Today on Newshub Nation ` Shane Jones on his plans to fix the country's infrastructure woes, but can he do it fast enough? What Britain can teach us about building the cities of the future and why we should start now. Plus, with growing concerns over the spread of fake news, should people be taught how to distinguish fact from fiction? Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018 Kia ora, good morning. I'm Simon Shepherd, and welcome to Newshub Nation. It's called 'our infrastructure deficit'. What it means? We're 70,000 houses short; hospitals, schools, prisons and water networks need rebuilding; and our roads are gridlocked and getting worse. Add in the challenges of climate change, that deficit starts looking like a pretty big problem. So solving those problems could add more than $1.5 billion to our economy each year. So infrastructure Minister Shane Jones has just announced plans for a new agency to get things moving, and he joins me now. Good morning, Minister. Thanks for your time. Kia ora. At this weeks' infrastructure conference, the government was sort of blasted for institutional rigor mortis ` so too many stakeholders, no real action. How's this new agency actually going to get things moving? Well, I'm delivering to the industry what they've been asking for for over 10 years. And the essential compromise is how much political authority do I give up as a decision maker in order to create credibility in the industry, domestically and internationally? And if I can buy, through an agency on behalf of government, greater credibility, more certainty, more confidence, then I've got no qualms whatsoever about heading in this direction. Okay. How are we going to get that confidence? Because we've had years of stop-start; projects being cancelled; ATAPS has been around for quite a while, but not a lot's been done. Are you sure that this agency can actually break through that credibility barrier? Well, the backers of the concept, they're confident. I think that it has to attract the right sort of people. I'm looking forward to key industry people being involved with it. Also ensuring that we've got a clear set of standards as to how we should use taxpayers' money. But, hey, I think it's a fair challenge. Whereas the 10, 20-year pipeline ` can we have some certainty around the pipeline that doesn't exist as a consequence of urges in every electoral cycle? And, look, I'm willing to serve up a recipe, and hopefully I'll deliver something that the industry will back. A couple of things there about the pipeline. I mean, this entity, agency ` whatever it's going to be called ` isn't going to be up and running until the end of 2019. Well, the cabinet has mandated its $4 million or $5 million to get the thing up and running. I'd prefer a slim organisation that earns the right to grow, rather than start with something that's too fat to start off with. But I'm not happy with the notion that we're going to have to wait till the end of next year, and I've asked the prime minister and the senior ministers to back me that we expedite its development. Right. So, when would you like to see it up and running? Mate, I'd like to see it a key feature of at least next year's Budget announcement. I accept that Treasury, they move at their own pace, and they're very worried that it will have significant implications for fiscal settings in terms of giving a better sense as to how much capital we ought to commit on behalf of the Crown, regulatory settings, international settings. But I'm a retail politician. The next election is 2020, and I want to get the thing up and running. Well, that's right. Let's talk about the electoral cycle. How can you make sure that this agency isn't subject to the vagaries of politicians? Come the next election cycle, it's gone. Well, I'm told that the Tories are keen to see it remain in place. And to be honest with you, although I'm an aggressive politician ` not in a personal way, but in terms of my kaupapa ` I actually think infrastructure should enjoy a broad, cross-parliamentary level of support. But I would say that us politicians, we guard jealously our decision-making rights. (CHUCKLES) I'm glad you support the idea of the infrastructure agency, because National came up with the idea at the end of last year. Okay. Now, I got lambasted by, I think, your television channel, as to, 'Oh, aren't you just nicking? 'Aren't you a magpie nicking their ideas?' Yeah. Hey, they've had nine years to put this in place. All they delivered was a glossy 80-page report full of pictures about cranes and ports. This is something that the industry had been barracking for for over 10 years. I recall the industry lobbying me on this in Phil Goff's time, when he was our leader. And I didn't have the role for more than three to five months, and I said to Cabinet, 'I'm bringing back a paper. I'm going to Australia.' And not even a year's gone by, and we've got the organisation. So politicians, all hues, have been lax in this regard, haven't they? Yeah. Right back to Helen Clark's time. Okay. As Infrastructure Minister, it's more than roads and bridges ` it's schools, hospitals, digital divides, all those kinds of things. Do you have one top priority? Well, naturally, I'm focused on the provinces. So let's not hide what I'm doing on a day-by-day basis. I hate going to our provinces and both our air connectivity and our ICT connectivity is hopeless for places like us in the north, on the West Coast. And if there's one thing I can push is an expansion of what I thought was a good idea that Steven Joyce and them began to roll out, which, essentially, was ICT connectivity. Okay. Broadband for everybody up and down the country. Yeah. Well, if we're going to have, you know, flourishing provinces, people need to be connected. How are you going to pay for it all, given that the government has its self-imposed debt cap? So does it mean you have to have private investment? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, what sort of private investment? Well, Treasury, at the moment, with Phil Twyford is working through a whole host of innovations as to how we can blend private and public capital. The ideological neon light, though, lies with hospitals, schools and prisons. And that's the stuff of politics. Now, the other side of the house` So they're off-limits? No private investment in hospitals, schools` But, obviously, private sector will help deliver the creation and the construction. But they won't own it. In terms of equity, no. That remains core ownership Crown assets. Okay, so it's okay for private ownership of roads and bridges, but not schools, hospitals and prisons? Yeah, the envelope, the permission space that I'm operating in as a part of this coalition government is that prisons, schools and hospitals` Now, I know that there are those who are pushing for those outcomes. Well, join me in the fray of the next election. That is the kaupapa of our government, and we're not moving away from it. There are some historical` So you don't agree with it. That sounds like you don't agree with that restriction. No, I mean, on the question of schools, I know that there is a case for greater innovation in the provision of education. Obviously, my kids went to a kura kaupapa. I've got lots of relations in a wananga. Those are innovations. But I have to tell the truth. There will be no private infrastructure deals on schools, prisons and hospitals. But everything else, we don't have enough capital within the Crown coffers, and I'm really open for all sorts of deals. So, ideology is going to hamstring the development of this country in terms of the infrastructure that it needs ` that's what you're saying. No, what I'm saying is that when you vote, you vote for a set of ideas, and if you don't like them, then have a crack at tossing me out