- And I'm Conor Whitten. Nau mai. Welcome to Newshub Nation. - Coming up on the show today ` the big Budget breakdown and what it means for you; an extended interview with Finance Minister Grant Robertson. - She wants 16- and 17-year-olds to vote ` Golriz Ghahraman joins us live on her new members' bill. - And Minster James Shaw on an historic week for climate in Aotearoa. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2022 - First up, Budget 2022. It was a budget that tried to cover both bases. - Major spending on climate and healthcare and with a short-term sugar hit too. - It is my great pleasure to present New Zealand's fourth Wellbeing Budget. - Sadly, the country's going backwards, and we're heading in the wrong direction. - And this Budget will be remembered as the brain-drain Budget. - A lot of shaking of your head during David Seymour's interview. - Oh, it just made me angry. It's just so economically illiterate, right? - Deeply addicted to spending. - He's addicted to spending. - The squeezed middle. - The squeezed middle. - Is it gonna deliver for the squeezed middle. - There's just $260 million of new spending for Maori health. - If the system was a vanilla cake, what they do is they put chocolate sprinkles on it to make it look good. We've been left with the crumbs. - $350 one-off payment over three instalments. - I'd say that's pretty good. - It doesn't help at all. - Grant Robertson had one shot, one opportunity. - Politically, it's a master stroke. - This is a backwards budget. - Ae, it's a record-breaking budget, but not everyone's a winner. A billion dollars on the cost of living only buys quick relief. - Cash payments, cheaper fuel and half-price public transport will be here and then gone in the next few months. I sat down with Finance Minister Grant Robertson and asked him ` when that support runs out, will it be any easier to pay the bills? - The forecasts that we've got from the Treasury are that inflation does peak in the middle of the year and start to come down. Obviously, there is ongoing support for those on the lowest incomes that carries through, plus the fact that we've now got half-price public transport for people on community services cards, which will carry on permanently. But we recognise that this is a contribution. It's a recognition that there's a wider group of New Zealanders who need some support, but clearly there will still be some cost of living pressures as we go through the next couple of years as inflation comes down. - Because the Budget says inflation will still be 6.7% this year. Next year, it'll still be above 5%. That's still rising a lot faster than wages, so people are going to fall further and further behind. - Well, actually, what the forecasts show is that, from 2023 onwards, wages do rise faster than inflation, as they` - But between now and then,... - Yeah, of course. - ...every day, people are getting further and further behind. - It's a tough time in 2022. And, you know, we saw, just 48 hours ago, the UK announced 9% inflation. The US are up over 8% ` the average around the world about 8.8%. So this is a tough time. We've provided some additional support here to get a wider group of New Zealanders through a really difficult period. But 2022 is a challenging year. - So, are you` - The good news, though, is that the fundamentals of our economy are strong ` low unemployment, we do have good export receipts, we are in a strong position to grow jobs. But 2022 is a tough year for everyone around the world. - And it will continue to be, so will you consider extending any of those measures to support cost of living beyond the next few months? - Look, yeah, we obviously announced the timeline and the time frames for what we've done, the two-month extension for FED and RUC and public transport and targeted. That is what we are announcing. I have, however, learned through COVID that you need to be nimble and adaptable for what the world might throw at us. We have the fiscal headroom, because we've carefully managed the Budget if there is another variant, for example, of COVID. So we'll keep monitoring the situation. But the time frames we announced in the Budget are the time frames for these payments. - Two million Kiwis will get that $350 one-off payment, but the poorest New Zealanders won't. Why won't beneficiaries get that? - So, what we did on the 1st of April was significantly lift income support, student allowances, superannuation. Then we've got the winter energy payment coming in from the 1st of May. If you compare someone on income support now to a year ago, they've got about a 22% increase in what they get. So we have been providing support to low-income New Zealanders. But we also recognise that there's a wider group who needed some support through these months, and that's why we've added in those earning up to 70,000. We've now got 81% of working-age New Zealanders getting some form of targeted cost of living support. I think that's doing pretty good by New Zealanders over this period. - But the winter energy payment is what it sounds like ` it's to heat your homes. It's not to deal with the cost of living. So some families are going to be facing a choice between heat and food. - As I say, if you look at, you know, for those on income support, they're $109 a week better off than when Labour came into office. If you've got kids, you're $175 a week better off than when Labour came into office. So we have consistently lifted the support we're giving to low-income earners. And now, for example, we've got the public transport subsidy carrying on for those who are in that situation. So I'll stand by our record. The other thing I would note is that this is $27 a week for those earning under $70,000 over this period, which is more than they'd get from untargeted tax cuts that National's proposing. So I think we've got a good-balanced package here, and it continues to support low-income earners, but also brings in those who are also feeling the pressure in the middle-income brackets. - Treasury recommended against that payment. Not only did they say it could add to inflation, but they said it should be targeted at the lowest income New Zealanders. They said that they needed it more. Why did you ignore that? - Well, what Treasury said was that there was the potential for it to increase inflation, but that was mitigated by the fact that it was temporary and targeted, unlike tax cuts, for example. Our view remains that we have supported low-income New Zealanders to the tune, as I say, of more than $100 a week for them since Labour came into office. We've just had the winter energy payment. We've had the 1 April package. We wanted to also extend some support to those middle-income earners. 