Good morning and welcome to The Nation. I'm Lisa Owen. Today ` what kind of government will Jacinda Ardern lead? Our plan is to be an active government, one that's focused on ensuring people have decent jobs, decent housing, and hope for the future. I'll talk to the prime minister-elect about how she'll bring her coalition together and what their priorities will be. Plus ` Greens leader James Shaw joins me in the studio. Is he satisfied with the deal he's getting? This is an opportunity for a transformative government for New Zealand, for a new generation of leadership to take over and to set a new path for this country. And we'll wrap up the week with our panel ` Lloyd Burr, Heather Roy and Alex Tarrant ` and comedians Jeremy Corbett and Paul Ego. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2017 It's great to have you with us today. If you've got feedback, do get in touch. Our details are on-screen now. And if you're on Twitter, you can follow along with our Twitter panel ` lawyer Arena Williams and PR consultant Jenna Raeburn. Use the hashtag #NationNZ. Less than three months ago, Jacinda Ardern became leader of the Labour Party. Next week, she'll be sworn in as prime minister. Winston Peters may have made his decision, but there's a lot more detail to come out about how the coalition deal will work. I asked Jacinda Ardern how she would describe the government she's just formed. I would call it an active government. One of our key focuses will be making sure that we don't leave anything to chance. One of the concerns that we've had for a long time is that we have an economy at the moment that is not serving all New Zealanders. People are not feeling the benefits of any form of prosperity; wages aren't keeping up with inflation; the cost of housing is outstripping most people's reach. And what is the point, for instance, of economic growth when we have some of the worst homelessness in the developed world? Our plan is to be an active government, one that's focused on ensuring people have decent jobs, decent housing, and hope for the future. I want to talk a bit about that in a minute. But first off, let's just deal with some of the practicalities. You're now in an arrangement with two different parties, and they have two different deals, as such, so how will you deal with them? Will they be dealt with differently, New Zealand First and the Greens? Well, we do have different agreements with both. Of course, one is in a full coalition arrangement with a different set of policy objectives that we have agreed to pursue together. The Greens have a confidence and supply agreement, again with their own policy agenda that we will pursue together. But what I hope people will see when we release those full agreements in full is that there is synergy between those agreements, that, collectively together, we are focused on improving our environment, improving the outlook for families and their future, making sure that New Zealand is a place of great opportunity. Are you all equals in that arrangement? Oh, look, certainly there are differences in the way that each party plays a role in the government that they are a part of. So, for instance, a coalition agreement ` by default, collective responsibility provisions apply to that party as a coalition member. Confidence and supply ` collective responsibility applies to where ministers are serving. So by default those arrangements are different. But in terms of the way that I will work with both leaders, that relationship will be exactly the same. It will be a relationship of respect. We will work closely together from the very beginning when we are crafting our agenda and developing the kind of government that we're going to be. Yeah, and the arrangement that you've just outlined there and how you've explained it means that on many issues, everybody is going to have to be consulted as to what they agree with or what they don't agree with outside of budget decisions ` you know, confidence and supply. So is that going to slow down law making, do you think? No. In fact, that's not new. That's simply an MMP environment. Governments since 1996 have been required to work in that way. I've worked in a government that has had those kind of protocols in place. One of my roles was consulting other political parties to ensure that support was there to pass a legislative agenda. That is absolutely not new. What has changed over time is the way that those relationships have evolved. The processes, I think, have become a lot more refined. We're probably a lot more effective and efficient in the way that we conduct coalition governments now, and certainly you'll see that I think we will make sure that we run a very efficient, effective government. You mentioned this idea of spreading the gains ` the economic gains ` around. When Winston Peters announced that he was going with the Labour Party to form a government, he talked about the fact that capitalism had failed for many New Zealanders. So I'm wondering, on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being a complete disaster and 10 being a rollicking success, where are we at with capitalism in New Zealand? Well, of course it all depends on proactive a government is. When you have a market economy, it all comes down to whether or not you acknowledge where the market has failed and where intervention is required. Has it failed our people in recent times? Yes. How can you claim that you've been successful when you have growth roughly 3% but you've got the worst homelessness in the developed world? How can you claim that growth is making people feel prosperous when most people's incomes aren't keeping up with inflation? But how much of a failure is it? So the measures for us have to change. We need to make sure that we're looking at people's ability to actually have a meaningful life and an enjoyable life where their work is actually enough to survive and to support their families. But can you quantify where we are at with that, then? If it's failed, how much of a failure is it? Where are we on that spectrum? Need a few tweaks or need a complete overhaul? Oh, look, I would say` I mean, we campaigned on the tweaks that we believe are required, but on my measure, if you have hundreds of thousands of children living in homes without enough to survive, that's a blatant failure. What else could you describe it as? So, you talked about child poverty there. National had said it would commit to raising 100,000 children out of poverty. Now that you're going to be in charge, are you going to be more ambitious than that 100,000 target? Oh, I'm ambitious that we eradicate child poverty. There should be no place in a wealthy society like ours for children to grow up without their basic needs being met. That's not going to happen overnight, though, is it? Yeah, obviously. In terms of meeting milestones, first term, second term, where would you be at with the numbers about what you want to achieve? My expectation is that our families package, which we will be introducing as a matter of priority, will have the effect of lifting tens of thousands of children out of poverty. From there, though, I want to establish clear targets. We've always said that we want them put in legislation, and every year we will then report, as part of the Public Finance Act, on how much progress we've made. So, I can say now that, yes, I wanted to match their 100,000, but