TENA TATOU KATOA. I AM REBECCA WRIGHT. AND I'M SIMON SHEPHERD. NAU MAI KI TE MOTU ` WELCOME TO NEWSHUB NATION. ON THE PROGRAMME TODAY... IS THIS THE END OF OUR INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY? FRESH FROM STOCKHOLM VIA SAMOA, THE FOREIGN MINISTER JOINS US LIVE. OUR FIRST DEBATE THIS ELECTION YEAR ` CHLOE SWARBRICK VERSUS DAVID SEYMOUR ON TAXING THE RICH. AND YOUR GENETIC TEST COULD BE USED AGAINST YOU ` HOW TO PROTECT YOURSELF AND YOUR WHANAU. CAPTIONS BY ABLE. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. WWW.ABLE.CO.NZ COPYRIGHT ABLE 2023 FIRST IN THE PROGRAMME TODAY ` AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND PRIDES ITSELF ON ITS INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY. BUT THE WORLD IS RE-ARMING. COUNTRIES HAVE CHOSEN SIDES ON THE WAR IN UKRAINE AS WELL AS TENSIONS OVER TAIWAN AND CHINA'S PACIFIC PUSH. NOW NEW ZEALAND IS BEING INVITED CLOSER TO ONE OF THOSE SIDES THROUGH THE AUKUS DEAL. FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTER NANAIA MAHUTA HAS BEEN TRAVELLING THE GLOBE ALMOST CONSTANTLY THIS YEAR, INCLUDING TO CHINA, AND SHE JOINS US NOW. AND TENA KOE, E TE MINITA. THANKS FOR COMING ON TO THE PROGRAMME. MORENA. YEAH, A YEAR AGO, ON THIS PROGRAMME, WE WERE GIVING YOU A HARD TIME ABOUT NOT TRAVELLING. THIS YEAR, YOU'VE BEEN TO CHINA, SWEDEN, FIJI, JAPAN, SINGAPORE, THE PACIFIC... IS THAT BECAUSE THE PM TOLD YOU TO GET MOVING? ACTUALLY, IT'S BECAUSE COVID BORDERS HAVE RELAXED AROUND THE WORLD, AND I'VE HAD THE ABILITY TO TRAVEL, SO I'VE MADE USE OF THAT OPPORTUNITY AND ENSURED THAT NEW ZEALAND'S VOICE AT THIS VERY COMPLEX TIME IS REFLECTED IN A NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT AND COMPLEX. WAS NEW ZEALAND'S VOICE LOST DURING COVID? LOST FOR THE FACT THAT YOU WEREN'T OUT THERE? LOOK, ONLINE DIPLOMACY IS VERY DIFFERENT TO IN-PERSON DIPLOMACY, SO GETTING OUT AND ACROSS THE GLOBE TO MEET WITH COUNTRIES AND STATES TO DISCUSS NEW ZEALAND'S INTERESTS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A WAR IN UKRAINE... GEOPOLITICAL TENSIONS IN OUR OWN REGION HAS BEEN AN IMPORTANT PART` GEOPOLITICAL TENSIONS HAVE RATCHETED UP, HAVEN'T THEY, IN THE LAST YEAR? SUBSTANTIALLY. UNDOUBTEDLY THEY HAVE. OK. WE SEEM TO BE GREAT BUDDIES WITH AUSTRALIA AGAIN. COS WE NEED FRIENDS. THERE'S THE NEW CITIZENSHIP DEAL, WHICH HAS JUST BEEN ANNOUNCED. BUT WAS THAT QUID PRO QUO FOR US BECOMING MORE ALIGNED WITH AUSTRALIA IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS? WELL, WE'VE ALWAYS VALUED THE TRANS-TASMAN RELATIONSHIP WITH AUSTRALIA. IT'S ONE OF OUR CLOSEST RELATIONSHIPS. SURE, BUT IT WAS A BIT FROSTY IN RECENT YEARS. UH, ACTUALLY, WE'VE CONTINUED TO WORK ON A NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES OF COMMON INTEREST. WE HAVE CLOSE ECONOMIC RELATIONS, A 40th-YEAR CELEBRATION, BUT ALSO WE'VE IDENTIFIED AREAS WHERE THERE'S BEEN SOME TENSION IN THE RELATIONSHIP. WITH A CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT, WE'RE NOW ABLE TO WORK THROUGH SOME OF THOSE TENSIONS. YEAH. OK. BUT THE GEOPOLITICAL STAKES ARE ALSO HIGHER, AREN'T THEY? I MEAN` SO NOT ONLY OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH AUSTRALIA ` GREAT, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO BE ALONGSIDE THEM, AND THEY ARE PICKING SIDES. OH, LOOK, WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS CONTINUE TO ENSURE THAT NEW ZEALAND'S INTERESTS ARE TAKEN ACCOUNT OF AS WE LOOK ACROSS OUR REGION AND ACROSS THE GLOBE AND POSITION OURSELVES IN A WAY THAT THOSE INTERESTS ARE BEST SERVED. OK. IT SEEMS THE PRESSURE IS ON US. THERE WAS A HIGH-RANKING U.S. OFFICIAL HERE, AND EVERYBODY'S TALKING ABOUT AUKUS. IS THERE PRESSURE ON US TO JOIN AUKUS? LOOK, WE'RE NOT A PART OF THE AUKUS ARRANGEMENTS. WE'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR FOR OUR REGION THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN PEACE AND STABILITY, THAT WE RETAIN OUR NUCLEAR-FREE STATUS, THAT WE SEE NO FURTHER MILITARISATION IN THE REGION, AND THAT FOR THE PACIFIC, WE RECOGNISE THAT THERE ARE WAYS WE CAN STRENGTHEN THE SECURITY ASPECTS, AND CLIMATE CHANGE IS OUR BIGGEST SECURITY THREAT. BUT IN TERMS OF AUKUS, DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE JOINING? BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN ASKED WHETHER WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT. OH, LOOK, WE RECOGNISE THAT THE MEMBERS OF AUKUS HAVE MADE THEIR DETERMINATIONS. WE'RE NOT A PART OF THOSE ARRANGEMENTS. NO, BUT WE'VE BEEN INVITED TO TALK ABOUT IT, EVEN JOINING THE SECOND PILLAR, WHICH IS LIKE THE TECHNOLOGY AND MILITARY CAPABILITY BIT. YEAH, LOOK, ON THAT ` THERE'S NOT ENOUGH VISIBILITY TO UNDERSTAND THE FULL IMPACT OF WHAT THE SECOND PILLAR ENTAILS. THE DETAIL AROUND THAT MAY BE DISCUSSED AT OFFICIALS' LEVEL ` WHICH, I UNDERSTAND, IT HAS. BUT... OH, IT HAS? ...AT A POLITICAL LEVEL` AT A POLITICAL LEVEL, IT HASN'T BEEN DISCUSSED TO THE DEGREE WHERE WE HAVE ENOUGH VISIBILITY ABOUT WHAT PILLAR II FULLY ENTAILS. LET'S JUST BE CLEAR ABOUT WHERE THIS IS UP TO RIGHT NOW. BECAUSE ANDREW LITTLE, THE DEFENCE MINISTER, SAYS THAT WE'VE BEEN INVITED TO TALK ABOUT IT, AND THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER ON THE SHOW LAST WEEK SEEMED TO BE OPEN ABOUT THAT SECOND TIER AS WELL. DOES THAT MEAN IT IS GOING TO GO TO CABINET SOON FOR A DISCUSSION, OR ARE YOU SAYING THAT IT'S NOWHERE NEAR THAT? LOOK, I THINK WE'RE SOMEWHAT AWAY FROM THE DETAIL OF WHAT CAN BE DISCUSSED. EXPLORING WHAT THAT OPPORTUNITY LOOKS LIKE AND THEN MAKING A DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT NEW ZEALAND'S INTERESTS ARE BEST SERVED... SURE. ...IN ENGAGING IN PILLAR II ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS, AND WE'RE SOME WAY AWAY FROM HAVING A LEVEL OF DETAIL OF BEING ABLE TO DISCUSS THOSE ISSUES FULLY. OK. 'SOME WAY AWAY' ` WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WHAT IS THE TIMEFRAME? IT MEANS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID IT MEANS. (CHUCKLES) BUT 'SOME WAY AWAY' COULD MEAN LIKE A COUPLE OF MONTHS. BUT THERE'S PRESSURE ON. I MEAN, YOU MET SECRETARY BLINKEN IN STOCKHOLM. SURELY HE TALKED ABOUT AUKUS TO YOU? ACTUALLY, THE PRESSURE IS ON AUKUS MEMBERS TO CLARIFY WHAT THEY MEAN IN TERMS OF PILLAR II ARRANGEMENTS. WE'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR WE ARE NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE AUKUS ARRANGEMENTS. THERE ARE POTENTIALLY OPPORTUNITIES IN PILLAR II, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH VISIBILITY TO MAKE A DECISION. AND WHILE OFFICIALS MAY BE TALKING ABOUT THOSE ISSUES, AT A CABINET LEVEL, WE HAVE NO VISIBILITY ON THE` WITH A LEVEL OF DETAIL TO HAVE CONFIDENCE... SO YOU'RE` ...THAT NEW ZEALAND'S INTERESTS ARE SERVED IN THOSE ARRANGEMENTS. BECAUSE ALSO SOMETHING THAT CABINET WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER FROM A NATIONAL INTEREST POINT OF VIEW ` IF YOU JOINED THE SECOND TIER OF AUKUS AS A TECHNOLOGY BUT NON-NUCLEAR PARTNER, IT MEANS WE'VE PICKED A SIDE. OH, LOOK, LET ME BE VERY CLEAR. NEW ZEALAND'S INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY FIRST AND FOREMOST PUTS ITS INTERESTS AT THE CORE OF ANY DECISION THAT IT MAKES. SO` I JUST WANT TO BE REALLY CLEAR ABOUT THAT. BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN WARNINGS FROM FORMER HEAVYWEIGHT POLITICIANS LIKE HELEN CLARK, JIM BOLGER, RICHARD PREBBLE ` THEY'RE ALL WARNING