNOUNCEMENT FROM LEN BROWN TOWARDS THE END OF THIS YEAR. SEND US YOUR THOUGHTS. WE'RE ON TWITTER @NZQANDA. YOU CAN EMAIL US AT Q+A AT TVNZ.CO.NZ OR TEXT YOUR THOUGHTS AND FIRST NAME TO 2211. KEEP THEM BRIEF. EACH TEXT COSTS 50C. REMEMBER, ACT LEADER DAVID SEYMOUR'S HERE LATER IN THE PROGRAMME. BUT AFTER THE BREAK ` WE HEAR FROM THE PORTS OF AUCKLAND. IT'S BEEN FORCED TO PUT ITS EXPANSION PLANS ON HOLD. HAS IT BEEN ARROGANT? I DON'T THINK WE'RE ARROGANT AS A COMPANY. THAT'S NOT PART OF OUR VALUES. I THINK WE'VE REALLY ENGAGED WITH THE PUBLIC. CONTROVERSIAL PLANS TO EXPAND AUCKLAND'S PORT HAVE BEEN PUT ON HOLD AFTER A PUBLIC BACKLASH. PORTS OF AUCKLAND WANTS TO BUILD WHARF EXTENSIONS NEARLY 100M INTO THE HARBOUR. THE COUNCIL OWNS THE COMPANY AND HAS TOLD IT TO HALT WORK UNTIL A REPORT INTO THE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PORT IS COMPLETED. I SPOKE TO TONY GIBSON, CEO OF PORTS OF AUCKLAND, AND ASKED HIM IF HE UNDERSTOOD WHY AUCKLANDERS FEEL SO PASSIONATE ABOUT PROTECTING AND PRESERVING THE HARBOUR? WELL, I'M PASSIONATE ABOUT IT AS WELL, BUT I THINK YOU HAVE TO FRAME THIS DISCUSSION. WHEN I CAME ON BOARD IN 2011, I INHERITED A 23 HECTARE RECLAMATION, A 279 EXTENSION, AND, QUITE RIGHTLY SO, AUCKLANDERS GOT SOMEWHAT ANNOYED AT THAT DEVELOPMENT, SO WE STOOD BACK. WE HAVE RE-EVALUATED. WE'VE ENGAGED WITH DUTCH CONSULTANTS BEST OF CLASS- BUT YOU HAVEN'T ENGAGED WITH THE PUBLIC. THIS HAS BEEN THE PROBLEM, HASN'T IT? THE COUNCIL ` WHY DIDN'T YOU KEEP THE COUNCIL AND THE PEOPLE IN THE LOOP? WELL, WE HAVE ENGAGED WITH THE PUBLIC, AND I THINK RIGHT FROM THE VERY START WHEN WE GOT PUSHED BACK, WE'VE ACTUALLY GONE BACK, WE'VE PRESENTED THE COUNCIL IN 2013 THE OPTIONS THAT WE SAW AROUND OUR GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH WE FELT HAD BEEN SOCIALISED, AND THEY WERE SOCIALISED WITH THE PUBLIC. AND, IN FACT, THERE WAS A POLL DONE, AND 60% OF AUCKLANDERS THAT WERE POLLED SAID THAT THEY WERE IN FAVOUR OF THE PORT DEVELOPMENT. LEN BROWN HAS TOLD ME THIS MORNING THAT THOSE DISCUSSIONS NEVER TOOK PLACE ` THE DISCUSSIONS THAT YOU'RE MANDATED FOR, THAT YOUR STATEMENT OF INTENT SAYS ANY SIGNIFICANT PROPOSED CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IMPACTING ON THE PORT'S FOOTPRINT AND ITS CONNECTION TO AUCKLAND WILL BE DISCUSSED WITH THE SHAREHOLDER. HE SAYS YOU ABSOLUTELY DID NOT DO THAT. WELL, THAT'S NOT TRUE. AT THE END OF THE DAY, 2011, WE INHERITED 23 HECTARES OF RECLAMATION. WE'VE LISTENED. WE'VE ACTUALLY REDUCED THAT BY 90%. THAT WAS WHAT WAS PUT FORWARD IN THE UNITARY PLAN PROPOSAL. TWO OPTIONS, WHICH INCLUDED ONE OPTION OF RELINQUISHING CAPTAIN COOK AND EXTENDING BLEDISLOE. SO, IN TERMS OF OUR ENGAGEMENT, WE'VE ALSO HAD NZIER RECENTLY AND ALSO PWC CONFIRM THAT, ACTUALLY, BASED ON OUR CURRENT GROWTH PROJECTIONS, WE ARE SHORT OF BERTH SPACE. YEAH, I'LL GET TO THAT. BUT YOU SOUGHT CONSENT WITHOUT NOTIFYING. THE PUBLIC WEREN'T INFORMED THAT THE CONSENT FOR THE EXTENSIONS WAS GOING TO BE SOUGHT. BUT IT WAS A NON-NOTIFIABLE ISSUE AND- DID YOU NOT PERCEIVE THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME KICKBACK HERE? WELL, THE REAL ISSUE IS THAT THIS IS A WHARF EXTENSION. THE REAL ISSUES WERE AROUND RECLAMATION. YOU KNOW, IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO HAVE BANANAS AND COFFEE AND CARS AND YACHTS AND WHAT HAVE YOU, THEN OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO GROW. YOU SAY THE ISSUE IS ABOUT RECLAMATION, THOUGH, BUT PEOPLE ARE UPSET ABOUT THE EXTENSION, THE FINGER WHARF EXTENSIONS THEMSELVES. THAT'S WHERE THE OPPOSITION'S COME FROM