81% of New Zealanders are being helped through this spike in inflation, and I think that's doing a pretty good job on behalf of those who need it the most. - I understand that you've already raised benefits, and it was a huge increase in the Budget last year. But when you did that, inflation was forecast to be below 2%. Life is much, much tougher for those families than when you made that call. Is there going to be any extra help for them? - Well, towards the end of last year, we made changes to the family tax credit to be able to lift that by around $20 a week for people, which we added on to what were the largest benefit increases in a generation. So I will stand proudly by our record in supporting low-income New Zealanders. We lifted benefits in Budget 2020, Budget 2021 and in 2022. So I think we have done a good job of lifting the incomes of low-income New Zealanders. We've lifted the minimum wage, and now we have this extended package. I think, if you contrast that with what the National Party have been offering New Zealanders who are earning those levels of money, this compares far, far better than that. - OK, let's talk about the National Party. They've been talking about what they call 'the squeezed middle'. Is this Budget a response to that? - No. What this Budget is a response to is the rising cost of living and the global inflation pressures that we're seeing. But it's much more than that, Conor. I mean, yes, the cost of living package is important, but the Budget balances that with the big investments in health, climate change, supporting businesses that we need to grow those high-wage jobs. And that is the job of the Minister of Finance. We have to deal with the here and now, but we've also got to deal with making sure we deal with those issues of tomorrow. And that's why I think we've got that balance right. I haven't heard a single thing from National about what they'd actually do or what they would cut in order to make sure they could pay for their bigger, longer-term tax-cut package. So, for me, a budget is always about a careful balance, and I think we've struck it here. - OK, so let's talk about that health spending ` more than $11 billion. It is a massive investment in the health system, and yet the Maori Health Authority gets just $40 million a year to pay for Maori services. How is that going to close the gap? - Well, actually the Maori Health Authority gets a significant amount more than that. So we funded it $240 million in Budget 2021. We now have, directly for the commissioning of by-Maori, for-Maori services, $166 million over this Budget period. They also take responsibility now for the spending within the overall budget to the tune of around $300 million to $350 million a year ` over a billion dollars across the forecast period to support Maori health outcomes. We have never, in New Zealand, given the kind of funding we're giving for direct commissioning of services. The other thing I'd say is that Maori will still be using hospitals. Maori will still be using ambulances that we've increased the funding for in this Budget. We will now have a nationwide health system that also starts to address those decades-long inequities. So there's more funding in future years, for sure. But this is a fantastic start for actually funding Maori health services properly. - But $40 million a year over the next four years ` I mean, it's 1% of the total health budget. Is this the partnership you were talking about when you set this up? - This is the first time we've ever funded this level of direct commissioning of by-Maori, for-Maori health services, and that is just a fraction of the overall budget that we're giving for Maori health. - Even the ACT Party's saying we going to be spending $3.5 billion a year on Maori ` ACT say that. - (CHUCKLES) If you look at the total budget that we're spending, we're spending significant amounts of resources lifting not only the spending for Maori health but in areas like Whanau Ora ` which I'm sure the ACT Party have promised to get rid of ` where we're putting in an extra $166 million. I am extremely proud of the fact that we've taken a step forward to not only create a proper nationwide health service, where everybody gets care wherever they are, but that we're stepping forward into this area. If you talk to the Maori Health Authority, they'll also say we need to build the capacity out there in the sector to deliver these programmes. There's actually another 30 million in the Budget to do that, plus another $40 million to build the Maori health workforce. We are on a journey here that will deliver significantly better health services and outcomes for Maori, and I'm certainly not going to be lectured by David Seymour about the lack of investment that would come from him if he ever got hold of the budget. - OK, so how long is that journey going to take? How long before Maori health outcomes catch up? - Yeah, and it will be a long period of time, because we're dealing with decades of disparities here. What we have is an initial two-year budget, and then from 2024, three-year budgets. And so you will see improvements for Maori across those years. But I'm not promising it will happen overnight. And people who work in the health sector understand that. It's the reason why they've backed us to make these changes, even though we've been dealing with a pandemic, because they know how needed they are. There will be improvements, and they will happen over time. - OK, let's talk about Pharmac. I know it's a record investment ` $191 million ` to buy new drugs over the next two years. There are 128 drugs on Pharmac's wish list. How many of those is this going to fund? - This is going to fund significant advances in areas like leukaemia, breast cancer, multiple sclerosis, HIV. Pharmac's put out the list of drugs that it will be able to support here. Of course, it's not the whole list. But by the time we finish this two-year funding injection, Pharmac's budget will be 40% above where it was when we came into office. So we will keep investing in Pharmac; we will keep investing in the drugs that they buy, whilst also investing in the whole rest of the health system that also needs help. - This is what health campaigner Malcolm Mulholland told us this week ` he said, 'It's a decision politicians are now making for people to die.' What do you say to that? - Well, I completely understand for people like Malcolm and all those in our life and our community who have lost people to cancer and to other illnesses, that it's an awful tragedy. What we've done is stepped up and continually increased the funding for Pharmac. This Budget means that there will be more drugs for breast cancer, more drugs for leukaemia, more drugs for multiple sclerosis. We're making progress here, but none of that stops how hard it is for a person if one of their family members isn't able to be saved. We'll keep investing in that. But we also have a whole health system, from mental health through to ambulance services, through to primary and community care that we've got to fund as well. And we'll keep going with all of that to make sure we get better outcomes. - Pharmac's wish list is $400 million a year. When you're spending $11 billion on health, why not just fund the whole list? - 40% increase in Pharmac's budget ` the biggest single one-off lift in Pharmac's funding we've ever seen. - I understand that, but for those who miss out, this is life and death. - Yeah. And, look, we work as hard as we can with Pharmac to make sure we get as many of those drugs into the country as possible. None of this is easy. There are no costless decisions. We have a huge job to do in shifting the dial in the health system, and we will keep backing Pharmac and keep getting those drugs in, just as we have in the last few Budgets. - OK. Let's talk about the wider economy. This Budget projects that house prices will fall this year by 5%. Is that a good thing? - Well, I never predict a particular percentage. What I do want is a more affordable housing market. I want to make sure that more New Zealanders get access into that market. It's why we