is the Greens brand going to change without her there out in front? Good morning, and welcome to The Nation. I'm Lisa Owen. And I'm Patrick Gower. This morning, show us the money. Where is it coming from, and how would National and Labour spend it? Steven Joyce and Grant Robertson are here for the first of The Nation's pre-election debates. Then how did the Greens move on from the loss of Metiria Turei? We've got a huge heritage and some really strong people who are going to be making sure that that message is still out there, that the people that Metiria was fighting for still have a voice, still have a champion, and that we are the party that aims to end poverty. We hear from James Shaw about the Greens' reset and which party he says shares the most policy with his. You could be surprised. And we wrap up the week in politics with our panel, and it's a good one ` Jane Clifton and Alex Tarrant and comedians Jeremy Corbett and Paul Ego. Copyright Able 2017 OK. Great to have you with us today. Now, we love election time; we love policy, we love debate and we love talking about the economy. And we also love hearing from you, so do get in touch. We'd particularly like to hear your thoughts on this debate. Now if you're following along on Twitter, our panel today is science researcher Jess Berentson-Shaw and Pacific youth leader Josiah Tualamali'i. This is all on the hashtag #NationNZ. When voters are asked what issues are important to them, there's one that comes out near the top at every election ` the economy. It's dollars in your pocket, jobs and big-ticket items like rail and road. So what are the major parties' plans when it comes to running the country's books. For the first of our series of pre-election debates, National's Steven Joyce and Labour's Grant Robertson join me now. Good morning to you both. BOTH: Morning. Mr Robertson, our economy, according to some, is going gang busters. We're in surplus. We've got growth around 3%. Unemployment is tracking down. Inflation is stable. Why would people change? Look, some of those headline numbers do sound impressive, but you've got to go below them. On a per-person basis, in the last six months, the economy's actually gone backwards. We had yesterday JBWere coming out and saying they're really worried about the productivity of our economy. For the last four years, we haven't actually improved our productivity. So, we've got more people in New Zealand; they're working longer hours, but we're not lifting the value of the economy. And that's got to be the focus for us. How do we create good high-wage jobs into the future? We can't just rely on there being more people. We can't just rely on selling houses to each other to grow the economy. OK. He's right, isn't he? GDP per hour is in recession. For the last five years, we've built an economy that is based on construction ` it's a crisis economy ` and people coming to the country. No, no, no. No, it's not. And, in fact, if you look at those figures on productivity, both GDP per capita, which is one measure in GDP per hour worked, we're growing and actually doing better than most of the developed world, so better than the UK, better than Europe. The whole developed world has struggled a bit with productivity, and nobody's arguing that New Zealand's productivity needs work where it needs to be longer term. But, in fact, productivity in New Zealand has grown faster in the last eight years than in the previous eight or nine years before that under the previous government that, you know, Grant's party was part of. So what shows is that the long-term problem of New Zealand productivity is yet to be solved, but we're actually heading in the right direction. No, we're not. And, in fact, productivity in New Zealand over the last four years has been virtually zero. No, it's not. Well, it's not me saying that, Steven. It's actually a range of commentators ` JBWere; we had Brian Fallow yesterday. They've all noticed it. And New Zealanders notice it, Lisa, in their pay packets. It's not keeping up with the costs, especially housing costs. So New Zealanders can hear these statistics, but their real lived experience is of the fact that they don't feel that they're getting ahead. Well, actually, again, you've got to look at the actual figures, and New Zealanders' incomes` Well, nobody's arguing that the nominal wages are going up as fast as they did under the previous government because inflation is much higher. But our actual real wages are going up faster than they were before. We're currently growing wages, over the last seven years, at double the rate of inflation, so that's good. What about this year, Steven? What about this year? What's the balance between inflation and wages in the last year? As I said to you in the house the other day, in terms of calendar year` Not calendar year. Let's go June to June. Come on. The experience people have got right now today. Inflation and wages ` what are they? What I'm telling you is` 1.7%, 1.6%. There is absolutely no ability for people to get ahead under that situation. It's the first time since 2011, is it not, Mr Joyce, that inflation is outstripping wage growth? Just for one quarter, which was the` No. Year on year. For one quarter, which is the March quarter this year. OK. Let me` Can I put it another way to you? Yes. It's all the different way you quote statistics. New Zealand's actual after-tax weekly wages is up higher than inflation over the last financial year because people are both working more, working different hours than before. And that's part of the story about a growing economy is more time ` effectively more working hours available for people to work, and that's good because that's their actual income. OK. I want to put it to you in a different way, then. The numbers, the headline numbers, are great for a number of people, but not for the people who are left behind. Do you accept that there are tens of thousands of New Zealanders who are being left behind? Well, they were being left behind because we had the GFC, and that was hard, but, actually, the numbers are` Still being left behind, Mr Joyce. Well, if you look at the numbers of children and what is seen as the OECD measure of hardship, it's dropped from 220,000 down to 130,000. There's still about 240,000 people in severe housing stress, though, isn't there? And 85,000 kids who are severely materially deprived. Are you happy with those numbers? No. This is why we've put this family incomes package together, which is gonna make the big difference. And now that we have a strong economy and we have our books back in surplus, the first thing we did was to say, actually, we need to do something about improving family incomes, and that's changing the tax thresholds for low and middle income earners, increasing the accommodation supplement and increasing the Working for Families package for family tax credits. Now, that's actually going to make a very significant difference. From 1 April next year, some families in west Auckland and south Auckland and the Hutt Valley, for example, will get up to $130, $140 a week extra, which is great. Mr Robertson, he's right; that families package is projected to push our growth up to about 3.8% by the time that package is rolled out. You want to take part of that away. You're the Grinch who's going to steal growth, aren't you? (LAUGHS) Far from it. In fact, what we want to do is make sure that we get the money to the families who need it. So, under Labour's package, every family earning $62,000 or less will be better off than under National's package. What I don't want is for Steven and me to get a $1000 tax cut when we've got families living in cars and garages, when we've got a health system that's not coping. What we're saying is we'll get the money