AGAINST THE IDEA OF JOINING AUKUS BECAUSE IT COULD BE DAMAGING TO THAT INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY, WHICH, YOU'VE JUST REITERATED, IS SO IMPORTANT. WELL, THE INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY SENDS A NUMBER OF SIGNALS. FIRSTLY, WE WANT TO RETAIN OUR NUCLEAR-FREE STATUS WITHIN THE PACIFIC; WE DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY FURTHER MILITARISATION WITHIN OUR REGION. WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE PACIFIC VOICE IS HEARD, OF WHICH NEW ZEALAND IS A PART OF; THAT OUR GREATEST SECURITY THREAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE, AND THAT WE NEED TO CORRAL THOSE FROM OUTSIDE OF THE REGION TO JOIN WITH THE PACIFIC TO ENSURE THAT OUR PRIORITIES ARE BEST MET. THE OTHER ELEMENT IS TO ENSURE THAT WE STRENGTHEN THE CAPACITY FOR THE PACIFIC TO LEAN TOWARDS EACH OTHER WHEN IT NEEDS EACH OTHER MOST. DO YOU THINK THE PERCEPTION IS THAT NEW ZEALAND'S INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY IS REALLY MORE RHETORIC THAN REALITY NOW BECAUSE OF THIS SORT OF PRESSURE THAT'S COMING ON TO JOIN THINGS LIKE AUKUS? THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT YOU'RE SPENDING WITH U.S. OFFICIALS, WITH UK OFFICIALS UP IN NATO? NO. I THINK NEW ZEALAND'S INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY POSITION CONTINUES TO ASSERT THAT WE UPHOLD THE INTERNATIONAL RULE OF LAW AND THAT WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT PEACE AND STABILITY IS AT THE FOREFRONT OF OUR CONSIDERATIONS AND THAT WE CONSIDER IN TANDEM OUR FOREIGN POLICY, OUR TRADE AND OUR DEFENCE ASSESSMENTS FROM NEW ZEALAND'S INTERESTS. OK, WELL` AND THAT IS AN IMPORTANT PERSPECTIVE TO TAKE FORWARD... A COUPLE OF THINGS ON DEFENCE` ...AS WE MAKE OUR POSITION KNOWN. ON DEFENCE ` LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE SEEN FORMER HIGH-RANKING AMERICAN MILITARY PERSONNEL EMPLOYED HERE BY DEFENCE AND GCSB. IF WE WERE TRULY INDEPENDENT, SURELY WE WOULD SEE, SAY, FORMER CHINESE MILITARY PERSONNEL EMPLOYED THERE AS WELL. I MEAN, DO WE HAVE THOSE KINDS OF PEOPLE HERE? THAT'D BE INDEPENDENT. OH, LOOK, AN OPERATIONAL LEVEL, I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHAT THE MAKE-UP OF OUR VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS ARE, BUT IT'S NOT AN UNUSUAL SITUATION. WHAT I WILL SAY, THOUGH, IS THAT FOREIGN POLICY IS DETERMINED BY CABINET, NOT BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. THE FORMER PRIME MINISTER CHOSE A SIDE LAST YEAR, DIDN'T SHE? SHE'S ALREADY CHOSEN A SIDE. IN A STATEMENT WITH PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN, THEY BOTH RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT CHINA'S ACTIVITIES IN THE PACIFIC. THAT IS BLATANT. LET'S BE VERY CLEAR ` SINCE FORMER PRIME MINISTER JACINDA ARDERN TOOK OFFICE, AND NOW, WITH OUR PRIME MINISTER CHRIS HIPKINS RUNNING OUR GOVERNMENT, FOREIGN POLICY IS DETERMINED BY CABINET, NOT BE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THE FORMER PRIME MINISTER AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MADE A STATEMENT TOGETHER RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT CHINA IN THE PACIFIC. OH, LOOK, CHINA HAS BEEN IN THE PACIFIC FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. WHAT THE PACIFIC` WHAT NEW ZEALAND HAS CONTINUED TO REINFORCE IS THAT WE DON'T SEE STRATEGIC RIVALRY IN THE PACIFIC SERVING THE INTERESTS OF OUR REGION. AND IN FACT, NEW ZEALAND, BY DEFENDING ITS INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY STANCE, WE WILL CONTINUE TO ENSURE THAT WE MAKE OUR ASSESSMENTS BASED ON THE INTERESTS OF OUR REGION AND OUR COUNTRY, AND WHAT FORMER PRIME MINISTER JACINDA ARDERN DID IS PUT FAIR AND SQUARE IN THE CENTRE OF OUR ASSESSMENTS WHAT WILL BE THE BEST FOR OUR REGION, AND WE STAND ALONGSIDE OUR PACIFIC PARTNERS. ALL RIGHT. SO, PART OF THE BEST INTERESTS FOR NEW ZEALAND IS ITS TRADE WITH CHINA, AND YOU TRAVELLED TO CHINA IN MARCH ` THE FIRST NEW ZEALAND FOREIGN MINISTER THERE SINCE 2019. I THINK YOU'VE BEEN PRETTY QUIET ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED UP THERE. NO. ACTUALLY, THAT'S NOT THE CASE. WHAT I WILL` WHERE HAVE BEEN THE MAJOR SPEECHES, THE BIG SIT-DOWN INTERVIEWS ABOUT WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON? WELL, I'VE ACTUALLY GOT A SPEECH COMING UP THIS WEEK, AND I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO ACTUALLY DETAILING THE WAY IN WHICH WE SEE NEW ZEALAND'S INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY AND HOW IT RELATES TO OUR PACIFIC REGION. BUT LET ME COME BACK TO THE QUESTION AROUND CHINA. YEAH. OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH CHINA EXTENDS BEYOND TRADE AND ECONOMICS TO PEOPLE-TO-PEOPLE RELATIONSHIPS AND ALSO OUR CULTURAL CONNECTIONS. CHINA HAS BEEN IN THIS REGION FOR A VERY LONG TIME. WHAT WE WANT TO ENSURE IS THAT CHINA HAS A HIGHER REGARD FOR THE INTERNATIONAL RULE OF LAW... YES. ...AND PACIFIC NORMS, WHICH WILL NOT SEE THE FURTHER MILITARISATION OF OUR REGION, WHICH WILL CONTINUE TO STRENGTHEN A CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE, WHICH IS THE RESPONSE THAT THE PACIFIC AND NEW ZEALAND REQUIRE... YEAH. AND YOU HAVE SAID THAT MANY TIMES ALREADY. ...UM, SHOULD BE MET. OK. WHAT DID THE CHINESE FOREIGN MINISTER ASK YOU ABOUT? DID THEY ASK ABOUT WHETHER WE WERE GOING TO JOIN AUKUS? LOOK, I'M NOT GOING TO DISCLOSE ALL THE DETAILS OF ANY BILATERAL CONVERSATION. WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT WE DID REGISTER THE ISSUES WE ARE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT WITH CHINA BEYOND TRADE AND THE ECONOMY, IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS SPACE... YEAH. OK` ...BUT ALSO, WE DREW THE CONVERSATION TOWARDS THE PACIFIC AND IDENTIFIED... OK. ...WHY CLIMATE CHANGE IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED. DID YOU RAISE CHINA'S SECURITY PACT WITH THE SOLOMON ISLANDS WITH THE FOREIGN MINISTER? THE ISSUE OF THE CHINA` BECAUSE THAT'S A PACIFIC ISSUE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. THE ISSUE OF THE CHINA/ SOLOMON ISLANDS SECURITY PACT IS A MATTER THAT HAS BEEN RAISED BOTH WITH THE SOLOMONS AND CHINA TO THE EXTENT THAT WE DON'T THINK, WITH THE BIKETAWA DECLARATION AND THE BOE DECLARATION, THAT IT WAS NECESSARY. RIGHT. OK. AND IN FACT, POLICING ACROSS THE PACIFIC IS MORE ATTUNED TO THE WAY IN WHICH NEW ZEALAND CAN SUPPORT CAPACITY-BUILDING IN THAT AREA RATHER THAN A DEFENCE POLICING STRATEGY. WHAT ABOUT THE WAR IN UKRAINE? DID YOU RAISE CHINA'S SUPPORT OF VLADIMIR PUTIN? ACTUALLY, WE'RE REALLY CLEAR WITH CHINA THAT CHINA COULD USE ITS INFLUENCE WITH RUSSIA TO SEE THE CESSATION OF WAR... MM-HM. TO PROPOSE A PEACEFUL APPROACH, WHICH COULD INCLUDE A RETURN TO INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED BOUNDARIES AND A DE-ESCALATION AND A CEASEFIRE... YEAH. ...TO COMMENCE PEACEFUL NEGOTIATIONS. BUT ANY OUTCOME WOULD REQUIRE THE UKRAINE TO AGREE TO. SO WE'VE CONTINUED TO URGE CHINA TO USE ITS INFLUENCE WITH RUSSIA. WELL, CHINA DOES HAVE INFLUENCE THERE. I MEAN, PRESIDENT XI VISITED. IS THERE ANY CHANCE NEW ZEALAND COULD PUT SANCTIONS ON ITS LARGEST TRADING PARTNER BECAUSE OF ITS SUPPORT FOR VLADIMIR PUTIN? AND I UNDERSTAND THAT PRESIDENT XI AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKIY HAVE HAD A CONVERSATION, SO THAT'S ANOTHER, UH, POSITIVE MOVE TOWARDS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, 