made the changes we did around the bright line test and around interest deductibility. But I've never set a percentage on that. I want a market that's affordable. I do know that, yes, house prices are forecast to drop across this period. It doesn't even quite get us back to where we were at the beginning of 2020. So we have seen this extraordinary spike. It is starting to come off now. - Sure, but Westpac and ASB say it's going to be much, much larger. They're projecting up to 20%. Homeowners are going to feel a whole lot poorer. Is that an economic risk? - Well, we need to make sure our economy is not just based on the prices of houses. That's one of the most important things for me in terms of what's in this Budget, actually, is the funding of an economic plan that means we've got a more productive economy ` that we're creating jobs through that, rather than feeling wealthy because of the value of our houses. But I say again, even at a 20% drop, all we're doing is getting ourselves back to where we were two or three years ago. So, sure, for some New Zealanders, that'll make them feel less wealthy. My focus is to make sure that we actually grow an economy where our wealth is generated by our productivity, rather than by house prices. - And there are a lot of challenges with that at the moment. There's a war in Ukraine. China's economy is shutting down due to COVID. Interest rates are rising everywhere. How big is the risk of a global recession? - Well, economists at the moment are disagreeing about that a great deal. It's certainly true to say that there's massive pressure in the global economy from the things that you've just mentioned, and some economists in some parts of the world are starting to predict that there will be a recession. Others are not. And so that's one of the reasons for a careful, balanced Budget for me, is to make sure that we keep back the fiscal firepower if we need to deal with either a resurgence of COVID or some further global economic shock. From New Zealand's perspective, we're one of the most well-positioned economies in the world to deal with that because of how we came through COVID. - Isn't it a dangerous time to be spending record amounts? I mean, $6 billion is a record operational allowance. And you've also committed $2 billion next year and half a billion dollars the year after that. We're talking here about tremendous uncertainty. Why are you raiding the kitty of future years? - I think it's really important to look at that on a comparable basis. And our level of spending, actually, as a percentage of GDP, is sitting a bit above 30, just like it did when National had to come out of the GFC, and then it comes back down to 30%. Actually, the fiscal impulse, the thing that the Treasury use to measure, starts to come down. We're actually spending less money next year than we spent last year. So we are being careful in what we are doing here. One of the things you do raise, though, is the fact that, yes, we are doing more multi-year funding in health and climate change and justice. That's because we actually want to give people some certainty about what we're doing, and it doesn't change the level of allowances in those future Budgets. It just allows us to plan better. - Yeah, but inflation affects governments too, so all of those things are going to get more expensive for you, just as they do for Kiwi households. So shouldn't you be putting more of that money aside? Or are you just going to raise the Budget allowances in future years? - Well, no, in this Budget, we said the Budget allowance for 2023 does go up a little to $4.5 billion, and that's exactly because we're aware of that inflationary challenge. But we have to be as careful and balanced as everybody else. And we've just been discussing all of the things that different groups in our community would like us to spend more on. In every Budget, there's always more calls on the money than we've got. We have to strike that careful balance, and that's what I believe the Budget's done. - And it is a tough balance. I mean, you've had two years of COVID Budgets. Now that you've got Ukraine and you've got global inflation, do you long for the Budgets of 2018 and 2019? I mean, you only had to deal with Winston then. - I can hardly remember them. Look, every Budget has had its challenges, and the Budget '20 and 2021 were COVID Budgets, and I'm really proud of how New Zealand came through that. What this Budget is about is making sure that we can weather the challenges of 2022 but also look ahead. You know, and I look at the Budget, and I'm really excited about the business growth fund that we're going to help support small businesses, the industry transformation plans that are going to grow new jobs in agri-tech and advanced manufacturing. And so I tend to look at the balance of it. Yes, we've got to deal with the here and now, keep a lid on debt, be fiscally responsible, but also make those big, long-term investments. It does mean that you can't make everybody happy all of the time, but I do think the balance is there. - Because you've said in the past that Budgets come in trilogies. For this government, this is the sequel. What's left to do? - Well, what's left to do is really build that high-wage, low-emissions economy. I feel like we've laid some really good foundations in this Budget with the spending we've done around climate action, with the changes we've made in the health system and elsewhere. But Budget 2023 has to be about how we capitalise on the strong foundation we've built getting through COVID. So, yep, they do come in trilogies. If you want to, you can build a box set now around the five we've done, but the sixth one will build on the strengths we've got. - Finance Minister Grant Robertson. Lots more to do. Tena koe. Thanks very much for your time. - Thanks, Conor. - If you have a story idea, whakapa mai ` get in touch. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Or flick us an email ` nation@tv3.co.nz. - E whai ake nei ` we'll be joined by our political panel, Matthew Hooton, Dr Lara Greaves and Thomas Coughlan. - Plus ` should 16- and 17-year-olds vote? Because the possibility just got a whole lot more real. Parliament is set to consider a member's bill which could lower the voting age to 16, enable Maori to switch electoral rolls at any time and give all prisoners the right to vote. The Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill is sponsored by Green MP Golriz Ghahraman, who joins us now live from Wellington from Parliament. Golriz, tena koe. Thank you for joining us this morning. There's a lot going on in this bill. In fact, it's a grab bag of issues. Why seven areas all at one time? - Well, we have a democracy that we rightly should be very proud of here in New Zealand. We know that we were the first nation to give women the vote, for example. But there's been all of these different recommendations. Different courts have told us we're breaching various constituent rights. And successive governments have neglected to pick up electoral reform. So what I wanted to do is to bring all of those things together that the Electoral Commission has told us we need to do, the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, and say, actually, it's time to take politics out of that. - But doing it this way is taking a risk, though, Golriz. I mean, it means if there's one part of this bill that none of the rest of the MPs