AND WE'LL HAVE ANALYSIS FROM OUR PANEL ` JOSIE PAGANI, PUBLIC AFFAIRS SPECIALIST AND DIRECTOR OF THE COUNCIL FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. WAYNE MAPP, A FORMER NATIONAL CABINET MINISTER. JOHN TAMIHERE, CEO OF THE WAIPAREIRA TRUST AND A FORMER LABOUR MP. WE'LL HEAR FROM YOU SHORTLY, BUT FIRST, HERE'S JESS. JIM BOLGER HAS BEEN IN THE UNIQUE POSITION OF HAVING TO NEGOTIATE A COALITION WITH WINSTON PETERS BEFORE. HE THRASHED OUT THE FIRST AGREEMENT UNDER MMP IN 1996 AND JOINS ME NOW. I want to start by asking you what it is like to negotiate with Winston Peters. Any negotiation requires that the parties respect each other, respect the different positions that people bring to the table and work your way forward to find common Accord, find the issues that you can reach agreement on, put aside those issues where there is no possibility of agreement. The whole concept of MMP is to have multi parties in parliament. That requires compromise. That requires listening to the other side, both sides to accept that some policies they campaigned on are unlikely to be implemented. Is it about relationships primarily for Mr Peters? Or is it about a mix of relationships and policy. Policy will be hugely important. But clearly there has to be some chemistry, some synergies between the parties doing the negotiation. That is important, but don't underestimate the importance of policies. When you work negotiating with him, did you did a lot of that yourself? That leader to leader contact? Of course. And while some of the negotiations were done with others, the ultimate decision-making is done by the leaders. We get a taste of what Winston Peters is like on the other side with the media. Behind closed doors, what is he like? Tough, as you would expect. He has his positions. You just have to expect that where it will take a little while and move forward on that basis. The main thing I think is to listen carefully to the nuances of whether openings might be. I negotiated an awful lot of trade union disputes in my time as Minister of Labour, so a little experience in picking up where the way forward is. Looking to where you make progress forward rather than to adding campaign arguments. You are not out there taking pot shots at each other. You are actually looking for a solution. That is the most important. What advice have you given to Mr English? Have you spoken to him about this? I had a brief chat to Bill English, but not in any way like this. I congratulated him on an outstanding election result. The the other party we could be talking about is the Green party. If they were to step up, they have exactly the same possibility to influence the outcome. If they are in the political max, and campaigning to have an influence on the government, they should as a small party, talk to both sides. Did you talk to Mr English about that in your phone conversation? The National party has made clear their position with Paula Bennett. Saying that they would be open to a discussion with the Green party. Did he say anything to you on the phone conversation? We didn't move into that space at all, and I didn't intend to move into that space. I think there is an obligation from my perspective, a party like the Greens, they want to influence the country's environmental approach, and some issues of poverty, why not talk to both sides? Why presume that you can only talk to one side? I think they fail to understand MMP if they do that. Coincidentally, we took on board the German system of proportional representation, mixed member proportional. Germany had an election after our election. We seem to have, as it is portrayed, a green party in NZ which is really a left party. I think that is a loss to NZ's, if that is true. Is it not dangerous for the Greens? If you go into government, you can lose your identity. I have to say that is a pathetic argument, if you want my blunt assessment. Why are you there if you are not going to go into government and do something? Why go up and down the country about your ambitions and hopes and aspirations unless you won't go into government? We will just prattle on and do nothing about it. You have to go into government if you will influence the outcome. I'm very sorry what happened to theMaori party. The Green party has an opportunity to become an influential voice for the causes they hold their, which I think most New Zealanders hold dear. All of us want to clean green country. If you are frightened of someone objecting to National... the Greens would be a far easier option? They may not be. They have some areas where the discussion and debate would be quite tense. But the broad parameters of what the Green party are arguing for as I interpret it as climate change, of course. NZ has signed up to the Paris Accord. Can we go faster? Well let's discuss that. People