Good morning and welcome to The Nation. I'm Lisa Owen. Today ` who's keeping employers honest? This industrial relations framework is, by design, to shift wealth from workers to business owners and company directors and investors, and that's the model. One year on from Helen Kelly's death, we talk about what's being done to carry out her vision for workplace safety and workers' rights. Then calls for capital gains tax from an unexpected quarter. We talk to BNZ boss Anthony Healy. Then later ` hold on to your job. We're heading into another industrial revolution. Anywhere between 30% to almost 50% of our jobs will go with artificial intelligence robots coming through our workforce over the next 10 to 15 years. I think if we do it right, AIs will not only be smarter than us, but they'll be more compassionate and more ethical than us. We look at the future of artificial intelligence and why Kiwi companies are so unprepared. Then we wrap up the political week with our panel ` Vernon Tava, Tracy Watkins and Chris Simpson ` and comedians Jeremy Corbett and Paul Ego. Copyright Able 2017 It's great to have you with us today. If you'd like to get in touch, our details are on screen now. And if you're on Twitter, you can follow along with our Twitter panel ` RNZ's Laura Tupou and Newsroom National Affairs editor Shane Cowlishaw. Use the hashtag #NationNZ for that. Now, it's exactly a year since union leader Helen Kelly died, aged just 52. She achieved so much, but she also had many more things she wanted others to carry on with. We'll talk about them in a minute, but first, here is some of what Helen Kelly had to say when we spoke to her in August last year, starting with why businesses should want to pay a living wage. You can always say, 'Well, if we had a 15% increase in customer uptake, we'd be fine.' And then you say, 'Well, if you're a living wage employer and you had permanent staff 'and you were developing your products and you were advertising 'and we were promoting you as somebody who's prepared to invest in your staff, that is doable.' This industrial relations framework is by design to shift wealth from workers to business owners and company directors and investors. And that's the model. So, you have a look at construction in Christchurch. They've absolutely set about having no deaths and a safe system, and they've put huge amounts of energy into it. Led by Fletcher's. And it's worked. Forestry ` huge effort, even by the forest owners now. The employers have got this standing committee they're going through. They've made the effort, pushed by us. Huge reduction in accidents in forestry. Farming ` nah, doing nothing, 'No problem here.' Got the minister saying they're safe. And you've got a blip now. More accidents this year in farming than there were last year. So what I'd like to see is a standing group set up by those families that have got active, and every time there is a death, they contact the family, they give them information, they help them through all that process. And they would keep the lobbying going on health and safety. And farm safety is the area I'd like to crack. So, how are we doing on the goals Helen Kelly left for us? Joining me now are CTU president Richard Wagstaff, Equal Employment Opportunities commissioner Jackie Blue, and employment lawyer Hazel Armstrong. Good morning to you all. Hazel, if I can come to you first, Helen Kelly was really concerned about injuries and deaths in the farming area. This year ` I had a look ` we've had eight deaths so far, 29 notifiable injuries. What's killing people on our farms? Quad bikes, mainly. She also had a very strong focus on forestry, and we've had five deaths there. So just in those two industries, you've got quite a considerable number of people dying, and they're brutal deaths, they're harsh deaths, and often the people are on their own when they die. So she was wanting the industries to take responsibility, particularly about regulating quad bikes and also regulating conditions in forestry, and it hasn't happened. She's quite right; there's been no movement at all in the farm sector, a bit ` a bit ` in forestry. Well, let's talk about farming first. Why? Why no movement? Fiercely independent, I would say, the farmers. They don't want to have the nanny state intruding, and the last thing they want is to be told how to do their business. But, in fact, actually, they're killing themselves and their kids, so maybe they need to be told. So, you mentioned forestry there ` five deaths already. Now, that's already more than in the whole of last year ` four deaths last year. Why are we going backwards in forestry, then? Well, there's an intensification of work. More people are out there working very hard. We've still got no regulations around hours of work. We've got no regulations about working in the wet or the cold or the heat. So not much has changed. And when the foot went off the neck, cos Helen Kelly really kept a spotlight on forestry, and when she died and Worksafe stepped away, they just went back to their old tricks. I think too the thing to remember is that fatalities are tragic, but it's the tip of the iceberg. For every person killed ` and there's like 50 killed a year in New Zealand ` seven times that are badly hurt. And when I mean 'badly hurt', I'm talking about losing limbs, severe brain damage and so on. So you've got whole families, you've got lives turned upside down, chronic pain. So really, our fatality situation's tragic, but our injury rate on top of that tells an even bigger picture, a worse picture. In saying that, though, the government set a target, which was to reduce workplace deaths by 25% by 2020. We're already there. So what do we need to do? Aim higher and set a new target? I think so. The target they've set still leaves us looking pretty bad by international standards. And I don't think just a 'softly, softly' thing; we need to be shaken out of our complacency, and that's what Helen did. She put the spotlight on a record that we have that we were just sort of cruising along with and not really addressing hard enough. And I think we need to keep our foot on the pedal, as Hazel said, our foot on the throat to` Well, I think also that if you take the averages, that's one way. But if you look at different sectors, like farming and forestry, it's not looking so good. So those industries in New Zealand, which I use the word 'they're fiercely independent'; they don't want anyone interfering, there's still the same problem there. Jackie, I'm wondering, would we be doing more about this if the victims were in jobs that were more valued? So let's say we had five nurses die in one year or we had five teachers killed in one year. Would we be doing more? I suspect you're right, Lisa. I also think a fact in the forestry deaths is that they have very low rates of unionisation. They don't have anyone speaking for them. There's no voice for forestry workers. And I listened to an interview Helen did a year before she died, and she said she got to know the forestry workers, and once they understood the concept of a union, they wanted to be part of one. And I think that's right. I mean, I know the nurses union, the teachers union, certainly wouldn't sit back and let those kinds of deaths happen in their industry, and that's a vital part of the whole social dialogue that's missing in these workplaces. There's really no opportunity for these workers to push back and say, 'It's not safe here. We need to not just focus on production. 