agree with, it can be voted out straight away. - Well, the idea is that ` and this is what I would absolutely hope will happen in terms of the House coming together across the aisles ` is that it should go to select committee so that New Zealand can have this conversation, so we can hear from the different groups that are impacted by the failure to reform electoral laws for so, so long. And once we've had that conversation, we'll see. We'll go from there. - If you could choose one of the seven, which would it be? Which one is most important to you? - (LAUGHS) I can't do it. I mean, there's` you know, there's the piece around electoral funding. So we do need to get big money, for example, out of our democracy. We've seen elsewhere in the world that climate action has been stifled by the interests of big oil, for example, being in various democracies. But then we have 16 and 17-year-olds who we know have their Bill of Rights Act rights breached by the failure to give them a say in their future. And we're making policy that's going to impact them, their lives for far longer than anyone else. - That's right. You want to` - So it's hard to pick. - Yeah. You want to extend the voting age to 16 and 17-year-olds, but in 2020, a third of eligible rangatahi didn't want to vote. And so the question is why push for more of them to be able to? - Well, that's right. And, actually, that's a key reason that we want to extend the right to vote. We know that if people are enrolled to vote, that they become lifetime voters. And so getting kids while they're at school ` so while they're, say, 15 ` to do their civics education, to find out about the electoral system, and while they're all together ` because once they leave, you know, people go to uni, people go to work and they disperse and it's harder to reach people ` they enrol, they're grouped together, they've got their teacher, and once they're enrolled, we will see a rise in youth engagement. - Golriz, let's talk about civics education. Why not push that first? Aren't you just putting the cart before the horse in terms of pushing for the voting age to come down? Push for civics education ` why not do that first? - Well, we are doing that. So, we have been` That's been a very strong part of Green kaupapa for a long time. And we're getting a lot of traction on that. But the thing that we do know about 16 and 17-year-olds is that they have a right to vote in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The courts have told us we're breaching that right. They can leave school; they can work; they pay taxes. And they actually are a very engaged group in other ways. So we've seen the school climate strikes. We've seen young people turn out in various ways for various issues, but they don't have this one right, and it's just one vote. - Golriz, you want to lower the threshold for entering Parliament to 4% ` from 5% to 4% of the vote. Could this risk allowing radical` Could this risk allowing radical fringe parties to enter? - So that recommendation comes out of the suite of changes that the Electoral Commission recommended to strengthen MMP. What we've done with this bill is to say, actually, all of those changes need to come in together, and that's part of depoliticising electoral reform. The Electoral Commission felt that 5% was too high to allow for what MMP's meant for, which is to allow a diversity of different views and different political parties. But with that, they said that the electorate entry ` where all you have to do is win one electorate, for example, and that can be done with 0.5% of the vote ` should be axed, basically. That was undemocratic, but we could then lower the threshold. So actually the bigger risk is the electorate threshold ` one electorate, and we've seen this happen before with 0.5% of the total vote could get in a radical far more easily. - Yeah, but would you be comfortable if your law change lead to, say, anti-mandate protesters being voted into parliament? - Well, we do have a democracy. And if people can actually get their voice up` And I don't think that would happen. I don't think 4% of New Zealand would turn out to vote for such a radical view. But having said that, again, it's easier with the electorate entry, where you need far less of the vote to get through. So that's what the Electoral Commission considered and weighing that up, they said, in order to preserve a diversity of views being able to come in, but not a fringe or a very unrepresentative candidate or party coming in, that that was the balance there. Get rid of electorate entry and coat-tailing but lower the threshold. - Thank you very much for your time and for joining us this morning. Green MP Golriz Ghahraman. Tena koe. With me now in studio is Cate Tipler, who's been campaigning since 2019 for the vote to be extended to 16 and 17-year olds here in Aotearoa. Kate, nau mai. Welcome to the programme. - Kia ora. Thank you for having me. - OK, let's talk about lowering the age to 16 and 17-year-olds. Why does it make a difference whether you vote` say, you start to vote at 16 instead of 18? - Yeah, well, I think there are lots of great reasons why we should lower the voting age to 16. One of the most significant for me is that there are a lot of long-term issues currently being debated in Parliament that will impact young people the most. So I think it's the right thing to do to give young people a say on these issues. - Don't you think, though, that there's a risk that young people would be more susceptible to personality politics or election bribes? - I don't think that's true at all. I don't think 16 and 17-year-olds will be any different to any other age group in this regard. We wouldn't be the first country in the world to lower the voting age to 16. And we've got data from overseas that tells us that lowering the voting age is the right and successful thing to do. 16 and 17-year-olds turn out to vote in higher rates than 18 to 25-year-olds. 40% of 16 and 17-year-olds vote in a way that's different to their parents in countries like Scotland and Wales, that already have that voting age of 16. - How confident are you that the 16 and 17-year-olds here in Aotearoa would do the same, would be independent enough to cast a vote based on what they want instead of, say, copying their parents? - Look, I'm extremely confident in that regard. Like Golriz has said, you know, 80,000 young people turned up to march in 2019 for the School Strikes 4 Climate. And that's not the first young people-led movement we've seen in Aotearoa. From the Polynesian Panthers, to For The Culture to School Strike 4 Climate, we've seen young people engage in the government and engage in our democracy for what they believe in already. - Cate, you know we don't have civics in schools already. Are Kiwi 16-year-olds informed enough to vote, do you think? - Look, I think anyone is capable of voting for what they believe in. You don't suddenly know everything about civics once you turn 18. And, actually, lowering the voting age to 16 is a great prompt for civics education in schools. So although we make it 16, we are supportive of better civics education in schools. We know that will come as a result of lowering the voting age when young people feel like these issues more directly affect them. - Make It 16 took this issue to the Court of Appeal, but it was dismissed. Did you consider giving up? - No, we've never considered giving