TODAY ` IS THE GREEN PARTY TURNING A BIT BLUE? THE CAMPAIGN FOR THE GREEN PARTY TO ENTER GOVERNMENT IN 2017 ` THAT JUST STARTED. JAMES SHAW HAS GOT THE ROSE, SO HOW DOES THE NEW GREENS CO-LEADER PLAN TO MAKE GOOD ON HIS PLEDGE TO GET THE PARTY INTO GOVERNMENT AT THE NEXT ELECTION? AND WHAT'S HIS MESSAGE TO LABOUR AND NATIONAL? THEN THE GOVERNMENT SAYS IWI ARE LINING UP TO BUY STATE HOUSES, BUT WHAT DO THEY WANT IN RETURN? IWI LEADERS REPRESENTATIVE HAAMI PIRIPI IS LIVE TO DISCUSS WHETHER A DEAL CAN BE STRUCK. AND LATER ` WHAT CAN NZ DO TO CUT ITS CARBON? IN A SENSE, IT'S VERY EASY TO REDUCE EMISSIONS. JUST STOP PRODUCING FOOD. BUT IT'S NOT EXACTLY AN ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION. TIME'S RUNNING OUT FOR NZ TO SET ITS TARGET AHEAD OF THE CRUCIAL CLIMATE CONVENTION IN PARIS LATER THIS YEAR. AND GLOBAL PRESSURE IS COMING ON, SO WHAT MIGHT YOU BE ASKED TO DO TO SAVE THE PLANET? PLUS, CORBETT AND EGO'S SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. AND OUR PANEL ` BEN THOMAS, SIMON WILSON AND MORGAN GODFERY. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2015 THANKS FOR TUNING IN THIS MORNING, AND YOU CAN SEND US YOUR THOUGHTS BY TEXTING 3330 FOR 50C, EMAIL THE NATION AT TV3, OR WE'RE ON TWITTER AND FACEBOOK ` @THENATIONTV3. AND YOU CAN ALWAYS DISCUSS THE ISSUES ON #NATIONTV3. NOW, RUSSEL NORMAN'S SUCCESSOR HAS FINALLY BEEN ANOINTED. AND IN HIS ACCEPTANCE SPEECH, FIRST-TERM MP, NOW CO-LEADER JAMES SHAW IMMEDIATELY KICKED OFF THE GREENS' BID TO GET INTO GOVERNMENT AT THE NEXT ELECTION. BUT WILL THE FORMER MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT HAVE TO CHANGE THE GREENS TO ACHIEVE THAT? GOOD MORNING, MR SHAW. CONGRATULATIONS. HI. THANK YOU. WHAT DO YOU THINK SWUNG IT FOR YOU? WELL, MY PITCH TO THE PARTY HAS ALWAYS BEEN AROUND BROADING THE BASE, AND INCREASING THE NUMBERS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT THAT WE'VE GOT, INCREASING OUR MEMBERSHIP AND EXERTING REAL INFLUENCE ON THE NEXT GOVERNMENT. SO I THINK THAT WAS THE MESSAGE THAT THEY WENT FOR. BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE VOTES, THERE WAS A REAL SPLIT. IS THE PARTY DIVIDED OVER ITS FUTURE DIRECTION, DO YOU THINK? NO. IT WASN'T REALLY A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT IS THE FUTURE DIRECTION. IT WAS REALLY ABOUT WHO IS THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB. DO YOU WANT SOMEONE WHOSE PRIMARY PITCH WAS AROUND EXPERIENCE, OR DID YOU WANT SOMEONE WHO COULD COMMUNICATE AND BRING IN MORE AND MORE VOTERS? SO IT WAS KIND OF ABOUT THE TALENT, RATHER THAN ABOUT THE DIRECTION. OK, WELL, YOUR CO-LEADER SAYS THAT THE GREEN PARTY IS FANTASTICALLY SUCCESSFUL. DO YOU THINK THAT NINE ELECTION DEFEATS AND TWO WHERE YOUR VOTE BASICALLY STALLED ARE GREAT SUCCESSES? WELL, WHEN YOU SAY OUR VOTES STALLED, LAST YEAR WAS ACTUALLY THE MOST SUCCESSFUL ELECTION WE'VE EVER HAD. SO MORE PEOPLE VOTED GREEN IN 2014 THAN HAVE EVER VOTED BEFORE, SO IT ACTUALLY WAS REALLY SUCCESSFUL. YEAH, BUT THE PROPORTION OF YOUR VOTES DROPPED. OH, MARGINALLY. I MEAN, ACTUALLY, 10,000 MORE PEOPLE VOTED GREEN IN 2014 THAN IN 2011. SO THOSE WERE THE TWO MOST SUCCESSFUL ELECTIONS THAT WE'VE EVER HAD. WHAT WE NEED TO DO NOW IS REALLY TO BUILD ON THAT AND TO REALLY EXPAND THAT VOTE. MM. WELL, YOU TALK ABOUT BUILDING ON THAT, SO AS A CO-LEADER, IN THE TOP JOB, ONE OF YOUR PRIORITIES IS TO GROW THE VOTE, SO HOW CAN YOU, A NON-DRIVING METROSEXUAL, HOW CAN YOU GROW THAT VOTE? WELL, I THINK IT'S ABOUT ECONOMIC CREDIBILITY, SO I HAVE SPENT THE LAST 20 YEARS IN NZ AND AROUND THE WORLD, MOSTLY BASED IN LONDON, WORKING WITH FINANCIAL ORGANISATIONS, ORGANISATIONS LIKE PWC AND HSBC. I HELPED TO CO-FOUND MY OWN CONSULTANCY, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, REASONABLY SUCCESSFUL. AND I THINK THAT I'VE GOT THE CREDIBILITY THAT VOTERS ARE LOOKING FOR. SO AROUND THE ECONOMICS, THEN, ARE YOU EXPECTING TO TRY AND STEP INTO RUSSEL NORMAN'S SHOES? WELL, I WANT TO HELP TO LEAD A FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF OUR ECONOMIC CREDIBILITY, TO TAKE SOME OF THE WORK THAT RUSSEL IN PARTICULAR HAS REALLY SPEARHEADED OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS AND TO BUILD UPON THAT. I ALSO THINK THAT, ACTUALLY, WE'VE GOT A REALLY STRONG TEAM, AND I THINK THAT WHAT YOU'LL SEE IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS IS MORE OF OUR MPS FRAMING OUR IDEAS AROUND SOCIETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT AS ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS. WELL, IN SAYING THAT, WHEN YOU WERE ON THE SHOW LAST TIME, I ASKED YOU ABOUT THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. IF YOU'RE WANTING TO FOLLOW THAT ECONOMIC ROUTE, WHAT IS THE CURRENT UNEMPLOYMENT RATE HERE? IT'S 5.8%. RIGHT. RIGHT ON THE MONEY THIS TIME. YEAH. OK, WELL` WHAT DID I SAY LAST TIME? A TOUCH UNDER SIX? YOU GOT IT WRONG LAST TIME. SO JUST ` I'LL GIVE YOU THAT. SO YOU HAVE BEEN CALLED BY SOME THE JOHN KEY OF THE GREENS. ARE YOU? UH, I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT IN PARTICULAR BEFORE. I DON'T THINK SO. I WAS NEVER A CURRENCY TRADER. UM, YEAH, I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT TO READ INTO THAT, ACTUALLY. IT'S NOT THAT SPECIFIC, THOUGH, IS IT? IT'S THE POINT ABOUT BEING IN BUSINESS SUCCESS. OH, RIGHT. WELL, I MEAN, YES, LOOK, I HAVE COME` AND LEVERAGING OFF THAT. YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. SO I HAVE COME FROM A BACKGROUND OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS. I HAVE WORKED IN ABOUT 30 DIFFERENT COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, AND I DO HOPE TO BRING THAT EXPERIENCE TO THE WORK THAT WE WILL BE DOING OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS AS WE GEAR UP FOR 2017. WELL, YOU HAVE SAID, 'IF THE GREENS REMAIN OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT PERMANENTLY, 'I CAN'T SEE WHY ANYONE WOULD WANT TO CONTINUE VOTING FOR US. I THINK IT'S GETTING TO THAT POINT.' SO IS THAT A MESSAGE THAT IT'S GET INTO GOVERNMENT OR DIE FOR YOU AND THE GREENS? WELL, I MEAN, THE GREENS HAVE GOTTEN A NUMBER OF REALLY GOOD POLICY GAINS FROM A POSITION OF OPPOSITION. I MEAN, MOST RECENTLY, OF COURSE, THE INCREASE IN THE BENEFITS WAS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE BEEN ADVOCATING FOR YEARS. SO I'M PRETTY PLEASED THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THOSE GAINS, BUT WE ARE IMPATIENT TO PUT THOSE IDEAS INTO PRACTICE OURSELVES TO ACTUALLY DO THE JOB PROPERLY. SO I THINK VOTERS, YOU KNOW, WILL GET TO A POINT WHERE THEY SAY, 'LOOK, THE GREENS HAVE GOT TO BE IN GOVERNMENT.' BUT IT'S ALL VERY WELL SAYING THOSE ARE SUCCESSES WITH PEOPLE ADOPTING MAYBE PART OF YOUR POLICY, BUT THAT'S NOT YOU IN CHARGE. THAT'S NOT YOU AT THE TABLE IN GOVERNMENT, IS IT? NO, IT'S NOT. THAT'S KIND OF MY POINT ` IS THAT ACTUALLY THE` IN FACT, I SAID IN A SPEECH LAST WEEK IN THE HOUSE THAT NATIONAL HAVE ADOPTED A KIND OF WEAK TEA VERSION OF SOME OF OUR POLICIES BUT WHERE ARE YOUR VOTES GOING TO COME FROM? WELL, LOOK, MOST VOTERS ARE JUST NZERS. THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY LABOUR'S SUPPORTERS OR NATIONAL'S SUPPORTERS. THEY'RE JUST VOTERS. BUT IT HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE. I MEAN, A DOZEN YEARS AGO, ONLY 22% OF PEOPLE VOTED FOR THE NATIONAL PARTY. SO OUR JOB IS TO CONVINCE NZERS THAT WE DESERVE THEIR VOTE. YEAH, BUT WHO ARE YOU MORE LIKELY TO TURN AROUND TO THE GREENS? UH, I THINK AT THIS POINT, THERE IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TAKING THEM PROBABLY FROM THE NATIONAL PARTY. AND WHY DO YOU SAY THAT? BECAUSE THERE IS A HUGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, AND THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ECONOMY, AND THEY'VE BEEN HOLDING THEIR NOSE AND VOTING FOR THE NATIONAL PARTY BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT THE NATIONAL PARTY IS THE ONLY PARTY THAT IS CAPABLE OF MANAGING THE ECONOMY. UM, BUT THEY'RE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT NATIONAL'S ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD. SO MY JOB OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS IS TO CONVINCE THOSE PEOPLE THAT THERE IS A CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVE GOVERNMENT IN WAITING, AND THAT IS US. SO DO YOU NEED TO DO A LITTLE SHUFFLE TO THE RIGHT TO GET THOSE VOTES, THOUGH? NO, IT'S NOT ABOUT THAT. IT'S ABOUT` SO, ACTUALLY, A MAJORITY OF NZERS ARE ACTUALLY PROGRESSIVE IN TERMS OF THEIR POLICY PRESCRIPTION AND THEIR VALUES. THERE ARE A HUGE NUMBER OF NZERS WHO SAY THAT THEY ACTUALLY ARE REALLY ATTRACTED TO THE GREEN PARTY. THEY LIKE OUR POLICIES. THEY LIKE OUR VALUES. THEY'VE JUST GOT SOME RESERVATIONS ABOUT OUR CREDIBILITY, OUR ABILITY TO MANAGE THE ECONOMY, AND MY JOB IS TO HELP OVERCOME THOSE RESERVATIONS SO THAT THEY FEEL THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY SAFELY VOTE FOR US. SO ARE THOSE`? SOME OF THOSE RESERVATIONS, THEN, TO OVERCOME, THEN, DO YOU NEED TO DITCH SOME POLICIES? NO, I DON'T` I DON'T BELIEVE I` THAT WE DO. NO, IT'S MORE ABOUT FRAMING THINGS IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ECONOMICS ARE. SO WE ACTUALLY GIVE A LOT` BUT THE THING IS IF YOU'RE NOT PREPARED TO DITCH POLICY, YOU DID SAY THAT IF YOU DON'T DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT, THEN THE RESULT IS NOT DIFFERENT. SO HOW CAN YOU STICK WITH THE SAME POLICY, STICK WITH WHAT YOU'RE DOING, AND EXPECT THE OUTCOME TO BE DIFFERENT? WELL, THAT'S ASSUMING THAT THE REASON WHY WE'RE NOT GETTING ELECTED IS BECAUSE OF OUR POLICY MIX. IT'S ACTUALLY NOT BECAUSE OF THAT. THE VAST MAJORITY OF NZERS, THEIR PRIMARY CONCERN ACTUALLY IS ABOUT THE TEAM AND THE CREDIBILITY OF THE PEOPLE, UH, WHO CAN RUN THE COUNTRY. SO WHAT THEY DO AT THE MOMENT IS THEY KIND OF GO, 'WELL, LOOKING AT IT, YOU KNOW, JOHN KEY, HE'S SORT OF PRETTY TRUSTWORTHY GUY. 'HE CAN MANAGE THE ECONOMY WELL.' UH, THAT'S THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION. THEY WILL SAY` SO ARE PEOPLE MISUNDERSTANDING YOU OR MISUNDERSTANDING THE GREEN PARTY? WHEN YOU SAY THEY LOOK AT JOHN KEY, THEY SAY HE'S TRUSTWORTHY, SO ARE THEY JUST MISUNDERSTANDING YOU? NO, NO, I THINK THAT WHAT WE NEED` SO RUSSEL AND METIRIA OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS` YEAH, IF IT'S NOT YOUR POLICY... WELL, COS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IT'S NOT YOUR POLICY. YOU DON'T NEED TO DITCH POLICY. SO IT'S JUST PERCEPTION, IS IT? NO, I THINK IT'S ABOUT BUILDING ON THE WORK OF THE LAST FEW YEARS IN THE DOMAIN OF OUR ECONOMIC CREDIBILITY AND OUR ABILITY TO, YOU KNOW, GOVERN THE COUNTRY. UH, THAT'S WHERE THE RESERVATIONS` LIKE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HEARING PEOPLE SAYING IS THAT, ACTUALLY, THEY KIND OF LIKE US. WE'RE CONNECTING ON THE LEVEL OF VALUES. WE'RE ACTUALLY CONNECTING ON THE LEVEL OF POLICY. THERE'S JUST STILL SOME RESERVATIONS THAT THEY HAVE ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO, YOU KNOW, BE IN GOVERNMENT. AND SO THAT'S WHAT I THINK THE NUMBER ONE CHALLENGE IS ` IS TO OVERCOME THOSE RESERVATIONS. SO WHAT? THEY DON'T TRUST YOU WITH THE MONEY? THE PURSE STRINGS? YEAH, I THINK THAT THE WORK THAT RUSSEL AND METIRIA HAVE DONE OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS HAS BUILT OUR ECONOMIC CREDIBILITY TO THE POINT THAT WE'VE JUST HAD THE TWO MOST SUCCESSFUL ELECTIONS THAT WE'VE EVER HAD, AND IF WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO GROW, WE'VE GOT TO BUILD ON THAT WORK. BUT YOU ACCEPT, AT THIS POINT, THAT THERE MIGHT BE A LACK OF TRUST WITH YOU HANDLING THE COUNTRY'S PURSE STRINGS? SO FOR SOME VOTERS THAT ARE CONNECTING WITH US, THEY LIKE US. WE'RE KIND OF, LIKE, THEIR SECOND-FAVOURITE PARTY. THEY HAVE SOME RESERVATIONS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER WE CAN RUN THE COUNTRY. AND SO THAT'S THE JOB. IT'S TO SAY TO THOSE PEOPLE, AND YOU KNOW, FIRST RULE OF POLITICS ` LOOK AFTER YOUR BASE, RIGHT? SO, YOU KNOW, ALL THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE TO GET WHERE WE'VE GOT OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. WHAT WE NEED TO DO NOW IS TO REACH OUT TO THAT NEXT GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY SAYING THAT THEY WOULD VOTE FOR US. THERE'S JUST A COUPLE OF BARRIERS THAT ARE GETTING IN THE WAY. OUR JOB IS TO OVERCOME THOSE BARRIERS. AT YOUR, UM, PRESS CONFERENCE, AFTER YOU WON THE CO-LEADERSHIP, YOU SAID THAT YOU WANTED TO FIND AREAS OF COMMON GROUND WITH NATIONAL. I MEAN, WHAT ARE THEY? WHAT ARE THOSE AREAS? WELL, I THINK THAT... (CLEARS THROAT) THE NUMBER-ONE PRIORITY FOR THE COUNTRY RIGHT NOW, UH, IS CLIMATE CHANGE. SO, ON YOUR SHOW TODAY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS THE CLIMATE-CHANGE TARGET. THE GOVERNMENT IS CURRENTLY CONSULTING ON THAT. UH, THEY DO HAVE TO GO TO PARIS WITH A... UH, WITH A TARGET OF SOME DESCRIPTION. AND, YOU KNOW, NZERS ARE CRYING OUT FOR CROSS-PARTY CONSENSUS ON WHAT OUR CLIMATE, YOU KNOW, CHANGE STRATEGY SHOULD BE. SO MY CHALLENGE FOR JOHN KEY IS IS HE PREPARED TO COME AND TALK TO US ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HOW WE CAN REACH, HOW WE CAN CREATE SOME KIND OF CONSENSUS AROUND THAT. SO YOU WOULD LIKE A MEETING WITH JOHN KEY TO DISCUSS WHAT YOU THINK THE TARGET NUMBER SHOULD BE? I THINK THAT WOULD BE FANTASTIC. AND HOW LIKELY IS THAT IN YOUR VIEW? UH, WELL, I'M GONNA... WHY DON'T YOU ASK JOHN KEY? (CHUCKLES) BUT YOU'RE GOING TO EXTEND THE INVITATION? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. I MEAN, I THINK THAT IN BETWEEN ELECTIONS, NZERS WANT US TO, YOU KNOW, WORK TOGETHER ON AREAS OF COMMON CAUSE. WELL, YOU DO HAVE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, SO ARE YOU KIND OF WANTING TO BREATHE LIFE BACK INTO THAT? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. SO WE HAVE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, AND IT'S KIND OF GONE OFF THE BOIL RECENTLY. SO WE DID A LOT OF GOOD WORK IN THE LAST TERM OF PARLIAMENT. UH, IT HASN'T REALLY EXTENDED SO MUCH INTO THE NEW TERM OF PARLIAMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO BREATHE NEW LIFE INTO THAT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, AND I THINK THAT THE CLIMATE CHANGE TARGET WOULD BE A GREAT CENTREPIECE FOR THAT. ALL RIGHT. WELL, YOU SAID DURING THE LEADERSHIP RACE, THAT THE FOUR CONTENDERS FOR THE CO-LEADERSHIP WERE ON THE SAME PAGE. BUT, ACTUALLY, GARETH HUGHES TOLD US ON THIS PROGRAMME THAT ANY AGREEMENT WITH NATIONAL WOULD HAPPEN WHEN HELL FROZE OVER. YOU DON'T SEEM TO TAKE THAT VIEW. NO, WELL, UH, GARETH WAS TALKING ABOUT COALITION. NO, HE SAID ANY AGREEMENT. OK, WELL, I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS INTO GARETH'S MOUTH. I MEAN, WHAT I SAID IS THAT, UH, IF IT WAS UP TO ME, I WOULD RULE OUT A COALITION WITH NATIONAL AT THE NEXT ELECTION, AND I THINK THAT WE OUGHT TO GO INTO THE NEXT ELECTION PRESENTING AN ALTERNATIVE, CREDIBLE, UH, TO... SORRY, A CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVE, UH, GOVERNMENT TO NATIONAL. UM, BUT THAT, ACTUALLY, UH, THERE ARE SOME AREAS OF COMMON GROUND THAT WE SHOULD SEEK TO FIND THOSE AREAS AND WORK TOGETHER. BUT EVEN THAT'S A BIT OF A SHIFT, ISN'T IT? BECAUSE AT THE LAST ELECTION, IT WAS HIGHLY UNLIKELY. UH, WELL, IT WAS HIGHLY UNLIKELY. I WOULD SAY IT'S PROBABLY EVEN LESS LIKELY NOW. BUT YOU SAID, YEAH, NOT RULING OUT? UH, NO, I THINK I SAID THAT I WOULD. IF IT WAS UP TO ME THAT I WOULD RULE OUT A COALITION WITH NATIONAL. YEAH, SO THAT IN ITSELF IS A SHIFT? YES. YES, IT IS. SO IS...? IS THIS ENDORSEMENT OF YOU AS CO-LEADER, IS THAT A MESSAGE FROM THE PARTY TO LABOUR TO SAY, 'STOP TAKING THE GREENS FOR GRANTED,' THEN? UH, LOOK, I THINK THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, IF YOU SPEAK TO THE DELEGATES, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD A LOT OF DIFFERENT REASONS FOR CASTING THE VOTE THAT THEY CAST. UM... WHAT DO YOU THINK? I-I THINK THAT OUR MESSAGE TO LABOUR HAS TO BE, 'WE CANNOT HAVE A REPEAT OF 2014.' RIGHT? SO WE NEED TO GO INTO 2017 WITH A MUCH MORE COHERENT, CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVE GOVERNMENT IN WAITING THAN WE WERE ABLE TO PRESENT IN 2014, AND I THINK THAT THE LABOUR PARTY UNDERSTANDS THAT. AND SO, JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU ARE RULING OUT ENTIRELY, IN YOUR VIEW, ANY KIND OF COALITION DEAL WITH NATIONAL? WELL, YEAH, PERSONALLY, BUT YOU'VE GOT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS ACTUALLY A DECISION THAT THE GREEN PARTY MEMBERS WILL MAKE` BUT YOU PERSONALLY`? YOU PERSONALLY SAYING LABOUR SHOULDN'T TAKE YOU FOR GRANTED, BUT NATIONAL, YOU'RE RULING OUT? I CANNOT SEE HOW WE CAN CREDIBLY, UH, FORM A GOVERNMENT WITH NATIONAL, GIVEN THE, YOU KNOW, HISTORY THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST FEW YEARS. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING ME. WELL, JUST AHEAD ON THE NATION, THE STATE HOUSE SELL-OFF. HOW KEEN ARE MAORI TO PICK UP THE REINS FROM THE GOVERNMENT? AND IT'S NZ'S TURN TO DECIDE ON ITS GREENHOUSE GAS TARGET, SO HOW DO WE FIND A BALANCE BETWEEN THE ECONOMY AND THE ENVIRONMENT? OUR REPORT LUCY WARHURST TAKES A LOOK. WELCOME BACK. NATIONAL PLANS TO TRANSFER UP TO 2000 STATE HOUSES TO COMMUNITY PROVIDERS THIS YEAR, PROMISING TENANTS THEY WILL GET BETTER SERVICES FROM NEW LOCAL OWNERS. SOME OF THOSE POTENTIAL BUYERS ARE IWI AND HAPU. AS THE FIRST HOMES GO ON THE BLOCK IN TAURANGA AND INVERCARGILL, NEGOTIATIONS ARE ALREADY UNDERWAY. BUT ARE IWI REALLY LINING UP TO BUY, AS THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS, AND WHAT DO THEY WANT IN RETURN FOR TAKING OVER WHAT USED TO BE THE STATE'S RESPONSIBILITY? IWI LEADER HAAMI PIRIPI IS WITH ME. TENA KOE. KIA ORA. THE GOVERNMENT DOES SAY THAT IWI GROUPS ARE LINING UP TO BUY STATE HOUSES, SO ARE YOU EAGER INVESTORS? OH, WE'RE EAGER, BUT I DON'T KNOW ABOUT INVESTORS. HOUSING IS A TOP PRIORITY FOR US. THE CHILD POVERTY REPORT PUT OUT BY THE CHILDREN'S COMMISSIONER SOME YEARS AGO IDENTIFIED HOUSING AS THE SINGLE-MOST DETERMINANT FACTOR IN CHILD POVERTY, AND SO WE APPRECIATE THE IMPORTANT OF HOUSING ` A WARM, SECURE ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR PEOPLE TO LIVE IN ` AND WE KNOW THAT A LOT OF OUR PEOPLE CURRENTLY LIVE IN SUBSTANDARD HOUSING AND STRUGGLE IN THE HOUSING SECTOR, SO WE'RE REALLY OBLIGED TO GET INVOLVED AND DO THE BEST WE CAN TO HELP OUR PEOPLE INTO A HOUSING SITUATION. YOU SAY OBLIGED, SO DO YOU HAVE RESERVATIONS? OR YOU'RE DOING THIS BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO RATHER THAN YOU WANT TO? I THINK THERE IS DEFINITELY MORE THAT. UM, WHEN THE SALVATION ARMY TURNED DOWN AN OPPORTUNITY, THEN YOU KNOW IT'S POSSIBLY A LEMON. (CHUCKLES) BUT BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE ARE MAORI AND PACIFIC ISLAND, WE REALLY HAVE AN OBLIGATION, I THINK, TO GET IN THERE AND DO THE BEST WE CAN TO IMPROVE THE SYSTEM. WE KNOW THAT THE GOVERNMENT HASN'T DONE VERY WELL SO FAR. SO YOU SAY IT COULD BE A LEMON. HOW SO? WHAT WORRIES YOU? WELL, UM, IT'S THE VERY LOW END OF THE SPECTRUM IN TERMS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S HOUSING PORTFOLIO. IN SOME WAYS, IT'S THE 'TOO HARD' BASKET IN MANY WAYS. UM, UH, THE TENANCIES, THE BUILDINGS THEMSELVES, UM, THEIR LOCATION, AND IWI HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN HOUSING FOR A LONG TIME OURSELVES, MAINLY IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING, RETIREMENT HOUSING, BUT WE HAVEN'T REALLY BEEN A BIG PLAYER IN SOCIAL HOUSING. AND I THINK THE OPPORTUNITY NOW FOR US TO DO THAT IS GOOD. BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT SOCIAL HOUSING IS A PHENOMENA OF A SOCIO-ECONOMIC PARADIGM ` POSTMODERN CAPITALISM AND YOU GET THIS SOCIAL HOUSING PHENOMENA RIGHT AROUND THE WORLD, AND IT EXISTS IN EVERY CITY, IN EVERY ECONOMY, SO THERE'S AN OBLIGATION BY THE GOVERNMENT. SO YOU'RE WORRIED, ARE YOU, ABOUT ENDING UP WITH BAD HOUSES AND CHALLENGING TENANTS? YES, YES, AND BASICALLY, IF THE MARKETS HAD TO CRASH AND THE VALUE OF THE HOUSES WENT DOWN, WE'D MAKE A SIGNIFICANT LOSS. IT'S ALREADY A VERY MARGINAL OPERATION, SO WE WANT TO APPROACH THE ISSUE NATIONALLY AS A COLLECTIVE OF IWI, SET SOME BENCHMARKS WITH GOVERNMENT FOR TRANSFER. AND I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT, BUT WE, THE NATION, HAVE TALKED TO A FEW PEOPLE IN THIS SECTOR, AND THEY SAY THAT ANYONE TAKING THIS ON MUST HAVE ROCKS IN THEIR HEAD. YES, AND THIS IS YOUR PEOPLE, AND WE HAVE A LOT TO OFFER AS WELL, UH, OUR PEOPLE. I THINK WE CAN DO A MUCH BETTER JOB, JUST EVEN ON THE FACE OF IT. WE HAVE A... WE HAVE A STRONG COMMITMENT. WE HAVE RESOURCES THAT WE CAN BRING TO BEAR AND SHOULD BRING TO BEAR T-TO DEVELOP HOUSING SOLUTIONS FOR OUR PEOPLE. SO YOU'VE IDENTIFIED, I SUPPOSE, SOME OF THE BAGGAGE ASSOCIATED WITH TAKING THIS ON. SO WHAT KIND OF DISCOUNT WOULD YOU EXPECT ON THESE HOUSES? WELL, AS I SAID, THE PHENOMENA OF SOCIAL HOUSING AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEPRIVATION IS SUCH THAT THERE IS AN ONGOING GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY TO WORK WITH IT, TO ADDRESS IT. SO THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T REALLY ABDICATE ITS RESPONSIBILITY JUST BY SELLING` IT'S NOT JUST A FEW HOUSES. THERE'S A WHOLE DECILE THAT COMES WITH THESE HOUSES. THERE'S A WHOLE SOCIO-ECONOMIC PHENOMENON THAT COMES WITH THEM, AND SO THAT CAN'T BE IGNORED. AND I THINK IN TERMS OF ADDRESSING HOUSING AS A FOCUS, THERE'S MANY OPPORTUNITIES FOR MULTIPLE OUTCOMES THROUGH A HOUSING FOCUS, AND SO I THINK WE CAN ADD TREMENDOUS VALUE TO OTHER ASPECTS OF SOCIAL SERVICE DELIVERY, WRAP-AROUND SERVICES WHICH WE'RE ALREADY VERY MUCH INVOLVED IN OURSELVES AS IWI. SO WE CAN GET SOME GOOD COST EFFICIENCIES THERE. SO THE ACTUAL HOUSES, THOUGH, THAT THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO SELL OFF, AS IT SAYS, HOW MUCH WOULD YOU EXPECT TO PAY FOR THOSE HOUSES? MARKET PRICES? WELL, WE WOULD ARGUE THAT THE MARKET PRICE IS ZERO, BECAUSE A) THERE'S AN ONGOING OBLIGATION BY GOVERNMENT TO THESE FAMILIES, AND THAT OBLIGATION WILL CONTINUE ANYWAY, IN TERMS OF ITS RESPONSIBILITIES, AND B) THE BUILDINGS THEMSELVES ARE THE LAST BITS OF IT` SO, HANG ON. THE MARKET PRICE, YOU SAID, IS ZERO. SO ARE YOU SAYING, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THAT IF YOU TAKE THIS ON, IWI WANTS THE HOUSES FOR FREE? THAT WOULD BE OUR STARTING POINT, BECAUSE WE'RE TAKING ON` < FREE? FREE. WELL, NOT SO MUCH FREE. IT'S AN INVESTMENT ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT. SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT THIS IS NOT AN ASSET SALE. THIS IS AN INVESTMENT IN THE POPULATION, AN INVESTMENT IN FAMILIES, AN INVESTMENT IN HOUSING, AND IN ORDER TO MAKE AN INVESTMENT AS A GOVERNMENT, YOU HAVE TO DISCOUNT THE PRICE TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT INVESTMENT WORKS, THE FORMULA THAT YOU PUT IN PLACE WORKS. AND FOR THE FORMULA TO WORK FOR US, OUR BEGINNING POINT IS A ZERO VALUATION, BECAUSE THE OUTCOMES WILL FAR OUTWEIGH THE COST. AGAIN, COS PEOPLE WE'VE SPOKEN TO SAY THAT THEY THINK MAYBE 30% TO 70% DISCOUNT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE. WHY DO YOU THINK ZERO FREE HOUSES IS THE RIGHT PRICE? COS WE'RE PREPARED TO INVEST. WE'RE PREPARED TO CO-INVEST. WE'RE PREPARED TO UTILISE OUR OWN ASSETS, OUR OWN LAND, OUR OWN RESOURCES TO CONTINUE TO RESPOND TO HOUSING NEEDS. SO WE WOULDN'T JUST STOP THERE IN THE PURCHASE OF SOCIAL HOUSING. WE WOULD MOVE THAT SOCIAL HOUSING INTO AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH TRANSITION OF PEOPLE