to the families in need, but we'll get the money that Steven wants to give to us as tax cuts ` to wealthy people like us ` we'll get that money, and we'll make sure it's invested in public services that have been run down. Before I give you a right of reply, Mr Joyce, I just want to be clear, because that was a policy that was announced when you had a different leader. You're sticking to it 100% as it is? Absolutely 100%. OK. Well, I think the difficulty with that is that, actually, Grant's proposal is to pay people on the sort of incomes like him and me, if they have a baby, a baby bonus of $3000 over a year. So the difficulty with his idea that you should target it is, actually, he's not proposing to target it. Yeah, but you've got a $1000 tax cut in your pocket. You haven't told us what you're going to spend it on. Well, it's not actually about me ` or about Grant, actually. It's about those people who are on the median wage who are currently facing a 30-cent-in-the-dollar tax rate, and we have to change that. And the only way we change that is shifting the thresholds. Now, Grant's allergic to actually reducing taxes and allergic to adjusting thresholds. (CHUCKLES) No. He's about increasing taxes. But I actually think it's really` OK, let's ask him. Are you allergic? What I'm allergic to is seeing our health system have $2 billion taken out of it over the last six years. What I'm allergic to is the fact that we've got more homeless people in New Zealand than we've ever seen before. I'm perfectly happy to have this election be about different priorities. My priorities, Labour's priorities, are investing in housing and health and education and getting incomes lifted for the lowest income people in New Zealand. It's not giving a tax cut worth $400 million to the top 10%. Let's look at your numbers, because I think this is important. All your projections are based on current growth projections, and those are based on high immigration numbers. Immigration is underpinning our economy, and you want to turn that tap right down. Where's your extra money coming from? The budget that our numbers are based on ` and, indeed, Steven's budget ` sees immigration returning to its long-run average within two years. So we've both got the same budget. We're going to grow the economy. It has not returned to its long-run projections for the past four years. I know. What makes you think it's going to do that now? Because, actually, we're proposing policies that will help manage the flow of immigration. The National government hasn't done that. But bear in mind, Lisa, what we are saying is we want to tweak the settings, like every government everywhere in the world. By up to 30,000 people. No, it's by about 20,000. By up to` No, no. The door is open for up to 30,000 on the numbers that you've got. Yeah, no, that's right. But, in fact, what we've said is we're looking to reduce it by between 20,000 and 25,000. What we're saying is, as a country, we've got to invest in infrastructure and housing and making transport work. Look at what's happened in Auckland this week. The Auckland Transport plan's come back, and they need an extra billion dollars over the next four years. Let's put that to Mr Joyce. Mr Joyce has not funded that. Well, hang on a second. You haven't. I need to do a little fact check on some of this stuff. You've been caught out by growing numbers. Hang on a second. Grant's saying that health has been cut. That's nonsense. Have you funded it? Can I just have a second? Increasing health from $11.8 billion when we came into office to $16.8 billion now is in no way a cut. So you're saying in real terms` Just give me a minute. I just want to ask you, in real terms, are you saying that there's been no loss in health funding? That's right, and if you have a look at the numbers, just what we've put in this last budget is an additional nearly $4 billion in health, which just started six weeks ago on the 1st of July this year, which is a massive increase ` actually, the largest increase in health spending in 11 years and more than Grant's proposed in his alternative budget to add next year. That's not right. So to suggest that somehow neither party or one party doesn't care about health is actually a little bit silly. In terms of the transport and the infrastructure, this government is investing the largest amount in infrastructure over the next four years that's ever been done. But you've been caught short, haven't you, Mr Joyce? No, no, no. Can I just finish? No, you have been caught short. The Auckland Alignment Project shows that you've been caught short. Growth has` No, no. Well, I'll come to that in a second. So it's 40% more than the last four years and double what it was a decade ago. In terms of the Auckland Transport Alignment Project, the government is lined up with Auckland Council on that. Interestingly, it doesn't promote what Labour Party promotes. All the government agencies and the council agencies have got together and said` Where's your extra money coming from? Because you've got a $6 billion deficit in that budget, and you're going to have to stump up with a considerable amount of it in a short period. Well, no. Let's look at it. It's a total of $26 billion expenditure over 10 years for both Auckland Council and government. $20 billion is actually funded right now. In terms of the additional six, that's $600 million a year over the next 10 years between the New Zealand government and Auckland Council. I'm absolutely confident it will be` But, Steve` Hang on. Let me finish. You've had a good go. You've had a good run. We've actually had $40 billion of` Mr Robertson. You've had a good go. What we saw this week is that you are now $1 billion short for the next four years. No, it's not. Yes, it did. And you said the day after the budget, 'I've spent all the cash.' Where's the money coming from for the billion dollars that is missing in the next four years? Well, if you go and have a look at the budget, it will show you that some of those $32.5 billion have yet to be allocated, Grant. Right, but what misses out? Education? Health? No, no, no. No, because` Your capital expenditure is declining by 30% for education in the budget. That's wrong. So you cannot spend this money over and over again, Steven. Where is the money coming from? That's completely incorrect. Very quickly, and we're going to the break. Quick right of reply. Very quickly. $32.5 billion, nearly $5 billion in new schools over the next four years. That's more than for decades. You've spent all the money, Steven. No, I haven't. You said it the day after the budget. Grant. Can I just` We'll keep delving around in the public purse after the break. No, I need to stop you. I'll come back to you after the break. We'll have more from Grant Robertson and Steven Joyce after the break. And later, Greens leader James Shaw tells Paddy what could change after the party's campaign reset. Welcome back to our pre-election finance debate with National's Steven Joyce and Labour's Grant Robertson. If I can come to you, Mr Robertson, you're going to issue, I think it's about 1500 KiwiBuild visas. But we've got a shortfall in construction of about 56,000 people. So, for a guy who wants to be finance minister, numbers aren't adding up, are they? Oh, look, you know, we want to make sure that we continue to get the workforce we need, and we do realise that's going to require some migration in terms of the construction industry. Those visas are actually linked to making sure that we have more apprentices. And at the moment in New Zealand, we've actually seen a decline in the number of apprentices from when National took office. There was about 43,000 apprentices across the board. We need a lot more than that. But your 1500 versus the