up. We have a broad campaign beyond the courts themselves. But actually, we're incredibly hopeful from the Court of Appeal, because although we didn't get that declaration of inconsistency we were after, the Court of Appeal did say that a voting age of 16 is unjustified age discrimination, and that has given us grounds to go to the Supreme Court in July. - Well done, Cate. Now, that case also found that while the current voting age is inconsistent, why do you think the court was wrong in that respect? - Well, I think we do know for a fact that the Bill of Rights protects 16 and 17-year-olds, as well as those over the age of 18. So actually, a voting age of 18 is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act, and that's why we are going to the court. And we've seen the public agree with us. We have an ongoing petition that's engaged over 5000 people and continuing to gain more every day. - And I just heard before, during the break, that you will be Golriz's youth MP this term. - Yes. - How excited are you about that? Isn't that a coincidence? We have you both today on the show. - Yeah, well, I think it makes sense that as co-director of Make It 16, I'd want to engage with a politician who's trying to lower the voting age. I mean, obviously that's a reflection of my personal views. But within our campaign, we have members who support different political parties across the political spectrum. - Well, all the best for the future. Tena koe, and thank you very much for joining us. - Thank you. - Taro ake, up next ` Matthew Hooton, Thomas Coughlan and Dr Lara Greaves are our political panel this week. Plus, fresh from committing to another $2.9 billion climate spend, James Shaw joins us live. We're joined now by our panel ` PR consultant Matthew Hooton; senior lecturer in New Zealand politics Dr Lara Greaves; and Herald senior political reporter Thomas Coughlan. Tena koutou. Welcome to the show. Thomas, let's start with you. A billion bucks to address the cost-of-living crisis ` 2 million people get a payment, but the rest of us miss out. Did the government get the balance right? - Well, that's always the issue in a cost-of-living crisis, in an inflation crisis, right? You've got the economy telling you something, which is that there's too much money in the economy. And the temptation for politicians is to help people by giving them more money. So your issue is that by trying to alleviate the problem, you do tend to make it worse. So the question then becomes ` how well do you target it? So, the government has targeted this. They've targeted it at middle-income voters and middle-income people. So the question that they're now facing an accountability issue about is whether that pressure that they've taken off middle-income voters should've been applied to low-income people. And that, I think, is a really legitimate question, because we know from Treasury's advice yesterday that people on low incomes are feeling the effects of inflation twice as much as people on higher incomes. - Yeah. I mean, Lara, we'd all love free money ` $350, in fact, from the government. But is that really going to make a difference in the long run or even in the short term? - I think any money at least has that symbolic kind of thing where people go, 'Oh, well, the government kind of cares enough to give me some money.' I think, though, broadly, this budget ` I don't know what you guys think, but this seems to be one of the more negative receptions of a budget in recent years. - OK. - Like, I haven't really seen that many positive stories come out of this, or very many` Like, you see bits and pieces of people saying 'oh, yeah, 'that will help or it won't,' but it's kind of... I just don't know why this budget has been so negatively received for such a centrist budget. - What do you reckon about that, Matthew? Would you say it's a negative budget? What are you feeling? - Well, I think one of the encouraging things about some of the coverage is that the focus... There's been talk of outcomes rather than just spending. And, you know, Grant Robertson is spending a record amount, for better or worse. He's increased total government spending by nearly 50% since he's been in the job, and some of those programmes have not delivered the improvements promised. And so I think it's been useful for people to say, 'Well, that's great that there's 700 million for this or 200 million for that,' but try and get the political conversation into actually improving productivity, reducing inequality, building houses, the things that matter, because spending money is not a sign of success; it's a sign of failure. - The thing is National's been hammering away at what they call the squeezed middle ` forget about the broken bottom ` but hey, did they force Grant Robertson's hand there, do you think, Matthew? - Well, yes, it looks like it was an add-in at the last minute. The Treasury... You know, there are Steer economists at the Treasury said, 'If you're going to spend a billion dollars, do it to help beneficiaries and the poor.' The Labour Party rejected that and decided to help the median voter who decides elections. And you've gotta remember ` Grant Robertson learnt his politics from Helen Clark. He was there when they did Working for Families, which had a similar thing of excluding beneficiaries on the grounds that they will vote Labour anyway, and excluding older people on the grounds that they're fixed voters. - Thomas, you mentioned a little earlier Treasury advised the government not to do this. So what are the risks that this goes wrong? - Well, there's one risk that Treasury identified, which is that it's being done by IRD, which is traditionally not the department that does this, so IRD is gonna have to upskill and drag a lot of their staff to administer this payment. I think there is a risk that it exacerbates inflation. We know that we're currently in the middle` we hope, the middle of this inflationary spike, so there's a risk that it exacerbates things in the short term. It is targeted. It is temporary, so it won't exacerbate things in the long term. I think longer term, next year, the government does have a Working for Families review at the moment, so I would expect to see the election year budget to actually make some changes to Working for Families and to look at addressing the bottom again. But it does appear like a lot of pressure came on the government earlier this year to address this cost-of-living issue, and National quite cleverly saw that there was an issue in that median-income, middle-income area as well, not just the low-income issue. And it does appear that that has managed to suck the political attention of Labour towards that group of people and away from the bottom. - Lara, Maori get 1% ` you heard there from Minister of Finance, the Finance Minister, about Maori getting 1% of the total allocation for health ` $40 million a year, by Maori, for Maori, to commission services. Is that enough to address Maori health inequities? - Yeah, so that's been a bit of an argument among various commentators and experts as to whether that's gonna be enough money and exactly what that money is for and whether that's for building that new structure, the administrative structure and exactly how that will come down to. I think, more broadly, the independent Maori Health Authority is one of the few policies that Labour has put forward that has that transformative