ALREADY. WELL, CERTAINLY IF YOU LOOK BACK, AGAIN, IT'S AROUND RECLAMATION, AND I THINK WHAT'S HAPPENING, AND THIS IS LED BY THE HERALD, IS THAT EVERY TIME THERE IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE EXTENSION, IT INCLUDES RECLAMATION. LET'S BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHERE RECLAMATION STANDS. THAT'S A DISCUSSION THAT WE WILL HAVE WITH THE PUBLIC WHEN THE UNITARY PLAN IS RUBBER STAMPED, AND THAT STARTS AT THE END OF 2016. I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, BUT RECLAMATION IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE. THE FACT IS ONCE YOU PUT THOSE TWO FINGER PORT EXTENSIONS OUT THERE, THE WATER IN BETWEEN IS EFFECTIVELY LOST TO THE PUBLIC. THE SIGHT LINES ARE ALREADY GONE AT THAT POINT. YOU SAY THE HERALD'S LEADING THE ATTACK AGAINST YOU. THEY'VE CALLED YOU ARROGANT. VARIOUS POLITICIANS HAVE CALLED YOU ARROGANT. ARE YOU OK WITH THAT? I DON'T THINK WE'RE ARROGANT AS A COMPANY. THAT'S NOT PART OF OUR VALUES. I THINK WE'VE REALLY ENGAGED WITH THE PUBLIC. I MEAN, WE'VE DONE A LOT IN TERMS OF ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY. OUR PORT DEVELOPMENT DAY OR OUR OPEN DAY, WE HAD 65,000 PEOPLE. WE OPENED THE FRONT DOOR. YOU HAVE TO GROW. AS YOU SAID, YOU'VE HAD TO EXPAND BECAUSE BIGGER SHIPS; GREATER FREIGHT GROWTH, RIGHT? YES. AT SOME POINT, THOUGH, THAT ENDS, DOESN'T IT? AT SOME POINT, YOU CAN'T CONTINUE TO ACCOMMODATE GREATER FREIGHT GROWTH WITHOUT ENDING UP WITH THE AUCKLAND HARBOUR BEING A CANAL. THERE IS A LIMIT TO IT, BUT I THINK JUST IN TERMS OF THE WAY SHIPS ARE GETTING BIGGER ` IF YOU TAKE THE NORTH ASIA TRADE, WE'VE HAD AN UPGRADE OF SHIPS THERE TO 4500 TEUS. THOSE SHIPS USED TO CALL AT THE PACIFIC ISLANDS. THEY'RE TOO SMALL NOW, SO THEY CALL HERE AND TRANS-SHIP ALL THEIR CARGO. NOW, YOU KNOW, THE PACIFIC ISLANDS IS A VERY IMPORTANT GATEWAY FOR US. IT'S PART OF OUR FAMILY, SO YOU'VE GOT TO ACCOMMODATE THAT FREIGHT. BUT IT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE TO KEEP EXPANDING THE PORT OVER AND OVER, IS IT? AT SOME POINT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BITE THE BULLET AND A NEW PORT'S GOING TO NEED TO BE BUILT. WHY ISN'T THAT BEING CONSIDERED AT THIS POINT? I THINK IF YOU CONSIDERED BUILDING A NEW PORT 20 YEARS AGO, THAT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN THE TIME TO DO IT. BUT WE'VE LOOKED AT THE OPTIONS AROUND BUILDING A NEW PORT. FIRST OF ALL, IT'S GOING TO COST UPWARDS OF $5 BILLION, AND THE TWO SITES ` PUHUNUI ISLAND AND THE FIRTH OF THAMES ` I THINK THAT FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL POINT OF VIEW, THAT WOULDN'T BE ACCEPTABLE EITHER. SO IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT- FROM THE COST PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S DOABLE, ISN'T IT, BECAUSE YOU'RE SITTING ON HOW MANY HECTARES OF LAND? 50-ODD? 75 HECTARES. 75 HECTARES. AND YOU EXTRAPOLATE THE VALUE OF THAT, AND IT'S- NO. IT COMES NOWHERE NEAR THE- THAT'S ON A VALUATION THAT YOU GUYS HAVE DONE. WELL, WE'VE GOT EXPERTS VALUING IT. BUT ULTIMATELY WE NEED ANOTHER PORT. WE'RE GOING TO NEED ANOTHER PORT. WHEN THERE'S 2.5 MILLION PEOPLE, WHEN IT JUST KEEPS EXPANDING INTO THE HARBOUR- I DON'T THINK WE NEED ANOTHER PORT. EVER? NO. CAN YOU RULE THAT OUT LONG-TERM? I BELIEVE THAT WITH THE DEVELOPMENTS WE'VE GOT AROUND THE CONTAINER TERMINAL, OUR PLANS THERE FOR IMPROVEMENTS AROUND TECHNOLOGY, ETC, WE'VE GOT ENOUGH CAPACITY PROBABLY UNTIL AT LEAST 2025 NOW. AND WITH FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS, WE COULD PROBABLY COPE WITH 