I want incremental goals to hold us to account. In my mind, some of the targets that we've set ourselves, some of the goals that we measure ourselves on as a society, don't take into account the effects on individuals, on their wellbeing. This will be a government that takes into account those markers, and the wellbeing of people will be my sign of success. So do you think those incremental targets, that you will know those or will know those in the first hundred days of government, or...? Oh, certainly. My plan is to introduce the legislation ` it's already drafted ` which sets out what our measures of poverty will be. That's been an often-disputed issue. We will finally have some agreement that will be in law. From there, we'll go ahead and set those targets. Certainly it will be a matter of priority, but the legislation comes first. OK. So, another area that helps the low-income families is the minimum wage. You set a target ` Labour set a target ` $16.50 in the first hundred days. Winston Peters, he likes round numbers; 20 bucks is what he had in mind. Where have you landed on that? Yes, I don't want to pre-empt the release of that agreement,... Oh, go on, then. (chuckles) ...but it is fair to say we have absolute common ground when it comes to wanting to see the wages of our most vulnerable lifted. So maybe give us this much? Have you upped the ante, then? It was a strong focus for Mr Peters. It was a strong focus for us. You'll see change in that area. So change above the $16.50 in the first hundred days? You'll see change in that area. Look, we have to make sure that we balance the need to see that wage increase whilst at the same time ensure that we give enough notice so that we can ensure the cushioning for those who are paying those wages. $16.50 is our first step. We'll look to move beyond that over time. So have you given him a timeline for the $20 an hour that is ahead of the one that you had set yourself? Again, all will be revealed in the not-too-distant future. We're impatient. We are impatient. Another issue that mobilised voters, arguably, was housing and the lack of affordable housing. Another thing Mr Peters said in his speech when he announced he was going with you is that building affordable houses would be a priority for him. So when do you intend to start construction on Kiwibuild? And, look, we do need to get started right away, of course. We spoke over the election about the fact that this would phase up over time. And it's not just Kiwibuild. For us, it's also making sure that we start building those state houses again; we've lost stock. And we've set ourselves a goal of at least 1000 a year. First step for us is getting a form of affordable housing commission up and running. And you have committed to that in your first hundred days? And that's the first step. Before you are able to start getting the hammer out, you've got to make sure that we're able to do the overall planning that will be required. So how long after that, do you reckon? I haven't got a date to give you, but if you set yourself a target, as we have, of, on average, 10,000 houses across 10 years, then we need to get started pretty quickly. So how many do you think you will build in your first year, then? Over my recollection over the first three years is that we are scaling up. My recollection is that we moved up to roughly 20,000 over the first few years, and beyond that it will then move at great pace and at scale. So also around foreign buyers ` part of the motivation for shutting down foreign buyers of our houses is to bring the price down of housing. So do you have an ambition for how much you want to bring that price down and over what period of time? That was about making sure that we had measures both on supply and demand. But the point that I've made continuously during the election is that one of the reasons that the average house price sits where it is is just the nature of the housing stock we have. We in Auckland, for instance, are just not building affordable houses. The average house that's being built in Auckland, so where we're increasing our stock, are houses that are closer to 200m2 than 100m2. We can make sure we bring on-stream affordable housing without having the effect of dropping significantly the value out of people's existing homes. It's all about the nature of the stock that we're building and the fact that we are under-producing the houses we need the most. But if you build more stock and there is more supply, there will be an adjustment in house prices overall. You know the basic economics of it. So what do you anticipate that that drop in housing` that price that you might be trying to achieve? I have an expectation that there'll be a cooling in the existing market. But as I say, our view that we absolutely maintain is that we're bringing on-stream a section of the housing market that is undersupplied and that we don't expect to see a dramatic drop in people's housing values. So it's cooling, like, 1%, 2%? Yes. Yeah, and at the moment it's cooling because we're seeing potentially that easing off by meeting the fact that we're easing off a bit of demand. It's not clear whether or not that will be sustained. We believe that if we want to make sure we're addressing the issues we have, it is about addressing supply as well. OK. So part of that is also immigration numbers, the number of people coming into the country and demand. And you and your coalition partners are kind of at odds on that when you look at the policies. Winston Peters wants a considerably higher drop in numbers than you have specified, and the Green Party actually withdrew their policy around immigration at one point. So where's the sweet spot? If Winston Peters wants 10,000 people a year ` and we've got about 73,000 ` and Labour were saying maybe cut it about 30,000, where is the sweet spot? The sweet spot is acknowledging that we have pressure on our infrastructure. And I think, actually, that is common ground between all parties that will form this government because there is undoubtedly strain based on the fact that we have had a government that's entire growth agenda has been based on population growth rather than focusing on making sure that we move to a productive economy. But when your agreement comes about` Our view is that it is about the settings. It is about making sure that we are meeting the skills gaps that we have ` and we do have them in New Zealand ` meeting those skills gaps by making sure that we are undertaking those work tests, by making sure that our export education industry isn't exploiting people, and by making sure that people on temporary work visas aren't exploited either. That's the area we're focused on, and there's agreement there. So when the deal comes out and we look at it, will there be a number? Will we look through those papers and there's a number that you've agreed on? You'll see that Labour's policy remains. In terms of the numbers, not just the contest? Because you've always talked about quality of people coming in and raising the quality and skill level, but what about the number coming in? Will there be a number? Labour's policy remains absolutely unchanged. So you've given no ground` As a result of these negotiations, our policy remains. So no shift in numbers, no shift towards Mr Peters' 10,000? You're exactly where you were prior to the election? Labour's policy remains in place. And the