next time. But you'll find I'm not a tag-and-release politician. I'll be back. But where we have a deficit in relation to other types of infrastructure, I'm all for being as innovative as possible. What about` I mean, we've talked about` or Grant Robertson's talked about using KiwiSaver funds, the super funds, talking about investing in light rail, but there's $21 trillion worth of pension funds out there sloshing around, looking for investment opportunities. Is that where we're going to target? Yeah, there'll be a blend. I do think, though, that we've been less than spectacular at serving up deals that meet the thresholds for a lot of these investors from overseas. But, like I say to you, we've opened up the transmission of dough now back into the Cullen Fund from the taxpayers. I expect the Cullen Fund to get innovative and start spending a lot of that dough on domestic infrastructure. I've gone out there and defended the growth of the Cullen Fund, the replenishment of the Cullen Fund of more taxpayer dough, then I expect the guardians and the new CEO, Mr Whineray, to be innovative. But we don't have enough local money, so it's okay to get international money into all this key infrastructure. Yeah, well, we're already doing it, when you look at Transmission Gully and other things. But the key ` I mean, you raised ideology ` the key threshold, which we have agreed to go over is that there will be a blend of private and public money in all of these infrastructure projects. But the challenge for the Crown is to serve up projects that are bankable and that one can execute. And the Crown's ability to do that in the absence of an infrastructure agency, I would say to you is less than` is lacklustre. Okay, well, you're talking about things being bankable. Investors, especially from overseas, will want to see that there's an income stream from these projects that they're going to invest in. Correct. Does that mean that we're going to see more user-pays infrastructure, like tolling on roads? Well, there's a variety of interventions. I mean, at the moment, we've gone for, essentially, an additional excise duty tax that's going to pertain to Auckland in relation to the fuel tax. But as an infrastructure minister, I would rather serve up, within my permission space, all of the options. I'd rather that my fellow senior ministers and the Cabinet made choices. And then we'll go out, and we'll defend why we did things and why we didn't do things. You sound a little bit frustrated. You keep talking about your permission space and what's allowable on the envelope. Are you frustrated? Well, we have elected to abide by a 20% figure in terms of debt, and I remain very faithful to what Grant Robertson has said. But I'm also conscious that there is an enormous capital expectation. How are we going to fund these projects? I've got that issue even with my billion trees. So to make our MMP government work, I'm very faithful to my colleague Grant Robertson. But I'm also a pro-industry person. So I'm going to look very innovatively, which is why I led the charge to loosen up the overseas investment rules for forestry. Now, it sounds like it's inconsistent with a more tightening approach, but unless we bring international capital into key areas, I say to you, 'Where's the capital going to come from?' Well, it's a politically charged area that you're trying to walk a tightrope through. Yeah, but if we're going to meet this $32 billion deficit in terms of climate change, identified by both the Green Party and National, and if we're going to use trees to do some of the heavy lifting to sequester your climate baddies out of the atmosphere, we don't have enough money to do it ourselves. Forestry's a case ` 72% already internationally owned. We're not going to nationalise it, so I'd rather use international capital, providing that they abide by our regulatory settings, certainly in the forestry sector, which I'm professionally responsible for. Yes, well, let's talk about trees and the Provincial Growth Fund. Two-thirds of the One Billion Trees programme are going to be natives now, despite the original plan for about half to be exotics, like pines. That seems like a compromise with the Greens. Are you satisfied with that compromise? Yeah, it's not where I started. I'll be straight up with you. I mean, I'm a` Well, I have to watch out when I say I'm an exotic politician, but exotic trees ` I saw a greater role for them. But, you know, we worked through the process. I accept that the Green Party probably have a longer-term view about these things, in terms of decarbonisation. To be straight with you, mate, I'm living in a two-year cycle at the moment, because I'm getting ready to ensure that the legacy I leave behind after three years finds favour with the electorate. And then I'm a 25-year cycle guy, cos 25 years is how long it takes for a pine tree to grow. But I accept that the Green Party had a different view. We've come to common ground. And it does resonant with lots and lots of Kiwis that we head off towards the native direction. It sounds like the policies that you favour are based around the electoral cycle. I mean, you want pines to grow quickly so you can get re-elected. Well, I'm a retail politician, but I don't think you should cheapen everything I do based on the threshold of 5%, but one never loses sight of that 5% or then you become a 'has been'. And as I said, I'm not a tag-and-release sort of politician, but we've got to get a balance between the very long-term. But pine trees have a tremendous role to play in terms of sequestration, regional development and exports. Okay. You're putting a lot of money into tree planting ` another $240 million this week. Do you know how much of all the money that you've put in or set aside that you've actually allocated to trees? Yes, of the $3 billion notational figure over three years, about $480 million has been circumscribed and dedicated` So you've ring-fenced that. But of that, what's actually been allocated? Well, therein lies my challenge. I can only move as fast as Mother Nature. And the nurseries are gearing up. And we have two planting seasons ` we're nearing the end of our first planting season. So I'm confident by 2021, we will have struck our figure of 100 million trees in the ground per year, which over a 10-year period will give the billion trees. The aficionados of the native approach tell me it will be higher. I'll just wait and see. I'll be happy to get to a 100 million trees by the next election. And so far, you've only allocated 37 million to trees. Yeah, well, the Budget process required us to observe probity. But look, the money is now set aside. We've got our` We're standing up our agency, Te Uru Rakau ` the forest service ` and we've got to get onside the 'doubting Thomas's', otherwise known as the farming community. It's a work in progress. So you want to get to that 100 million tree figure, but there's currently about 11,000 forestry workers. You're going to need a lot more ` maybe up to 1000 a year. So where are you going to get these workers from to get these trees planted? Well, some of the gangs are coming from the Pacific at the moment; some of them do. We are spending a considerable amount of dough on bringing young people back into the workforce. And the reality, mate, is that I've got to strike a balance` I shouldn't say 'mate', sir. I've got to strike a balance between training our own people ` which, as a Maori, is what I'm on about ` and also what scope is there to draw workers over the short- to medium-term, like we do for the kiwifruit industry, from the Pacific. So do you want to expand that Regional Seasonal Visa programme to bring in people to plant these trees to get to the 100 billion a year? I think we've got to have a blend. But we have to start with our own people