3.1 MILLION CONTAINERS. ON THE MULTI CARGO- WHAT HAPPENS IF THE CITY GROWS TO A CERTAIN LEVEL THAT THAT'S NO LONGER ENOUGH? WE'RE GOING TO NEED ANOTHER PORT, AREN'T WE? DON'T FORGET THERE WILL BE A PARADIGM SHIFT IN TECHNOLOGY. THE CONTAINER TERMINAL INDUSTRY IS WAY, WAY BEHIND IN TECHNOLOGY. SO THERE WILL BE A PARADIGM SHIFT AT SOME STAGE. WHAT'S STOPPING A COORDINATED STRATEGY WITH NORTH PORT AND TAURANGA IN THE INTERESTS OF GREATER NATIONAL-? EACH HAVE THEIR OWN ISSUES. AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PWC REPORT AND RECENTLY THE NZIER REPORT, EACH OF THEM NEEDS TO COPE WITH THEIR OWN GROWTH. THERE IS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT US RELINQUISHING CARGO IN AUCKLAND AND PROVIDING IT TO TAURANGA OR WHANGAREI. THAT HAS SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON THE SUPPLY CHAIN, COST OF INFRASTRUCTURE. AND ONE THING I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T REALISE IS THAT PORTS OF AUCKLAND - 70% OF THE IMPORTS THAT COME IN THROUGH THE GATE HERE ARE DISTRIBUTED WITHIN A 20KM RADIUS. SO IT'S A VERY LOW COST, EFFECTIVE SUPPLY CHAIN. THE NZ HERALD'S REPORTING HEADS COULD ROLL. ARE YOU CONCERNED? LOOK, THEY'RE ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION. WE'RE DOING OUR JOB. WE'RE TRYING TO DELIVER THE BEST WE CAN FOR AUCKLAND. WE'RE WORKING FOR AUCKLAND. WE'VE MADE A LOT OF CHANGE, AND WE ARE A SUCCESSFUL COMPANY WITH A GOOD SPIRIT, GOOD PEOPLE, AND WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO DELIVER. AND THE WIDEST POSSIBLE INTEREST OF AUCKLAND IS AT HEART? AS OPPOSED TO SIMPLE ECONOMIC RETURN? ABSOLUTELY. AND I COME BACK TO THE RECLAMATION ISSUE. THAT'S SOMETHING WHICH CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED AFTER THE UNITARY PLAN HAS BEEN GIVEN A RUBBER STAMP. THEN THE CONSULTATION STARTS WITH THE PUBLIC, AND THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. TONY GIBSON, THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIMON. TONY GIBSON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF PORTS OF AUCKLAND. LET'S BRING IN OUR PANEL NOW. OUR POLITICAL SCIENTIST THIS WEEK IS DR GRANT DUNCAN FROM MASSEY UNIVERSITY ALBANY. DR DON BRASH IS A FORMER LEADER OF BOTH THE ACT AND NATIONAL PARTIES AND A FORMER RESERVE BANK GOVERNOR TOO. AND ROBERT REID IS THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF FIRST UNION. HEATHER JOINS US TOO. Grant, Aucklanders economic interest. Ports have underestimated the level of public backlash. Mr Gibson said two interesting things. First, he said there won't be a New port. He also mentioned a need for a limit. We dont understand what those limits could be.. we do see some sort of public consensus about what the possible limits of poor extension can be. There will be some sort of unspecified future paradigms shift. We need to understand what that paradigms shift can be. Eventually, as he said, there could be a canal. won't the port have to move? I have some sympathy with Tony gibson. The public have nothing at stake. The social aspects ` the livability. That's true. There is no way of weighing that at the moment. There is no way of saying how much is costing us. You can't imagine what the tourism figures will be. The opportunity to plant75 ha ` isn't this the chance for leadership and vision? They are forgetting they are the regulator. The whole shambles that we've got here ` comes from an Auckland city which is the brainchild of the leader of the act party. The rules came from Auckland regional Council. Auckland owns it. Why do they have so little control? When