GOOD MORNING, AND WELCOME TO Q+A. I'M GREG BOYED, WITH POLITICAL EDITOR CORIN DANN. THE GREENS HAVE A NEW CO-LEADER. I AM VERY COMFORTABLE WITH MY METROSEXUALITY. YES, JAMES SHAW WILL BE LIVE IN THE HOT SEAT. HOW WILL HE GROW THE GREENS? I'M ALSO TALKING TO POVERTY EXPERT JONATHAN BOSTON. ON Q AND A LAST WEEK, BILL ENGLISH SAID THE WAY HIS CRITICS DEFINE POVERTY WAS NOT "USEFUL". WELL, WE GIVE PROFESSOR BOSTON A RIGHT OF REPLY AND ASK HIM HOW HE'D RATE THE GOVERNMENT'S CHILD POVERTY SOLUTIONS. AND FOLLOWING UP ON OUR FOCUS ON HOUSING AFFORDABILITY, OUR REPORTER KIM SAVAGE LOOKS AT THE NEW GENERATION OF RENTERS WHO ARE DEMANDING A BETTER DEAL FROM LANDLORDS. Things are just patched up. You would probably invest some love and tender care in the house. AND THE FALLOUT FROM THE FIFA SCANDAL ` I'VE GOT AN INTERVIEW WITH FORMER AMERICAN PLAYER, NOW FOX SPORTS COMMENTATOR ERIC WYNALDA. WE'LL ANALYSE ALL THE ISSUES WITH OUR PANEL ` MARIANNE ELLIOT, ACTION STATION DIRECTOR AND HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER; AND MICHELLE BOAG, FORMER NATIONAL PARTY PRESIDENT. DUE TO THE LIVE NATURE OF Q+A, WE APOLOGISE FOR THE LACK OF CAPTIONS FOR SOME ITEMS. JAMES SHAW IS THE SURPRISE NEW CO-LEADER OF THE GREEN PARTY. A FIRST TERM MP, HE'LL JOIN METIRIA TUREI IN LEADING THE PARTY INTO THE NEXT ELECTION BUT PROMISES A DIFFERENT, MORE BUSINESS-FRIENDLY FOCUS TO THE ROLE. HE JOINS ME NOW. Congratulations. Thank you. You want to restore some economic credibility to the Greens. What do you mean by that? It's about building on the economic credibility that Russel and Metiria Turei have built. How? The Green party has been talking about sustainable business, green economics For a number of years. My career has been in doing that. I have been working primarily based out of the UK working with businesses to try and make them more sustainable. What sort of companies? I started my career in the UK with PricewaterhouseCoopers. I was involved and sustainable develop the strategy. You have talked about using the business language, but isn't it ultimately about the policies of the Green policy? You have eco-taxes which the businesses were like. Your policies will make you popular with business. We have been involved in a conversation about policy, but most New Zealanders look for whether this team can run the country. What I want to show is that the Greens are ready for government. Would you continue with a policy that would reform the reserve bank? I'm not going to get into any details about particular policies. But don't people need to get a sense from you whether or not you would shift those fundamentals of the commie? Previous caption incorrect economy. I hope to continue to lead that work over the next few years. You seem to be signalling that a lot of these policies will be up review. It's not up to me to say which policies are up for review. I want to make sure I can use my business background to show that the Greens have got the ability and the skill to enter government. Russell Norman has a great legacy. But he did make one error when he talked about the reserve bank printing money at a time when that was an extreme moves. Isn't that the type of thing that has hurt the Greens? What would you do to prevent that? It didn't help us at the time. We need to make sure we are speaking to that economic credibility that people are looking for. So you do not believe in that policy? The Greens do believe in a mixed economy. I have some real concerns that our economy is fragile. 30% of dairy farmers are currently at serious risk of going under. We need to diversify and get into the smart Green economics we have been talking about. I worked in that economy in the UK and around the world, and we are getting left behind. This is the greatest investment opportunity that has presented as in a generation and we are missing out. The target is voters here. They are the target audience. We give a lot of credibility to business in New Zealand. Business was very scared of you at the last election. If you don't win over you will be in a propaganda war with them. That's right. One of the reasons I was elected to be coleader is because people see me as somebody who can translate Between the Green party and the business community. Let's talk about National. What is your position with National? My personal preference is that we do not consider a coalition with them. I can't see how that would functionally work. That is a decision for Green party members to make. But I do think that we need to revive the understanding that we have had with National. I think New Zealand once their politicians to work together on the big challenges. This would be on climate change, I understand? Yes. That is the greatest challenge of our time and a huge opportunity for us to transition our economy. 