first. Okay. So does that mean you want to expand something like the Mana in Mahi programme, where you could perhaps get forestry included in that sort of apprenticeship? Yeah, I think that the apprenticeship scheme ` working for` Actually, it was on your programme, I got in trouble by talking about working for the dole. But sanctions are very important as well; the carrot and the stick is both very important. A lot of our young people, they, with the right sort of training and intervention, they will come back into the workforce. But this is hard work. But then they should be made to work. I'm a Maori leader, and I'll continue to say to my own people, 'We've got the putea. Here's the land. And if you need to move to the Wairoas, 'if you need to move to the Hokiangas for a period of time to take part in this nation-building, 'industry-building kaupapa' ` then if I had my own way, my own people, they will be moving there. Let's look at one of the projects that you have set aside money for ` it's the Ngati Hine Forestry Trust in the far north, $6 million joint venture. Well, the Trust says it's an exceptionally good deal for them and far superior to previous arrangements. Did they get a sweet deal? Yeah, well, that's the allegation. But look, this deal went through Treasury, it went through the officials. It is a forest that was initially created in the days of` at the end of the Muldoon Government and the Lange Government. So it's a brilliant opportunity to ensure that that resource is restored for the tertiary processes and the wood manufacturers of the north. But any suggestion that there was dodginess around it, it borders on libel. And of course, I would never have anything to do with that. But it does` I accept that it is a step that we first took in the north. And that has raised a few hackles with my political opponents. But that's` they were the people who were ready. Okay. But your political opponents are basically saying, you know, these are election bribes; this is all about getting re-elected. $3 billion worth ` great election fund. Yeah, I mean, we've got to expect that they'll make those cheap and sort of insubstantial remarks trying to create a sense of doubt and other sort of baddies. But the reality is this has been called for by the leadership of the regions for ages. They love it. They're lining up with suitable projects. And, indeed, a number of the National MPs constantly lobby me to make sure that their region is not left out. So I think a lot of what you hear about is the theatre of politics. You said to us in February that the PGF ` the Provincial Growth Fund ` projects wouldn't end up looking like some sort of untidy scrum. Mm-hm. Still seems fairly piecemeal. Yes. Do you actually have a cohesive plan for how you're going to allocate these funds? Yes, we do have a cohesive plan, but I also said I had to meet people halfway. Like, I'm reliant on civic and economic leaders of the regions themselves. They tell me, they have their own strategies, they developed them in the time` they were developed in the time of Steven Joyce. I didn't want to be capricious. They've probably gone a tad more slower than I would've liked. I could have outsourced it and given it to the water irrigation company or something like that, but we didn't do that. We kept it as a core part of government. And I'm confident that by the end of the year, you'll see a host of major interventions, and they will show that there's coherence around the regions in terms of what they want. Because in six months, you've allocated $126 million of projects out of $1 billion available. It sounds like you're having trouble spending this. No, the number of projects certainly outstrip the money. The quality of the projects is the test. And that's, I think, a reasonable test that I, as a politician, should stand up and account for. And that's why it takes quite a lot of time to ensure that the projects not only are robust, but they actually are going to deal to the problems that, collectively, central government or regional government have developed, whether it's the roads on the East Coast, whether it's the ICT on the West Coast. So are you saying you're declining a lot of projects, a lot of applications? Look, the biggest one that was declined was the $145 million port at Opotiki ` necessary for the development of their massive aquaculture aspirations, started by the National Government. Michael Cullen looked at it and did nothing about it in Helen Clark's time, and unfortunately, I was the guy ` it just got too big, was too loose, and we turned it down. But I'm hoping they'll bring back something that's defensible. So you cannot say that I'm not being fair to my critics and my supporters. I am turning, on behalf of Cabinet, down various things. Right, okay. I just wanted to talk about the PGF, whether it will consider local water projects, improve productivity of Maori land. Will that include consultation with David Parker's proposed Maori fresh water advisory group? Well, I've got zero patience for the iwi leaders group. Yep. Yep. I'm more interested in the Indians than the cowboys. They're the ones that vote for me. But when I go into the provinces, I deal with all the Maori asset owners, and if there are projects that's going to unleash the productivity of their land, then fine. Yeah, but you might get caught up in the courts. Cos the iwi leaders forum is talking about taking the government to court over this. Yeah. Yeah. I mean` Is this going to hamstring you being able to improve those kinds of projects in the regions? Let's just wait and see if they do go to court. Everyone's got the right to go to the Supreme Court, and I don't want to worsen the prospects, politically or culturally, of any Maori, but I'm not going to tolerate a handpicked group of people believing that they're some type of Maori senate and their authority rivals those of us who have been elected into parliament who are Maori ancestry. I will never ever tolerate that. Shane Jones, Minister for Infrastructure and other things, like the Provincial Growth Fund, thanks very much for your time. Kia ora. Well, if you've got something to say about what you see on our show, please let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram ` NewshubNationNZ. Our Twitter panel this week ` it's Sam Sachdeva and Ele Ludemann. They're using the hashtag nationnz. Or you can just email us at nation@mediaworks.co.nz Up next ` how technology and climate change will affect the cities of the future. Plus, fighting fake news ` why is the truth sometimes so hard to sell? Welcome back. As we just heard, Shane Jones is setting up an independent infrastructure agency here. But Britain is already several steps ahead. The UK's National Infrastructure Commission has just released its first report on preparing for a low-emission future. Katie Black is the commission's head of transport, energy and digital, and I began by asking her how important it is to put climate change at the centre of infrastructure planning. Really important. So, in the UK we have a legally binding climate change target. And, in fact, about 70% of our emissions come from energy and transport and waste. So decarbonising or getting rid of the carbon emissions associated with our infrastructure systems is a key part of responding to climate change. And you work for an independent infrastructure commission. Is it really important to have a single, sort of, expert organisation which is outside of that political cycle? Yeah. So I don't think it's ever going to be possible to completely depoliticise infrastructure. Ultimately, the decisions have to be taken by, sort of, democratically elected bodies. But what we are there as the commission is to A ` think long-term, so step outside of that political cycle and take a bit of space to think about the