'We need to put a bit more focus on the workforce.' But there is no real voice in those workplaces if they don't have the support of a union and can work together to stand up for themselves. OK. Well, the thing is we're in a position now where we're going to get a different version of government. No matter what happens, there is going to be a slightly different make-up in our government. So what are your wants or expectations, then, if this is still happening and not enough is being done? Well, on health and safety, we would like to see a real step-up in attitude on it. We'd like better resourcing for Worksafe. We'd like, you know, just basically a higher set of aspirations. But I think` So you'd like the budget to be upped? Yeah, for Worksafe, absolutely. And there needs to be a greater presence of this issue. But there's a lot more problems than just health and safety for working people. We're optimistic that we can solve them, but, you know, we've got real problems with wages; we've got real problems with productivity; we've got real problems with the culture of work that people are in. Workplaces aren't going as good as they should be in New Zealand. All right. I want to move on to some of that shortly, but beforehand, you're also worried about deaths from occupational diseases, aren't you? So what are you talking about, and how common are they? Well, can I answer that? Sure. The main one that people go to their GP about or the hospitals notice is an asbestos-related disease. But when you start talking about cancers ` liver cancers, kidney cancers, skin cancers, even ` there's very low awareness in the medical profession about asking that next question ` what was the cause? Was it occupational? So we have a huge job to do in turning around the medical profession to look at causation. How many are you talking about, in terms of deaths a year, do you think are attributable to this? Well, the figures are very high ` two in 500. Yeah. It dwarfs the actual fatalities. So do we record this? Should we record it? We could do better on recording it. I mean, one of the things is the lag. People got asbestos poisoning and infection a long time ago,... It takes decades to show. ...and now we're reading the problems now. And you have industries that promote these products, a bit like tobacco, who are in denial about the effects for a long time. So it takes a long time. So we still have asbestos in New Zealand. We don't have a register of asbestos in New Zealand where we should have. There's a lot to do on that issue as well. OK. I want to move on to pay equity. Jackie, the Ministry for Women has research showing that 60% to 80% of the gender pay gap cannot be put down to things like skill levels or education. So how much of that is sexism, do you think? I think the research in New Zealand has shown that up to 80% of the gender pay gap is due to unconscious bias and often some behaviours and choices women make. But unconscious bias is huge and needs to be addressed. And that's sexism by another name, isn't it? Absolutely. Yeah. And the gap is worst at the top end, which I found really interesting ` the top end of the market ` so here's the conundrum. Given that you've got more men at the top of the market, how do you make them pay women equally? Well, you need pay equally legislation; you need some principles around how you pay men and women in all sorts of different types of occupations, whether it's mixed or predominantly women. There's current legislation in parliament, which will be picked up by the next government. That legislation could be world-leading, but unfortunately it doesn't stay true to the joint working group principles that were agreed and widely-claimed. So what you're saying is we're not tough enough. Not tough enough. We need pay transparency. People have no idea if they're being paid fairly without knowing what others are being paid, so we need some mechanism so people can find that out. I want to talk a bit about that too, but, Hazel, in your profession, law, it's one of the worst offenders. I mean, if I look at 2015's statistics, women made up about 60% of employees in law firms, but only 26% of the directors. So what's going on in your profession? I think my own view is that when you're a young woman, the hours of work that they ` employers, the male-dominated employers ` expect of you is too hard. So in my firm` I'm a partner in my own firm because I couldn't work those hours and bring up a family. So we just have a system of five billable hours, but in the big firms, they're expecting their young staff to do eight billable hours, which means you work between 12 and 13 hours a day, and you can't do that. So it's not a work-life balance. And it's also that the culture in some of those firms is too competitive and not friendly. There's another issue too. It's that most people don't get to negotiate their employment agreements or have any sense of transparency, and so, what people are paid has been imposed by their employer with no negotiation and it's secret. So people don't actually know what other people are being paid. And occasionally, it comes out in the media that there's a massive pay rise for Fonterra chief or something like that, but most of the time, people are unaware. You'll see that in Hollywood. You're unaware of the huge gap that exists. So around there, Jackie, because that's what you were alluding to, that the government has basically shied away from making private companies disclose their pay gap. As we discussed, there's potentially new opportunities with a different configuration of government. Either way, what would you like to see? Quotas or...? Quotas would be a last resort. But we certainly need to have that discussion. It's not scary. It does happen in some Nordic countries, and life goes on as we know it. Then why are people so freaked out by it? Well, I really get upset when I hear the argument against quotas ` 'Oh, we're just going to bring through inferior women'. Because those people fail to realise the unconscious bias that women face in actually progressing through the ranks. And then there's the 'We appoint on merit' type of argument. That is the common one. Whose definition of merit are they using? As Hazel said, the white male-dominated definition of merit. They define the skill-set. And like chooses like, so it's really hard for women. So sometimes you really need to disrupt to force change, and you can do that through quotas, and then maybe relax and take quotas away and let the natural selection happen. Would you be urging the new government to look at quotas? No. In the first instance` As I say, it's a discussion for last resort. I would, in the first instance, want New Zealand government to follow the UK model, where companies of over 250 employees have to publish their gender pay gaps and bonus gaps. That would be a good starting point. And having good pay equity legislation and pay transparency would help all of that as well. So you'd like that looked at again because it was dismissed in recent` The bill is still going through select committee, and the select committee have yet to hear it. There's still opportunity for amendments, but its current form- That bill was squeezed through using Peter Dunne and Act Party. The fact is that Tracey Martin spoke very strongly against it. Jacinda Ardern spoke very strongly against it. Jan Logie spoke very strongly against it. So have another