Today on Newshub Nation ` National Leader Simon Bridges continues his assault on a possible capital gains tax and claims taxpayers are funding Sir Michael Cullen to lobby on Labour's behalf. We talk to economist Julie Fry about ambition and why it matters, both personally and to the economy. And simmering tensions with China ` we ask former Ambassador John McKinnon whether our relationship's taken a hit or if it's all a storm in a teacup. Kia ora, good morning. I'm Simon Shepherd. And I'm Emma Jolliff. Welcome to Newshub Nation. The National Party's been trading shots with Sir Michael Cullen this week. Cullen claims Simon Bridges is spreading misinformation in what he called a hysterical response to the Tax Working Group recommendations on capital gains tax. Bridges fired back, calling the Working Group Chair brazen, saying it's totally unacceptable he's still being paid $1000 a day to take political shots at the opposition. Cullen says he's only billing two days this month, and he says he's not playing politics, merely defending the Working Group's report and correcting the misinformation Bridges is spreading. This is all part of this rather hysterical, destroying the New Zealand way of life reaction to the report. And what to do with Kiwi Islamic militant Mark Taylor, who's languishing in a Kurdish prison in Syria. The government acknowledges he is New Zealand's problem but is making no efforts to repatriate him. His family says he's evil and dangerous, and that they're happy for him to rot there. Some have suggested a bullet. Others have offered him a length of rope. Others believe he should be subjected to violence inside prison, violence he's obviously put against women. And the government has finally introduced legislation designed to help police crack down on synthetic drugs, targeting suppliers, but there are also calls for police to consider a health-based response before seeking prosecution against users. National Leader Simon Bridges is adamant a capital gains tax would take thousands from people's KiwiSavers and threaten the Kiwi way of life. I began by asking him if he's simply scaremongering and muddying a sensible debate. No, I think if you look at it seriously, Jacinda Ardern, Grant Robertson and Sir Michael Cullen are being very tricky. If you look at what they've done with the report, actually, it's very much his description of himself, and that is that they have presented options as recommendations, recommendations as options. I can give you many examples. But for example, Grant Robertson on Maori and a capital gains tax, he's literally denied when first asked that there were recommendations about that. Well, page 15, recommendations 2c and d of volume 1. Volume 2, page 15. It's there in black and white. Sir Michael Cullen, effectively, on the KiwiSaver, trying to say that I'm wrong, that I'm misleading, that we're hysterical. And yet he is presenting what are options ` and he can't do them all because he can't spend the money three times ` as clear recommendations that will definitely be offsets of KiwiSaver. He cannot say that on the actual words of the report. And then Jacinda Ardern doing exactly the same thing in Parliament when I have outlined to her the words of the report. And she denies that they're even in there in Question Time in Parliament. So it's not me being misleading; it's not me being tricky. I say it's them. Are you muddying what is a sensible debate, though? I want a sensible debate. But let's be clear ` I feel, National feels, I think the vast majority of New Zealanders feel strongly about that. And by the way, we're allowed to have those feelings. I think, on Sir Michael Cullen, there has been a corrupting of the process. Because we have someone now who has moved from being chair of a tax working group to being a Labour Party politician who is doing the dirty work for Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson that they don't want to do. And what's more, he's doing it at $1000 a day. He is saying that he is defending the policy, not the politics. He's saying he's only billing for four days over February and March, and that he is wanting to clear up misinformation that people like you are putting into the debate. It may well be that now he does rather fewer days than he was going to, given that he's been caught out in the game. But I think he's been rather sly. He said that National's hysterical. He's effectively inferred on Morning Report that I should not be believed. I call it as it is ` that's political, and it's a corrupting of the process here, post the report. Let's look at your claim that people with KiwiSaver funds will lose $64,000 over a working life of 45 years. Aren't you cherry-picking parts of those reports to suit your own political gain? No, that's exactly what Sir Michael Cullen is doing when he says that all of the KiwiSaver savings will be there from one of a number of options he's choosing ` and promising, effectively, will happen. My $64,000 stacks up. If anything, it's conservative. We've used conservative assumptions. Over the lifetime of your average KiwiSaver account, that average person will lose 64 grand. Cullen has said, though, that actually up to $70,000 you'll be better off, and he acknowledges that maybe over 70,000 you'll be 13,000 worse off. Aren't you ignoring any possible offsets from cuts in other places? You're right. That is what he says, but he is being tricky in doing that. Because as I say, he wants to paint, as a recommendation, as something the government certainly will do, one of a number of options to make this thing fiscally neutral. How can he say that that's the one they will go with? I'm perfectly entitled to say that they may not, and that if they don't it's 64,000 ` more than that, I'm telling you now, and I'm telling New Zealanders now. Read my lips and watch what happens. This thing will not be fiscally neutral. If it is, pigs will fly. But it's the whole package that's fiscally neutral, not the KiwiSaver component. We've got to remember that the government is considering the recommendations of an independent tax working group and it has to build consensus within its Coalition Government. So none of them are actually a given yet, are they. That's the point. But Michael Cullen, when he talks about it, makes precisely the opposite case. Of the several options there are to make this fiscally neutral, he hones in on one and presents it as gospel truth that it is happening, and that suddenly everyone under 48 K is going to be so much better off. 48 to 70, actually, they won't be. 70 they'll be worse off. I think he's being very misleading. He would say that he's defending the findings of the report; he's making sure that accurate information is in the public domain. He is the spokesman for a group that is no longer together, but we've spoken to one other member of that working group, and they're happy for him to make sure there is accurate information. They don't want it to get political either, but they want to make sure that accurate information is in the public domain. It's naive to say this won't get political. I'm sorry. This is the most radical, hairy-chested capital gains tax and tax reform New Zealand has probably ever seen, and National is entitled to take a view on it. Now, if Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson were also out there putting their views forward, that would be one thing. But to have Sir Michael Cullen at $1000 a day pretending to be objective yet