potential, that long-term policy lens, and could really make a difference in people's lives. So I think that that's where it's gonna be a case of looking at it over the next couple of budgets and just seeing how much money's put in that and whether that actually works and is sufficient, and also what people on the ground say about that and the various administrative issues that will pop up along the way. - Matthew, National wants to get rid of the Maori Health Authority. They've been very adamant about that these past few weeks. How can it now, though? How can they, with serious money being poured into it? - Well, is it serious money? (CHUCKLES) I mean, the independent Maori Health Authority is the best part of the health reforms. You know, the health reforms are about centralisation on some type of, sort of, Eastern European model ` bringing everything into the capital city ` and the Maori Health Authority was the one aspect of it that might lead to innovation and some devolution of funding to people who genuinely do care about their communities ` marae, urban Maori health authorities and so forth. So... the real issue is National should be promising to abolish Health New Zealand and the independent Maori Authority and devolving the system... - Do you guys agree with that? - ...back to the people that care and serve communities. - Well, I think one thing we don't really have a clear picture on in terms of funding is the Maori Health Authority is in charge of commissioning services. So that was an election issue last year where it wasn't clear whether the Maori Health Authority would directly commission services. We now know it is, and it's been funded to do that. The other part of what it does is... It has been called the co-governance component of the health reforms, and it is kind of co-governance, and it's kind of devolution, and that is the way that the Maori Health Authority has input into what Health NZ does. So that means that the Maori Health Authority has quite a lot of say over what the national 'team of five million' health plan looks like. So what we don't know, in terms of what Maori get from these health reforms, is the extent to which the Maori Health Authority is able to talk to the whole health system and ensure that the whole health system works for Maori, not just the parts that the Maori Health Authority has direct control over. And that is a big unanswered question, and I think with so much money being poured into health, we need to make sure that there is a lot of accountability around that so that you do see those gaps closed and those abysmal Maori health outcomes bettered. - Yeah. What I would add to this, though, is if we do have devolution, won't you all be talking about it being fragmented and bureaucratic, then? Because then you'll say it's inefficient, because each community has a different model, and they can't kind of unite in any way. - Well, I won't. (LAUGHTER) - Oh, I was assuming you're on the right, cos you're sitting to the right of me. - Beyond health, Lara ` I want to ask you, because beyond health, Maori are actually receiving, for kaupapa Maori, $1.2 billion. The Maori Party says that's a drop in the bucket, but this government talks a lot about partnership. It's a fraction. Is this, you know, the government living up to its end of the bargain when talking about partnership? - Yeah, I think a lot of us would criticise a lot of this relating to` Like, it's that classic policy of you whack a Maori name on something, and then you don't have to actually bring the funding with it. I think that's a classic strategy in, like, centrist New Zealand at the moment. And so it really becomes a matter of ` what can actually be achieved on the ground over this term and into the future? This is not that kind of policy. This is one of those policies and one of those areas where you do have to take a long-term lens and a long-term approach and change some of the power structures and just the way that things work. That's really pretty impossible for any government to do in a term and in a couple of terms. So it's just a huge challenge, really, fundamentally. - Change the conversation and make it about outcomes, rather than whether it's one billion, two billion or 500 million for Maori health, whatever that is. - But the outcomes are 10, 20 years down the track, and that's what's not popular now. - Yeah, but we need to see` The discussion about the Maori Health Authority has gotta be about what it's going to do, and we don't even know. - Well, it's interesting now that, you know, when this government came into office, it did scrap health targeting to a large extent, and now with` I think the annual health budget overall is 25 billion now. It was about 17, 18 billion when this government took office. I think now that we've had all this money tipped in, that debate over health targeting, health targets and publishing those health targets is gonna resurface, and I think it's probably a good discussion to have now. - Well, I'm gonna change the discussion quickly, because we're running out of time. But how were you at 16, 17? Were you mature enough to vote? Because that's also a discussion going on at the moment ` lowering the age to voting. Were you a mature 16-year-old, Matthew Hooton? - Well, I was a political nerd, and I don't think I'm alone around this table. (LAUGHTER) - Probably asking the wrong people. - Oh, OK! - Probably asking the wrong people. But, you know, the suggestion that young people would vote for bribes targeted at them... You know, I look back at me at 16. I think I cared much more about the future than I do now. I think I was much more idealistic in a right-wing, Bob Jones, sort of, New Zealand Party way. Now, at 50, I'm much more susceptible to an electoral bribe, like house price inflation, than I was when I was 16. (LAUGHTER) - For your honesty, Matthew Hooton, thank you so much. E mihi ana ki a koutou katoa. Thank you all for your time. E whai ake nei ` Climate Change Minister James Shaw joins us live. Plus ` budget week was always going to be boisterous, but the billions unveiled had the opposition at boiling point. That's coming up after the break. a record $2.9 billion committed this week to reducing emissions. - But critics say it targets the wrong initiatives or doesn't go far enough. - James Shaw joins us now live from Wellington. Kia ora, Minister. - Kia ora. - Greenpeace is disappointed, and farmers are happy, so have you got the balance right? - Look, it is really important that every part of the economy, all sectors, including agriculture, pay for their emissions and do their part in reducing the pollution that we put into the atmosphere that causes climate change. The initiatives announced this week include a significant programme to roll out some of the changes that are needed on to farms. That is actually something that both Greenpeace and the Green Party campaigned for, you know, over previous years. - OK. Let's talk about the details of some of that. We've got a pop quiz for you this morning, Minister. Your first emissions budget runs till 2025. How much are you asking farmers to cut their emissions by then? - During the course of the first few years, we're not actually anticipating farm emissions to come down more than a couple of percentage points. - Yeah, so it's 2% in that first budget. What about the second emissions budget? - Well, over the course of the first 10 years of the 