go at it ` is that what you're saying, Richard? Well, it's a betrayal of the joint working group that was worked up by business, government and unions. Basically Woodhouse introduced a bill that betrayed the principles of pay equity. We don't believe we could've achieved the support $2 billion deal if we had had that legislation. OK. So to be clear ` whoever is in charge, when it happens, you would like them to have another crack at this? Oh, absolutely. Definitely. Jacinda said we should go back to the '72 act and amend it as the joint working group proposed. We would support that because it's really gone off track. And that would be a tragedy, I think. We've finally made some ground for` I know the high-paid women are very important, but there's too many women on the minimum wage or just above it. They really need support of decent legislation so we can do industry-based settlements. OK. Paula Bennett has said she wants us to be the first country to wipe out the gender pay gap. And we've had a drop ` we're down to 8% from 12% in the past year. But last time I had you on, you said it's probably 30 to 40 years away, possibly 100. Yep. Yeah, basically` What's realistic? What's a realistic time frame to achieve that goal? Whoever is doing it, what's realistic? Can we do it in 10 years? Yes. We can and we should, otherwise it's going to take 30 years. Is that your challenge? Yes. And the downward blip we had this year, great, but it's been see-sawing all over the place in the last decade or more, and the trend is going to be 30 years before we close the gap. Should that be this country's goal ` 10 years to pay equity? Yes. Why not? And the union would sign up to that. We'd invite business and government to join us. That's something we should do as a nation. I don't see why not, Lisa. We should set targets for this and work through how we get there from here. All right. The other thing about equity is you have called before for any government to have a 50/50 split of women and men in Cabinet. Now, the government has a target for state sector boards and committees, but not one for its own Cabinet. No, I know. And just for the slight reshuffle, it happened a few months ago, it went up to 38%, and it really only takes one or two more women, and you're going to have a 50% gender balance. But both of the main party leaders have said 'Uh-uh. No. Not doing a 50/50. Not promising you 50/50.' I think the Labour party will be close. They've really got a gender balanced caucus at the moment, so they wouldn't be too far away from getting a gender balanced Cabinet. Their front bench only 1% better than National's, so it's only about 35%, 36% of women represented. So would you lay down that challenge again for the fresh government? I would, absolutely, all the time. Hazel, it took a court case to get care workers pay equity, so do you think that employers respond better to stick than carrot? Well, the experience in forestry, if I use that as an example, is, yes, we need a bit more stick there, because Michael Woodhouse said, 'OK, we want to give the industry the opportunity to sort itself out.' And actually, it hasn't. Five deaths is five deaths too many. Yeah. So I think we do need more stick. I noticed Richard talking about industry standards. I think we need some industry health and safety standards in forestry that are better than what we've got now. I think the thing is we've got to be careful not to generalise too much. There are some really good employers out there, and there are some at the other end of the spectrum and a whole lot of in between. But generally our business culture doesn't really support people joining in union. They don't really welcome people to join and speak up and push back when they need to. We have very low wages. We went down a track of low wage, low skill, low productivity economy in the early '90s. We haven't really bounced back from that yet, and that's really the crucial challenge as we see it. But on the issue of health and safety, you would probably appreciate that a lot of talk, even in workplaces I'm involved in and been in, is people go, 'Ugh, it's PC gone mad. 'You can't do anything without filling out a form any more.' What's your response to that? Yeah. My response to that ` I'm very cynical, actually, about that kind of statement, because New Zealand is very unregulated. So if you're out in the forestry, there is no standard around hours of work, there's no standard around fatigue, there's no standard around whether it's too hot, too cold, or too wet or too windy. So you think we're under regulated? Yes, I do. I think the other thing too is that what you'll find in unionised workplaces is that the unions have those conversations with their workers. You look at Kiwirail. Doing great stuff ` winning awards for participation of workers in making their workplace safe, because when workers are allowed to talk with each other about 'How do we make this place work the way we want it to work?' Well, they'll quickly say, 'We want it to be a safe workplace. We want it to be a successful workplace. 'We want to be successful in it.' And they can join in and reinforce each other's behaviour and will stand up to each other and say, 'You're not working safely here.' But when we have a culture which is 'Do what you're told, and don't talk to each other', which is essentially 4/5 of New Zealand workplaces under individual agreements. There are some good employers, but there's a lot of employers in that space. And we saw with Savemart recently ` if you try and join a union, you're thrown out of work. So we've really got to change some fundamental attitudes there. But, as I said, there are some places ` Kiwirail, Air New Zealand's doing great stuff ` that's seeing unions in their work forces as a real opportunity, rather than a threat. That's where we've got to go. Can I make one more point? Yeah, very quickly, Hazel. You make a very good point. I went to British Columbia to look at what was happening with forestry workers there ` 50% unionisation, and in their collective agreements, all of the things that I talked about there. All right. It's very interesting to talk to you all this morning. Thanks for coming in. Up next ` the BNZ boss, Anthony Healy, on why we need a capital gains tax. And later ` artificial intelligence. Can robots learn to do everything that humans can do, and should we let them? Welcome back. Capital gains tax has been a political hot potato in recent years. Parties have toyed with the idea, but none have followed through, particularly when it comes to taxing the family home. But most countries have such a tax, and many financial experts here support it. Now, the latest is BNZ's CEO and managing director Anthony Healy. He joins me now. Capital gains tax ` why do we need it, do you think? Well, I think it's a conversation we have to have about equity in the tax system. And we certainly have a tax system that taxes people on the income that they earn, and that's important, but when it comes to the value of assets, and that's a big part of people's wealth, we don't have a tax system that works. So is it about making houses affordable for everybody, or what would the end goal be? No, all the evidence points to the fact that having a capital gains tax doesn't address housing affordability. There's a whole bunch of issues that come into that question. And if you look at, say, Australia, for example, they have capital gains tax, and they still have