want clean waterways and rivers. NZ's farmers is there more that can be done? Would it be arguably a more stable government? Winston Peters doesn't have a great track record of staying in negotiations and coalition deals the full term. To be fair to Winston, Winston negotiated a coalition agreement with 1996 with me as leader of the National party. And then decided they wanted a new leader. When Winston was in government with me, he had the senior position of treasurer as well as Deputy Prime Minister. That was very stable and we had no difficulties. We moved forward as a very coherent government. Did he ask to be prime minister when you were negotiating? No. He did not ask to be prime minister. And nobody other than the leading party would-be product to prime minister. I think that's nonsense that someone from a small party would become prime minister. I don't know what Winston might want an coalition government. He could easily decide to sit on the crossbenches. If we are to take his timeline, which Winston said he won't discuss until after 7 October, and have a decision on the 12th, that suggests he is not looking for a coalition but in fact is looking for sitting on the crossbenches. Having influence from that position, which he unquestionably would have. On matters to the larger party, which is the National party. They would have to negotiate various matters to the course of the year. Why do you think you were successful? I'm a good negotiator. I've done a lot of it. Despite Winston and I having had many disagreements, we were able to put those behind us. You have to put a lot of things behind you if you want to move forward. In all walks of life. So we put this thing behind us. We asked what is it we want to achieve for NZ? What do we have in common? Is there a sufficient level of respect? All of those things we were able to say yes to and move forward. I have to say, if I had remained as Prime Minister, that coalition government would have remained for the full term. We are now in a caretaker government. How long do you think we should be like this, where there are obviously restrictions on what can be done. Do you think the public appetite for these negotiations is short lived? We should not panic. The public elected to have a mixed member proportional system. Germany, to go back to that comparison, they are talking three or four months. The German economy, the largest in Europe, no one is saying is going to fall apart. Caretaker governments can do all the things that are necessary. They can't bring a new initiatives, but they can do all the things that are necessary to run the country. Halfway through the negotiations in 1996, I adjourned for a while and went to the APEC leaders meeting in Manila. The country should have no concerns that sorts of terrible things will happen during the caretaker., Because they won't. There is sufficient authority in the caretaker government to manage everything that is necessary, other than bringing in policies, and we don't bring those in everyday. If the huge German economy could contemplate three or four months` nobody is questioning the authority of Angela Merkel. Let's take away some of the fear out of this and get on and a sense. That is a nice place to leave it. Thank you for your time. 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. WE'LL HEAR FROM THE PANEL AFTER THE BREAK. AND LATER ` 24 YEARS AGO, NEW ZEALANDERS VOTED FOR MMP AND THE PROMISE OF A MORE DIVERSE AND REPRESENTATIVE PARLIAMENT. DID WE GET WHAT WE WANTED? THAT'S NEXT. FIND IT IN YOUR HEARTS, DEAR VIEWERS, TO PITY THE POOR POLITICAL JOURNALISTS WHO WILL SPEND THE NEXT FEW WEEKS TRYING TO GLEAN ANY KIND OF INFORMATION OUT OF WINSTON PETERS AS COALITION TALKS GET UNDERWAY. WE'RE GOING TO ASK THE PANEL ABOUT WHAT MAY BE GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENES, BUT FIRST, WHENA OWEN PUT TOGETHER THIS WRAP OF THE WEEK WITH WINSTON. (ROCK MUSIC) # I won't tell you. I won't tell you. Where do you guys get off asking questions like that? That's a totally impertinent question. Why would you ask a question like that? You can ask all the questions you like. You're not gonna get one answer right now. Take a wild guess. Come on. Work it out for yourself. # But I won't tell you. I won't tell you. Why would I tell you? Are you serious? 