87% of New Zealanders really want strong action on climate change. With talking a target that the economy has reduce its emissions by 2030. What would you require the country to do? What is the sacrifice? It depends if you see it as a sacrifice or an investment. The cost of not doing anything is enormous. In 2013, we had the worst drought that this country has seen in 70 years. It cost is 1 � billion dollars in lost exports. The intensity of that drought was down to climate change. I use them to dairy farmers that you are going to impose an eco-tax on them and require them to potentially pay more for their production, and if they do that they will stop drugs? Previous caption incorrect they will stop droughts? Land Corp is converting more land into dairy farming when Waikato farmers do not want more of that. This comes back to the heart of the issue. If you get an agreement with National on climate change, they will have a much more reduced target then you have, but ultimately it will require attacks on our primary industry, Dqairy. People who farmed the land should be receiving payouts the upside is that you could be getting rebates for converting land into lower emission. That leaves you in the same position with Labour. What will your position be with them? Good luck to them. I am looking forward to a constructive relationship with Label. The opportunity for a strong relationship is greater than it has been in many years. My message to Andrew Little is that we, have a repeat of 2014. Clearly the coalition didn't work. Voters punished both parties for that. At the last cycle our highest polling point was also Labour's highest polling point. That was when we were most coordinated with each other. Voters are looking for a coherent and capable alternative government. That is my proposition. You said you are happy to be a metrosexual. What is coming? I'm not sure. Givers an idea of where you come from and who you are. I was born and raised in Wellington. I went to Victoria University. Most of my career was based out of London. I lived there for 12 years. I have always been a city guy. Most New Zealanders are these days. I walk to work in the morning and home at night. Did you have a road to Damascus experience with the Greens? When was your attraction to the green movement? Has it all has been? When I was about 12, I walked to the back of my class and the glass went silent and the teacher was saying that countries go to war over things like this. It was the day after the Rainbow Warrior was bombed in Auckland. It's been a lifelong in some ways? I joined the Green party in the year it was formed. SEND US YOUR THOUGHTS. WE'RE ON TWITTER ` @NZQANDA. YOU CAN EMAIL US AT Q+A@TVNZ.CO.NZ OR TEXT YOUR THOUGHTS AND FIRST NAME TO 2211. KEEP THEM BRIEF; EACH TEXT COSTS 50C. OUR PANEL'S HERE AFTER THE BREAK. WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE GREENS AND THE SAUDI FARM DEAL CAUSING BIG PROBLEMS FOR MURRAY MCCULLY. AND LATER ` GENERATION RENT. THEY'RE A FAST-GROWING GROUP, AND MANY ARE NOW DEMANDING NEW RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS. OUR REPORTER LOOKS AT WHY THAT MIGHT BE GOOD FOR ALL OF US. LET'S BRING IN THE PANEL NOW ` MICHELLE BOAG, FORMER NATIONAL PARTY PRESIDENT AND MARIANNE ELLIOT, NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF ACTION STATION AND A HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER. CORIN JOINS US TOO. Michelle, is he the right man for the job? You know about political leaders and helping them get up the ladder. I think this is a very brave and correct decision by the Green party. He is very much the new generation. He clearly has economic credibility, which they desperately need. I think you will have a honeymoon. I think it will be interesting to watch what happens. I would say ` watch out, Mr Little. He has made it clear that he doesn't believe the Greens should be in coalition with National. There will be a lot of people who might have considered what it appears to be a much more moderate economic the credible leader, but only in coalition with Labour. The big question for me is will he try and reach out across that divide and try and do what Labour has failed to do, which is to attract people in the centre? His background is not what we expect of the Greens leader. Is there a risk that that will alienate the Greens traditional voters? Not sure I can speak for the Greens traditional voting base. I am very much a farm girl. James represents to me the