Auckland bought out the ports, you'd think they could make a decision. They can't. What other shareholders would allow such a crazy situation to exist to be imposed on them by Rodney hide? You champion property rights? Auckland owns this property. They owned as completely as of 2005. There is no consideration` we need specifics. The Auckland housing accord ` have the government and Council got this right? They are failing miserably. Auckland is growing very fast, and we are not building accommodation quickly enough to house those people. There is a Shortage of supply. Dr brash also good of the rural urban boundary a really difficult balance has to be struck a between the qualityof the city we live in, what kind of vision have Auckland, do we want more sprawl, more motorways? As a matter of growing up or out? It's both. WE should be able to grow up and out. We go north of the bridge, there are no horticultural land for miles. It's clay. The productivity commission pointed out that land just inside the boundary of the limits is 10 times the price of land outside. In terms of social issues, how big an issue as this? Is huge. Working-class families in Auckland cannot own a home. It used to be a three-bedroom house. Now is a three family house. It's not just a quick fix ABC solution, as Don said.. Then another people coming into this area. We need to build a whole lot more houses at affordable prices. More attention to supply is the answer. With house prices, it's got to a point with the rest of the country cares. Most of us are looking with jealousy. This is not just the Council issue. This is something that central government needs to get involved with. There is some concern in Wellington that we are not doing enough. The mayoralty possibility. He cannot be a candidate. He should see the writing on the wall. There are fewer and fewer left folks going. He may be supported by a handful of people. The big candidates will Not come from him. Does this offer possibilities for the right? It's too soon to make announcements. He said he'll make in due cause. If I was his adviser, I would say don't put your hand up. We had a pathetic right wing candidate last time. Give Aucklanders a good choice this time. Will you put your hand up? No. There is a good candidate in Phil Goff. I think he will romp home. He's a very strong left-wing candidates. In due course, I think Phil Goff Aucklanders handout, and he will take the left nomination. He is quite centrist. A lot of people on the right will vote for him happily. The right don't have a candidate. HEATHER'S HERE WITH ACT LEADER DAVID SEYMOUR AFTER THE BREAK. A WINSTON'S WIN HAS WEAKENED ACT'S POWER IN PARLIAMENT. CAN DAVID SEYMOUR REBUILD ACT'S VOTE AND MAKE IT RELEVANT AGAIN? WINSTON'S WIN IN NORTHLAND HAS CHANGED SO MUCH IN POLITICS. ARGUABLY NATIONAL WASN'T THE ONLY LOSER IN THAT BY-ELECTION; THE ACT PARTY LOST TOO. AND WHAT IT LOST WAS LEVERAGE WITH THE GOVERNMENT. CAN ACT LEADER DAVID SEYMOUR MAKE HIS PARTY RELEVANT AGAIN? HE JOINS ME NOW. David, how many votes did your candidate get? Not enough. Andrew Little was the loser in this by-election. I you worried you are beaten by the cannabis party? No. Andrew Little was no longer the prime leader and cannot be Prime Minister. What is a stable centre right coalition? Which is urgently instructive voters not to vote. It is a massive success. The Prime Minister scoffed at you. He can respond however he likes. You're reading too much into it. If this is what you want to dwell on, we will. You may say that. 66 votes. That is a big