numbers of immigrants coming in will be the same? Remain unchanged. Remain unchanged. OK. Are you anticipating that we will have a more, kind of, nationalistic economic policy under this government? If that's the way you want to describe a government that's going to be active and focused on making sure that we have jobs in our regions, that we have infrastructure that's well supported and that we're growing our economy by ensuring that we are investing in our people, then that might be the way you describe it. I describe it as a proactive government ` one that's focused on people. Do you think that that has negative connotations? No, not necessarily. Not necessarily. I think there's nothing wrong from saying that, actually, there are interventions that are required and that we should be making sure that we are focused on generating well-being for New Zealanders. So in terms of, maybe, some of the interventions you're talking about, one example of, perhaps, one that Mr Peters favours is having a look at the Reserve Bank Act, and he would like some levers to control the value of the currency. You have said that you're looking at that act already. Is that a specific thing that you're looking at doing? Again, it's something that I want to leave for the announcement of our agreement on Tuesday. You're not ruling it out, though. I'm not ruling it out. We have had a policy around reviewing the Reserve Bank Act. OK. Stay with us. We are just going to take a break. We will be back shortly with Labour leader Jacinda Ardern, the prime minister-elect. This is an opportunity for a transformative government for New Zealand, Welcome back. You're with The Nation. I'm talking to Jacinda Ardern, the Labour leader and our Prime Minister-elect. Water tax ` Winston Peters, well, he doesn't want one. So is that it for the water tax... No, he doesn't. ...in terms of on farmers? No, he doesn't, and he made that very clear both during the election campaign and he made it clear during the negotiations. Again, the driver for Labour in raising that issue was around the issue of water quality. And, again, you'll see absolute agreement between our parties on the need to improve water quality. For us, it was all around the way that you reach that goal. You'll see in our final agreement the consensus we've reached in that area, but it is fair to say Mr Peters advocated strongly on that issue. All right. So if it's around water quality, one of the issues that's been raised is irrigation. Now, the National government spent about $400 million from asset sales ` 90 million in the last budget ` on subsidising irrigation schemes. Are you going to can those kinds of subsidies? Look, our policy has been to cease the ongoing investment in those irrigation schemes. But where they already exist, we absolutely accept that there is a role that they have now been built into the well-being of those areas and regions, but those subsidies will not continue. And your agreement that you've reached ` does anything around the irrigation systems change? You'll see when they're released the consensus we've reached on the way to manage those irrigation schemes going forward. So if it's about water quality, then, how are you going to manage that? Of course, the issue of the water royalty was about questions around water use and land use and putting a price on that. But, equally, issues around nutrient levels and the standards that are applied to water quality are incredibly important as well. Enforcement's incredibly important. Those were elements that we also talked about during the campaign that just didn't generate quite as much discussion. We've formed a view collectively around what requires emphasis and focus if we are to lift our water quality in New Zealand and make sure that our rivers are just swimmable again. Bottom line, though ` if you stop polluting rivers, they heal themselves. So, you're going to have a climate commission, and there is a bit of divergence in what the three parties believe is a good idea. ETS ` Winston Peters, not so keen on it; the Greens, not so keen on it; you'd like to keep it in a slightly different form. But a commission ` would the recommendations of that commission be binding on the three parties? All of us have agreed that if we want to make sure we make progress on the enormous challenge of climate change, that we do need an independent body that is holding the New Zealand Parliament to account on the progress that we're making, to the goals that, actually, we're all signing up to. So, yes, we all agree an independent climate commission ` one that gives us guidance, that actually suggests whether or not we're following our own carbon budgets and whether we're on track to the collective goal we've set ourselves of net zero carbon emissions by 2050, that we're on track to achieve them. So, again, that guidance really helps bring together consensus on how we'll achieve that goal. There's a difference, though, between guidance and being bound by something, isn't there? So if this commission tells you that you need to be doing XYZ, are the parties signed up to move forward with those recommendations? We're building the commission together. That's something we designed together. I think you'll find, though, that once you've got the goal in place, it all then comes down to the mechanism. And we can have a conversation around mechanism, but as long as we're all signed up to the fact that we are collectively focused on the goal of net zero carbon emissions by 2050, everything else then just becomes your mechanism to deliver that goal. The climate commission will play a role in that; carbon budgets will play a role in that; the Net Zero Carbon Act will play a role in that. We're all committed to each of those elements. And given the commitment that you expressed during the campaign, saying that climate change is the nuclear-free moment of your generation, is the Climate Change Minister going to be in cabinet? No. But I don't think that's a measure of the seriousness with which I'm taking this issue. I need to play to the strengths of the team we have together. No one will question the strengths that the Green Party bring to this issue. Nor will they question the dedication that the Green Party will bring to this issue. My focus was bringing the best talent to the table, giving jobs to those who bring a huge amount of experience and making sure I utilise that best. That was my focus. You don't think it devalues the position by having it outside of cabinet? I do not. I'm absolutely` Why don't you think that? Because, as Prime Minister, I'm committed to climate change. Regardless of whether I hold that portfolio or not, this is an issue I'm absolutely dedicated to. I will work closely alongside the minister who holds that portfolio. But just because that minister sits outside of cabinet is not a reason, in my mind, to deprive them of the opportunity to use the experience they bring. So can you explain to us why the Greens are outside of cabinet? Was that your decision? Was that what Mr Peters wanted? Or how did it come about? There's a range of reasons why different agreements suit different parties' needs, and, ultimately, I've left the Green Party to speak to their own agreement in that regard. My view is that` So they're not outside because Mr Peters`? I mean, he's done it in the past, so did he specify in your discussions that he wanted them