present and the future. You did vote for the Greens? I did, but not for James in Wellington Central. I am exactly the kind of voter that the Green party hopes to attract and keep with a leader like James. The big challenge for the Greens is that there is a whole lot of policies which are quite far left. They are against free trade, for example. They don't like farming industry. That's not true and it's not fair. When you listen to Metiria Turei, she is constantly berating farmers. They would like the farming industry to pay more for the cost of their pollution. The Green party is making it clear that the future of New Zealand's economy relies in those parts in the ability of agribusiness to adapt. It is a poor assumption that they are not able to do that. This is why it comes back to free trade. At this point we don't even know the Labour Party will support the free trade agreement. All of this is fine in theory, but at the moment they are stuck in the 10% base camp. To get off that base They need to broaden their appeal. They have made the right decision in that sense. They are trying to reach into the mainstream. James Shaw will do that. Just having the person there isn't necessarily going to be enough. They will have to look at some of those policies and reform them. Are they capable of that without tearing themselves apart? I think we need to be able to talk about those policies in a more reasonable and less hysterical way. That's what James will be capable of doing. This will give our agribusiness sector the opportunity for those conversations. When you look at the attitude that Metiria Turei represents, she is so critical and negative, and I think she will look dated beside James Shaw. But she does have to play the role of an Opposition politician. It hasn't worked. Is this co-leader model outdated? Absolutely not. These moments of transition and succession is very relevant . The stability of leadership at a time when you have a new co-leader. Think of David Shearer and the pressure he was under thrust into that role early. James has someone to share the load. He is very new. That he has been around a long time and he is clearly very smart and articulate. This is a fantastic opportunity for the Greens. The question is how do they keep those in their party that are quite Left come to with the sort of stuff he is talking about? There is no doubt there will be policy reviews, and it will be interesting to see on issues like free trade whether we do see a shift. There are a whole lot of people in the Green party who are anti-free trade. How do they reconcile the leadership of somebody like James? I think it is going to be a fascinating period to watch in New Zealand politics. The Saudi farm story ` we keep hearing more. What is your involvement and what more we hear about this? I work for the Middle East New Zealand business Council. Which clearly has an interest in free trade. We are not governed and funded. Weare not government funded; we are funded by subscriptions. I think Murray McCully has done a huge favour to New Zealand. He inherited an international relationship which was not good as a result of New Zealand banning sheep exports. Did you help himin terms of the role and plan to try and tackle the problem? No, it was done entirely by officials. I said to Mr McCully that I thought he should sit down and talk to this guy because he was really upset. There has been a big problem with this story the whole way through. Heather has done some fantastic journalism around. This particular deal was well known The Minister has talked about the Saudi business hub. Heather has been fed material by somebody who was disgruntled. She interviewed me and never news the material. She had numerous sources for her stories. That's not the point. Most New Zealanders were surprised that there was $12 million spent. This is not just $12 million being given to someone; this is a huge potential to New Zealand businesses. Having been part of that delegation to the Middle East with the Prime Minister, I can tell you right now that the Gulf states would not be our fifth biggest trading partner without the work McCully has done. It would not be a partner in trade worth more than the UK. Why didn't we know about it? We did know about it. I will have to stop you there. CORIN'S TALKING TO PUBLIC POLICY PROFESSOR JONATHAN BOSTON NEXT ` HIS VIEW ON GOVERNMENT CRITICISMS THAT THE WAY HE MEASURES POVERTY ISN'T "USEFUL". AND STILL TO COME ` SEPP BLATTER WINS A FIFTH TERM AS FIFA PRESIDENT DESPITE THE GROWING SCANDAL SURROUNDING THE SOCCER ORGANISATION. WE HAVE THE LATEST ON THE INVESTIGATION LATER IN THE PROGRAMME. OUR