really doing their political dirty work is entirely wrong. But he's only doing four days. He has said he's only doing four days. So let's look at the other claims. Can I just come back on that? That's what he says? Well, I happen to know. I got an email inviting me ` he probably didn't want me there ` to a Tax Working Group special run by KPMG and him in Tauranga, my home electorate. Is he doing those around the country? Is he on a roadshow? Maybe he's dialled that back. But you bet your bottom dollar when he signed up to that, he thought he was being paid $1000 a day to do the government's dirty work for it. You'll have to ask him about that. Let's move on for a moment. Let's look at the other claims you've been making ` that Kiwis will leave the country for Australia. Why would they do that when Australia already has a capital gains tax? Pretty simple. Because their capital gains tax, broadly speaking, is half of ours; because they have a bigger, stronger economy. All things being equal, when you make one side of the incentives in one country ` that is, ours ` worse, that does incentivise people to leave. We've already seen it under this government. Except we also know in Australia you are denied access to various welfare, tertiary funding, health care. Yes, but on average they earn more. There are, in some cases, more career opportunities. Here, we have a situation where the incentive to get ahead in this country, relative to Australia, is getting worse. It will mean more Kiwis moving to Aussie. But can I make this point? It's very relevant this week, when we've had an anniversary, I think it is, from the Census. We will never know. And you know why we will never know? Because this government got rid of the statistic this year ` or end of last year, I think it was ` that tells us how many New Zealanders are moving to Australia. We're going to know that in April, I think. We're not. They did away with the statistic. Would you support a capital gains tax in any form? For example, if it was lowered to something like 15%? No. But of course, that would be dramatically less worse, if I can use that bad English, in doing that. I think what is true is that all of the things here in terms of destroying incentives ` KiwiSaver, other investment, homes, baches, small businesses ` overall is terrible. You get rid of some of those things, you make it less worse. But is it still bad and should we be grateful if, when the government dials it back? No, I don't think so. And I'll blame Winston Peters. Would you extend the bright-line test, for example? No. It's gone from two to five, and no, I wouldn't. Do you think our tax system is fair as it stands? This is about creating equity in wealth, in our country, in our tax system. Do you think our tax system is fair as it stands? That's the battleground that Jacinda Ardern seeks to put it on. Everything now is about fairness. If you look back in the past, she's made it about many other things. She said they needed more cash. That's what she said a couple of years ago in Parliament. So is it fair? Yes or no? No. It's unfair. What is fair about someone in Oriental Bay in Wellington with a million-dollar property paying no capital gains tax and someone with a $700,000 property, a lifestyle block out in Wairarapa paying full capital gains tax? I could go on and give you example after example. That's the new capital gains tax. But as it stands now, is it fair? At two years it was. Because really all it was was an evidential test that said if you were involved in rampant property speculation, you were flipping houses over every year, then you shouldn't be doing that. Or rather, if you did do it, you should pay tax on that. But of course, what we're talking about now is not a bright-line test; this is for all time you'll pay 33 cents in the dollar. That's very unfair. But there is a huge wealth gap in New Zealand. That does indicate that our system isn't fair. Oxfam last year said the richest 1% own 28% of the country's wealth. We've seen Salvation Army figures from the State of the Nation report say demand from food banks jumped 12%. We know state housing waiting lists are growing, welfare beneficiaries are growing. How can we make that fairer? They're all really serious issues. But Michael Cullen, who knows what he'll say tomorrow or the next day, because he seems prepared to say anything in defence of this report. But in the report itself, they make quite clear it's not going to solve housing inequality issues; it won't address those issues that you are talking about in that report. If we want to build more houses, let's have comprehensive reform of the RMA, of the planning systems, let's free up land and get into it. But a capital gains tax is not going to do the deal on those issues that you, that I, that New Zealanders care about. You released your tax policy earlier this year, which pegs tax thresholds to inflation. How much is that going to cost? I think from memory we were saying $600 million a year. That's expensive. It's not $6 billion a year, which this capital gains tax, when fully implemented, will cost New Zealanders in tax. I think if you look at it, we all agree, and I certainly believe in a very heartfelt way we need to make sure we're prioritising health, education, infrastructure. But once you've done that, Kiwis actually deserve to keep their hard-earned money. They deserve more in their pocket to deal with the cost of living that's rising. And so the government isn't increasing their tax take by stealth, which is exactly what they're doing now and they want to do yet more of with this capital gains tax. All right. We're gonna pause there for a moment, and we're gonna go to a break. We'll be back after the break talking about National's environment policy. Plus we'll catch up with our panel, Ben Thomas, Tova O'Brien and David Slack. We're back with National Leader Simon Bridges, talking environment this time. So, the tax working group recommends better use of environmental taxes to address some of the big challenges we face and help the transition to a more sustainable economy. Do you support that? Well, unlike the government, I don't believe that the solution to everything is taxes. I think New Zealanders can do the right thing; we can have a better environment; we can make sure we're dealing with biodiservity` diversity, with climate change, without necessarily heaping on more taxes in a radical fashion, as you say the tax working group is proposing. But we haven't been doing the right thing, have we? When you say leave people to do the right thing, we are in a bad environmental state. So it hasn't been right so far, has it? You can make the case about all sorts of things, but if you take climate change, I don't think anyone in the world has solved that perfectly yet. Of course they haven't. Well, I was the minister in the last government that was there signing us up to the Paris Agreement. It is a journey where we continuously have to do more and do better in that area. The same is true in many environmental issues. I get that. So you did sign up to that Paris Agreement, agreeing to 2 degrees. But 2 degrees is now considered the threshold of catastrophe, and the UN says that would mean 200 million climate refugees by 2050. Is a measured approach enough? We're working with the government very closely at the moment - myself and my colleague - with both Jacinda Ardern and James Shaw. I believe we should have an independent Climate Commission that advises the government and Parliament on what needs to happen. And I'm committed to following that through. Students are going on strike next Friday, calling for urgent action on climate change. Do you support them? Nothing about climate change is unimportant. So I'm certainly not saying that, and don't mistake what I say for that. But I do think` Look, there may be some students out there who passionately have followed this debate, who've read up on it, and for them it may be right. But I do worry as a parent, as a citizen, that actually there will be a bunch of others who say, 'Way-hey! 