UK needs over 10 to 30 years, rather than the, sort of, next two to five. And also be a neutral, transparent source of expertise, so anyone has access to our work, and anyone can see how we came to our conclusions, which we think is really important for building consensus around the conclusions that we come to. So although, as I say, you'll never completely depoliticise it, you can make sure that the decisions that are taken are based on the best available evidence. OK. So your independent organisation looks into the future. What is the key component in building an infrastructure for a modern city now, do you think? For a city specifically, well, a lot of our work has looked at ` and I know this is a huge challenge for Auckland ` but the links between housing and transport is essential. And then I think a theme that runs across all of the sectors that we look at is how can you harness technology, and how can you use it to both make the systems that you have more efficient, but also bring it into the systems of the future? The power that's going to be responsible for all of this technology. New Zealand is lucky ` it has 80% renewable energy, but we want to go to 100%. Yep. What are the risks of going to 100% renewable energy? Yeah. So we've been looking at a bit of this in the UK context, and I think that's quite useful for New Zealand, because we don't have the hydro resources and geothermal resources that you guys are so lucky to be able to exploit. So really, most of our renewable power is coming from the wind and the sun. And I guess the question in New Zealand is how can you replace some of your, sort of, coal and gas power stations and bring in some more of those variable renewables? And the work that we've done in the UK context shows that the cost of those renewables has come significantly down and the cost of the technologies that you need to manage them has also come significantly down, so batteries, demand management ` all of those kind of things. So a highly renewable system looks more possible and cheaper than it has done ever before, and we think that's very exciting. Yeah, but how resilient will those systems be? Yes, and so that's the real key challenge. So the work that we've done for the UK shows that in a normal year, it looks like a very credible way to run your electricity system. The issue that we're coming up against ` and I know the equivalent for you is a dry year, when your hydro resources aren't fully available ` so the equivalent issue for us would be an extended cold and windless period. Because a lot of our renewables coming from both onshore and offshore wind. So what can we do to make sure that our system stands up and is still functioning in those times? I think that's still the key uncertainty that has to be resolved. I mean, are we going to need massive battery storage units in the UK and New Zealand to make sure that we always have power when we need it? What battery storage can help you do really effectively is manage supply and demand within a day. What it doesn't necessarily do is help you manage over an extended period of time. And that's why more work needs to be done to, sort of, flesh out how much it's going to cost to mitigate that. You're talking about cost ` will going to totally renewable sources of energy mean that we're going to see electricity prices go up? Yeah, so I think that's becoming less and less of an issue. We've seen huge falls in the actual cost of renewables in recent years. And on technologies like battery storage, prices have fallen by 80% since 2010. So if things continue along that trajectory, then I think costs will become less of an issue than it has been in the past. It really comes down to those issues of what do you do, how do you make sure your system is resilient? Resilient ` we could be facing blackouts if we don't have resilient systems? That's a risk with any system. Right. Sure. Particularly with renewable systems? Not necessarily. Again, it's how much is it going to cost to make sure that you can add in that resilience. OK. What would we do? What would you suggest for New Zealand? Because in the UK, you can plug into Scandinavia or Europe ` you know, get your power from there ` but we're too far from anybody else. Yeah. So that's true, and we're looking in the UK at building increasing levels of interconnectedness to the different countries, so yeah, clearly, you guys face a different set of challenges. (BOTH LAUGH) You don't know what to do with that one. I don't know. I know you have a lot of hydro and maybe investigating pumped hydro systems that allow you to do storage on a very large scale could be one option that's worth further investigating. What about hydrogen? Now, your commission has talked about hydrogen as a possible fuel, but is it realistic that hydrogen could be used in a widespread way as a fuel? So, the specific challenge that we have in the UK is that we use natural gas for our heating. So we pipe natural gas into everybody's homes. And if we're going to get rid of carbon emissions, that is just not a viable solution for us in the long term. So one way we could combat that is by using hydrogen instead. Yep. Now, there's quite a lot of work to do establish whether that's a viable option. But in the shorter term, people are looking at using hydrogen for the transport. Yeah. OK. For trains and for vehicles. For trains and, like, heavy vehicles? Yes. But what about in terms of cars? Now, there's a very ambitious target in the UK ` Britain should prepare for every new vehicle sold to be electric by 2030. That's correct. Now, that's just 12 years away, and that's going to need massive change of infrastructure. What sort of charging infrastructure will you need for that? Yeah. So firstly, we think that the shift to electric vehicles could happen a lot sooner than people think. And we think it could be consumer-led. Because the price of these vehicles, mainly thanks to the battery technology, is going to drop. And by the mid-2020s, we estimate they'll cost the same a new petrol or diesel car. And once that happens, you've got a better car. Their performance is brilliant. They can accelerate quicker, and also the benefits they bring in terms of air quality and carbon reduction are worth it. So we think that not only could this start happening on its own, but also that the government should get fully behind it and make it happen as quickly as it possibly can, because of the benefits you get from it. But there's a big task there in the UK. You've got a fleet of 37.9 million vehicles. Sure. (LAUGHS) So a lot to change over. It is. And so in terms of the infrastructure challenges that you raise, I think you see three. So the first is do we have enough power generation... Yep. ...to power these vehicles? The second is your electricity network ` are you able to deliver that power to all the vehicles at the same time? And then the third is your charging infrastructure itself, so people need to make sure or be sure that they can go anywhere they want to with their electric vehicle and be able to charge en route or at their destination. Getting that charging infrastructure is going to be crucial. Yeah. And you talk about one recommendation that 5% of council parking spaces should be a charging station. Now, in Auckland that would only equate to 350 parks. Sure. It's not enough, is it? So what we want to see is we think that the rollout of charging infrastructure in the UK represents a huge opportunity for the private sector, so we want to encourage private investment in that. But one of the problems that these companies face is persuading councils to give up parking spaces. So it's very difficult to balance the needs of existing conventional car drivers and these new electric car drivers. So what we've actually recommended is that councils identify spaces