INTERVIEW WITH FINANCE MINISTER BILL ENGLISH LAST WEEKEND CAUSED A BIT OF A STIR WHEN HE QUESTIONED THE WAY POVERTY WAS MEASURED BY ANTI-POVERTY CAMPAIGNERS. HERE'S A CLIP FROM THAT INTERVIEW. WELL, LOOK, THEY USE A SET OF MEASURES WHICH YOU'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO SATISFY. I MEAN, THE MEASURES THAT THOSE GROUPS USE ` IF EVERYONE'S INCOMES DOUBLED OVERNIGHT, WE'D STILL HAVE THE SAME POVERTY TODAY AS WE DID YESTERDAY, BECAUSE THEY'RE USING RELATIVE MEASURES. WE ARE FOCUSING NOT ON SOME THEORETICALLY PERFECT WORLD BUT ON THE REALITY OF THE LOWEST-INCOME FAMILIES WITH RELATIVELY LIMITED RESOURCES. WE'VE TARGETED THOSE LOWEST-INCOME FAMILIES. AND WHILE THE POVERTY EXPERTS MAY THINK IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THOSE FAMILIES WHERE MARGINS ARE $5 OR $10 A WEEK DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUCCESS AND FAILURE, $25 A WEEK IS GOING TO HELP. SO THOSE EXPERTS WHO SPEND THEIR ENTIRE LIFE STUDYING THIS AREA OF THOSE CHILDREN IN DEPRIVATION AND IN POVERTY ` YOU'RE SAYING THEY'RE WRONG, THAT WHEN THEY SAY 250,000 ARE IN POVERTY AND THAT THIS DOES NOTHING FOR THE VAST BULK OF THOSE, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT? WELL, THEY JUST USE A MEASURE OF POVERTY THAT'S NOT THAT USEFUL IN PUBLIC POLICY. WELL, WE THOUGHT WE'D GIVE ONE OF THOSE ANTI-POVERTY CAMPAIGNERS THE RIGHT OF REPLY, AND SO WE'VE ASKED PROFESSOR JONATHAN BOSTON ALONG. PROFESSOR BOSTON CO-CHAIR'S THE ADVISORY GROUP ON CHILD POVERTY FOR THE CHILDREN'S COMMISSIONER, AND HE'S A PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC POLICY AT VICTORIA UNIVERSITY. HE JOINS ME NOW FROM WELLINGTON. What is your reaction to those comments? It disappointed me that the Minister of Finance was not using a very helpful analogy to criticise a particular kind of poverty measures that are used by experts all over the world. Let's ask ourselves what is poverty. There are a number of different definitions, but one simple approach is to say it is having insufficient resources to meet basic needs. Then the questioners ` how do we measure this in practice? One simple way of thinking about is let's set some benchmarks, and if people are below those, then they are in poverty. There is a variety of ways in which you can set these thresholds. One is to use an income-based measure, and one is to usean assessment of people's level of material deprivation or hardship. Both are used around the world. There is a variety of thresholds you can set in relation to both those income-based measures and deprivation levels. The government is only using the deprivation measure and not being to measure. You would argue there are more children in poverty than the government would. The expert advisory has made it clear that there is no one right way of doing it. You can set thresholds in different ways on the basis of different criteria. What is your figure? Is a 250,000? There is no one right measure here, and we need to be clear about this. We also need to be clear that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are right that we should be more concerned about severe deprivation than a higher standard of poverty. A 25 dollar benefit increase will work then? It will help those at the bottom most. We need to be clear that $25 extra a week, Wallace is significant money for those who are very poor, is actually a very small increase in normal terms. It is an increase of around 3 to 4% for those who are poor. What should they get? I think we need to have a very serious public discussion of the country about what we think is a reasonable minimum standard of living for our citizens, including our children. We have done that for all the citizens aged 65+, but we have not done it for our children. Then we need to have an agreement on a range of policy measures, which will include what the Minister of Finance on the Prime Minister are talking about. We need to use a range of measures, including how long people are in poverty ` it assistance measure. Can you give us a sense of what a family looks like that is in poverty in the wider Bracket? What does that poverty look like? If we were to take a family of two adults and two children living in Auckland and getting the maximum level of resistance that they can get through the normal benefits, they would be getting around $700 a week. Then they would have to pay rent or mortgage payments out of that. 350 or $400 in rent for two or three bedroom house. What's left? Around 300 or so dollars for everything else. If it's an income-based measure that you use, they are falling short somewhere in $50 to $300 a week If you are looking material