'Day off school, whatever the cause.' And so I do worry that it sends the wrong signal if we say, 'It's okay here. The ends justify the means. Have a day off just because it's a good cause.' Judith Collins told us in April last year she still doesn't really care about the wetlands. She's a senior member of your party. How can you convince that National actually cares? National's a broad church. We've got a range of views on all manner of issues. But we've just put out a discussion document on the environment. We care deeply about these things. We want New Zealanders to trust us as much as they do with the economy, with the environment. And I made clear when I became leader, before and during the race and afterwards, that the environment would get a refreshed, a renewed strong priority from me. Is this where Vernon Tava's Sustainable New Zealand Party comes in? Will they give you the green credentials that you need? I don't know. And, um, I mean, I think if I listen to Vernon, what he is saying is he's not a blue-green; he's a true green party. I genuinely have had nothing to do with that. Let's kind of see where they get to. I can say this to you, though. If you look at the current government and the current Green Party, we've got a situation where we're not getting cameras on fishing vessels; they won't do the Kermadecs; and a raft of other areas they're not making sufficient progress. So to those who voted for Labour and the Greens because they thought they'd get a greener government, I'm not seeing evidence of that today. You've got seven or eight more policies coming out this year, the next one in May. What can we expect from that? Potentially in foreign policy. Obviously an important area, a lot going on in that space, whether it's in relation to China... Can you tell us specifics? No, because we're still writing it and thinking it through. I said earlier this year that I want to set the agenda in policy debate in New Zealand. I think the government's been all working groups and vague talk of kindness and the like. We want to be the contrast to that. We've done tax indexation, giving people back more of their money; we've done an environment document, which I hope people will engage with, read and think about. As I say, probably foreign policy coming up. And then after that, no doubt, education, health, infrastructure, economy. Some big issues to come. We will want New Zealanders' views. And we will want to give them a very clear sense of where we're going if we have the privilege to lead. What are you going to do to turn around your poor personal polling, Simon? I think actually, just what I've said to you. It's two things. Firstly, elections are a referendum on the government. It's governments that lose elections. At the moment, I think they're going about that pretty well, from my perspective, with some of the things that they are doing and not doing. What I need to make sure National is doing` People do say that Jacinda actually won the last election, though. Well, I think Winston Peters won the last election. I think there's quite a few that say that as well. He won it for her, and now Michael Cullen's doing a good job to try and win it for her again - or lose it for her, perhaps. But I'll hold the government to account. I'll make sure that National is developing plans so people have got a real choice at the election, and they'll make up their minds when that election comes. At what point do you decide you need to step down for the good of the party? I won't be. And I know that will disappoint your commentators today such as David Slack and Tova O'Brien, but I'm here to stay. I believe in what I'm doing, I think I'm the best person for the job, and I lead a terrific team that is putting out policy, that is leading the debates. We're going to continue doing that. So we'll definitely see you as leader at the next election? You sure will. All right. Simon Bridges, leader of the National Party. Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you very much. And if you've got something to say about what you see on our show, let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram ` Our Twitter Panel this week is Jason Walls and Bevan Chuang. They're using the hashtag #NationNZ. Or you can email us at ` The address is on your screen now. All right, now, for their views on all of that, I'm joined now by our Panel. Ben Thomas from Exceltium PR, political commentator David Slack and Newshub Political Editor Tova O'Brien. Thanks for your time this morning. Tova and David, Simon Bridges says you're going to be disappointed if he's the leader next election. Will you? Perhaps if he keeps talking rubbish like that. But actually, I think that who's leader of the National Party has absolutely no bearing on me or any other journalist, and I think it's really problematic that Simon Bridges keeps having these cracks at Press Gallery journalists for reporting the facts, for reporting on his leadership. It's not our fault that he has abysmal poll numbers. It's not our fault that he's failing to resonate with voters. It's not our fault that people in his caucus are murmuring to us on the side-lines and talking about his leadership. Well, let's talk about that in a moment. David, are you disappointed? I'm just astonished that on this very show, last time I was on, I was talking about how he was in a prospect of staying for a time, because if you change your leaders you get your problem of your revolving door perception, and then you really are stuffed. And so I said I think he's got a good prospect, and I told him that myself a couple of weeks later. And he said, 'Don't say good things about me, or you'll ruin my cred.' So, where am I exactly in all of this, Simon? I need to know. Well, you should have a proper conversation with him later on. But, Tova, you're talking about murmurings to you. Ben, is there any real contender for Simon Bridges job? I don't think there's any race right now. Um, I think the National Party are probably pretty happy with where things are going. A little behind Labour in the polls, those two support parties really hovering at or under the 5%. And issues like the capital gains tax, where I think National really see a chance to win back some of those middle voters. Well, that's interesting. So, in Parliament this week Simon Bridges appeared bolstered, didn't he Tova? And today? And today with Emma as well. Well, he was saying the so-called 'hairy-chested capital gains tax.' Is this actually gaining traction for National? I think he's clearly emboldened and being able to, basically, have all these free hits at the Government, as well, because the Government has royally screwed up on this one by, kind of, chucking out the report then leaving it for a couple of months before they can say anything meaningful about it, which has created this vacuum which National has been more than happy