'Scuse me, why is that question relevant right now? Where are you from? MAN: Australia. Yeah, it shows. # I won't tell you. I won't tell you. Can't come and ask a silly question like that. Let's stop the mirage and the facade here. That was the first question over here. Which part of that did you miss? OK, next question. # But I won't tell you. I won't tell you. Well, I can't see the sense in holding a press conference if you're gonna ask questions like that. # I won't tell you. # All right? Thank you very much. (ROCK MUSIC ENDS) Winston's greatest hits ` I cannot wait for the show. According to a lot of people to the right side, Greens and National other way to go. I would say that interview with Jim Bolger is the negotiations starting. He is presenting the option of the greens is perfectly feasible for national. It is a negotiating tool, so Winston knows that he has some competition. The Nats have been pushing this line all week. I understand why they are doing it. I think it is impossible for the greens in this election having campaigned on change, there was a fascinating piece by Nandor, who suggested that the Greens needs to get away from the left and right divide and think of themselves as an ecological third wave. A party of small innovative and environmentally friendly small businesses, for example. They do need to think about, after 20 years of not being a government, thinking about what their options are. And James Shaw said in his speech that he does not want the greens to be the moral conscience, self flattering moral conscience of Parliament. He once again Parliament and do something. James Shaw said a week ago that he would not enter into agreement with National. Wayne, Will that ever happen? National has believed for years that they should be able to do a deal with the Greens. The Greens would get far more out of National than they possibly imagine. I am also aware that within the Green party, there is a lot of antipathy to that. Logically, it should be able to happen. It should be good for our country at the Greens could perform that role, they need to shift a bit in their heads that they could perform that role. James Shaw, initially, seem to think that there was a possibility. Going further down the journey at the present moment. We are under the pressure of MMP negotiations. They have an opportunity to do a bit of a switch around that if they want to. Will the Green party be thinking, look what happened to the Maori party? Is it going to be at the back of their minds? There are a lot of issues on the table. Quite complex negotiation. The Greens are in the picture to do a deal with national. I don't anticipate that ever happening, not in that election cycle. I think the Greens have been extraordinarily effective as they have been around the world in shaping environmental policy generally. Without getting into cabinet, they have been fantastic in this country. That is what MMP is about ` third parties smoothing that the spikes. Just to finalise, I don't think that is going to happen. What I do think is going to happen straight arithmetic's ` 54% voted against the government, so you have to work out where this thing rolls. Winston is the key. The Greens could sit on the crossbenches and get a tangible deal. I think they have achieved a lot. They have got environmental issues on the agenda and they could achieve so much more. They could sit on the crossbenches and do a deal on clean rivers, get a commitment from either side to do something on clean rivers or carbon tax. How much leverage are you going to have from their? Quite a lot if National cannot be a government without them. Winston being in this position is not a floor of MMP, it is the point of MMP. The fact that the small parties hold the balance of power is the point of MMP. The small parties have been incredibly successful. You look at the alliance, Kiwi bank, paid parental leave, Maori party, Whanau Ora, increasing trades... the two parties you have just mentioned, the payoff appears to be you get what you want and then you disappear. They achieve exactly what they set out to do. They entered into government to get policy changes. They achieve that. What I would say is, if you look at the electoral cycles, those that have butted up with a government that is the term, they have often gone out and the following election. The alliance blued themselves in the first term of the labour government. The first and last term really makes no difference. It is the dynamic within that party as to whether they will survive. NZ has had 20 years of MMP. As voters, we still have some learning to do about that. You still actually want parties to sustain themselves and survive, whether they are in government or not. It is not ideal that the way a small party can survive is to never be in government. It is not what MMP is designed to achieve. If Winston said no, he is not worried, but National went out and out to end him in his seat. How much is that going to play into it? I don't think it will play into it at all. Parties try and win elections. The comment he seemed to make on that day ` he understood that that was the voters choice. He lives with that and understands it. He is not naive. He is not the kind of man to let go of grudges. He just simply knows that process. I want to say this to all three of you, it is important to know that