CAPTIONS BY FAITH HAMBLYN AND JAMES BROWN. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. WWW.ABLE.CO.NZ COPYRIGHT ABLE 2024. IN TENA KOUTOU, NAU MAI, HAERE MAI. WELCOME TO Q+A. I'M JACK TAME. TODAY ` THE GOVERNMENT'S PLAN TO FAST-TRACK CONSENTS FOR DAMS, ROADS AND MINES. WE THINK THE STATUS QUO IS WRONG. WE'RE CHANGING IT ` WE'RE MAKING IT EASIER TO DO THINGS. IF PEOPLE DON'T AGREE WITH THAT, WELL, THEY CAN THROW US OUT IN THREE YEARS' TIME. WE'LL ASK LABOUR'S NEW FINANCE SPOKESPERSON ABOUT HER INTEREST IN TAX AND THE DOWNFALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. AND FOR ALL THE CHAT ABOUT CHINA'S INFLUENCE, WE LOOK AT ANOTHER COUNTRY'S CURIOUS APPROACH TO DIPLOMACY IN THE PACIFIC. IT WAS JOYOUS. WE WERE DANCING, WHICH IS OUR LEGACY AS INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, AND I THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR JERUSALEM TO HAVE A CELEBRATION DURING THIS TIME. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IS ARGUABLY THE SINGLE MOST PRESSING ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL PROBLEM FACING THE GOVERNMENT. THOSE ARE THE WORDS OF THE NEW HOUSING MINISTER CHRIS BISHOP AS HE PUSHES FORWARD WITH HIS PLAN TO TURBO-BOOST THE HOUSING SUPPLY AROUND THE COUNTRY. THE MINISTER HAS SET A TARGET FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY OVER THE LONG TERM. I SAT DOWN WITH HIM LATE THIS WEEK AND BEGAN BY ASKING ABOUT HIS PLANS FOR SOCIAL HOUSING. DO YOU ACCEPT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SOCIAL HOUSES AVAILABLE WILL NEED TO GROW BEYOND WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN FUNDED AND PLANNED IN ORDER TO MEET THE DEMAND? YES, I DO ACCEPT THAT. HOW MUCH MORE? WELL, THERE'S 25,000 PEOPLE ON THE WAITLIST RIGHT NOW ` 25,000 APPLICANTS ON THE WAITLIST. NOT ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE WILL COME OFF THE WAITLIST INTO A SOCIAL HOUSE ` SOME WILL GO INTO PRIVATE RENTALS, SOME WILL SELF-SELECT OFF THE WAITLIST ALTOGETHER. WE NEED MORE SOCIAL HOUSING. IF YOU LOOK AT NEW ZEALAND IN TERMS OF SOCIAL HOUSING RELATIVE TO, SAY, MANY OTHER COUNTRIES, OVER TIME, OUR NUMBERS HAVE GONE DOWN. WE NEED TO LIFT THAT UP. WE'RE DOING SOME WORK ON THAT AT THE MOMENT AS TO HOW MUCH THAT NEEDS TO GROW BY. WE WILL ADD MORE PLACES OVER TIME TO THE PLACES THAT THE GOVERNMENT FUNDS FOR SOCIAL HOUSING. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND THE LAST GOVERNMENT IS THAT WE'RE MUCH MORE AGNOSTIC ABOUT WHO OWNS THE HOUSE. RIGHT, SO YOU'RE SUPPORTING, LIKE, CHPs, THE COMMUNITY HOUSING PROVIDERS, AS OPPOSED TO SIMPLY BUILDING. YES. AND SO WHAT WE CAN DO FROM A GOVERNMENT POINT OF VIEW IS WE FUND THE PLACE, THE SOCIAL HOUSING PROVIDER ` WHICH COULD BE KAINGA ORA, OR IT COULD BE A COMMUNITY HOUSING PROVIDER, LIKE EMERGE OR THE SALVATION ARMY ` THEY TAKE THE MONEY FOR THE PLACE. THEY CAN THEN BORROW AGAINST THAT FUNDING STREAM, GO OUT AND GET PRIVATE FINANCE FROM A RANGE OF DIFFERENT THINGS ` SOMETIMES IT'S ACTUALLY PHILANTHROPIC CAPITAL, AND THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE, THE TINDALL FOUNDATION, FOR EXAMPLE, INVOLVED IN FUNDING THIS ` THEY TAKE THE FUNDING STREAM, THEY CAN THEN BANK THAT AND GO AND USE THAT MONEY TO BUILD ACTUAL PHYSICAL HOMES. WE'RE MUCH MORE INTO THAT MODEL THAN THE LAST GOVERNMENT, WHICH BASICALLY FUNNELLED A LOT OF MONEY TO KAIGA ORA, AND WE'VE GOT THAT UNDER REVIEW, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT CONFIDENT THEY DID A PARTICULARLY GOOD JOB OF BUILDING HOUSES WITH THAT MONEY. SO IF WE LOOK FORWARD OVER THE NEXT 18 MONTHS OR SO, SHOULD WE EXPECT YOU TO FUND THE ACTUAL BUILDING OF HOUSES BEYOND JUNE OF 2025? WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO GET AHEAD OF BUDGET DECISIONS. THE CURRENT FUNDING TRACK THAT WE COMMITTED TO IN THE ELECTION IS FOR THE SOCIAL HOUSING TRACK THROUGH TO JUNE 2025. I'M NOT GOING TO GET AHEAD OF BUDGET DISCUSSIONS. BUT WHAT I CAN SAY AT A GENERAL LEVEL IS WE NEED TO GROW SOCIAL HOUSING SUPPLY IN NEW ZEALAND, BUT THERE'S A RANGE OF WAYS TO DO THAT. YOU SAID THIS WEEK YOU WANT TO END THE 'BLIGHT' THAT IS EMERGENCY HOUSING ` THAT WAS THE WORD YOU CHOSE. AND PART OF THAT MEANS INCREASING SCRUTINY OF THOSE WHO ARE APPLYING FOR EMERGENCY HOUSING GRANTS. WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE THAT UNDESERVING PEOPLE ARE ACCESSING EMERGENCY HOUSING GRANTS AT THE MOMENT? YEAH, SO FOR US FUNDAMENTALLY IT'S ABOUT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. SO OBVIOUSLY THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A PLACE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY HOUSING FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED IT. WHEN IT STARTED ` AND IT STARTED LIFE UNDER THE LAST NATIONAL GOVERNMENT ` IN 2016, 2017, IT STARTED LIFE AS A SHORT-TERM MEASURE. YOU KNOW, THE GOVERNMENT GIVES YOU A GRANT, A VOUCHER, YOU TAKE IT` TO MY QUESTION, THEN ` WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE THAT UNDESERVING PEOPLE ARE ACCESSING THOSE GRANTS AT THE MOMENT? ANECDOTAL FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY AND FROM MSD, BUT ALSO FROM THE COMMUNITY. ANECTODAL FEEDBACK? YEAH, WELL, LOOK, THIS IS A TOUGH AREA, RIGHT? THIS IS A REALLY, REALLY TOUGH AREA. WE'VE HAD ADVICE FROM... SO WHAT PERCENTAGE OF EMERGENCY HOUSING GRANTS ARE DENIED AT THE MOMENT? DO YOU KNOW THAT? NOT MANY. FROM MEMORY, IN THE LAST YEAR, ABOUT 2500, 2600, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, OVER 100,000. THAT'S QUITE A FEW. BUT THAT IS STILL QUITE A FEW, ISN'T IT? WELL, IN RELATION TO THE OVERALL NUMBER OF OVER 100,000 ` 120,000 GRANTS GIVEN ` YOU KNOW, 3000 FAMILIES THERE RIGHT NOW. NUMBERS HAVE COME BACK A BIT RECENTLY, BUT 3000 FAMILIES, THE AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY IS 26 WEEKS. NOT MANY ARE DECLINED. WE'RE JUST SAYING TO MSD, YEP, YOU SHOULD HAVE THE SUPPORT AVAILABLE IF PEOPLE NEED IT, BUT YOU DO NEED TO ASK A FEW QUESTIONS OF PEOPLE LIKE, 'ARE THERE OTHER PLACES YOU CAN STAY?' GOING A MOTEL SHOULD NOT BE THE FIRST CHOICE FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED SUPPORT. DO YOU NOT THINK THAT MSD ASKS THAT AT THE MOMENT? THEY DO, TECHNICALLY. WE'RE ASKING THEM TO REALLY INVIGILATE PEOPLE A BIT MORE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PROVIDING TAXPAYER SUPPORT TO PEOPLE WHO REALLY NEED SUPPORT. YOU'VE SAID THAT YOU WON'T BE SUPPORTING PEOPLE WHO HAVE 'UNREASONABLY CONTRIBUTED TO THEIR EMERGENCY HOUSING NEED.' WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ARE A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ABUSE THEIR RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES WHEN IT COMES TO EMERGENCY HOUSING. THEY TRASH THE PLACE, FOR EXAMPLE. AND, PEOPLE WATCHING` THIS PEOPLE WHO ARE APPLYING FOR GRANTS IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND IF THEY'VE 'UNREASONABLY CONTRIBUTED TO THEIR EMERGENCY HOUSING NEED.' PEOPLE HAVE TO REAPPLY, RIGHT? THAT'S THE THING, IS OFTEN THE GRANTS ARE FOR, SAY, A WEEK, TWO WEEKS, THREE WEEKS. PEOPLE HAVE TO REAPPLY. AND YOU'VE SHORTENED THAT WINDOW NOW TOO. WE'RE GOING TO SHORTEN THAT WINDOW, YES. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THOUGH, IF SOMEONE HAS UNREASONABLY CONTRIBUTED TO THEIR EMERGENCY HOUSING NEED, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE WHO'S ALREADY IN EMERGENCY HOUSING OR IN SOCIAL HOUSING AND HAS TRASHED THE PLACE. YEAH, I MEAN, UNFORTUNATELY THERE ARE A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO DO THAT. AND THERE WILL BE PEOPLE WATCHING THIS MORNING WHO HAVE SEEN THAT IN THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES. AND IT'S TRAGIC. BUT THE TAXPAYER, AT SOME POINT HAS TO SAY, LOOK, WE'RE NOT JUST GOING TO KEEP FUNDING YOU TO TRASH MOTEL ROOMS AND LIVE IN SQUALOR. I DON'T THINK NEW ZEALANDERS WOULD ACCEPT THAT. SO WHERE DO THOSE PEOPLE GO? WELL, ULTIMATELY THEY WILL HAVE TO GO AND BUNK WITH FRIENDS AND FAMILY. AND THAT'S WHAT SOME PEOPLE DO NOW. BUT WOULDN'T THEY HAVE DONE THAT IF MSD HAD GIVEN THEM THE GREATER SCRUTINY THAT YOU'RE INTRODUCING? WELL, THEORETICALLY. AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO TRY AND GET TO. SO THEY ONLY GET EMERGENCY HOUSING IF THEY DON'T HAVE ANYONE TO STAY WITH. WE WANT TO MAKE IT GENUINELY A LAST RESORT. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ACCESSING EMERGENCY HOUSING, IT'S THERE AS THE FINAL PORT OF CALL FOR PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY NEED IT. THAT'S HOW IT STARTED, BUT IT'S GROWN INTO THIS GIANT INDUSTRY. SO MY QUESTION IS, WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE PEOPLE FOR WHOM IT IS A LAST RESORT, WHO YOU SAY HAVE UNREASONABLY CONTRIBUTED TO THEIR EMERGENCY HOUSING NEED, BY TRASHING IT, FOR EXAMPLE? THERE'LL ALWAYS BE SUPPORT FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED IT. THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT IS NOT GOING TO SIT AROUND... WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE SLEEPING ON THE STREET. I GET THAT, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT PEOPLE WHO DON'T RESPECT THE ROOF OVER THEIR HEADS FUNDED BY THE TAXPAYER SHOULD NOT EXPECT TO CONTINUE HAVING THAT SUPPORT? SO MY QUESTION IS, WHERE DO THOSE PEOPLE GO? AT THE MOST BASIC LEVEL, THERE MAY WELL BE PEOPLE WHO MISS OUT ON EMERGENCY HOUSING SUPPORT. WE ARE TIGHTENING THE ELIGIBILITY. AND SO WHERE DO THEY GO? THEY WILL HAVE TO FIND AN ALTERNATIVE PLACE TO STAY. BUT THE TAXPAYER AT SOME POINT HAS TO SAY, WE'RE NOT FUNDING YOUR BAD LIFESTYLE CHOICES. WHAT'S AN ALTERNATIVE PLACE TO STAY? FRIENDS AND FAMILY. THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE DO NOW, AND THAT OPTION BECOMES AVAILABLE. THEY ONLY GET EMERGENCY HOUSING IF THEY DON'T HAVE FRIENDS OR FAMILY. THAT'S THE SCRUTINY THAT YOU'RE INTRODUCING. WELL, NOT NECESSARILY. AT THE MOMENT, THE STATUS QUO` WE'RE GOING AROUND IN CIRCLES. YES, WE ARE, BUT THESE CHANGES ARE HAPPENING CONTEMPORANEOUSLY. WELL, THESE ARE THE RULES AND SETTINGS THAT YOU ARE APPLYING. WELL, WE'RE GOING TO STRENGTH` SO, THEORETICALLY THESE THINGS EXIST RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? WE'RE GOING TO STRENGTHEN ALL OF THESE ELIGIBILITY CHECKS AND ALL OF THESE VERIFICATION CHECKS AT THE SAME TIME. I THINK IT'S WHAT NEW ZEALANDERS WOULD EXPECT. YOU ARE ALLOWING COUNCILS TO OPT OUT OF THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS, WHICH OF COURSE YOU PREVIOUSLY SUPPORTED IN A BIPARTISAN ACCORD, SO LONG AS THOSE COUNCILS PROVIDE FOR 30 YEARS OF HOUSING GROWTH. CAN YOU GIVE US A DEFINITION AROUND THAT? WHAT EXACTLY IS 30 YEARS OF HOUSING GROWTH? WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THAT RIGHT NOW, AND I'M TAKING A BIT OF TIME TO GET THAT RIGHT. BECAUSE THAT DEFINITION IS CRITICAL, RIGHT? ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S WHY WE'RE TAKING THE TIME TO GET IT RIGHT. THE DEFINITION IS REALLY IMPORTANT, BECAUSE WE WANT TO LIVE-ZONE 30 YEARS OF IMMEDIATE GROWTH, FLOOD THE MARKET WITH DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES, DRIVE DOWN LAND PRICES AT THE EDGE OF A CITY AND INSIDE CITIES. SO WE'RE JUST TAKING THE TIME TO GET THAT RIGHT. I'VE GOT A GROUP OF EXTREMELY SMART PEOPLE WORKING ON IT, AND I'M NOT QUITE READY TO ANNOUNCE IT YET TODAY, JACK. WHEN DO YOU THINK YOU WILL? OH, VERY SOON. IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS. BEFORE THE BUDGET? YES, BEFORE THE BUDGET. IT'S IMPORTANT, BECAUSE A LOT OF CHANGES HINGE ON THAT DEFINITION. WE GET THE 30 YEARS RIGHT, WE MAKE THE MEDIUM DENSITY STANDARDS OPTIONAL. AND ALL THE COUNCILS ARE GOING THROUGH THEIR PLAN CHANGE PROCESSES AT THE MOMENT ` AUCKLAND, WELLINGTON, CHRISTCHURCH ` AND SO HERE'S A LOT OF INTEREST IN THAT. THE REASON I ASK IS BOTH AUCKLAND AND CHRISTCHURCH SAY AT THE MOMENT THEIR URBAN PLANS ALREADY ALLOW FOR 30 YEARS OF GROWTH. SO IS THERE A POSSIBILITY WE WILL ACTUALLY SEE NO CHANGES IN OUR TWO BIGGEST CITIES? I'M TAKING ADVICE ON THAT. BUT THAT'S A POSSIBILITY? I THINK IT'S UNLIKELY THAT THAT WOULD BE THE CASE. WE WANT MANY MORE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN AUCKLAND AND CHRISTCHURCH, AND MOST PARTICULARLY WE WANT MORE OPPORTUNITIES IN WELLINGTON, WHICH HAS A REAL HOUSING SHORTAGE. SO WE'RE JUST WORKING THAT THROUGH. THE AUCKLAND SITUATION IS A BIT MORE CHALLENGING, BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT THE FLOOD RESPONSE FROM LAST YEAR. AND ALSO THE LAST GOVERNMENT EXCLUDED A MASSIVE SECTION OF THE REZONING FOR THE AUCKLAND LIGHT RAIL PROJECT, WHICH OF COURSE IS NOT HAPPENING ANY MORE. YEAH, RIGHT. BUT LOOKING AT THE UNITARY PLAN IN AUCKLAND, FOR EXAMPLE, THEIR FORECAST DEMAND, IN TERMS OF DWELLINGS, UP TO 2051 ` SO ALMOST 30 YEARS ` WAS UP TO 384,000 DWELLINGS. AN ANALYSIS OF THE UNITARY PLAN TWO YEARS AGO FOUND IT ALLOWED FOR MORE THAN 900,000 DWELLINGS IF EVERY SINGLE SECTION IS DEVELOPED TO ITS ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM. SO THAT'S THE CRITICAL POINT, RIGHT? UNDER THE CURRENT UNITARY PLAN, YOU COULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT ACTUALLY AUCKLAND DOESN'T NEED TO CHANGE A THING. THERE'S TWO POINTS THERE. ONE IS FORECAST DEMAND FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS. AND OF COURSE WHAT ABOUT THE DEMAND THAT WE HAVEN'T MET FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS, WHICH HAS LED US TO THE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS THAT WE HAVE? BUT STILL, THAT'S 900,000 DWELLINGS. 900,000 DWELLINGS IS FOUR MILLION PEOPLE, RIGHT? YEAH, BUT WE NEED TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THE FORECAST DEMAND IS OVER THE NEXT 30 YEARS. FORECAST DEMAND OVER 30 YEARS ISN'T FOUR MILLION PEOPLE. BUT THAT'S HOW YOU DRIVE DOWN LAND PRICES. I UNDERSTAND, BUT YOU'D HAVE TO GO A LONG WAY BEYOND THE FORECAST DEMAND. I MEAN, 900,000 DWELLINGS, UNDER THE CURRENT UNITARY PLAN. YOU'RE RAISING A COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE POINT. AND WE'RE WORKING THAT THROUGH. MY POLICY GOAL IS TO HAVE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO BUILD AT THE FRINGE OF THE CITY AND AT THE EDGE OF THE CITY AND LET THE DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS DICTATE WHERE DEVELOPMENT TAKES PLACE, RATHER THAN ARTIFICIAL PLANNING RULES AROUND WHAT TAKES PLACE. WILL THERE BE ANYTHING TO TO STOP COUNCILS FROM FOCUSING THAT 30 YEARS OF HOUSING SUPPLY IN NEIGHBOURHOODS THAT ARE A LONG WAY FROM CITY CENTRES? AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT. IT MAY BE THAT WE TAKE A GRADUATED APPROACH, SO THAT THEY HAVE TO OPEN UP SOME GREENFIELDS LAND, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE TO OPEN UP SOME LAND CLOSER TO THE CITY. TELL US MORE ABOUT THAT. WHAT