CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. WWW.ABLE.CO.NZ COPYRIGHT ABLE 2025. TENA KOUTOU NAU MAI HAERE MAI. WELCOME TO Q+A. I'M JACK TAME. TODAY, FIVE YEARS SINCE COVID-19, ONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S KEY ADVISORS REFLECTS ON HIS ROLE IN FIGHTING THE PANDEMIC. THEN ` AS NZ TRIES TO CALIBRATE FOR THE CHANGING WORLD ORDER, A FORMER AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER WITH A STINGING CRITICISM OF A DEFINING REGIONAL DEFENCE POLICY. IN MY VIEW, IT WAS A BIG MISTAKE TO SIGN UP TO THE AUKUS SUBMARINE DEAL; A MASSIVE MISTAKE. PLUS ` DAVID SEYMOUR SAYS THERE'S HUGE DEMAND FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS. AND THIS MORNING, WE'LL REVEAL EXACTLY HOW MANY STATE SCHOOLS HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN CONVERTING FOR TERM ONE NEXT YEAR. BUT FIRST ` THIS MORNING AFTER THE POPE'S FUNERAL, GALLIPOLI AND MEETINGS WITH HIS UK COUNTERPART, PRIME MINISTER CHRISTOPHER LUXON IS HEADING HOME TO NEW ZEALAND. ONE OF THE BIG ANNOUNCEMENTS DURING THE PM'S TRIP, WAS A NEW CONTRACT FOR A NEW ZEALAND DRONE COMPANY WORTH MORE THAN $60M. SYOS IS PRODUCING DRONES FOR THE WAR IN UKRAINE, AND REPORTER WHENA OWEN WAS PERMITTED INTO THEIR FACTORY SHORTLY BEFORE THE DEAL WAS MADE PUBLIC. SO, THESE ARE JUST A SELECTION OF SOME OF OUR AERIAL DRONES THAT WE'VE GOT OUT. WE'VE GOT` WE NAMED THEM VERY... STRATEGICALLY ` SA2, SA1, SA7. SO THEY'RE NOT` WE'RE NOT VERY GOOD AT MARKETING. THIS IS THE SULPHUR-FACING HEAD OF SYOS, SAMUEL VYE, WHO'S JUST CLINCHED A $66.8m DEAL WITH THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT TO SUPPLY ITS MILITARY WITH DRONES. HOURS AFTER Q&A'S VISIT TO THE SYOS HQ AT MOUNT MAUNGANUI, SAMUEL VYE WAS IN THE UK TALKING DRONES, WITH BRITISH PRIME MINISTER SIR KEIR STARMER. JUST THE PACE AT WHICH PRODUCTION IS NEEDED NOW HAS RAMPED UP SO MUCH, HASN'T IT? I WAS REALLY STRUCK BY IT. THE DRONES FOR THE UK MINISTRY OF DEFENCE WILL BE ASSEMBLED IN SYOS' UK FACTORY, SOUTH EAST OF LONDON. (TENSE MUSIC) SYOS HAS ALSO WON CONTRACTS UP AGAINST SOME OF THE WORLD'S BIGGEST AEROSPACE COMPANIES, PRODUCING UNCREWED BOATS, AERIAL DRONES, UNCREWED HELICOPTERS AND GROUND VEHICLES. AND IT'S ALREADY PROVED ITSELF WITH SMALLER CONTRACTS IT CURRENTLY HAS WITH THE UK DEFENCE MINISTRY. SO WE SUPPLY AN ARRAY OF DIFFERENT VEHICLES, CURRENTLY, TO THE MOD. I CAN'T, PROBABLY, SAY SPECIFICS OF DIFFERENT PRODUCTS AT THIS MINUTE. BUT HE CAN SHOW US AROUND SOME OF THE SMALL AERIAL DRONES IN DEVELOPMENT. THIS SYSTEM IS WHAT'S CALLED AN INTERCEPTOR DRONE. SO THIS IS SPECIFIC TO NATIONAL SECURITY, SO IF THERE WAS A HOSTILE DRONE SYSTEM THAT NEEDED TO BE BUMPED OUT OF THE SKY, THIS SYSTEM COULD DO IT. OBVIOUSLY, IT'S A DISPLAY MODEL. SO THE MOUNT MAUNGANUI HQ IS THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT HUB. DAVE HERE IS WORKING ON AN UNCREWED CHOPPER CAPABLE OF HEAVY LIFTING. REALISTICALLY, WHAT WE DO HERE ` IT'S NOT ABOUT THE SPECIFIC DRONE THAT WE DO; IT'S ABOUT THE CAPABILITY THAT SYOS ` THAT SYOS AEROSPACE ` HAS IN RAPIDLY DEVELOPING THE NEXT DRONE THAT'S NEEDED BY THE CUSTOMER. SO WE'RE TRYING TO FUTURE` ALWAYS HORIZON SCANNING WHAT THE FUTURE LOOKS LIKE, WHAT OUR CUSTOMERS NEED, SO THAT, AT THE DROP OF A HAT, WE CAN SPEND SIX WEEKS AND RAPIDLY DEVELOP THE NEXT DRONE SYSTEM THAT A CUSTOMER MIGHT NEED. SIR KEIR STARMER HAS CONFIRMED THAT THIS MAJOR DRONE CONTRACT WITH SYOS WILL SUPPORT UKRAINE. WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON THE PAYLOAD? BECAUSE YOU'RE PROVIDING THE PLATFORMS, AREN'T YOU? I'M TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE MORAL THING OF ARMING THESE. YES, OK. SO, WE DON'T` UH... STICK WEAPONS ON ANY OF OUR DRONE SYSTEMS. SO WE STAY AWAY FROM, UH, THAT CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT. UM... SO WE'RE` YOU KNOW, ALL OUR SYSTEMS ARE SET UP AS SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS, FOR CARGO SYSTEMS ` ULTIMATELY, TO BE MULTI-ROLE, MULTI-USE BY OUR CUSTOMERS. SO DO YOU PROVIDE PLATFORMS, THOUGH, IF THEY NEEDED TO BE ARMED? I GUESS A TOYOTA HILUX PROVIDES A PLATFORM TO BE ARMED. THE WAR IN UKRAINE HAS TRULY ENTRENCHED THE AGE OF ELECTRONIC WARFARE; IT'S A TESTING GROUND FOR DRONE DEVELOPERS ON BOTH SIDES. THE NEW ZEALAND DEFENCE FORCE IS ABOUT TO STEP UP ITS USE OF DRONES FOR MARITIME SURVEILLANCE, RECONNAISSANCE AND COMBAT. THEY'VE BUDGETED UP TO $450m OVER THE NEXT FOUR YEARS. SO, IS NZDF TALKING TO YOU? YEAH, WE'VE HAD A FEW REACH-OUTS FROM NZDF TO TALK ABOUT VARIOUS SYSTEMS, AS WELL AS SYOS AEROSPACE AS A COMPANY, IN TERMS OF OUR CAPABILITIES. SO, OBVIOUSLY, WE WILL BE BIDDING ON POTENTIAL TENDERS THAT ARE RELEASED. THERE ARE OTHER LOCAL ROBOTICS COMPANIES DEVELOPING DRONES ` MOST BASED AROUND CANTERBURY. IN MANAWATU, DRONE EXPERT DOCTOR ANDREW SHELLEY TELLS US BEFORE NZDF'S SHOPPING SPREE, THERE ARE SERIOUS ISSUES TO CONSIDER. SO, THAT'S OUR CAMERAMAN'S DRONE UP THERE, AND I'M NOT TOO WORRIED ABOUT THE CHINESE CIRCUITRY OR CHIPS ON IT, BUT THAT SURELY MUST BE A CONCERN FOR