we tried to get people on both sides to talk about. No one would, and the only conclusion we can draw is that they are too scared. That is not true. He knows that you play a tough game. After the game is settled and you know the school borders. He is not a megalomaniac. He is a very knowledgeable` in fact, the most successful politician you have had over the last 40 years. He can bury... You say ugly things to one another and quite despicable, but after that, the requirement to bear what is best for your party and country takes over. You look at Jim Bolger, he was the leader who got rid of him from the national party caucus. If they can bury a grudging go into government together... When it comes to getting into power, those grudges will be there. Jim Bolger tried exceptionally hard to make that coalition work. There was an element within the National party caucus, it was a difficult time at the time, Jim would certainly understand that. Everyone has learned from that 20 years down the track. In my view, 46% is not a change election. There is never been a government... there has never been a government where the biggest party has not formed the government. What Winston is doing is perfectly rational. He is waiting for 15% of the vote to be counted. If there are a couple more extra seats for labour or the Greens, then it is in contention. 22 out of the 25 highest turnout seats on election day went to national. So it may not go to label Greens. Extra seats could go to national. Traditionally they do, but there has been a different pattern here. What Winston is doing is perfectly rational. You know him personally, and you know him well. What does he want?What does he actually want? You can set your clock by this guy. His policies have never changed, in terms of NZ first. Immigration will be a big one. I didn't want to get into the smorgasbord this morning. It is quite a large one. What I think he will do very well at 7.5%, that's the system we all agree to. I find it amazing that the press feel flabbergasted by the fact that he is in no position to answer questions. 15% of the vote is yet to come in. We will know at 7 October what the numbers are. Regional development, infrastructure... you have to give this guy a chance to form a view on the negotiation. IS MMP WORKING? WE CATCH UP WITH TWO MMP CAMPAIGNERS ` ONE FOR, ONE AGAINST ` AND LOOK AT WHETHER THE ELECTORAL CHANGE HAS PRODUCED A BETTER SYSTEM OF POLITICS. THAT'S NEXT. IT'S NEARLY 21 YEARS SINCE OUR FIRST MMP ELECTION. VOTERS DITCHED FIRST PAST THE POST AFTER LONG-TIME CONCERN THAT IT WASN'T A FAIR WAY OF PRODUCING A REPRESENTATIVE PARLIAMENT. WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT WHETHER MMP HAS LIVED UP TO ITS PROMISE, BUT FIRST, A LOOK BACK AT HOW WE GOT HERE. THIS REPORT BY WHENA OWEN. WELL, HERE AT SOCIAL CREDIT HEADQUARTERS IN RANGITIKEI, THINGS ARE STARTING TO LOOK EVEN BETTER THAN THEY HAD BEFORE. THEY WERE LOOKING BETTER FOR SOCIAL CREDIT IN THAT 1978 ELECTION. 21% OF ELECTORS VOTED FOR THEM. BUT THE PARTY ONLY GAINED TWO SEATS IN PARLIAMENT. SUPPORTERS OF THOSE SMALLER PARTIES WERE BECOMING DISILLUSIONED WITH THE 'FIRST PAST THE POST' SYSTEM. AND IN THAT ELECTION, AND THE FOLLOWING, LABOUR SECURED MORE ACTUAL VOTES OVERALL THAN NATIONAL. BUT NATIONAL WON MORE SEATS IN PARLIAMENT AND CONTINUED IN GOVERNMENT. AND I DIDN'T SAVAGE THAT OTHER BLOKE. (LAUGHTER) DISSATISFACTION WITH 'FIRST PAST THE POST' INTENSIFIED WELL INTO THE LANGE GOVERNMENT. I THINK THERE ARE, THEREFORE, ASPECTS OF UNFAIRNESS, WHICH IS WHY THIS GOVERNMENT SUPPORTED THE MOVE TO HAVE THE ROYAL COMMISSION. A ROYAL COMMISSION IN 1986 ON NEW ZEALAND'S ELECTORAL SYSTEM CAME OUT IN FAVOUR OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. IN OUR VIEW, THERE IS EVERY CHANCE OF GOOD AND STABLE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE MMP SYSTEM, AND THE EVIDENCE FROM WEST GERMANY CERTAINLY POINTS TO THAT. JIM BOLGER, THEN IN OPPOSITION, WASN'T AS EXCITED AS MMP. JIM BOLGER, THEN IN OPPOSITION, WASN'T AS EXCITED ABOUT MMP. WHICHEVER OF THE MAJOR PARTIES WAS TO FORM THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE TO REACH AN ACCOMMODATION WITH A MINOR PARTY, OR TWO MINOR PARTIES. AND YOU REALLY THEN TRANSFER THE POWER TO THE MINOR PARTY TO DICTATE TO THE MAJOR GROUPS THAT HAVE BEEN ELECTED, AND I THINK THAT'S WRONG. I THINK OTHER FORMS OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION, YOU CAN HAVE NOT JUST THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG BUT THE FLEA WAGGING THE TAIL, AND THAT WOULD BE CRAZY. IN THE EARLY '90S, BOLGER'S GOVERNMENT WAS UNDER PRESSURE TO TAKE THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PEOPLE. IN 1992, THE GOVERNMENT HELD A NON-BINDING REFERENDUM. 