outside? Again, I think it's for the Greens to speak to the reasons why confidence and supply works for them. You're the boss, though. You're the prime minister. Indeed I am, and I preside over a government that is made up of three independent parties who have built consensus around the issues we will collectively pursue. The fact that we will work together collaboratively does not diminish the identities of those parties. There are a number of reasons why confidence and supply is a form of arrangement that will suit the needs of particular parties and why others will prefer coalition. I have no trouble, and I do not question my role or authority simply by allowing a party to speak to that issue themselves. Okay. So, there's an announcement due in the next few months about who is going to be given the contract opportunity to drill for oil both onshore and offshore. Are you going to go ahead with those Block Offers? Look, those Block Offers and their popularity have diminished over time. It's become less economic, particularly for offshore. We've been clear that we need to ensure we're moving towards just transitions. It is a process for New Zealand to acknowledge that our future is not in fossil fuels. But we will... So you're going to can them? ...not be doing that in a jarring way. We've been very clear that as a Labour party, our duty and responsibility is to transition those regions and the workforce that have previously been reliant on those areas in a way that means that we plan for the future for those areas and that workforce. So this Block Offer ` will this be the last? Again, I'll be reviewing more of that when I'm in office. It's not where our future lies, but my plan is to transition our regions, not to jar them. But you haven't ruled out the possibility that this Block Offer will be the last? I haven't analysed that Block Offer from a position of office. Okay. So, you said publicly that these coalition talks were robust. They were. Yes. And I'm imagining that there's compromise on all sides. Mm. So what did you have to give up? Look, the moment that you're sitting at a table, you're acknowledging that you're going to give up seats, that you're going to` In some cases, actually, where you agree, you're going to give up acknowledgement of that fact that your policy's very similar; you intended to do the same thing. But you're acknowledging that other parties share those ideas and that they're the ones that prioritised it and therefore they'll be the ones acknowledged as having delivered it. But can you tell us one thing you gave up? On Tuesday I can. (BOTH CHUCKLE) Okay. Well, the other thing is ` why do you think that`? Or what was it that you offered that National didn't? Change. And do you think it's a concept and an idea rather than a material thing that you were prepared to give? I think it's both. Change is not a sentiment, although it certainly can start to feel that way in the midst of a campaign. The change we were talking about was meaningful. It was change for people's lives for the better. It was about decent housing, being able to go to the doctor when you need to, being able to swim in a river. It was meaningful, material change. Do you know whether you offered more policy concessions and more cabinet posts and things like that? Do you know that? I certainly have a sense that Mr Peters chose the option that was policy-focused rather than position-focused. Okay. So, the National government, well, they liked measuring different things, progress, in some ways. They had better public service targets. Will you keep some kind of measure like that? Yes, we will keep measures, as I've said ` measures around things like child poverty, measures around things like water quality. But in addition to that? For me, the measures of success will be both environmental and social. What I'd like to see us do is as a nation have a set of measures that we use consistently so that the public can hold us to account. But as I've also said all the way through this campaign, the measure of success for me is not how a financial commentator or an economic commentator from abroad views New Zealand, but how a New Zealander feels about their state of affairs, their hope and chances for the future. You have outlined, obviously, child poverty is one measure. What are the other measures that you think would be appropriate for your government to be judged on ` actual ones that you can measure? Yeah. As I say, I do want to develop a scorecard that will mean that we no longer debate things like measures of homelessness and housing-related measures. What housing-related measures are you thinking about? Or homelessness in particular. That's an area where there is just no consensus. Every time we have raised the number of homelessness, it's been disputed. So we do need consensus around those, and, again, so we can hold ourselves to account. I also want environmental measures. Those are things I want our executive together to work through, because those will be the things I will be seeking us to openly report on annually. So, have you got an idea of how many targets that you think will be realistic? I've not predetermined those at this stage. Again, something I want to develop with our executive. Okay, we're running out of time, but I want to know ` aside from Winston Peters, who has most impressed you from the New Zealand First caucus? Oh, do you know, I actually had a good working relationship with a range of their members before going into those talks. It certainly provided an opportunity to spend more time with Mr Peters. His absolute focus on policy outcomes was impressive. I also have a great affinity for the passion that Tracey Martin has for children's issues and education ` a lot of common views in that area between us too. And the Green Party, discounting James Shaw? Oh, I had engagement both with James Shaw and Eugenie Sage through that process. Both incredibly impressive individuals. A huge policy focus. We're going to make a great team. So are you leaving them entirely to decide who will hold the positions that are allocated to their parties? Oh, look, you'll see from the portfolio allocations that already are being talked about for those parties, you'll see that there is a bit of a suggestion who will hold those. But, of course, that was a conversation. But you have no veto? No, as prime minister, absolutely, but I made that a conversation between leader to leader. So what if they come to you with someone that you don't think would be suitable for the job? Again, it was a conversation we had about utilising the experience and expertise in that caucus to the best of our abilities and making sure that we were matching portfolios to that. Again, it was a conversation. So have you already ticked off their choices? That makes it certainly sound like it was an arbitrary process. No, no. I don't use that phrase flippantly. It is the role of the prime minister to play a role in who is appointed to those positions. But, of course, a leader of a party knows their people best, and so I made a conversation that we were both comfortable with. So are you pleased with the choices? Absolutely. Thank you for joining us. Much appreciated. Thank you. After the break ` how easy is it being green in government? James Shaw is with me in the studio. But first, Jeremy and Paul bring us all back to reality ` reality TV, that is. The big question