'IS THERE IS AN END POINT IN THE WAR IN UKRAINE?' AND WE STAND ALONGSIDE MANY OTHERS TO SAY WE NEED TO USE OUR INFLUENCE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT POSSIBLE, BECAUSE NOBODY BENEFITS FROM A PROTRACTED WAR. NOBODY. SURE. SO THERE'S NO CHANCE THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER SANCTIONS AGAINST CHINA BECAUSE OF ITS SUPPORT FOR VLADIMIR PUTIN? ACTUALLY, WE` OUR SANCTIONS REGIME IS PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON RUSSIA AND MAKING SURE THAT THE ECONOMIC AND TRADE SANCTIONS THAT WE'VE USED DO NOT CONTINUE TO FUEL... OK. ...RUSSIA'S AGGRESSION AGAINST UKRAINE. OH, WELL, LET'S TALK ABOUT TAIWAN. THE BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY HAS OUTLINED HIS POSITION ON CHINA. HE WAS WITH YOU IN SAMOA RECENTLY. BUT HE'S WARNED ABOUT THE MILITARY BUILDUP, EMPHASISING THE INDO-PACIFIC, IN THIS SPEECH. HE SAYS, 'PRUDENCE DICTATES WE SHOULD ASSUME THE WORST.' DO YOU ASSUME THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO REGARDING TAIWAN? WELL, TWO THINGS. FIRSTLY, BECAUSE OF THE ESCALATION OF CONFLICT IN SUDAN, THE BRITISH FOREIGN MINISTER WAS NOT ABLE TO JOIN ME IN SAMOA; HE RETURNED TO THE UK. OK. ALL RIGHT. ON HIS POINT IN RELATION TO TAIWAN, THAT'S CERTAINLY A MATTER FOR UK AND THEIR DETERMINATION. WHAT NEW ZEALAND HAS SAID IS THAT WE DO NOT WANT TO SEE A DEPARTURE FROM THE STATUS QUO. WE WANT NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN CHINA AND TAIWAN TO CONTINUE TO OCCUR SO THAT DEMOCRACY AS CURRENTLY EXISTS CAN CONTINUE TO BE UPHELD. RIGHT. SO, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, WAR DOESN'T SUIT ANYBODY, OK, IF THAT BREAKS OUT. SO CAN WE ACTUALLY AFFORD TO PICK SIDES? I MEAN, THE PRIME MINISTER WANTS A TRADE VISIT TO CHINA THAT'S SO IMPORTANT TO US, BUT THAT SEEMS TO HAVE GONE QUIET, AND I'M JUST WONDERING WHETHER CHINA IS GIVING US THE COLD SHOULDER NOW BECAUSE OF ALL THIS OTHER PRESSURE THAT'S COMING ON US TO SAY, 'JOIN AUKUS.' YEAH, SOME OF THE DIFFICULTY WITH THE PUBLIC NARRATIVE IS THE IDEA THAT YOU SHOULD PICK SIDES. ACTUALLY, NEW ZEALAND'S INDEPENDENT VOICE, AS SMALL AS IT IS ` TO PROMOTE THE INTERNATIONAL RULE OF LAW AND UPHOLDING THE INTERNATIONAL RULE OF LAW AND THE MAINTENANCE OF PEACE AND STABILITY, ALTHOUGH IT'S A SMALL VOICE, IT'S AN IMPORTANT ONE, AND WE NEED TO CONTINUE DOWN THAT PATH, BECAUSE STRATEGIC RIVALRY IN OUR REGION WILL NOT HELP ANYBODY. WELL, THAT'S RIGHT. CHRIS HIPKINS AND ANTHONY ALBANESE ARE BOTH GOING TO THE NATO SUMMIT. YOU'VE JUST ATTENDED A NATO SUMMIT AS FOREIGN MINISTER. I JUST WONDER WHETHER NATO IS TRYING TO FORGE AN ALLIANCE DOWN HERE AS WELL. YEAH, THAT'S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION. NATO FOCUSED ITS EFFORTS ON THE WAR IN UKRAINE BUT ALSO HOW TO DE-RISK THE RELATIONSHIP WITH CHINA. MANY OF THE EUROPEAN NATIONS HAVE CHINA AS A MAJOR TRADING PARTNER, SO THEY'RE ALL TRYING TO GRAPPLE WITH, 'HOW DO YOU DE-RISK THE RELATIONSHIP?' THE OTHER THING TO NOTE ` THAT I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING ` IS THAT YOU COULDN'T MAKE THE SAME ASSESSMENTS ABOUT CHINA AS WAS BEING MADE ABOUT RUSSIA. RUSSIA IS NOT RESPECTING THE INTERNATIONAL RULE OF LAW. THEY ARE THE AGGRESSOR IN TERMS OF THE WAR IN UKRAINE. YEAH. YEAH, OK. AND THEY AREN'T LISTENING TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY AT ALL. RIGHT. SO YOU'RE SAYING IT'S A DIFFERENT CASE THERE. ALL RIGHT. LOOK, I'M` WELL, ACTUALLY, THE EUROPEAN NATIONS ARE SAYING THAT THE TREATMENT OF CHINA HAS TO BE WITH THE CLEAR-EYED VIEW OF DE-RISKING THEIR CURRENT RELATIONSHIP. AS WE'VE MENTIONED ` JUST FINALLY ` YOU'VE BEEN TRAVELLING CONSTANTLY, AND NOW YOU SAY YOU'VE GOT A SPEECH NEXT WEEK. WHAT AND WHERE IS YOUR NEXT PRIORITY? MY PRIORITY IS TO ENSURE THAT NEW ZEALAND, BEING IN AND OF THE PACIFIC, THAT WE CONTINUE TO HIGHLIGHT THAT WE WANT PEACE AND STABILITY TO REMAIN ` NON-MILITARISATION IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR MESSAGE, AND RETAINING OUR NUCLEAR-FREE STATUS, BUT ALSO CLIMATE CHANGE. AND ARE YOU CONFIDENT THAT`? THOSE ARE CLEAR` UH, THOSE ARE CLEAR MESSAGES TO THE REST OF THE WORLD AS TO HOW THEY MIGHT ENGAGE WITH THE PACIFIC. THAT MEANS PARTNERING WITH THE PACIFIC. AND YOU'RE CONFIDENT THAT WE CAN MAINTAIN AN INDEPENDENT TRACK? I-I AM. I AM CONFIDENT. AND IT'S A SMALL VOICE BUT AN IMPORTANT VOICE AT THIS VERY DIFFICULT AND COMPLEX TIME. IF WE DIDN'T THINK THAT OUR VOICE MATTERED, THEN WE WOULD BE FORCED INTO CHOOSING SIDES TO A DEGREE, WHERE THE` WHICH THE ONLY OUTCOME COULD BE AN AGGRESSIVE ONE OR ONE THAT DOESN'T SERVE OUR INTERESTS. NEW ZEALAND MUST ALWAYS HOLD ITS INTERESTS AT THE HEART OF ANY DETERMINATION WE MAKE, WHETHER IT BE FOREIGN POLICY, TRADE, ECONOMICS OR DEFENCE. WE HAVE TO BALANCE OUR DETERMINATIONS ACROSS THOSE THREE AREAS. FOREIGN MINISTER NANAIA MAHUTA, TENA KOE. THANK YOU. WE'LL BE BACK WITH OUR POLITICAL PANEL ` DR LARA GREAVES, SAM SACHDEVA AND JANET WILSON. BUT FIRST ` TAX, BUT NOT AS YOU KNOW IT. CHLOE SWARBRICK AND DAVID SEYMOUR HEAD TO HEAD IN OUR FIRST DEBATE THIS ELECTION YEAR. HOKI MAI ANO ` WELCOME BACK. IRD PUT THE TAX CAT AMONGST THE PIGEONS THIS WEEK WITH ITS REPORT REVEALING THAT THE WEALTHIEST AMONG US PAY TAX AT HALF THE RATE MOST OTHER NEW ZEALANDERS DO. THE IDEA IS TO SPARK A DEBATE ABOUT THE TAX SYSTEM IN THIS COUNTRY, AND SO HERE WE ARE ` WE'RE DIVING RIGHT IN. JOINING ME IS ACT PARTY LEADER DAVID SEYMOUR AND GREENS REVENUE SPOKESPERSON CHLOE SWARBRICK. MORENA TO YOU BOTH. ATA MARIE. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. I WANT TO ASK YOU FIRST OF ALL, DAVID, IS THE TAX SYSTEM FAIR IN THIS COUNTRY? NO, IT'S NOT. YOU HAVE A VERY SMALL MINORITY WHO CARRY THE CAN FOR THE WHOLE OF THE COUNTRY. YOU HAVE A THIRD WHO PAY NO INCOME TAX, SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE GET A LOT MORE BACK FROM THE GOVERNMENT THAT THEY PAY IN TAXES. WHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THERE? ACCORDING TO THE IRD, A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE. SOME MAY BE PEOPLE ON BENEFITS, AND SOME WHO MAY BE AT A STAGE OF LIFE. SOME OF THEM MIGHT BE SUPERANNUITANTS. BUT THE IDEA THAT WE HAVE AN UNFAIR TAX SYSTEM I THINK IS TRUE, BUT NOT IN THE WAY A LOT OF PEOPLE SAY. YOU HAVE A SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE ` 23% OF PEOPLE WHO EARN OVER $70,000 PAYING ABOUT 80% OF ALL TAXES. I THINK THAT IS NOT A FAIR SYSTEM. I THINK IT IS A SYSTEM THAT PUTS A HUGE AMOUNT OF PRESSURE ON A SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE TO CARRY THE CAN. AND CHLOE, I WILL ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION, BUT I FIGURE I AM GOING TO GET A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT RESPONSE. ONLY SLIGHTLY. (CHUCKLES) I THINK THE RESEARCH RELEASED THIS WEEK HAS CONFIRMED WHAT A LOT OF NEW ZEALANDERS HAVE SUSPECTED FOR A REALLY LONG TIME. THAT IS, THAT OUR TAX SYSTEM, AND THE WAY OUR ECONOMY IS SET UP, IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR. IT PRIVILEGES WEALTH HOARDING, AND WHAT THAT MEANS ACTUALLY IS REFLECTED IN THE IRD AND TREASURY REPORTS IS NOT ONLY THAT THAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR IN TERMS OF THE PROPORTION OF WHAT PEOPLE PAYING, AND ARE CAPABLE OF PAYING, BUT ALSO THAT WE END UP WITH COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE OUTCOMES IN TERMS OF THE FLOW OF INVESTMENT AND THEREFORE FLOW-ON EFFECTS TO PRODUCTIVITY. AND