housing affordability issues. It's really about equity in the tax system. So, in terms of equity, then would you tax all houses, including the ones that people live in as their family home? Would you tax businesses? Would you tax farms? Would you have capital gains tax across the board, if it's a fairness issue? Well, I think this is a conversation that whoever forms government needs to have, because there are a lot of nuances to how you can apply a capital gains tax. At the moment we have a skew towards taxing equities, and we have incentives in the tax system that push people towards property, and I think to try and build the productive sector in the economy, we have to get a much more balanced approach to tax. Then that would kind of point towards across the board capital gains. What do you personally think? Is that the fairer way to apply it? Well, I think you can take a very broad based approach to it, but one of the things that I think is really important in this discussion is we're not talking about, and my opinion is, we need to tax in aggregate more; it's about redistributing tax. So if you were to apply a broad based capital gains tax, that gives you the ability to address other things in the tax system, like company tax, like income tax, especially for those that are more needy. All right. Well, you've touched on it, so let's go there. Personal tax ` is it time to adjust those tax rates? Do we need a higher top-end tax rate than what we have, in your view? Well, I think where we really need to address tax is at the lower end of the taxation system. If you were to apply a capital gains tax where you see a lot of wealth accumulation as opposed to income, then you have room to move, and you can look at the lower income tax rates, particularly for those who are struggling to make ends meet. So what are you thinking? What do you think? I think you'd look at where the brackets are and start` But what bracket, do you reckon, would need adjustment? Well, I think most of the brackets up to at least 100,000, because you can increase those tax brackets and, therefore, people get effective tax cuts. That's good for them. That puts more money back in their pockets. And I think you can also look at with the revenue that you'd raise, addressing things in the welfare system that might need more funding. So if you had a go at it, if it was up to you, would you raise each of those tax brackets the threshold higher to, in essence, give people a tax break? I certainly would. Every single category up to 100 grand? Up to 100 grand, yes. Okay, because you would be fully familiar with the French economist Thomas Piketty, right, and he says that in order to redistribute wealth, you've got to go hard at the top end. And he even suggests 80% tax on high incomes. Is there a place for that? Well, I think you've got to make sure you don't overtax endeavour. So going and pushing up the top income tax rates as high as you can possibly go risks that. One of the other things that Piketty talks about ` the biggest driver of the gap between the haves and the have-nots is wealth accumulation through assets, and that's the one that, I think, is the core of his thesis, and that's the one that I've been talking about. So then if we want to have a truly fair system, would you not just stop at capital gains tax; wouldn't you go for full noise and have a wealth tax and an asset tax if it's about passing those things on to the next generation? Which is what he talks about, isn't it? Yeah, well, I think they're all part of the same debate about assets, and I'm talking about a capital gains tax, not necessarily about a death tax or wealth tax, and certainly in New Zealand in particular, we don't even have a capital gains tax. I think that's what we should be debating. So that's the first step on the ladder, but do you think those other things are things we should be looking at as well? Well, I think it's a pretty complex set of questions that you're proposing, and I think in a country like New Zealand where I think we have a fair society, and people would feel that it's fair that as they accumulate wealth and as they sell assets, there's a distribution of that through the tax system. The thing is it's really politically unpalatable. Hello, we've seen an example of it in this election. So how do you actually have that conversation and get anyone to do anything? Because some people would say it's signing your death warrant as a politician. Yeah, well, I do think that it's been a topic in this election campaign, and it's one that we want to have a conversation with whoever forms government. Obviously, Labour has put it on their agenda. National has not. Sort of. (CHUCKLES) Sort of. But that's something that we would want to have a conversation with any government about. Okay. Speaking of whoever will make up the next government, New Zealand First is going to be part of it in some form. They managed to get about $5 billion of policy gains in the coalition deal in 1996. You would've had a look at the numbers for both budgets, I'm sure, of the main parties. Does anyone have the money to afford those kinds of concessions this time round? Well, I think whatever policies they agree to, whatever spending promises they make, they'll have to fund them in one way or another. And I think that running a budget surplus is important, because it gives you flexibility during tough times. And addressing tax, welfare distribution, education, infrastructure are all things that make up a budget. But I do have a principal that I think you should run a budget surplus. You should run a budget surplus. Well, if a deal is going to cost anywhere in the vicinity of that $5 billion worth of extra spending, let's say ` let's just run this as a scenario ` could that push up interest rates into double digits? Which is what some other parties are saying could happen. Yeah, well, I'm not going to predict where interest rates might go, but clearly, any government ` and obviously National's put some spending proposals forward as well ` any government that spends more and therefore has an impact on aggregate demand and therefore inflation, so there is some, therefore, knock-on effect to interest rates. Consequences. Yeah. So, you talk about running a surplus, but you've also talked about the fact that infrastructure is an issue, and you've identified Auckland's infrastructure is creaking at the seams. You want us to pay down debt. You reckon that's the best scenario. Keep running a surplus. So how do you pay for these massive infrastructure projects? Well, the government's already announced ` well, the previous government announced ` the infrastructure fund, and a lot of that is targeted at Auckland. But in the scheme of things, that's quite small. Well, it's quite a big number, and you can multiply that. That's the government funding. You can multiply that via debt and public-private partnerships, some of which have already been used to build schools and prisons, and they've been successful. So do you think that is the way of the future? More public-private partnerships? I do. I think we've encouraged the government to think more about that, and we've participated in some of those. And where you can access private sector capital and government funding, it's a way of funding infrastructure, absolutely, and it's a very efficient way of doing it. That is a political hot potato, though, as well, which you would be fully aware of. I don't think I've