deprivation, a high level are missing out on things that most take for granted. But people will say that they are not starving and they have a roof over their head. It is not poverty in terms of Third World poverty. We need to keep in mind that there are degrees of poverty. Most poor people here are missing out on things that most people consider absolutely essential. Go missing meals. Children go to bed hungry. They often don't have a change of clothes or close for a special occasion. Is the solution to that giving those families more money? That has to be part of the solution. Money matters. But it is not the only thing that matters. The government has announced an increase in the subsidy rates for childcare. We need to do more in terms of access for children to primary health care. We need to do more to invest in early childhood education to make sure that children are able to get the kind of early childhood education they need so they are not behind others when they start school. We need to make it clear that at the moment there are a significant number of children and families living on very very modest incomes, and who cannot meet their basic needs. AFTER THE BREAK,GENERATION RENT ` WHY THEY WANT A BETTER DEAL FROM LANDLORDS. SO I THINK IN NZ, WE LOOK AT A RENTAL HOUSE AS THE LANDLORD'S PROPERTY, AS THEIR HOUSE, RATHER THAN LOOKING HOW IT IS A RENTER'S HOME. RENTING IS BECOMING THE NEW NORMAL FOR SOME NZERS, WITH RISING HOUSE PRICES PUSHING HOME OWNERSHIP OUT OF REACH FOR MANY. ACCORDING TO CENSUS FIGURES, THE NUMBER OF RENTING HOUSEHOLDS IS GROWING ` SOME 450,000 AT LAST COUNT ` AND INCREASING EACH YEAR. AND AS MORE PEOPLE LOOK TO RENT LONG TERM, CALLS FOR A BETTER DEAL FOR TENANTS ARE GETTING LOUDER. KIM SAVAGE HAS MORE. # OUR HOUSE IS A VERY VERY FINE HOUSE. HOME ` MORE THAN JUST A ROOF OVERHEAD. IT'S A PLACE TO RAISE A FAMILY. SQUEEZE AWAY. ROSE SWINDELLS AND HER HUSBAND, ROBERT WHITAKER, HAVE MADE THEIR HOME IN A RENTED TWO-BEDROOM HOUSE IN WELLINGTON. OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S LOTS OF GOOD THINGS ABOUT LIVING IN THE HOUSE WE LIVE IN NOW. WE LIVE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CITY OR RELATIVELY CLOSE TO THE CENTRE OF THE CITY, AND IT'S NICE AND COMFORTABLE HERE, AND OUR KIDS ARE HAPPY HERE, AND WE'RE ACTIVE MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE PLAY CENTRE AND THAT SORT OF STUFF, AND WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE ANY OF THAT UP FOR HOME OWNERSHIP, WHICH WE WOULD HAVE TO DO, BECAUSE THE ONLY PLACE WE COULD AFFORD TO BUY WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, WELL OUT OF THE CITY, IF AT ALL, IF EVER. (CHUCKLES) SO I'D RATHER LIVE HERE AND HAVE SOME OF THOSE BENEFITS AS HOME OWNERSHIP. LIVING OFF JUST THE ONE INCOME AND WITH RENT COSTING $425 A WEEK, BUYING ISN'T AN OPTION FOR THIS FAMILY RIGHT NOW. YEAH, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY PLANS OR ANY SAVINGS OR` WELL, WE HAVE SAVINGS, BUT NOT ENOUGH TO BUY A PLACE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO WE'RE RENTING FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. YEAH, IT'S KIND OF A DREAM. I WOULD LOVE TO OWN A HOUSE ONE DAY, BUT FOR NOW, RENTING IS KIND OF GOOD BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT SORT OF TAKES THE PRESSURE OFF, I GUESS, A LITTLE BIT. # SUCH A COSY ROOM. THE WINDOWS ARE ILLUMINATED BY... IT LOOKS LIKE HOME, FEELS LIKE HOME, BUT THERE'S SOMETHING MISSING. MANY RENTERS WOULD HAVE THIS MUCH WORSE THAN US, BUT OFTEN, THINGS ARE JUST KIND OF PATCHED UP. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT PROPERLY FIXED OR IF IT WAS YOUR OWN HOUSE, YOU WOULD PROBABLY INVEST SOME LOVE AND TENDER CARE IN IT. THE SINGLE-BIGGEST THING IS THE SECURITY ISSUE. THAT, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY, WE COULD BE OUT OF THE HOUSE IN THREE MONTHS OR EVEN LESS, DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THAT MEANS WE MIGHT HAVE TO MOVE OUR KIDS TO DIFFERENT CHILDCARE ARRANGEMENTS. THAT MEANS ONCE THEY'RE IN SCHOOL, WE'D HAVE TO POSSIBLY MOVE THEM TO A DIFFERENT SCHOOL, DEPENDING ON WHERE WE CAN FIND A GOOD PLACE ELSEWHERE. PACKING UP AND MOVING ON IS CERTAINLY NO FUN, AND IT MAY ALSO BE BAD FOR THE KIDS. DR SARAH BIERRE IS A PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCHER DR SARAH BIERRE IS A PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCHER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO IN WELLINGTON. THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT IT'S NOT GOOD FOR OUR KIDS TO BE MOVING AROUND A LOT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE YOUNG. IT ALSO IS DISRUPTIVE