to fill, albeit, perhaps, with disingenuous information at times. But it doesn't matter, because the Government hasn't been able to answer any of that, because they won't say what they're doing. And I think the Government's already recognised that` So, has Michael Cullen been the voice piece of the Government during this vacuum? It's not clear what Cullen's role is right now. I mean, I've done comms on a lot of these independent reviews, royal commissions that have come to ministers. It's very unusual for the Chairs, after they've handed in their report, to then hang around and provide, sort of, a DVD directors commentary on what they think the Government might do with the recommendations or where policy should go. Um, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that this Government has, sort of, called in Dad, you know, Michael Cullen, the previous Finance Minister, to kind of do their job for them. Because they're not ready to front up on it. Bridges went further, didn't he? He called it a corrupting of the process. I think it's also beholden on Michael Cullen to be able to answer questions on his report after the fact, rather than just, kind of, slamming it down and their being some kind of cliff-edge. But I think, again, it speaks to the fact that the Government isn't saying anything that he's, maybe, had to fill a political void, as well as just a technical, kind of, explainer-type role, which I think would be relevant and necessary. But has` yeah, sorry, David. If you look at the larger context, what you've got here is, if we cast our mind back, is a Government that knew right from the get-go that this was a problematic sort-of area, and what do you do when you do that? You get experts to give you an idea, and then you see where you might go with it. And, even at this point, I think it's been abundantly demonstrated that there's a wide diversity of opinion and a lot of hostility. And possibly the most prudent thing to do is to let it look confusing, let it look like a mess, because you can't actually get cohesion quickly anyway, let it swirl ` but have somebody They absolutely could have. They could have agreed on something before they` I totally disagree. I think this idea of getting in experts to explain your policy for you, look, voters aren't marking a university essay. They're not looking for footnotes and citations. They're looking to hear from the Government that they elected to represent them to tell them what they want to do for the country's future. They need to front up. All of that would have been solved if the Government had, after the interim report from the Tax Working Group, or even after receiving the final report, had come up with something around the cabinet table, decided what they wanted to do, and then put that out as the discussion for people to have. We've still got a lot more time to debate until the Government comes back with its position on the capital gains tax. Let's just move on to the sustainable economy ` Simon Bridges said no to any taxes from the T.W.G., so he says New Zealanders can do the right thing. So, are they, say, David, being bold enough about this? Oh, we should have a much gutsier carbon tax than we do right now. At the moment what we have is a rate that has really no meaningful heft, and even to the extent that people have been taking carbon credits that have been on a very spurious basis, by shysters of Russia, basically. So, National's not being bold enough at all. Yeah, I think that if we wanna fix this, we have to start by curbing emissions from burning fossil fuels, and the carbon tax is the most likely way of making that happen. Over time, technology might come to our rescue, but I would suggest that that's not enough and you've gotta push harder. He's making some of the right noises though, isn't he? On the previous National government as well, the fact that he is looking to work with the Government and is sitting down with them to come up with some kind of` You need cross-party consensus about these things for them to last, and I think that's what we've seen in the UK, and that's what this Government and the National Party and all the other parties of parliament are trying to do, and that's the right noises in` So is that in recognition that this is not a political debate, that they actually have to have consensus. I think there needs to be consensus for some things. I think there are other things that you're just not gonna get political consensus on. It's a pretty good cabinet for, kind of, a war cabinet approach, where you do kind of bring in everybody. Because it is a really big` You're also not gonna get the Nats on board with oil and gas. No. In terms of green credentials though, say, Ben. Vernon Tava's proposing the Sustainable New Zealand Party. And Simon Bridges saying that he's a totally green party, and he seems to be distancing himself from that, in that interview anyway. Well, if the sustainability party is a real thing that is going to be contesting the election... You have your doubts? ...as a potential partner for National, brackets, or Labour, it has to be seen as separate rom National, not just a National stalking horse on the environment. And so National does have to give it room to have environmental credentials. That's why it seems a bit strange that National's first discussion document of the year is on environmental policy, you know? Because I actually don't think that there is a lot of room there for what is called a 'true green party'. I think space is well served in the New Zealand electorate. And is Simon Bridges distancing himself slightly from that in case it fails? He's spending a lot of time saying he has nothing to do with the sustainability party, nothing to do with Vernon Tava, but he's kind of front-footed all of that, so I think that Simon's gonna be looking for friends wherever he can find them. So perhaps there's a bit of merit in distancing himself now, but I think, come the election, if these guys are actually registering at all in the polls, you'll see a lot more interest from National. And on that, we'll leave it there for the moment. Thank you very much for our panel, we'll be back to you later on. Up next, how your upbringing affects your ambition, and why kiwis should be more supportive of people aiming high. Plus, former-Ambassador John McKinnen on our relationship with China. Is it really on the rocks? Welcome back. Kiwis are a humble lot that don't like to draw attention to their goals or their successes. Yet that lack of open ambition may be one of the reasons we are, as a country, slipping down the economic rankings. And that's one of the conclusions economist Julie Fry reaches in her new book, Ambition And Why It Matters. So I asked her to sum New Zealanders' attitude to ambition. It's interesting. It's really conflicted. We hear a lot of talk about how New Zealanders don't work very hard and how they're scared of risk and failure, and yet we see New Zealanders achieving amazing things, both at home and on the world stage, in sport and business and everywhere else. The thing is that we're really uncomfortable sharing ambition and being open about our ambition. Right. So we don't like to say, 'Look at me.' Yeah. Really don't like to say, 'Look at me.' So that's a real tension in the survey that you did between, you know, people saying, 'Yeah, I like to be ambitious, but I don't want to talk about it. 