that could be where charging points could be installed, and then actually whether they are or not will be a function of demand. This rush to electric cars that you're forecasting, what does that mean in terms of cars on the road ` more or less? Electric vehicles are cheaper to run, so you can imagine that it may in the long term push up car cover. So it's an increase in congestion? I don't think there's any evidence to say that, no. But if a car is cheaper to run,... Yeah. ...won't that keep people in the cars and away from public transport? Possible, but then it depends how attractive your public transport is, and it depends what other tools you're using to manage transport demand. Right. Still to come ` we dissect the week's political news with our panel. Plus, has Donald Trump made it easier for people to dismiss information they don't like 'fake news'? We talk 'truth' with author and academic Jess Berentson-Shaw. Welcome back. The phrase 'fake news' might have been popularised recently by a certain US president, but the phenomenon is nothing new. But we are now exposed to much more information and misinformation than ever before, and it's getting harder to tell the difference. Researcher Jess Berentson-Shaw's written a new book on the topic called 'A Matter of Fact'. I began by asking her how you develop the skills necessary to distinguish what's fact and what's fake. You know, that's a really good question, because I think as we have democratised the availability of information, we haven't democratised the skills to assess what information is good information. What do you mean by democratise those skills? That means that what was previously available to us to assess whether information was trustworthy or reliable ` we used to do it through relationships. Like if we went to our doctor, and we trusted our doctor to have good information. And now, you and I, we go on the Internet, we Google ` it's impossible for us to know if the study that we see on vaccinations is a good quality study or a bad quality study. So while we can get all the information that we need, we don't know if it's good information or not. All right. And you've said in your book that this misinformation is 'sticky'. So we've seen it in everything, like conspiracies about moon landing and vaccinations being linked to autism. So how can you persuade someone that something they believe isn't actually true? Well, that's really hard, and this is the problem that once misinformation embeds, it's very difficult to remove it from people. What we do know is simply negating it, so, for example, myth-busting, isn't a particularly effective way to remove a well-embedded belief. There is some suggestion that the best way to actually deal with it is to stop it from getting out there in the first place, and that's a really important point to make about how much misinformation is available. Look, just two points there. So you're saying if you present someone with the facts, it doesn't necessarily mean you're going to sway them. No, not all. And is that frustrating for a scientist? (LAUGHS) I think for a lot of people who work with knowledge transfer in science, it's really frustrating that we know what good information is, and we have a really deeply held belief that it should be used to improve the way that people's lives are and it's ignored or, even worse, bad information ` like, for example, with meth testing ` is used to develop policy. What is the trick to presenting facts on a controversial issue like that? It's not simple. One of the things which we talk about is the importance of being able to tap into the values that are important to people. What we know is that logic comes very late in the process. When people get new information, what they first filter it through is, 'Does this matter to me?' and 'Does it fit with my beliefs that I already have?' So one of the things that we can do is think about what are the helpful values at the base of this information. So an example of that is climate change. Doing something about climate change is a really important activity for human survival. So we need to talk about that mattering and looking after the climate is mattering and looking after each other is mattering. That's one way to start engaging with people's values before we talk about the facts. You also talk about something called 'pre-bunking'. What is pre-bunking? So pre-bunking is this idea that before people are exposed to bad information, we actually warn them ` (CLEARS THROAT) Excuse me ` that they may be exposed to poor information, say, in the vaccinations space and the motivations of people. OK. So what about the fact that... Do you outline the bad information and then say it's wrong? Or do you just ignore it at all? If you're pre-bunking, so if you think that people haven't been exposed to poor information, which in this day and age is pretty unlikely given how much information and how available it is. But actually, what the research suggests is it's actually better not to engage with bad information at all. So ` and this is a classic communications technique in lots of ways ` create your own story about the good information. So in terms of information, the way the internet works, we end up with information that reflects our existing values, beliefs and the way we search for things. So how do you get yourself out of the echo chamber of your own belief system? Yeah, and that is really difficult, isn't it ` the idea that we need to think about our own bias and slow down. I think that individual behaviour change in that scenario is quite difficult for people to do. Asking people to actively step outside their own bias is tricky. I think that people with skin in the information game, that should be one of the core skills that we're taught. I think for everybody else, I think there are things we need to think about structurally speaking in order to help reduce the exposure of misinformation. OK. That's hard to do in this current environment. The term 'alternative facts' was coined by Kellyanne Conway, part of the Trump Administration. Has Trump's administration made it easier for people to dismiss things they don't like as 'fake news'? I think it's given it a name. We've always done it, though. Misinformation is not new. Historically, we've been doing this for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. The tools and the digital media tools that we have allow that misinformation to be manipulated more easily and spread more easily. So that's a real challenge to us. There are no filters. There's no relationships based on this. It's a free-for-all. Yeah. Yeah. And there are no editors in between, say, me and poor information or no medical professionals or people who we would traditionally think of experts. But I think there is a really big question around who are experts and whether expertise is what we should be relying on in terms of getting people to believe information any more. The old ways of saying 'I'm an expert, listen to me' just don't apply any more. OK. Well, speaking of alternate facts, what we've just mentioned, the right to free speech has been a big argument at the moment. Is the right to free speech a defence for the deliberate spreading of misinformation? I think these two things in New Zealand certainly are perhaps being conflated. I think the bigger issue, actually, is the spread of misinformation. And that misinformation is so powerful, it has an advantage over good information that we need to be thinking very carefully about what is the platform we're giving to misinformation. I'm thinking about the recent visit by the alt-right Canadian speakers Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern. They say their views were based on science and they're putting on a scientific rationale. So how do you fight that? Yeah, and that's