15-year programme, we're anticipating farm emissions will come down about 10% in total. - Yeah, so when you're asking the rest of the country to sacrifice and slash emissions tremendously, farmers barely have to change at all in the next 10 years. Is that fair? - I think it'd be fair to say that agriculture's about 10 to 15 years behind the rest of the economy in terms of making those changes, so there's some momentum that's already built up in other parts of the economy, and that is because those other parts of the economy have been part of the Emissions Trading Scheme for over a decade now, even though, for most of that decade, the settings were such that it wasn't, you know` it wasn't very effective, but people were getting used to the idea that they were going to have to. Agriculture ` that's really only been true for about the past three or four years, when we passed that legislation in 2019 that said that they had to cut methane in particular by about 10%, or no less than 10% by the year 2030. And so it is going to take a while for that to start to take effect. It is really important that we actually work with farmers to ensure that they are adopting those practice changes, adopting the technologies that they can as fast and as comprehensively as possible. We've spent about $200 million over the course of the last 10 years on agricultural research, but a lot of that hasn't yet been rolled out on farms, and so the emphasis has to be putting that into action now. - So, you're spending $700 million now to increase that technological spend after very little progress, really, in the last 10 years. That's a huge proportion of that $2.9 billion, and yet, you're telling me farmers will drop their emissions by 10% in 10 years. Is that value for money, Minister? - Well, you'd have to put that to the Minister for Agriculture, who's responsible for the part of the plan that is about bringing down agricultural emissions. You know, we have said that we're going to be bringing... - Minister, you're the Climate Change Minister, and this is half of our emissions. So why don't you have control over those targets? - Well, ultimately` Well, I'm responsible for the overall plan and ensuring that we collectively hit our targets, and I'm satisfied that the plan that we've got does hit those targets. You have to remember that those targets were given to us on the advice of the independent Climate Change Commission. I have repeatedly said that I would have liked us to be going a lot further and a lot faster, particularly in the domain of agriculture. But we did set up an independent Climate Change Commission, led by experts, to advise parties, no matter who the government was, on what the direction of travel should be. And so, ultimately, our plan is responding to that advice. - One of those technologies that could help with emissions is genetically modified animals and crops. Is it time for New Zealand to think about changing that law? - Look, I think, ultimately, if you look at what our overseas markets are demanding, it is for organic, regenerative, high-value products, and there's a very clear bias against products with genetic modification in the mix. I mean, I've seen reports in California of people trying to sell bottled water that's GE-free, and of course, there's no genetic component in water at all, but it's just such a strong consumer component that I think, you know, it would be, you know, extremely risky for the industry to try to use those technologies. But ultimately, I think that, you know, if people want to take that risk, then they've got to make a case for it. - But the world's moved on on this, and the science has moved on too. The Green Party's always opposed genetic modification. Isn't it time for you to move on too? - I think that there's` Well, there's a debate in the Green Party about, you know, this area of policy, as there are in many other areas of policy. But ultimately, you've got to have the public onside with you. And there's, you know, questions around the science, and obviously, the scientific community is saying that the most recent generations of this technology on gene editing and so on is safe. But you've also got to look at what consumers want and the risk to value of your product and the brand. - What do you want, Minister? What's your personal view? - Well, I'm the co-leader of the Green Party, and so my role is to represent our policy on this. We think that it is too risky to the value of our products to be able` you know, to go down that route. But there is a debate there. The government itself has got, you know` has said that's not on the agenda, but if public demand is that it moves in that direction, well, maybe a future government might open that up. But ultimately, you know, I think you've got to look at ` what is the risk that we are prepared to take? And I don't think that that's a risk, at this point in time, that is worth taking. I think that farmers are able to produce food for much lower emissions than we put into the atmosphere at the moment for much higher value, and we know that there are farms all over the country that have actually increased their on-farm profitability and, at the same time, reduced their emissions ` not because they're going to any kind of science-based solution, but because they're changing their business model. So it doesn't even require new technology. It just involves doing something differently that we already know works. And that is the emphasis that we want to have in this plan when we're working with farmers to say, 'We know that there are some things that work. 'We need to roll that out around farms all over the country, 'get those changes in practice that are adopted. 'If there are technological changes that we already know works 'and that we already know doesn't undermine the value of our brand 'overseas with those high-value markets that we're aiming for with our agricultural strategy, 'then let's do those things.' If people want to continue doing research in the lab, in the background, and if there's something that comes out of that that's safe and that consumers will expect in the future, then, you know, great. But let's not sit around waiting for some kind of silver bullet. Let's get on with the things that we already know work. - OK, Minister, just quickly before we go ` look, you've said this emissions plan has a 'Labour hue'. What would a Green emissions plan look like? - Well, the Green Party would have introduced agricultural emissions pricing immediately upon getting into government, and so that would have meant that farmers were contributing to the scheme that they're currently getting benefit out of now. And, you know, I think we probably would have pushed further on things like, you know, electricity generation, the roll-out of rooftop solar and so on. But, you know, I think any... government who is responsible for this on such a broad scale with 15 ministers and 18 portfolios and 22 government agencies involved, whoever the government of the day is going to put their hue on those plans. So I think, as I've said before, if people want a plan that's stronger on climate action, then in about 18 months, they're going to have the opportunity to vote for parties that are leading on climate action. - OK. Lots more to do. We'll have to leave it there this morning. Climate Change Minister James Shaw. Tena koe. Thanks very much for your time. - Kia mau tonu mai, e