'Other people will think I shouldn't talk about it.' Yeah. Humility is very, very big. It comes from this idea that, you know, we're all equal; we are all, kind of, not better than anybody else. So we think that being humble is good. Yep. And that we live in an egalitarian paradise. Sorta, kinda. Sorta, kinda. Yeah. Sorta, kinda. But what about this thing called the tall poppy syndrome? We go on about that. Does that exist? It's interesting. Some people in the survey and some people we spoke to in our video interviews said, 'Yeah, absolutely. 'It's a thing.' And others said, 'No, we think it's` You know, as we've had social media out there, 'it's made it more possible for people to be open about what they're ambitious about, 'without being judged.' So` Has it been also more possible in social media to take people down, in a way, as well? Yeah, it goes both ways. But we're seeing this real movement. There's not one view of tall poppy. Some people are saying, 'I'm experiencing this.' Some people are saying, 'No, it's not been a thing for me.' Does it depend on what kind of ambition you have? If you are more ambitious to make it better for people and improve people's lives, rather than having money, is that more acceptable? Yeah, that's absolutely something that came through in our survey. Someone who's ambitious for status or fame or money isn't particularly admired by New Zealanders. Someone who's ambitious to be the best version of themselves or to create value for others ` that's much more admirable, socially. Where does the ambition come from? And why does it matter? I'll deal with that in two parts. First, where it comes from ` we all have it. The research says that it's a fundamental human drive that's in all of us, so it's not something for only special, high-achieving people. Ambition is this desire to do or achieve something typically, you know, requiring hard work. So that can be, you know, looking after our families, it can be success in business, it can be success in sport, the arts, it can be caring for our communities, for the environment ` it can be anywhere. Why does having ambition matter? Do we have to worry about it? Yes, it does. If we are thinking about what makes us happy as people and what makes us successful economically, it's this desire to reach for something beyond the status quo. You know, it's the desire to stretch. It's the desire to have just manageable difficulties in our lives ` things that keep us challenged and invigorated, but not overwhelmed or bored. So, having ambition ` does that mean that we're going to be eternally unhappy because we're always striving for something else? No, it's the human condition. You know, the human condition is the journey is what makes us happy, the going after something, and then when you get there, you go after something else. That's how it works. So the size of your ambition, is that determined about what kind of background you come from? More affluent people from more affluent backgrounds have bigger goals. More conventional material ambitions, if you come from that kind of background. One of the things that we found when we looked at studies of factors influencing ambition is that young people, particularly from backgrounds that were poor or where they didn't have a lot of role models outside of their own family, they set smaller goals for themselves, because, you know, you can't be what you can't see. You know, your sense of what's possible isn't particularly large. So they're being constrained by the environment that they've grown up in. Yeah, absolutely. And resourcing matters too. You know, if your parents can't afford studies in the UK, parents can't afford to do things for you, they find that the children just lower their expectations and study less, you know, go into jobs that require fewer qualifications, all that kind of stuff. They really dial their sense of possibility back. Right. So is this a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of the disparity in society? I mean, if you've got people growing up in those circumstances ` they have constrained goals and other people have bigger goals, and that forces them apart. Yeah, it's not destiny, but it is important. I mean, if I was waving a magic wand, I think there's two things I'd want in terms of policy. I'd like to see, you know ` we're seeing this in the last few years anyway ` dealing with child poverty and those sort of resource constraint issues across families and in communities that struggle. But also thinking about, you know, what it is that enables people to convert those resources into a good life, to be ambitious, and that's around developing skills like developing a growth mindset or, you know, how to become more resilient. And, you know, there are strategies for doing that in ways that a person can... Your original position is not your destiny. So there's a way of giving more opportunity to those who haven't had it in the past. Yeah. Yeah. What about the way that ambition is actually linked to our economic performance? I mean, we've been slipping down the OECD rankings over the last 30, 40 years. Is that because we're not ambitious enough? I think that the issue there is, I mean, certainly how big you dream is a big influence on how far you go. Right? But there's no sign, if you look at other OECD data, and New Zealand has worked really hard compared to people in other countries. The issues that we do have, and we talk about these in the book, are around our management practices and how competitive our environment is. New Zealand's a small country, so if you want to get bigger, you have to go offshore when you're still pretty small. So that's a factor. And within our, sort of, management practices within firms, because humility's such a big thing, because being equal's such a big thing, it's very hard to give and receive feedback in a way that's constructive and that deals with performance issues. Right. So as a Kiwi manager, I don't like to actually give constructive feedback to people, because that's` It's uncomfortable. It's uncomfortable, and I'm putting myself on top of the heap, am I? Yeah, that's right. We don't do that. So this is something you talk about called the glorification of humility. So are these our role models? I mean, the role models that we have, are they all these humble people who show a lot of humility? And that's what we pursue and that's what's holding us back? I think we definitely glorify it. I mean, if you look at Richie McCaw and why we admire him, it's because he just got on with things and didn't make a fuss. Right? There's a lot of examples like that in our culture. I don't think that's holding us back so much as the fact that because we worry about what people will think of us if we share our ambitions. We miss out on support. Right? So, I mean, I wouldn't be sitting here, talking to you; I wouldn't be very, very excited about this book being on the cover of The Listener this week, if I hadn't spoken to a woman named Jenny Sutton who I bumped into in a conference and said to her, 'This is what I'm doing.' Turned out she's a venture investor, and she supported this project. So, you know, I didn't know this woman at all, had a conversation about what I was trying to do, and from that conversation, we ended up` So you shared your goal with somebody else. And was that uncomfortable to do that? It was uncomfortable, because I didn't know her, I didn't know what she'd think of my work, I didn't know. But this is the thing. We tend to share only with people that we know and that we're