tricky. They've been very clever at making a free-speech argument for what is essentially a misinformation argument. The views that they have were both racist and sexist, which we know are based on poor information. They've been very clever in manipulating people's fears that if we don't listen to that, that we are at risk of less free speech. So what do you do with people like that? Do you engage them, or do you ignore them? I think there's a couple of things we can do. There's a question about the way in which we give them a platform allows that information to be repeated, and that is problematic. What we know is that the more information is repeated, regardless of where it comes from, the easier it is for people to believe. We're not very good at remembering the sources of information. So I think there are some ethical questions about the platforms which people like that have. I think that it is important to address the misinformation, but perhaps head-on ` the research suggests ` isn't as useful, and that we need to amplify correct stories about things like the value of Maori culture and the value of equality and fairness between genders. But it's very hard to overcome ingrained negative perceptions, isn't it? It's very, very difficult. So you hear something ` people talk about the backfire effect. And this is when if we directly... challenge people's incorrect beliefs, that they double down on it. It depends somewhat on the issue that you're talking about and how strongly people believe about it, but, yeah. You mentioned before that maybe we shouldn't believe the experts as we used to. How important is it if I'm being given a message by somebody, that I identify with someone who's giving me that message? Really important, actually. It's perhaps not as simple as we assume it to be. It's much more about, 'Can I see that you and I share values?' If I can see that you and I share values, then I'm much more likely to listen to what you say and perceive that you have expertise in the area. All right. The Prime Minister has a science advisor who can be terminated at the will of the Prime Minister. Are they independent enough in their current role? I think it depends on what the role of that science advisor is, and it's not particularly clear at the moment. Are they simply about amplifying the benefits of science, or are they there to provide an independent voice about what works in research? And I think if we want an independent voice, then possibly we need to talk about an alternative system ` a little bit like the environmental advisor. And perhaps like the Children's Commissioner as well. So I think because they are not necessarily there for very clear independent advice reasons, then it is possible that that information might not be listened to, as Peter Gluckman himself said when he talked about the meth testing, that he was pushed back on it. That's a clear example of where he wasn't listened to. OK, thank you very much for your time, Jess Berentson-Shaw. Thank you. All right. Still to come ` the man with the best bow tie collection in the country ` former United Future leader Peter Dunne joins us for this week's Facebook Live. But first, we catch up with our panel ` former Green MP Sue Bradford, public relations expert Thomas Pryor and business consultant Tim McCready. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` PR expert Thomas Pryor, former green MP Sue Bradford and business consultant Tim McCready. Thanks for your time this morning. Thomas, the independent infrastructure agencies have been successful in Australia and the UK. Is it going to help us here? Oh, listen, I think it's a positive step, and I think it's good that this government has finally got off the ground. It's been talked about for a long time. As the minister said, he was talking about it all the way back when Phil Goff was leader of Labour. Will it make that much of a difference? I'm not necessarily sure if an agency will or won't. I mean, I think the more interesting thing about that interview is really kind of Shane's discomfort with the ideological constraints he's put on himself. And he clearly wants to be pretty unfettered, right? Yes. Just to be able to allow the private sector, whether it's offshore or domestically to invest willy-nilly, and he can't do that. So that was, to me, the more interesting aspect of that rather than the announcement. OK. So, Sue, I mean, that particular tightrope that Shane's walking ` he wants access to more money for foreign investment, yet he's hamstringed by what Labour will let him do. Absolutely, and I think it's really good. He's challenging the budget responsibility rules. That was actually dreamed up by James Shaw from the Green Party, and Grant Robertson signed up to it. They've really shackled themselves. So I say good on Shane for actually pushing at the edges of that. And the part of this that I'm particularly thrilled about is that he's talking about using things like the Super Fund and ACC as funding for infrastructure, and that's the way to go. It's common sense. And I think Shane's really come into his own with this. But there's not enough money in those, is there, in ACC and Super Fund like that? We have to go offshore, and we have to have foreign ownership of our roads and bridges, do we? Uh, well, we need foreign investment, and I think that that's the thing that this agency will help us to do. Because we've got to get past that three-year election cycle, and a new government comes in, throws out infrastructure projects. There needs to be certainty. And I think this agency will help to give some certainty to projects. But that's a politically tricky tightrope to walk, isn't it, Thomas? I mean, in terms of you don't want foreigners owning houses and you don't want them owning schools, hospitals and prisons, but everything else is OK. I think so. Listen, it is difficult, but I think it's doable. I think, frankly, what a lot of voters care about are outputs. You know? They not necessarily lose too much sleep about how they're being delivered. Yes, they do in those core areas, which government has ruled out, so your schools and your hospitals and your jails. And even then, I think you could see Shane was a bit uncomfortable with that. Yeah. But I think for those less kind of intrinsic core assets, they're a bit more relaxed about it. And I think, frankly, they'll be happy to be driving on a good road. They're not going to be too worried if there was some foreign money put into building it. And I think, Tim, as you said, it's not necessarily about ownership necessarily ` certainly not in the long run. It's actually just about funding upfront. I think it's really good that Shane actually is being forced in some ways to look at other options than foreign investment. That's not the way forward for us. The more we can capitalise our own country, the better. The more we can bring our own country back into our ownership, both including homes and roads. And I think an infrastructure agency, which does sometimes sound like the old Ministry of Works, is great, because that's what we need. If we're going to deal with the effects of climate change, if we're going to deal with our huge infrastructure problems, we actually need our government to take responsibility and assist local government, the regions, and employers to actually make that happen. OK, let's talk about Shane Jones, the politician. I mean, he keeps talking himself, he's not a 'tag-and-release politician'. What does he mean by that, Tim? (LAUGHS) (LAUGHS) Well, I think he wants to be back. Right? He wants to see his mission and New Zealand First go forward and do what they wanna do. So I think he's already campaigning for that next election. Well, he said he only has two years. Yeah, exactly. Countdown's on. Three-year cycles ` they're too short. OK, but is it refreshing to see somebody's who's so blunt about the political cycle, Thomas? Absolutely, and I think also what Shane is doing quite cleverly there is he's also saying, 'Hey, listen. I can do this in a Labour-led government. 