WOULD A GRADUATED APPROACH LOOK LIKE, AN APPROPRIATE BALANCE? WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT. AT THE FRINGE, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE SMASH THE METROPOLITAN URBAN LIMIT IN AUCKLAND. AUCKLAND HAS TO GROW OUT. AND THE EVIDENCE FROM THE INFRASTRUCTURE COMMISSION, FOR EXAMPLE, IS THAT THE PRICE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN LAND ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE ZONE AND THE INSIDE OF THE ZONE IS EXTREMELY BIG. THOSE LAND DIFFERENTIAL PRICES FLOW THROUGH TO APARTMENTS IN AUCKLAND CITY. SO PEOPLE PAY MORE FOR AN APARTMENT IN AUCKLAND CITY BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T ZONED LAND AT THE FRINGE OF THE CITY. THE ECONOMIC EVIDENCE ON THAT IS REALLY CLEAR. BUT THERE ARE ALSO A WHOLE HEAP OF RELATIVELY WEALTHY SUBURBS RIGHT NEXT TO THE CITY CENTRE THAT HAVEN'T BEEN DEVELOPED. YES, THAT'S TRUE. THE UNITARY PLAN PLAN DOES A LOT IN THAT RESPECT ` THE POINT YOU MADE BEFORE, YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT THAT ` THERE'S MORE THAT CAN BE DONE. BUT EQUALLY, WE'VE ALSO HEARD THE MESSAGE FROM SOME COMMUNITIES IN AUCKLAND THAT THEY WANT THE COUNCIL TO HAVE MORE DISCRETION AND FLEXIBILITY ABOUT THAT. THAT'S NOT JUST AN AUCKLAND ISSUE. THERE'S OTHER COMMUNITIES TOO. YOU HAVE SET SOME RELATIVELY LOOSE TARGETS FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY OVER THE LONG TERM. WHAT ADVICE HAVE YOU HAD ABOUT THE IMPACT OF YOUR LANDLORD TAX CUTS ON HOUSE PRICES? WELL, THE IMPACT` THE ADVICE WE'VE HAD IN RELATION TO RENT AFFORDABILITY IS THAT IT PUTS DOWNWARD PRESSURE ON RENTS. I'M TALKING ABOUT HOUSE PRICES, THOUGH, NOT RENTS, HOUSE PRICES. I HAVEN'T HAD SPECIFIC ADVICE ON THE IMPACT ON HOUSE PRICES. YOU HAVE NO ADVICE ON WHAT THOSE BIG CHANGES WILL DO TO HOUSE PRICES? WELL, I HAVEN'T HAD SPECIFIC ADVICE ON THAT. SHOULDN'T YOU HAVE HAD ADVICE ON THAT? WELL, THE WAY THE PAPER FLOW WORKS IS IT'S A ESSENTIALLY A FINANCE PAPER, SO I HAVEN'T HAD, AS HOUSING MINISTER, SPECIFIC ADVICE ABOUT THAT. I HAVE SEEN ADVICE AROUND REMOVING THE... OR BRINGING BACK INTEREST DEDUCTIBILITY FOR LANDLORDS WILL PUT DOWNWARD PRESSURE ON RENTS. ON RENTS. ON RENTS. AND THAT'S IMPORTANT, BECAUSE RENTAL AFFORDABILITY IS A BIG DRIVER OF THE WAIT LIST. SO WHAT WOULD BE YOUR EXPECTATION AS TO WHAT IT WILL DO TO HOUSE PRICES? YOU THINK IT'LL BRING RENTS DOWN, BUT WHAT WILL IT DO TO HOUSE PRICES? WELL, THE ULTIMATE DRIVER OF HOUSE PRICES IS SUPPLY AND DEMAND OF HOUSING. SO YOU DON'T THINK THAT CHANGING THIS POLICY WILL HAVE ANY IMPACT? WELL, I THINK WILL POTENTIALLY MAY INCENTIVISE MORE... MORE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENTAL PROPERTIES. THAT IS ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, A GOOD THING FOR RENTAL AFFORDABILITY. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M VERY FOCUSED ON. WON'T IT ALSO JUST INCENTIVISE HOUSING IS AN INVESTMENT? WELL, ULTIMATELY WHAT WE WANT TO DO ACROSS THE HOUSING... JUST ANSWER THAT, THOUGH. WILL IT INCENTIVISE HOUSING AS AN INVESTMENT CLASS? I DON'T BELIEVE SO. BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE DOING IS RETURNING TO BASIC PRINCIPLES OF TAX LAW, WHICH IS THAT INTEREST IS AN EXPENSE THAT YOU CAN DEDUCT AGAINST YOUR INCOME. I UNDERSTAND THE CHANGES. IS IT MORE LUCRATIVE FOR LANDLORDS TO HAVE INTEREST DEDUCTIBILITY IN PLACE OR NOT TO HAVE IT IN PLACE? WELL, CLEARLY IT IS BETTER FOR LANDLORDS TO HAVE INTEREST DEDUCTIBILITY IN PLACE. AND THAT IS PARTLY WHY WANT` SO THIS CHANGE MAKES HOUSING AS AN INVESTMENT CLASS MORE LUCRATIVE. IT'S PARTLY WHY WE WANT TO DO IT, BECAUSE WE NEED MUM-AND-DAD LANDLORDS IN THE MARKET. RIGHT? A LOT OF THEM HAVE EXITED THE MARKET POST THE INTEREST DEDUCTIBILITY CHANGES. SO YOU WOULD ACCEPT THAT IT MAKES IT MORE LUCRATIVE AS AN INVESTMENT CLASS? WELL, YES. ON THE MARGINS, YES. HOW MUCH IS IT GOING TO COST, THOSE POLICIES? WELL YOU'LL WAIT AND SEE WHEN WHEN THE ANNOUNCEMENTS ARE MADE. WAIT AND SEE? I'M NOT THE FINANCE MINISTER. YOU'LL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE. YOU ARE THE HOUSING MINISTER. I AM, BUT THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY A TAX ISSUE. AND I'M NOT TRYING TO DODGE THE QUESTION, I'M JUST SAYING, IT'S NOT FOR ME TO ANNOUNCE THAT. YOU HAVE SET TARGETS FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IN NEW ZEALAND. SO I'VE GOT ONE LAST QUESTION, THEN. THE MEDIAN HOUSE PRICE AS IT STANDS IN NEW ZEALAND IS ABOUT 6.6 TIMES THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME. SO RELATIVE TO INCOMES, WILL HOUSE PRICES IN NEW ZEALAND BE MORE OR LESS EXPENSIVE AT THE END OF THIS PARLIAMENTARY TERM? AT THE END OF 2026? I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE A PREDICTION OR FORECAST THAT. BUT WHAT'S YOUR TARGET, THOUGH? WELL, AS I'VE SAID PUBLICLY, THREE TO FIVE. YOU'VE GIVEN ME THE LONG-TERM TARGET. SO I'M ASKING FOR THE TARGET FOR THIS PARLIAMENTARY TERM. SHOULD HOUSES BE MORE OR LESS EXPENSIVE RELATIVE TO HOUSEHOLD INCOMES THAN THEY ARE TODAY? I WANT THEM TO BE MORE AFFORDABLE. WHETHER OR NOT THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE. THERE'S A RANGE OF THINGS GOING ON. WE'RE IN A CONSTRUCTION SECTOR DOWNTURN AT THE MOMENT. THE OCR HAS BEEN CRANKED UP. PEOPLE ARE FINDING IT HARD TO GET FINANCE. WE'RE IN A DOWNTURN. THE CONSTRUCTION SECTOR IS CYCLICAL, INCLUDING IN RESIDENTIAL. YOU'RE THE TARGETS GUY. WE'RE THE TARGETS GOVERNMENT. JUST NOT FOR THIS. WELL, NO, I'VE SET A TARGET. IN THE MEDIUM TO LONG TERM I WANT HOUSE PRICE TO BE... SO GIVE US GIVE US A TANGIBLE MARKER SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY ASSESS YOUR PROGRESS OVER THE TERM THAT YOU'RE IN GOVERNMENT. IN THE NEXT 24 MONTHS, I'M NOT WILLING TO DO THAT, BECAUSE IT'S A CYCLICAL MARKET, AND WE'RE IN A CYCLICAL TIME. AND IN THE MEDIUM TO LONG TERM, I WANT HOUSE PRICES TO BE ABOUT THREE TO FIVE TIMES HOUSEHOLD INCOME. THAT WOULD MAKE NEW ZEALAND HOUSING MORE AFFORDABLE. AND THAT WOULD HAVE A TRANSFORMATIVE EFFECT ON THE NEW ZEALAND ECONOMY. AFTER THE BREAK ` THE BALANCE BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND DRIVING ECONOMIC GROWTH AND THE NEW BILL WHICH COULD SEE COAL MINES FAST-TRACKED. AFTER REPEALING ITS PREDECESSOR'S RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REFORMS, THE GOVERNMENT HAS INTRODUCED A BILL TO ESTABLISH WHAT IT CALLS A ONE-STOP-SHOP FOR CONSENTING BIG PROJECTS OF NATIONAL OR REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE. BUT CRITICS SAY THE FAST-TRACKING PROCESS RISKS ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHE. AFTER THE BILL PASSED ITS FIRST READING UNDER URGENCY, I ASKED CHRIS BISHOP WHAT HE'S HOPING TO ACHIEVE. WE WANT TO UNCLOG THE COUNTRY FROM THE RED AND GREEN TAPE THAT'S HOLDING IT BACK. IF YOU LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE FROM THE INFRASTRUCTURE COMMISSION, FOR EXAMPLE, WE SPEND 1.3 BILLION BUCKS A YEAR ON RESOURCE CONSENTS. FROM 2014 TO 2019, THE TIME IT TOOK TO GET A RESOURCE CONSENT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE DOUBLED ` WAY TOO LONG. WE ALL PAY THE COST OF THAT, BY THE WAY. AND SO THIS IS ABOUT UNCLOGGING THE SYSTEM, MAKING IT EASIER TO DO THINGS ` MORE AQUACULTURE, MORE HOUSING, MORE RENEWABLE ENERGY, MORE INFRASTRUCTURE, MORE ROADS, MORE PUBLIC TRANSPORT, GETTING THOSE CONSENTS UP AND RUNNING, SO THAT