70% VOTED FOR MMP. YOU'RE NOT IN A HURRY, ARE YA? IN THE BUILD-UP TO A BINDING REFERENDUM TAGGED TO THE 1993 ELECTION, GUESS WHO WAS CHEERLEADING FOR MMP. AND IF YOU WANT BETTER POLITICIANS, BETTER GOVERNMENT AND A BETTER COUNTRY, THEN CHANGE THE SYSTEM UNDER WHICH YOU ARE GOVERNED TODAY. WE HAVE GONE FOR MMP, AND WE HAVE GONE FOR MMP COMPREHENSIVELY. WE HAVE A NEW SYSTEM OF VOTING. (ALL CHEER) BUT THE VOTERS OF NEW ZEALAND THEN NEEDED TO BE EDUCATED ABOUT THE NEW SYSTEM IN ADVANCE OF THE FIRST MMP ELECTION IN 1996. (DING!) IT TAKES JUST TWO TICKS ` ONE FOR A PARTY, ONE FOR A PERSON. TO ME, STILL SWEATING AT 8.30 ` AN HOUR AND A HALF AFTER THE POLLS HAVE CLOSED. A FIRST MMP ELECTION BROUGHT AN INDECISIVE RESULT, AND WINSTON PETERS BECAME THE KINGMAKER. PETERS KEPT THE COUNTRY WAITING AND, FAMOUSLY, WENT FISHING. WE'RE JUST GONNA HAVE A TALK ABOUT THINGS. WHAT SORT OF THINGS? THINGS WOULD COME UP, I SUPPOSE. AND SO BEGAN THE MEDIA DANCE WITH ALL POTENTIAL COALITION PARTNERS. THERE'S NO COMMENT. CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT`? AND NO COMMENT. ...PRIME MINISTER? AND NO COMMENT. NOWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD WOULD PEOPLE EXPECT A COALITION GOVERNMENT TO COME TOGETHER IN TWO WEEKS. I'M ASKING AGAIN FOR THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY TO BE IMPASSIONED AND THE MEDIA OF THIS COUNTRY TO UNDERSTAND THEIR ROLE IN IT. AFTER THE COLLAPSE OF THE NATIONAL-NEW ZEALAND FIRST COALITION, OPINION POLLS SUGGESTED THE PUBLIC HAD LOST CONFIDENCE IN THE NEW SYSTEM. IN YET ANOTHER MMP REFERENDUM IN 2011, 58% OF ELECTORS VOTED TO RETAIN IT. SEVEN WEEKS AFTER THE 1996 ELECTION, PETERS ANNOUNCED HIS DECISION TO GO WITH NATIONAL. THERE WERE THREE KEY FACTORS THAT DROVE NEW ZEALAND FIRST'S DECISION TODAY ` ECONOMIC GROWTH, SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, POLITICAL STABILITY. IN 2005, ONCE AGAIN, PETERS WAS BEING COURTED BY POTENTIAL COALITION PARTNERS, AND SO COMFORTABLE IN THE ROLE, HE WAS PULLING STUNTS WITH THE MEDIA. (HEARTY LAUGHTER) UH, HELEN? THIS TIME, PETERS WENT WITH LABOUR, TAKING UP THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO. ON THE ONE HAND, YOUR PARTY WOULD HAVE TO WIN AT LEAST 5% OF ALL THE PARTY VOTES CAST IN THE ELECTION. AN ELECTORAL COMMISSION REVIEW IN 2012 RECOMMENDED THE LOWERING OF THAT THRESHOLD TO 4%. THAT RECOMMENDATION HASN'T BEEN TAKEN UP. (CHEERING, SQUEALING) THE GENERAL ELECTION LAST WEEKEND WAS THE EIGHTH UNDER MMP, AND ONCE AGAIN, PETERS FINDS HIMSELF IN THE ROLE OF KINGMAKER OR QUEENMAKER. AND ONCE AGAIN, WE WILL JUST HAVE TO WAIT. # YOU'LL NEVER GET AWAY FROM ME. # AND THAT'S MMP! WHENA OWEN REPORTING THERE. JOINING ME NOW, DR SANDRA GREY ` FORMER HEAD OF THE CAMPAIGN FOR MMP, NOW PRESIDENT OF THE TERTIARY EDUCATION UNION; AND ASHLEY CHURCH ` HE CAMPAIGNED AGAINST MMP IN THE VERY FIRST REFERENDUM. HE'S NOW CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE PROPERTY INSTITUTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO FOR BEING HERE. WE ARE IN A STATE IN THE ELECTION THAT A PARTY HOLDS A VERY POWERFUL POSITION. WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT THE STATE OF MMP? WHAT IT STATES IS THAT IT'S DELIVERING WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS. REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE IN THE REPRESENTATION THEY SOUGHT. HE'S ACTUALLY DOING A DEAL WITH OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE POWER. WE HAVE SEEN THAT THROUGHOUT THE TIME OF MMP. SMALLER PARTIES COME IN AND THEY GET SOMETHING THAT THEY WANT. BUT THERE ALSO THINGS OF THE PUBLIC ONE. ONCE THEY ARE IN THE GOVERNMENT. THE MAJOR PARTIES LOSE SOME THINGS. BUT THEY GET THEIR FAIR SHARE. SO WE ARE OVERPLAYING WAS THE POWER HERE. CLEARLY WE HAVE FOUR POWERS THAT HAVE SOME POWER IN THE NEGOTIATIONS. THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT HOW THEY CAN PUT TOGETHER A GOVERNMENT TO SERVE THE PUBLIC. ASHLEY, IS IT WORKING? IT'S ALL GOING TO CHANGE. YOU GOING TO HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT IT HAS TO MAKE IT WORK. THINGS ARE PEOPLE WERE SCARED OFF IN 1993. THIS WAS TOP OF THIS. THIS WHOLE IDEA OF MINORITY POWER oR PROPORTIONAL POWER OF MINORITY PARTIES, THERE EFFECTIVELY ABLE TO CONTROL THE MAKEUP OF THE GOVERNMENT, wINSTON IS THE POSTER CHILD FOR THAT. SO WE'VE ENDED UP WITH A SITUATION AGAIN aS WE DID IN 1996 WERE SOMEBODY IS ESSENTIALLY, CONTROLLING THE FORMATION OF GOVERNMENT. BUT wINSON HAS BEEN IN GOVERNMENT. HE HASN'T BEEN IN CONTROL. THAT IS THE FEAR THAT IS RAISED AT THIS TIME. WINSTON DOES A GREAT JOB. HE MAKE SURE THAT HE GETS MEDIA TIME. HE IS A VERY SAVVY POLITICIAN. WHAT HE HAS DONE IN BOTH GOVERNMENTS IS THAT WHEN HE HASN'T GOTTEN HIS WAY, HE IS THE COALITION. SO THAT POWER ALWAYS THERE hE WILL STILL BE IN A POSITION TO SAY IF I DON'T LIKE WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN I WILL TAKE AND LEAVE. IT HAS CONTINUED TO PROVIDE STABLE GOVERNMENT FOR US. WASN'T THE WHOLE POINT OF MMP TO HAVE DIVERSITY AND HAVEN'T WE SEEN IN THE SELECTION THAT WE HAVE LOST THE Maori PARTY; ACT HAS LOST POWER. THEY HAVE JUST ONE SEAT. EVEN nEW zEALAND fIRST AND GREENS HAVE GONE DOWN. THE PURPOSE OF MMP IS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF WASTED VOTES. REMEMBER WHEN SOCIAL CREDIT ONLY GOT TWO SEATS IN THE HOUSE. 