'I could probably quite happily do this in a National-led government, 'if that's what's going to be around in 2020.' So he's just a guy who's standing up for the provinces, standing up for his people and not too constrained by whatever the government of the day is. I think, in a way, that's some quite clever positioning from Shane. All right. Well, let's talk about constraints of government. And the Greens have got the conference this weekend, and they've had to support recently, Sue, the waka-jumping bill, and they've signed off on the Chinese water-bottling operation near Whakatane. Some hard questions from the members for the party leadership this weekend? I believe so. I think this is a watershed conference for the Green Party. I am aware that there's considerable unhappiness in the party, from members young and old, from people that have been in the party for a very long time, from people that are quite fresh to it with the direction it's taken in the past year and a half. And these sort of decisions you're talking about ` they do not have to support the waka-jumping bill. That final third reading vote has not happened yet. I'd love to see this conference pass a resolution to force the caucus into actually voting with Green Party policy and Green Party history. The Green Party would not have got to parliament if Jeanette and Rod had not had the parliamentary resources in 1999. And I was one of the MPs that got in on the back of that. Don't they have to say for it? Sorry, don't they have to vote for it under the clauses that they've signed up to? No, absolutely not. Even Eugenie Sage, one of the Green ministers, admitted in a media comment that she... In fact, there's no obligation whatsoever on them. OK, Tim, do you think this is more about the Green Party growing up and being pragmatic? They're actually in government. They've got to make compromises. I guess this is a coming-of-age for the Green Party, right? They've got to learn how to adapt and be in government. They've got two years until that next election. And they're going to be in a tough position then. But I think the challenge here is that we're really seeing that division in the Green Party come out. You know, like, James Shaw, in the lead-up to the election, as the only co-leader did a really great job of promoting the Green Party to business in particular, but now with Marama as the other co-leader, it's really highlighted that division that exists in the party. The other parties, Thomas, have stolen a bit of the Green ground in terms that they're all talking about climate change and it's become very mainstream. Does that mean that the Greens are having trouble focusing where their niche is? Yeah, and I think that makes it much more difficult, because the issues that were seen as fringe Green issues five, 10 years ago are now mainstream, which, I guess, in one way is a great thing, if you're a Green supporter. But, I mean, let's not put to one side actually, you know, the Green ministers are doing some great work and are actually getting some really big, important policy wins for their party and for their voters. You look at the stuff that James Shaw is doing around net-zero carbon emissions and the climate commission, the work that Julie Anne Genter is doing in transport ` this is actually big, important stuff. So I think the members do... As much as it's easier to kind of sit outside and throw rocks, you also need to sit back and go, 'We are, for once, after 20-odd years in opposition, 'actually getting wins on the board.' This is a myth that James Shaw himself has promoted ` that the Green Party in the past have not got wins. There are actually substantial things done by the Green Party through the 2000s under the leadership of people like Rod Donald, Jeanette Fitzsimons and others of us. All sorts of changes happened. But we're talking about them now, Sue. So have they actually got enough`? And good on them, but James Shaw seems to forget Green history, both around the waka-jumping bill and around the achievements of the past. Yes, it's great that they're doing good work now, and I totally acknowledge that, but they're doing it in a way that risks the whole party. Haven't got the balance. So they haven't` And they ignore the party itself. The caucus in the leadership has total control of the party, and that's a problem. It's a mistake any party can fall into, where the balance between the caucus and the party comes too far apart. And so they're disregarding what even the most ecological and centre of the Greens want in things like water bottling. Have they done enough publicly and privately to heal those divisions within the party this weekend? Well, that's what we'll find out over the next two days. (CHUCKLES) But they're in a very perilous state right now. And I think this conference could be make or break, in terms of their prospects for the next two years in the election. What do you think, Thomas? Yeah, I think Sue's right. There's clearly those tensions in there. I mean, I think they just need to be confronted. Right? And I think as a party, it's probably a decision 'Do you want to stay an activist party on the outside? Or do you want to be more a party of government, 'but have to compromise on so many core values?' So it's a hard decision. You can do both. (LAUGHS) Well, we'll wait and see what happens. Thanks very much. Stay with us. We're going to be back after the break. Welcome back. And we're back with our panel ` Thomas Pryor, Sue Bradford and Tim McCready. Tim, the Simon Bridges $113,000 of limos around the country ` how has he handled that revelation? Well, I think, poorly. But I think it was a bit of a beat-up. Because, I mean, when he was elected, he said he was going to get around the country; he wants to travel around and meet people. And you can't do that without using a car. But I do think that he missed a bit of a trick there. And maybe he could have tweaked his comms a little bit, because he came out looking quite angry. And he called for this inquiry. Whereas I think if he came out and looked a little bit more statesman-like and said, you know, he was disappointed that this had been leaked, but, you know, it's` So should he have just let it go, Sue? He could have played it that way, but I don't blame him for being angry at the sense of being betrayed by someone in his own caucus. It's` How do you know it's in his own caucus? Well, I don't know that. He doesn't` Well, I don't know what he knows. (CHUCKLES) But if he really believed that, which it looked like he did, I'd` Because in itself, I think it's totally defensible. I think the public have no idea of how hard that job is as leader of the opposition. He did his 60 meetings or whatever plus the other week. I mean, I think it's fair enough that that would be costly, but he's doing hard work, doing the job. And I don't` I understand the anger of a party leader who feels betrayed by a member of their own caucus if that's, in fact, what happened. If it is somebody in his own caucus, how's that going to look, Thomas? Terrible. Because he's called for this inquiry. Terrible. And I mean, I think if it was found out to be a National MP, I mean, he would have to expel that MP from caucus or otherwise his` you know, he'd be a very, very weak leader. And I mean, I think the reason why he acted in such an angry way, right, is the most damaging thing that can happen to a leader of the opposition is this sort of sense of instability, that your caucus is against you, right? And National watched that happen to Labour leaders of the opposition for nine years and knew