shortfall on that construction industry is massive. That's not enough, is it? And, look, we have to start from where we are, Lisa. We want to train more young New Zealanders up. One of the really disturbing things that has happened in New Zealand is the growth in young people not in work, not in education, not in training. So we've got to put the two together. We recognise migration will continue to be an important part of making sure industries like construction work, but we've got to train young New Zealanders as well. Yeah, and I want to come to young New Zealanders shortly. But if you were being brave, you'd open up that immigration tap, wouldn't you? Because we have a shortfall of tens of thousands of workers. You're responding to dog whistle politics too. No, I think we're sitting in about the right place. We've changed a few of the wage settings to make sure we get the right people amongst the numbers that are coming in. In terms of the construction workforce, it's increased from about 180,000 to 250,000. We've got a record number of construction apprentices at the moment. Never had more then 11,000 before. In fact, up until about a year ago, we'd never had more than 9000. You've still got a massive shortage of people, though. Don't you? I agree. Pretty much what we did in Christchurch. You've got to have a combination of people in training ` which we have; people returning to the construction workforce ` which is happening. But, yes, you're also expecting those to come back from Australia and further afield to work in construction, and that will continue` What, Kiwis coming back? There's a combination of those. Because you're still minus Kiwis going` No, we're not, actually. Yeah, you are. In net terms, over the last year` To June of this year, you lost about 1200 Kiwis. Oh. As against, sort of, 40,000 back in the bad old days when they were all going over there to get a job. But you're not gaining. The point is, you're not gaining. The strong New Zealand economy` Actually, the migration transfer between New Zealand and Australia is now virtually nil, and that's great. Because now, instead of sending our kids to Queensland and New South Wales to work, they're coming here to work, which is great. All right. Before we move on from this, KiwiBuild. When you costed it out ` about four years ago, it would be now ` it was $2 billion. But construction cost has gone up 30%, 40%. Have you re-costed it? Have you done your numbers? Yeah, we have. The initial amount of money we're putting in is $2 billion. We're committed to making the project work. If we need to put more money into it, we will. You will, won't you? You will. Because of that 30% to $40% increase, you will have to put more money in, won't you? Bear in mind, one of the great things about a government coming in and actually building some houses is that we can build it scale, and that will bring the cost down. And the industry have told us it will. But not 30% to %40, I wouldn't have thought. Look, what we're committed to do is building 100,000 homes over 10 years. We're putting in an initial capital contribution of $2 billion, and that money gets recycled. I understand totally how the policy works, but as a start-up fund, how much more are you going to have to put in because of that rising price? The $2 billion is the start-up fund, and we're` You accept, though, that you're going to have to chuck some more at it? If we have to, Lisa, we will. Or is it going to be fewer houses? Which will it be? No, absolutely not. We need more houses. The shortfall in housing has grown significantly under National's watch. Bear in mind, if we'd started this proposal in 2012 when we did it, we would have already built tens of thousands of houses. The government hasn't. But there's no point looking back at that. (CHUCKLES) So what are you putting aside? Because your numbers don't marry up, then, if you've just told me you're aware of` No, they do. We're putting that $2 billion in, and that will be the starting capital for the fund. But we're committed to this. I can't look into the future and tell you that. Okay. Can I just say that New Zealand is actually building 100,000 houses` Affordable houses? Hang on a second. 100,000 houses every three years now. So Labour is saying they'd like to build 100,000 in ten? Affordable homes, Steven. We're building two cities the size of Dunedin every three years in this country. Can I respond to that, Lisa? Mr Roberson's question is a legitimate one. How many of them are affordable? Well, there's a range, right across the board. And, in fact, if you look at, for example, the Housing Infrastructure Fund, which is just freeing up the big Peacocke subdivision in Hamilton. There'll be a significant number of those that are affordable. If you look around parts of South Auckland with the very big investments that are being made around Drury and Paerata and Pukekohe, some of those will be` 5% of houses built in the last ten years have been affordable homes. Our KiwiBuild fund is for first-home buyers. Are you guaranteeing any houses for first-home buyers? Well, first of all, I can tell you` Are you guaranteeing any? Answer the question. Hang on a second, you're not the interviewer. Can I tell you that the numbers of first-home buyers is actually staying up. So there's been talk in the last few days about` So no guarantee? That's great, but also, can I ask you ` how many are you guaranteeing are going to be affordable? I'm going to guarantee that first-home buyers will continue to get the opportunity to participate in the New Zealand housing market as they are today. Right, okay. Let's move on, then. In other words, not. As a proportion of borrowers for home buying, first-home buyers are increasing. All right, well, let's talk about how we could dampen down the market. Capital gains tax ` are you ruling it out in the first term absolutely, if you're in in the first term? We've got a tax working group. I can't pre-empt what they're going to come back and decide. So you can't rule it out? Could come in the first term? I can't pre-empt what that group says. So it's back on the table. Door's open. But here's the important point ` right now, today, we have something called the bright-line test that the National Party brought in. And that says that if you sell a house that's not your family home within two years, you'll pay tax on it. Steven has a form of capital gains tax. I'm giving you the chance to talk about your policy, Mr Robertson. So a capital gains tax is still on the table? You're not taking it off? What we're going to the election with is a commitment that if you sell a property that is not your family home within five years, you'll be taxed for that. I think there's a problem there for the Labour Party, because they're dodgy on tax. They're refusing to say about the capital gains, they've mentioned a water tax in the last week, but they won't tell us how much it is, and then, of course, they've got a regional fuel tax, and they won't talk about where it goes beyond Auckland. I'm very happy to talk about that. Well, let's run through the tax list, then, as Mr Joyce raises it. So top tax rate ` can you rule out lining yourselves up with the Greens and having 40 cents over 150 grand? Are you going to go for that? No, I don't think we will be going for that, but what we will do` So you're ruling it out? Let me finish. What we will` No, that's really important. I'm going to answer the question, Lisa. You've got to let me do that. All right, answer away. What we're saying is for every single thing that we commit to spending on, we will have the revenue for that. Jacinda has come in and she's said, 'I want you to take another look at some of the projects we've got. 