MORENA, GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO Q+A. TODAY ` THE Q+A ENVIRONMENT DEBATE. WHATEVER HAPPENED TO CLEAN GREEN NEW ZEALAND? OUR POLLUTED WATERWAYS HAVE MADE INTERNATIONAL NEWS. WE'RE RUBBISH AT RECYCLING, AND WE'RE VULNERABLE TO SOME OF THE WORST EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE. SO WHO'S GOT THE POLICIES THAT ARE BEST FOR THE ENVIRONMENT? TO TELL YOU THAT, WE'VE GOT CANDIDATES FROM SEVEN PARTIES HERE ` A TRUE MULTI-PARTY DEBATE THIS MORNING. AND WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT ALL THE ENVIRONMENT ISSUES THAT MATTER TO YOU. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2017 LET'S MEET THE CANDIDATES. SCOTT SIMPSON FROM NATIONAL, LABOUR'S DAVID PARKER, WINSTON PETERS FROM NEW ZEALAND FIRST, MARAMA FOX FROM THE MAORI PARTY, JAMES SHAW FROM THE GREEN PARTY, ACT'S DAVID SEYMOUR AND UNITED FUTURE'S DAMIAN LIGHT. I want to start off with some quickfire questions for all of you. On what issue you think is most important for the environment. Climate change undoubtedly. Climate change and clean rivers. A policy that we can all agree upon. We have all this dispute going on. Frankly if the Parliamentary Commissioner said let's have one policy climate change. We do have one policy, it's a loss of species and preserving the unique set of species that NZ has. Climate change. I want to get personal with you guys about on what you do in your lives To help the environment. Anyone with electric cars, solar power, recycling? James, what do you do? I offset all of my own travel emissions. What about solar power or recycling? I don't own my own home, so I don't have solar panels on my house. I walk to work. And all the food waste goes into a windfarm. Winston Peters, Ron Mark is very big on this. What do you do? You have the manager recycling wisely is possibly can, And you have to be as efficient as you possibly can. The cost is so high that it is smart business. What you do? What things you do? I don't go polluting the place,, for a start. In a rural setting, Where possible, you stop that happening. What about electric cars, plastic bags, David Parker? Every car I buy is more efficient than the last. Long before 2050, and electric. I plant riparian margins, I stand up for clean water. I'm pretty good environmentally. Associate environment Minister, do you have an electric car? I hope that my next car will be an electric car so that I can drive around the Coromandel. I am a fanatic recycler, And I take my soft plastics from Thames to the recycling bin At the New World supermarket. I make sure my kids know how to recycle. When we dive on the coast, we only take the right quota of seafood and the right size. We do the riparian planting and we enjoy our environment, And we always leave it better than with how we found it. Plastic bags, you are pretty hot on that? I don't know why we continue to have plastic bags in this country when we can outlaw them tomorrow And only allow organic bags That will at least break down in the environment or rubbish dumps. David Seymour, electric cars? I've actually got an electric bike, and it is a hell of a lot of fun. It is the beginning of a transport revolution. Most recently with plantings at Cornwall Park this week. I don't litter. A lot of this comes back to personal responsibility. I want to ban the people that let plastic bags get into Waterways in the first place. Damien light, obviously environment is big for United feature. I use public transport as much as I can. I try and recycle and offset my carbon emissions. I try and avoid getting plastic bags from stores when I buy things. I want to ask about your reusable cup policy. One of your policies is to give free reusable cups to people. Is anyone else who agrees with that? If we can do something in our personal lives where we take personal responsibility, have a reusable cup, you don't need to Keep using paper cups. Let's do something that requires the public and the family, Personal responsibility, like David said, don't letter. Use of reusable cup. There are so many things we could do. Is that the government's responsibility, David? Using a reusable cup? How many times do you have to reuse a couple before it is reusable? Other police going to come and check? Personal responsibility is actually personal response ability. Where they have tried these plastic bag bans, people start using thicker reusable bags. I was talking to a guy who is very proud to be using reusable bags. We were standing in his garage and he had a huge pile of them. I don't know how many reusable bags that equates to, But you have to be careful of banning one thing and pushing people Into using something that it might make it worse. Cell phones in cars is barely policed, What we need to be able to do with the country is to go back to educating And send the right signals. All of us grew up being tidy Kiwis and we need to go back to that. I don't think we're going to sort out the crisis we are facing is a country By trying to show how good we are ourselves environmentally. We need to come out here today To agree with all these parties to do the right thing. Small things with people that make a difference in their personal lives And then go on to the big picture? Everything that comes into a supermarket Has got plastic around it. You have to have the research and science to go into it. That is how you answer the big problem, not what you take home from the supermarket. There is a saying that it is good and it is better to change your laws. Doesn't that make it a bit of a nanny state? If you look at the scale of the destruction that is happening in our environment, The amount of plastic that ends up in our oceans, It is getting to the point where sea salt itself has plastic embedded into it. Plastic microbeads, plastic bottles, all that kind of stuff. All the personal responsibility in the world does not amount to solving that problem. That is what the government is for, to backstop all of that, That we need to act as a society and act together Not just one or two people doing the right thing. I think each of us... We have made some very good advances in terms of plastic recycling, Curbside recycling. 