EVEN MORE SO THAN THAT, WE ARE ALSO STARVING OUR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES. OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM, OUR HOUSING SYSTEM AND OUR SOCIAL SERVICES. THESE THINGS CAN BE FIXED. IT IS JUST A MATTER OF POLITICAL WILLPOWER. DAVID, I WANTED TO` THE HEADLINE OUT OF THIS FROM THE IRD REPORT WAS THAT NURSES, SCHOOLTEACHERS, HAIRDRESSERS, CLEANERS, AND SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS ARE ALL PAYING A MUCH HIGHER TAX THAN THE UBER-RICH, THE ULTRA-RICH IN THIS COUNTRY. THAT IS A LOT OF VOTERS. PEOPLE WILL BE READING THAT THIS WEEK, AND FEELING A LITTLE AGGRIEVED. IT IS UNFORTUNATE, BECAUSE IT IS NOT AN ACCURATE REFLECTION OF WHAT THE IRD REPORT, OR, FOR THAT MATTER, THE SUPERIOR REPORT PUBLISHED BY THE TAX ACCOUNTANCY FIRM OLIVER SHAW PUBLISHED LAST WEEK. THOSE REPORTS SHOW THAT ACTUALLY, AS PEOPLE'S INCOME INCREASES, THE TAX THAT THEY PAY INCREASES AS WELL, AND THAT IS ACROSS-THE-BOARD. THE REASON THAT PEOPLE SAY THAT THERE IS A LOWER TAX RATE FOR SOME PEOPLE IS THAT THE IRD IN PARTICULAR HAS COUNTED PAPER INCREASES IN PEOPLE'S ASSET VALUES, AND SAID THAT THAT IS INCOME, AND THEN DIVIDED IT BY THE TAX THEY PAY, AND SAID THAT THE TAX RATE IS LOWER. IF WE WERE TO TAKE THAT SERIOUSLY, THEN WE'D HAVE TO APPLY IT TO ALL TAXPAYERS. FOR EXAMPLE, IN 2021, THE MEDIAN HOUSE PRICE WENT UP BY $145,000. IF YOU WERE TO BE TAXED ON THAT PAPER INCOME, AS THEY SUGGEST, THEN EVERY TAXPAYER IN NEW ZEALAND WOULD BE` HOMEOWNER, SORRY` WOULD BE PAYING $45,000 AT A 33% RATE. UNFORTUNATELY FOR HOMEOWNERS, IN 2022, THE PRICE WENT DOWN $110,000, SO WOULD THEY GET A REFUND FROM THE TAXPAYER? I DON'T KNOW. DAVID PARKER HAS TALKED ABOUT IMPUTED RENTS ` IF YOU PAY AND RENT A HOUSE OFF SOMEONE ELSE, YOU PAY TAX ON YOUR INCOME FIRST AND THEN RENT. SOMEONE WHO LIVES IN THEIR OWN HOUSE DOES NOT HAVE TO EARN THAT INCOME, PAY TAX, AND THEN PAY THEMSELVES RENT. THERE IS AN ARGUMENT THAT PEOPLE SHOULD PAY TAX ON THE IMPUTED RENT FOR LIVING IN THEIR OWN HOUSE. POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE SERIOUSLY MADE THAT. IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THE RESULTS OF THE REPORT SERIOUSLY, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO ACTUALLY COUNT ALL OF THE PAPER INCOME THAT PEOPLE THEORETICALLY HAVE, BUT NOBODY IS DOING THAT, AND THAT IS WHY I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD TAKE THOSE FIGURES SERIOUSLY. IT IS A GOOD POINT, IT IS A GOOD POINT, AND CHLOE, YOU WANT TO PICK UP ON THAT. YEAH, I DO, AND THE FIRST THING IN THE SUPERIOR REPORT THAT DAVID REFERS TO, IS THAT THEY OUTLINED THEMSELVES THAT THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH DATA TO BE ACTUALLY IMPUTING ECONOMIC INCOME OR OTHERWISE IN THIS COUNTRY. SO WHAT WE HAVE WITH THE TREASURY AND IRD REPORT IS A REALLY USEFUL DATABASE FOR A FAR MORE INFORMED PUBLIC DEBATE IN THIS COUNTRY. THE OTHER THING I NEED TO SAY IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE WITH HIGH-WEALTH INDIVIDUALS IS 311 FAMILIES IN THIS COUNTRY THAT HOLD $85 BILLION IN WEALTH. AND DO YOU THINK THAT IS GOOD OR BAD? AND OVER THE PERIOD OF THE FIVE YEARS THAT WERE STUDIED, THEY HAD AN INCREASE IN THAT WEALTH OF $4.3 BILLION. THAT WAS PARTIALLY REALISED WEALTH IN TERMS OF ASSET EXCHANGES AND TRANSACTIONS, TO THE TUNE OF $1.4 BILLION IN REALISED WEALTH. SO EVEN TALKING ABOUT TAXING THAT $1.4 BILLION, WE ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT A GREATER TAX TAKE, AND A FAR MORE EFFECTIVE AND FAIR ONE THAN WE HAVE AT PRESENT. A FAIR AMOUNT OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS CAPITAL GAINS, WHICH IS UNREALISED. CHLOE, IN TERMS OF TAXING THAT, TAXING THE WEALTHY, HOW WOULD YOU DO THAT? THE GREENS PROPOSED IN 2020 OUR WEALTH TAX, WHICH ALL OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON TAX POLICY. SO I AM GOING TO REALLY CLEAR ` I AM NOT ANNOUNCING A POLICY TODAY, BUT SIMPLY REFLECTING WHAT WE CAMPAIGNED ON IN 2020. WE SAID, LOOK, WE KNOW BASED ON THE DATA AT THAT POINT, AND THIS DATA RELEASED WEEK GIVES US A FAR, FAR GREATER AND RICHER DATABASE TO DRAW FROM, AND I HOPE THAT WILL INFORM ALL PARTIES' TAX POLICIES. BUT BACK IN 2020, BASED ON THE DATA THAT WE HAD, WE KNEW THAT THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY 6% OF THE POPULATION WHO HAD A NET WEALTH INDIVIDUALLY OF OVER $1 MILLION. SO TO PLAY THAT OUT, WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT IS A 1% TAX ` A 1% WEALTH TAX ON THOSE WITH A NET WEALTH OF OVER $1 MILLION. IN PRACTICE, THAT LOOKS LIKE IF YOU ARE A COUPLE WITH $2.5 MILLION NET WEALTH, FIRSTLY, CONGRATULATIONS, YOU ARE IN THE TOP 6% OF THE COUNTRY, AND THAT IS WILL ALL DEBT TAKEN AWAY AGAINST THAT, YOUR INDIVIDUAL WEALTH IS APPROXIMATELY $1.25 MILLION. SO OVER THAT $1 MILLION, THAT IS $250,000, A 1% TAX ON THAT IS $2500. SO FOR AN EXTRA TAX BILL OF $2500 IN THE CONTEXT OF BEING AN INDIVIDUAL WITH $1.25 MILLION, WE COULD END POVERTY IN THIS COUNTRY, WE CAN PAY FOR A GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME AND REFORM OF THE ACC SYSTEM. DAVID? I HAVE A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT. I REMEMBER I DEBATED A GREEN MP ON THIS ISSUE ONCE, AND I ASKED WHAT DO YOU DO FOR A RETIRED COUPLE WHO HAVE WORKED AND PAID TAX ALL THEIR LIFE, THEY ARE ASSET RICH, AND THEY NOW HAVE TO PAY CHLOE'S ASSET TAX. AND THIS MP, AND I SUSPECT THEY REGRET IT, SAID, 'DON'T WORRY, YOU CAN GET A REVERSE MORTGAGE.' THAT IS THE PRACTICALITY OF IT. BUT THERE IS ANOTHER POINT CHLOE IS MAKING IN DIFFERENT WAYS, WHICH IS THAT IF ONLY THE GOVERNMENT HAD AND SPENT MORE MONEY THEN WE WOULD GET BETTER PUBLIC SERVICES. BUT I WOULD SAY THE GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER SPENT MORE MONEY, NEVER WASTED MORE MONEY, AND ACROSS THE BOARD, WE SEE THE GOVERNMENT SPENDING MORE. IT SPENDS MORE AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP THAN AUSTRALIA, FOR EXAMPLE. AND WE ARE JUST NOT GETTING THE RESULTS. I WILL GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES. HEALTHCARE EXPENDITURE HAS GONE FROM $18 BILLION TO $28 BILLION, THAT IS A 60 TO 70% INCREASE IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS, AND THAT IS AFTER COVID-19 IS OVER. SO THE QUESTION PEOPLE MIGHT ASK IS WHAT ARE WE GETTING FOR AN EXTRA $10 BILLION IN HEALTHCARE? EDUCATION HAS GONE FROM $14 BILLION TO $18 BILLION, AND THERE SEEM TO BE FEWER KIDS GOING TO SCHOOL, LEARNING LESS, BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS GOT INTO A WHOLE AGENDA OF SOCIAL ENGINEERING RATHER THAN CHECKING IF KIDS ACTUALLY WENT TO SCHOOL. I WOULD MAKE THE CASE THAT IF WE WANT TO FOCUS ON BETTER OUTCOMES, BETTER OPPORTUNITIES, BETTER HEALTHCARE, A MORE EDUCATED POPULATION, A BETTER FUTURE FOR NEW ZEALANDERS, IT MAY NOT BE THAT THROWING MORE MONEY AT THE PROBLEM IS THE SOLUTION. I WOULD ARGUE WE HAVE TRIED THAT. AND THE SECOND POINT I WOULD MAKE IS THAT` I WANT TO BRING IT BACK, DAVID, TO THE TAX WORKING GROUP. AND THESE ARE VALID BROADER POINTS, BUT KIWIS IN PARTICULAR SEEM TO BE UP AND DOWN ON THE CGT. AROUND 54% IN THE MOST RECENT POLL IN FAVOUR, AND THE REST EITHER DON'T WANT IT, OR THEY DON'T KNOW. DOESN'T FEEL LIKE THIS IS` THIS WORK COULD SET THE SCENE FOR THAT DISCUSSION? ARE WE BEING SOFTENED UP HERE? BECAUSE IT IS A DIFFICULT THING POLITICALLY, ISN'T IT, CHLOE? YOU WOULD KNOW THAT. (CHUCKLES) I WOULD, AND I WOULD ALSO SAY THE GREENS HAVE CAMPAIGNED