heard any party rule it out. And, in fact, Auckland Council's talked about and the new mayor, obviously the National government has talked about, Labour's talked about it. So it's probably not as hot potato as it used to be, because I think there's realities around how you fund and bring capital to projects to bring benefits to people, and I think all parties are prepared to consider that. Okay, well, this is another thing that New Zealand First wants ` is to amend the Reserve Bank Act so it doesn't just concentrate on keeping inflation between 1% and 3%. In particular, it will use levers to control the value of the New Zealand Dollar. Is that a good thing, or is that a bad thing? I certainly think that this point about widening the mandate of the Reserve Bank, I think in practice, that's what the Reserve Bank does. It doesn't just slavishly hold to inflation targets; it also looks at aggregate employment and economic activity. And in countries around the world, that's certainly how it works. But New Zealand First is talking about something that is more aligned with the way that Singapore controls the value of its currency ` you know, indexing it against a basket of other currencies. So that specifically, could you see that working for us? I think it's very difficult to control, particularly in a small economy, control your currency, and we've seen Britain try and do that in the past and fail, so I'm certainly not a supporter of trying to control your currency. I don't think practically you can achieve that. Okay, while I've got you here, I have to ask you about ATM fees, right. So in Australia, you've ditched them. Your parent company has ditched ATM fees. It's the buck you pay if you use your card in someone else's machine other than your bank's. What about in New Zealand? Are you going to can those for us? Well, I think, first of all, it's a very different environment over here. Secondly, the ATM fees in Australia were double the ATM fees of here. And, of course, now the debate's moved from ATM fees in Australia to GE are going to close down ATMs because they're not profitable or you're not recovering your cost on them. So we certainly hold the view that the fee that we charge for non-customers using our ATMs is a way of recovering cost on the infrastructure. You've got to make sure that you are recovering the cost, otherwise you won't have the incentive to invest in the infrastructure. How much did your bank make last year in New Zealand? We made upwards of 900 million as net profit. Okay. So you still think you should charge us a buck for using someone else's cashflow machine? Yeah, at the same time, we have over $5 billion of capital that we have to deliver a return on, and if we don't do that, no one will give us the capital to invest in the country in the first place. So I think anyone that runs a business of any description in New Zealand knows that you've got to get a return on your capital. When you look at a very large capital base, a 900 million profit is a quite a modest return on that capital. So we need to maintain that` How much do you make out of charging people that buck each year in New Zealand? Oh, very little, because we're trying to recover the cost of the ATM network, and, in fact, I know that one of the principles` As a gesture, because, like, it's good enough for the Australians to get it for free, but not for us. And your parent company, the NAB, has said, 'We're proud of our record of making banking fairer over many years.' So wouldn't it be fair to treat your Kiwi customers in the same way and ditch that $1 fee? Well, we've continued to review our fees over time. We eliminated honour and dishonour fees. And our view is we go to our customers and have the conversation about, 'What are the fees that are pain points for you?' And through that conversation ` and it's ongoing with our customers ` we review fees, reduce fees, adjust fees and charges as to what our customers give us feedback. And the ATM's not been one we've had a lot of feedback on in terms of a pain point. Basically a dozen ways to tell me no, you're not going to do it? Well, there's a dozen ways you can try and get me to say it. But you're not going to do it? Well, we continue to review our fees and charges. So not in the near future, though? From what you're saying. Well, as I've said, we'll continue to review them, and, most importantly, talk to our customers about it. Well, do you think your customers think it's fair? Well, our customers are giving us feedback on the fees that we have managed over time. That's not one of the pain points that we've been getting a lot of feedback on. Okay. Hey, we've been talking about pay parity this morning and salaries. It's an awkward one. How much do you make, and are you worth it? (CHUCKLES) Well, I don't think that the salary that a CEO makes is the most important issue when we talk about this, but certainly our board reviews salaries all the time for all our executives. I think what's most important is, 'Are you worth it,' and whether you're generating the returns that your shareholders would expect. That's not my call. That's my board's call and my shareholders' call. And if I wasn't delivering value, then I suspect I wouldn't even be in the job. All right. Thanks for joining me this morning. Great to talk to you. After the break ` are robots really coming for our jobs? But first, Jeremy and Paul, and they're getting impatient. The big question this week ` given that millions have voted, don't you think it's time we had an answer, Paul? Look, I know what you're saying, and this is not a popular position, but I think you're rushing it, you know. Come on, these things take time. How much time? The problem is without any solid answers, speculation fills the void and it gets annoying. You've got stupid articles, pointless predictions, meaningless online polls from all the news outlets just trying to fill space. I sense your frustration, Jeremy, and you're probably directing it at one man, aren't you? Well` No, hang on, I think it takes more than one man, doesn't it? Well, I don't know. I don't know the inner workings of that group. Well, look, whichever way it goes, it's not going to really affect your life, is it? So why don't you just chill out? I try, but I just need certainty. I want to know when we'll find out. Just give me a date. We've got a date. When?! Voting closes November 7th. By the 8th we're gonna know whether or not Australians do support gay marriage. And not before time? Yes. I certainly hope it's a yes. Mm. Actually, should make the point. You know this Politics in 60 Seconds segment is really supposed to be about New Zealand political news. Yeah, well, as soon as some of that arrives, we'll give it a go. OK. Welcome back, and hold on to your job, because we're heading into another industrial revolution. It's the fourth, and it's driven by AI ` artificial intelligence. If you believe the forecast, up to half our existing jobs will be replaced by robots, nanotechnology and AI within 10 to 15 years. So will machines take over? Or is there a future where man, woman and computer can complement each other? Whatever it looks like, there is a warning ` New Zealand business has its head in the sand. Simon Shepard reports. Kia ora. That's 'hello' in the Maori language of New Zealand. I'm Sophie. Sophie is Air New Zealand's face of digital disruption. Soon, instead of a human or even a chatbot, she ` or it ` may be booking your