THE DEFENCE FORCE, WHEN PURCHASING DRONES. FOR THE DEFENCE FORCE ` ABSOLUTELY, THEY SHOULD BE CONCERNED. THERE'S PLENTY OF RISKS FOR THE DEFENCE FORCE OF` WITH CHINESE MADE COMPONENTRY, POTENTIALLY TRANSMITTING WITH CHINESE-MADE COMPONENTRY, POTENTIALLY TRANSMITTING VIDEO, PHOTOS, VOICE, EVEN GPS TRACKS BACK TO CHINA. DOCTOR SHELLEY HAS PRESENTED PAPERS ON DRONES CYBER SECURITY. DOCTOR SHELLEY HAS PRESENTED PAPERS ON DRONE CYBER SECURITY. HE RUNS A DRONE TRAINING COMPANY, WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AMONG HIS CLIENTS. FOR CONFLICT SITUATIONS, HE BELIEVES THE DEFENCE FORCE SHOULD ONLY CONSIDER DRONES TESTED IN COMBAT. ONCE YOU'RE IN THE BATTLEFIELD, PARTICULARLY SOMEWHERE LIKE UKRAINE, WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF ELECTRONIC WARFARE AND JAMMING THAT WE CAN'T EVEN LEGALLY DO IN NEW ZEALAND ` THE DEFENCE FORCE CAN'T LEGALLY DO IT ` THEN` YOU KNOW, UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DRONES COULD PERFORM QUITE DIFFERENTLY. THE DEFENCE CAPABILITY PLAN WANTS TO ENHANCE OUR SECURITY SURVEILLANCE ` THE DEFENCE CAPABILITY PLAN WANTS TO ENHANCE OUR SECURITY SURVEILLANCE ` A CHALLENGE, WITH SUCH A MASSIVE EEZ. AT THE MOMENT, SOME OF THE NEW ZEALAND MANUFACTURERS ARE PRODUCING DRONES THAT CAN FLY FOR 8-10 HOURS, SO THAT'S QUITE GOOD, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE MARITIME AREA THAT WE NEED TO PATROL, WE NEED DRONES THAT CAN STAY ALOFT FOR 24 HOURS PLUS. BUT WE'VE GOT THE POSEIDONS. WE DO, BUT THE POSEIDONS ARE VERY EXPENSIVE AIRCRAFT, AND THERE'S NOT MANY OF THEM. SYOS IS WORKING ON IT, WITH THEIR UNCREWED VESSELS AND LONG RANGE DRONES, WITH VERY LONG RANGE CAMERAS. AND LONG-RANGE DRONES, WITH VERY LONG-RANGE CAMERAS. SO, THIS CAMERA COULD DETECT, SAY, A SHIP FROM WELL OVER 10km AWAY. REALLY? SAM RECKONS NEW ZEALAND, NOT JUST HIS COMPANY, WILL BE LEADERS IN DRONE DEVELOPMENT ` THE NEW FRONTIER OF TECH. THE LOW COST, HIGH VOLUME, MASS APPLICATION OF DRONES IS REALLY THE FUTURE. SO, IMAGINE NUMEROUS SWARM AND DRONE SYSTEMS IN THE SKY, ON THE GROUND, IN THE SEA. SO WE'VE LOST OUR QUIET SKY. IN CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTS, WE'VE DEFINITELY LOST OUR QUIET SKY, FOR SURE. REPORTER WHENA OWEN. COMING UP ON Q+A ` FORMER AUSSIE PM MALCOLM TURNBULL WITH HIS THOUGHTS ON NEW ZEALAND'S DEFENCE POLICY AND HOW DONALD TRUMP HAS CHANGED THE EQUATION. PHYSICIST SHAUN HENDY AND HIS TEAM AT TE PUNAHA MATATINI MODELLED COVID-19 SCENARIOS FOR THE GOVERNMENT DURING THE HEIGHT OF INFECTIONS. THESE MODELS WERE ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL IN SHAPING DECISIONS ABOUT LOCKDOWNS, BORDER CONTROLS, AND VACCINATION. HIS NEW BOOK, 'A COVID RESPONSE', OFFERS AN INSIDER'S PERSPECTIVE ON NEW ZEALAND'S STRATEGY AGAINST THE VIRUS, AND WHY HE FEARS WE'RE NOT READY FOR THE NEXT PANDEMIC. BUT LOOKING BACK, DID WE ACTUALLY GET IT RIGHT LAST TIME AROUND? I THINK WE LOOK BACK AND WE FORGET THAT FOR QUITE A LONG PERIOD OF TIME WE HAD A RELATIVELY NORMAL LOT OF IT HERE IN NEW ZEALAND. WE HAD THOSE VERY STRONG LOCKDOWNS ` STRONGER THAN ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD ` BUT OVERALL, OVER THOSE SEVERAL YEARS, WE HAD FEWER RESTRICTIONS THAN ALMOST ANY OTHER COUNTRY, ON AVERAGE, AND I THINK WE TEND TO FORGET THAT. AND ALSO WE DIDN'T GO THROUGH THE SAME SORT OF TRAUMA THAT MANY OTHER COUNTRIES WENT THROUGH. WE DIDN'T HAVE THE CASES EARLY ON. BY THE TIME THE VIRUS SPREAD THROUGH THE COMMUNITY HERE, WE WERE WELL VACCINATED, AND WE WERE ALSO DEALING WITH THE MILDER OMICRON VARIANT. SO I THINK, WHEN WE LOOK BACK, OUR MEMORIES ARE PERHAPS A LITTLE BIT SELECTIVE AND PERHAPS, DON'T FULLY COMPREHEND WHAT WE AVOIDED GOING THROUGH. IN YOUR INITIAL COMMUNICATION ABOUT THE ABSOLUTE WORST-CASE SCENARIO FORECAST ` I THINK IT WAS MARCH 2020 ` YOU TALKED ABOUT AN ABSOLUTE WORST CASE, IF NEW ZEALAND HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, OF 80,000 DEATHS. IF NEW ZEALAND DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, OF 80,000 DEATHS. HOW DO YOU REFLECT UPON YOUR COMMUNICATION OF THAT POINT? YEAH, I MEAN, ONE OF THE THINGS I TRIED REALLY HARD TO DO WAS TO NOT SAY 80,000. SO I ACTUALLY STUCK, TO I TALKED ABOUT TENS OF THOUSANDS VERSUS THOUSANDS ` SO, REALLY, IF WE DIDN'T RESPOND EFFECTIVELY, THEN WE WERE FACING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DEATHS. BUT THE PAPER SUGGESTED THAT WAS THE ABSOLUTE UPPER LIMIT, RIGHT? AND SO THAT'S WHAT I CALL THE FLU SCENARIO, IF WE BASICALLY TREATED IT LIKE A BAD FLU. AND SO ONE OF THE REASONS YOU PUT THAT IN YOUR MODELLING IS TO SHOW IT'S NOT A BAD FLU. BECAUSE THE FLU DOESN'T CAUSE 80,000 DEATHS EVERY YEAR. IT'S SOMETHING LIKE 500. SO YOU IMMEDIATELY SEE THAT WHAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH IS NOT JUST A BAD FLU. I MEAN, IT LATER GOT PICKED UP AND USED, ALMOST AS A PIECE OF MISINFORMATION. LIKE A DELIBERATE PIECE OF MISINFORMATION? YEAH, OR EVEN INADVERTENTLY BY PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE MODELS WERE SAYING. AND SO IT GOT RECIRCULATED. SO REALLY, YOU KNOW, I THINK INITIALLY PEOPLE, WE DID AN OK JOB GETTING THAT ACROSS. THAT NUMBER 80,000 DID APPEAR IN THE HEADLINES. BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS GOING ON. BUT LATER IT WAS IT CAME TO BE USED TO DISCREDIT THE MODELLING WHEN IT REALLY WASN'T A PREDICTION. ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL DECISIONS YOU MADE WITH YOUR MODEL WAS THAT ESSENTIALLY ALL LIVES THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY BE LOST WERE ESSENTIALLY OF THE SAME VALUE, RIGHT? SO YOU OPTED NOT TO DEFINE YOUR MODELS WITH A QUALITY OF ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS, WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR AGE AND HEALTH AND THAT SORT OF THING. WHY WAS THAT? SO, I MEAN, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK IS PROBLEMATIC ABOUT USING QALYs, OR QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS, IS THAT IT DEPENDS ON PEOPLE'S LIFE EXPECTANCY. SO MAORI HAVE DECADES LESS LIFE EXPECTANCY THAN PAKEHA, FOR EXAMPLE. AND SO YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY, BY USING QALYs, YOU'RE DEVALUING LIVES OF MAORI PEOPLE, FOR EXAMPLE. SO I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A GOOD TOOL. CERTAINLY, QALYs, FOR ME, DON'T FIT THAT BILL FOR LOOKING AT INFECTIOUS DISEASE. I THINK WE NEED NEW TOOLS TO REALLY SORT OF COMMUNICATE AND MAKE DECISIONS ON INFECTIOUS DISEASE. IS IT YOUR VALUE JUDGEMENT TO MAKE? I MEAN, YES, IN A WAY, AS A SCIENTIST. WELL, IN A SENSE, THOUGH, THERE'S ALSO AN ETHICAL ELEMENT TO THAT. THERE'S A POLITICAL ELEMENT TO THAT. YEAH. I MEAN, AS A SCIENTIST, YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE YOUR OWN ETHICAL JUDGEMENTS, RIGHT, WHEN YOU'RE DOING YOUR WORK, AND THAT WAS A PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT PART OF WHAT WE DID, WAS MAKING THOSE ETHICAL JUDGEMENTS AND TRYING TO MAKE THEM CLEAR WHY WE WERE MAKING CERTAIN DECISIONS TO USE CERTAIN TOOLS. SO YOU DO HAVE THAT RESPONSIBILITY. I MEAN, POLITICALLY, I THINK WE WE'VE OVERLOOKED INFECTIOUS DISEASE. I MEAN, POLITICALLY, I THINK WE'VE OVERLOOKED INFECTIOUS DISEASE. WE HAVEN'T ASKED OURSELVES THE HARD QUESTIONS ABOUT INFECTIOUS DISEASE. INFECTIOUS DISEASE, YOU KNOW, IT IMPACTS INEQUALITY. IF YOU'VE GOT AN UNEQUAL SOCIETY, IT'LL TEND TO BE THOSE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PILE WHO ARE MOST IMPACTED BY INFECTIOUS DISEASE. AND I DON'T THINK WE'VE GRAPPLED WITH THAT IN NEW ZEALAND. YOU USE QALYs FOR THINGS LIKE LIFESTYLE DISEASES, HEART DISEASE. YOU MIGHT USE IT FOR APPLYING TREATMENTS. BUT I THINK THEY REALLY ARE INADEQUATE WHEN IT COMES TO INFECTIOUS DISEASE. I SUPPOSE THE REASON I ASK IS THAT WHEN IT COMES TO COVID, AGE IS ABSOLUTELY FUNDAMENTAL WHEN IT COMES TO OUTCOMES, RIGHT? SO, YOU WOULD SURELY AGREE ` AND I KNOW IT'S ALWAYS VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT QUALITIES, BUT THE RESOURCES THAT THE STATE MIGHT POUR INTO SAVING THE LIFE OF A 75-YEAR-OLD MIGHT NOT BE THE SAME AS THE RESOURCES THE STATE WOULD PUT INTO SAVING THE LIFE OF A 25-YEAR-OLD. YEAH, AND SO THAT'S CERTAINLY THE CASE, AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT. BUT USING A VERY BLUNT TOOL LIKE QALYs MAGNIFIES INEQUALITIES IN OTHER WAYS. IT SPREADS THE IMPACT ACROSS MAORI AND PACIFIC POPULATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE UNMET HEALTH NEEDS IN OUR SOCIETY BECAUSE OF INEQUALITY, BECAUSE OF RACISM IN OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM. AND SO USING A MATHEMATICAL TOOL THAT APPEARS TO GIVE YOU THAT PRECISION, APPEARS TO DELIVER THAT KIND OF... TO BALANCE THAT KIND OF JUDGEMENT, HAS OTHER IMPACTS. AND SO I WOULD RATHER JUST SORT OF PUT THOSE NUMBERS OUT THERE AND LET PEOPLE MAKE VALUE JUDGEMENTS. I'VE GOT ONE MORE QUESTION ON THIS, JUST BECAUSE IT IS REALLY CURIOUS NOW THAT WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF SPACE TO LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT DEMOGRAPHICS OF THOSE PEOPLE AFFECTED. SO NEW ZEALAND CURRENTLY RECORDS 2914 DEATHS WITH COVID AS THE UNDERLYING CAUSE, RIGHT? HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD YOU EXPECT WERE OVER THE AGE OF 80? QUITE A LARGE NUMBER. IT'S 2066. SO 71%. 71% OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIED FROM COVID AS AN UNDERLYING CAUSE IN NEW ZEALAND ARE OVER THE AGE OF 80. OVER THE AGE OF 60 ` 96%. SO CLEARLY IT IS MASSIVELY SKEWED TO OLDER GENERATIONS. AGAIN, I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THOSE PEOPLE AREN'T WORTH INVESTING IN AND SUPPORTING, BUT THERE'LL BE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE EXPENDED A HUGE AMOUNT OF RESOURCE FOR SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY ONLY AFFECTED OLDER NEW ZEALANDERS AND PERHAPS WE'D BE BETTER TARGETING OUR RESPONSE TO THOSE GENERATIONS. YEAH, SO, YOU KNOW, TWO COMMENTS ON THAT OBSERVATION. FIRST OF ALL, OF COURSE, THERE'S A LARGE NUMBER OF THE PEOPLE, OR A LARGER PROPORTION OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO DIED ARE MAORI OR