INVESTORS CAN MAKE THOSE DECISIONS AND GET THEM BUILT. - SO, IN REAL TERMS, JUST GIVE US A SENSE AS TO THE KINDS OF PROJECTS THAT COULD BE APPROVED UNDER THE UNDER THE FAST-TRACKING LEGISLATION. FISH FARMS, YES? - YES. - NEW DAMS? - YES. - NEW ROADS? - YES. - SEABED MINING? - POSSIBLY. IF THERE'S AN APPLICATION, POSSIBLY. - COAL MINES? - YES. IN A COUNTRY AS ENVIRONMENTALLY PRECIOUS AND FRAGILE AS NEW ZEALAND, WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL DOWNSIDES TO FAST-TRACKING THOSE KINDS OF CONSENTS? - WELL, I DON'T ACCEPT THE BINARY THAT YOU CAN EITHER HAVE THE ECONOMY OR THE ENVIRONMENT ` I THINK YOU CAN ACTUALLY DO BOTH. - IT'S A BALANCE, RIGHT? THAT'S THE ARGUMENT. AND YOU THINK THIS STRIKES A BETTER BALANCE. BUT THERE ARE STILL POTENTIAL DOWNSIDES. AND SO I WANT TO KNOW, IN A COUNTRY LIKE NEW ZEALAND, WHAT ARE THOSE POTENTIAL DOWNSIDES, AS YOU SEE THEM? THE DOWNSIDES THAT YOU ARE WEIGHING UP. - WELL, I JUST REJECT THE BINARY, RIGHT? LIKE, YOU CAN YOU CAN DO PROJECTS THAT IMPACT THE ENVIRONMENT WHILE STILL PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT. YOU CAN BUILD A NEW ROAD AND MAKE SURE YOU TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THAT NEW ROAD. ACTUALLY, RENEWABLE ENERGY IS A CLASSIC, WHERE THE BINARY JUST DOESN'T EXIST. BUILDING A WIND FARM HAS AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. BUILDING A DAM, FOR A HYDRO SCHEME HAS AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. - YEAH, BUT I MEAN, THE BALANCE` - YOU KNOW, BUT ALSO, IT LOWERS CARBON EMISSIONS. - YEAH. - YOU KNOW, AND DECARBONISATION ` I MEAN, THE LAST GOVERNMENT DECLARED A CLIMATE EMERGENCY, AND MADE IT BLOODY IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD A WIND FARM. - YEAH, I'M NOT LOOKING AT THE WAY THEY WERE RUNNING THINGS. BUT IT IS A SIGNIFICANT SHIFT IN TERMS OF IN TERMS OF THE BALANCE BETWEEN. - IT IS DEFINITELY A SHIFT. THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. - YEAH, YEAH. AND SO WHEN YOU WERE TRYING TO STRIKE THAT BALANCE, I WANT TO GET A REALLY GOOD APPRECIATION OF YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHAT THE MOST SIGNIFICANT DOWNSIDES ARE. - WELL, THE DOWNSIDES ARE, I THINK, RELATIVELY OBVIOUS TO EVERYBODY, WHICH IS THAT, DEPENDING ON THE SCOPE AND NATURE OF THE PROJECT, THERE WILL BE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT IT'S ALL ABOUT HOW YOU MITIGATE THAT, HOW YOU LIMIT THAT ` TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE EFFECTS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT. A WIND FARM HAS A DIFFERENT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT COMPARED TO A COAL MINE, FOR EXAMPLE; HYDRO DIFFERENT TO BUILDING A NEW ROAD ` IT DEPENDS ON THE INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCE AND THE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT. - SO UNDER THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT'S FAST-TRACKING SCHEME, AN EXPERT PANEL HAD THE FINAL SAY ON WHICH PROJECTS WERE ULTIMATELY PUT FORWARD FOR THE FAST-TRACKING PROCESS. MINISTERS DIDN'T MAKE THAT CALL ` IT WAS UP TO THE PANEL TO MAKE THAT CALL. BUT UNDER YOUR REGIME, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A SIMILAR ADVISORY GROUP, PUTTING FORWARD THE PROJECTS THAT MIGHT GO AHEAD FOR FAST-TRACKING, BUT MINISTERS ARE GOING TO HAVE THE ULTIMATE DISCRETION; THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THE FINAL SAY. - YES, MINISTERS REFER THE PROJECTS TO THE EXPERT PANEL; THE EXPERT PANEL APPLIES TO THE CONDITIONS AND THE VARIOUS LIMITS THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE TO MEET, AND THEN THE FINAL DECISION-MAKING GOES BACK TO MINISTERS. - SO HANG ON. IT IS MINISTERS WHO DECIDE WHICH PROJECTS ARE UP FOR THE FAST TRACK AND CONSENT IN THE FIRST PLACE, AS OPPOSED TO AN EXPERT PANEL? - CORRECT. - WHY SHOULD MINISTERS HAVE THAT DISCRETION? - WELL, THAT WAS THE STATUS QUO UNDER THE LAST GOVERNMENT AS WELL. SO, THE LAST GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY LEGISLATED 17 PROJECTS TO GO INTO THE FAST TRACK. WE'VE SET UP AN INDEPENDENT PANEL TO PROVIDE US ADVICE ON WHAT PROJECTS SHOULD GO INTO THE BILL TO START WITH. AND WE'VE REPLICATED THEIR EXPERT PANEL MODEL, WHEN IT COMES TO THE CONDITIONS. - AND THAT PANEL, WHO PUT FORWARD THE PROJECTS TO GO INTO THE BILL TO START WITH, THEY DON'T MAKE THE CALL, RIGHT? ULTIMATELY, THE MINISTER MAKES THE CALL AS TO WHICH PROJECTS ARE ACCEPTED? - YEAH, SO THE LAST GOVERNMENT PUT 17 PROJECTS, PUT THEM IN THE BILL. THEY AUTOMATICALLY GOT REFERRED TO THE EXPERT PANEL TO APPLY THE CONDITIONS, AND THEN THEY MADE THE DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT WENT AHEAD OR NOT. WE'VE KEPT THE EXPERT PANEL BIT. WE'VE SAID, IN RELATION TO THE PROJECTS THAT GET IMMEDIATE FAST TRACK, AS PART OF THE PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN INDEPENDENT EXPERT GROUP TO PROVIDE THE ADVICE ON THAT. BUT THE FINAL DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY, WITH THIS, YOU'RE COMPLETELY CORRECT, IS MINISTERS. - YEAH. DID THE LAST GOVERNMENT LIST THE PROJECTS THAT WERE GOING AHEAD WITH FAST-TRACKING FOR THE FIRST READING OF THE BILL, PUBLICLY? - YES, THEY DID. IT WAS IN THE COVID-19 FAST TRACK AMENDMENT BILL 2020, I THINK, IT WAS PASSED. - WILL YOUR GOVERNMENT COMMIT TO DOING THE SAME BEFORE IT GOES TO SELECT COMMITTEE? - WELL, IT'S ALREADY GONE TO SELECT COMMITTEE. SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS RUN AN INDEPENDENT PROCESS THROUGH AN EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP, AND THEN WE WILL PUT THE PROJECTS INTO THE BILL LATER AS PART OF THE PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS. - SO NO IS THE ANSWER. - WE'RE CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD HAVE THAT LIST AVAILABLE TO THE SELECT COMMITTEE, BUT I'D ACTUALLY RATHER THE SELECT COMMITTEE FOCUS ITS TIME ON GETTING THE BILL RIGHT. IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED PIECE OF LEGISLATION ` A LOT OF DETAILS TO GET RIGHT ACROSS PUBLIC WORKS, CONSERVATION ACT, WILDLIFE ACT, RMA. THIS IS A ONE-STOP SHOP ` SO IT'S NOT JUST THE RMA; IT'S A WHOLE SUITE OF LEGISLATION. - SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THOUGH ` THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT PUBLICLY LISTED THE PROJECTS FOR FAST-TRACKING, WHEN IT WENT TO SELECT COMMITTEE. - YES. - YOUR GOVERNMENT IS NOT DOING THAT. IS THAT DEMOCRATIC? - WELL, I THINK IT'S COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE. ACTUALLY, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS GOING THROUGH A TRANSPARENT PROCESS. I MEAN, HOW DID THOSE 17 PROJECTS MAKE ITS WAY INTO THE BILL LAST TIME? NO ONE ACTUALLY KNOWS. BASICALLY, THE GOVERNMENT JUST WENT AROUND AND FOUND SOME PROJECTS. - BUT THE PUBLIC HAD HAD SOME SAY THROUGH THE SELECT COMMITTEE PROCESS. - YEAH. - THIS TIME, THE PUBLIC'S JUST STUMBLING AROUND IN THE DARK ` WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT KIND OF PROJECTS ARE GOING TO BE PUT THROUGH. - I ARGUE WE'RE RUNNING A MORE TRANSPARENT PROCESS, IN THE SENSE THAT WE'RE GETTING AN INDEPENDENT GROUP TO HAVE A LOOK AT IT, SEPARATE FROM MINISTERS. THEY'LL PROVIDE THE ADVICE TO MINISTERS. BUT AS I SAY, WE'RE CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD PUT THAT PROJECT LIST BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, SO THAT PEOPLE CAN