97% of New Zealanders have access to curbside recycling. Why is the proportion of waste that is being recovered dropped in nominal terms and as a percentage of the total? Why have we done nothing about end of use for tyres? Nine years on you still have not sub got something in place. They will be burnt at high temperatures as part of the cement process And that will mean we are not using coal any more. We will have to leave it there. It hurts me when we are just getting into it. Mr Peters, we will have to go back to that. SEND US YOUR THOUGHTS. WE'RE ON TWITTER @NZQandA. YOU CAN EMAIL US AT Q+A@TVNZ.CO.NZ OR TEXT YOUR THOUGHTS AND FIRST NAME TO 2211. KEEP THEM BRIEF ` EACH TEXT COSTS 50C. OUR DEBATE CONTINUES AFTER THE BREAK. (BRIGHT MUSIC) They have all the pictures of the lovely rivers and lakes and mountains, but this is the nasty underside that you don't see in the tourist brochures. People say you shouldn't get too emotional about these sorts of issues, you shouldn't politicise them. But how can you not get emotional when you're sitting there looking at your kid who just wants to jump in the water and go for a swim? (BRIGHT MUSIC CONTINUES) We saw in that clip the Kiwi dream of swimming in our rivers. National wants to make big waterways swim a bull by 2040. 90% of them. Is that realistic, given the state of our waterways at the moment? We all need to do better on our waterways, not just in rural waterways But urban and beaches as well. Is that target doable? It is doable and the 23 year span we have talked about. It is a lot of work and a big opportunity that will involve quite a lot of money, And involves farmers working with other communities. There is no point pitching one centre of NZ against another. It is certainly doable if you lower the standard, they changed the definition of what was swimmable. What we did was adopt the same Standard that was used in the European Union, I think it is our birthright to put a head under the water and some are. They try to palm off Wadeable rivers to us. They came off with a fake standard that enabled slime growth It was a complete fraud. Nine years after, our rivers are getting dirtier. Give us a break. Labour now have a policy just to have a tax But nothing else. That is wrong. Clean Green is not honest with the world and with ourselves. You cannot compromise on that. Go to Scandinavia and you see the world the way it can be. With practices built around big economies and tremendous... it is a challenge in your seat, Mr Peters, In Northland there are a lot of rural communities And it is a balance between rural and the environment. If we turn it into a class war between city and country. It would be 4000 times with an Auckland Then Waikato. The way that Scandinavians or Norwegians have done it, And they have been enormously successful, they will say that they will fix up their own country themselves. Mr Shaw, As an in the rural environment that are causing a big proportion of these issues? It is a challenge of both town and country. It is for all of us to solve as a country. That's why the government needs to support farmers to make the transition from where they are now to where they want to be. That's why we need to invest in our infrastructure in the cities. I want to respond to Winston Peters first. You did a speech that said cows do not pollute the water. He said that people have more chance of getting sick from that than getting sick from rivers. What about the factual signs? A human being will live 40 times longer than a cow but cows are a major problem? Of course they are a major problem, But we have failed to build a frontier of trees and What we need to do to stop the pollution. Scandinavia, you will not see the rivers polluted Because they have been doing it for decades. We should have got alongside them and learn how to do that long time ago. We have left Maori out of this equation. And we have given it to the regional councils. The councils have been degrading the waterways by trying to manage them in a way that is adding to the pollution. There has been dumping of untreated storage straight into our rivers. They have put willow trees down the sides of rivers for management of the soil, But the roots of those trees suck oxygen out of the water. If they had been involved, Maori from the start. Our rivers would not look like they do now. Scott Simpson, when it comes to bottling and exporting, Why don't we charge? Because we don't charge for a whole lot of other water users as well. Would we want to charge for breweries, vineyards? The soft drink manufacturers? Labour talk about $0.10 a litre charge on water. Why is Nick Smith not here