INTO HOME OWNERSHIP. WE WOULD BUILD NEW DEVELOPMENTS AROUND SOCIAL HOUSING. SOMETHING MORE INNOVATIVE, PERHAPS. BUT COULDN'T YOU DO THAT ANYWAY? COULDN'T YOU BUILD LOW-COST HOUSING ON YOUR LAND ANYWAY TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE INTO HOME OWNERSHIP? I DON'T THINK SO. NO, I DON'T THINK SO BECAUSE IF WE HAD TO DO THAT, IT WOULD BE ALL BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD BEGINNING AT SQUARE ONE, WHERE IN THIS SITUATION HERE, WE HAVE AN EXISTING PORTFOLIO, EXISTING HOMES, SOME OF WHICH ARE ALREADY ON MAORI LAND, SO THEY'VE ALL GOT VARYING FACTORS AROUND THEM. SOME OF THEM HAVE FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSALS, AND IWI HAVE GOT AGREEMENT IN THEIR TREATY SETTLEMENTS, SO THEY'RE ALL FAIRLY UNIQUE. EACH IWI IN EACH AREA IS FAIRLY UNIQUE. IT REQUIRES A UNIQUE FORMULA. WELL, BILL ENGLISH HAS SAID THAT STATE HOUSES WON'T BE SOLD UNLESS THE TAXPAYER GETS A FAIR AND REASONABLE VALUE. SO DO YOU THINK GIVING THEM AWAY FOR FREE IS FAIR VALUE TO THE TAXPAYER? YES, I DO, BECAUSE WHAT WILL HAPPEN, THEN, IS THAT WE WOULD CONTINUE TO INVEST IN A SECTOR. THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE ABLE TO LET US GET ON WITH IT. IT WOULD HAVE INVESTED ENOUGH IN THE BUSINESS TO ALLOW US TO GET ON WITH IT, AND I THINK WE'RE THE BEST PEOPLE TO DO IT. WE'VE GOT A STRONG COMMITMENT. WE HAVE RESOURCES. WE HAVE WRAP-AROUND SERVICES WE CAN BRING TO BEAR, AND THERE ARE PEOPLE. SO, YEAH, I THINK THEY WOULD DEFINITELY GET VALUE OUT OF IT. BUT WOULDN'T THEY HAVE TO OFFER EVERYONE THAT DEAL, THEN? OTHER COMMUNITY HOUSING, UM, ORGANISATIONS? WOULDN'T THEY HAVE TO OFFER THE HOUSES TO THEM FOR FREE AS WELL, OR DO YOU THINK THAT THIS IS A DEAL THAT SHOULD JUST APPLY TO IWI? WELL, I CAN'T THINK OF ANY OTHER ORGANISATION THAT WOULD INVEST IN THE SAME WAY THAT WE WOULD AND HAVE THE SAME SORT OF COMMITMENT THAT WE HAVE. BECAUSE THE SALVATION ARMY'S THE BEST EXAMPLE. HERE YOU ARE, EVEN THE WORK OF GOD, THEY'RE BAULKING AT BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A DIFFICULT SITUATION TO BE IN. < SO IWI ONLY, BASICALLY? IWI-ONLY DEAL? I WOULD SAY THAT IWI ARE THE BEST-PLACED ENTITIES TO BE ABLE TO DO THE BUSINESS. YEP. SO DOES THE GOVERNMENT KNOW YOU WANT THESE HOUSES FOR FREE? THEY KNOW WE WANT THE HOUSES, AND THEY KNOW THAT WE WILL SIT DOWN AND NEGOTIATE WITH THEM, AND PART OF OUR RAISON D'ETRE, IF YOU LIKE, IS THE FACT THAT WE TAKE A NATIONAL APPROACH. WE SOLVE THE PROBLEM NATIONALLY, BUT WE STILL HAVE A DIVERSE ENOUGH GROUPING OF 65 IWI IN OUR FORUM TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS IT LOCALLY. SO YOU WANT A BLANKET DEAL NEGOTIATED FOR ALL IWI ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO GET THESE HOUSES FOR FREE? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE AIMING FOR? THAT'S ONE OF THE BENCHMARKS, YEAH. AND THAT WILL THEN ENABLE THE INDIVIDUAL IWI TO BE ABLE TO APPLY THEIR OWN RESOURCES TO THE FORMULA. AND I GUESS, OBVIOUSLY, IT'S A NEGOTIATION. IT'S NOT A WISH LIST, AND THE GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE ITS PERSPECTIVE, AND WE WILL HAVE OUR PERSPECTIVE. BUT WE THINK THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT REGARDS THIS AS AN INVESTMENT, NOT AS AN ASSET SALE, AND COMMITTED ITSELF TO THE FUTURE OF PEOPLE WHO NEED HOUSING SOLUTIONS, THEN WE ARE THE PARTNER FOR THEM. AND THE BEST WAY TO DO IT IS TO SPONSOR US INTO IT BY ENABLING US TO UTILISE MONEY WE WOULD NORMALLY HAVE USED TO MAKE A CAPITAL PURCHASE TO INVEST` REINVEST IN THE SECTOR. BRIEFLY, BECAUSE WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME, I JUST WANT TO KNOW, YOU'VE IDENTIFIED THE FACT THAT THESE HOUSES, SOME OF THEM NEED A LOT OF MAINTENANCE. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INVESTING YOUR OWN MONEY. BUT WOULD YOU BE LOOKING TO THE GOVERNMENT TO GIVE YOU LOW-INTEREST LOANS AS WELL TO WORK ON THIS PROJECT? IT'S CERTAINLY AN OPTION, BUT OUR STARTING POINT IS THEY HAVE NO VALUE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING ME THIS MORNING. WELL, UP NEXT, OUR PANEL ` SIMON WILSON, BEN THOMAS AND MORGAN GODFERY. BUT FIRST ` JEREMY CORBETT AND PAUL EGO LOOK AT THE NEW BRAIN DRAIN IN POLITICS IN 60 SECONDS. THE BIG QUESTION THIS WEEK ` WHY ARE THERE SO MANY SHEEP IN THE KORU LOUNGE THESE DAYS? WELL, THEY'RE BIG AIR TRAVELLERS NOW, JEREMY. A LOT OF THEM FLYING TO SAUDI ARABIA FOR THE BIG BUCKS. THE OLD SHEEP DRAIN. IT'S CAUSING A FEW PROBLEMS TOO WON'T LISTEN TO THE SAFETY BRIEFING WHEN THEY'RE SITTING IN THE EXIT ROW? NO, IT'S MORE THE AIR CREW FALLING ASLEEP WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO COUNT THE PASSENGERS. BUT A SHEEP FARM IN SAUDI ARABIA? IT'S A BIT HOT THERE, ISN'T IT? SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING DODGY'S GOING ON. NONSENSE, PAUL. THAT'D BE LIKE SAYING IT'S DODGY HOLDING A FOOTBALL TOURNAMENT IN THAT PART OF THE WORLD. THE OTHER BIG QUESTION THIS WEEK ` CAN YOU HANG YOUR LAUNDRY ON A HIGH-TENSION POWER LINE? YES, ABSOLUTELY, IF IT'S IN YOUR BACKYARD. THE BONUS TOO, OF COURSE, YOU CAN STAND ON THE HEADSTONES TO REACH IT. PAULIE, JUST WONDERED, MATE ` IS THERE ANY CHANCE OF SLIPPING A THIRD CHAIR IN HERE? JUST ASKING FOR A FRIEND. YOU'RE BEING A BIT BRASH, MATE. WHO IS IT? OH, SOMEONE A BIT OLDER. WHAT? OLDER THAN YOU? HOW'S THAT EVEN POSSIBLE? WELL, HE'D ADD A BIT OF COLOUR TO THE SHOW. WELL, WHAT COLOUR? WELL, ALL THE COLOURS OF THE BIG GAY RAINBOW. OH, IT'S NOT THAT METROSEXUAL WELLINGTON-BASED MP WHO DOESN'T DRIVE, IS IT? TREVOR MALLARD? NO. OH GOOD. HEY, I SEE OUR PAY RISE HAS BEEN COME THROUGH. YEP. ONLY 1.52%, THOUGH. THAT'S ALL RIGHT, MATE. WE'LL MAKE THE REST BACK WITH LIMO RIDES. OH YEAH. WE CAN JUST DO A WHOLE LOT OF U-TURNS LIKE ANDREW LITTLE. BOTH GIGGLE THIS IS THE NATION. AND IT'S BEING DESCRIBED AS THE MOST IMPORTANT GLOBAL SUMMIT OF THE YEAR. AFTER KYOTO FIZZLED AND COPENHAGEN FAILED, PRESSURE IS BUILDING AHEAD OF THIS YEAR'S CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE IN PARIS. WHILE IT'S SIX MONTHS AWAY, COUNTRIES ARE ANNOUNCING THEIR TARGETS NOW, AND THE UNITED STATES IS LEANING ON MANY, NZ INCLUDED, TO STEP UP. THE GOVERNMENT HERE IS NEARING THE END OF ITS PUBLIC CONSULTATION, SO SHOULD WE DO MORE TO CUT EMISSIONS, AND IF SO, HOW? LUCY WARHURST GOES IN SEARCH OF COWS, CARS AND CARBON SINKS. NZ IS AN UNUSUAL CASE. ALMOST HALF OF OUR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS COME FROM AGRICULTURE. IT'S SERIOUS BUSINESS, AND IT'S SERIOUSLY POLLUTING THE ATMOSPHERE, WITH POTENTIAL CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES. IN A SENSE, IT'S VERY EASY TO REDUCE EMISSIONS ` JUST STOP PRODUCING FOOD. BUT IT'S NOT EXACTLY AN ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION. HERE AT THE AGRICULTURAL GREENHOUSE GAS RESEARCH CENTRE IN PALMERSTON NORTH, THEY'RE WORKING ON WAYS TO REDUCE METHANE EMISSIONS THROUGH FEED, VACCINES, INHIBITORS AND BREEDING. IN HERE, WE CAN MEASURE THE AMOUNT OF METHANE THAT ANY ANIMAL FORMS AND WE CAN COMPARE THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENTS. A TECHNICAL SOLUTION ON ITS OWN IS NOT THE ANSWER. IT'S REALLY A VIABLE, COST EFFECTIVE, PRACTICAL SOLUTION YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, AND THAT DOES TAKE TIME. BUT SCIENTISTS SAY TIME IS RUNNING OUT. NZ HAS THE FIFTH-HIGHEST PER CAPITA EMISSIONS IN THE OECD. IN FACT, PER HEAD OF POPULATION, WE EMIT MORE THAN DOUBLE CHINA'S EMISSIONS. IF WE DON'T CUT GLOBAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, TEMPERATURES ARE ESTIMATED TO RISE BY 4 DEGREES CELSIUS BY THE END OF THE CENTURY, BRINGING INCREASED FLOODING, DROUGHTS AND WILDFIRES. WE'RE COUNTING ON YOU. TO CURB CLIMATE CHANGE, WORLD LEADERS WILL MEET IN PARIS IN DECEMBER IN SEARCH OF A NEW AGREEMENT TO REPLACE THE 1997 KYOTO PROTOCOL. MANY COUNTRIES HAVE ALREADY ANNOUNCED THEIR GOALS, AND FOLLOWING A SERIES OF PUBLIC MEETINGS, NZ'S NOW PREPARING TO SET ITS TARGET FOR 2025 OR 2030. THIS CONSULTATION'S BEEN ABOUT GETTING VIEWS FROM NZERS THAT'LL FORM PART OF THE ADVICE THAT GOES TO MINISTERS FOR THAT INTENDED NATIONALLY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION. ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE CALLING ON NZ TO DIG DEEP. WE SHOULD BE AIMING FOR 40% REDUCTION. AT THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, 40% BY 2030. WE SHOULD DEFINITELY BE SETTING AN AMBITIOUS TARGET. I THINK THEY SHOULD BE AIMING FOR A ZERO EMISSIONS TARGET. BUT THERE'S ALSO AN ELEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL PEER PRESSURE. NZ'S PAYING ATTENTION TO THE OTHER COMMITMENTS COUNTRIES HAVE MADE AND WILL MAKE BETWEEN NOW AND OCTOBER. THERE WILL BE A PROCESS RUN BY THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE SECRETARIAT TO WORK OUT WHAT THE LEVEL OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS THAT ARE BEING PLEDGED FROM VARIOUS COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD IN OCTOBER, AND WE'LL BE PAYING ATTENTION TO THAT. LAST YEAR, CHINA AND THE US STRUCK A DEAL, AND IT'S SET TO BE A GAME CHANGER. THE US IS TO CUT NET GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY AROUND 27% BELOW 2005 LEVELS BY 2025, WHILE CHINA'S COMMITTED TO STOP INCREASING ITS CO2 EMISSIONS BY 2030. AND IT'S HOPED THE TWO BIGGEST EMITTERS CAN INJECT MOMENTUM INTO THE GLOBAL CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS. CERTAINLY IT'LL HELP. DOES IT SOLVE THE CLIMATE PROBLEM? NO. IS IT AN IMPORTANT STEP? YES. BARACK OBAMA IS INVESTING A LOT OF POLITICAL CAPITAL IN A PARIS AGREEMENT AS A LEGACY OF HIS PRESIDENCY, SO FOR ALLIES LIKE NZ, THE HEAT IS ON. PROFESSOR CHRIS FIELD IS A US SCIENTIST AND A WORKING GROUP CO-CHAIR OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE. HE SAYS THERE'S STILL SOME SERIOUS WORK TO DO. IN THE LONG RUN, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DRIVE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ALL THE WAY TO ZERO, SOMETIME DURING THE 21ST CENTURY. DOES THAT MEAN WE KNOW HOW TO DO ALL THE STEPS NOW? NO, WE DON'T. BUT WE DO HAVE SOME OF THE ANSWERS, INCLUDING PLANTING MORE TREES AND NEW TECHNOLOGY. TRANSPORT IS THE FASTEST GROWING SOURCE OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN NZ, GENERATING AROUND 40% OF OUR CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS AND 17% OF OUR TOTAL GREENHOUSE GASES. PART OF A CLEANER, GREENER FUTURE LIES HERE ` IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES. THE AVERAGE CAR EMITS 2000KG OF CARBON EACH YEAR. THIS CAR CREATES ZERO EMISSIONS. SO COULD IT BE THE FUTURE OF GUILT-FREE DRIVING? EVERY CAR MANUFACTURER'S VIRTUALLY STATED THAT OVER TIME THEY'LL HAVE A PETROL A DIESEL AND AN ELECTRIC. WE'RE SORT OF AT THE MACBOOK1 STAGE OF EV DEVELOPMENT IN NZ, BUT IT'S COMING. IT'S GROWING. EACH MONTH THERE'S MORE, SO IT'LL GROW. THERE ARE FEWER THAN 600 EVS ON OUR ROADS AT THE MOMENT, BUT CHAIRMAN OF DRIVE ELECTRIC, MARK GILBERT, SAYS IT'S A NO-BRAINER FOR KIWIS. GIVEN NZ'S COMPETENCE IN RENEWABLE ENERGY, IF I SAY TO YOU THE PRICE OF A LITRE OF ELECTRICITY IS 30C, AND YOU COMPARE THAT TO THE PRICE OF PETROL TODAY, YOU'RE PAYING SEVEN TIMES MORE FOR FOSSIL FUEL. IT'S ALL IMPORTED. RENEWABLE ENERGY'S HOME-GROWN. NOT EVERYONE'S GONNA BE ABLE TO AFFORD AN ELECTRIC SUPER CAR. THE RANGE OF PRICES ` PROBABLY THIS IS AT THE TOP END ` BUT YOU CAN START AT AROUND $25,000, LOOKING FOR NISSAN LEAFS OR OTHERS ON TRADE ME. INNOVATION FOR THE PLANET. INNOVATION FOR ALL. NZ CURRENTLY HAS A LONG-TERM TARGET OF REDUCING ITS NET EMISSIONS TO 50% BELOW 1990 LEVELS BY 2050. HOWEVER, OUR GROSS EMISSIONS HAVE INCREASED BY 25% SINCE 1990 AND ARE PROJECTED TO RISE SUBSTANTIALLY FURTHER. WE'RE GOING BACKWARDS. AND AS WE START TO HARVEST FORESTS PLANTED IN THE 1990S, THAT'LL ONLY GET WORSE. SO HOW DO WE TURN IT AROUND? RESEARCH CENTRE DIRECTOR DR HARRY CLARK SAYS IT'S A CONUNDRUM. WE'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE CLOSE TO 10 BILLION PEOPLE ON THE PLANET. FOOD PRODUCTION HAS TO INCREASE. HOW DO YOU REDUCE EMISSIONS AGAINST A BACKGROUND OF INCREASING FOOD SUPPLY? FROM A NZ PERSPECTIVE IT IS CRUCIAL THAT WE FIND TECHNOLOGIES THAT REDUCE EMISSIONS WITHOUT REDUCING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR, AND COST IS A BIG FACTOR IN ANY DECISIONS THE GOVERNMENT MAKES IN SETTING OUR EMISSIONS TARGET. IT ESTIMATES HOUSEHOLDS WOULD BE NEARLY $1300 A YEAR WORSE OFF WITH A 5% REDUCTION AND $1800 OUT OF POCKET FOR A 40% REDUCTION. THAT'S DUE TO WAGES GROWING MORE SLOWLY IN LINE WITH THE ECONOMY AND THE RISING PRICE OF FUEL AND ELECTRICITY. IT'S ALSO SET TO COST THE ECONOMY UPWARDS OF $3.5 BILLION. THOSE COSTINGS ARE RIDICULOUS. THEY'VE SAID WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANY CARBON SEQUESTRATION FROM FORESTRY, WHICH IS ABSURD. OF COURSE WE WILL. THEY'VE PUT NOT PRICE ON AGRICULTURE, SO AGRICULTURE GETS A COMPLETE SUBSIDY FROM THE TAXPAYER. AND THEY'VE SAID THAT THERE'S NO INNOVATION IN THE ECONOMY. RUSSEL NORMAN SAYS CUTTING EMISSIONS WILL PROBABLY COST US NOTHING. THE COST OF DOING NOTHING, HOWEVER, HE SAYS IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MATTER. TREASURY HAVE ANALYSED THE COST OF INACTION, AND THEY SAY THAT IF NZ DOES NOT CUT IT'S GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, IT'LL COST UP TO $52 BILLION IN ORDER TO BUY ALL OF THE CARBON CREDITS OFFSHORE. AND PAYING OTHER COUNTRIES TO REDUCE THEIR CO2 ON OUR BEHALF WILL BE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT'S PLAN TO MEET TARGETS. IT'LL HAVE TO BE. SINCE 1990, NZ'S TOTAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS HAVE MORE THAN DOUBLED. WHILE THERE ARE PLANS TO INCREASE RENEWABLE ENERGY AND FORESTRY SINKS, THAT JUST WON'T CUT IT. GUY BEATSON ARGUES IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW WE GET THERE. THIS IS A GLOBAL PROBLEM. THE PLANET DOESN'T REALLY CARE WHERE THOSE EMISSIONS ARE REDUCED, SO LONG AS THEY'RE REDUCED. IF THEY'RE CREDIBLE CARBON REDUCTION UNITS, THEN I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE THING TO CONSIDER, BUT IF EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD TAKES THAT APPROACH, OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T SOLVE ANYTHING. OTHERS PUT IT MORE BLUNTLY. IT'S A COP OUT. WE'VE GOT TO REDUCE OUR OWN EMISSIONS. RALPH SIMS IS A PROFESSOR OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AT MASSEY UNIVERSITY. HE ALSO CO-CHAIRS A WORKING GROUP OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE. CARBON DIOXIDE IS THE KEY GAS. AGRICULTURAL EMISSIONS ARE IMPORTANT, BUT THEY'RE SHORT-LIVED COMPARED WITH CARBON DIOXIDE, AND OUR CARBON DIOXIDE IS THE ONE THAT'S INCREASING MOST. SO THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD BE TARGETING. CHINA AND US ARE BY FAR THE BIGGEST EMITTERS OF GREENHOUSE GASES. TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. THIS IS CHINA ` 29%. THE US ` 15%. THE EU ` 10%. INDIA ` 7%. AND RUSSIA ` 5%. THIS IS THE REST OF THE WORLD. NZ IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS ` AROUND 0.15%. SO CAN WE EVEN MAKE A DIFFERENCE, ANYWAY? SPEAKING ON THE NATION AHEAD OF THE UN SUMMIT IN PERU IN DECEMBER, CLIMATE CHANGE MINISTER TIM GROSER, SAYS NZ'S UNLIKELY TO STICK ITS NECK OUT. AS SIR PETER GLUCKMAN, LEADING A TEAM OF CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS, POINTED OUT, THE REAL POINT OF NZ DOING SOMETHING IS SIMPLY` IT'S POLITICAL ECONOMY CONTRIBUTION. IT'S LIKE SAYING, 'WHAT'S THE POINT OF VOTING?' I MEAN YOURS IS ONLY ONE VOTE IN A COUPLE OF MILLION, SO WHY WOULD YOU BOTHER VOTING? IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME WITH CLIMATE CHANGE. EVERYBODY NEEDS TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION AND EVERY CONTRIBUTION COUNTS. THOUGH THAT MIGHT BE EASIER SAID THAN DONE. DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ARE SAYING, 'WE HAVEN'T CAUSED THIS PROBLEM. 