comfortable with and that we feel safe. If I'd stuck to that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Right. So what should we, as a nation, then, be doing to change the way we talk about ambition? And what will it give us? I think we can start at the individual level. That example I've just given you, I mean, literally has changed the path of this work. And that's true for all of us. We spoke to a lot of people in our interviews who came back to us and said, 'Oh, you know, 'I told you I wasn't ambitious, but, actually, I've thought about it, and now I've, you know, 'gone down this path.' Or people who said, 'I've had support from somebody or someone helped me out when I got stuck.' You know, those things are important for moving forward. And so that's the reason you've written this book ` you want to spark that conversation` Absolutely. ...and get a change in our attitude to ambition. Yeah, and hopefully we'll change, you know, how we are to each other and, you know, two thumbs up a bit more. Thanks. Thanks very much for your time. OK. Up next ` former ambassador John McKinnon on how much China really cares about New Zealand, and if we're putting our economic relationship at risk. Welcome back. Tension increased in the South China Sea this week after a Chinese naval ship reportedly rammed and sank a Vietnamese fishing boat. It's one of the areas where New Zealand agrees to disagree with China over its foreign policy, and yet we need them ` they are our largest export market. The Prime Minister says it's a complex relationship and has yet to secure a long-promised visit to Beijing. So is the relationship on the rocks? Former ambassador to China John McKinnon joins me now. Thanks for your time this morning. Thank you, Simon. So, how concerning is it that the Prime Minister can't seem to secure this visit to Beijing? I don't think we should read too much into it. I spend a lot of my time` I was there from 2015 to 2018 scheduling visits. It's fiendishly difficult, because you're trying to line up diaries from important people in NZ and important people in China. And it will happen, and it's important that it happens, cos those high-level visits are very significant in terms of sending messages through the system about what we think of China and what China thinks of us. So, I mean, you believe the excuse, as it were; it is a diary issue, but you'd like to see her go soon, then? Well, I'd like to see her go, and I think she will go. I wouldn't want to put 'soon' into a particular time frame. I'm sure it'll happen, but the point about it is that when you have a high-level visit, it means that the system in China, and this will apply in most other countries, for that moment in time, it focuses on New Zealand and right up to the highest level, and that is important. And it's important that our leaders have the opportunity to do that in China. They also, of course, have many opportunities to meet these leaders in other parts of the world, cos they go to multilateral meetings and the like. Mm. But the keynote, or the main event is actually going to the country, isn't it? Well, I think it's important - it has a quality which you can't transfer from some other meeting ` but you know, there have been lots of contacts, but I certainly think she will be going, and it will, you know, hopefully be` So, are we misreading the tea leaves, then? Is there really a breakdown in relations at the moment, or is it a storm in a teacup? It's a good metaphor for China ` tea. I would say there are changes afoot in many different ways. There are changes in New Zealand; there are changes in China; there are changes in the world, and it's making navigating a relationship with a country such as China more difficult and, to use the Prime Minister's words, more complex. So there is another different environment, if you like, a different context. But I would hesitate to say` In fact, I wouldn't say, 'Oh, this is a relationship in trouble.' I do think it requires a lot of management and a lot of communication and a lot of attention. You talk about changes. Now, we've made changes here. Yeah. Like, we've had the Pacific Reset policy and the defence policy statement ` both of those seemingly controversial. Yeah. Have they been the kind of changes that has upset China? Well, I think there are always going to be areas where we say and do things where China will not necessarily agree with and vice versa. And the two big realities for us in China ` it is a very large, now, trade and economic partner for us. In fact, it's probably our largest, I think, on latest figures, but also it's a country with a very different history, a very different political and social system, and there are going to be moments when we basically take different views, and the items you just mentioned are part of that. They came up when I was in Beijing. They're not, in that sense, new, but they are areas where we don't see things the same way. And the challenge therefore is not to say, 'Oh, well, we're always going to agree.' It's how do you manage the points at which you take a different view. So, you say you were in Beijing when these issues came up. Yeah. So you were on the frontline, as it were, in terms of reaction. Yes. Can you describe to me what kind of reaction you did get from China? Well, of course it's a diplomatic reaction, but it` By reading the tea leaves? We had a lot of conversations about issues such as the South China Sea, cos that was an area where China feels very sensitive about, we feel sensitive about because of the role we place on international law and the tribunals. So you have conversations, and you know that you're going to say your side, and they're going to say their side. And that's helpful, cos I think it's important to understand, but you also probably know that you're not going to reach an agreement. Has China done some pushing back? And now, I'm referring to, sort of, Huawei just recently. I know they're a private company, but they've taken out ads in New Zealand, criticising the decision by the GCSB. Yeah. And also we've seen these articles in the Global Times saying maybe don't travel down to New Zealand. Is that a push back? Well, I mean, there are a variety of opinions floating around. Well, Huawei, I think, you know, one would have to infer from the extent of their advertising that they still feel that they're in the game, and that would be in a technical sense very accurate. I mean, the decision hasn't actually been made. It's now in the hands of Spark as to what they should do with that. So Huawei may still see itself as being a contender there. I think with some of the other things, you just have to know and interpret different levels of commentary from China. And a lot of the time in Beijing we did spend, we did scrutinise quite closely, not just people like the Global Times or the People's Day, but also what has happening in social media. And, you know, we would try to see what was the view of New Zealand in social media ` was it altering. And by and large, it was very positive. So that was an important part and no doubt will continue to be an important part of what people ` you know, my successors in the Beijing Embassy are doing. But I don't read into those isolated comments any particular new set about New Zealand. And lately, there have been some more interesting statements or statements from the Foreign Ministry which have been more, I think, encouraging and positive in terms of how they recognise that