today? Nick Smith is not here because he is so embarrassed of your party then Steven Joyce came out with his lies about our so-called $11 billion. Labours numbers are always... Can we go back to the question? All this scaremongering. A small contribution from those who use water for private Profit in order to put it into the cleaning up of our waterways. David Seymour. I think our environment needs more than the bickering you are hearing. Water quality is a massive issue in the cities and a massive issue in central Auckland Where people say, when it floods, We see toilet paper and other things floating down the street. We need to give serious infrastructure funding to our cities, Half the GST and construction should go to that city. So we can separate stormwater and sewerage in the middle of Auckland. If you want to know how much water gets exported by foreign firms To be bottled each year, Go and stand on a bridge on the Waikato River And you can watch it all go past. It is been an issue that is pumped up by xenophobia. That is ridiculous. You have had your say, and far too much of it. This is a resource. You have billions of litres, for example, From a bunch of companies that have paid $943 in total. The royalties, should be charged on them, From where the water came in the first place. Imitation is the highest form of flattery. Why not consult with Maori? Who owns water in this country? If you believe in God, it is God-given. It's a gift of nature. The real issue is... If he is not being so rude, the real issue It is a management matter. The moment it floods, that's when you find out who owns what. Let's handle it as a management matter And pay in that context rather than exporting and using it... You've actually got 50% control of the Waikato regional Council it's not to clean it up. Yes it is. Fox? Most of the people around this stage have been thrown around lines like no one owns the water But regional councils can act like they own the water. That is not to say that we want to keep water away from everybody. The allocation model is staffed. The way that we look after it is wrong. Maori need to be involved, We all need to be part of the conversation except for who? Iwi? If they had been part of the conversation for the last hundred and 50 years, we would not be in the place we are now. We are not talking about royalties. They are right off... we are talking about a quota management system, Similar to what David has talked about, But we must make people pay for the resource they use so they look after it. David Parker, when it comes to consultation, do you think we could end up with an issue like foreshore and seabed Overwater? Is that something that would make you nervous? We made a mistake with foreshore and seabed were taking people to court. What I say is that everyone owns water. It doesn't take it very far. Some of the rights are different for everyone I don't find the ownership argument takes you very far. You have to deal with allocation and quality. I think the government thinks no one owns the water, And that is irresponsible because it is kick the whole thing down the road And avoided the difficult conversation the NZ has to engage with. If we don't engage with it, we will continue to misallocated water. Water is being degraded beyond their ability to regenerate. Scott Simpson? These are complex issues that we face as a nation, And we all have a role in determining how we best use water. It has been nine years, though. We have a plan that is cleaning up the water. The fact that other parties don't like it and talk vaguely about generational change When we have put a date and number and a target in place. Damian, what do you make of it? United future wants to look at a royalty scheme for exports. That money needs to go back to the regional councils. But we do need to be involved in the communities and iwi. Regional councils have failed to protect our waterways. Some of that is because they don't have the funding to look after it. We need to incentivise them to not encourage pollution. James, first. We have spent quite a lot of the segment talking about allocation, And that is definitely a big problem, Because water is over allocated in many parts of the country. We have an resolve the part of the argument about pollution. The government spends hundreds of millions every year trying to mitigate pollution. Farmers are on the hook for billions of dollars for riparian planting over the next 30 years. It would be a whole lot easier if we just stops polluting in the first place. That's why I think it is better rather than charging for the water, Charging for the pollution itself Fox? Just that everybody understands that Maori recognising the value that water has all of us. It is about values for our country. We will all end up paying for that sort of policy. WE'LL PAUSE THERE. AFTER THE BREAK ` AN ISSUE DESCRIBED BY THE ENVIRONMENT COMMISSIONER AS THE MOST SERIOUS WE FACE ` CLIMATE CHANGE. (ELECTRONIC MUSIC) We can still avoid the most catastrophic consequences if we start acting boldly now. Yeah, it's scary. Honestly, it's just scary. (ELECTRONIC MUSIC CONTINUES) Well, what's really happening? What's really being fixed? And at the end of the day, it's gonna come down to our generation to pick up the slack. ALL: What do we want? Climate action! What do we want? Climate action! When do we want it? Now! We saw some of the effects of climate change