FOR A HOUSEHOLD. IT'S COSTLY. IT MEANS THAT THEY HAVE TO GET OUT AND HOUSE-HUNT AGAIN, AND IT ALSO IS DISRUPTIVE IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO CREATE A HOME IN THE PRIVATE RENTAL SECTOR. DR BIERRE'S RESEARCHING WHAT LIFE IS LIKE FOR RENTERS IN NZ. SHE SAYS THEIR PLIGHT IS OFTEN FORGOTTEN IN THE DEBATE OVER HOUSING AFFORDABILITY. WE HAVE A STRONG DESIRE IN NZ TO OWN OUR OWN HOUSE, AND I THINK THAT COMES BACK TO PEOPLE LOOKING FOR THINGS LIKE CONTROL. CHOICE ` BEING ABLE TO CHOOSE WHETHER YOU STAY OR LEAVE THE HOUSE YOU'RE LIVING IN. HAVING AUTONOMY AND FREEDOM TO REDECORATE AND MAKE THE HOUSE YOUR OWN. THE CV AT 1.1, IT'S QUITE ATTRACTIVE. GRAMMAR ZONE ENTRY POINT FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE. WE DON'T HEAR A LOT ABOUT THE STRUGGLE OF TRYING TO PAY THE RENT. WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT HOW EXPENSIVE IT IS TO BUY A HOUSE, BUT NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT THE AFFORDABILITY OF RENT. SO I THINK IN NZ, WE LOOK AT A RENTAL HOUSE AS THE LANDLORD'S PROPERTY, AS THEIR HOUSE, RATHER THAN LOOKING HOW IT IS A RENTER'S HOME. AND THAT CHANGE OF PERSPECTIVE MAY BE BETTER FOR ALL OF US. GEOFF SIMMONS IS AN ECONOMIST WITH THE MORGAN FOUNDATION. HE SAYS LONG-TERM TENANCIES LEAD TO BETTER COMMUNITIES. PEOPLE INTERACTING WITH EACH OTHER. PEOPLE GET TO KNOW THEIR NEIGHBOURS BETTER IF THEY LIVE IN A LONGER-RENTED PLACE. YOU GET LOWER LEVELS OF CRIME, ALL THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. YOU KNOW, MORE PEOPLE ENGAGED IN THEIR LOCAL COMMUNITIES. YOU KNOW, MORE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, JOINING THE LOCAL BOOK CLUB OR THE LOCAL TREE-PLANTING SOCIETY. YOU KNOW, ALL THAT GOOD SOCIAL FABRIC, SOCIAL CAPITAL STUFF THAT CAN COME OUT FROM A NICE, STABLE COMMUNITY. # LA, LA. LA, LA, LA, LA, LA. LA, LA, LA, LA, LA.... HE SAYS WE SHOULD LOOK TO EUROPE TO SEE HOW TENANTS THERE ARE TREATED UNDER THE LAW. WELL, THERE'S A REAL CULTURAL THING IN ANGLO COUNTRIES ABOUT OWNING YOUR OWN HOME, AND THERE'S A LOT OF EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS THAT IT'S MUCH BETTER FOR COMMUNITIES WHEN THERE'S LOTS OF PEOPLE THAT OWN HOUSES IN THEM. BUT WHEN YOU GO TO OTHER COUNTRIES LIKE GERMANY, WHERE NOT MANY PEOPLE OWN THEIR OWN HOUSE, CERTAINLY MUCH LOWER LEVELS THAN HERE, AND YOU DON'T SEE THOSE SAME RESULTS. IT'S REALLY THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL CULTURE THAT WE HAVE IN NZ AS OPPOSED TO THE LONG-TERM RENTAL CULTURE THAT YOU HAVE IN COUNTRIES LIKE EUROPE. RENTERS LIKE ROSE AND ROBERT ARE NOT ONLY LOOKING FOR SECURITY. THEY WANT A HEALTHY HOME TOO. THE GOVERNMENT'S TRIALLED A WARRANT OF FITNESS SCHEME FOR STATE HOUSES BUT IS NOT INTERESTED IN EXTENDING THAT TO PRIVATE RENTALS. PROPERTY INVESTORS HAVE WARNED THAT KIND OF REGULATION WOULD LEAD TO RENT INCREASES. EARLIER THIS YEAR, LABOUR MP PHIL TWYFORD'S HEALTHY HOMES GUARANTEE BILL, WHICH WOULD HAVE SET MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LANDLORDS, FAILED TO MAKE IT PAST ITS FIRST READING IN PARLIAMENT. IT'S CORE POLICY FOR LABOUR. IT'LL BE ONE OF THE PRIORITIES THAT WE LEGISLATE EARLY IN THE NEXT GOVERNMENT. I'M LOOKING AT BRINGING ANOTHER BILL BACK TO PARLIAMENT THAT WOULD DO THE SAME THING. LOOK, WE DON'T ALLOW PEOPLE TO FLY A PLANE WITHOUT A LICENCE. WE DON'T ALLOW PEOPLE TO RUN A RESTAURANT WITHOUT PASSING A TEST FOR FOOD HYGIENE. BUT SOMEHOW WE THINK IT'S OK FOR LANDLORDS TO RENT OUT HOMES THAT ARE A THREAT TO THE HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE LIVING THERE. ROBERT FEELS SO PASSIONATELY ABOUT TENANTS' RIGHTS, HE'S HELPED START A GROUP IN WELLINGTON, RENTERS UNITED, IN AN EFFORT TO BRING ABOUT CHANGE FOR PEOPLE LIKE HIM AND THOSE WHO ARE WORSE OFF. I DON'T THINK EVERYBODY OWNING A HOUSE IS THE ANSWER, ACTUALLY, ANY MORE BECAUSE THAT'S... WELL, I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE GREAT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALISTIC, BUT I THINK IT IS REALISTIC TO DO SOME THINGS TO MAKE RENTING MORE... YEAH, AND I MEAN, THE ONLY WAY TO GET STABILITY IS TO BUY A HOUSE, WHICH PUTS MORE PRESSURE ON THE HOUSING MARKET, YOU KNOW? SO IF YOU CAN GET STABILITY AND DECENT HOUSING FOR RENTING, THEN THAT WILL OBVIOUSLY HAVE SOME IMPACT ON THE HOUSING ISSUES THAT WE'VE GOT AS WELL. # ...WHILE YOU PLACE THE FLOWERS IN THE VASE THAT YOU BOUGHT TODAY. # LET'S GO BACK TO OUR PANEL NOW. Half 1 million people is how about lot of votes, and you have to keep them onside. It's an interesting issue because I am a business owner, there is a whole lot of things we need to ensure that our own place so that people are safe. I