'How do we make sure in housing and education we deliver?' We will be very clear about that. Steven has the same issue that I do. On the 23rd of August, the pre-election fiscal update comes out. You could ask Steven the same question about whether there would be more tax cuts. We will have a full package after the 23rd of August. But you are not ruling out raising that tax rate. I'm not ruling it in; I'm not ruling it out. What I'm saying is that we will fund every single promise we make, and that's the responsible thing to do. Our budget's been fully costed. What about your water levy? What's that going to be? The water levy? Look, what we've said there is for every thousand litres of water that's used in irrigation, perhaps one or two cents. One or two cents. There you go, Mr Joyce. One or two cents. That's not going to make a huge difference, is it? This is the problem, is that he's not telling` One or two cents, Steven. How big of a difference is that? Well, hang on. Don't ask me; ask the farmers, because I've seen some figures that even at those levels, you're talking about 50,000 a year per farm. So I think it's beholden on the Labour Party to actually come a bit more clean on their tax stuff, because they're being very dodgy about` We've been completely upfront. No, you haven't, actually. So you've got a water tax that you won't tell anybody` How are you paying for Auckland's roads? How are you paying for Auckland's roads? We've told New Zealanders how we'll pay for Auckland's roads, because Aucklanders know that they've got to contribute to this. They know that we've got to make sure` Okay, well` Take a breath. Let's give Mr Joyce 15 seconds to tell us how you're paying for Auckland's roads. As we have, we've funded the Waterview Tunnel, we've funded electrification,... I'm asking you about things that haven't been built and paid for. ...through the consolidated fund and the National Land Transport Fund we will pay for all the investment and we'll be clear about what it is, just as we have been for the last eight or nine years. And when we came into office` People want you to be clear about it before they cast their vote. No, don't worry about that. That's absolutely the case, and, in fact, last weekend we said $260 million funded from the consolidated fund to increase rail electrification, from Papakura to Pukekohe. Okay, well, that's a good point, isn't it, Mr Robertson? They did announce $267-odd million worth of transport projects, and they aren't taking an extra 10 cents off Aucklanders to do it. And they're not leaving the door open for the council to put another tax on as well. We've been completely honest and upfront about this, and we heard it this week from the Auckland Council. There is now, for the next four years, a $1 billion shortfall in the plan that the government has signed up to for Auckland Transport. We've been honest. We've said we'll fund it partly by the government paying and partly by Aucklanders, who know that they've got to pay their fair share of this. All right. But I want to say this to Steven as well about water. Very quickly. The government has asked a panel within the Ministry for the Environment to look at a commercial charge on bottled water. Are you ruling that out, Steven? No, we're not ruling it out on bottled water, but` Right, so how different is that? Well, we won't be charging the farmers, the horticulturalists` So you're going to have a completely unfair charge? You asked me. The farmers and the horticulturalists and the winemakers will not be paying a water tax under the National Party. You could be just as clear today and rule it out yourself. No, what we're saying is that, actually, we need to clean up our rivers, and we're going to put the money in. Nick Smith said $100 million a year for 23 years. You haven't funded that. We're running out of time. We need to get through some things. There has been significant criticism over the past few weeks about the level of welfare that people get. Your government's been very clear that there needs to be a balance between a safety net and incentivising people into work. So is it okay for people to go cold and hungry as long as it incentivises them? No, it's not, and, actually, MSD is very careful to provide not only the benefits but also` Are you saying there aren't people going cold and hungry on welfare? There's temporary additional support available for people at the time. Don't forget, this is the government that has increased benefits in real terms for the first time in 43 years. So you think you're doing okay with welfare? We think we're doing better, and, actually, with the additional income we're getting through a strong economy, we're also investing more with the Family Incomes Package from 1 April next year, which takes around 135,000 children who are in hard` you know, below that 50% line from the OECD, it takes them off that as a result of that one package. Mr Robertson, can I get a quick answer from you on whether the KiwiSaver kick-start, whether you're still committed to bringing that back under Labour. We won't be campaigning on that at this election. So does that mean it's a goneburger, then? No, what we're saying is we want to see every New Zealander into KiwiSaver. What's happened at the moment is it's been a hugely successful scheme, but it's the lowest income New Zealanders who aren't in it. What we want to do is bring them in as wages rise, and then we'll be able to have what really is a universal scheme. You could shift the tax thresholds, and then they'd actually have some additional income which they could pay into KiwiSaver. I've got time for one more question, and this is it. I want a quick answer from both of you. You're both potentially looking at Winston Peters as a coalition partner. Who's going to put up $1 billion for Northport? Who's going to commit to it now? Anyone? No, I don't think we'll be` Northport itself doesn't want $1 billion from the government. It just wants the opportunity to use its container terminal` Very quickly, Mr Robertson. I'm not committing to that today, but I am committing to actual regional development across New Zealand. All right, we'll leave it there. It's been great to talk to you both this morning. There is lots to come out of that debate, eh, Paddy? Yeah, plenty to talk about, and we'll discuss it all later with our panel ` Jane Clifton and Alex Tarrant. Now, after the break, I will ask James Shaw, the green leader, about his party's campaign reset. But first, don't reset this. Jeremy and Paul give us their views on the Greens. The big question this week. Well, there's only one story in town. Paul, what do you make of it? Yes, Mike Hosking hosting the election debates. No, the Greens, mate. The Greens. Oh, the Greens. Yes, I'm with ya. $18 cabbages if Labour brings in the water charges. That is too much to spend on any cabbage, Jeremy. No, the big story from this week. Come on. The Crusaders win? No, political! Ohh, I've gotcha. Involving a woman? Yes. On the way out? Correct! You are, of course, talking about Annette King's valedictory speech. No. Metiria Turei, mate. Oh, the New Zealander of the year? No, resigning the leadership of the Greens. Well, James Shaw's the leader of the Greens. Only since Metiria resigned! Well, that was ages ago! No, it wasn't! Yes, it was. Heaps happened since then. What?! The cabbages and Mike Hosking and Taylor Swift getting groped. Metiria's probably compost by now. Isn't that what they do with the greens? I do find it hard to picture her now, actually. Mm. Do you think she regrets coming clean with the benefit of hindsight? Oh, I wouldn't mention benefit around her, if I were you. A week ` that's a long time in politics. A week's a long time, full stop. I find it hard enough to get through this, and it's only 60 seconds. The Green