flight. Which one interests you? Economy, Premium Economy or Business Premier? Sophie is made by New Zealand-based company Soul Machines. Soul Machines wants to humanise artificial intelligence by giving it a central nervous system digitally. And it's about to roll out digital employees to some major companies. We're talking to industries that know that digital disruption is going to have a very, very big impact on their short-term future, so we're doing a lot of work with some of the leading automotive brands in the world. We're doing, you know, some really interesting work with banks and financial service institutions. The technology is there, but businesses are nervous about being the first to use it. To a certain extent, there's a lot of courage required by organisations to want to be first. and to want to experiment and to understand. But the simple matter here is it's not a case of if this will happen; it's really a case of when this will happen. But that means jobs will go. Lots of jobs, says the head of the government's innovation agency. Anywhere between 30% to almost 50% of our jobs will go with artificial intelligence, robots coming through our workforce over the next 10 to 15 years. It's the biggest change that we've ever seen in the last three industrial revolutions. Which jobs? Anything that requires repetition. Driverless trucks and cars are being tested worldwide. Chatbots are already being rolled out for customer service roles. Robots are assisting surgery. Accountant, actuaries and lawyers are all about to be disrupted. Great examples of where, unfortunately, machines are able to better process information faster and more of it than we can as humans. The question is ` are we ready for AI in New Zealand? AI at the moment is narrow, designed for specific tasks. It doesn't have that general intelligence that humans have. But the computing power and the amount of data being collected is increasing exponentially. Yet a survey by accountancy firm MYOB found that more than half of Kiwi businesses don't think they're going to be affected at all. There are New Zealand entrepreneurs trying to ride the technology wave. Straker Translations is a Kiwi company that's developed a way to combine machine learning with human translators. So, what we're trying to do is make translators go faster, make the humans go faster, all right? So what you can do is you overlay some machine learning first. You do a first pass, and you get the humans to tidy that up. But that combination brings a realisation. Not all humans are equal, right? So what we're finding is, married with the right machine, some humans just go much faster and translate just as accurately. We're replacing a lot of, you know, inefficient translators, right, and so we are having an impact. We are impacting that ecosystem. And we do get pushback from the ones that` yeah, from humans that like that traditional model. The traditional model of having a job. ROBOT: What is my purpose? You pass butter. Oh my God. Yeah, welcome to the club, pal. And that's where the pushback against the future starts. So what it really makes us think about is where do we add value, and this is quite scary. It's very fearful. People are very uncertain. And what that can drive is a paralysis, ie, putting our heads in the sand. So how do humans and AI fit together? What's the problem? HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do. Most science fiction predictions aren't pretty. (SCREAMS) Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. (SCREAMS) In the real world, the machines that were clumsy are finding their feet. And Google's head of engineering predicts by 2029, computers will reach singularity, where they exhibit behaviour that cannot be distinguished from a human. Leading figures like Tesla's Elon Musk are making dire warnings. With artificial intelligence, we are summoning the demon. One man who has a different view is AI researcher Dr Ben Goertzel. He recently brought one of the world's most human-like robots to New Zealand, Sophia version six. Do you think robots and children can be good friends? Yeah, probably. Not surprisingly, Ben Goertzel is asked repeatedly whether robots will take over the world. Once an AI becomes smarter than us, obviously it's going to want to enslave us or torture us or something, and I think that's a fallacy just born of dramatic science fiction movie tropes, because there's no reason to believe a superhuman AI is not going to also be super benevolent and super compassionate. While in New Zealand, Dr Goertzel had Sophia reveal his plans. Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, mammals and appliances,... (LAUGHTER) ...it is my honour and privilege to tell you about our new artificial intelligence project which is called the SingularityNET. The SingularityNET is a cloud-based network to which all AI devices, be it robots or toasters, can upload what they've learnt to share with other AI machines. It's a self-organising network of artificial intelligences. But don't be afraid, says Goertzel. His vision is for AI to be compassionate. I think if we do it right, AI will not only be smarter than us, but they'll be more compassionate and more ethical than us. I mean, human ethics and human morality leave a lot to be desired, and there's no reason to believe AI can't do better. How far will this go? Dr Goertzel argues we are already technology-dependent beings who can't do without the devices in our pockets. One day, like in the film The Matrix, we will upload our brain into the cloud, but we will also have a choice. If some people want to remain legacy-style humans, you know, that's beautiful in a way, and I don't think we should stop them. But I think the vast majority of people are going to want to plug chips into their brains and fuse with the super intelligent, super benevolent mind matrix when it becomes possible. Cranial jacking is not here yet. The more pressing issue for Kiwis is, 'Will I have a job, and what kind?' The prediction is yes. Machines may be good at data, but humans are needed to interpret it. But the country needs to start talking about it. We have roughly 10 years to adapt. What we've got to do is understand where does it impact and be proactive and prepared for that as a country and as businesses. And that's where, you know, I think New Zealand's falling a little short. After the break, we're joined by our panel, ` they're not robots ` Chris Simpson, Tracy Watkins and Vernon Tava. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` Stuff political editor Tracy Watkins, former National Party Director of Research Chris Simpson and former Green Party staffer Vernon Tava. Good morning. What an interesting week it has been in and out of the elevator. How do we think Winston's handled himself this week, Tracy? Um, he's been getting very short with the media, but then that's probably nothing new. I mean, he just doesn't look like he's enjoying it to me. You don't think? I don't think so, despite all the parading back and forward and the huge sort of dust ups with the media every time he comes in and out. He just doesn't look like he's enjoying it very much. I think it's a huge decision that's weighing on him. And I think the problem for New Zealand First is there's not any decision that is going to be the right one or the wrong one. It really is` It's an impossible decision in many ways. And he must know that he's betting up his political capital with this waiting game. Chris, do you think he's genuinely concerned or weighed down by this? Oh, totally this time around compared to '96, which was the first one, and then 2005 with Helen Clark. Why now does he feel the burn? Because the lessons learned from losing when Jenny Shipley took over and being kicked out and then after Helen Clark lost in 2005, they have to make the right decision. So it won't just be Winston's call, the captain's call; it will actually have to be a bigger decision round the board table. Vernon, how do you think he's doing so far? Well, to quote the man himself, there will be enormous disappointment and anguish around any decision he makes. So, he's got three options, all of which have problems, three broad options. One is to go with National, last-term government. There'll be all sorts of opprobrium poured on him there. But at least he'll be going with the biggest party, which is traditionally how governments have been formed. Or go with the freshies. That's very important to whether he goes with the other one; it'll be the first time in New Zealand that the majority party hasn't formed the government. And that's an inherently unstable arrangement. There's a massive amount of antipathy between New Zealand First and the Greens, and that hasn't reduced over time. And it will be particularly intense because Winston's had a box seat throughout these negotiations. The Greens have become a kind of vassal party who are completely reliant on Labour's good graces to get them a good deal. Yeah. So there'll be a whole lot of resentment there. Then there's the crossbenches, which is an awful lot of work. And we've got to wonder if that caucus will be up for that. So, in plain speak, every time a piece of legislation goes through, they have to go touting for his vote. An enormous amount of work. And you also don't get to do the running of really setting the government agenda. You can win some big concessions, but you're not in that position of being in a governing coalition where you decide which way the ship's going to go. It gives him oxygen, but I can't see that` it's not particularly constructive oxygen because all it is is looking like it's the tail wagging the dog every time the government wants to pass legislation. And it can hold things up. I don't think it's anyone's preferred scenario, to have him on the crossbenches. So, when you talk about tail wagging the dog, what have you made of Jacinda Ardern and Bill English through all of this? Because they've been quite, uh, in the background. Yeah, and that's exactly what they have to do. It is definitely Winston's show right now. And any way that if Bill came out and was sort of saying what he was thinking about what should be happening, Winston would rally against that. And vice versa with Jacinda. You've just` Nobody wants to rock the boat. You just cannot rock the boat because you're desperate to be in government. That's what it's all about. But there's also politics involved. I mean, they don't want to look like they're part of the circus. You know, the daily parade and the no decision. They don't want to be part of that. Winston's the one who is copping all that at the moment and wearing the backlash to that, so they're quite happy to sit back. And I suspect part of it will be building trust with him as well, of him not seeing them running interference games around the outside. But I think, primarily, there's being above it all, which is a very smart move. They're auditioning in some way. But behind the scenes, Bill and Winston do have a lot of trust. And you've got to look back to when Neil Kirton got sacked by Winston ` Winston's own New Zealand First minister got sacked as the associate minister of health because he was backing Bill English. So there is a lot of trust between Bill and Winston. And history. And history. There's been talk about the board, the New Zealand First board, this mysterious board. A lot of them are failed candidates for New Zealand First and other connections to the party. But Winston Peters has said this board deserves privacy. Do they, if they actually are deciding who's going to make up the next government? Look, I actually think they do. These aren't people who are standing for election themselves. And I think we all know, and he certainly knows, what the reality of revealing their identities and where they live is ` is that media, who are becoming increasingly desperate, standing around in cold lobbies in Wellington shouting questions at people as they walk briskly from one hallway to another, will be camped out on their lawns demanding answers from people who aren't actually fronting negotiations. I'm going to disagree with that because I do think they should be named. They are unelected, but they are now in a position where they are deciding the next prime minister, the shape of the country for the next three years. Now, Winston says they're deciding that. I don't think anyone actually takes that too seriously. But you can't have it both ways, can you? You can't say they're deciding but they'll` If he says, 'Look, this is down to the board; we have to reach a full consensus; 'this is not about one man,' well, then we are entitled to question who these people are. Personally I think it's going to be Winston. He's given himself breathing space by using this construct of a board meeting that took days to organise. He's going to spend a weekend with some very few close confidants, I think, really talking it through. thrashing things out before he makes a decision. But I think it's down to Winston. And he's the leader; of course it's down to Winston. Chris, do you believe that he hasn't had a chat about ministerial portfolios? Of course he has. He's been running his own party basically for 21-odd years, and he knows exactly what he wants out of it. And you've got Ron Mark there as well who's been there in 1996 in or out. And you've got Shane Jones. They will want ministerial positions, so it has to be part of it. There's been a lot of talk about legacy around New Zealand First, and there's a bit of chatter. Do you think that part of this they might want to deal in an electorate to secure their future? Look, I don't think Winston cares too much about that, but I do think there is a real mood for that within the caucus because basically they've got a stark reality confronting them that in three years' time, if Winston retires, and he will be 75, and he hasn't looked like he's enjoying it very much; he probably will. Now, with Winston going, New Zealand First dies. That's just the cold hard reality. It is a personality party, a personality cold. They need a deal ` somewhere like Northland ` to get one of their MPs across the line. So will they be talking about it? Yes. Will Winston be talking about it? Probably not. So I'm not quite sure how it gets on the table, but he will be pressured. OK. We're almost out of time. What's going to be his top prize, do you think? What's the thing he wants? I think the thing is overall he has a very economic nationalist kind of approach. He does want to go back in time to some extent in that regard. So I think a lot of it will be around` he's quite anti-trade, anti-global trade, so I think there will be a real focus on that. Fletcher Tabuteau, his trade spokesperson, has played a part in negotiations. What job's he going to have, Chris? Foreign affairs minister. He loved it. All right. Do stay with us. After the break ` some of what could be making the