'YOU GUYS IN THE OECD, THE WESTERN COUNTRIES, 'YOU'VE CREATED IT BURNING YOUR COAL AND OIL AND GAS OVER THE PAST 100 YEARS, 'AND SO YOU SOLVE IT AND WE'LL COME ALONG AND TRY AND HELP.' WE'VE SEEN DRAMATIC PROGRESS IN TERMS OF COUNTRY WILLINGNESS TO MAKE COMMITMENTS, EVEN WITHIN THE LAST FEW MONTHS. I THINK THAT THE LANDSCAPE IS RAPIDLY SHIFTING. I PERSONALLY HOPE IT'S SHIFTING IN A WAY THAT WILL ENCOURAGE A WIDE RANGE OF STAKEHOLDERS TO BE VERY AMBITIOUS. 38 OF 196 COUNTRIES HAVE ALREADY MADE THEIR COMMITMENTS. THE EU ` THE WORLD'S THIRD BIGGEST EMITTER ` HAS AGREED TO A CUT OF AT LEAST 40% FROM 1990 LEVELS BY 2030. HUNDREDS OF MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATES ARE EVEN TALKING UP THEIR ROLE IN REDUCING EMISSIONS. BUT MANY MORE, LIKE FOURTH PLACED INDIA, ARE FAR MORE HESITANT AND IT'S FAR FROM CLEAR WHAT THEY'LL PUT FORWARD. NZ HAS COME UP WITH THE PLAN THAT COULD BREAK A POLITICAL LOGJAM AND SEAL A DEAL, ALLOWING EACH COUNTRY TO SET ITS OWN NON-LEGALLY BINDING TARGET ACCORDING TO ITS INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES. THE IDEA OF THE PARIS MEETING IS THAT WE TRY AND GET A CONTRIBUTION FROM EACH COUNTRY BUT ALLOWING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TO GROW AND HAVE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, WHILST THE DEVELOPED COUNTRIES SHOULD BE DOING MORE AND TRYING TO MAKE AMENDS FOR WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST. WHICH ASKS MORE OF YOU AND I. AND BECAUSE IT COULD BE FIVE TO 10 YEARS BEFORE WE CAN PUT A SERIOUS DENT IN OUR METHANE EMISSIONS, ANY PROMISE WE MAKE IN PARIS WILL HAVE TO BE DRIVEN BY CUTTING CARBON. IN THIS DOCUMENT THAT GOES OUT FOR INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, WE SHOULD BE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO REDUCE OUR CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS BY 20% BY 2030 BY DOING THIS AND THIS AND THIS, AND WE KNOW THAT IT'S TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE TO DO IT. AND AFFORDABLE? AND AFFORDABLE, BECAUSE YOU SAVE MONEY AT THE SAME TIME. THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS A DEFINING CHALLENGE OF THE 21ST CENTURY. WE'RE ALREADY SEEING IMPACTS, THEY'RE ALREADY MAKING A DIFFERENCE, AND THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT INVESTMENTS NOW AND ADAPTATION COULD MAKE US BETTER PREPARED FOR THE IMPACTS THAT CAN'T BE AVOIDED. AND PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS CLOSE ON WEDNESDAY, SO YOU'VE STILL GOT TIME, AND THE GOVERNMENT'S EXPECTED TO ANNOUNCE ITS DECISION IN THE NEXT MONTH OR TWO. WE'LL HAVE ANALYSIS FROM OUR PANEL AFTER THE BREAK, INCLUDING ON HAAMI PIRIPI'S BOLD IDEAS. IN THE MEANTIME, HERE'S OUR PICK OF THIS WEEK'S BEST TWEETS. FOREIGN MINISTER MURRAY MCCULLY THIS WEEK CAME UNDER FIRE FOR A MULTIMILLION DOLLAR AGRIBUSINESS HUB BUILT TO PACIFY LEGAL THREATS FROM A SAUDI BUSINESSMAN. COUNCIL OF TRADE UNIONS PRESIDENT HELEN KELLY WONDERED IF A SIMILAR STRATEGY MIGHT WORK FOR THE STALLED HEALTH AND SAFETY LEGISLATION. JORDAN MCCLUSKEY THOUGHT THE SCANDAL COULDN'T GET ANY WORSE UNLESS SHEEP TAILS WERE INVOLVED. AND MAURICE WILLIAMSON ALLEGEDLY TRIED TO DEFECT TO THE ACT PARTY BUT ENDED UP AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LAKE. WELL, IT WAS ANOTHER BIG POLITICAL WEEK. TO DIGEST IT, WE HAVE OUR PANEL HERE TO HELP US TODAY ` LEFT-WING BLOGGER AND UNIONIST MORGAN GODFERY, METRO MAGAZINE EDITOR SIMON WILSON, AND FORMER NATIONAL PARTY PRESS SECRETARY AND NBR POLITICS EDITOR BEN THOMAS. THANKS FOR JOINING US THIS MORNING. MORGAN, HAAMI PIRIPI'S SAYING THERE STRAIGHT OUT HE WANTS STATE HOUSES; IWI SHOULD GET STATE HOUSES FOR FREE. ANY`? I THINK HE'S RIGHT THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T BE FRAMING THIS AS AN ASSET SALE. THEY SHOULD BE FRAMING IT AS AN INVESTMENT IN 'SOCIAL HOUSING'. UM, THE GOVERNMENT'S ALREADY PUTTING IN PLACE A DEVOLUTION STRATEGY FOR IWI TO COME FORWARD, SO IF IWI REGISTER AS SOCIAL LANDLORDS, THEY CAN ACCESS A SUBSIDY, SO THEY WOULD CHARGE, SAY, A MAORI TENANT BELOW MARKET RATES, AND THEN THE GOVERNMENT WOULD TOP UP THAT RATE UP TO MARKET LEVEL. SO THERE ARE STRATEGIES ALREADY IN PLACE, SO FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE THE NEXT STEP AND THEN, UM, DEVOLVE THOSE HOUSES THEMSELVES I THINK IS PRETTY SENSIBLE. BUT, BEN, BILL ENGLISH HAS SAID THAT THIS IS NOT GONNA HAPPEN, THEY'RE NOT GONNA GET RID OF THESE HOUSES UNLESS IT'S A GOOD DEAL, A FAIR DEAL AND REASONABLE VALUE TO THE TAXPAYER, SO IS THIS PIE IN THE SKY TO THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET THEM FOR FREE? WELL, I THINK MORGAN'S RIGHT. YOU DON'T LOOK AT THIS AS AN ASSET SALE. THE DISPOSAL AND THEN REINVESTMENT IN STATE AND SOCIAL HOUSING IS ACTUALLY JUST A NATURAL PART OF THE PORTFOLIO, AND IT'S KIND OF BEING TWEAKED AND REFINED, UM, IN THE SOCIAL HOUSING REFORMS. SO, YOU KNOW, SORT OF IMPLICIT IN THAT IS THAT YOUR REINVESTMENT OPTIONS ARE QUITE LIMITED IF YOU GET ZERO DOLLARS FOR THE SALE, AND SO I THINK IT'S PRETTY UNLIKELY THAT THAT'S, YOU KNOW` WE SEE FORMER STATE HOUSES GOING FOR SORT OF $1.5 MILLION IN THE AUCKLAND REGION. SO I THINK PUTTING A ZERO NPV IS PRETTY UNREALISTIC. BUT IT'S PROBABLY QUITE IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT IT'S NOT` THIS ISN'T A DISCUSSION ABOUT AUCKLAND HOUSING. IT'S A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOUSING RIGHT AROUND THE COUNTRY. A LOT OF THE HOUSING STOCK THAT PIRIPI HAAMI WAS TALKING ABOUT ARE WORTH VERY LITTLE NOW. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE IN PARTS OF THE COUNTRY THAT ARE NEGLECTED, THAT DON'T HAVE GREAT ECONOMIC PROSPECTS. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SITUATION WHERE, AS HE SAID, HOUSING IS THE KEY TO SOCIAL WELL-BEING AND THEREFORE THE KEY TO OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE AND THEREFORE THE KEY TO ECONOMIC PROSPERITY. AND IT ISN'T WORKING AT THE MOMENT. HE SAID, YOU KNOW, 'EVEN THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING GOD'S WORK, 'THE SALVATION ARMY, ARE NOT PREPARED TO TAKE IT ON, BUT THEY'RE OUR PEOPLE AND SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE.' AND THE GOVERNMENT'S MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY DON'T QUITE SEE IT THE SAME WAY THEMSELVES, THAT THEY'RE OUR PEOPLE, SO THEY'RE THE GOVERNMENT'S PEOPLE TOO, OF COURSE, UM, THEY WANT SOMEONE ELSE TO DO THE WORK, WELL, IF THE SOMEONE ELSE WHO'LL WANT TO DO THE WORK AND STEP UP AND DO THIS ARE SAYING, 'YOU'VE GOT TO GIVE IT TO US SO WE CAN START`' 'IN ORDER THAT WE CAN DO IT'? IT'S A DIFFERENT WAY OF LOOKING AT IT. THEY MAY NOT SUCCEED COMPLETELY IN THAT, BUT THEY ARE CHALLENGING THE COUNTRY TO GO, 'OK, WE NEED TO GET SERIOUS, AND HERE'S A WAY TO DO THIS.' WELL, YOU RAISED THE REGIONS. I JUST WANT TO GIVE THIS LITTLE BIT OF FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE HAD THIS MORNING, SOMEONE SAYING... YEAH, THERE'S BEEN A REDUCTION IN THE STATE HOUSING STOCK. THE GOVERNMENT'S MADE CLEAR THEY WANT TO REDUCE THAT EVEN FURTHER. SO THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMEONE OR SOMETHING TO STEP UP TO THAT, AND I THINK IWI ARE THE BEST PARTNERS THERE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T CUT AND RUN IF IT'S A BAD INVESTMENT, IF WE WANT TO USE THAT FRAMING. LIKE HAAMI WAS SAYING, THERE'S AN OBLIGATION THERE TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR THEIR PEOPLE, SO THEY SHOULD SEE IT AS THAT SORT OF LONG-TERM INVESTMENT. BUT THAT'S THE KEY WORDS, ISN'T IT, OBLIGATION TO THEIR PEOPLE. HAAMI MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE THOUGHT THIS WAS A DEAL FOR IWI, NOT FOR OTHER PEOPLE. HOW'S THAT GOING TO GO DOWN? WELL, UM, THAT'S A DIFFICULT