Party has had a week of it. On Tuesday, two of its MPs said they'd resign over Metiria Turei's revelations of benefit fraud. The next day, Turei herself stepped down as leader and said she'd retire at the election. Now, this weekend, the Green Party meets for what they are calling 'a reset' then a re-launch of their election campaign. I spoke to leader James Shaw ` not co-leader ` about what their focus will be. There have been a lot of stories over the course of the last few weeks that have drowned out what our key messages are, and so we're taking a look at our campaign materials, our advertising, the leaflets that go out, the billboards, you know, everything to do with the election campaign, and we're saying, 'OK, what do we need to do to get back to basics, 'strip down the message so that it's absolutely crystal clear 'what it is that the Green Party is fighting for at this election 'and why people should put us into government after September.' Yeah, OK, and on that, you mentioned there advertising, of course, pamphlets, but that also means billboards. When are the billboards coming down, who's going to be on the billboards, what's going to happen there? Well, Paddy, I don't want to give away the secret, because we are doing this re-launch over the course of this weekend, and so we'll show you what those look like. But they are being rolled out this weekend, and you'll start to see those materials go out during the course of the week. And will there be a new slogan? 'Great together', is that gone now? You're just going to have to wait until the weekend's over. Well, you sound like Bill English or someone like that. I mean, 'great together', is it gone? I mean, it's pretty easy to say if the slogan's gone. Jacinda Ardern was pretty straight-up as well. What about the Greens? Is it gone? It's certainly one of the things that's up for grabs, and, like I said, you'll just have to wait until the re-launch to see exactly what we're doing. I mean, this is going to be very expensive, isn't it, because I know that you've already filmed a big television ad using one of the country's best advertising agencies. This decision by Metiria Turei is going to come at a huge cost, obviously, to the Green family that raised the money for you, isn't it? Well, the thing is, actually, what we've done with the ad is that the agency that did it for us had redone it by the end of the week, so they've moved incredibly quickly, they've been very professional, they've done a fantastic job, and I'm really pleased that we're going to be able to show people what that ad looks like during the campaign re-launch. Right, so we'll see a new television ad with Metiria Turei ` I'm sorry to be blunt, but ` cut out of it? You will see the new ad during the course of the weekend along with the new billboards, new leaflets, everything. Sure. Now, in terms of the wider brand of the Greens ` because this is really important ` beyond the superficial stuff, the wider brand of the Greens, as we know, Metiria Turei was such a key part of that; is the Greens brand going to change without her there out in front? No, I think what we need to do is actually just remind people of the core values of our brand, what our principles are, what the future is that we stand for, and that's really what this campaign is all about. And so, you know, a lot of the stuff that we're doing with refreshing the campaign is really just to remind people what those core priorities are that I mentioned before, as well as what are the things that we stand for, what are the values that we hold? Because I think that that has been crowded out recently, and we really need to just focus on those things and remind people what it is that we stand for. Yeah, and that's, obviously, as you said, sort of, social justice, climate change and rivers. Like it or not, Metiria Turei really stood for social justice. We know that. And you, whether you want to, sort of, admit it, stand for, sort of, finance and climate change. Without her there, is there a danger that that social justice aspect of it is going to ebb, or do you actually want that? Absolutely. I mean, I am committed to ending poverty in this country. It is one of my priorities. It is and always has been one of the key priorities of the Green Party, and our entire caucus and our candidates are all committed to that. So one of the things that we're going to be doing during our campaign reset is, you know, you're going to see some new faces leading the various parts of the campaign. This is a real team effort. It is not just all about me. And so we've got a huge heritage and some really strong people who are going to be making sure that that message is still out there, that the people that Metiria was fighting for still have a voice, still have a champion, and that we are the party that aims to end poverty. Frankly, everybody else is just interested in tinkering around the edges. We're the only party that has drawn a line in the sand and said, 'Look, we know what it's going to take 'to lift 212,000 children above the poverty line, and we're committed to doing those things.' OK, a couple of things there. You mentioned some new faces out the front. What do you mean there? Other MPs being put out the front? What do you mean by new faces? Patrick, look, I hate dissembling to you, I really do, but you are going to have to wait for the campaign re-launch,... Yeah, but are they` ...because we're going to show you what the line-up looks like, we're going to show you what the campaign materials look like. I'm actually really looking forward to it. It's going to be an exciting day. Is somebody taking over that welfare area that Metiria Turei had and they'll be pushed to the front? Is that what you're saying? Yes. We're going to show people those three priorities ` climate change, ending poverty, cleaning up our rivers. There is going to be a face for each of those components. We've got some great campaign materials coming out. We've got the TV ad that's going up shortly. You're going to see a lot more material on our online presence, which is around those three key messages. I mean, the whole point here is just to remind people what it is that the Green Party stands for, why it was that people trusted us in Parliament and in entering government. Well, an important aspect of that is what Metiria Turei's venture around this benefit fraud was all about, which was empowering the disenfranchised. Now, where do they sit, those people that she tried to reach ` or, as you've argued, did reach ` now they've seen someone who's stood up for them slapped down and destroyed, effectively? What message does that send to those people that you were trying to reach that this is what happens when someone speaks up for you? Yeah, Patrick, I have to say that's been a huge personal concern for me is ` what message does that send? And so it is a really important part of our campaign that the people that have come forward over the course of the last four weeks in response to Metiria's campaign who said, 'Finally, 'I feel like there's someone in the House of Representatives who actually represents me,' we are going to be speaking directly to those people and say, 'The Green Party is here for you. 