this week ` well, there's only one ` your take on the big decision, Paul. Yes, well, congratulations to Labour and Jacinda, but, to be honest, after all that waiting, I'm just glad we have a government. God, agreed. They dragged it out, didn't they? I mean, a bit like one of those reality shows. Yeah, Married at 15th Sight. Yeah, except in this one, he's married two of them. Oh, so the Mormon edition. Mm. Can't be easy deciding who to get into bed with from nine possible options, so in that respect, maybe more like The Bachelor. (CHUCKLES) I'm pretty sure the Bachelor gets into bed with most of them, Jeremy. What about since the election, as a country, we've been sitting there with nobody driving us forward, so New Zealand Idol. Oh, I think the last few weeks have been more like Survivor, mate. Haven't they just? And now Labour has to work with Winston and the Greens to build a stable government. So it's like The Block: Beehive. Or Mitre 10 Dream Government. Yes, except the blue team lost, the yellow team definitely lost and the red team turned up at the last minute and won. And what now for National? Well, that's easy. Now they're stars of their own show, X Factor. Welcome back. After 27 years in the wilderness, the Green Party have government ministers for the first time. So they've gained, but what have they given up? The Green Party leader, James Shaw, is with me in the studio now. What do you think of the deal you got? I'm delighted with it. I mean, like you said, after 27 years in the wilderness, and the Greens have a great affinity for the wilderness, of course, we now have government ministers, and that is a huge gain for us. So you've got three ministers outside of cabinet, one undersecretary. New Zealand First got four ministers inside cabinet and one undersecretary. How fair do you reckon the carve-up is? Well, I don't think of it as a carve-up. I think about what is the arrangement that we've got that enables us to work on the things that we campaigned on ` everybody knows what we campaigned on ` and that ensures that as a small party, we survive the experience of government. If you look at the history of MMP in New Zealand, it is littered with small parties that have gone into government but not quite made it out the other side. Because this is our first experience, I think the arrangement that we've got means that we can deliver on the promises that we made in the campaign and have a good first time in government. Yeah, because MMP is all about proportionality. Do you think those proportions are right, though? Yes. I mean, if you look at New Zealand First, they were holding the balance between National on one side and Labour and us on the other` Because they would go with either. Yep, that's right. And so I think that the arrangement that they've got with four ministers, us with three, them with one undersecretary, us also with one, I mean, that seems proportional to me. Do you feel like equals in this relationship ` that all three parties are equal? Well, there's a different status, obviously, between being in cabinet versus being outside cabinet, but in practical terms, it actually makes very little difference at all. I mean, our ministers will be in cabinet committees, which is where a lot of the detail gets thrashed out. Our ministers will have to go into the cabinet meetings to present their papers when it comes to that part of the arrangement. As Jacinda said in your interview with her, all three parties need to have a very, very high degree of consensus about anything, because, actually, it requires all of our votes to pass anything. So this is going to be a government of consensus, which, of course, is something that has been very important to the Greens for a very long time. Well, that's kind of interesting, because Winston got up and made his announcement. He said, 'I'm going into government with Labour.' Full stop. No mention of you guys at all. What did you make of that in the way he couched it? Well, I mean, I have no particular opinion about it, to tell you the truth. He is going into government with Labour. It's a true statement. We are in an arrangement to support` But, hey, none of you can be in government without you. It takes three to make this government, yet you get no mention and there's been no chit-chat with Winston Peters and you as the leader of the Green Party. I have to say, it's been a busy few days, and, in fact, I haven't even got to respond to half the business that I've had to deal with in the last couple of days as well. I mean, obviously, we'll be talking to each other over the course of the coming days and weeks. But, you know, my focus has been on trying to get set up to do the stuff that we need to do. Okay, so whose call was it that you be outside of cabinet? Was that one of Winston Peters' criteria for going into this arrangement? Look, the negotiations between Labour and New Zealand First were confidential, so I don't have any sight about those arrangements. What did Jacinda Ardern tell you about that? She's bound by confidentiality, so she couldn't actually tell us about the nature of what was going on between New Zealand First and Labour, and I completely respect that. Did she make it clear whether it was her decision, though? She can talk to you about her decisions in relation to you. Did she make it clear it was her decision to place you outside of cabinet? No. No, we had a number of discussions about what is the best arrangement for the Green Party and for Labour in this three-way arrangement, and I, actually, am really happy with the position that we're in because` I know you say that you're really happy, but during the course of the campaign, you made it pretty clear that you wanted to be right in government. So this wasn't your first choice of an arrangement, so what happened, what changed? We got a lot of really good advice from a number of quarters about the kind of spectrum that you can sit on between being in full coalition versus the kind of sitting on the crossbenches option, and we're sort of somewhere in the middle of that spectrum at the moment. And, again, as our first time in government, having a bit of independence in this confidence and supply arrangement, actually, is a really good position for us to be in. So I took that advice during the course of our negotiations, and when we made that recommendation to our party, they were actually really pleased to back that, because they felt that that was a more, I guess, robust position for us to hold. Okay, so who are your ministers going to be? Our ministers are going to be Julie Anne Genter, Eugenie Sage, Jan Logie and myself. Okay. Who's getting what? Now, I have to leave that to the Prime Minister, because, you know, that is really her prerogative to announce who gets what. Well, The Nation's got their heads together, and we're going to have a crack at this. So you're going to be the Climate Change Minister and Associate Finance Minister; Eugenie Sage will have Conservation and Women's Affairs; Julie Anne Genter ` Associate Environment, Land Information, Associate Transport, Associate Health; Jan Logie ` Undersecretary to the Minister of Justice with a special focus on sexual and domestic violence; and then maybe Marama Davidson ` chair of the Social Services Select Committee. Did we get 100% on that test? Not 100%. Okay, so how accurate's that? I'd say you'd have to wait until the Prime Minister's