how damaging. They've done, actually, a bloody good job keeping a lid on it so far. Mainly, because, I think, the polling's held up, but Simon's own personal popularity hasn't. So I just think, any sense of this, he'll be deeply worried about it. But I mean, I think just also with these guys, the idea that somehow it's a pleasant thing to be away from home all that time, driving around small town New Zealand` (LAUGHS) ...not that there's anything wrong with small town New Zealand, but you're not at home, you know? It's not a fun, glamourous job, actually` So was $113,000 good value for the taxpayer? I mean, it's a high amount. I mean, there's no doubt, it's a lot of money. Partly, that's` some of that is out of their hands, cos it's charged out to the amount of rate by the ministerial services or Crown cars for the use of them. And then when people go, you can use taxis or things like that ` it's not really practical, you know? You've got to have somewhere where you can do confidential phone calls, where you can have documents, where you can have conversations, so, I mean, I think it's the cost of democracy, to a certain degree. And that charge-out rate is higher for the opposition. Yeah, why is that? It makes no sense at all. I think that's the real story here. Oh, OK. What's the point of leaking this when the information's going to be available anyway? Yeah, well, good question. That's the question that needs to go to the leaker. (ALL CHUCKLE) Most leaks, they're never really thought out right. It's like whoever leaked Winston Peters' superannuation overpayment probably thought it was a great idea; they probably thought maybe it might help, you know, one party or something like that. In reality, it didn't really help anyone. Is Labour's fingerprints actually all over this? Because, you know, as soon as the revelation comes out about Simon Bridges' spending, Labour packs them all into a minivan, and they head off to the Wairarapa. Sue? Oh, I think that was a reaction to the news, rather than a reason to think that they might have leaked it. I mean, in the Green Party, we were often packed into vans and trains and other forms of transport that were saving the taxpayer money, which was all good, but actually, in fact, there are many times when MPs really do need to use planes and other more expensive` Sure. But from Labour's point of view, it was politically opportune just to do that, wasn't it, Tim? Uh, yeah. I think it's determined that it probably did not come from Labour. Yeah. Oh, really? We know that? Well, who knows? (LAUGHS) They didn't have access to it, right? So it could be that somebody's passed it on to them, and then they've then passed it on to` It's looking less likely by the day, I think. Right, OK. Well, let's see how we're going to play. Let's have a look at the other thing that's hit the headlines ` it's the New Zealand First MPs contract to having to stay within the party. And if they go and stay within parliament, they have to pay $300,000, Thomas. That sounds outrageous. Pretty extraordinary, isn't it? The serfs of parliament indebted to their master. (LAUGHS) Listen, I think it's probably entirely unenforceable in court, but it does show how much New Zealand First is the party of Winston, and Winston's word is law. And your ability to challenge it as an MP ` there's not really much free speech in that caucus. And I mean, we're seeing that with this waka-jumping bill, which is a pretty outrageous affront to democracy, as Sue was saying earlier. And it is extraordinary now that Winston will not only have the power to fine his MPs 300K, but also will have the ability to kick them out of parliament if they disagree with one of his decisions. Sue, so now that this has come to light, do you think that this is going to embolden the Greens to say 'no' to the waka-jumping bill? Well, I'd like to think it would give them a reason to. This is Winston taking totalitarianism even further than the waka-jumping bill; this is all about his paranoia after losing those five MPs long ago. He's still, obviously, deeply affected by that and by Brendan Horan and so on, so, yeah, I think this is an opportunity the Greens could take to their advantage and say, 'Look at the lack of democracy that New Zealand First shows through this. We don't want a bar of it.' And then not vote for this third reading. They've still got that power. Well, you're involved in business, Tim. Is 300 grand worth it to be part of New Zealand First? I wouldn't have thought so. (BOTH LAUGH) Yeah, but I think these contracts have been` they've been around since 2014 when they were first talked about, I think, that $300,000 in there. So I don't think it's anything new. But it's come up again from the opposition because of this risk to democracy around the waka-jumping timing. Is this something that voters would actually care about, though? I don't think so. But I mean, I wouldn't have said` I think when the Electoral Finance Act was passed, you wouldn't have thought it would become a big issue, but it became a huge issue in '07, '08, right? You know, National, at the time in opposition, just pounded Labour day in, day out, and that was around some relatively obscure electoral law. I do think, in New Zealand, we don't like our politicians getting too big for their boots. And we don't like, kind of, the normal person being squashed down on, which, you know, there is definitely an aspect of this to here and that, you know, your right to have independent thought` So will this actually do anything to dent the cult of Winston? Uh, it's... no. (ALL LAUGH) If anyone could get away with it, it's Winston, right? If anybody can get away with it, it's Winston. And so this is just going to be there for New Zealand First MPs. It's a reality. Yeah. And they've all signed up for it, so, um, you know, they all knew it was there. I don't think there's any suggestion that they didn't know that it was a condition. They all signed up to it when they put their name forward as a nominee for the party, so they've obviously decided it's worth it. But I think it's pretty shoddy, really. I think that's the thing, though ` political parties can make their own rules. And the Electoral Commission has not had a problem with it, so... Well, we're going to leave it there. Tim McCready, thank you very much, Sue Bradford and Thomas Pryor ` all our panel. OK. Former United Future leader Peter Dunne joined us on Facebook Live this week to talk about everything from MPs expenses to his famous bowtie collection. He also explained why he's so frustrated by National waiting until they left government to suggest cannabis reform. I think the bill they put forward is a good one, but it was the sort of thing that I was arguing for some time ago. Yeah, it does seem to be very much your ideas. And I'm frustrated that now they're in the comfort of opposition ` the impotence of opposition ` they suddenly decide that this is a good course of action to take, when when I was promoting it to them in government, they were not interested. They were, frankly, too scared. They were really paranoid about the potential impact any change in this area ` not just medicinal cannabis, but across the whole alcohol and drugs field ` would have on their rural and provincial support base. They didn't want to be seen as soft on these things. That was their prevailing mindset. So anything had to` You had to move almost at a snail's pace to get them thinking in that direction. And they've jumped ahead a little bit in opposition, which is good, but I suspect they probably hope they never have to actually implement it. And that's all from us for now. Lisa Owen will be back with you next weekend. But for now, thanks for watching. Captions by Julie Taylor and Elizabeth Welsh. www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018