decline. You bleeding votes? We are not. We are rebuilding. We've been and is for six months, since the last election. My job is to say to people that don't believe nationals message but there is another option. You have a government from national saying that they're giving out money to different groups and nothing to taxpayers, it is looking like Michael Cullen is the term. If you want a smaller role for government in the state, we are your party. One of the things that happen from the by-election is that you and the government have lost a majority. You can't get things into law. RMA reform will be decided by the Maori party. The party says we need to recover eventually reform this act. If you are concerned about the Poverty, every vote act. That means reforming section 5, 6 and seven we have had nine years of Labour, we have had house availability slipping, the same under National. I am the only one in Parliament� want to reform. Winston Peters is saying he will Pass the reform? He's been Parliament for 40 years. It is hard to think of when he is made positive improvement and policy. A will you work with Winston Peters? I do think so. Having a statute around building the building ` have I supported the original deal? No, I don't. You do have a bit of a problem with the deal? I think it is shonky in a disgrace. You had a look at chance to repeal the deal? You change your mind after Steven Joyce speaks to you? Some people like to focus on horse trading and power plays. I didn't bring up horseriding. Correction: trading. Government shouldn't read passing legislation to build a specific building. Regululatory ability is important. I wait at those two principles. Steven Joyce's fourth of fifth down the list, you are the leader. I retreating the horsetrading hypothesis. I am not. I like to comopare the principles. RegularTory stability is more a one shonky deal. I've spoken with several other parties. I will spoken to every other party leader. Here is the real issue I said at the start people are getting tired of the national party saying that it is good at is it going to get. Treasury say we are 200 percent in GDP debt when university students retire. I we look into the future to confront a challenges? Of having a referendum about the flag, you can do about the superannuation and sustainability of finances. How much you to do you think the party has? I think it is large. There is always been a movement. Whether it is being the 1930s or Bob Jones. People don't just vote every three years, they need to get out and help each other. The need to be a smaller role for the state. Thank you very much. OUR PANEL'S BACK AFTER THE BREAK. AND LATER ` AND SUPPORT AND WE WILL CAMPAIGN FOR THIS COUNTRY TO HAVE AN AUSTRALIAN POINTS-STYLE SYSTEM TO DECIDE WHO SHOULD COME AND SETTLE IN OUR COUNTRY. THE FARAGE EFFECT ` ANTI-IMMIGRATION, ANTI-EUROPE ` HOW THE UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY BECAME A NATIONAL FORCE. A REPORT FROM OUR EUROPE CORRESPONDENT. LET'S BRING IN OUR PANEL. Grant, can act be a force again? The laughable thing that he just said, if you care about poverty vote act. They are down to 0.07 percent. Anyone an opposition has a tough time. It is tough to be a party in coalition. Is that a message Kiwis want to hear? This is be going on for decades. They want smaller government. Is that the problem that the leadership turnstiles keep clicking? He is articulate and and this is what ACT stands for. And the other side? They say they're caring about the poor. They decreased company tax, cut the minimum