there. I want to start off by asking Scott Simpson ` When it comes to man-made climate change, do you and all the members of your party believe That that is having an impact on our sea level and on our weather? There is no doubt that man-made influence has an effect on climate globally. It is not just something that affects NZ. We are part of a global society and we have a role to play. Are all of your Mps on board with that? Paula Bennett as the Minister for climate change issues, She tells you and voters how importantly this government takes climate change. Do all Mps buy into that? I haven't met one that hasn't. It is not a question of belief. It is a scientific question. Do you buy into it? Are people affecting climate? Yes they are. The real question is what you do about it. The access to the emissions trading scheme has been terrible in practice. We should be dumping it and replacing it with a low flat carbon tax. Let's talk about the emissions trading scheme then. David Parker, what are your thoughts about it? The first thing you need to do is legislate a decent target. Emissions have gone up after they said they would legislate them. To try and depoliticise the issue. We should do something about it. In respect of emissions pricing, it is ridiculous the mechanism if it excludes what comes from agriculture. When National signed us up for the Paris Accord, They agreed on behalf of all New Zealanders that they would take responsibility For increasing our methane emissions from livestock. NZ taxpayers are already paying for those. We are just saying we want a small contribution from the agricultural sector. 10% of those emissions should be covered from them. Lower livestock emissions and more forestry, which is what we need to do what about bringing agriculture into the emissions trading scheme? We can buy rights to pollute. In 2011 we campaigned on the same policy which was picked up by David Cameron in the UK. We don't want 1.4 billion to go offshore to some other economy. We want to use it amongst our businesses, our farmers, Clean up our own environment with our own record. Should agricultural be included in the ETS? You can clean up without an ETS. You get farming on your side. I can tell Jessica's policy. Your policy is the cost of this country a fortune while you send money offshore. We can change farming outcomes. You are in the danger of having fixing the patient but your patient is dead. We can do it smarter. What is your reaction to Mr Peters? On the NZ first website, they said they want to leave agriculture out. I also want to can be ETS And add a carbon tax. It is been our policy the whole time. My name is James, he is David. It is to replace it with a clear carbon tax over the course of time, Businesses can see what is going on rather than have the price bounce around. That creates a predictable environment for business to invest in. You have to include all the sectors In whatever the pricing mechanism is, Otherwise you are subsidising part of the economy over another. The current government has been completely irresponsible on this, Because in the entire time of the ETS, Our emissions have gone up 21%. They have accelerated under the national government. For them to say we are doing everything we can, The one measure and one measure only of whether you are succeeding, And that is whether your emissions are coming down, And our emissions are coming up relentlessly under this government. Scott Simpson, have you been too kind to farmers? Have you given them a pass? There is no other emissions trading scheme in the world that includes food manufacture or processing. To do that, it would be to declare war on our farming and rural sector. It is just honestly not important enough to do anything about. Ours are amongst the weakest in the world. No one is declaring war. Why has forestry come out in favour of it. They know that the price signal drives the difference between more cows and more forests. They agree that we need more forests. This is a mechanism which will help plant more forests. Marama Fox? What about permanent forestation? So that we don't have harvesting Dragging down silts into our rivers. Kiwis don't get the ETS. They just want to know what they can do to reduce their own carbon emissions. They want to know what we can do a NZ to fix this place up. Permanent forestation in all of our marginal land. Riparian planting around our rivers and take our country, as Winston has said, Back to the clean green image that we should have said. I agree with David and James on these issues. They have got the best understanding of it. You are going to have to use provincial NZ on your side. There are millions of people out there That depend upon this matter. We can make farmers our friends and clean this country up. All we can make them our enemies and stagnate. I have not met a single farmer who says that they actually enjoy having more frequent droughts Or that they like having the rivers dried up Or anything like that. They are actually the ones who are in trouble. The 2013 drought, the longest in 70 years, It wiped 1 � billion dollars offer agricultural exports. That is a result of climate change. I want to ask a question to all of you. Have we reached the peak number of cows That we need a NZ? I want a yes or no answer. Nathan Guy has already said we can't continue. Have we reached the peak? David Parker? Yes. We did a long time ago. We want