'We still stand for you.' And it is our goal to end poverty. Yeah, but what do those words mean? I mean, Metiria herself said that is was always bigger than her. Yeah, but what do those words mean when what they see is she stood up for them and she was taken down by her own party in some senses? You guys didn't stand behind her. Patrick, we absolutely stood behind her. She had the full support of me, the caucus, the party executive. I mean, we had thousands of volunteers all over the country. I actually don't want to get into this, but she didn't have the full support of the caucus, and what we're talking about is the message that you're sending to these people. You must be worried that after engaging them, however many of them you did engage, that they won't turn out, and if they do turn out, it won't be for the Greens. That's why it is a very important part of our campaign, and it has been some of our thinking over the last few days as we steady the ship, as we think about, you know, what does the campaign need to do now. One component of that is making sure that those people know that when Metiria started that campaign, that that campaign will continue, she will continue, and the rest of us will continue to fight that campaign. Yes, and in terms of steadying the ship, there's another aspect to that, and it's called burying the hatchet. Now, with Kennedy Graham, is it time to let him come back in, back on to the list, bury the hatchet and get that ship steady again? That is a decision for our party executive, and my priority around that is to make sure that we follow good process, and, you know, it is ultimately up to the party executive to decide that. Yeah, but you've said yesterday your caucus doesn't want him back, so what's going on? Is he allowed back? You're the leader. Can Kennedy Graham come back in? You know, like I said, there's a lot of strength of feeling in the caucus, but it isn't caucus' decision; it is the party executive's decision. And I think it's actually really important that we allow that process to work its way through. I don't want to prejudice it in any way. Labour have come out this week and created a nationwide debate about water pricing. That must be so frustrating for you. That should've been you. Look, it's... I'm really pleased that they're on board. (CHUCKLES) And, you know, frankly, I've been trying to persuade the National Party to adopt our policy as well, with some lack of success, you know. I'd be delighted if National were a bit less stubborn and actually dealt with the issue, because they've been avoiding it for the entire time that they've been in office. Look, it's a democratic competition, right, and election. And, you know, I think if the Greens weren't here, if we hadn't been providing that voice, if we hadn't been campaigning on water and water quality and the state of our rivers for as long as we have, then other political parties wouldn't be interested in being in that space, and they are. Even the National Party feels that they need some kind of defensive strategy around it, because, finally, the state of our rivers is an election priority. And I know that there are people who have been switching their vote from National to the Greens because they've gotten so frustrated about that. OK, well, let's turn now to Winston Peters. And what do you think of his climate change policy? Could you work with New Zealand First on climate change? Could you work with New Zealand First on climate change? So, Tracey Martin is the New Zealand First MP who has really been working most closely with the cross-party group on climate change. I've been very impressed with her orientation around this, and I think that there is room to move. And the things that I've heard Tracey say are aligning that idea that we can get to a low-carbon or a zero-carbon economy as fast as possible, so I think that there is some common territory there. OK. So, speaking of common territory with Winston Peters, he has taken your territory as the third biggest party in New Zealand on the latest Newshub Reid-Research poll. Now, would you countenance... Would you countenance sitting outside of a Labour-New Zealand First government without cabinet spots if that's what's required to change the government? There are six weeks left of the campaign, and we are going to finish as at least the third largest party in Parliament. So, I know that we've taken a bit of a hit recently, but we've been in this situation before, Paddy. There have been polls where New Zealand First came below us, but this is only one. The question's not about this. The question's not about where you're going to end up or not. It's can voters`? Tell voters whether you'd be prepared to support a government, even if you do come in ahead of them, where Winston Peters is in the cabinet and the Greens aren't. Are you prepared to do that to change the government? I'm confident that that scenario isn't going to happen. Yeah, but if it does and it comes down to that, it's really important for voters who are looking to see who the government might change. Would you be prepared to support a Labour-New Zealand First government if you weren't in the cabinet? My priority is changing the government and being at the heart of a Labour-Green government after the election. I'm not terribly interested in` James Shaw, it's a yes or no question. Paddy, we don't even know if Winston wants to change the government. He won't say. The only two parties that are committed to changing the government are the Labour Party and the Green Party. And we have said that, you know, if New Zealand First wants to change the government and to join that, then they are welcome, but, frankly, the only way to change the government is to give your party vote to either the Green Party or the Labour Party. We're the only two parties committed to that. That's not what the question was about. The Opportunities Party ` would you work with them if they get there, if they get to 5%? Would you work with The Opportunities Party and Gareth Morgan on policy to bring about change? If they make it over the 5% threshold, and, you know, we've seen a number of examples of this over the years where people have thrown a lot of money trying to break through that barrier and haven't managed, but if they were in Parliament and if they wanted to change the government, then, yes, of course. Sure. In terms of` I mean, frankly, the level of policy alignment between The Opportunities Party and the Green Party is extremely high. I mean, you know,... essentially Gareth Morgan started The Opportunities Party cos he was frustrated that we wouldn't work with National. He just wanted to start a party that would work with National. So, you know, when you say, 'Would we work with him?' yes, we would. The question is, 'Would he work with us?' Now, in terms of polling and the fact that you're struggling, do you rule out some sort of electorate deal with Labour if it comes down to it, if there's a scenario where you are in that lower area, do you rule out some sort of electorate deal where they would help the Greens get a seat and hold your place in the Parliament? Look, again, we've been on 8% in the polls before closer to the election. We're going to finish up, you know, at least where we started, which is about 11% if not better. And that's my goal. Well, if that's your goal and you're so confident, just rule out an electorate deal. Just say, 'We won't take one. We don't need one.' Just rule it out. Well, we don't need one, and I haven't had that conversation with anyone in the Labour Party. You know, we had a conversation last year about did we want to do this, and we decided that, no, it's much better to have an honest, democratic competition. It's much better for both parties to stand good, strong candidates in every electorate. So that means, then, James Shaw, no deal at all? No deal at all? You promise the New Zealand voter you will not do an electorate deal with Labour? Paddy, this is the first time I've even heard this possibility, right, so it's just not something I'm entertaining. And since we recorded that interview yesterday, the Greens have put out a statement saying Kennedy Graham's request to remain a Green candidate has been declined. After the break, we're joined by our panel ` Jane Clifton, Alex Tarrant and