announcement on Tuesday next week. Which one have we got wrong? I think you'll have to wait until the Prime Minister makes her announcement next week. All right. If climate change is a priority and this is supposedly the nuclear-free moment for the Prime Minister's generation, why are you, as Climate Change Minister, outside of cabinet? Well, we felt that being outside of cabinet` If it's a priority. Well, look, Jacinda, in your interview with her yesterday, responded to this, I don't think that being located outside of cabinet actually makes that much material difference in practical terms. It requires all three parties to have a high degree of consensus about our direction in order to be able to get these things done. Okay, so you don't think that portfolio's being undervalued in the way it's outside cabinet? No, I do not. I do know that climate change and action on climate change will be at the heart of this government's agenda. That was our whole point during the course of the campaign. It is also, I have to say, one of the areas of alignment with New Zealand First. If you read their climate change policy, it actually does state a commitment to the net-zero emissions economy by the year 2050 and also to end international trading of credits. So you're all committed to a climate change commission. Do you think the recommendations of that commission should be binding on the government that you're part of? Well, we have to work that through. But what's your personal feeling? The model that we're operating against is the one that's been in place in the United Kingdom for most of the last 10 years. They make recommendations to Parliament about which direction it should go, and so far the UK Parliament has followed all of those, because it would take a brave parliament to turn down that commission. Okay. So Associate Finance, what does that say about how the Green Party has changed and the perception of the Green Party has changed? Well, obviously, I think it's a really significant step for us to be able to have that relationship with Grant Robertson, presumably, in his role as Minister of Finance, to have a hand, or at least oversight, of what's going on in the budget process, and there are a few projects in mind that we've got that are that are relevant for that. So you're looking forward to that role? I am looking forward to the Greens holding that role, certainly. All right. So, you talked about the fact that the nature of the deal means that outside of your ministerial areas, you can basically say what you like. You're not bound by collective cabinet responsibility; you can speak out about other issues. You think that's significant, but that's kind of exactly what the Maori Party had, and they suffered, arguably, greatly from being in this arrangement. Yeah, I think to the public's mind, we are the government. The distinction between being in a confidence and supply or a coalition is, to the vast majority of people, immaterial. But it does give us the leeway to have a more distinctive voice. We, of course, have more Members of Parliament than the Maori Party had and a greater ability, I guess, to communicate. It is something that we need to be very mindful of ` is that we actually do need to make sure that we let people know where our wins have been and what our role has been in a government if we are to be able to come back again in 2020. Let's talk about some of those areas, and we are running out of time, so I just want to get through a few of them. Sure. The cannabis referendum on personal use ` do you really want that to be one of your big wins? Well, it's a referendum, so we're actually giving the public of New Zealand the choice about where they want to go with that. Is it going to be binding? We haven't worked through that yet. Do you want it to be? We've actually never said that any referendum should be binding. It's actually against Green Party policy. You don't want this one to be binding? No, but I think if the public of New Zealand says that they want to either maintain the status quo or to change, then, you know, Parliament will be cognisant of that. Okay. So, immigration ` Labour and New Zealand First wanted to clamp down on immigration. Jacinda Ardern saying their policy hasn't changed, which means they'd be a significant reduction, although not as low as what Winston Peters is saying. Your policy is evidence-based reviews of immigration levels. Well, how does that work? Because doesn't all the evidence suggest that we need more people? We've got jobs ` 220,000 short in the service industry, 56,000 in construction. Evidence suggests we need more. Well, I agree with Jacinda Ardern on this point in that, actually, where you want to start is by examining each individual category there and to actually start with a humane view of it. If you take, for example, international students, now, many of those are coming over and getting a really high-quality New Zealand education at one of our universities or our polytechs. But there are actually thousands and thousands of students who are being exploited, essentially as cheap labour. So you're now saying quality over quantity, are you? Certainly when it comes to the students category, and it is one of the things that Labour said we need to take a look at, not because we're so concerned about the numbers but because we're concerned that people are getting ripped off. And we've been here before. Back in the 1990s we had the English as a second language schools. There were a lot of dodgy operators in that market, and ultimately the market collapsed. I want to talk about two other things before we have to go. So, Jacinda Ardern's indicated it's unlikely there'll be any more government funding for irrigation schemes, but she can't just can the existing one, she says. Does that go far enough? I would suggest that I'll follow her lead on that. You're not a cabinet minister yet. You can speak your mind. So do you think that goes far enough? I think that when the full arrangements are released next week, that you'll see some detail around that. Okay, so we can expect something that will satisfy you around irrigation? Yes, that's right. Okay, the bids for drilling rights, onshore and offshore ` they come up over the next couple of months. Should this government go ahead with those? Well, as we've said all along, the Green Party believes that we shouldn't be engaging in any more fossil fuel exploration because 80%` So you wish that Jacinda Ardern would can that round of bids? Well, look, you know, as she said in her interview with you yesterday, the future for New Zealand is not in fossil fuels. Actually, we cannot burn 80% of the existing reserves globally because` And we understand your position on that. So that's why I'm asking you ` would it be your preference that that round be canned? Yes or no? I think you'll have to talk to the new Minister for Energy and Resources about that one. You're not a minister yet. You can speak your mind on this issue. I'm just saying. You'll have to talk to the new Minister for Energy and Resources on that one. All right. Thanks for joining me, James Shaw. After the break, our panel ` Heather Roy, Alex Tarrant and our very own Lloyd Burr. You're back with The Nation and our panel ` former ACT deputy leader Heather Roy, Alex Tarrant from interest.co.nz and Newshub political reporter Lloyd 'boom, shake the room' Burr. (LAUGHTER) Good morning