POLITICAL PROPOSITION TO SELL IN THIS COUNTRY, OF COURSE. UM, YOU'VE GOT TO REGARD THAT AS A NEGOTIATING POSITION, I THINK. IF YOU LOOK AT AREAS WHERE THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, ISSUES` SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH HOUSING, IN THE FAR NORTH WITH THE TE HIKU FORUM, UH, YOU KNOW, WHERE HAAMI IS FROM, YOU KNOW, IT IS LARGELY A MAORI PROBLEM. YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A HUGE MAORI POPULATION WHO ARE LIVING IN SUBSTANDARD HOUSING, SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING SINISTER IN REGARDING THAT. I MEAN, HOUSING` AS HAAMI SAID, HOUSING, UH, INITIATIVES FORM A PART OF A LOT OF TREATY NEGOTIATION. WHY WOULDN'T THE IHC OR SOMEONE ELSE EXPECT THE SAME DEAL, THOUGH? AND SO ARE YOU THEN GONNA SAY TO THEM, 'NO, YOU CAN'T?' I DON'T THINK IT'S SO MUCH ABOUT THE DEAL, SO MUCH AS IWI ARE ACTUALLY PARTICULARLY WELL PLACED FOR THESE KIND OF PARTNERSHIPS AND TO BE SOCIAL HOUSING PROVIDERS. THEY'VE GOT RESOURCES, THANKS IN LARGE PART TO THE TREATY SETTLEMENT PROCESS, LED BY CHRIS FINLAYSON, MY OLD BOSS, AND THROUGH THAT PROCESS THEY ACTUALLY ALSO, UM` A LOT OF IWI ORGANISATIONS REALLY UNDERWENT A SORT OF PROCESS OF PROFESSIONALISATION AND CAPACITY BUILDING, WHICH LEAVES THEM PROBABLY IN A BETTER POSITION, I THINK, THAN A CHARITABLE ORGANISATION` BUT ARE YOU STRUGGLING`? ARE YOU STRUGGLING AGAINST PUBLIC PERCEPTION, THOUGH, BECAUSE ANOTHER PIECE OF FEEDBACK WE'VE GOT IS, THE PERSON SAYS... WELL, WHATEVER IWI DO, THEY'RE ALWAYS GOING TO BE CRITICISED, AREN'T THEY? IWI, AS YOU SAY, BEN, HAVE ENORMOUSLY PROFESSIONALISED THE WAY IN WHICH THEY OPERATE, AND THEY GET CRITICISED FOR ONLY LOOKING AT THE TOP END. YOU KNOW, THIS IS CLEARLY A SERIOUS BID BY IWI TO LOOK AFTER THE PEOPLE WHO MOST NEED LOOKING AFTER, AND THEY'RE GOING TO GET CRITICISED FOR THAT TOO. YEAH, AND THEY KNOW THAT SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE. A CONTINUING PROBLEM FOR A LOT OF MAORI FAMILIES IS THAT BANKS WON'T LEND AGAINST MAORI LAND. THE KAINGA WHENUA SCHEME, WHICH WAS BROUGHT IN A FEW YEARS AGO, HASN'T BEEN AS SUCCESSFUL AS PEOPLE ENVISAGED, SO THERE'S STILL A BIG PROBLEM, UH, WITH MAORI GETTING INTO HOUSES, SO IT MAKES SENSE FOR IWI TO GET INTO THIS SPACE AND FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO TRANSFER THOSE AS AN INVESTMENT, RATHER THAN AN ASSET. IF IT BECOMES TOO HARD FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO TALK TO IWI, CAN THEY AFFORD TO JUST WALK AWAY FROM THAT? BECAUSE WE KNOW` CAN THE GOVERNMENT AFFORD TO? > YES, CAN THE GOVERNMENT AFFORD? BECAUSE THE SALLIES, AS WE KNOW, DON'T WANT A BAR OF IT. THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T AFFORD TO WALK AWAY WITH THIS. AS A KEY ISSUE THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS GOING TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT. OUR PRIME MINISTER LED THAT CHARGE. UM, THE POLICY THAT THEY HAVE ROLLED OUT IN DIVESTING THE HOUSES ISN'T GOING AS SMOOTHLY AS POSSIBLE, THEY HAVE TO FIND A SOLUTION. THEY HAVE TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE MAKING REAL PROGRESS. HERE'S A POTENTIAL PARTNER STEPPING UP AND SAYING, 'WE'RE REALLY SERIOUS ABOUT THIS,' BUT THEY'RE NEGOTIATING HARD` OH, OF COURSE IT'LL BE A HARD NEGOTIATION, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY CAN WALK AWAY FROM THAT. I WANT TO TALK ALSO ABOUT HOUSING OF A DIFFERENT KIND. OBVIOUSLY, NICK SMITH WAS ON A BUS TOUR WITH JOURNALISTS, SHOWING THEM LAND THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO OPEN UP FOR NEW HOUSES. IS NATIONAL, DO YOU THINK, BEEN STARTING TO SHIFT PUBLIC PERCEPTION, STARTING TO SHOW THAT THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THIS? LOOK, THE GOVERNMENT IS ABSOLUTELY TACKLING THE HOUSING PROBLEM IN AUCKLAND. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THEY'RE DOING` LAUGHTER ...WHETHER THEY'RE TAKING STEPS THAT ARE SUFFICIENT OR SUFFICIENTLY TIMELY, UM, YOU KNOW, IS THE REAL QUESTION. YOU KNOW, I THINK WHEN YOU, SORT OF, FLY IN TO WELLINGTON FOR WORK, YOU KNOW, ON THE TEETH OF A HOWLING GALE AT THE AIRPORT EVERY WEEK, YOU MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT PERCEPTION OF WHAT A SOFT LANDING IS FROM THE REST OF THE COUNTRY. LAUGHTER BUT` BUT IS`? IS THIS STARTING TO LOOK LIKE KIWIBUILD BY ANOTHER NAME? IT'S STARTING TO LOOK LIKE LABOUR POLICY. THERE ARE ONLY SO MANY LEVERS YOU'VE GOT FOR THIS KIND OF ISSUE, SO YOU COULD SAY IS THIS KIWIBUILD BY ANOTHER NAME? WELL, IN A SENSE. IS THE BRIGHT-LINE TEST A CAPITAL GAINS TAX UNDER ANOTHER NAME? IN A SENSE. BUT YOU'RE ONLY EVER REALLY ARGUING ABOUT, SORT OF, GRADATIONS IN THE, SORT OF, AVAILABLE MECHANISMS. SIMON? THIS IS ONE OF THOSE COMPLETELY PREPOSTEROUS MOMENTS IN POLITICAL LIFE. WHAT'S HAPPENING? NICK SMITH THE MINISTER SAID WE'VE GOT 500HA OF LAND THAT WE CAN USE FOR HOUSING IN AUCKLAND, AND THAT'S CROWN LAND THAT COULD BE USED. THAT'S A FANTASTIC THING. THAT'S A FANTASTIC, FRESH WAY IN WHICH TO LOOK AT THE PROBLEM, IF THAT'S TRUE. AND THEN TO MAKE THE PR STICK, HE SAID, 'WE'RE GONNA SHOW YOU SOME OF THAT LAND,' AND WHAT HE SHOWED WAS A MERE 30 ACRES AND ALMOST ENTIRELY UNSUITABLE, SO` WELL, SOME OF THAT LAND` AT THE MOMENT, WHERE THEY HAD THE CHANCE TO SHOW THE BEST OFF, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU DO ` YOU ROLL OUT THE BEST ` AND THE BEST WAS APPALLING. SOMETHING'S GONE SERIOUSLY, SERIOUSLY WRONG HERE. ONE ASSUMES THAT NICK SMITH SHOWED` WENT STRAIGHT TO THE TOP SHELF BECAUSE HE WAS TRYING TO SELL IT TO JOURNALISTS AND THE PUBLIC, AND SOME OF THE LAND WE SAW, AND WE'VE BEEN HAVING A LOOK AT IT THIS MORNING, IS, UM` IS` WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE A ROUNDABOUT. THERE'S MOTORWAYS ON ALL SIDES OF IT. YEAH. MM. > IT'S CLOSE TO TRANSPORT. > LAUGHTER EXACTLY. IT'S HOW YOU SELL IT, ISN'T IT, IN THE AUCKLAND MARKET. BUT, REALLY, IS THIS` IS THIS THE SOLUTION? THE PROBLEM WITH A LOT OF THE PUBLIC LAND IN AUCKLAND IS SOME OF IT'S TIED UP IN FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL RIGHTS FOR IWI AND A LOT OF IT'S ALREADY BEEN GIVEN IN COMMERCIAL REDRESS FOR IWI, WHICH KIND OF BRINGS US BACK TO THE POINT ABOUT TRANSFERRING LAND AND STATE HOUSES TO IWI. BUT THAT'S` THE GOOD AVAILABLE LAND ISN'T REALLY THERE, LIKE WE SEE WITH THE ROUNDABOUT. SO THEN THIS ISN'T THE SOLUTION, IS IT? THAT'S RIGHT. SO THE THEORY WAS GREAT, BUT I THINK MORGAN'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, THAT THE MINISTER APPEARS NOT TO HAVE BEEN WELL BRIEFED OR TO HAVE IGNORED HIS BRIEF, OR WHATEVER HAPPENED, BECAUSE HE HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE THAT HE'S GOT SOMETHING SOLID TO STAND ON THERE. AND THAT'S TRAGIC. IT'S TRAGIC FOR THE CITY, BECAUSE WE'RE NOW DOWN ANOTHER BLIND OF ARGUING ABOUT THE WRONG THINGS TO DO WITH THE VERY REAL HOUSING CRISIS IN AUCKLAND. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL LEAVE IT THERE. WE'LL BE BACK WITH MORE AFTER THE BREAK. DO STAY WITH US. WELCOME BACK. YOU'RE WITH THE NATION AND OUR PANEL. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS SAUDI DEMONSTRATION FARM IN SAUDI. THE GREENS ARE CALLING FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THIS, SENT A COMPLAINT TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL. WE'RE TOLD BY MURRAY MCCULLY THAT THIS WAS IN ESSENCE GOOD BUSINESS SENSE THAT STOPPED US GETTING SUED, IN ESSENCE. DO YOU BUY INTO THAT, BEN? SO THIS GOVERNMENT HAS A KIND OF INSTINCT FOR DOING DEALS, YOU KNOW, CUTTING TO THE CHASE, NOT PAYING TOO MUCH REGARD TO FORMAL PROCESSES IF THEY CAN SOLVE PROBLEMS THAT WAY. WORKS WELL IN CASES LIKE THE HOBBIT AND THE AVATAR NEGOTIATIONS. SKY CITY? MORE MIXED RESULTS WITH SKY CITY. AND HERE DOESN'T REALLY SEEM TO HAVE ACHIEVED THE PURPOSE THAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR, BECAUSE IF THERE WAS ANY LEGAL CAUSE OF ACTION, AND WE STILL HAVEN'T ESTABLISHED WHAT THAT COURSE OF ACTION MIGHT HAVE BEEN AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, UM, THEY HAVEN'T ACTUALLY SECURED ANY KIND OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OR WAIVER FROM THE PARTIES, SO` NOT ONE THAT THEY'RE PREPARED TO SHOW US, ANYWAY. THOSE` YEAH. SO I THINK THE AUDITOR GENERAL WILL INEVITABLY LOOK AT THIS AND WILL HAVE TO SORT OF GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THOSE ISSUES. SO, SIMON, A SIGN OF A WHEELY-DEALY GOVERNMENT, DO YOU THINK? WELL, THERE'S A PRINCIPLE IN POLITICS, AND IT'S CALLED THE SMELL TEST, AND IT'S NOT JUST SOMETHING THAT WE SAY. WE HAVE A SMELL TEST. WE HAVE THE SENSE OF DOES THAT LOOK FISHY, AND IF IT DOES LOOK FISHY, MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG THERE, AND THAT'S AN IMPORTANT THING TO BE ASKING ALWAYS BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT YOUR GOVERNMENT TO BE` TO FEEL THAT IT CAN DO FISHY DEALS. BECAUSE EVEN IF THIS DEAL OR THAT DEAL TURN OUT TO BE THE RIGHT THING TO DO, IF THEY'RE DOING DEALS THAT LOOK FISHY, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO` THE TEMPTATION TO DO GENUINELY FISHY DEALS RISES ALL THE TIME, AND THAT'S A REAL PROBLEM. MCCULLY MIGHT BE RIGHT. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE WAY TO SAVE THE COMPANY` THE COUNTRY MONEY. NOW, BUT, IF SO, HE SHOULD'VE ANNOUNCED IT PUBLICLY AND JUST DONE IT. YEAH, I SIMPLY DON'T BELIEVE THAT MCCULLY THOUGHT THERE WAS A LEGAL THREAT ARISING, BECAUSE NO COMMON LAW JUDGE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD IS GOING TO ENFORCE A POLITICAL CONVERSATION LIKE A PRIVATE CONTRACT. NO CAUSE OF ACTION ARISES IN EITHER TORT OR CONTRACT. AND IF THERE WAS AN ACTION IN JUDICIAL REVIEW, YOU CAN'T SUE FOR DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF UNLAWFUL GOVERNMENT CONDUCT. ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON. AND TALKING ABOUT DEALS. MAURICE WILLIAMSON ` KNOCKING AT ACT'S DOOR, APPARENTLY. WHAT WAS THIS ABOUT? DO WE THINK IT WAS A GENUINE ATTEMPT TO DEFECT, OR IS SOMEONE JUST STIRRING THE POP HERE? WELL, IT WAS DON BRASH WHO DID THE KNOCKING, WASN'T IT, AND I THINK YOU'VE GOT TO REMEMBER DON BRASH ` DON BRASH IS A MAN WHO HAS POLITICAL IDEAS AND IF HE THINKS THEY'VE GOOD, HE TELLS YOU ABOUT THEM, MOST FAMOUSLY WHEN HE MUSED ALOUD ON WHETHER MARIJUANA SHOULD BE LEGALISED BEFORE AN ELECTION. IT WASN'T HIS PARTY POLICY, BUT HE TALKED ABOUT IT ANYWAY. POLITICALLY STUPID; ACTUALLY PERFECTLY SENSIBLE THING TO RAISE IN PRINCIPLE IN THE POLITICAL WORLD. SHOULD MAURICE WILLIAMSON BE IN THE ACT PARTY? WELL, HIS POLITICS ARE PRETTY MUCH ALIGNED WITH ACT, SO MAYBE THAT DOES LOOK LIKE A GOOD IDEA. IT'S DON BRASH DOING THE KNOCKING, AND IT'S DON BRASH PRESUMABLY HAVING A DRINK WITH MAURICE AND EITHER MISCONSTRUING OR JUST FEELING, 'THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN.' MM. YEAH, IT'S WEIRD, AND WILLIAMSON OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO SHUT IT DOWN, BUT HE HASN'T. I THINK THERE'S BEEN A FEELING ABROAD, YOU KNOW, FOR MORE THAN A DECADE THAT ACT IS KIND OF LIKE MAURICE WILLIAMSON'S SAFETY SCHOOL. UM, IT'S HIS BACKUP OPTION... LAUGHTER ...IF HIS NATIONAL CAREER STARTS TO FALTER. RETIREMENT PLAN. AND I THINK THAT PERHAPS` BUT IF IT IS HIS SAFETY SCHOOL, BEN, WHY IS HE SNIFFING AROUND IT NOW? WHY NOW? WELL, I THINK IT'S BEEN MADE REASONABLY CLEAR THAT HIS CAREER AS A MINISTER IS OVER. HE MAY NOT WANT TO` HE MAY NOT WANT TO EITHER TRY FOR OR TAKE UP THE SPEAKER ROLE WHICH HE'S BEEN SUGGESTED FOR. I THINK THERE WAS ESPECIALLY A FEELING BEFORE THE NORTHLAND BY-ELECTION THAT IF THERE WERE A FEW STRATEGIC DEFECTIONS TO ACT, THAT WOULD KEEP THE GOVERNMENT MAJORITY BUT ACTUALLY MAKE THE GOVERNMENT MORE RELIANT ON THE ACT PARTY. AND THAT WOULD BE DON BRASH'S THINKING. WHICH` THAT'S RIGHT. AND DON BRASH, YOU KNOW, MAY BE SEEN BY THE ACT PARTY AS MEDDLESOME. HE WOULD PROBABLY CHARACTERISE IT AS STILL HAVING A CONTRIBUTION TO MAKE AND BEING PASSIONATE ABOUT THESE THINGS. UM, AND SO I THINK THAT'S MAYBE HOW IT AROSE, AND IT'S CERTAINLY A MATTER OF BAD TIMING, UH, NOT LEAST OF WHICH, BECAUSE NOW YOU'VE GOT AN ACT LEADER, DAVID SEYMOUR, WHO IS ACTUALLY PRETTY INTENT ON RECLAIMING THE PARTY, NOT JUST FROM THE SORT OF NATIONAL PARTY RETIREMENT VILLAGE THAT IT'S BEEN IN RECENT YEARS, BUT ALSO, ACTUALLY, I THINK FROM THE SORT OF REACTIONARY AND CONSERVATIVE ELEMENTS IN ACT WHO HAVE PREVENTED IT FROM BEING THE KIND OF CLASSICAL LIBERAL PARTY` AND HE DOESN'T WANT` ...THAT SEYMOUR WANTS. HE DOESN'T WANT GRUMPY OLD MEN LIKE MAURICE WILLIAMSON COMING OVER AND CASTING THAT SHADOW OVER IT, DOES HE? ABSOLUTELY. < AND WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME, MORGAN, < BUT WHERE DOES JUDITH COLLINS FIT INTO THIS? DO WE HAVE A BACKBENCH REVOLT? WE WERE TALKING EARLIER IN THE WEEK ABOUT WORKPLACE SAFETY LEGISLATION, AND THAT'S BEEN HELD UP COS OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE BACKBENCHES. YEAH, I'M NOT SURE IT WOULD BE CHARACTERISED AS A REVOLT, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY A JUDITH COLLINS POWER PLAY. I THINK IT SEEMS LIKE SHE WILL DEFEAT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY REFORM BILL IN ITS CURRENT FORM, WHICH WOULD BE A WIN FOR HER, I THINK. AND WHEN YOU SAY LONG-TERM POWER PLAY? OH, I THINK IT'S ALONG GAME THAT SHE'S PLAYING THERE. > JUDITH COLLINS WOULD, I IMAGINE, LIKE TO BE THE NEXT LEADER OF THE PARTY, AND I DON'T THINK THAT SHE PARTICULARLY SEES THAT AS BEING NECESSARY FROM A FRONT-BENCH CABINET POSITION, BUT AS MUCH AS SEEING IT FROM A VERY POWERFUL POSITION IN THE PARTY, IN THE WHOLE CAUCUS, AND SHE'S BUILDING THAT. DO YOU AGREE, BEN? POSITIONING HERSELF AS THIS THIRD-TERM GOVERNMENT` EVERYONE'S STARTING TO LINE THEMSELVES UP FOR WHAT HAPPENS AFTERWARDS? I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK JUDITH IS VERY KEEN TO` JUDITH COLLINS IS VERY KEEN TO GET BACK INTO CABINET. SHE FEELS SHE'S BEEN EXONERATED BY THE CHISHOLM INQUIRY. SHE WAS EXONERATED BY THE PRIME MINISTER IN TERMS OF ALL THE OTHER ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE IN NICKY HAGER'S BOOK, IN THE SENSE THAT EVERYONE WAS EXONERATED BY THE PRIME MINISTER. AND SO I THINK THAT SHE'S LOOKING FOR A PATH BACK TO CABINET. WHILE SHE'S ON THE BACKBENCHES, SHE CAN ACT AS A FOCUS OF BACKBENCH DISCONTENT, AND THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT THE PRIME MINISTER WILL BE CONSIDERING WHEN HE'S... WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO LEAVE IT THERE. WELL, NOW, LET'S GO ON TO WHAT MIGHT BE IN THE HEADLINES NEXT WEEK. AND WILL ASK HIS FIRST QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE ON TUESDAY. TRADE MINISTER TIM GROSER HEADS TO PARIS FOR AN OECD MEETING AND TO PRESS THE CASE FOR A FREE-TRADE DEAL WITH THE EUROPEAN UNION. AND MURRAY MCCULLY IS HEADING TO THE MIDDLE EAST TO DISCUSS TENSIONS, AHEAD OF NZ'S PRESIDENCY OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL IN JULY. AND WE'LL FIND OUT HOW MUCH BUILDING WORK WAS DONE IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THIS YEAR ON THURSDAY. AND HERE ON THE NATION NEXT WEEK, WE'LL BE PITTING THE GENERATIONS AGAINST EACH OTHER. ARE THE BABY BOOMERS LIVING ON THE PIG'S BACK OR DID THEY DO IT TOUGHER THAN GEN X? AND DO YOUNG PEOPLE TODAY NOT KNOW HOW LUCKY THEY ARE? WE'LL KICK THAT OFF WITH ECONOMIST SHAMUBEEL EAQUB, WHO COINED THE PHRASE 'ZOMBIE TOWNS' ON OUR VERY PROGRAMME, AND HIS PROVOCATIVE NEW BOOK, 'GENERATION RENT'. WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU THEN. IN THE MEANTIME, DO ENJOY THE REST OF YOUR QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY WEEKEND, AND THANKS FOR JOINING US. Captions by Able www.able.co.nz Captions were made possible with funding from NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2015