our very own Patrick Gower. (CHUCKLES) Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` The Listener's political columnist, Jane Clifton, Alex Tarrant from interest.co.nz and our political editor, Patrick Gower. Good morning to you all. Was there a clear winner in that, do you think? What do you reckon, Alex? No, I think it was quite even. Grant obviously had a line of attack that he wanted to get across on Auckland transport. And that is a big issue, especially in Auckland. Auckland house prices now aren't as big an issue. They're falling to flat. No one wants to be talking about, 'Hey, Auckland house prices are falling. Great.' So now they all want to be talking about Auckland transport shortfalls. And good on him for taking it up. Jane, do you think they were pretty evenly matched there? They were. I mean, I think it's clear that Steven Joyce's tactic is to mention as many billions of dollars as possible. And once you've heard your first, sort of, $20 billion in bits and pieces, your mind goes blank. Bearing in mind this is all rolling out. Not spent, but rolled out over five years, in many cases. You know, it just sounds like they're spending a lot of money, and that's all I think people would take from that. Patrick? Yeah, I think it was pretty even as well. I hate to sit on the fence. I actually think Grant Robertson probably got a few more jabs in, to use a boxing metaphor. However, in terms of actual overall damage, I think some of the talk about tax there that Steven Joyce` in terms of long-term damage beyond the debate, in terms of that, capital gains tax is back on the table. The capital gains tax is back, baby. Labour were gonna go to the next election with that, but that could come in next term. So Steven Joyce has got a lot to work with. He's got the water tax to work with, which we saw some numbers put on now. Farmers can go and do the sums on that right now and start working things out. That's gonna take that debate elsewhere. Is tax a weak spot for Labour, having not officially said their water tax is, and, as Paddy says, Grant kinda left the door open for capital gains. On capital gains tax and income tax, Phil Goff deserves a medal, really, for opening that debate up back in, what, 2011. And Labour actually made heaps of inroads in trying to convince people that this could fit in with a fairer tax system. If you have a capital gains tax, maybe you could have lower income taxes, maybe lower company taxes. It's about the mix. And then Andrew Little came along and said, 'Nope. No new taxes. 'We don't like the whole capital gains tax talk.' They've got the 'yup'. They're gonna increase the bright-line test out to five years. But Labour, they've already been talking about wanting to tax income, assets and wealth fairly. They're gonna set up another tax working group. But, interestingly, I think there's still room for them on the income tax side. Grant Robertson has sort of put himself into a corner. Sorry. But they can't now go out` The best thing to do ` put on a $10,000 tax-free band at the bottom and a higher income tax rate at the top. Jane, are they doing themselves a disservice by not putting numbers on stuff now? Oh, absolutely. They're their own worst enemy this week alone with the water tax issue, because finally we've got a figure for irrigators and wineries and so on of 1 to 2 cents. Although David Parker said 3. (CHUCKLES) That's the problem too, isn't it? These people can do the calculation. But, yeah, just get your ducks in a row. Announce them all. Don't leave room for speculation about $18 cabbages and $75 on a bottle of wine. Yeah. I mean, National are already having a bit of a field day in terms of those bottles of wine and everything like that. Steven Joyce will lead that from here. But, interestingly, Steven Joyce on the water tax, ruling out for farmers as well. So that's a big deal too. You're talking about National's policy, then, cos they've got a water review going on, but he's basically told us the outcome of the water review. That's right. They're gonna tax bottlers, by the sounds of things, which, as everyone knows, is a really small part of it cos that's what National tells us all the time. And that's what Labour wanted out of this announcement, it looks like. Water bottlers was very high up in the announcement. The word 'nitrogen' wasn't even in the announcement. An announcement about fresh water; the word nitrogen wasn't in it. So they wanted headlines about water bottlers. Labour's gonna do that. National ` there's still room open for different ways of allocating water, I think. He's just saying there's not gonna be a tax on farmers. Labour wanted headlines about water bottlers, but they've got headlines about bottles of Sauvignon Blanc and cabbages going up, OK, and that's a worry. On the other side of the ledger, though, something Alex brought up just before we came on is there's a little depth charge that the opposition can use in that when Grant was needling Steven about... Infrastructure. ...transport funding, yeah, that there's a white-knuckle fight going on, which no one talks about much, but the government wants the council to sell or at least partially privatise the port and the airport company. And the council won't budge on that cos no one can` you know, that's` Well, that's the big question. So asset sales are gonna be back on the agenda. Did we come away from that with a clear idea of where Steven Joyce is getting his extra money from to pay for infrastructure, other than to say that we can afford it? Growth. Growth. More population. Growth building. Um, growth. He said the consolidated fund there. As Jane said, it's probably round a couple of figures. Phil Twyford and Labour talk about targeted rates quite a lot. And, actually, Simon Bridges are Steven Joyce are both actual fans of targeted rates and value uplift tax, but they're in a Mexican standoff with the council over who pays for what, can we partially privatise ports of Auckland? And they're also in a Mexican standoff with Auckland airport. So if we put a train to Auckland airport, that really helps` you could argue that helps Auckland Airport, that helps businesses down Dominion Rd. Slap on a value uplift tax, so higher rates. But National doesn't want to be the one putting that idea out there. They want Auckland Airport and businesses to come to the table as well. And that's a next term thing, if they get one. But I just wanna call Steven Joyce out for something. I think he actually made up something in that debate, because he said over there that 100,000 new homes have been built in the last three years in this country. Now, my understanding is Stats New Zealand is about 23,000 in the last year. I think it's about 178,000 over a decade. So some serious fact-checking is gonna go on. I hope Steven Joyce knows how to back that up cos I think he might have told the first big porky. (LAUGHS) Flick us a press release, minister. We'd like to know your justification for that. Maybe he's counting caravan manufacture or something ` or sheds and kennels. Have we seen a shift in economic direction? Has much changed since Jacinda Ardern came in? I mean, Grant Robertson said there that she has asked them to go back and look at all their projects and how they're paying for them. And obviously Kiwibuild there, he accepted that costs have gone up exponentially since they priced that. Any difference in approach economically under Jacinda Ardern? Yeah, there's a huge difference in approach because Grant Robertson is back in control. And all the things that were off the table, what Alex was talking about earlier, are all back on. Capital gains tax, tax on higher incomes ` they're all back there. There's a totally different machine behind Labour, and he was sitting right