to you all. What a week, eh, Lloyd? BURR: I know. Boom, shake the room, all right. Yeah. So, Jacinda Ardern, prime minister in waiting, not sworn in yet. What did you make of her demeanour and the way she handled herself now she knows she's gonna be the boss? Very prime ministerial in that interview. I was actually quite impressed at how prime ministerial she came across. It was a very good interview. You didn't manage to get many answers out of her at all. She was quite guarded, and she's just jumped into that role pretty well. Heather? She's certainly looking confident, but she wasn't answering many questions, that's right. And it's hard because announcements have to wait till they're ready to. They're secrets at the moment, aren't they? That's right. Yeah, they are. But she's getting very good at not answering questions, I have to say. She's adapted to that pretty quickly. Yeah, well, a couple of things I thought were interesting there were she talked about immigration, Alex, and said that their policy remained the same and there would be no change in the numbers around their policy, which is kind of interesting cos that's one of Winston's big areas. That's right. One mistake of the campaign was everyone focused on the net migration figure, and that can be` like, I'm included at the moment in the annual net migration figure because I was a Kiwi returning from overseas. Their policy is actually affecting parts of those figures ` so students and people on, I think, temporary work visas. So actually that 20,000 to 30,000 reduction is going to happen no matter what the net migration figure is. The net migration could be down to 0, but we're still going to have 20,000 to 30,000 fewer people coming in on certain visas. So what do we think the big concessions will be to Winston? Lloyd? I don't know. I thought that immigration would have been one of the big concessions... Yeah, and it seems not. ..because, you know, he's been talking about that forever. But I do think that it will be rail to Northport, some kind of moving the ports of Auckland up north. We've got a thing about the America's Cup in 2021. A decision's got to be made by August next year, so I think that's probably one big concession. He wants a legacy project, and I think moving the ports of Auckland up to Northport and Whangarei would not only be good for Northland because he's its former MP, but I think that's probably one of the big concessions. And it is billions and billions and billions of dollars worth of spending to do that. I asked her about whether we're going to see a more nationalistic policy here in New Zealand. She didn't seem to like those words, but what do you think, Heather? Oh, I think we will. I think we're going to see a big spending agenda. That's pretty obvious. So there's going to be some issues around the economy, particularly for business, and I think we're going to see` because it's Winston and Labour and the Greens combination, we're going to see more interventionist policies and more protectionism. I think very interesting that it looks like the Greens have got Land Information New Zealand, and obviously they're the bunch that include the Overseas Investment Office, so I thought that might have gone to NZ First, but it sounds like the Greens have got that one. So when you're looking at what NZ First got out of concessions, yeah, you really have to look at regional development, and Ardern on Thursday and Friday has been really talking about how Peters during those talks was really saying he was standing up for the regions, he was a strong advocate for the regions. So it looks like he's managed to get a few concessions there maybe. I think that's right. It looks like Labour will take care of the urban areas and NZ First the provinces. And the Greens. Yeah, and NZ First, obviously` Alex, what do you think? When he got up and said, 'I think capitalism has failed for a number of New Zealanders,' and obviously there's this talk about the Reserve Bank Act. How's the business community reacting? Well, I don't think they're paying too much attention to those comments from Peters. He was saying we're in an economic slump. I mean, look at PREFU. We're gonna be expanding still at 3% a year, and unemployment's continuing to track down. But he was really trying to say, 'If something does go wrong, it's not our fault. Please don't blame us.' But Ardern in her interview with you just before was mentioning areas that the failures were government ` so homelessness, state housing. That's failures of government over the last nine years, not necessarily capitalism. So, who do you think are going to be Winston Peters' ministers, Lloyd? He's got four of them, right? It'll be himself, Shane Jones, Ron Mark, Tracey Martin. Would you like to have a crack at what portfolios you reckon? Winston Peters will get regional development. I reckon he's going to go for transport or try and split transport into having the Minister of Railways back because he wants railways of national significance. Their plans for the railways are huge ` electrification, yeah, the whole lot. He's toast. Yeah, rebuilding the Gisborne to Napier rail line. So there might be a whole lot of new portfolios that they'll get based on that. I don't know if I want to say that Ron Mark will get defence, but I know that he really, really wants it. He'll be gutted if he doesn't get defence. Tracey Martin would make an incredible Minister of Education, but she's gonna have to fight Chris Hipkins for that. So maybe an associate role. Yeah, maybe an associate role. Will he take the deputy prime ministership, Heather? Oh, I think he will. And how do you think that relationship is going to work? Well, that's yet to be seen, and I think we're going to see Jacinda Ardern tested in a lot of areas, and that relationship's going to be one of them. She's not got any ministerial experience, and moving from being an MP to a minister is a huge step up. I can tell you from a personal perspective. Moving to the prime ministership is something else again. And there's going to be a lot of management that needs to happen, and one of those areas that's going to have to be managed carefully is the very experienced Winston Peters. And so it'll be interesting just to see how that does pan out. But I think he'll take it. I think he'll want it because he'll want to make` you know, last time, it didn't exactly work out well for him as deputy prime minister, right? And he wants to kinda get a bit of redemption and go out with a bang and have a really successful prime minister term. Very quickly. Sounds like it's going to be described as a partnership now, between them, which I think is something Bill English couldn't have given them. Even just the word 'partnership', in terms of the prime ministerial capacity` Role has some bad connotations. He'd love it. Just give him a word, you know. All right. Well, stick around. We'll be back with what's making news next week after the break. You're back with The Nation and our panel. Heather, does it matter that the Greens' cabinet positions are outside of cabinet, the ministers will be outside of cabinet? No, not at all. It was Winston Peters that invented this ministers outside cabinet thing. It means that you're removed from collective responsibility except in the areas that you have portfolio responsibility in. And it gives a small party like the Greens the ability to comment about