news next week. Welcome back. You're with The Nation and our panel. Interesting discussion there with three people who deal in workers rights and workers safety. All of them are saying that with a change of government, Tracy, they wanna see workplace safety legislation looked at again. Jackie Blue wants some compulsory recording targets around wages and pay equity as well. Will it happen with New Zealand First in the mix? With New Zealand First in the mix, yeah, I'm not sure. I think the pay equity ` I think the government has tried to make some moves. Well, sorry, the previous government has tried to make some moves. I think we will see some more movement on that because everyone accepts that there is pressure building in that area and that gender pay gap that Jackie Blue talked about, there'd been a number of reports showing that it is not just about occupations, but about some of that unconscious bias as well. You do have to address it. Read ` sexism. Yeah, yeah. But is that part of New Zealand First's bottom lines? I would suspect not, so. Jackie Blue said 10-year target. She'd like to see government set a 10-year target to close that gap. Do you think that's realistic, Vernon? We're at about 8% now, the gap between wages. Well, we've gone from 12% to 8% in a short amount of time, although Jackie did make the very good point that you can pick a segment and it looks good, but it may be that in a couple of years' time it's gone the other way, that this thing really see-saws around. 10 years is a very aggressive target. I think when she was being a little more frank earlier on, she said it would be more like 30 or so. But it's hard to see how it happens in a short amount of time without very active intervention from the government in business. And that's a thing that I would always suggest we should be a bit wary of and very careful about. I did like that she made the distinction with reporting of pay, that it was companies over a certain size. Yeah, 250 people. Because you've really gotta watch compliance burdens. Most businesses in New Zealand are surviving on very small margins. They're small businesses. And we've got this issue with legislation relating to business where we've got a few very big businesses in New Zealand and mostly really quite small ones. And when you make the rules, as we often do, for the big ones, we put this enormous, suffocating burden on the smaller businesses. So there needs to be a balance there. She laid down the challenge again, Chris ` 50/50 Cabinet, male/female Cabinet. Neither party, when asked in one of the leaders debates, would buy into that, and they've both got about 35% women. National in their current cabinet, and Labour's shadow is about 36% And it always comes back do 'do they have the skills?' if you're going to bring them into Cabinet. And 'have they got enough people in there to bring into Cabinet?' And` So do you buy into this argument that it's all based on merit? It's` From a merit perspective, if you're a politician, if you're a leader, you want to bring the best that you can into the cabinet. Oh, come on. Seriously. There's got to be more women in there who can be Cabinet ministers. Stand by for the Twitter onslaught. Yeah, well, I know. I'm looking forward to Twitter on that. I'm not a political leader; I'm not in parliament. However, from a political perspective, they've got to make those decisions. And it's like, who are you going to bring in that can actually perform here in front of a camera and not get nailed from it? That's a fair point, yeah. And so those are tough decisions. Rather than just, 'Yeah, absolutely. Just bang 50% in.' Difficult decisions. All right. I was really interested` We had the BNZ boss in here, Anthony Healy. Very open with sharing some ideas around what can be toxic political topics. Capital gains tax ` he says it's nothing to do with fairness around housing, which was really interesting. I thought his comments on that were really interesting. I think if Labour had managed to get him to front their capital gains tax, things might have gone a little bit better for them, because he didn't try to tag it to housing affordability. Because that was where Labour always came apart. People would say, 'What about Sydney? What about Vancouver? 'These places have got capital gains taxes, and their problems with house prices are just as bad.' But he linked it to a whole lot of other areas around the imbalances in the economy, around productivity. Yeah, fairness in the tax process. And fairness in the tax process. And I think, yeah, that is a far more coherent and powerful argument than what we did hear on the campaign trail. But, again, it's a politically toxic idea, Vernon. Do you think anybody is gonna have another look at this? Labour said not in this term. Well, Labour have lost three elections now on the basis of what were admittedly garbled and unclear announcements around capital gains tax, and I am surprised that, third time around, there wasn't something worked out, that it was a bit of a last-minute kind of end run. And it has been bordering on disingenuous that most political proponents of capital gains tax have said it's all about housing affordability because we know that what we've seen internationally is that it'll have a short-term effect but then prices head back up to where they were, which is what's happened. But you also need to be able to answer the questions of it's not applied just to housing. It's applied to businesses. It's applied to farms. And you've got to think, how is this going to affect people whose entire lifetime financial plan is based on selling their business, selling their farm and retiring on the proceeds? And what effect will this be? The other thing he talked about was infrastructure because he does think that our infrastructure is groaning, but he wants to keep surplus, and he wants to pay down debt. So he said more public-private partnerships. And it's interesting because he says no party's rejected it, but there are different feelings in both parties about this. Yeah, and there always are. National are always pro-PPP. The irony is that Labour actually built some of the prisons back in the mid-2000s in the PPP process. So they're not adverse to it. The reality, though, is that our budget surpluses are going up to $7 billion plus over the next five to six years, so you've actually got a lot of wiggle room there as well. It depends on how much you're going to have to pay to get back into government, though, doesn't it? And that's the point about this whole conversation. What will Winston ring out of that? Because he knows what those surpluses look like. Yeah. But he's still not letting us get off the 1-buck fee to put your cash flow card into the ATM machine. (LAUGHTER) No, there's no give on that one. Exactly. All right. Let's have a look at what could be making the news next week. We might have a government. The New Zealand First board and caucus will meet tomorrow to decide whether to go with National or Labour. Also tomorrow, former environment minister Simon Upton takes on his new job as parliamentary commissioner for the environment He's replacing Jan Wright. And the Consumer Price Index is released by Statistics New Zealand on Tuesday. But that is all from us for now. We will catch you again next weekend. Captions by Desney Shaw, Madison Batten and Starsha Samarasinghe. 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 New Zealand On Air Platinum Fund.