HAVE A SAY ON THAT, SO I'M NOT RULING THAT OUT. I THINK I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ` THERE'S A LEGITIMATE POINT AROUND THAT. THE ISSUE THAT I'VE GOT IS THAT THE SELECT COMMITTEE WILL BECOME OVERWHELMED BY THE PROJECTS, RATHER THAN THE MECHANISM OF THE LAW ITSELF, BUT WE'RE JUST WORKING THAT THROUGH, SO I'M NOT RULING IT OUT. - WILL PROJECTS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY REJECTED BY THE COURTS BE ELIGIBLE FOR FAST-TRACKING? - YES, THEY WILL. THAT WILL BE OVER TO APPLICANTS. AND THERE ALSO MAY BE SITUATIONS WHERE PEOPLE HAVE CURRENT RESOURCE CONSENTS THROUGH THAT ARE PARTWAY THROUGH THE PROCESS, THAT THEY MAY WISH TO WITHDRAW AND RESUBMIT THROUGH THE FAST-TRACK PROCESS. THAT'LL BE OPEN TO THE APPLICANTS. - IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR MINISTERS TO USE MINISTERIAL DISCRETION TO ESSENTIALLY OVERRULE JUDICIAL DECISIONS? - WELL, WE'RE TRYING TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM. I MAKE NO APOLOGIES FOR IT. WE ARE DELIBERATELY DISRUPTING THE SYSTEM. THE STATUS QUO WAS FAILING NEW ZEALAND. IT JUST IS. IT COSTS TOO MUCH TO DO THINGS; IT TAKES TOO MUCH TIME. IT COSTS TOO MUCH MONEY. IT'S HOLDING NEW ZEALAND BACK. WE WERE ELECTED AS A GOVERNMENT ON A MANDATE TO DO THINGS, TO MAKE IT EASIER TO GET GEOTHERMAL UP AND RUNNING, MORE WIND, MORE HOUSING, MORE MINES, MORE AQUACULTURE. WE MAKE NO APOLOGIES FOR IT ` THIS IS DELIBERATELY DESIGNED TO DISRUPT THE SYSTEM. - AND WHAT IF IT GOES WRONG? WHAT IF YOU MAKE THE WRONG CALL? WHAT IF YOU GIVE SOMETHING A CONSENT THAT WOULD NOT OTHERWISE HAVE GOT A CONSENT, AND IT CAUSES WHO KNOWS WHAT KIND OF ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE? - I THINK THERE WILL BE PROJECTS THAT WILL BE GRANTED CONSENT THAT WOULD NOT OTHERWISE HAVE GOT A CONSENT UNDER THE STATUS QUO. FRANKLY, I HOPE THAT'S THE CASE. THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING IT. - AND MY QUESTION IS, WHAT IF IT GOES WRONG? WHAT IF YOU, AS MINISTER, EXERCISING DISCRETION, MAKE THE WRONG CALL AND IT ENDS UP CAUSING MASSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE? - ULTIMATELY, THE PUBLIC WILL BE ABLE TO JUDGE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT IN LATE 2026 ` THAT'S HOW OUR DEMOCRACY WORKS. WE'RE PUTTING OUR CARDS ON THE TABLE. WE THINK THE STATUS QUO IS WRONG. WE'RE CHANGING IT. WE'RE MAKING IT EASIER TO DO THINGS. IF PEOPLE DON'T AGREE WITH THAT, WELL, THEY CAN THROW US OUT IN THREE YEARS TIME. - WHY ISN'T THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT ABLE TO MAKE ANY DECISIONS HERE? - BECAUSE THIS IS PRIMARILY AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STATUTE. SO IT'S THE MINISTER FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY ME; SHANE JONES IS REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT; AND TRANSPORT, WHICH IS SIMEON BROWN. - DOESN'T IMPACT ENVIRONMENT? - OF COURSE IT IMPACTS THE ENVIRONMENT. BUT THE PERMITS` - COAL MINES. - SURE. - SEABED MINING. - BUT HOW HOW THOSE THINGS ARE MANAGED, THE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT IS BEING DEALT WITH BY THE EXPERT PANEL. THEY'RE THE EXPERTS. - WHAT ENVIRONMENTAL CREDENTIALS WILL THAT EXPERT PANEL HAVE? - OH, SO WE'RE REPLICATING THE SAME STRUCTURE THAT THE CURRENT FAST TRACK HAS SET UP BY THE LAST GOVERNMENT. SO I WILL APPOINT THE PANEL CONVENOR, WHICH HAS TO BE A HIGH COURT JUDGE OR AN ENVIRONMENT COURT JUDGE. THE PANEL CONVENOR THEN ASSEMBLES THE EXPERT PANELS, AND THE EXPERT PANELS, THERE HAS TO BE ESSENTIALLY THE RMA EXPERT, SO THEY'RE PRACTICED IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW. WE'VE ALSO PUT A REQUIREMENT IN THERE AROUND CREDENTIALS WITH MAORI ISSUES, FOR EXAMPLE, TIKANGA AS WELL. - RIGHT. SO, IF THAT PANEL COMES TO YOU AND SAYS, YEP, YOU CAN GRANT THE CONSENT WITH ALL OF THESE CONDITIONS, A MINISTER CAN THEN PUSH BACK, RIGHT, AND SAY, 'NO, THERE ARE TOO MANY CONDITIONS ON THIS'? - CORRECT. - SO WHAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING A PANEL? IF A MINISTER CAN EXERCISE ULTIMATE DISCRETION, WHAT'S THE POINT? - THE POINT OF HAVING THE PANEL IS TO GO THROUGH THE PROJECT AND THE IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND WORK OUT THE WAYS IN WHICH THERE MAY BE LIMITS ON WHAT THEY CAN DO. THEN THEY HAVE TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS DIFFERENT THINGS ` THAT'S A HIGHLY TECHNICAL PROCESS. - YEAH, RIGHT. AND THEN THEY HAVE A MINISTER COME IN, AFTER THAT HIGHLY TECHNICAL PROCESS AND GO, 'NO, SORRY, THIS ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME. REMOVE SOME OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.' - WE'VE BUILT THAT IN BECAUSE WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THERE POTENTIALLY WILL BE SITUATIONS WHERE THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED ARE TOO ONEROUS. AND I GIVE YOU THE EXAMPLE OF THE MT MESSENGER BYPASS PROJECT, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE NZTA, IN PERPETUITY, IS SPENDING AN INORDINATE SUM OF MONEY ON ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION, AS A RESULT OF A PROCESS IMPOSED BY THE ENVIRONMENT COURT, AND WE'RE KEEN TO AVOID SITUATIONS WHERE THE CONDITIONS ARE SO ONEROUS THAT IT MAKES THE PROJECT UNVIABLE. AND SO THAT'S JUST ESSENTIALLY A BACKSTOP TO MAKE SURE THAT MINISTERS CAN SAY ACTUALLY, LET'S GO BACK AGAIN. - UNLESS, OF COURSE, IT'S UNVIABLE FOR A REASON, RIGHT. SINCE BECOMING THE MINISTER, HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH LOBBYISTS WHO REPRESENT CLIENTS WHO WANT PROJECTS INCLUDED IN THAT FAST-TRACK PROCESS? - I'VE HAD A RANGE OF EMAILS, AND, I THINK, SOME FORMAL LETTERS FROM PEOPLE LOBBYING FOR PROJECTS. I SUSPECT A LOT OF MINISTERS HAVE. - WILL YOU COMMIT TO MAKING THOSE PUBLIC? - WELL, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YEAH, I MEAN, IF PEOPLE OIA THEM, THEY'LL BE MADE PUBLIC. I MEAN, THERE'S BEEN A LOT. THAT'S PARTLY WHY WE SET UP THE INDEPENDENT PROCESS, BECAUSE I WANTED A SITUATION WHERE THERE WAS A GOOD ANALYTICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PROJECTS AND HOW REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT THEY WERE AND HOW NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT THEY WERE, AND I WANTED A SITUATION WHERE MINISTERS DIDN'T MAKE THOSE DECISIONS IN AN AD-HOC WAY, BEFORE THE BILL GOT INTRODUCED ` I WANTED TO SET UP A PROCESS, WHERE THERE WAS AN INDEPENDENT PANEL RUNNING THE RULER OVER THOSE PROJECTS AND PROVIDING FORMAL ADVICE TO US. SO I'VE DELIBERATELY SET UP THE SYSTEM TO MAKE SURE IT'S A CLEAN AND CLEAR, TRANSPARENT FAST TRACKING. DOES ENABLING THIS FAST TRACKING LEGISLATION INCENTIVISE LOBBYISTS? WELL, I... I'M NOT NECESSARILY SURE THAT'S CORRECT. I MEAN, THERE'S LOBBYING ON PROJECTS AND ON LAWS ALL THE TIME. THEN WHY HAVE WE HAD SO MANY EMAILS? WELL, BECAUSE WHEN WE ANNOUNCED` IN LATE JANUARY, EARLY FEBRUARY, I ANNOUNCED OUR INTENTION TO INTRODUCE A FAST-TRACK REGIME. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT IT, BECAUSE IT'S VERY HARD TO DO THINGS IN NEW ZEALAND. SO IT DOES INCETIVISE LOBBYING. WELL, PEOPLE ARE EXCITED ABOUT FAST TRACK. THERE'S PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO WANT TO USE THE LAW. SURE. SO I SUPPOSE IN THAT SENSE, THAT'S TRUE. THERE ARE PEOPLE WANT TO USE THE LAW. BUT, YOU KNOW, LOBBYING IS NOT ILLEGAL, AND IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A BAD THING. IT'S NOT A BAD THING? WELL, LOBBYING IS PART AND PARCEL OF DEMOCRACY. WHEN PEOPLE EMAIL THEIR MP, THEY'RE LOBBYING THEM. WHEN PEOPLE ASK FOR MEETINGS TO DISCUSS A LOCAL PROJECT, THAT'S LOBBYING. WHEN GREENPEACE SEND STUFF IN TELLING ME THAT I'M THE SCOURGE AND THE DEVIL AND THEY DON'T LIKE ME, THAT'S LOBBYING. THAT'S DEMOCRACY. SO, THEN, IN THE INTEREST OF DEMOCRACY, AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, IF I HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ABOUT A PROJECT GOING AHEAD, ONCE YOU'VE COMMITTED IT TO THE FAST-TRACK PROCESS, WILL I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME FORWARD AND MAKE A SUBMISSION? NOT AS A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO THE EXPERT PANEL. THAT'S THE STATUS QUO. THE LOBBYISTS CAN GET IN THERE. THAT'S DEMOCRACY. BUT AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, I CAN'T. NO, THEY DON'T. BE REALLY CLEAR. THE EXPERT PANELS APPLY THE CONDITIONS. I UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT WAS CHRIS BISHOP. WE HAD TO SNIP A COUPLE OF MINUTES OUT OF THE INTERVIEW, BUT YOU CAN SEE THE WHOLE THING, BUT YOU CAN SEE ALL OF OUR INTERVIEWS ON YOUTUBE. JUST SEARCH 'NZQandA' AND WE'LL POP RIGHT UP. AS FORMER FINANCE MINISTER GRANT ROBERTSON PREPARES TO LEAVE PARLIAMENT, HIS REPLACEMENT IS PREPARING TO DEBATE ONE OF THE MOST CONSEQUENTIAL GOVERNMENT BUDGETS IN RECENT HISTORY. BARBARA EDMONDS IS A FORMER TAX LAWYER AND A PARLIAMENTARY STAFFER TO BOTH LABOUR AND NATIONAL MPs. SHE'S NOW THE MP FOR MANA AND LABOUR'S FINANCE SPOKESPERSON. WELCOME TO THE SHOW. TALOFA LAVA. MICHAEL WOODHOUSE SAID YOU WANTED TO BE THE HEAD OF A GOVERNMENT AGENCY. WHY DID YOU BECOME A POLITICIAN INSTEAD? AND 2017 LABOUR CAME INTO THE BEEHIVE, AND I SAW A REFLECTION OF NEW ZEALAND AND PEOPLE THAT WORK FOR THEM. I HAVE BEEN A LONG-TIME LABOUR VOTER. FOR ME, THOUGH VALUES OF LABOUR ARE THE SAME VALUES I HAVE SHARED LOOKING AFTER OTHER PEOPLE, ENSURING THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDE SAFETY NETS. IT WAS A NATURAL FIT. THAT IS WHY YOU JOINED LABOUR, BUT WHY A POLITICIAN? I HAVE WORKED IN PORIRUA FOR A WHILE. HAVING EIGHT KIDS, YOU GET INVOLVED IN LOTS OF THINGS. ONE OF THE FIRST REASONS I GOT INTO THE BOARD OF GOVERNING FOR THE LOCAL SCHOOL WAS I SAW A KID WALKING HOME ON A RAINY DAY AND A T-SHIRT AND JANDALS. I HAVE EIGHT CHILDREN. THEY ARE FORTUNATE. THEY HAVE A WARM, DRY HOME, PARENTS THAT LOOK AFTER THEM. I HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP IN A BENEFIT DEPENDENT HOUSEHOLD, AND I HAD A FATHER THAT DID THE SAME THING, SO IT WAS ABOUT LOOKING AFTER OTHER KIDS, BECAUSE SOMETIMES OTHER KIDS DON'T HAVE OPPORTUNITIES. TALK TO US ABOUT THAT. WHAT DOES BEING A MUM OF EIGHT, WHICH EVERYONE BRINGS UP, TEACH YOU ABOUT OPPORTUNITY IN NEW ZEALAND? IT IS NOT ALWAYS THERE FOR OTHERS. THAT IS NOT JUST BECAUSE I AM A MOTHER OF EIGHT, BUT BECAUSE OF MY UPBRINGING AND BACKGROUND. MY MOTHER PASSED AWAY WHEN I WAS FOUR. MY DAD WAS 40 AND HAD TO LOOK AFTER FOR CHILDREN BY HIMSELF. HE WAS ABLE TO DO THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS A BENEFIT SYSTEM HE COULD DEPEND ON, SO HE COULD SPEND TIME TO LOOK AFTER US. COULD HE DO THAT TODAY? IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT. YOU HAVE BEEN IN GOVERNMENT FOR SIX YEARS. WHY IS THAT? IT IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF THE COST OF LIVING IS HIGHER. THEY WERE REALLY FORTUNATE TO CAPITALISE THE FAMILY SCHEME BENEFIT AND HAVE A HOUSE. IT IS DIFFICULT TIMES FOR FAMILIES, SO I KNOW THAT FOR LABOUR, WE HAD A FOCUS ON CHILD POVERTY WE COULD HAVE DONE A LOT MORE, BUT IT WILL BE HARDER FOR FAMILIES. WHAT COULD YOU HAVE DONE? THE INDEXATION OF BENEFITS, FOR EXAMPLE, TO WAGE GROWTH, RATHER THAN INFLATION, WE DID THAT IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, POSSIBLY WE COULD HAVE DONE IT EARLIER. LUNCHES IN SCHOOLS, FREE PERIOD PRODUCTS, HALF PRICE TRANSPORT. THE LATEST CHILD POVERTY STATS ARE POOR. IT'S BASICALLY A LOT OF... THE REASON WHY I'M TAKING MY TIME AS I LOOK BACK TO THE WELFARE WORKING GROUP, AND I THINK ABOUT, AT THE TIME, MINISTERS HAD TO MAKE A JUDGEMENT AROUND WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS THEY COULD DO AT WHAT TIME. I BACKED THEM IN THE TIME THEY HAVE HAD TO PHASE AND RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT WE ALSO HAD TO INVEST IN OTHER PARTS OF GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS, SO I DO BELIEVE THE MINISTERS HAD TO DO THE BEST WITH WHAT THEY HAD AT THE TIME. WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT, SHOULD LABOUR MINISTERS IN THE LAST GOVERNMENT HAVE ACTED UPON MORE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE WELFARE EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP? WE WOULD ALL SAY YES. WE WOULD WANT TO DO BETTER AND MORE, AND UNFORTUNATELY WE GOT VOTED OUT. WHICH RECOMMENDATIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACTED ON? THE INDEXATION COULD HAVE DONE EARLIER. YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE BOX AT THE TIME. AND THEY DID DO IT. THEY MADE THE BEST DECISIONS THEY COULD AT THE TIME WITH THE SITUATION AT THE TIME. WHAT ELSE COULD THEY HAVE DONE? THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSIONS AROUND A UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME. THOSE ARE SOME THINGS MINISTERS WERE TRYING TO LOOK AT, TRYING TO GET ADVICE ON. THERE ARE DIFFERENT VIEWS. FOR ME, I HAVE TO LOOK FORWARD, SO IN 2026, WHAT OTHER THINGS WE CAN PICK UP AND IMPROVE ON? WOULD YOU SUPPORT THE UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME? IN PRINCIPAL? SOMETHING YOU WOULD SUPPORT? THIS IS ME. THERE ARE PROS AND CONS TO ANY POLICY DECISION. IF YOU PUT IN THE UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME, WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR WORKING FOR FAMILIES, WHICH IS TARGETED? WHAT DOES THE MONEY YOU HAVE IN HAND TO DEAL WITH PROBLEMS? I AM NOT YET OF OPPOSITION WHERE I WOULD NOT. I AM SUBJECT TO THE PARTY PROCESS. THERE ARE BASIC QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR TAX SYSTEM. IS OUR TAX SYSTEM FAIR? DEPENDS ON WHO YOU TALK TO. I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME BASES WE SHOULD BE TAXING. LET'S LOOK AT CAPITAL GAINS. WE HAVE SOME ELEMENTS OF CAPITAL THAT IS TAXED, AND SOME THAT ISN'T. WE HAVE TO HAVE A LOOK AT IT. IN PRINCIPLE, WOULD YOU SUPPORT A COMPETENCE OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX, AS THE PARTY SPOKESPERSON, NOT THE PARTY. YOU AS PARTY SPOKESPERSON, IN PRINCIPLE, WHAT IS A COMPETENCE OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX? NOT A BRIGHT LINE, YOU TAX ALL CAPITAL GAINS FROM CAPITAL GAINS, NOT INCLUDING THE FAMILY HOME. THAT IS NOT COMPREHENSIVE. WE HAVE A WORKING GROUP, THEY SAID TOO HARD AROUND VALUATION FOR BUSINESSES, ART PIECES, JEWELLERY, THEY SAID YOU SHOULD LOOK AT A CAPITAL GAINS TAX BUT KEEP ASIDE THE FAMILY HOME. FOR ME, I AM AN ABSOLUTE TEAM PLAYER. WE WEAR OUR LABOUR TEAM GOES, THAT IS WHAT I AM DOING. IS IT FAIR THAT WAGES ARE TAXED, BUT MANY CAPITAL GAINS AREN'T? THAT GOES TO THE SOUTH AUCKLAND CLEANER, OR THE PORIRUA SECURITY GUARD. EVERY DOLLAR THEY EARN IN WAGES IS TAXED. BUT FOR OTHER PEOPLE, THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE WAGES AND SALARIES. THAT IS NOT