this is a significant relationship and they want to keep it going. Why is it a significant relationship? I mean, we need them, but why do they need us? Yeah, very good question. There are a couple of elements, I think, which are in play here. I mean, clearly, the asymmetries of size, you just can't even begin to contemplate. But we stand as a country which is a developed country, but we're not, obviously, a G20 economy; we're not an OE, we're not an EU member, so we have a relationship with China which is a little bit different from that of many other Western countries. And I think they value that. They know that New Zealand's of interest to a lot of their citizens, and so that's also important for them. And I just read about the report of the terrible accident that took place in the South Island, I think it was yesterday, which involved, you know, Chinese visitors. And that's an awful thing to be happening for anybody, but, you know, it's something that, well, because of the way that social media now operates, it'll be well known throughout China very, very quickly. Has our influence in the Pacific got anything to do with China's, sort of, thinking that we're important? Well, I think that, you know, we have a role in the Pacific which is relating to us as New Zealand, regardless of what China thinks about it. China is now more present in the Pacific than it used to be, and that's obviously been something that we need to be able to talk to China about. At the same time, we also need to be, obviously, keeping up our lines of communication with the Pacific governments. They are the ones who ultimately make those decisions. So it is part of it, but to me, the larger part of it is simply that New Zealand's a country where they feel comfortable about the way they can live and do business here and that we respect their main concerns, if even if we don't always agree with them. OK. Two quick things ` David Parker, the Trade Minister, has been invited up to the Belt And Road conference in April, next month. What can we read into that? Well, they had the first such conference in May 2017, when I was still in Beijing. This is the second, and they're very keen to put this out as a part of China's overarching strategy. So they will be inviting many people, and I think it's good that David Parker has been invited and that he is going. Mm. OK. So, also, we're renegotiating the FTA at the moment. Yes. So it's a different situation from when we first signed in 2008. Is it at risk? I don't think it's at risk. It is challenging. When we signed in 2008, that was the first free-trade agreement that China had signed with a developed country. And in a sense, it was path-breaking. But it was also highly relevant to New Zealand's future economic interest. We're in a situation now where China has many, many more FTAs. But also, in a sense, we did the things in 2008, and now we're into the sort of stuff which is a little bit harder or things such as competition policy or E-commerce, which weren't even really in the minds of the negotiators back in 2008. So I don't think it's a risk, but it's going to be a long haul. OK. Just finally, last year you said in a speech, I believe, that the fundamental cultural differences between the two countries is that we are going to continue to be blindsided by certain events. What do you mean by that? I think I said that, you know, we had to avoid being blindsided. But what I mean is that when New Zealand thinks about China, we have to recognise that it comes from a very different background and history from ours. I mean, one of the issues for China that they will constantly say, and with some justification, is that they have lifted more people out of poverty than any other country in history. And that is factually correct. We would say, 'Yeah, but we have also got to think about individual rights ` you know, 'whether it's minorities or whether it's Christians or other such groups.' That's where you need to be aware that whatever you think about, China is a very different place, and it's going to react and act differently from what we might be thinking. All right. John McKinnon, thank you very much. Thank you very much indeed. OK. Thank you. New statistics released on International Women's Day show women now make up almost half of New Zealand's workface and the gender pay gap is narrowing. But women make up just 25% of New Zealand's tech workforce and 21% of those working in engineering and physical sciences like chemistry and physics. Producer Nicola Russel talked to three women bucking the trend in these sectors about what needs to change. Now, before I get started, hands up if you know what I do for a job? Yes? You do experiments. I do experiments. So, at Nanogirl Labs, we work with schools all around the country to try and number one, show different types of engineers and scientists, so we have a group of amazing female scientists who go around and say, 'I'm a scientist, I'm a engineer ` 'this is what I look like,' to break down some of those stereotypes. Lots of high-profile women are doing really well in science, but that doesn't seem to trickle down, necessarily to senior roles in organisations. There were remarks and things that I heard, where 'Girls don't make games.' And I think it's probably a few things, but one of the main things is role models. Are you ready? KIDS: Yeah! Wow! Give it a round of applause. (APPLAUSE) We need more women and more diversity in science and engineering, for many reasons. When you have diverse people problem-solving, you think of better ideas, and you think of solutions that fit more people. As far I know, I'm the only Maori woman game developer than owns her own company. I develop games that include, you know, female characters in a positive light. It's all about making people aware of the decisions that they're making, I think, within organisations. And then we need also to look beyond the research workforce and the university workforce into schools and see when kids are making those decisions and what the barriers are for particular demographics of kids to choose science or not choose science. So guess what? I'm gonna do some science. Stay with us. We're back after the break. Welcome back. I'm joined again now by our panel ` Ben Thomas, David Slack and Tova O'Brien. Welcome back. Tova, the former Diplomat to China, John McKinnon, says all is not lost with our relationship with China. What's it gonna take to get the Prime Minister up there? Yeah, that's a good question. A lot of diplomatic wrangling behind the scenes, and I think that's definitely happening. And what John was saying as well is pointing to the fact that it is happening. And the trip's actually gonna go ahead as well, which is an interesting insight. I think that's probably the case, that the Prime Minister was telling us that trip was gonna go ahead back in November last year. Then it was December. Then it just kept getting kicked out into the long grass by China. And, so, yes, there was a lot of white noise around the relationship between New Zealand and China being damaged, but I think things like that, the trip, the fact that China told us to correct our wrong words after the defence policy statement and also the Huawei decision, which we know smarts with China. I think there are still some tangibles that we can point to that say the relationship isn't the best it's ever been. I was entertained by his diplomatic language, saying we don't really see any problem here, but then he said the recent sounds have been better. Yeah. Not quite sure how you square those, but maybe that tells you that the prospect is improving, I guess. Ben, have we seen China pushing back a bit? Like, the travel warnings and the Huawei ads ` I mean, is that unusual? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, when the Prime Minister heads over there, they'll wanna make sure that all of the flight details are sorted out so that they're not turned back by the Chinese airport,... (LAUGHTER) ...because it turns out that there's a lot of technicalities that can come to the fore and sort of bubble up to the surface right about the time that things like the Huawei decision are in the news. He mentions social media in China is a barometer of people's feelings towards, you know, people in the Republic's feelings towards New Zealand. Well, what's social media in China informed by? It's informed by state-approved newspapers of the kind that have been running down New Zealand recently. So it's definitely cause for concern. You're looking at those newspapers like the Global Times and the Chinese Daily, which is really interesting, because as Ben says they've been running us down lately, and diplomacy is so nuanced that actually it is those things that we need to look to to try and get a sense of what's going on with the relationship. Fascinating, as well, that our diplomats in China are doing the same thing. It's very tricky, though, for New Zealand to maintain. It's sort of independent, and it starts from China over various issues like South China Seas and the Pacific. Yeah, they're our biggest export markets, a very tricky relationship, David. Well, biggest in the sense that... we have many, and it's still about` What was it ` 5% or 7%? I don't mean to discount that. It's really meaningful. It's a lot of money. But there is a historical precedent for us here, and that is Norman Kirk going out and going really not aligned and saying we're` saying we're neither this big power nor the other, and it kinda worked. And also it made it possible for you to be, sort of, a voice. Now, I know that's a little idealistic and romanticised, but it's a possibility. And he actually proved it was real. That might be our option here. I dunno. A lot of academics kind of agreed with that as well when the defence policy statement came out and we took that stronger line on China and it posing a threat to the 'global order' or whatever it was. A lot of academics were agreeing that this is actually a lot more realistic and the defence policy statement was a more realistic way of looking at the New Zealand-China relationship than perhaps we had with rosy tinted glasses in the past. OK, let's move on to the bumbling Jihadi, Mark Taylor, who's been in the news, and he wants to come back to New Zealand. We can't really take him back. Can we, Ben? Do you want him back here? Oh yeah, absolutely. You do? Yeah, I mean, he's almost certainly committed offences under our laws by being a foreign fighter in a foreign conflict. He should be back here; he should be put on trial; he should be put in prison, most likely, without wanting to prejudice anything. Yeah, but Jacinda Ardern says it's not doing anything to repatriate him. There's no effort whatsoever. Politically, very difficult just because of the perceptions around it. And logistically, virtually impossible. So Mark Taylor will somehow need to get out of that Kurdish prison, somehow get across the border to Turkey, somehow make his way to the embassy in Ankara, somehow get that emergency passport and then somehow fly home. But the flip side is, as Ben says, we have a responsibility. He isn't a dual citizen. He doesn't have` We can't leave him stateless. And actually he does need to answer to the crimes that he's committed. Do you agree, David, or has he forfeited his right to come back? Oh no. I think that... the position is clear enough and has been articulated well, and that is that we all have an obligation if somebody travels on our passport, that we have to take them in the same way that if somebody committed a crime here and they carried a Syrian passport, they would` You would expect to be able to` He gets prosecuted. Yeah. And of course if he does` Turns out we have a whole system designed to deal with people who do terrible things ` up to and including murder and crimes against humanity. Is that washing our hands of them? Well` Except I am` Long-held government policy. I am a little impressed by the way in which they seem to be` the government seems to be adopting the ` and I say that sarcastically ` the UK approach of appearing to be constitutio` full of constitutional probity but nonetheless saying, 'Oh, but there's nothing we can do. What a shame.' Nice and easy. One last quick topic ` MMP, Green MP Golriz Ghahraman's electoral strengthening democracy bill proposed dropping the threshold MMP 5% to 4%. It was labelled as sneaky. Was it? It was very cynical trying to smuggle that through in amongst what are otherwise pretty uncontroversial and pretty sensible reforms. And now those can proceed properly now that, you know, the sort of swifty has been ruled out. It's not a new proposal at all. No, it's a magnificent waste of everyone's time, They're just trying to get attention. We knew that the government was already looking at this. We knew that the government was looking at a referendum on the threshold on the electoral form. We knew that the government was going back and looking at that electoral commission, a review from 2012. So I think the Greens are just starved of attention. She was trying to get attention, but unfortunately she did it in a way that looked deeply cynical and laden with self-interest. Well, there you go. Can't disagree. Can't disagree. And on that note, agreement from the panel, thank you very much for your time today. Well, it was a tumultuous week in Parliament, with tempers still flaring over a possible capital gains tax. And while Simon Bridges sought to score points by highlighting the Prime Minister's past role at a socialist NGO, Speaker Trevor Mallard had stern words for National MP Gerry Brownlee. Here's what happened this week in the house. Is the NGO she spoke of the International Union of Socialist Youth? The member knows how to use Wikipedia. Well done. (LAUGHTER) (CLAMOURING) Has talking to international comrades helped her with her small business policy development in New Zealand? Mr Speaker` (APPLAUSE) Order. No, the Prime Minister will sit down. We're not going to have that sort of seal-like approach in this house. Will her government exclude Maori from any capital gains tax it imposes? Firstly may I commend the member for finally reading the reports? They recommended that we think about it, and, Mr Speaker, I'd really like to question the member ` where exactly is he trying to go with this issue? Where exactly? The Right Honourable Winston Peters. Order. Given all the speculation` Order. Member will resume his seat. Mr Brownlee will now stand, withdraw and apologise. I withdraw and apologise. What was the problem there? (LAUGHTER) I called him a businessman. I apologise for that. (LAUGHTER) The member knows well that he interjected while a member was asking a question. He will now leave the chamber. That's all from us for now. Thanks for watching, and we'll see you again next weekend. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019 This programme was made with the assistance of the NZ On Air Platinum Fund.