wage, that is not caring about the poor. I would argue that those about caring for the poor. There is nothing more significant about fixing the poverty by fixing house prices. We have an idealogical stand-off here. It really needs to score a point in this term. Since election night, it is mentioned 19 times by TVNZ. That they have more leverage, is more myth than reality. It is akin to it an ant crawling up an elephant's backside. It is basically lap dog for the national party. We're talking about a party that gets 11 percent of the vote. They've never been in government. The smaller party suffers. I think act has given up. David Seymour is as car outside. There is only a tiny logo. Don doesn't have a yellow on. Tthat is untrue. I am no longer in politics, so we whatever tie I like. Heather, and the interview, he said he wasn't in horse trading. I would like to know that he would didn't think there was a big deal. I'm not sure what he is ashamed of. What happens of electoral space of that if the don't back in? The Epsom people follow John key. The Democrats in the Thirties, Bob Jones in the 80s, It is basic resolution. There is a significant minority the what the government the left. Is a space on the right for the national styles of UKIP? Winston Peters has in the past. He's banged the immigration drum. Go back to 2002, is notorious pamphlet about people bring in Third World diseases. A quick question ` what actual poll? .6. Five percent. I'm surprised he didn't go for higher. STILL TO COME ` A REPORT ON THE ANTI-IMMIGRATION PARTY THAT'S SHAKING UP UK POLITICS. THE UK WILL GO TO THE POLLS ON MAY THE 7TH, AND THIS IS THE YEAR THE UK INDEPENDENT PARTY, OR UKIP, IS PLANNING TO MAKE ITS BREAKTHROUGH. THE ANTI-IMMIGRATION PARTY IS HOPING TO WIN A LARGE NUMBER OF SEATS IN WESTMINSTER AFTER REACHING AROUND 15% IN RECENT POLLS, AND IT'S TAKING VOTERS OFF THE CONSERVATIVES AND LABOUR ALIKE. SO WHY HAS THIS DIVISIVE PARTY BECOME SO POPULAR? WE SENT EUROPE CORRESPONDENT JESSICA MUTCH TO FIND OUT: EVERYONE WANTS A PIECE OF NIGEL FARAGE. FROM A BLIP ON THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE TO THE LEADER OF THE UK'S THIRD MOST POPULAR PARTY. THIS IS THE NIGEL FARAGE EFFECT. HERE HE IS SURROUNDED BY A GAGGLE OF JOURNALISTS AND ALSO PARTY FAITHFUL. WE'RE REALLY GETTING A TASTE OF THE RAH-RAH OF A PARTY CONFERENCE JUST BEFORE THE ELECTION. AS YOU CAN SEE, HE IS SEEN AS A BIT OF A MESSIAH HERE BY THE PEOPLE AT THE UKIP CONFERENCE. WHEN I HEAR THE EXPERTS TELLING US THAT PERHAPS AT THE GENERAL ELECTION UKIP MIGHT WIN FOUR OR FIVE SEATS IN PARLIAMENT, WELL, LET ME TELL YOU, WE ARE SERIOUS CHALLENGERS TO WIN FOUR OR FIVE SEATS IN THIS COUNTY ALONE. AUDIENCE CHEERS HE'S A ROCK STAR. (LAUGHS) HE TRAVELLED UP FROM WALES THIS MORNING, SO HE TRAVELLED UP FIVE HOURS TO COME HERE AND SPEAK. AND AGAIN, HE SAID EVERYTHING THAT THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY WANTED TO HEAR. WELL, HE'S ALWAYS AMAZING, ISN'T HE? YOU KNOW, HE DOESN'T PUT OUT THE STOPS, BUT HE SPEAKS THE TRUTH. PERSONAL CHARISMA ASIDE, FARAGE HAS ALSO PICKED UP ON AN ISSUE WORRYING BRITS. THAT'S IMMIGRATION. ONLY BY DIVORCING OURSELVES FROM THE EU AND BY TAKING BACK CONTROL OF OUR BORDERS CAN WE GIVE THE BRITISH PEOPLE WHAT OVERWHELMING THEY WOULD WANT AND SUPPORT AND WE WILL CAMPAIGN FOR THIS COUNTRY TO HAVE AN AUSTRALIAN POINTS-STYLE SYSTEM TO DECIDE WHO SHOULD COME AND SETTLE IN OUR COUNTRY. AUDIENCE CHEERS IT'S A MACHO KIND OF PARTY, THE WAY IT EXPRESSES ITSELF. NIGEL FARAGE, THE LEADER THAT IS USUALLY PHOTOGRAPHED WHEN HE'S ON TV IN A