PACIFIC PEOPLE ` IT THAT DID HAVE A BIG IMPACT ON THOSE COMMUNITIES. AND SO MANY OF THE DECISIONS WE MADE WERE TO PROTECT THOSE VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES. AND I THINK THE SECOND THING IS, DID WE ACTUALLY EXPEND A LOT OF RESOURCE IN SAVING THOSE LIVES? AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE LEARNT LOOKING BACK IS ACTUALLY THE ECONOMIC COSTS OF LETTING A VIRUS RUN RAMPANT IN YOUR SOCIETY, NOT CONTROLLING IT, NOT BEING ABLE TO GO BACK TO PERIODS OF NORMAL LIFE, NORMAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, ARE ACTUALLY AS LARGE AS, IF NOT LARGER THAN WHAT WE DID, WHICH WAS TO USE THOSE SHORT, SHARP LOCKDOWNS TO CONTROL THE VIRUS. AND SO I THINK, WHEN YOU DO THE SUMS, WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY ` RELATIVE TO LETTING THE VIRUS SPREAD UNCONTROLLED, WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY SPEND AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY. I GUESS MY POINT IS, IS THERE A MIDDLE GROUND? LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE HAD WEIGHTED THE MODELLING TO ACCOUNT FOR SOME OF THOSE DIFFERENCES IN DEMOGRAPHICS, AND PARTICULARLY AROUND AGE, COULD YOU NOT HAVE HAD A RESPONSE THAT SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE ARE GOING TO HAVE REALLY STRICT CONTROLS AROUND OLDER PEOPLE; THEY'RE NOT MANDATORY, NECESSARILY, BUT WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND TO OLDER PEOPLE THAT SINCE YOU ARE THE LIKELIEST TO DIE FROM COVID-19, WE ARE RECOMMENDING YOU STAY HOME, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ALL SORTS OF STATE SUPPORT TO ASSIST YOU IN THAT POSITION. MEANWHILE, YOUNGER PEOPLE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE KEEPING THE ECONOMY MOVING, YOUNGER PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GO TO SCHOOL, THAT KIND OF THING. COULD YOU NOT FIND A MIDDLE GROUND? YEAH, SO THAT'S KIND OF THE SWEDISH APPROACH. AND WHEN YOU COMPARE OUR NUMBERS TO THEIRS, IN TERMS OF WHAT THE RESPONSE COST, IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE SAME, IF NOT A LITTLE BIT MORE ADVANTAGEOUS IN OUR DIRECTION. THE SWEDES HAD TO HAVE CONTROLS IN PLACE FOR A VERY LONG TIME ` YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY THE FULL 18 MONTHS. SO WHEN CONTROLS WENT ON IN SWEDEN, THEY STAYED ON. THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE SHORT, SHARP PERIODS OF LOCKDOWNS THAT WE DID. THEY WEREN'T AS STRICT CONTROLS, RIGHT? NO, THEY WERE MUCH MILDER CONTROLS. BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE ON FOR NEARLY TWO YEARS, THEY COST SWEDEN ALMOST AS MUCH AS WHAT WE SPENT IN OUR LOCKDOWNS. AND THEN SWEDEN HAD THE COST OF DEALING WITH THE VIRUS AS WELL AS THOSE CONTROLS. SO WHEN YOU ADD UP THOSE TWO COSTS ` THE COST OF YOUR CONTROLS, THE COST OF DEALING WITH THE VIRUS, ELIMINATION ACTUALLY COMES OUT AS A BETTER ECONOMIC STRATEGY. DID YOU FEEL PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE AT ALL FOR THAT LAST BIG AUCKLAND LOCKDOWN IN 2021? YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT TO TAKE SOME CULPABILITY FOR THAT. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, WHEN I LOOK BACK ABOUT HOW WE COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER PREPARED AND HOW THAT COULD HAVE FACTORED OUR DECISION MAKING, I THINK THERE WERE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY GOT WRONG, OR AT LEAST WE'RE PERHAPS FUZZIER THAN THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN. ONE WAS AROUND AEROSOL SPREAD. SO WE UNDERSTAND NOW THAT ACTUALLY COVID-19, AND MOST RESPIRATORY VIRUSES ARE SPREAD BY AEROSOLS. AND EARLY, ON A LOT OF OUR CONTROLS WERE BASED AROUND DROPLET SPREAD ` AND EARLY ON, A LOT OF OUR CONTROLS WERE BASED AROUND DROPLET SPREAD ` SO THEY'RE LARGER DROPLETS THAT WE SPREAD WHEN WE BREATHE AND TALK, WHEREAS IT WAS ACTUALLY SPREADING BY AEROSOL, AND AEROSOL CAN TRAVEL MUCH FURTHER. SO THOSE 2-METRE RULES WERE NOT REALLY ADEQUATE FOR PROTECTING THINGS, AND SO WHEN WE... THE MIQ SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED, FOR EXAMPLE, IT WAS PREDICATED ON THIS IDEA OF DROPLET SPREAD. AND SO WE COULD HAVE, THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY COULD HAVE BEEN AHEAD OF THE GAME ON THAT. BUT AT LEAST WE ARE NOW. WE'VE GOT BETTER UNDERSTANDING ` SHOULD THIS HAPPEN AGAIN, I THINK THE TYPES OF BORDER CONTROLS, THE TYPES OF QUARANTINE SYSTEMS WE'D USE WOULD BE MORE EFFECTIVE. WE KNOW THE IMPORTANCE OF VENTILATION NOW, AS A TOOL FOR CONTROLLING RESPIRATORY DISEASE. AND I THINK THE SECOND THING WAS AROUND THE WAY THAT THE VARIANTS EVOLVED. YOU KNOW, AND THIS IS SOMETHING I THINK WE SHOULD BE PUTTING A LOT MORE EFFORT INTO UNDERSTANDING ` HOW DO VIRUSES EVOLVE? WHAT SHOULD WE EXPECT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME? BECAUSE WHAT GOT US FOR THAT 2021 LOCKDOWN WAS DELTA. AND BEING ABLE TO ANTICIPATE AND UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE FACING THESE MORE TRANSMISSIBLE VARIANTS IN A PANDEMIC WOULD HAVE ALLOWED US TO PREPARE