18% OF VOTERS ESSENTIALLY WASTED THEIR VOTES AT THE TIME. THIS TIME, eVERYONE WILL HAVE SOMEONE REPRESENTING THEM EXCEPT FOR 2%. WE HAVE EFFECTIVELY DELIVERED TO THE PUBLIC WHAT THEY WANT. A COALITION GOVERNMENT WITH ALL VIEWS HONORED. DIVERSITY IS ONE OF THE DESIRABLE OUTCOMES. BUT THE OTHER ONE IS COUNTABILITY. WHAT WE HAVE LOST IS A SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTABILITY. YOU WERE VOTED BY A GROUP OF PEOPLE. IF YOU DID NOT DO WHAT YOUR PEOPLE WANTED, YOU WOULD LOSE YOUR SEAT. IT'S NOT LIKE THAT NOW. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TO GREEN Mps IS PERFECT EXAMPLE. AS A RESULT OF THAT, THEY WERE REMOVED FROM THE PARTY LIST. THAT DEMONSTRATES VERY CLEARLY WHERE PEOPLE ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE AND NOW THEY ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PARTY. CERTAINLY THERE ARE NO Mps THAT CAN DO EXACTLY AS THEY LIKE. I THINK THE Maori PARTY WILL BE SAYING THAT THEY ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PUBLIC. THEY WERE SO ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PUBLIC tHE THIRD TIME WITH THE NATIONAL PARTY OVER THE LAST NINE YEARS HAS COST THEM THEIR SEATS IN THE HOUSE. MAORI HAVE SPOKEN LOUDLY ABOUT THE ACCOUNTABILITY. I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE. THE PEOPLE STILL DECIDE WHO'S GOING TO THE HOUSE. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO ASK BOTH OF YOU. DO YOU THINK nEW zEALANDERS UNDERSTAND MMP? IN SEATS LIKE ePSOM WHERE THEY ARE BEING ASKED TO SPLIT THEIR VOTE, DO YOU THINK nEW zEALANDERS GET IT? I THINK THEY DO. I THINK IN THE EARLY DAYS, YOU COULD ARGUE THAT THEY DIDN'T.BUT WE HAVE GOTTEN PAST THAT. WE HAVE A GENERATION OF KIDS WHO HAVE VOTED THAT WAY. SO THEY UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM. IT DOESN'T MEAN THE SYSTEM IS RIGHT, BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE ISSUE OF COMPLICATION ANY MORE. INTERESTINGLY THOUGH, ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT WAS TOUTED BY CAMPAIGNERS FOR MMP wAS THAT IT WOULD INCREASE PARTICIPATION BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND, BUT IN FACT IT HASN'T. BUT WE HAVEN'T DROPPED AS FAST AS MANY OTHER NATIONS. WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN nEW zEALAND IS DIFFERENT. WE HAVE MAINTAINED VOTING IN A MUCH HIGHER LEVEL. THIS IS A MUCH BROADER ISSUE ABOUT HOW PEOPLE FEEL ABOUT POLITICIANS AND POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT. MANY PEOPLE ARE DOING IT OUTSIDE PARLIAMENT AND NORMAL GOVERNMENT. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS INTERNATIONALLY, WE HAVE MAINTAINED A GOOD LEVEL OF VOTING COMPARED TO MANY OTHER NATIONS. ISN'T THIS THE WORST CASE SCENARIO? WE HAVE THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG, EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE DON'T WANT. IT MAY BE A LONG DRAWN OUT PROCESS. PEOPLE MIGHT SAY IT'S NOT WORKING. WE HAVEN'T GOT THE VOTES IN YET. IT MAY TAKE TIME. ON AVERAGE, IT HAS TAKEN SIX DAYS TO FORM COALITIONS. BUT IT IS LONGER WHEN IT'S wINSTON PETERS. THIS IS A PERCEPTION IT'S TAKING FOREVER. IT'S ONLY BEEN A WEEK. ON AVERAGE, IT'S TAKEN LESS THAN SIX DAYS aFTER SIX IS TO FORM COALITIONS IN nEW zEALAND. THAT'S A LONG TIME. AND IN THIS TIME, WE HAVE HAD SOME SIGNALING OF THE INTENT OF THE MAJOR PARTIES BEFORE THEY CAME INTO THE ELECTION OF THE DIRECTION. CLEARLY THE DIRECTIONS IT WILL TAKE. SO I THINK THERE WILL BE SOME CHANGES BECAUSE OF THE MATURITY OF MMP. WE HAVE BEEN REASONABLY SERVED BY PARTIES. OTHER PARTIES HAVE GONE THROUGH IT PRETTY QUICKLY BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZE INSTABILITY. WINSTON STANDS OUTSIDE OF THAT. HE'S DIFFERENT. I AM NOT SURE THE DROP OFF OF VOTING IS MORE RESULTS OF MMP BUT MORE A DISENGAGEMENT WORLDWIDE. WE HAD TO LEAVE IT THERE. AFTER THE BREAK ` FONTERRA BOSS THEO SPIERINGS IS CREAMING IT IN THE PAY STAKES. HIS SALARY AND BONUS PACKAGE HAS ROCKETED UP TO $8.3M THIS YEAR. IS IT FAIR? CORPORATE BOARD DIRECTOR MICHAEL STIASSNY IS NEXT. Welcome back. Wayne I want to start with you. Is this how MMP is always going to look? You have a kingmaker that has to negotiate. When we vote for an employee, and majority have done that now twice, it was intended to provide a check on the two major parties. That was the major purpose of. Unlike Germany, we have never had a coalition between the two major parties. Maybe that is something to think about. But currently, Winston is the one center party. The greens could