PUB OR DOING SORT OF MALE TYPE OF THINGS. NEIL STOCKLEY IS A NZER WORKING IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND POLITICS IN THE UK. HE WORKED FOR DAVID LANGE WHEN HE WAS IN POWER AND IS A FORMER POLICY DIRECTOR FOR THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS. THEY ARE SEEN AS THE BEST PARTY ON IMMIGRATION. THEY'RE ALSO SEEN, THOUGH, AS THE NASTIEST PARTY OF THEM ALL. AND THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE RHETORIC AND LANGUAGE USED BY SOME OF THEIR BIT PLAYERS AND MINOR PLAYERS, WHO DO TELL RACIST JOKES OCCASIONALLY. SO ON THE ONE HAND THEY'RE VERY SKILLED AT CAPITALISING ON CONCERN ABOUT IMMIGRATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT DOES POLARISE WHOLE SECTIONS OF THE ELECTORATE. WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THAT UKIP ISN'T JUST SIPHONING VOTES FROM THE CONSERVATIVES. LABOUR IS ALSO FEELING THE HEAT. AND THIS UKIP CANDIDATE IS ENJOYING IT. I THINK THE LABOUR PARTY HAS LOST A LOT OF SUPPORT IN ITS FORMER HEARTLANDS, MAYBE VOTERS IT'S TAKEN FOR GRANTED IN THE PAST. AND WE'VE MADE THE ARGUMENT VERY STRONGLY AS STEVEN WOOLFE, OUR MIGRATION SPOKESMAN, DID JUST THEN THAT UNLIMITED MIGRATION INTO LOW-SKILLED, SEMI-SKILLED WORKING-CLASS TYPE JOBS LOWERS WAGES, RAISES YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT AND IT ACTUALLY MAKES THE PUBLIC SECTOR FINANCES WORSE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO COME IN FROM ABROAD TO DO THOSE JOBS ARE ACTUALLY DRAWING OUT MORE IN TERMS OF IN-WORK BENEFITS AND CONSUMING PUBLIC SERVICES THAN THEY'RE PAYING IN TAX, AND ALSO IT PUTS COMMUNITY COHESION UNDER VERY GREAT STRAIN AS WELL. SO I THINK THERE'S A HUGE SWATHE OF VOTERS WHO ARE PROUD TO CONSIDER THEMSELVES WORKING-CLASS PEOPLE WHO MAY ONCE, MAY HAVE PERHAPS IN THEIR PARENTS' GENERATION, HAVE VOTED LABOUR BY REFLEX, WHO ARE NOW THINKING THE LABOUR PARTY DOESN'T STAND FOR THEM AND ARE LIKING WHAT THEY HEAR AND SEE OF UKIP. THAT RACE CARD SEEMS TO BE WORKING WITH A CHUNK OF THE POPULATION. YOU'RE A BETTING MAN. WHAT ODDS DO YOU PUT ON UKIP GETTING INTO PARLIAMENT THIS ELECTION? WELL, WE THINK IT'S VERY LIKELY THEY WILL WIN SOME SEATS IN THE ELECTION. THE CHANCE OF THEM GAINING ANYTHING LIKE ABSOLUTE POWER OR BEING GOVERNMENT ARE VERY VERY SMALL, BUT AT THE MOMENT WE'RE EXPECTING THEM TO WIN PERHAPS FIVE OR SIX SEATS IN THE ELECTION IN MAY. HOW REALISTIC IS THAT, DO YOU THINK, ACTUALLY ON ELECTION DAY? BECAUSE TRADITIONALLY SMALLER PARTIES DO RATE BETTER BEFORE THE ELECTION. ABSOLUTELY, BUT THEIR VOTE SEEMS EXTREMELY RESILIENT AT THE MOMENT. CERTAINLY THE BETTING ` WE'VE SEEN PLENTY OF MONEY ON THEM TO WIN SEATS ACROSS THE UK. AS I SAID, AT THE MOMENT THEY'RE CLEAR FAVOURITES IN FIVE SEPARATE SEATS, AND THERE ISN'T REALLY THAT MUCH SIGN THAT THEIR VOTERS ARE PLANNING TO SWITCH BACK AT THE LAST MINUTE, WHICH YOU MIGHT EXPECT OTHERWISE. FARAGE NEEDS TO WIN THE SEAT OF SOUTH THANET IN KENT SO HE CAN LEAD HIS PARTY AS AN MP. IT'S A TIGHT RACE, AND HE'S FIGHTING HARD. IF HE AND THE OTHER UKIP CANDIDATES COME SECOND, THEY'LL GET NOTHING UNDER FIRST PAST THE POST. IT'S HOW MANY SEATS THEY COME SECOND IN AND WHERE THEY COME SECOND. BECAUSE WHAT THEY'RE REALLY DOING IS TRYING TO GET FARAGE INTO THANET SOUTH BUT TRYING TO POSITION THEMSELVES AS THE RUNNER-UP IN MAYBE A HUNDRED OTHER SEATS, ESPECIALLY IN THE NORTH OF ENGLAND, ESPECIALLY AGAINST LABOUR. BECAUSE IF LABOUR CRASHES IN THE NORTH OF ENGLAND IN FUTURE YEARS THE WAY THEY ARE IN SCOTLAND RIGHT NOW, UKIP COULD MAKE A REAL BREAKTHROUGH. SO IS THAT WHY THEY'RE SO EXCITED ABOUT COMING SECOND IN ALL OF THESE SEATS? BECAUSE THE SILVER MEDAL DOESN'T GET YOU INTO PARLIAMENT. NO, BUT IT POSITIONS YOU FOR THE TIME AFTER THAT. THE PROFILE OF A UKIPER, AS THEY'RE KNOWN, IS WHITE, MALE, A FORMER CONSERVATIVE AND LIKELY TO BE FEELING LEFT BEHIND. WHAT IS IT ABOUT HIM THAT ATTRACTS THAT MIDDLE-CLASS WHITE MALE VOTER THAT YOU TALK ABOUT? HE IDENTIFIES AS 'ONE OF US'. 