don't want to invite someone into my restaurant if I can't guarantee they are safe there. The idea that I would be operating as a landlord that wasn't safe or secure for my tenants is an compensable to me. This idea that it can't be done because it increases prices, it's part of running a business, and a landlord is a business. Do we need to change our mindset on renting as was said in Kim's piece to being a lifelong vanquisher Mark there is a assumption that a renter is a short-term thing. I choose to rent. A number of people of my generation are choosing to rent in the city and to buy a property out of the city which might become their retirement home, and they are quite happy renting. We should have conditions for renting that a suitable. What concerns me is we rely mostly on the private sector to provide those homes. Therefore if we put in place legislation tthen the landlords might say it's not worth it for me. We've got to be careful. Half 1 million people they can almost do something themselves. The main thing is the stability. Some political party could make something of that. National is very happy with the homeowners as a core of its voting base. That helps the national. There's got to be some merit in that warrant of fitness, but you have to work with the property sector to do that with a place they can cope with the needs to be investigation into whether it will spike rents. Statehouses may be where it's going. Don't forget that there is a mindset that we should all own our own home. Where did that come from? As long as we think like that, we won't have mixed housing, as some people have said they enjoy renting. Those people living in the city, they could not afford to buy in the city, they make that decision to make their proportion on rent. The point was made that there are are massive incentives to Byron house. We're always talking about how we need to diversify our investment portfolios. People don't see houses as an investment. It's more than just an investment. If we're saying to people you have to own your own home, then all you are doing is investing more and more in the property bubble. We need to encourage people to invest in their own businesses, share portfolios, business start-ups. We could have a system where income is relative to property prices. You are saying if there were a warrant of fitness, landlords would say it's no longer economic attractive. If you say to private landlords, you will make it more difficult for people to find homes for renting in that sector. We rely on the private sector for a rental property. There is a circular logic here. If people divest from housing, we will have a problem with houses. We shouldn't say to people you are only successful if you own your own home. There are other ways to invest. The more that we focus on property, then the more we support the raising of house prices. We're talking about policy and measures of poverty. If I'm looking to put food on the table, I want more - five dollars more a week. What I wanted to say is that this increase of 25% at core benefit levels in the budget was significant. We should be in a hurry to dismiss it, because it marked a change in this government's approach to property. Money matters. It is significant. It was match with a whole range of other initiatives. This is a recognition that money matters most households. Talking about national moving into the centre ground, I've got a story tonight about the way investors can get involved in the subdivision of social services. It's a bold policy, and it will give people another perspective on this government. With got polls tomorrow night about our party poll. Social bonds is what you are talking about? It is. It involves private investors being able to invest on social services, and they can make money on that if that service achieves results. SEPP BLATTER PROMISES REFORM FOR FIFA, BUT OVERNIGHT HE'S CALLED INTO QUESTION THE MOTIVES BEHIND THE INVESTIGATION OF HIS OFFICIALS. CAN HE BE TRUSTED? WE SPEAK TO A FOX SPORTS SOCCER EXPERT AFTER THE BREAK. TO THE BIGGEST INTERNATIONAL STORY OF THE WEEK NOW ` FIFA. AND OVERNIGHT NZ TIME, NEWLY RE-ELECTED FIFA PRESIDENT SEPP BLATTER HAS LAUNCHED A STINGING ATTACK ON AUTHORITIES INVESTIGATING CHARGES OF CORRUPTION AND RACKETEERING. IN A MARKED SHIFT OF TONE FROM HIS ACCEPTANCE SPEECH YESTERDAY, MR BLATTER TOLD SWISS TV THAT THE TIMING OF THE ARRESTS ` TWO DAYS BEFORE HIS RE-ELECTION ` DIDN'T 'SMELL GOOD'. HE SAYS THE FBI INVESTIGATION WAS DESIGNED TO REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE AND MOTIVATED BY REVENGE BY BRITAIN, WHICH LOST THE RIGHT TO HOST THE 2018 CUP, AND THE US, WHICH