fulfill that position if they want to. MMP is fulfilling its role as we wanted to. 46% was a hell of a good result. It's 10% more than the next largest party. I'm sure Winston peters will be bearing that in mind. In 2005 essentially the vote for change had majority then. But labour had 2% more than national. And so in the end, I think you will find with Winston that it's hard to work out what he wants. But he does favor stability, And I'm sure national and Bill English will dear him to turn down 46% Winston doesn't have all the power. National and Labour and the greens also have power. And so the idea that he is the kingmaker is not the case. I disagree with your pitch. MMP simple arithmetic. It doesn't matter if you hit 46. Can you muster the rest to rule? Here's the other thing, the national party, the issue is that of course the greens are sitting there. There trying to take the edge of Winston and that is the game of the negotiation. I don't know whether anybody going into those polling booths ever thought that they would get that seed. Let's take national and Winston peters out. We would have all this tension otherwise. It would be more straightforward. That was like 1999 effectively. But we are not in that situation. We have a genuine center-right party. This is lever of tension just come down to Winston Peters and New Zealand First? No one is arguing that MMP is not working as it should. This is just all come back to Winston and his style? I think he's being entirely rational. He is not showing showing us his hand. He is waiting for the rest of the vote come in. There is a problem on the left in the sense that a lot of their loss, They only got to 35%, and a lot of that was in seeds with high immigrants. If you going to coalition with Winston who has got all these policies about reducing immigration even further, I think that is a principality problem for labour. Having said that, there is still a lot of alignment over regional policy over monetary policy With Labour than national. New Zealand First voters would rather that they went with Labour. However, it's hard to argue that the entire New Zealand, 7.9% of that vote. It's is nonsense. Deals need to be done. MMP is about diversity. John and his principles right there. IN THE FLURRY OF POST-ELECTION NEWS, FONTERRA REVEALED ITS CEO, THEO SPIERINGS, HAS RECEIVED A BIG BONUS THIS YEAR BUMPING HIS SALARY PACKAGE TO $8.3M. SAYING IT SHOWED THERE NEEDED TO BE A 'SAY ON PAY' LAW THAT WOULD GIVE SHAREHOLDERS MORE POWER IN DECIDING CEO SALARIES. WE DID ASK THEO SPIERINGS TO APPEAR THIS MORNING, BUT HE IS IN AUSTRALIA THIS WEEKEND. FONTERRA CHAIR JOHN WILSON WAS ALSO UNAVAILABLE. I'M JOINED NOW BY MICHAEL STIASSNY, WHO HAS BEEN ON A NUMBER OF CORPORATE BOARDS AND IS THE PAST PRESIDENT OF THE INSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS. GOOD MORNING. I want to ask you. A $8.3 million. Fonterra's profits have been done 11%. Is that fair? It seems to be extremely high when you look at shareholder return. The details are about long-term short-term base salaries. We can't really comment on that other than we have to find a way the people in the market think that the salaries are reasonable. The noise around it, it is not. Fonterra is saying that if you look at the rest of the world, this very much fits and within that band of what the CEO can expect. Is that just would we have to pay for good people? We had to find a way where the corporate world is looking fair. 8.3 is a bit high. Otago University have done research there is a gap between the CEO and the average worker's earnings. We look at Brexit and Trump and all the things happening in the world, and I think you would say that there is a frustration And resentment that is growing between the bottom end of the market in the top end of the market. So people are saying You've got to do something here. It is becoming a responsibility for corporate's around the world to take a leadership in these larger items, And it is up to the boards of New Zealand companies to say that they have to find a way to reduce the gap and make it seem Making it really fair for people. Is that about paying workers more bringing down the CEO pay? It is about letting people understand why CEOs are being paid what they are. So total shareholder is a good way to measure performance. But there is culture, sustainability, And so it is about doing more things and selling that and communicating that to the market and the people involved in the company. Is that what it is about? It is about people feeling the big getting a good go? No. The amount of money that we have, Compared with the very top end of the market it has been very different. There has to be a realization that the average worker and the difference between that and the CEO is significant. You chair a number of boards. How do you work