ON, AND HAD AN HISTORICAL ELECTION RESULT, ON A WEALTH TAX. I DO HOPE THIS RESEARCH WILL RESULT IN A MORE NUANCED AND A MORE POLITICALLY COURAGEOUS DISCUSSION ABOUT TAX SETTINGS IN THIS COUNTRY. AND WE HAVE SEEN THAT OUTLINED IN SOME OF THE STATEMENTS, PARTICULARLY THAT THE MINISTER FOR REVENUE DAVID PARKER HAS SET OUT, BUT WE ALSO NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE ARE AN OUTLIER INTERNATIONALLY. PRETTY MUCH EVERY DEVELOPED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD HAS A FORM OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX, AND WE HAVE A NUMBER OF COUNTRIES, PARTICULARLY NORDIC COUNTRIES, WHO HAVE A FORM OF WEALTH TAX. THEY HAVE FAR HIGHER PRODUCTIVITY, THEY HAVE FAR MORE PROSPEROUS COUNTRIES, AND THEY INVEST MORE IN THEIR PUBLIC SERVICES. SO ONCE AGAIN, WE COME BACK TO THAT CORE FACT THAT I THINK IT SHOULD BE, AND I THINK MANY NEW ZEALANDERS ARE RESONATING WITH THE FACT ` THAT IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR THAT THE WEALTHIEST IN THIS COUNTRY ARE PAYING AN EFFECTIVE TAX RATE HALF OF THE AVERAGE NEW ZEALANDER. BASED ON PAPER LOSSES, WHICH YOU WOULDN'T SERIOUSLY TAX, AND THEREFORE IT IS A SELECTIVE EXERCISE. I TALK ABOUT ATTITUDES AND VALUES. WHAT SEEMS TO BE BEHIND THIS IS THAT SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, HAS DONE TOO WELL, AND CHLOE GIVES YOU ALL THE STATISTICS. THESE PEOPLE ARE SO RICH, IF ONLY WE WENT AND TOOK THEIR MONEY OFF THEM, THAT WOULD SOLVE ALL OUR PROBLEMS LIKE END POVERTY. I'M SORRY, BUT IT IS NOT THAT SIMPLE, AND IF THE ATTITUDES AND VALUES ARE BASED ON TAKE, TAKE, TAKE, RATHER THAN CREATING THE CONDITIONS FOR PEOPLE TO INVEST, TO BE MORE INNOVATIVE, TO CREATE HIGHER-PAYING, MORE INTERESTING JOBS, THEN WE JUST AREN'T GOING TO GET THERE. AND I HEAR CHLOE SAYING, WELL YES, BUT THERE ARE NORDIC COUNTRIES WHO HAVE HIGH TAXES AND THEY ARE WEALTHY. THAT IS CERTAINLY TRUE, BUT THEY GET THE CAUSATION BACK TO FRONT. THOSE COUNTRIES BECAME WEALTHY WHEN THEY HAD LOWER TAXES THEN ALMOST ANYWHERE. YOU TAKE SWEDEN. 100 YEARS, THEY GOT OUT OF POVERTY BY 1860. BY THE 1970S` (LAUGHS) WELL IT'S TRUE, IT IS TRUE. YUP, YUP. THEY GREW EXTREMELY FAST IN A LOW TAX ENVIRONMENT AND SINCE THE '70S THEY INTRODUCED HIGH TAXES, AND THEY HAVE BASICALLY STAGNATED ECONOMICALLY. PEOPLE LIKE CHLOE SAY, WELL, YOU CAN HAVE HIGH TAX AND BE WEALTHY. THAT IS TRUE, BUT NEW ZEALAND IS A COUNTRY THAT NEEDS TO GROW. WE ARE IN DANGER OF LOSING FIRST WORLD STATUS. CHLOE, YOU DISAGREE. I JUST NEED TO SAY, IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE SIMPLE, WE FREQUENTLY HEAR POLITICAL RHETORIC THAT EDUCATION IS THE PATHWAY OUT OF POVERTY. UNFORTUNATELY, THE REALITY TELLS US THAT PARENTAL INCOME IS THE MAJOR DETERMINANT OF EDUCATIONAL SUCCESS IN THIS COUNTRY. WE ALSO KNOW HERE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN TAMAKI MAKAURAU, IN AUCKLAND, THAT $1.3 BILLION PER YEAR IS LOST IN PRODUCTIVITY BY VIRTUE OF PEOPLE SITTING IN TRAFFIC. WE CAN MAKE THE REQUISITE INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE THAT MAKES ALL OF OUR LIVES BETTER, INCREASES OUR WELL-BEING, AND MAKES ALL OF US MORE PRODUCTIVE, AND CONTRIBUTING AND PARTICIPATORY MEMBERS OF OUR SOCIETY. I WANT TO THROW A LITTLE FUEL ON THE FIRE HERE AS WE WRAP UP. AS I WAS LOOKING AT THE TAX REPORT AND THINKING ABOUT FAIRNESS IN THE SYSTEM, THE PRINCIPLES THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO GUIDE IT, I WONDERED, IF WE ARE SO OBSESSED WITH HAVING A FAIR TAX SYSTEM, SHOULDN'T WE BE LOOKING HIGHER FURTHER UP THE CHAIN AT MULTINATIONAL ENTITIES, FOR EXAMPLE? WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHIFT THEIR PROFITS TO TAX HAVENS, AND DEPRIVE GOVERNMENTS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN REVENUE EACH YEAR ` LEGALLY, OF COURSE ` BUT ISN'T THAT THE BIG FISH? THE CHALLENGE FOR NEW ZEALAND IS HOW DO WE GET SOME OF THOSE COUNTRIES TO COME HERE. THE QUESTION IS DO YOU WANT TO BE HOSTILE TO INVESTMENT, THAT LOOKS AT PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE WELL AND SENDS THEM A FORM FROM THE IRD, AND GOES THROUGH ALL THE RECORDS, OR DO YOU WANT TO BE A COUNTRY THAT IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS, WE WANT PEOPLE TO COME HERE, WE WANT TO BECOME WEALTHIER, WE WANT HIGHER INCOME. SO ULTIMATELY, WE CAN HAVE THE HEALTH, THE EDUCATION, AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT A FIRST WORLD COUNTRY WOULD HAVE. BUT DON'T WE ALSO WANT TAX REVENUE FROM THOSE COMPANIES FOR OUR COUNTRY? ABSOLUTELY WE DO, AND WE NEED TO REFLECT ON THE INTERNATIONAL DATA AND RESEARCH HERE. WE KNOW THAT AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND WAS REFLECTED IN THE PANAMA PAPERS AND IN THE PARADISE PAPERS AS, RELATIVELY, A BIT OF A TAX HAVEN FOR SOME OF THOSE ENTITIES. WE ALSO KNOW THAT, BASED ON THIS RESEARCH THIS WEEK, THAT OUR TRUST STRUCTURES ENABLE THE RABBIT WARRENS OF WEALTH AND ASSET HOARDING, WHICH RESULTS IN THIS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR TAX SYSTEM. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO REFLECT THAT THE METHODOLOGY APPLIED IN THE IRD AND TREASURY RESEARCH AND THE REPORT IS THE EQUIVALENT TO WHAT WE SAW IN THE UNITED STATES WITH THEIR COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS. WHICH GOT THE SAME RESULT AND IS ALSO WRONG. (LAUGHS) THEY FOUND FUNDAMENTALLY THAT NEW ZEALANDERS, THE WEALTHIEST NEW ZEALANDERS, ARE APPLYING AGGRESSIVE TYPES OF METHODS TO HOARDING THAT WEALTH AS WE SEE IN THE UNITED STATES. AND I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS A TRACK THAT MANY NEW ZEALANDERS WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH US CONTINUING TO GO DOWN. FINAL COMMENT, DAVID. WELL, THIS IS TALL POPPY SYNDROME, AND THERE IS NO FUTURE IN THAT FOR NEW ZEALAND. WE WANT TO BE A PROSPEROUS PLACE, A FIRST WORLD COUNTRY, A PLACE THAT CELEBRATES SUCCESS. AND THE LAST WEEK OR SO OF WITCH HUNTING DRIVEN BY TALL POPPY SYNDROME AIN'T GONNA GET US THERE. LOWER, FLATTER TAXES, MORE EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT SERVICES WILL. LET'S HAVE A COUNTRY THAT ALL NEW ZEALANDERS CAN PARTICIPATE IN. LET'S HAVE A COUNTRY THAT FUNDS PROPERLY AND THOROUGHLY OUR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH ACTUALLY, THE WEALTHIEST ALSO RELY IN ORDER TO MAKE THEIR MONEY. THE SYSTEM WE HAVE AT PRESENT PRIVATISES PROFIT, SOCIALISES COST, AND IT'S UNFAIR. I AM GOING TO HAVE TO LET YOU TWO AGREE TO DISAGREE ON THIS ONE. THANKS SO MUCH FOR COMING IN. IT'S BEEN FASCINATING TO TALK TAX WITH YOU BOTH. A MURI AKE NEI ` COMING UP NEXT ` ALL THE ANALYSIS FROM OUR POLITICAL PANEL, DR LARA GREAVES, SAM SACHDEVA AND JANET WILSON. PLUS, HOW YOUR GENETIC TEST COULD BE USED AGAINST YOU ` THE INTRIGUING COLLISION OF TECHNOLOGY AND TIKANGA. HOKI MAI ANO ` WELCOME BACK. I AM JOINED NOW BY OUR PANEL ` ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN POLITICAL SCIENCE AT VICTORIA UNIVERSITY DR LARA GREAVES... MORNING. ...NEWSROOM'S NATIONAL AFFAIRS EDITOR SAM SACHDEVA AND CURRENT NATIONAL PARTY MEMBER JANET WILSON, WHO WAS ALSO THE CHIEF PRESS SECRETARY FOR LEADER JUDITH COLLINS. (LAUGHS) IT'S A LONG STORY. (LAUGHTER) IT'S A LONG STORY. ALL THE GOOD ONES ARE, JANET. YEAH, I KNOW. I WANT TO START OUR PANEL TODAY ON THE FOREIGN MINISTER. I FELT LIKE WE LEARNED A BIT MORE THIS MORNING ABOUT WHERE THOSE AUKUS TALKS ARE UP TO. JANET? HMM. I` (STAMMERS) IT WAS A CONTRAST AND COMPARE, REALLY, WASN'T IT? WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT ANDREW LITTLE'S BEEN SAYING, WHICH IS VERY` QUITE GUNG-HO ON PILLAR II, AND THEN YOU HEARD WHAT THE MINISTER, THE FOREIGN MINISTER, HAD TO SAY THIS MORNING, IT WAS A LITTLE BIT, 'EH, MAYBE NOT. 