BETTER, PARTICULARLY WHEN WE HAD THOSE KIND OF PERIODS WHERE WE WERE WHERE WE WERE VIRUS-FREE, LIFE WAS SORT OF GOING BACK TO NORMAL, WE COULD HAVE MADE MORE EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN THOSE BORDER CONTROLS. SO, BACK IN NOVEMBER OF 2021, YOU WERE STILL ADVOCATING FOR A LEVEL 4 LOCKDOWN. AND I MEAN, THAT LOCKDOWN THAT LED UP TO NOVEMBER WAS, I'M SURE, THE MOST SOCIALLY DAMAGING OF ALL OF THE LOCKDOWNS IN NEW ZEALAND. SO DO YOU THINK YOUR TEAM COULD HAVE BEEN QUICKER TO REALISE THAT ELIMINATION WASN'T GOING TO BE POSSIBLE WITH THAT? WELL, SO, WE WEREN'T... SO, IN NOVEMBER, WE WEREN'T SAYING WE SHOULD ELIMINATE, RIGHT? I THINK BY NOVEMBER WE WERE PRETTY CLEAR THAT ELIMINATION WAS OFF THE TABLE. YOU WERE IN SEPTEMBER. SO IF IT STARTED IN AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER, SORT OF LATE-ISH SEPTEMBER, YOU STILL THOUGHT ELIMINATION WAS POSSIBLE. SEPTEMBER, WE WERE STILL LOOKING AT NUMBERS THAT LOOKED LIKE WE WOULD ELIMINATE. AND OF COURSE, PEOPLE MAY REMEMBER THAT LONG TAIL OF CASES WHERE CONTACT TRACERS JUST COULDN'T GET AHEAD OF THAT TAIL OF CASES. AND SO BY THE END OF SEPTEMBER, WE'RE KIND OF LOOKING AT A SCENARIO WHERE WE WERE GOING TO POTENTIALLY HAVE A BIG WAVE OF DELTA. AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE THOUGHT WE MIGHT NEED TO HAVE A SHORT, SHARP LOCKDOWN, JUST TO BRING THOSE CASES UNDER CONTROL. AND I THINK, IN THE END, WHAT HAPPENED IS WE VACCINATED LIKE CRAZY. PEOPLE WENT OUT AND GOT VACCINATED. AND, YOU KNOW, I REMEMBER, WAS IT THE SUPER SATURDAY? THAT WAS A GREAT DAY FOR US AS MODELLERS, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE VACCINATION RATES JUMPED BY ALMOST 1%, RIGHT, WHICH HAD A BIG IMPACT ON OUR MODEL. AND SO AS THE VACCINE RATES CLIMBED, WE BECAME MORE CONVINCED THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A SOFTER EXIT FROM THAT DELTA OUTBREAK, AND THE NEED FOR A LOCKDOWN DIMINISHED. BUT I THINK, UP UNTIL THAT POINT, AS WE WERE SORT OF LOOKING AT THOSE LAST FEW PERCENT OF PEOPLE TO GET VACCINATED, LOCKDOWNS, FOR ME, WERE STILL SOMETHING, LEVEL 4 WAS STILL SOMETHING I THOUGHT SHOULD BE PART OF OUR TOOLKIT. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT SIMON THORNLEY TODAY? YEAH. LOOK, THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY TIMES WHEN I THINK OUR WORK WAS MISCHARACTERISED BY SOME OF THE PLAN B FOLK. IT'S ALWAYS DIFFICULT WHEN YOU'RE ENGAGING IN A SCIENTIFIC DEBATE IN PUBLIC. IT CAN BE FAR MORE BRUISING. NORMALLY SCIENTISTS GET TOGETHER AT CONFERENCES AND DISCUSS THINGS IN A MUCH MORE COLLEGIAL WAY. WHEN YOU FIND YOURSELF IN A CRISIS, DEBATING WITH PEOPLE THROUGH THE MEDIA, IT BECOMES VERY DIFFICULT, I THINK, FOR ALL CONCERNED AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK, IN A CRISIS, THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS, RIGHT? SCIENCE WORKS THAT WAY, RIGHT? YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE WHO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. SOMETIMES THAT VIEW TURNS OUT TO OVERTURN THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. OTHER TIMES, THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS CARRIES ON, AS IS. SOMETIMES YOU'RE GALILEO, SOMETIMES NOT. YEAH. AND MOSTLY IT'S NOT GALILEO. SO IT IS DIFFICULT WHEN THESE FOLKS POP UP WITH THEIR VIEW AND FEEL THAT THERE'S A BIG MISTAKE BEING MADE. BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE BEHAVE COLLEGIALLY. AND THAT DIDN'T ALWAYS HAPPEN. AND CERTAINLY SOME OF THE WORK THAT WE DID, I THINK, WAS UNFAIRLY CHARACTERISED BY SIMON AND SOME OF THE PLAN B FOLK. THOSE THINGS ARE STILL UP ON THEIR WEBSITE AND DON'T REALLY DO JUSTICE TO THE WORK THAT WE DID, AND REALLY BECAME FORMS OF MISINFORMATION WHICH LATER WERE THEN TURNED BACK ON US AND USED TO ACCUSE US OF ALL SORTS OF THINGS. WHAT I TAKE AS A LESSON FROM THAT IS ACTUALLY, THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY NEEDS TO BE BETTER PREPARED. WE NEED TO HAVE THESE DEBATES BEFORE THE CRISIS, ENSURE THAT WE ALL UNDERSTAND THE CONSENSUS GOING INTO A CRISIS. YOU DO SEE THIS IN OTHER SCIENTIFIC FIELDS ` SEISMOLOGY, FOR EXAMPLE. AT TIMES AFTER THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES, THERE WERE DIFFERENT OPINIONS BEING PASSED AROUND, AROUND AFTERSHOCKS, FOR EXAMPLE ` THE RISKS THAT CANTABRIANS FACED FROM ONGOING AFTERSHOCKS. AND THE SOLUTION IS TO REALLY GET BACK TO BASICS, AND AS A SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, BUILD PREPAREDNESS AS A GROUP. AND SO WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT CRISIS, YOU'RE NOT SUDDENLY TAKING SHOTS AT EACH OTHER. SO, I'VE GONE I'VE GONE BACK AND LOOKED AT SOME OF THE COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM SIMON THORNLEY AND PLAN B OVER THE COURSE OF THE PANDEMIC. AND I THINK, DEMONSTRABLY, SOME OF THEIR PREDICTIONS HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE INCORRECT. THERE ARE SOME THINGS, THOUGH, THAT ARE INTERESTING TO REFLECT ON WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT. SO IN DECEMBER 2020, HE