out CEO renumeration? We haven't got It right. Luckily were not in the Fonterra game. But we are paying our CEOs a lot of money, but compared with the person who works at the reception desk, it is more significant. We need to take account of that and find a way of making that Smaller. Why is that gap widening, do you think? We look forward CEOs in the world market and we need to pay them by that. But we need to make up and say hey, New Zealand is not a bad place to live. It is God's zone. People have a social responsibility to say they cannot take more income The people who work in the factory. We ask everyone to lift their social conscience and actually start thinking about society as a whole and letting it grow. Why are we always shopping for that talent overseas? Do we not have that here in New Zealand? We have a lot of talent in New Zealand but it always easier to look outside. It's easier than looking at somebody who grew up in the same village. If you look at somebody from Australia, their CV looks wonderful we don't know what degree they've gotten what school they went to. It's a little bit closed, and we see them far rosier than we do our own people. Is that something you personally are focusing on? Trying to attract New Zealand CEOs? We have a major problem attracting workers. People don't want to live in Auckland at the moment because it is too hard. So we are struggling with getting linesmen, unfortunately a very sexist term, And they would go to Tauranga and get a good school. They can do good things after work. So we need those people to stay in Auckland. Winston peters has come out and said that shareholders need to have more of sayon what CEOs earn. If they are not comfortable, They should be able to have that reviewed. Shareholders have a right to express their views by appointing boards, and with kind of missEd that as well. The boards are there. They should make the boards accountable to explain what is going on in a way that makes them happy, or unhappy and use their vote. So I don't see them having a boat at the table so to speak YOUR FEEDBACK NOW. LOTS OF POSSIBILITY OF A BLUE-GREEN COALITION. Tell that to all the All Blacks playing. Is it too much? How much is too much? That sounds to me like too much. You've got homeless people in the streets, where the average wage cannot by the average house. That is $8 million. That is $160,000 a week. If you go back to the 90s, the difference between a CEO salary and your average wage was I think nine times bigger. Now it is 17 times bigger. Why is that? That is because unions have lost their powers. They're not negotiating the same levels. It has to be seen as grossly unfair. Is it anyone's business, though? Should we even have an opinion? The farmers should have review. In fact, there should be shareholder views. That is the case in Australia. It's the same case in the UK. In the current circumstances, there would be of you. 8.3 is a lot. You think (?) It's not like he's the entrepreneur who built from the ground up. That's a performance issue. Kiwis bristle at that kind of power. Rightly so. We are a low-wage economy. They will rightly be upset. There is this massive wealth gap in New Zealand. As that starts to grow and starts to be around, you will get objection to a big salary. Fonterra started around the same time as Apple. Apple is an excellent company that has grown and grown. Fonterra has been given a monopoly by statutory regulation. We should be the biggest global Food corporation in the world. Even though you would argue that you are rewarding excellence, we are still the FedEx of milk powder. Wayne, you said Jacinda Ardern should take the high ground on negotiations. She should talk to Helen Clark. Helen Clark I'm sure would say it's probably better that she didn't get it in 96 rather 99. To me that is a hugely important factor in government. On that it provides you a platform for sustainable government. It's a different kettle of fish. But the point is, sitting it out, no one sits out when the trophy is just there. No one sits out. The day you sit out when you have the opportunity is the day you should give up. What happened to the Maori party, sitting out... They're a minority party. The Maori party has achieved more than it could possibly imagine. They only had to Mps. More money for homeless people, more money for trades and so on. I think whether or not the Maori party is out of government, that is a shame. But they will be back. The small parties need to realize that Mps come in and achieve their mission. MARAE IS NEXT. REMEMBER Q+A REPEATS TONIGHT AT 11.35PM. THANKS FOR WATCHING AND THANKS FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS. THOSE WERE THE QUESTIONS, AND THOSE WERE THE ANSWERS. THAT'S Q+A. SEE YOU NEXT SUNDAY MORNING AT 9. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2017