FAIR. I AM GOING TO WORK THROUGH THAT AS A LABOUR TEAM. IS IT FAIR THAT INCOME TAX THRESHOLDS HAVEN'T BEEN ADJUSTED FOR 14 YEARS? I WOULDN'T SAY IT IS UNFAIR, JUST THE DECISIONS POLITICIANS MADE AT THE TIME. FOR ME, I WILL LOOK AT IT WITH THE TEAM AND SEE WHERE WE GET TO. NATIONAL WILL BE DOING THAT. THE DIFFICULTY FOR ANY FUTURE GOVERNMENTS IS REVERSING SUCH CHANGES. WE WILL HAVE A DECISION AS TO WHETHER WE CARRY THAT ON OR NOT, BUT FOR ME IT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO WORK THROUGH. IN PRINCIPLE, DID YOU SUPPORT THE WELL TAX BY DAVID PARKER? UNLIKE SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES, I WILL NOT COMMENT ON THOSE DISCUSSIONS. WHY DON'T WE DESERVE TO KNOW AS THE VOTING PUBLIC WHAT YOUR PERSONAL VIEW IS. IN CAUCUS YOU NEED TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS. BUT WE STILL DESERVE TO KNOW WHAT YOUR POSITION IS. MY POSITION IS, I AM A TEAM PLAYER. THOSE ARE THE RULES, PART OF CABINET CONFIDENTIALITY. HOW ARE YOU DIFFERENT FROM GRANT ROBERTSON? HOW DOES YOUR ETHOS DIFFER? I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE GRANT. I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH HIM AND TOGETHER WITH THE LABOUR TEAM FOR SIX YEARS IN GOVERNMENT. I WOULDN'T WISH UPON ANY FINANCE MINISTER THE DECISIONS HE HAD TO MAKE WHEN COVID HIT, I WAS THE CONTEXT TO THE OPERATIONAL COMMAND CENTRE. MY FIRST MEETING WAS, HOW MANY BODY BAGS DO WE HAVE IN THE COUNTRY, AND HOW MANY DO WE HAVE ON ORDER? THOSE WERE THE CHOICES, THE ADVICE HE WAS RECEIVING, TO SUPPORT THIS HEALTH RESPONSE, HOW DO WE ENSURE PEOPLE STILL HAVE A JOB? HOW DOES YOUR ETHOS DIFFER? IT IS VERY SIMILAR TO GRANT. MASSIVE SHOES TO FILL, BUT I WEAR HEELS. I HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, A DIFFERENT LIFE PERSPECTIVE, BEEN BROUGHT UP ON A BENEFIT. DO YOU ACCEPT THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENTS SPENDING AND STIMULUS DIVISIONS, EVEN IF THEY MADE THE BEST DECISIONS AT THE TIME CONTRIBUTED TO INFLATION? THEY MADE THE BEST DECISIONS AT THE TIME. IT IS EASY TO LOOK BACK AND SAY, WE SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS, OR THE RESERVE BANK SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS. THAT WAS A DECISION THEY HAD TO MAKE AT THE TIME. DO YOU ACCEPT THAT CONTRIBUTED TO INFLATION? I THINK IT WAS THE BEST DECISION AT THE TIME. DID YOU ACCEPT THAT CONTRIBUTED TO INFLATION? I BELIEVE IT DOES. OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE COME TO AN INFLATIONARY IMPACT, BUT THAT IS NOT JUST DECISIONS THEY MAKE ON THEIR OWN. IT WAS DECISIONS THEY MADE BASED ON THE BEST INFORMATION AT THE TIME. HOW MUCH DID IT CONTRIBUTE TO INFLATION? I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO LOOK BACK. WE'VE GOT BOOKS THAT WILL BE OPENED IN MAY, SEPTEMBER, DECEMBER. THOSE ARE THE VISION WE NEED TO LOOK TO. DO YOU THINK THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT'S ECONOMIC POLICIES CONTRIBUTED TO LABOURS LOSS IN THE ELECTION? PEOPLE DIDN'T FEEL INSPIRED BY WHAT WE PUT ON THE TABLE. IS THAT A YES? THEY DIDN'T FEEL INSPIRED BY WHAT WERE GIVEN, ECONOMIC POLICY, HEALTH POLICY, EDUCATION POLICY. THE RESULT SHOWED THAT. DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO CARVE OUT EXCEPTIONS FOR GST? AS A TAX LAWYER, WE HAVE HAD A GST SYSTEM SINCE 1986. WE HAVE HAD MASSIVE TECHNOLOGY CHANGES SINCE THEN. AT THE TIME, HAVING CARVEOUTS, HAVING A SIMPLE SYSTEM WAS WHY WE WERE WORLD LEADING. AT THE TIME, WE WERE LIVING IN A COST OF LIVING CRISIS, WE NEEDED TO SUPPORT OUR PEOPLE SO WE MADE THAT CALL TO TAKE GST OFF A FRESH FOOD. IT IS A DECISION EVERY GOVERNMENT HAS TO LOOK AT. IT IS NOT SOMETHING WE DECIDED IN 1986, SO WE SHOULD GO FORWARD WITH. LOOK AT THE BOOKS, FIGURE OUT HOW TO PLAY WITH. WHICH COUNTRIES APPROACH TO TAX DO YOU MOST ADMIRE? TO BE FAIR, WE HAVE A GOOD SYSTEM HERE. THIS IS THE TAX SYSTEM THAT I KNOW, THAT I HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME IN. YOU COULD SAY THIS IS MORE THE SOCIETY WE WOULD LIKE. OR YOU COULD SAY LET'S LOOK AT THE WAY SINGAPORE DOES THINGS. ULTIMATELY, I BELIEVE WE HAVE A ROBUST TAX SYSTEM AND THERE WILL BE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE IMPROVED. DO YOU READ ECONOMIC THEORY? A LITTLE BIT. JEAN TERROLL WAS ON MY DESK AT THE MOMENT. ECONOMIC THEORY... THE THING IS, WITH ECONOMICS, I ALWAYS LOOK THROUGH ECONOMICS AND LOOK AT PEOPLE. AT MAY NOT JUST BE THE ECONOMIC THEORY TEXTBOOKS. I ALSO READ A HARVARD UNIVERSITY BOOK AROUND THE HISTORY OF TAX. THERE IS A LOT OF BOOKS I READ, AND IT ISN'T JUST ECONOMICS. WHAT DOES TAX POLICY HAVE TO DO WITH THE DEMISE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE? WHEN I WAS GOING THROUGH LAW SCHOOL, I ALSO DID ANCIENT HISTORY. EMPEROR JUSTINIAN WAS THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE BECAUSE THEY OVERTAXED PEOPLE TO PAY FOR WARS AND FIRES. THE LESSON I LEARNED FROM THAT IS IF YOU OVERTAXED PEOPLE, IN JUSTINIAN'S CASE, ABRUPTLY EMPIRE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LABOURS FINANCE SPOKESPERSON BARBARA EDMONDS. IF YOU WANT TO CONTACT THE Q+A TEAM, PLEASE KORERO MAI. THESE ARE OUR MAIN PLATFORMS ` HIT US UP ON EMAIL, TWITTER OR FACEBOOK. AFTER THE BREAK ` WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT CHINA'S GROWING INFLUENCE IN OUR REGION, BUT IT'S NOT THE ONLY COUNTRY LOOKING FOR MATES IN THE PACIFIC. IN THE ONGOING BATTLE FOR INFLUENCE IN THE PACIFIC, A NEW CONTENDER HAS EMERGED. WHILE MUCH OF THE ATTENTION IS FOCUSED ON CHINA AND THE UNITED STATES, ISRAEL'S STEADY CAMPAIGN TO WIN FRIENDS IS STARTING TO DELIVER RESULTS. INDIRA STEWART REPORTS. WE WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME YOU ALL TO THE OPENING OF THE VERY FIRST INDIGENOUS EMBASSY OF ISRAEL. (CHEERING, APPLAUSE) THE OPENING OF ISRAEL'S FIRST INDIGENOUS EMBASSY IN FEBRUARY, POSTED ON YOUTUBE BY THE FRIENDS OF ZION MUSEUM, FEATURING CLIPS OF ISRAEL'S AMBASSADOR TO NEW ZEALAND AND THE PACIFIC BEING WELCOMED ON WAITANGI GROUNDS ` AN INITIATIVE CO-FOUNDED BY MAORI ACADEMIC DR SHEREE TROTTER, A PRO-ISRAEL ACTIVIST AND NOW THE DIRECTOR OF THIS EMBASSY IN ISRAEL, SUPPORTED BY PACIFIC INDIGENOUS LEADERS FROM AROUND THE WORLD. WE WENT AS INDIGENOUS PEOPLE FROM THE NATIONS TO STAND WITH JERUSALEM AND TO SAY TO THEM, 'WE ACKNOWLEDGE YOU AS THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF THE LAND.' DR ATE MOALA SAYS SHE WAS THERE REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE OF TONGA WITH THE BLESSING OF TONGA'S QUEEN, NANASIPAU'U TUKU'AHO. SHE WANTED TO SEND HER BLESSING AND HER PRAYERS IN SUPPORT OF ISRAEL. SO THAT WAS A PRIVILEGE FOR ME, TO SEND THE BLESSING OF THE QUEEN AND THE PEOPLE OF TONGA IN JERUSALEM. DR MOALA, AN OUTSPOKEN ACTIVIST AND A DEVOUT CHRISTIAN, SAYS SHE WAS PROUD TO CELEBRATE ISRAEL'S INDIGENOUS EMBASSY. THERE WAS JOYOUS. WE WERE DANCING, WHICH IS OUR LEGACY AS INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, AND I THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR JERUSALEM TO HAVE A CELEBRATION DURING THIS TIME. IT WAS WONDERFUL. AND WHILE THERE WAS DANCING AND SINGING IN JERUSALEM, IN GAZA, THE ISRAELI MILITARY LAUNCHED MORE STRIKES IN RESPONSE TO THE OCTOBER 7TH HAMAS ATTACK, PUSHING THE DEATH TOLL TO MORE THAN 27,000, ACCORDING TO THE GAZA HEALTH MINISTRY, THE ONGOING CONFLICT REVEALING STAUNCH SUPPORT FROM PACIFIC GOVERNMENTS FOR