anything else and reinforce their policies. I think it's actually the sensible decision for them It's certainly what we did, and I, as a minister, never felt disadvantaged by not sitting at the cabinet table to hear everything. I went and presented things that were relevant to me and that the cabinet needed to make a decision on but, actually, as part of the executive, I had every opportunity to do the things I wanted to and got some quite significant wins while I was in that position. But do you think that is down to Winston, Lloyd? Do you think it's because of Winston Peters that they are outside? Winston Peters and Shane Jones, probably, because Shane Jones, even when he was in Labour talked about how much he didn't like the Greens. I've been digging through the archives trying to find some of the comments that he made, and I will get there, cos they're quite funny, before he quit` But I don't actually think it matters to anyone except Winston. Yeah, yeah, exactly. So it doesn't matter to anyone apart from people who look, 'Ooh, the Greens have been shafted. Winston doesn't want them inside the tent. 'He wants them sitting outside.' So, is the relationship` can we expect it to warm between New Zealand First and the Greens? Because James Shaw saying there he still hasn't had a chat to Winston Peters. Well, I'm gonna be really looking for that. Actually, I heard over the last nine years, it was Act, United Future and the Maori Party. The three of them started caucusing together after a few years cos they realised National was trying to play them off against each other. So I would watch for signs that that's happening between New Zealand First and the Greens. Because, basically, if one of them walks away, then that's the government over. It's proper game theory here. And they need to` If I was advising James Shaw or Winston Peters, I'd say they probably need to try and strike up a bit of a relationship just to stop Labour, maybe, trying to play them off against each other on certain policies and points. So, we had a pretty good crack at marrying up who was going to get what portfolios. Associate Finance is going to the Greens and James Shaw. What do you make of that? Because I find that quite interesting, given what has always been said ` true or fair ` about the Greens and the finances. Is this a sort of change, a coming of age for them? Yeah, I think it probably is, but I think it's largely down to the respect that people have for James Shaw and his economic abilities. I don't think that Greens have actually been able to gain that respect from anyone else before for obvious reasons. Apart from Russel Norman. Remember when Labour was going through its tumultuous times with going through different leaders and stuff, it was Russel Norman that kind of became the leader of the opposition. The go-to guy. The go-to guy, especially on finance issues. You'd go to him for finance issues because he was clued up about it. Even if you disagreed with his policies, he knew what he was talking about. If you look more widely than politics, in the business community, I think James has got some respect that Russel didn't have in that area. And that will be important to Labour, I think. So, we're going to see a cannabis referendum. Do you think that that is going to kind of side-track things for the Greens a little bit? What do you make of it? Well, it's a discussion we've got to have. I mean, they want to hold it before 2020, so... or at 2020, so... I mean, one thing` They went through a phase of not talking about cannabis for a long time` Yeah, we're allowed to now, cos Gareth Morgan said it. (LAUGHS) Even things are happening in the UK, and you look at Portugal, just look at the evidence there that the success of decriminalising it had there ` basically all drugs there ` and it just makes sense. I think we should just go whole hog, not just` They don't look like bogan hippies any more. I don't think they should lead with it, because it has clouded what conservatives think about the party in the past. But we've got medicinal cannabis. I hope that happens quickly. Peter Dunne could've done that pre-election if he had wanted to. And if they got an Associate Health role, the Greens, then they could do that. We're guessing that Julie Anne Genter will get the Associate Health role. But, look, we've got too many laws in this country that are a farce because they're broken and people done abide by them, and this is probably the prime example of that, and it's well and truly time for a review of that situation. I think it's gonna boost voter turnout at a 2020 election. Or diminish it. (LAUGHS) And you're serious about that, aren't you? No matter how you feel about cannabis and whether it should be decriminalised or legalised or whatever, people will have a certain view, a really strong view on it, and they'll get to the polling booth and say, 'This stuff cannot be made legal,' or the other way round. It'll be interesting for Winston's support base, though, because they didn't vote for him to go into a government that decriminalises cannabis. He's okay with referendum. Their policy is referendum. He is okay with referendums. It is their policy ` a binding referendum on it. That's his out card. But James Shaw says he doesn't care if it's not a binding referendum. Let's talk about Bill English. How long's he got, Heather, before he's gone as the leader? Look, it's hard to say. Maybe six months. But I actually feel quite sorry for Bill. He got 44% of the vote, there was a very smooth transition from John Key to him, and he hasn't done a bad job of running the country. In fact, as Finance Minister, he's been superb at keeping interest rates low, inflation, all of those things. But he ain't gonna be there next election is what you're saying. But he probably wont. And, look, the reason that he's not in government, I think, is because the National Party still haven't grappled with MMP in the way that Labour, the Greens and New Zealand First have. Alex, there's a bunch of people in the National Party who have never been in opposition. Steven Joyce is one of them. Do you reckon he'll go? He might stick around for a bit to hand over. I mean, he's a list MP. It'd be easy for him to go, but can't see him giving up that easily, perhaps. Chris Finlayson, I think, is the one people are talking about might` Yeah, I reckon there's a whole range of them. David Carter's gonna go, cos he's a list MP. I reckon Nick Smith probably could go. I'm putting you on the spot now, Lloyd. You've got two seconds. Who's gonna be the new leader of the National Party? Crikey. What they need to do is actually take a few months, maybe take six months with English there, and actually come up with a proper plan. Gotta go, cos nobody will give me a straight answer. Time now for a look at some of what will be making the news next week. On Tuesday, the coalition agreement between Labour and New Zealand First will be signed along with the confidence and supply deal between Labour and the Greens. And om Thursday, Jacinda Ardern will be sworn in as Prime Minister at a ceremony in Wellington's Government House. That's all from us for now. We'll catch you again next weekend. Thanks for joining us. Captions by Madison Batten, Desney Shaw and Imogen Staines. www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2017 This programme was made with the assistance of the NZ On Air Platinum Fund.