to change the outcomes. Hugely beneficial to NZ. Have we reached it? Of course we have. Why don't we turn into a smart industry. Even if all of the scientific technological research Works out, Over the course of the next 30 years, You need to see a 30 to 35% and herd count if we will get to net zero emmissions we have been here before and 1982. It was our highest sheep numbers in the country. No one was talking about going out and killing cows the way that the National party is. We need to diversify our farming industry So that when it goes bust they are not relying on one thing. We are seeing the numbers of suicide going up. We know it is a real thing. We have reached so we need to diversify. Winston Peters is right for once. If you look at what farmers are getting from sin lay we have to do start reevaluating the whole model. Some of the competitors are adding five or six times as much value. We are providing the detail. I need to talk about transport... we will come back to that. Absolutely. It is moving towards things like digital economies where we are not relying on dairy. We need to start transitioning now, Otherwise our economy will be in trouble. I'm not saying we don't need food. We can't say that dairy will solve all our problems. NEXT UP ` WITH TOURISM NUMBERS BOOMING, CAN OUR ENVIRONMENT ` OUR TOP ATTRACTION ` COPE? THAT'S NEXT. (AMBIENT ELECTRONIC MUSIC) Get more in. The economy's gotta grow. Doubling, like, rangers for DOC. And I think that's what would help with tourism and stuff like that ` it's getting more DOC workers out that would be able to help. As long as they don't go shitting all over the place like our visitors in the past have done. We sell ourselves overseas as 100% pure. Is it timeTo ditch that slogan? No, it's been enormously successful. As an international marketing tool. Those who see us is an environmental measure are missing the point by marking it and nationally is it true? We have one of the most beautiful environment and the world. Are we selling a lie? Scott is saying Is just a marketing ploy. It doesn't matter what's inside the turn. It's a slogan. A lot of people are appalled by the environmental conditions here. 81% of tourists who come to New Zealand to come to visit our natural environment. Over half visit the doc estate. That's is why there is a question about a tourist levy. is it just a slogan, Mr Parker? We are going backwards. We can hold our heads up when we are one of the cleanest countries in the world and getting better. We are still cleaner than most, but going backwards. Would you keep it? I would keep it but make a real. I wouldn't ditch it, but we have to make it the truth we are concerned about the way this country has gone. We have to clean the place up. I have we can achieve this. What about a tourist tax, Mr Simpson? We need to charge tourist more to use a doc estate facilities. That will be a better tool than just arbitrarily charging people. I think it's a bit of a blunt instruments. Mr Parker, tourist tax? Yes. International visitors, not New Zealanders. Half are going to council facilities. We think we have got that right. Tourist tax, Mr Peters? No. There will give back about 1/15 of what they take. You've got authors of people crapping all over the roads, And it's not nearly good enough. Give some of the money back that's going down to several bureaucrats. Marama Fox, where would you spend a tourist tax? I come from the East Coast, the most pristine untouched place in the country because the roads are so rubbish you have to be Superman to get there. I think we need a tourist tax..� $25 sounds about right. Not the economy expert on that.. We've got tourists coming out who are freedom campers who don't have facilities to go to, the roads are rubbish, and as long as that money isSpence back on the issues in the regions that need to be addressed, like toilets, roading, do we want to make New Zealand expensive? Is that a good thing? $20 ` if you add that to the existing border levy, it adds up to about $50. That's the amount of research says you can charge at the border before it starts to affect visitors. We want some money to go into the predator free. You have to put some resource into it. I think it's fair given that 80% of visitors come here to interact with our natural environments To say to them can you pay a little bit more for its maintenance and upkeep? We are not an environmental disaster zone. Hundred and 80 countries in the environmental index ` we are 11th. We have to give ourselves a bit of credit from time to time. The best tourist distillation I know it is privately run, and it's still Waitangi Treaty ground, Where they have been charging a differential fever tourists. It's funded their upkeep. Doc should be able to the same thing with their walks. It's put huge pressure on DOC, and it allowed our great walks to be rundown. That is just as civil economics Damian, what you think of that? We want to put a $25 levy at the border for tourists. We have a chance of achieving that 100% pure. We had a meeting with Peter Dunne about this because we are very close on this one. But he put that revenue from international levy into funding, It gives these guys an excuse to Underfund DOC even more. This is why it has to go into the predator free efforts. It ensures that doc is fully funded. At the moment they have cut about 360 million out. Do we have too many tourists? No. We don't take the