AND HIS COLLEAGUES PUBLISHED A PAPER, QUOTE, 'EVEN IF A VACCINE IS DEVELOPED, 'IT'S UNLIKELY TO ACHIEVE ELIMINATION, 'SINCE CASES CONTINUE DESPITE WIDESPREAD IMMUNISATION.' I THINK WE'D ALL AGREE THAT THAT WAS TRUE. FEBRUARY 2021, THEY SAID THE RISKS OF THE VIRUS WERE OVERSTATED, THE LARGE MAJORITY OF DEATHS WERE BECAUSE OF CO-MORBIDITIES. CERTAINLY THE RISK OF DEATH WAS FOUND TO BE ELEVATED WITH COMORBIDITIES. AND THEY SAID THAT ERADICATION WAS DESIRABLE BUT UNREALISTIC, AND THAT A PROLONGED LOCKDOWN AND SUBSEQUENT ECONOMIC DECLINE WOULD HAVE NUMEROUS OTHER IMPLICATIONS THAT WEREN'T BEING PROPERLY ACCOUNTED FOR. DO YOU THINK PLAN B WAS RIGHT ABOUT SOME STUFF? YEAH, I MEAN, AT TIMES. AND YOU CAN SEE THEM, AT TIMES, ALIGNING WITH THE SCIENTIFIC MAINSTREAM BUT TAKING A DIFFERENT VIEW ON IT. AT OTHER TIMES, THEY WERE PUSHING THINGS THAT WERE THAT WERE REALLY FRINGE SCIENTIFIC IDEAS AND NOT WITHIN THAT SCIENTIFIC MAINSTREAM. SO, YES, THERE WERE TIMES THAT THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, ON POINT AND GENUINELY PEOPLE COULD LOOK AT THE SAME THINGS AND COME TO THOSE DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS. A LOT OF THE TIME, THOUGH, THEY WERE USING THINGS THAT WERE JUST ON THE SCIENTIFIC FRINGE. AND SO IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO ENGAGE SCIENTIFICALLY, WHEN SOME OF THOSE THINGS REALLY JUST DON'T MAKE SCIENTIFIC SENSE. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT YOUR PRIORITIES THEN, FOR HOW NEW ZEALAND SHOULD BE BETTER PREPARED FOR WHAT IS AN INEVITABLE PANDEMIC IN THE FUTURE. YOU SAY THAT WORKING WITH AUSTRALIA IS ACTUALLY THE OBVIOUS THING TO DO. YEAH, AND THE AUSTRALIAN INQUIRY, THE REPORT CAME OUT BEFORE OURS, LAST YEAR, AND THEY'RE ALREADY WELL ON THE WAY TO IMPLEMENTING A LOT OF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. THEY'VE ACTED MUCH MORE SWIFTLY THAN WE HAVE IN NEW ZEALAND. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THEY'RE DOING IS ESTABLISHING AN AUSTRALIAN CENTRE FOR DISEASE CONTROL. WE SHOULD BE PARTNERING WITH THEM. WE ARE A SMALL COUNTRY. THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH WE CAN DO. THERE'S ONLY SO MANY SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS THAT WE HAVE TO CALL ON. AND BY PARTNERING WITH AUSTRALIA, WE CAN WE CAN CALL ON SOME OF THAT EXPERTISE. THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN REALLY USEFUL FOR US IN DEALING WITH THAT EMERGENCY-VERSUS-CRISIS PHASE. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN USEFUL FOR THEM AS WELL, AT TIMES WHEN THEY WERE DEALING WITH LARGE OUTBREAKS, ASKING US TO HELP OUT HERE. SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE DOING. UNFORTUNATELY, WE ARE WATCHING THE U.S. KIND OF DISMANTLE ITS PUBLIC HEALTH AT THE MOMENT. IT REALLY IS QUITE ALARMING. AND PEOPLE WON'T BE AWARE OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH WE RELIED ON THE U.S. SCIENTIFICALLY. A LOT OF THE BEST SCIENCE WAS DONE IN THE U.S., HAS BEEN DEVELOPED IN THE U.S., FOR DEALING WITH INFECTIOUS DISEASE. YOU KNOW, WE ARE LOOKING POTENTIALLY AT A FUTURE WHERE THAT CAPABILITY DOESN'T EXIST ANY MORE. AND SO COUNTRIES LIKE OURS ARE GOING TO LEARN TO BECOME MORE RELIANT ` THINGS LIKE THE mRNA TECHNOLOGY, IT'S LOOKING LIKE THE AMERICANS MAY WALK AWAY FROM THAT, IN WHICH CASE, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND MIGHT HAVE TO GO IT ALONE. AND THE AUSTRALIANS ` AND WE ` HAVE INVESTED IN mRNA TECHNOLOGY, AND THE AUSTRALIANS WANT TO BE ABLE TO MANUFACTURE THEIR OWN VACCINES. AND I THINK WE SHOULD BE LOOKING TO PARTNER WITH THAT AS WELL. HOW HAS THIS EXPERIENCE AFFECTED YOU? YEAH, LOOK, IT WAS VERY REWARDING. I SAY THAT IN THE BOOK, AND OVERALL, IT WAS A POSITIVE EXPERIENCE. IT WAS ALSO VERY TIRING. YOU KNOW, IT WAS TWO YEARS' WORK AT FULL PACE WITH VERY FEW BREAKS. AND I THINK EVERYBODY ON OUR TEAM STRUGGLED IN SOME WAY WITH THAT. SOME PEOPLE HAVE COPED BETTER THAN OTHERS. AND SO IT WAS VERY HARD ` LIKE SUSTAINING THAT LEVEL OF WORK AND THE SCRUTINY THAT CAME WITH IT, THE MEDIA DEMANDS, WAS VERY CHALLENGING, WHEN, AS ACADEMICS, WE'RE NOT SET UP TO DO THAT, RIGHT? IT'S NOT PART OF OUR NORMAL JOB. SO IT WAS VERY CHALLENGING. HOWEVER, WHAT DO YOU BECOME A SCIENTIST FOR? YOU BECOME A SCIENTIST TO HELP PEOPLE. AND I THINK, REFLECTING ON THAT, THERE WON'T BE AS BIG AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ME ` I HOPE ` TO HELP SOCIETY THAT WAY AGAIN. IT WAS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO STEP INTO A GAP, AND DO SOME WORK THAT WAS DESPERATELY NEEDED. AND YOU DON'T SEE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES VERY OFTEN AS A SCIENTIST. YOU KIND OF CHIP AWAY AT YOUR OWN PIECE OF THE PUZZLE. YOU'RE CONTRIBUTING AS PART OF A GLOBAL EFFORT. AND YOU HAVE TO TAKE A LOT OF SATISFACTION IN YOUR OWN SMALL PART THE WORLD. AND SO THERE'S VERY FEW OPPORTUNITIES LIKE THAT THAT COME ALONG, AND SO IT WAS A PRIVILEGE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. AND, LOOK, THE VAST MAJORITY OF NEW ZEALANDERS, I THINK, APPRECIATE