there. His name is Grant Robertson. He is actually not just in control of finance; he's in control, pretty much, of everything, in my view. 10 seconds before we go to break. I wrote the other day Grant Robertson may as well have the word 'progressive' tattooed across his back, and that's the word that Jacinda Ardern has chosen to use. If you talk about progressive tax rates, if you're using the word 'progressive', then your thoughts go to income tax rates. All right. We'll leave it there. After the break, we find out what could be making the news next week. Welcome back. You're with The Nation and our panel. Well, the other big story that's just not going away is the Greens. Was the outcome that we ended up with in this, Jane, was it avoidable at any point? Metiria Turei is gone, and they've lost two solid MPs. It was avoidable by not doing it, I think we can all see in hindsight. It's totally written all over the` They had a very bold policy. No one's been talking about that policy. The other issue, though, I think, now in letting her go, they've kind of gone, from my view, from bad to worse. I'm a bit of an outlier on this. I think they should've moved heaven and earth to have her stay, because now their core base could erode, because people will be so furious that she's been martyred. I mean, remember, they got a bump in the polls from that in the beginning. From the initial disclosure. But a lot of people are sticking with her, and they are furious. So, Paddy, he has suggested that there's going to be a new face of welfare reform in the Greens. Who do you reckon it will be? Oh, I think it'll probably be Marama Davidson. She's the person that can kind pick up the mantle there. And Jane's quite right. They need to talk to those people that may feel let down, that thought they had a voice, they've had their voice taken away from them. And also their core constituency needs to see someone in there that the Greens are taking that as seriously as possible. In my view, that's Marama Davidson. So they've got to move quickly to do that, because they could lose not just the new voters that they might've found, but their own core base who could be really annoyed. Although, I will say this ` there's nowhere for those people on the further part of the left to really go any more. They will just stay home, possibly, and that would be bad for all concerned too in terms of the change of government bloc. Well, that brings up the fact, Alex, that they're not going to bring in a new co-leader until after the election. James Shaw on his own, and how do you think he's done so far, kind of hosing things down and calling for calm? Well, I think, when you're talking about James Shaw, it comes back to Metiria Turei, and, you know, you can't condemn her for what she did, right? And James Shaw, to his credit, he hasn't. Hasn't thrown her under the bus. No, he stood by her, and that's right, I think. Metiria Turei 20 years ago, 25 years ago was doing what she needed to do, and I take her at her word at that. And James Shaw says, 'Me too.' She deserves a past. And if he had come out and said, 'Oh, no, I'm not too sure about that,' then I'd question James Shaw. But he stood by her, and I think` And he still does. Yep. Clearly. And that's fine. He's got a lot of sympathy round the country, I think, at the moment, because he's been placed in an invidious position, and I think everybody probably regards him as a decent guy. You know, even though the Greens are taking a hit, maybe the conversation should've been a bit more robust about the strategy, but, you know... Hey, what was interesting for me in that interview was his approach to TOP, Paddy ` The Opportunities Party ` where he said, 'Actually, this party is the most aligned with us 'in terms of policy.' Yeah, and he went a bit further than that, actually, and said the only reason it's there is because Gareth Morgan wanted something that could work with National, which, of course, the Greens won't do. Well, that's an admission, basically, that that 2% of the vote, that's a good number of votes. That could be the Greens' vote in an instant if they made that change that everyone sort of says and are prepared to work with National. There's 2% of the vote sitting right there that want a Green Party that can work with National, by James Shaw's own admission. Alex? This is something I wrote about the other week, and I got a bit of criticism for it. I want an environmental party to hold the balance of power, and I think the Greens are the closest to that, and that's why I wrote that. But I think that could be separated out from the Metiria Turei, um, situation. TOP was getting some of that environmental vote, but now Jacinda Ardern is here, I can't see TOP getting anywhere near 5%. Well, that brings us nicely to the polls. So, some people are suggesting that the Greens could really drop into that danger zone of going under 5 ` goodbye, Greens. What do you reckon, Paddy? Oh, I think their core vote is higher than that. I've got nothing to back that up except for my own instincts and their history. I don't think they would go that low. James Shaw, if it did happen, Grant Robertson would have to get outski in Wellington Central and I actually think that you could do that on the day before an election and the Wellington Central voters would do what needed to be done to get a change of government. Well, the Greens have a bigger party vote in Wellington Central. I don't think they're gonna go below 5%. Well, then if you look at the numbers, they're still cannibalising each other ` Labour and the Greens. The overall vote, while Labour went up considerably in your poll, Paddy, it's only, like, about, a, what, 4.5 gain that hasn't come from New Zealand First or the Greens. So what's gonna happen? Second push to get votes from someone other than their alliances? Well, the difficulty I think Labour's got is that National's vote's been softening for the best part of two years now and now it's under serious assault. How serious assault depends on how apprehensive people are about the fact that Labour's gotta work with either the Greens, but certainly Winston Peters. And he's an off-putting factor. And so I think the more people` If Labour can get comfortably above New Zealand First and can put some bottom lines out there and reassure people that Winston's not going to be` I mean, there's this perception that he wags the dog. It's actually nonsense. He's pretty low maintenance, and he'll hate me saying this, but he doesn't really do that much in the great scheme of things. But he is a turn-off factor for a lot of their potential voters. Yeah, but I think what we've got now is a situation where voters will be looking by Election Day, 'Winston Peters is going to be there whether I vote for National or for Labour. 'I can't get away from him with my vote. He's gonna find me wherever I go.' So in that sense, what we've seen is this realignment of the vote now which suits a centre government in that the Greens are back, Metiria Turei is gone, she's not as frightening for centre voters, Winston is up a bit, Labour is stronger. Gotta go, Paddy. Yeah, sorry. (LAUGHS) It's all right. It's time now for a look at what could be making the news next week. The Greens will re-launch their campaign later today. Former education minister Hekia Parata makes her valedictory speech on Tuesday. And the election campaign kicks off in earnest on Thursday when Parliament rises. And that's when the fun really begins. That is all from us today. We will catch you again next weekend. Thank you for joining us. Captions by Chelsea Thoresen, Desney Shaw and Madison Batten. www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2017 This programme was made with the assistance of the NZ On Air Platinum Fund.