view that we should press pause and have a cup of tea. We need to solve the issues around tourist numbers. The great thing for our economy, creates jobs, and enterprise. We have a world that is hungry to see what we have. We know National is panicking when they make up stories like that. We are pressured because we have Not enough facilities. Have we reached our peak number? No. But without infrastructure, local communities are starting to say enough. We have to have more facilities. We can take more, but we can only do that if you take the money and pour it back into the regions. Where are the toilets, car parks, facilities? The money has gone straight to a budget of bureaucrats. It never goes back. Final word from you Marama Fox, what is your take from this? No, bring the tourists in. We have some pristine parts of New Zealand they can come to if we fix the roads and facilities. LET'S PAUSE THERE. AFTER THE BREAK A CHANGE IN TOPIC ` THE MINING DEBATE. (COMPELLING MUSIC) (PROTESTERS CHANT) Here we have a prime piece of conservation estate that has been, by stealth, turned over to a mining company. One of the ironies with people who argue against mining is that the green economy needs more mining, not less. You can't build windmills, solar farms, EVs, batteries without the products of mining. (ALL PERFORM HAKA) (COMPELLING MUSIC CONTINUES) Mining is worth big bucks. What is more important to jobs or the environments? Both. Careful is stewardship of economy goes on hand in hand with the environment. The reality is That there hasn't been any serious suggestion of mining on the Coromandel Peninsula since the mid-80s. I can't see a time when our strict regulatory controls or public opinion would allow that to occur. Your rules are okay Because your area of the hood is fine. But of the ease because of New Zealand, we have big ship putting seismic bubbles into New Zealand. You don't have a problem with that, and neither does labour, but we do, nobody is listening. On balance, it brings in a lot of jobs, a lot of income. FOX: At what expense? The government has signed up to the Paris Accord that says they will get a read of fossil fuels, but they will keep looking for them in the ocean. If you look at the mining industry, these are fly in, fly out jobs. The are not going to be a lot of local jobs. The local community is strongly opposed to it. It brings in $1.5 billion. In aggregate, yes. MARAma is right. You cannot say you want to do something by climate change and at the same time go looking for new reserves of coal and oil and gas. PETERS: excuse me, guys. FOX: Please, Winston. Save us. James, she has asked for me to speak. ... it makes no sense looking for new reserves when all of the existing reserves are a sunk cost. It depends upon what you're talking about. If you're talking about extraction to clean water, then there are products out there. Those essentials depend upon what you're talking about. The key thing is to understand is how you do it. Some countries do it while remaining environment is sensitive, and some don't. How can you say' are committed to climate change`? Gas will part of the transition for New Zealand. Gas may be the root. We need gas and heavy transport for a while before electricity takes over. We need to ensure a transition for people working in the sectors. Having moratoriums or bands is a little too simplistic. We say there will be no new exploration. Fonterra have got other options. They can use wood chip. That is something` Air New Zealand is the biggest user of coal. If we don't to draw a line in the sand, we will never get to that target. The idea that you can say you want to be a net neutral economy because looking for oil and gas is ludicrous We got electricityunder control. We are going towards 100% renewable. Transport solutions are coming out. I if you say no more gas, then you are going to get more coal. I want to shift, and look forward for a moment and think about some new ideas and innovations that you think will be changing in the future and helping to change the environment. Damian. What you're seeing is a lot of bickering about what's is right and wrong. We want to see a cross-party agreement about this. They put some short-term goals and targets and is well and makes the government accountable over the next 20 or 30 years. We need to sign that now and move forward, otherwise we'll be having the same arguments, emissions will increase, temperatures will increase. What about transport, David Seymour? We need to follow other countries as scrap petrol tax. We should be leading the world at world pricing. We should make it easier to ride share. Right now, the government puts it through $1500 of bureaucracy Marama Fox? We have, right now, companies in this country that can build sustainable and environmentally friendly housing with Energy efficient solutions, but cost $4000 per square metre to do it. The government supports the building of this sustainable environmentally friendly houses, we can get that down to $1000. good environmentalism sound economics, but let's be practical about this. MARAE IS NEXT. REMEMBER Q+A REPEATS TONIGHT AT 11.35PM. THANKS FOR WATCHING AND THANKS FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS. THOSE WERE THE QUESTIONS, THOSE WERE THE ANSWERS THAT'S Q+A. SEE YOU NEXT SUNDAY MORNING AT 9. CAPTIONS BY ALEX WALKER AND JUNE YEOW. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2017