'WE'VE GOTTA WORK THIS OUT YET.' YOU KNOW? MM-HM. SHE TALKED ABOUT THE NON-MILITARISATION IN THE PACIFIC, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS, UM... A CLEAR SHOT ACROSS THE BOWS OF, MAYBE, HER COLLEAGUES. MM. I DON'T KNOW. WHAT DO YOU THINK, SAM? SAM? YEAH, THERE ARE SOME MIXED MESSAGES THERE, RIGHT? AND THAT'S PROBABLY A MATTER OF EMPHASIS OR FOCUS. I MEAN, ANDREW LITTLE HAS TAKEN ON THE DEFENCE PORTFOLIO, HAS BEEN IN THE SPY PORTFOLIOS FOR A WHILE NOW, SO PROBABLY SEES THE SHARPER EDGE OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE AND SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS, WHEREAS, YOU KNOW, NANAIA HAS TO HAVE A BROADER FOCUS. MFAT, I THINK, VERY FOCUSED ON KEEPING THE TRADE RELATIONSHIP WITH CHINA GOING AND MAYBE NOT ROCKING THE BOAT TOO MUCH. BUT, YEAH, IT'S HARD TO GET A MEASURE ON WHAT THE GOVERNMENT POSITION IS IN THE LONG TERM ON WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD BE A PART OF AUKUS. YEAH, AND THOSE ARE THE TENSIONS, AREN'T THEY, THE TRADE VERSUS FOREIGN AFFAIRS, LARA? YEAH, THE WORD CLOUD FROM THAT INTERVIEW WAS STILL THE 'INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY' AND THE EMPHASIS THERE. AND THEN` I THINK THE INTENTION OF THAT, THOUGH, WAS THAT` STILL THAT BUDDYING UP MORE TO THE PACIFIC, AND ALMOST` IT'S ALMOST LIKE A KIND OF NEUTRALITY TACT, IN A WAY, ISN'T IT? LIKE, STEPPING AWAY AND BEING LIKE, 'ACTUALLY, THE PACIFIC...' AND` IN A WAY. THAT'S WHAT I` I WONDER TO WHAT EXTENT THAT'S SYMBOLICALLY THERE AND A GOOD WAY FOR US TO TRY TO JUST TAKE A STEP BACK AND BE INDEPENDENT BECAUSE` SAYING WE'VE GOT THAT TUAKANA-TEINA RELATIONSHIP THERE. YEAH. WELL, IS THIS INDEPENDENT? IT FEELS LIKE THIS INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY IS GOING TO BE PUT REALLY TO THE TEST SOMETIME SOON. MM. BECAUSE AROUND US, WE HAVE THESE SIDES LINING UP... OH... ...AND THE WORLD'S SUPERPOWERS IN OUR BACKYARD. HOW LONG CAN WE REALLY KEEP UP THIS SORT OF PRETENCE, I SUPPOSE? OH, I THINK THE AMBIGUITY AND THE TIGHTROPE THAT THE MINISTER HAS WALKED ` PHYSICALLY, RECENTLY, HAVING BEEN IN CHINA, AND THEN BEING IN BRUSSELS WITH THE NATO ` PROBABLY EXEMPLIFIES THE WHOLE SITUATION THAT WE'RE FACING AS A COUNTRY IN A FOREIGN POLICY SENSE. MM. AND THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO TACK THEIR... THEIR FLAG TO THE 'MASK' AT SOME STAGE` THE MAST AT SOME STAGE, I THINK. I DO THINK, THOUGH, THAT PEOPLE TEND TO CONFLATE INDEPENDENCE AND NEUTRALITY. WE CAN HAVE AN INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY WITHOUT SITTING OUT OF EVERY INTERNATIONAL DISCUSSION, SAYING, 'LOOK, WE DON'T WANT TO BE INVOLVED WITH ANYONE.' MM. IT JUST MEANS WHEN WE MAKE DECISIONS, AND IF WE JOIN GROUPINGS, WE DO IT IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST. I WAS INTERESTED WHEN SHE` WHEN THE MINISTER TALKED ABOUT NOT WANTING A DEPARTURE FROM THE STATUS QUO WITH RELATION TO TAIWAN AND CHINA AND THAT SHE` I THINK SHE SAID SHE WANTED NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN CHINA AND TAIWAN TO CONTINUE, WHICH SEEMS... A LITTLE UNREALISTIC GIVEN THAT PRESIDENT XI'S` ONE OF HIS GREAT PRIORITIES IS, AS HE SAYS, THE 'REUNIFICATION' OF CHINA. IS THAT`? YEAH. YOU KNOW, IS THAT A LITTLE... IDEALISTIC, I SUPPOSE, LARA? LOOK, LIKE, I MEAN, I'M PERSONALLY NOT A BIG FOREIGN POLICY EXPERT, OR THAT UP ON THE PLAN, SPECIFICALLY TAIWAN, BUT THE ONE THING I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT IN RELATION TO THIS IS THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN MUCH FROM THE CHRISES IN THIS SPACE. AND I DO SEE, LIKE, NANAIA AS` MAHUTA AS HOLDING MORE OF THAT, LIKE` IT'S ALMOST LIKE MORE OF A LEADERSHIP ROLE IN TERMS OF WHEN WE SAW HER IN CONTRAST TO JACINDA ARDERN. SO THAT WAS REALLY WHAT I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT DURING, SAY, THAT INTERVIEW, IN ALL OF THAT ` IS IT'S LIKE, 'WHERE`?' WE HAVEN'T SEEN, NECESSARILY, CHRIS HIPKINS BEING TESTED, OR CHRIS LUXON YET, SO... SAM, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE CHINA/TAIWAN QUESTION AND OUR VIEW ON THAT? YEAH. I` AND THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THINGS COULD IMPROVE. I THINK THEY HAVE UPCOMING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, FROM MEMORY, AND THERE IS` THE PARTY CURRENTLY OPPOSITION HAS A SLIGHTLY BETTER RELATIONSHIP WITH BEIJING, SO THERE IS A CHANCE THAT THINGS SORT OF STABILISE A BIT. BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. THEY HAVE SAID ` THE CCP, XI JINPING ` IN THE LONG TERM, TAIWAN MUST BECOME PART OF CHINA. IT'S A BOTTOM LINE. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, A WAR OR AN INVASION AROUND THE CORNER, AS YOU HEAR IN AUSTRALIA AND SOME OTHER PARTS, BUT IN THE LONG-TERM, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DROP THIS. IT'S NOT GOING TO GO AWAY, SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE DEAL WITH IT. I WANTED TO TALK TO YOU, JANET, ABOUT` YOU KNOW, THE LAST TIME A NEW ZEALAND PRIME MINISTER VISITED CHINA WAS ARDERN'S TRIP IN 2019. THAT SEEMS LIKE SO LONG AGO NOW. A LOT HAS HAPPENED IN THE WORLD, CLEARLY, SINCE THEN. THINGS WERE A BIT FROSTY BACK THEN. DOES HIPKINS NEED TO GET OVER THERE ASAP? I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT SO. MM. MM. THERE IS A HECK OF A LOT OF TRADE AT STAKE. WE'VE PUT ALL OUR EGGS, FOR WHATEVER REASON, IN ONE BASKET. AND THE` PART OF THAT TIGHTROPE WALK THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT IS TRADE, AND I THINK HIPKINS NEEDS TO MAKE IT A PRIORITY. I KNOW HE'S` IT'S AN ELECTION YEAR; HE HAS A CORONATION TO GO TO; THERE'S A NATO MEETING THAT HE'S GOT TO GO TO AS WELL, BUT I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT HE NEEDS TO SIGNAL THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BY HAVING THE PRIME MINISTER THERE. YEAH. WHAT YOU THINK THE DELAY COULD BE, SAM? UH, I THINK IT PARTLY IS LOGISTICS. IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'VE KIND OF` THE CHINESE SIDE HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT BACKED UP. I MEAN, THEY'VE ONLY RELATIVELY RECENTLY REOPENED THEIR BORDERS; THEY HAD A BIG CONFERENCE EARLIER THIS YEAR, SO I THINK THEY'RE KIND OF KEEPING A BIT OF SPACE BETWEEN THAT AND INTERNATIONAL VISITS. MM. AND THEN IT JUST GETS DIFFICULT, RIGHT? WE'VE GOT AN ELECTION ON OCTOBER 14; AS JANET SAYS, CHRIS HIPKINS IS ALREADY GOING TO LONDON FOR THE CORONATION, TO BRUSSELS FOR NATO. DOES HE REALLY WANT TO BE SPENDING THAT MUCH TIME OUT OF THE COUNTRY IN AN ELECTION YEAR? SO IT` I THINK IT'S LOGISTICS ON BOTH SIDES THAT ARE MAKING THIS KIND OF HARD TO GET ACROSS THE LINE. BUT REALLY IMPORTANT` YEAH. IMPORTANT FOR HIM TO START TO LOOK KIND OF PRESIDENTIAL, IN TERMS OF PRIME MINISTER, BECAUSE, OF COURSE, WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO CONTRAST HIM WITH ARDERN. LIKE, WE'RE JUST GONNA DO THAT. YEAH. BECAUSE SHE JUST WAS THE PRIME MINISTER, AND, YOU KNOW, NOW SHE'S OFF TO HARVARD OR WHATEVER. SO IT'S LIKE` HE KIND OF HAS TO EMBODY THAT, IN A WAY, AND THAT'S ANOTHER WAY TO DIFFERENTIATE HIMSELF FROM CHRIS LUXON... EXACTLY. ...AND TO KIND OF LOOK LIKE HE REALLY IS OWNING THAT PRIME MINISTERIAL ROLE. EXACTLY. EXACTLY. I COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE. WELL, YOU'LL GET TO SEE HIM, YOU KNOW, EATING HIS SAUSAGE ROLLS IN BEIJING. (LAUGHTER) REALLY` THANK YOU SO MUCH... YEAH. TAKE THE SAUSAGE ROLLS. ...FOR, UM` WE WILL BE BACK TO TALK A LITTLE BIT LATER ABOUT TAX. E WHAI AKE NEI, WE'LL BE BACK WITH OUR PANEL LATER IN THE PROGRAMME. AND AFTER THE BREAK ` COULD YOUR GENETICS PREVENT YOU FROM GETTING INSURANCE? HOW TO HOLD ON TO YOUR PRIVACY. WAIHAPE MAI ` WELCOME BACK. HEALTH OFFICIALS ARE CALLING FOR A BAN ON GENETIC DISCRIMINATION. THAT'S WHERE INSURANCE COMPANIES INCREASE PREMIUMS OR EVEN DENY INSURANCE ALTOGETHER BASED ON SOMEONE'S GENETICS. NEW RESEARCH HAS FOUND THAT PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO REFUSE GENETIC TESTS IN CASE IT AFFECTS THEIR INSURANCE. MAORI DATA SPECIALIST AND ETHICIST DR KARAITIANA TAIURU SAYS IT IMPACTS MAORI MORE THAN PAKEHA AND IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW GENETIC TECHNOLOGY IN GENERAL CAN DISADVANTAGE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES. HE JOINS ME NOW. TENA KOE. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. TENA KOE. SO IN THE CURRENT SITUATION INSURANCE COMPANIES CAN'T MAKE YOU HAVE A GENETIC TEST, BUT THEY CAN REQUEST RESULTS OF ANY TEST YOU HAVE ALREADY HAD. OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE BANNED THIS ` WHY HAVEN'T WE? I THINK WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A LITTLE BIT BEHIND THE BALL WHEN IT COMES TO SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGIES. IT IS IMPORTANT FOR MAORI TO START LOBBY THEIR MPS FOR THIS, BECAUSE WE ARE BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. OK. WELL, LET'S JUST TALK` SO THIS SURVEY THAT CAME OUT IN AOTEAROA FOUND THAT PATIENTS ARE DENIED INSURANCE BECAUSE OF THEIR GENETICS, OR WOULDN'T HAVE THEIR GENETICS TESTED IN CASE THEY WERE REFUSED. OVERALL, IN A GENERAL SENSE, FOR ALL THE POPULATION, WHAT MEDICAL RISKS DOES THAT POSE FOR PEOPLE? SO, FIRST OF ALL, WHEN YOU ARE GENETICALLY TESTED, YOU ARE TESTED AGAINST A EUROPEAN COHORT OF GENES WHICH DOES NOT MATCH UP TO MAORI GENES, FOR A START. MAORI ARE A KINSHIP GROUP, AND ARE CLOSELY RELATED TO EACH OTHER, SO THAT COULD IMMEDIATELY IMPACT A WHOLE COMMUNITY OF MAORI. SO, IMMEDIATELY IMPACT A WHOLE COMMUNITY OF MAORI ` HOW DO YOU MEAN? SAY THERE IS A WHOLE COMMUNITY OF FIRST AND SECOND COUSINS, AND THEY HAVE A GENE THAT THEY HAVE INHERITED FROM AN ANCESTOR, THAT WOULD, SAY SUCH AS HEART DISEASE OR GOUT, ALL THE COMMON` OR CANCER` ALL THOSE COMMON DISEASES. WOULD PEOPLE SHY AWAY FROM GETTING LIFE-SAVING MEDICAL TREATMENT BECAUSE OF THIS? I BELIEVE SO, YES. PART OF MY RESEARCH INTERVIEWED ABOUT 200 INDIVIDUALS ABOUT VARIOUS PARTS OF OUT GENE RESEARCH, AND OVERALL, THEY WERE SCARED OF GENE RESEARCH. THERE IS A MISTRUST OF THE HEALTH SYSTEM, THERE IS A MISTRUST OF GOVERNMENT, AND WE HAVE SEEN GENERATIONS OF MAORI WHO REFUSED TO GO TO THE DOCTOR BECAUSE THEY DO NOT TRUST THE DOCTOR, OR FEEL BELITTLED. AND THIS GENETIC TESTING IS SEEN AS AN EXTENSION OF THAT MISTRUST? THAT IS CORRECT, YES. ALL RIGHT, SO THIS RESEARCH WHICH THAT COME OUT DIDN'T FOCUS ON INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS OF MAORI AND PASIFIKA. YOU SAY THEY MISSED AN OPPORTUNITY ` WHY? THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT DISCRIMINATION WITH TYPICALLY EUROPEAN NEW ZEALANDERS. SO BASICALLY, PAKEHA MEN AND WOMEN ARE 50% MORE LIKELY TO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE THAN MAORI, PASIFIKA, AND DISABLED PEOPLE. ARE YOU SAYING THAT DISCRIMINATION CAN AFFECT MAORI MORE THAN PAKEHA AND YOU ARE BASING THAT ON THE RESEARCH THAT YOU HAVE DONE? ON THE RESEARCH I HAVE DONE, ON THE RESEARCH THAT HAS BEEN DONE IN AMERICA, CANADA, AND WITH OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THE WORLD. IS THIS JUST AN INSURANCE ISSUE, OR DOES THE FACT THAT THE RESEARCH IS BASED ON GENETIC COHORTS OF SAY, PAKEHA, RATHER THAN OTHER INDIGENOUS CULTURES, DOES IT AFFECT OTHER AREAS OF MEDICINE? IT AFFECTS MEDICINE ACROSS THE WHOLE RANGE. AND AGAIN, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MAORI PROVIDING GENETIC INFORMATION, WE ONLY KNOW ABOUT BASICALLY... PAKEHA GENES AND DISEASES. YOU HAVE MISTRUST OF THE MEDICAL FRATERNITY, AND NOT ENOUGH GENETIC INFORMATION, BUT HOW CAN YOU BASE POLICIES ON THAT GENETIC FORMATION IF YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH? IF YOU ARE TRYING TO SUIT MAORI POLICY, OR PASIFIKA POLICY BASED ON GENETIC FORMATION THAT ISN'T THERE? CORRECT, THAT'S CORRECT. ONE SOLUTION WOULD BE TO IMPLEMENT CULTURALLY SAFE AND APPROPRIATE GENE TESTING AND PROTOCOLS. WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? FROM A TE AO MAORI PERSPECTIVE, OUR GENES ARE TAONGA. THEY ARE VERY SACRED BECAUSE THEY ESSENTIALLY ARE OUR WHAKAPAPA. SO, ENSURING THAT THERE ARE TE TIRITI OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS, LOOKING AT CUSTOMARY PRACTICES, WHETHER IT'S A KARAKIA WHEN YOU ARE PROVIDING A BODY SAMPLE, THE STORAGE, THERE ARE DATA SOVEREIGNTY ISSUES, ESSENTIALLY HAVING MEDICAL STAFF AND HEALTH PROFESSIONALS IMMERSED IN BEING CULTURALLY SAFE WOULD BE A BIG HELP. THAT WOULD ENCOURAGE THE UPTAKE OF GENETIC TESTING AMONG MAORI. CORRECT. YOU PROPOSE MAORI-OWNED AND OPERATED DNA BANKS. IS ANYBODY ACTUALLY DOING THAT IN NEW ZEALAND? THERE IS ONE MAORI DNA BANK IN PARTNERSHIP WITH OTAGO UNIVERSITY, AND NGATI POROU HAUORA AND FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN, IT LOOKS VERY SUCCESSFUL, AND IF I WAS NGATI POROU, I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE PROVIDING MY GENES TO THEM. ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT EACH IWI WOULD HAVE THEIR OWN DNA DATABASE? NO, I AM SUGGESTING THAT DIFFERENT HOSPITALS AND HEALTH PROVIDERS COULD HAVE THEIR SEPARATE MAORI DNA AND BIOBANK. IS IT FEASIBLE TO DEVELOP INSURANCE POLICIES AND MEDICINES SPECIFICALLY FOR EACH GENETIC PEOPLES? I THINK THAT GENETIC TESTING IS FLAWED. IT HAS BEEN BANNED IN OTHER COUNTRIES ` IN TERMS OF HEALTH INSURANCE. DO YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE BANNED IN TERMS OF DECIDING WHETHER YOU SHOULD HAVE INSURANCE AND NOT. YES, THAT'S CORRECT. WHAT ABOUT IF IT WILL DECIDE WHETHER YOU SHOULD HAVE A CERTAIN MEDICINE OR NOT, IF IT WILL WORK FOR YOU AS A PAKEHA OR A MAORI? THEN I FULLY SUPPORT THAT, YES. WE KNOW THAT PRECISION MEDICINE IS THE WAY OF THE FUTURE, AND IT DOES WORK, SO YES. BUT IS IT FEASIBLE? IT MEANS YOU WILL HAVE INSTEAD OF JUST ONE GENERAL DATABASE, SO MANY DATABASES FOR EACH ETHNICITY ` IS THAT CORRECT? YOU CAN HAVE THE ONE DATABASE` BIOBANK IN THE SAME BUILDING WITH OTHER BIOBANKS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. A BIOBANK IS ESSENTIALLY A BIG FREEZER, SO YOU CAN HAVE MULTIPLE FREEZERS IN A ROOM. MULTIPLE PEOPLE IN THOSE FREEZERS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, TENA KOE. KIA PAKU WHAKATA TATAU. STAY WITH US; WE'RE BACK AFTER THE BREAK. HOKI MAI ANO ` WELCOME BACK. WE'RE BACK WITH OUR POLITICAL PANEL ` DR LARA GREAVES, SAM SACHDEVA AND JANET WILSON. WELCOME BACK TO YOU ALL. WE ARE GOING TO DIVE INTO TAX. THIS WEEK IT HAS DOMINATED, BUT WE HAVE ONLY BEEN GIVEN JUST A LITTLE BIT, HAVEN'T WE, JANET? WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN THIS RESEARCH, BUT A GAPING HOLE AS WELL. YEAH. I THINK THERE IS A PLAN TO ALL OF THAT. YOU KNOW, WITH MY COMMS HAT ON ` MY