ISRAEL. ON OCTOBER 27TH, MULTIPLE PACIFIC COUNTRIES TOOK SIDES WITH ISRAEL, VOTING AGAINST A CEASEFIRE MOTION AT THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY. OTHER PACIFIC COUNTRIES ABSTAINED. AND JUST WEEKS BEFORE THAT VOTE, ISRAEL'S PRESIDENT, BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, HAD A PRIVATE MEETING WITH SEVERAL PACIFIC LEADERS, INCLUDING THE HEAD OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM, THE REGIONAL BODY OF PACIFIC GOVERNMENTS. I CAN TELL YOU, QUITE OPENLY, THAT LAST SEPTEMBER, IN THE MARGINS OF THE UN, I HAD A VERY FRUITFUL MEETING, ALONG WITH SOME OF OUR LEADERS, WITH PRESIDENT NETANYAHU. HE OFFERED HELP WITH OUR FISHERIES, OCEAN MANAGEMENT, WITH OUR WATER ISSUES, AGRICULTURE, PROMISING TO SEND A HIGH LEVEL DELEGATION OF OFFICIALS ` THERE ARE EXPERTS IN THOSE AREAS, TO SEE HOW THEY CAN HELP THE PACIFIC. ISRAEL'S DIPLOMATIC RELATIONSHIP WITH PACIFIC COUNTRIES DATES AS FAR BACK AS THE LATE '70S, PROVIDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN AID AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT. IN 2012 THE MARSHALL ISLANDS, MICRONESIA, NAURU AND PALAU VOTED AGAINST GIVING PALESTINE NON-MEMBER OBSERVER STATUS IN THE UN. AS A RESULT, THE ISRAELI PRESIDENT INVITED THEM OVER AND PROMISED THEM AID AND SO FORTH. AND ISRAEL HAS BEEN BUSY WITH ITS DIPLOMATIC MANOEUVRING AROUND THE PACIFIC AS WELL. THE BIG-PLAYER COUNTRIES LIKE ISRAEL, THE U.S. AND CHINA, ALL PLAYING A POLITICAL GAME OF CHESS IN THE PACIFIC. AS ISRAEL AMBASSADORS TOLD SAMOA, THE WORLD HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN THE PACIFIC. TALOFA LAVA. SHALOM. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ALMOST 20 VOTES IN THE UN VOTING BLOC. SO IF YOU GET THAT, THEN YOU'RE ABLE TO GET WHAT YOU WANT. IF YOU CONTROL THE PACIFIC, THEN STRATEGICALLY, MILITARILY, YOU HAVE A LOT OF INFLUENCE IN THE BIGGEST OCEAN IN THE WORLD. THERE IS AN ABIDING FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN SAMOA AND ISRAEL, AND WE GREET YOU HERE AS A FRIEND. CITIZENS FROM COUNTRIES LIKE SAMOA, TONGA AND FIJI ARE AMONG THOSE WHO ENJOY VISA-FREE TRAVEL TO ISRAEL, AND VICE VERSA FOR ISRAELI CITIZENS WANTING TO VISIT THOSE PACIFIC COUNTRIES. ISRAEL HAS PUT IN A BID TO BECOME A DIALOGUE MEMBER OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM. IT'S A POSITION THAT WOULD INCREASE ITS INFLUENCE AND LOBBYING POWER. LAST YEAR, PAPUA NEW GUINEA BECAME THE FIFTH COUNTRY TO LAUNCH AN EMBASSY IN ISRAEL. THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT HAS ALSO COMMITTED TO BANKROLLING A FIJI EMBASSY IN ISRAEL TOO. THE SETTING UP OF THE EMBASSY BY FIJI AND PAPUA NEW GUINEA, IT'S A CONCRETE MANIFESTATION OF THE DIPLOMATIC, YOU KNOW, ENGAGEMENT TAKING PLACE. SO YOU'RE GOING TO SEE MORE OF THAT IN THE FUTURE ` YOU'RE GOING TO SEE ISRAEL BEING MORE ACTIVE IN THE FUTURE, IN THE PACIFIC. AND AS ISRAEL'S PRESENCE IN THE PACIFIC CONTINUES TO GROW, SO TOO IS THE POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS DIVIDE AMONG PACIFIC PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISRAEL-HAMAS CONFLICT. WHAT IS THE PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM'S POSITION AMIDST THE ONGOING CONFLICT IN ISRAEL? WE ARE REGIONAL PEACE, AND WE WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. WE ARE FRIENDS TO ALL AND ENEMY TO NO ONE. ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR! ALL: WE DON'T WANT YOUR BLOODY WAR! THESE IMAGES OF PACIFIC PEOPLE ARE A FAR CRY FROM THAT FRIENDLY POSITION. (CHEERING) THE REASON WHY I SUPPORT PALESTINE IS BECAUSE, FIRST AND FOREMOST, I AM A HUMAN BEING ` I CARE ABOUT PEOPLE, I CARE ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING AND, YOU KNOW, I CARE ABOUT PEOPLE, I CARE ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING AND, YOU KNOW, THE MASSIVE DEATH TOLL CURRENTLY HAPPENING IN GAZA. MICHEL MULIPOLA'S GREAT-GRANDFATHER, KARANUA MATA'UITA SOLOMONA, WAS SECRETARY FOR THE MAU MOVEMENT ALMOST A HUNDRED YEARS AGO, A POLITICAL MOVEMENT THAT FOUGHT FOR LIBERATION AGAINST THE NEW ZEALAND ADMINISTRATION IN SAMOA. I FIND THAT PALESTINE'S FIGHT TODAY WAS SAMOA'S FIGHT YESTERDAY. AND SO, IN HONOURING MY GREAT-GRANDFATHER AND HIS LEGACY OF FREEDOM FIGHTING, I FELT COMPELLED TO KIND OF STAND UP FOR PALESTINE. ALL: FREE, FREE PALESTINE! MULIPOLA IS FRUSTRATED BY THE PULL OF RELIGION ACROSS THE PACIFIC. I, LIKE MANY OF MY PEOPLE, RECOGNISE THE JEWS AS THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. FIRST AND FOREMOST, I THINK THEY'RE POLYNESIANS. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE UPHOLDING COLONIAL STANDARDS, UPHOLDING WHITE SUPREMACY, YOU KNOW, UPHOLDING IMPERIALISM AND CAPITALISM AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS WRAPPED UP IN COLONIALISM. THERE'S THE NARRATIVE THAT JEWS ARE COLONISERS. ABSOLUTELY NOT ` WE ARE GOING BACK 3000 YEARS. THE JEWS, THAT'S THEIR HOMELAND. OUR PEOPLE SUPPORTING ISRAEL, THROUGH THICK AND THIN, IS WRAPPED UP IN THIS FALSE IDEA THAT IT'S ABOUT RELIGION, AND WRAPPED UP IN THAT IS ISLAMOPHOBIA, WHICH IS RAMPANT AMONGST OUR PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY THE VERY RELIGIOUS. SOME OF THE BELIEFS SAY THE PACIFIC, THAT THE PACIFIC PEOPLE ARE DESCENDANTS OF THE LOST TRIBE OF ISRAEL. IT'S REALLY EASY TO USE THE POLITICAL LEVERAGING MECHANISM TO MOBILISE SUPPORT AROUND THOSE IDEAS OF BEING INDIGENOUS AND LINKED TO ISRAEL. ISRAEL'S AMBASSADOR, RAN YAAKOBY, DECLINED AN INTERVIEW WITH Q+A, BUT HIS INFLUENCE ISN'T GOING UNNOTICED, WRITING OP EDS FOR MAJOR PACIFIC NEWSPAPERS LIKE THE SAMOA OBSERVER. LAST YEAR, YAAKOBY WROTE TO THE SAMOAN NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, ASKING FOR SAMOAN CHURCH LEADERS TO PRAY OVER THE SITUATION IN ISRAEL. ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT ANY INFLUENCE ISRAEL MAY HAVE OVER THE PACIFIC REGION? NO, I'M NOT CONCERNED AT ALL. AGAIN, YOU KNOW, HOW NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS CHOOSE, YOU KNOW, THEIR DIPLOMACY AND THEIR STATECRAFT, HOW THEY CHOOSE TO ENGAGE WITH ANY PARTICULAR COUNTRY ` AGAIN, THAT'S A SOVEREIGN DECISION FOR EACH COUNTRY TO MAKE. YOU'VE BEEN WONDERFUL FRIENDS OF ISRAEL. ISRAEL IS YOUR FRIEND. WE ARE FRIENDS TO ALL AND ENEMY TO NO ONE. INDIRA STEWART. MORE DETAILS ON HER STORY CAN BE READ ON 1news.co.nz. HEI AKUANEI ` Q+A IS BACK AFTER THE BREAK. ON FRIDAY, TVNZ ANNOUNCED IT IS PROPOSING TO CUT SUNDAY, FAIR GO, SOME OF THE RE:NEWS TEAM, AND BOTH THE MIDDAY AND TONIGHT NEWS BULLETINS, ALONG WITH OTHER ROLES BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE NEWSROOM. THE NEWS CAME A LITTLE OVER A WEEK AFTER WARNER BROTHERS DISCOVERY ANNOUNCED ITS PLANS TO END ALL NEWSHUB OPERATIONS. WE HAD HOPED TO SPEAK TO THE BROADCASTING MINISTER ABOUT THE SITUATION, BUT SHE DECLINED OUR INTERVIEW REQUEST FOR THE THIRD CONSECUTIVE WEEK. SHE SENT US A STATEMENT WHICH SHE ALSO PROVIDED OTHER MEDIA SAYING THERE IS A RANGE OF WORK UNDERWAY TO SUPPORT A MODERN AND SUSTAINABLE MEDIA INDUSTRY AND SHE'LL TAKE A PAPER TO CABINET SHORTLY. WE HOPE TO SPEAK WITH HER SOON. KUA MUTU, THAT'S Q+A FOR THIS WEEK. FROM THE Q+A TEAM, THANKS FOR WATCHING, AND NGA MIHI KI A KOUTOU I NGA KARERE. HEI TERA WIKI. SEE YOU NEXT SUNDAY AT 9AM. CAPTIONS BY FAITH HAMBLYN AND JAMES BROWN. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. WWW.ABLE.CO.NZ COPYRIGHT ABLE 2024.