te iwi. Stay with us. We're back after the break. Budget week was always going to be boisterous in Parliament, but the billions unveiled had the opposition frothing. - Here's Finn Hogan with the week that was in Wellington. - Budget week in Wellington ` the one time of year where the PM plays second fiddle to her deputy. - Mr Speaker, I commend Budget 2022: A Secure Future today. (APPLAUSE) - But while Grant Robertson was taking victory laps, the Opposition were competing in the alliteration Olympics. - This budget takes them backwards. - Brain Drain Budget. Greedy, Grabby Grant is there for an extra 15%. - And David Seymour doing his level best to connect with young Kiwis through a 20-year-old song reference. - Grant Robertson had one shot, one opportunity. - Though, to be fair, his references weren't quite as dated as James Shaw's. - Ruth Richardson called, and she wants her speech notes back. - So, Mr Speaker, Maximilien Robespierre also called, and he wants back his guillotine. - But now the budget's delivered, everyone can forget about it for another year. Trevor Mallard can go back to yelling this at MPs... - Order! - And the MPs can go back to ignoring him and yelling at each other. - We're back now with our panel, Matthew Hooton, Dr Lara Greaves and Thomas Coughlan. Just returning to that conversation we were having earlier about Golriz Ghahraman's grab-all bill. Thomas, has she set herself up to fail, cramming seven reform areas into one? - Yeah, I'm` Probably, she has. I think there are plenty of reasons for the big parties to not vote for this bill. I think on their own, all the ideas are probably worthwhile investigating. I think what will be interesting is whether she can get it to select committee, and then you get a bit of a debate going and a bit of momentum behind it, and then she might be able to get it through the later stages. But to be honest, when there are so many reasons to not like that bill for the big parties` You know, they can pick one of any seven reasons. They will probably pick one of those seven reasons and kill the process. So there you go. - What do you think, Matthew? You've been around politics a long time. Has this bill got any hope at all? - Oh, Labour might let it drift into a select committee just for the hell of it, and it'll die there. If she was serious, she would have negotiated with all the parties in Parliament as she was draughting it, rather than declare, on her own judgement, there should be a cap on donations of $35,000, which is a way of benefiting the Green Party, relative to Labour and National. I mean, you don't do it in this partisan way if you're sincere. - Lara, is electoral law reform always going to be political? - Yeah. So what I would do is assign everyone a reading, all the MPs interested in this, everyone at home ` Professor Elizabeth McLeay's book on the 1956 Electoral Act called In Search of Consensus, which does talk about how we do need cross-partisan consensus for this. And in fact, for some of those entrenched provisions of the Electoral Act, you do need a supermajority. So you do, actually, by its very essence, need that broad partisan support. - Recommended reading when you get into Parliament. - Yeah, recommended reading. - (LAUGHTER) - Winter reading. - OK. You probably have a copy of that, Thomas, I would imagine. - A copy? No. - Now, I know you ride the bus. You drive? What do you drive? - Yeah, just a little Suzuki Swift. - Yep. So that's a petrol car. - Yeah, it's an oldie. - What about you, Matthew? - Drive ` petrol. - Has the government done anything at all to tempt either of you to buy electric vehicles? - Yeah, a lot, because I think for a lot of us` Because I do live around the city and have a small child, it's like` It's that tricky thing of, like, you can't really do public transport. It doesn't work for your lifestyle. But then on the other hand, it's like, how much money do I have to spend on an electric car? - So this is a problem that the government has, don't they, Matthew? They're trying to change people's behaviour, but is New Zealand ready to do this? - I'd say in 10, 15 years, we'll be 100% electric or hydrogen. Mercedes, I think, is stopping making petrol cars, and all the other car companies will follow. The Government will have to build more roads if we're still to go down an electric car, hydrogen car model. It's still individualised transport. Some of the Greens are ideologically opposed to individualised transport. But eventually` It won't be long before we're all in electric. - But there's a bigger discussion to have here, isn't there? I mean, the government is spending an awful lot of money on trying to change people's behaviour. Is that the right way to reduce emissions, or should we just go like Act and leave it all to the ETS? - On that topic, electric cars, it's completely irrelevant what the Government does. It'll be` All the TV ads in a few years' time will tell us to buy electric cars, and we all will. And it'll be a global trend that has nothing to do with the New Zealand Government. - Well, I look forward to that. I'd quite like one myself. - (LAUGHTER) - Farmers have had a pretty free ride on emissions so far. We heard James Shaw on that earlier. Is that because we don't have the technology, Thomas? Or is it politically still a step too far? - I think it's probably a bit of both. Ultimately, it is probably a political decision. You know, farmers are the emotional backbone of New Zealand, if not any longer, the economical backbone of New Zealand. And when farmers kick up a stink, they get listened to more than perhaps other groups do. And you have seen in the agricultural sector in the last, sort of, five years, the fracturing of that political voice where the large sector groups have toed the line with the government, as sector groups tend to do. They like to work with whoever is in the government. And then you've got Groundswell splintering off and really muddying the waters of the way that agricultural politics works. So I think the big question going forward is, actually, who speaks for the agricultural sector? Because there are many different voices coming in through there now, and it's quite difficult for the government to work out who to listen to. - Lara, a difficult question there for James Shaw earlier on genetic modification. This is kind of a blind spot for the Green Party, isn't it? How difficult is that balance for them to strike? - It's really tricky because, you know, like, from all of this literature and political attitudes, once they're entrenched ` and for some of those older Green Party activists, once they're entrenched ` near impossible to shift, even in the face of facts around GMOs. So now the Green Party kind of have this issue where it's like, oh, the evidence is pointing this way, but their, sort of, base of the party will have certain entrenched views. I mean, that's particularly tricky territory for James Shaw when there is so much talk around about him being potentially rolled as leader. - OK. Well, we're going to have to leave it there this morning. Matthew Hooton, Dr Lara Greaves and Thomas Coughlan, thank you so much for your time today. And that's our show for this week. Nga mihi nui, and thanks for watching. We'll be back same time, same place next week. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2022 - This show was brought to you by the NZ On Air Public Interest Journalism Fund.