FORMER COMMS HAT ON ` I THINK WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS FLYING THAT KITE TO SEE HOW IT FLIES, TO SEE WHETHER IT WILL RARK THE NATION UP, BECOME A HOT BUTTON ISSUE THAT THEY HOPE IT IS GOING TO BECOME, AND THEN THEY WILL ARE GOING TO PROBABLY POLL ENDLESSLY, BECAUSE LET'S FACE IT, THEY ARE ALL 'POLL-DRIVEN NUTCASES,' TO PARAPHRASE DAVID LANGE, AND THEN THEY'LL MAKE A DECISION ON WHERE TO GO AND WHAT TO DO. IT WILL IS NOT GOING TO BE, I WOULD IMAGINE, BEFORE THE ELECTION THAT THEY WILL COME OUT WITH ANYTHING, BUT THEY COULD WELL DECIDE TO DO SOMETHING AFTER IT. OR THEY COULD DO SOMETHING AFTERWARDS, AND BE LIKE BILL ENGLISH IN 2008, AND NOT PUT IN ON THEIR AGENDA, AND JUST DO IT ANYWAY. THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE WILL BE DRUMMING, ISN'T IT ` THIS IDEA. SAM, HOW DO YOU THINK IT HAS LANDED OUT THERE? I THINK IT IS INTERESTING, I THINK THE PHRASE YOU USED IN THE DEBATE WITH CHLOE AND DAVID WAS, 'ARE PEOPLE BEING SOFTENED UP?' AND THAT IS IT. THERE SEEMS TO BE A SENSE THAT THIS FAIRNESS ISSUE IS A REASONABLE ONE. I TAKE DAVID'S POINT ABOUT ITS BEING UNREALISED ASSETS IN SOME CASES, BUT THE IDEA THAT YOU'VE GOT THE WEALTHIEST 300 ODD PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY WHO ARE PAYING HALF OF THE RATE OF THE REST OF NEW ZEALAND, THE AVERAGE NEW ZEALANDER, THAT ISSUE OF FAIRNESS IS ONE THAT PROBABLY CUTS THROUGH TO THE ELECTORATE IN WAYS THAT OTHER ARGUMENTS DON'T. WHETHER IT WILL WIN THE DAY, I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT IS INTERESTING THAT THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE PUSHING. IT PUTS TAX, WHICH IS VERY UNPOPULAR POLITICALLY TO TALK ABOUT GENERALLY, SQUARELY BACK ON THE AGENDA, DOESN'T IT? THE WORD HAS NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONS. THEY WILL ALSO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE TO LAND THAT TAX, LIKE, WHERE IN THE WEALTH. IT IS EASIER TO BEAT UP ON THE 300 MOST RICHEST, BUT WHERE DOES IT LAND IN TERMS OF THOSE MUM AND DAD INVESTORS VERSUS THE WEALTHY? THEY HAVE GOT TO STILL FIGURE THAT OUT IN ALL OF THIS. BUT WHAT I WOULD SAY IS TAKING THAT TAX REPORT BACK TO FIRST YEAR RESEARCH METHODS, TEAM, IS THAT NORMALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU COME OUT WITH SOME RESEARCH ` ESPECIALLY $5 MILLION OF RESEARCH ` YOU WANT TO HAVE A BANGER OF AN IMPLICATION SECTION, WHERE YOU GO, HEY, HERE'S THE POLICY IMPLICATIONS, AND THAT'S WHAT WE TEACH KIDS IN FIRST YEAR, SO... WHY IS THAT MISSING, LARA? BECAUSE THERE IS THAT CONNECTION ` WILL THEY DO A SLOW REVEAL? WHAT IS HAPPENING? THAT IS WHY I APPRECIATED YOUR COMMENTS ON PR THERE. A STRIPTEASE, I THINK THEY CALL IT IN THE BUSINESS. I THINK IT IS CALLED A STRIPTEASE, AND IT IS QUITE DANGEROUS FOR LABOUR GIVEN THEY HAVE BEEN LIKE CINDERELLA AT THE BALL FOR HOW MANY ELECTIONS NOW, THEY HAVE TAKEN CGT ` CAPITAL GAINS TAX ` AND SAID, 'THIS IS OUR BABY, THIS IS IMPORTANT. 'THIS WILL LEAD TO BREAKING DOWN THE INEQUALITY THAT WE SEE,' AND THEN RUNNING AWAY FROM IT. POTENTIALLY, IT COULD BE DANGEROUS FOR THEM TO BE TROTTING IT OUT AGAIN. WHY DO THEY KEEP GOING BACK TO IT? IS IT TO SATISFY PART OF THE LABOUR VOTER BASE, DO YOU THINK, SAM? YEAH, I THINK THAT IS A FUNDAMENTAL LABOUR VIEW, THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE FAIRNESS AND THAT WORKERS GET THEIR FAIR SHARE OF INCOME, AND AREN'T DISPROPORTIONATELY PUNISHED. THE FORMER BRITISH HIGH COMMISSIONER LAURA CLARK HAD A GOOD LINE IN THE SPEECH BEFORE SHE LEFT THAT WE HAVE A SCANDINAVIAN AMBITION FOR PUBLIC SERVICES, BUT AN AMERICAN APPROACH TO TAX. AND THAT IS PROPERLY HOW LABOUR FEELS ABOUT IT. DAVID PARKER IN PARTICULAR IS A REAL WARRIOR ON THESE THINGS. I CAN TELL. IT IS PALPABLE WHEN SEE HIM TALKING ABOUT IT. I WANT TO SWITCH TO TRACKS HERE FOR A SECOND BECAUSE THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE GREEN PARTY, WHICH HAS BEEN BUBBLING ALONG INTO ELIZABETH KEREKERE, AND WE ARE SEEING ANONYMOUS SOURCES COMING OUT, AND A FEW MOVES THERE, BUT IS THAT FAIR TO HAVE THIS INVESTIGATION ONGOING AT A TIME WHEN THE LIST IS BEING CHOSEN, DO YOU THINK, LARA? WITH THE GREENS, THEY ARE ALWAYS QUITE OPEN ABOUT THEIR CONFLICT, AND THAT IS ONE OF THE HALLMARKS OF GREEN PARTY POLITICS, AND HAS BEEN OVER THE YEARS. I DON'T THINK A LOT OF THEIR SUPPORTERS, BASED ON THE ACADEMIC LITERATURE, ARE THAT WORRIED ABOUT IT, BUT THEY HAVE TO REMEMBER THEY ARE PROBABLY GOING TO GO INTO COALITION WITH LABOUR IF LABOUR WINS, SO IT IS POTENTIALLY STARTIN TO BECOME OFF-PUTTING FOR THOSE CENTRE VOTERS. YOU CAN MAKE THAT ARGUMENT THAT THAT IS WHO IS GOING TO HAVE THE POWER, THEY ARE GOING TO BE MINISTERS, AND THEY'VE GOT ALL THIS, LIKE` ACTING LIKE THEY ARE NOT QUITE A POLITICAL PARTY. IT IS QUITE FRUSTRATING FOR PEOPLE ON THE LEFT. IT IS VERY MESSY, ISN'T IT, JANET? VERY, AND I THINK THERE WAS A RUMP OF WHAT I CALL HERNE BAY-PONSONBY MATRONS, WHO WOULD BE QUITE FIRM GREEN VOTERS AND JAMES SHAW VOTERS ` HE MIGHT WANT ME TO WASH MY MOUTH OUT FOR SAYING THAT ` BUT THEY SEE THIS BEHAVIOUR, AND THEY GO, 'NO, THAT IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE.' ANY PARTY INWARDLY FIGHTING OUTWARDLY IS ALWAYS` AND LEAKING. AND LEAKING. I CAN TELL YOU FORM 2020 WITH THE NATS, IT'S A VOTE LOSER. IT'S A BIG VOTE LOSER. IT HAS TAKEN AROUND THREE WEEKS TO GET US INVESTIGATION GOING DURING A RECESS, WHICH IS NOT A TIME WHEN THERE ARE A LOT OF STORIES AROUND. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT HOW IT IS BEEN POLITICALLY MANAGED? I QUESTION THE DECISION TO HAVE AN INVESTIGATION IN THE FIRST PLACE. IF JAMES AND MARAMA HAD SIMPLY SAID, 'THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE, 'IT'S NOT THE BEHAVIOUR WE EXPECT FROM ONE OF OUR CAUCUS,' 'WE WILL BE DISCIPLINING HER INTERNALLY, 'THAT'S THE END OF THE MATTER,' PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE MOVED ON, BUT NOW YOU HAVE THE PROTRACTED PROCESS WHERE THEY MAY BE LOOKING THROUGH WHATSAPP GROUP CHATS TO SEE WHAT ELSE SHE SAID. I MEAN, PEOPLE BADMOUTH THEIR COLLEAGUES ALL THE TIME` NO US, THOUGH. OF COURSE, NOT US. BUT SHE SENT IT TO THE WRONG GROUP, SO WHERE DOES THAT LEAD TO IF YOU FIND SHE HAS SAID OTHER UNSAVOURY THINGS IN PRIVATE? CAN YOU DISCIPLINE AN MP FOR THAT? I DON'T KNOW. I THINK THE GREENS HAVE FAIRLY HIGH STANDARDS IN TERMS OF THEIR CODE OF CONDUCT. BUT IT'S JUST GOT REALLY MESSY, THEY COULD HAVE CLAMPED DOWN ON IT IN A MUCH BETTER WAY. MUCH SOONER, AND WE STILL HAVEN'T HEARD FROM ELIZABETH KEREKERE, SO WE STILL DON'T HAVE HER SIDE OF THIS EITHER, JANET. NO, WE DON'T, AND I'M SURE THAT SHE WILL LIKELY BE GIVEN HER TIME AND HER DAY. THE FACT THAT SHE HAS NOT GONE TO THE MEDIA TO TELL HER STORY IS HEARTENING, I HAVE TO SAY. A SHOW OF RESPECT FOR THE PROCESS. SHE HASN'T FED THE PROCESS, THE OUTSIDE PROCESS, SHE IS RELYING ON THE INSIDE PROCESS, AND THE OTHER GOOD ACTOR AMONGST ALL OF THIS IS CHLOE, WHO WAS THE SUBJECT OF SOME OF THE MEAN GIRL CHAT, AND I THINK SHE HAS SAILED ON THROUGH IT, WHICH I THINK IS THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DO. ABSOLUTELY, GOOD ADVICE FOR LIFE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US LARA GREAVES, SAM SACHDEVA, AND JANET WILSON ON THIS MORNING'S PANEL. THAT'S ALL FROM US FOR NOW. THANKS FOR WATCHING. NGA MIHI NUI. WE'LL SEE YOU AGAIN NEXT WEEK. CAPTIONS BY ABLE. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. WWW.ABLE.CO.NZ COPYRIGHT ABLE 2023.