'I'M A GUY YOU SEE DOWN AT THE PUB. 'I'M A SMOKER. I DON'T CARE ABOUT ALL THIS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. 'I'LL TELL THE ODD RISQUE JOKE. I'LL LAUGH AT MYSELF. 'I WON'T ACT TOO MUCH LIKE A POLITICIAN.' IT'S ALL OF THAT. THE PARADOX IS, OF COURSE, HE IS A PROFESSIONAL POLITICIAN. HE'S BEEN STANDING FOR THE HOUSE OF COMMONS FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS, AND HE'S BEEN A MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT FOR 16 YEARS. SO HERE YOU HAVE THIS PROFESSIONAL POLITICIAN, DULWICH COLLEGE EDUCATED, FORMER CITY STOCKBROKER APPEALING, THOUGH, TO PEOPLE WHO FEEL VERY VERY LEFT OUT. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OPTICS. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE LANGUAGE AND THE RHETORIC. THE BRITISH PEOPLE ARE SO DISENCHANTED WITH THEIR POLITICIANS. THEY'RE PROMISED SO MUCH, THEY ARE TOLD SO MUCH, BUT THEY DON'T DELIVER. MOST OF THEIR POLITICIANS HAVE NEVER DONE REAL JOBS, NEVER BEEN IN THE REAL WORLD. WE HAVE. PEOPLE ARE VERY FRUSTRATED WITH THE POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT HERE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM. I NEVER WANTED TO JOIN A POLITICAL PARTY. I NEVER WANTED TO GET INTO POLITICS, BUT I WAS SO FRUSTRATED BY THE ISSUES THAT WE FACED. BUT WOULD THE FARAGE FACTOR WORK IN NZ? YOU'D PROBABLY HEAR ECHOES OF NZ FIRST, ESPECIALLY IN THE 1990S, BUT I THINK SOME OF UKIP'S LANGUAGE AND RHETORIC IS MUCH MORE OVER THE TOP COMPARED TO NZ FIRST. I DON'T WANT TO INSULT THEM TOO MUCH. ALSO SOME OF THE MORE LIBERTARIAN ELEMENTS OF UKIP, YOU'D BE REMINDED OF ACT. DO YOU THINK THAT WINSTON PETERS HAS THAT SIMILAR MESSIAH, ROCK STAR EFFECT THAT FARAGE HAS, PERHAPS? YES, DEFINITELY, BUT THIRD PARTY LEADERS HAVE TO HAVE THAT AND POPULOUS PARTY LEADERS HAVE TO HAVE THAT. 10 YEARS AGO FARAGE WASN'T RESONATING, AND IN ANOTHER 10 YEARS HE MIGHT NOT BE EITHER, BUT RIGHT NOW UKIP ARE RIDING HIGH. IN A MORE PROSPEROUS AGE, IN A MORE CONTENTED AGE, IN AN AGE WHEN PEOPLE OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED LABOUR OR CONSERVATIVE, THEY WOULDN'T FEATURE. THOSE DAYS ARE GONE, AND I THINK THEY'RE HERE TO STAY. UKIP style poverty succeed here? We are more tolerant here. We have a different immigration policy. You reject the ACT comparison? We're not anti-immigrant. What about Winston Peters? He's become more tolerant about immigration. Is focusing on the regions. National is north of the border can be progressive in Scotland. There are nationalist movement and Ireland, Scotland, Wales. It could rise here. We like the Blackcaps, the good guys. We get the Northern final vote count. They can watch the parliamentary cricket team paying in the base and reserve at 10 o'clock. WAKA HUIA IS NEXT LOOKING AT MAORI SPIRITUALITY. REMEMBER Q+A REPEATS TONIGHT AT 11.35PM. THANKS FOR WATCHING AND THANKS FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS. THOSE WERE THE QUESTIONS, AND THOSE WERE THE ANSWERS. THAT'S Q+A. SEE YOU NEXT SUNDAY MORNING AT 9. CAPTIONS BY JUNE YEOW AND PIPPA JEFFERIES. CAPTIONS WERE MADE POSSIBLE WITH FUNDING FROM NZ ON AIR. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2015