LOST A BID FOR 2022. DEFIANCE HAS MARKED SEPP BLATTER'S TONE THROUGHOUT HIS YEARS AT THE HEAD OF FIFA, WITH THE NOW-79 YEAR OLD SEEMINGLY ABLE TO SAIL THROUGH ANY SCANDAL UNHARMED. HE HAS SAID, THOUGH, THAT HE HAS A 'SECRET PLAN' TO FIX FIFA IN THIS, HIS FIFTH TERM. ERIC WYNALDA IS A FOX SPORTS SOCCER ANALYST AND FORMER AMERICAN SOCCER PLAYER. I SPOKE TO HIM IN LOS ANGELES EARLY THIS MORNING AND STARTED BY ASKING HIM ABOUT HIS EXPERIENCE OF SITTING DOWN AND INTERVIEWING THE CONTROVERSIAL WORLD SOCCER HEAD. I did sit down with Sepp in an interview for Fox several years ago. That was about racism. He had an ability to deflect and denied even existing. I could never get that answer. I couldn't believe FIFA would take the stance that racism doesn't exist in football. He utilises deflection very well as a smokescreen. He is the president of the governing body, and it's hanging on his watch. To pretend he had no knowledge of it is hard to believe. He needs to figure out a way to do things typically. At this point he is not guilty of anything. For me to throw rocks at an him it may be the ultimate example of just political power that he is still in office. A lot of people feel that he should have stood down and resigned, and there are times when he is borderline delusional about the state of the game. The man who was tipped to topple Sepp was backed by the US. Were you surprised by that? When we talk about the Princes inclusion in all of this, it was poor timing. That is not a knock in any way, shape or form. He was the wrong guy. If and when a new president would be elected to FIFA, he needs to be a different kind of president. He needs to be polarising and to be able to change the game he needs to be electric. He wasn't the right guy. He was a victim of circumstance. He was put under pressure to be the next president of FIFA. Most of the major footballing nationsmost like we voted against him. There are a lot of nations involved. Smaller ones are the ones that persuade the vote. Most of the world would agree that it would be great to see a transparent FIFA. We need to be able trust them. To most casual observers, does this seem absurd? You got indictment, bribery and corruption charges. He still appears to be sitting pretty. Is he untouchable? Untouchable is a word that I wouldn't like to lose, but it seems appropriate. When you are talking hundreds of millions of dollars, this affect sponsors. Sponsors listen to general opinion. They do not want to be associated with an organisation which has been deemed a corrupt enterprise by the United States and the FBI. Our Atty Gen strongly believes this is a corrupt organisation. That will affect the sponsors. If they start to believe that this is a situation where it will poorly of reflect on their inclusion, that money is pulled. If there is a situation where Sepp lost money through sponsorship, the whole situation is re-evaluated. That hasn't happened to date, but that they may be coming at some of those allegations turn out to be to. The branches of these trees going to places where we did next victim to go, more people are indicted, this could be complicating. Money would be pooled, and he would be under pressure to fix it. What type of charges are these actually relating to? A lot of people have this explanation, because when you say corruption, people think of game fixing, that players are involved in a scheme. There have been a number of times were a games were fixed ` this is not what we're talking about. This is why UEFA chimes in, asking some of the questions. When some of these events occur, money is promised to create scenarios in its charitable way to help make this smallish soccer nation better. Sometimes all the money doesn't find a destination. Sometimes people get greedy and dip into money that isn't theirs. When that happens, people start asking questions. The reason why the FBI got involved is because some of those money transactions happened within our borders. It was trackable. We asked the right questions and we got to the bottom of some of those answers, which was all out of of the iceberg. There are a lot of people who may be Implicated to make sure things fell into the right hands. I'm going to wait till this information comes out, but I think I have a good idea of how it all transpired. WE'VE HAD LOTS OF FEEDBACK THIS MORNING. WAKA HUIA IS NEXT WITH THE URBAN KAUMATUA WHO BLESSES MURDER SITES IN AUCKLAND. AND REMEMBER Q+A REPEATS TONIGHT AFTER THE PGA TOUR GOLF HIGHLIGHTS ON TV1. 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 IMOGEN STAINES AND FAITH HAMBLYN. CAPTIONS WERE MADE POSSIBLE WITH FUNDING FROM NZ ON AIR.