THAT. I DO GET THANKED IN PUBLIC. THANKFULLY PEOPLE DON'T RECOGNISE ME AS MUCH ANY MORE, SO I CAN BE A BIT MORE ANONYMOUS. BUT PEOPLE ARE ALMOST ALWAYS VERY GRACIOUS AND PREPARED TO THANK US FOR OUR WORK, WHICH IS PLEASING. SO YEAH, OVERALL, IT'S BEEN A POSITIVE THING, EVEN IF I'VE GOT SLIGHTLY MORE GREY HAIRS NOW, AS A RESULT. THAT'S SHAUN HENDY. THERE'S MORE OF OUR CONVERSATION ON YOUTUBE. AND, OF COURSE, SHAUN'S BOOK IS 'THE COVID RESPONSE ` 'A SCIENTIST'S ACCOUNT OF NEW ZEALAND'S PANDEMIC, 'AND WHAT COMES NEXT'. AFTER THE BREAK ` THE GOVERNMENT HAS FUNDED UP TO 35 SCHOOLS TO CONVERT INTO CHARTER SCHOOLS BY NEXT YEAR. SO HOW MANY ACTUALLY WANT TO PULL THE TRIGGER? THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT'S CHARTER SCHOOL POLICY FROM THE LAST TIME CHARTER SCHOOLS EXISTED IS THAT AS WELL AS ESTABLISHING NEW CHARTER SCHOOLS, STATE SCHOOLS CAN NOW APPLY TO CONVERT INTO CHARTER SCHOOLS. LAST YEAR'S BUDGET INCLUDED FUNDING FOR UP TO 15 BRAND NEW CHARTER SCHOOLS AND UP TO 35 STATE SCHOOLS TO CONVERT INTO CHARTER SCHOOLS OVER THIS YEAR AND NEXT YEAR. AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS HAS BEEN SPENT ESTABLISHING A CHARTER SCHOOL AGENCY WHICH OVERSEES THE PROCESS. ONE, TWO... CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE DAVID SEYMOUR'S SIGNATURE EDUCATION POLICY. AND IN LAST YEAR'S BUDGET, HE ANNOUNCED $153M IN FUNDING FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS OVER THE NEXT FOUR YEARS. ALTOGETHER, THE GOVERNMENT ` IN THIS BUDGET ` WILL FUND 15 NEW CHARTER SCHOOLS. IT'S ALSO SET ASIDE FUNDING FOR THE CONVERSION OF 35 STATE SCHOOLS. SEVEN BRAND NEW CHARTER SCHOOLS OPENED IN TERM ONE THIS YEAR, AND TWO MORE ARE SET TO OPEN BY THE START OF NEXT YEAR. BUT THE SCHOOL ROLLS ARE REALLY SMALL, WITH JUST OVER 200 KIDS NATIONWIDE CURRENTLY ATTENDING CHARTER SCHOOLS. DAVID SEYMOUR HAS SAID THERE'S 'HUGE DEMAND' FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS, SO LAST MONTH ON Q+A, WE ASKED HIM FOR SPECIFIC NUMBERS. HOW MANY HAVE APPLIED TO CONVERT, THEN, FOR NEXT YEAR? THERE'S ABOUT A DOZEN WHO ARE CURRENTLY IN TALKS WITH THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION. ONLY A DOZEN? WELL, LET'S JUST SEE HOW IT ROLLS OUT. THE DEADLINE FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST FOR STATE SCHOOLS TO CONVERT FOR TERM ONE NEXT YEAR INITIALLY PASSED A FORTNIGHT AGO. BUT THEN, MORE THAN 24 HOURS LATER, ON A SATURDAY NIGHT, THE CHARTER SCHOOL AGENCY ANNOUNCED ON FACEBOOK THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY EXTENDING THE DEADLINE. AND IT REFUSED TO TELL Q+A HOW MANY EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST IT HAD RECEIVED. THE NEW EXTENDED DEADLINE PASSED ON THURSDAY. DESPITE FUNDING ALLOCATED FOR UP TO 35 SCHOOLS TO CONVERT NEXT YEAR, OF THE 2500 STATE SCHOOLS NATIONWIDE, JUST SIX PUT IN BASIC EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST. THERE ARE TWO CONVERSIONS CONTINUING FROM THE FIRST ROUND OF APPLICATIONS LAST YEAR, BUT IT MEANS EVEN IF ALL STATE SCHOOLS THAT HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST ARE ULTIMATELY APPROVED FOR CONVERSION ` WHICH, JUDGING BY THE PROCESS SO FAR, WOULD BE UNUSUAL ` A GRAND TOTAL OF JUST EIGHT CONVERSIONS WOULD BE APPROVED FOR TERM ONE NEXT YEAR. SO, YOU HAVE SAID THERE IS 'HUGE DEMAND' FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS. WHY DON'T MORE SCHOOLS WANT TO CONVERT? I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE TESTING THE WATER. IT'S AN UNFAMILIAR CONCEPT. AND THERE'S A LOT OF OPPOSITION FROM THE UNION LEADERSHIP ` MAYBE NOT THE TEACHERS THEMSELVES, BUT FROM UNIONS. I THINK, AS IT BECOMES BETTER UNDERSTOOD AND MORE ACCEPTED, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE MORE AND MORE OF THEM. BUT TO HAVE HALF A DOZEN WELL THROUGH THE PROCESS RIGHT NOW, IN WHAT'S REALLY THE FIRST YEAR ` REMEMBER, WE ONLY PASSED THE LEGISLATION AT THE END OF LAST YEAR ` I ACTUALLY REJECT THE BASIC IDEA THAT THERE'S THERE'S TOO FEW OR NOT ENOUGH. I THINK IT'S GOING QUITE WELL. 'HALF A DOZEN A LONG WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS'. I MEAN, THEY'VE MERELY EXPRESSED INTEREST AT THIS STAGE. AND, OF COURSE, THE FUNDING IN THE LAST BUDGET WAS ALLOCATED TO ESTABLISH THE SCHOOLS IN 2025 AND 2026. YOU HAD FUNDING FOR UP TO 35 SCHOOLS, AND YOU'VE ONLY GOT EIGHT THAT ARE CURRENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR TERM ONE NEXT YEAR. A COUPLE OF THINGS ABOUT THAT ` FIRST OF ALL, IT'S A FOUR-YEAR BUDGET CYCLE, RIGHT? SO 35 IS THE MAXIMUM THAT WE COULD ESTABLISH` BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE BUDGET DOCUMENTS, IT'S TO ESTABLISH THE SCHOOLS IN '25 AND '26, AND THEN TO CONTINUE TO FUND THEM OVER THAT FOUR-YEAR CYCLE. I MEAN, YOU YOURSELF HAVE SAID THEY WOULD BE ESTABLISHED IN '25 AND '26. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT HOW MANY WE'VE GOT SO FAR ` WE'VE GOT SEVEN SCHOOLS OPERATING. THE FIRST TIME THAT WE CREATED THIS POLICY, IT ACTUALLY TOOK FIVE YEARS TO GET TO 12. WE WILL HAVE EXCEEDED THAT IN THE FIRST TWO YEARS. SO IT DEPENDS HOW YOU MEASURE IT. IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THE ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM AND SAY THAT'S A TARGET RATHER THAN A LIMIT, THEN, YEAH, YOU CAN PLAY THAT ARGUMENT. BUT I THINK WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT YOU'VE GOT A WHOLE LOT OF CHILDREN WHO ARE GETTING A TOTALLY DIFFERENT EDUCATION EXPERIENCE. YOU'VE GOT EDUCATORS THAT ARE ABLE TO DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY. AND THE NUMBERS ARE GROWING. ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE POSITIVE. IF YOU WANT TO SAY THAT BECAUSE SOMEONE SETS AN AMBITIOUS LIMIT, THAT THEY SHOULD SOMEHOW BE PUNISHED FOR THAT, THEN YOU CAN, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO MAKE THE BOAT GO FASTER. THE CHARTER SCHOOL AGENCY HAS SPENT MOST OF THE $10M IN ESTABLISHMENT FUNDING FOR WHAT ARE A FEW HUNDRED STUDENTS IN NEW CHARTER SCHOOLS, AND WHAT IS CURRENTLY A VERY LIMITED DEMAND FOR CHARTER SCHOOL CONVERSIONS. IS THAT GOOD VALUE FOR MONEY? WELL, IF YOU WANT TO DISTORT THE POLICY, THEN PROBABLY NOT. BUT IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT HONESTLY AND SAY WE'RE SPENDING THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY PER CHILD AS THEY WOULD HAVE IN THE STATE SYSTEM. NOW, SOME PEOPLE LIKE TO SAY, OH, I'M GOING TO TAKE THE FIRST COUPLE OF WEEKS AND SAY, WELL, BECAUSE YOU START SMALL, AND THEN YOU GROW YOUR ROLL, I CAN PRODUCE A FIGURE THAT MAKES THEM LOOK LIKE THEY'RE FUNDED MORE. WE'VE SEEN ALL THAT ARGUMENT, BUT THAT'S NOT AN HONEST WAY TO TALK ABOUT IT. THE FACT IS, CHARTER SCHOOL STUDENTS GET THE SAME FUNDING OVER THE TERM OF THEIR CONTRACT ` WHICH, BY THE WAY, IS 10 YEARS ` AS ANY OTHER SCHOOL. YOU WANT TO PLAY THE GAME OF TRYING TO MAK FALSE CALCULATIONS YOU WANT TO PLAY THE GAME OF TRYING TO MAKE FALSE CALCULATIONS OUT OF THE FIRST COUPLE OF WEEKS, YOU CAN, BUT AGAIN ` NOT REALLY GOING TO MAKE THE BOAT GO FASTER. LAST TIME, THERE WERE LOTS OF TE REO MAORI SCHOOLS, IWI-LED SCHOOLS, KURA THAT WERE INTERESTED IN BEING CHARTER SCHOOLS. THIS TIME, NOT SO MUCH ` AT THIS POINT, AT THE VERY LEAST. DO YOU THINK THAT YOUR ASSOCIATION WITH THE TREATY PRINCIPLES BILL HAS PUT OFF SOME SCHOOLS THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE CONSIDERED CONVERTING INTO CHARTER SCHOOLS, AT THIS STAGE? IF IT HAS, YOU'RE DEALING WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE MORE INTERESTED IN POLITICS THAN THE FUTURE AND THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN ` IN WHICH CASE, THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN THE BEST PEOPLE ANYWAY. WHAT WE DO KNOW IS YOU LOOK AT TIPENE, YOU LOOK AT TE RITO... OF THE SEVEN SCHOOLS CURRENTLY OPEN, TWO OUT OF SEVEN ` SO WHAT'S THAT? NEARLY ONE IN THREE ` ARE ACTUALLY VERY MUCH KAUPAPA MAORI SCHOOLS, SO THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A PROBLEM. THAT'S ASSOCIATE EDUCATION MINISTER DAVID SEYMOUR. IF YOU WANT TO CONTACT THE Q+A TEAM, PLEASE KORERO MAI. FLICK US AN EMAIL ` qanda@tvnz.co.nz. STAY WITH US. WE'RE BACK AFTER THE BREAK. AUSTRALIA HEADS TO THE POLLS ON SATURDAY, AND WHOEVER IS ELECTED THE NEXT PRIME MINISTER FACES A COMPLEX AND FAST-CHANGING INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT. ONE OF THOSE WHO SAYS AUSTRALIA NEEDS TO DRAMATICALLY RE-THINK IT'S SECURITY RELATIONSHIPS IS FORMER PRIME MINISTER MALCOLM TURNBULL. WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH A UNITED STATES WITH WHOM WE SHARED THE SAME VALUES, FOR 80 YEARS, NOW NO LONGER SHARING THOSE VALUES. I MEAN, DONALD TRUMP'S VALUES ARE MIGHT IS RIGHT. I MEAN, AS HE POSTED ON HIS TRUTH SOCIAL SITE JUST A FEW DAYS AGO, THE GOLDEN RULE OF NEGOTIATING IS HE WHO HAS THE MOST GOLD MAKES THE RULES. I MEAN, THAT'S MIGHT IS RIGHT. NOW, EVERYTHING WE'VE SOUGHT TO DO SINCE THE SECOND WORLD WAR ` WE BEING THE FREE WORLD, THE DEMOCRATIC WORLD ` HAS BEEN TO ENSURE THAT MIGHT IS NOT RIGHT AND THAT THE RIGHTS OF SMALLER COUNTRIES, LIKE NEW ZEALAND, LIKE AUSTRALIA, ARE PROTECTED. NOW, LOOK, WHAT TRUMP WAS DOING TO CANADA, YOU KNOW, THREATENING A REALLY SWINGEING ECONOMIC COERCION AGAINST CANADA AND SAYING THE BORDER BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES IS A FICTION, THAT CANADA SHOULD BE THE 51ST STATE. LOOK WHAT HE'S DONE TO DENMARK ` YOU KNOW, A NATO ALLY, SAYING THAT HE IS GOING TO GET GREENLAND, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. YOU COULD GO ON. LOOK AT THE WAR IN UKRAINE, WHERE INSTEAD OF USING HIS IMMENSE POWER TO PUT PRESSURE ON PUTIN TO COME TO THE NEGOTIATING TABLE, HE'S PUNCHED DOWN, HUMILIATED, WITHDRAWN MILITARY SUPPORT AND INTELLIGENCE SHARING FROM UKRAINE ` THE WEAKER PARTY, THE WRONGED PARTY, THE VICTIM. SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR-EYED ABOUT THIS ` THIS IS NOT THE UNITED STATES WE HAVE GROWN UP WITH. WE HAVE GOT TO LOOK TO A WORLD WHERE THERE IS NO LONGER AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IN THE WAY THERE WAS BEFORE. I'M GOING TO GET ON TO SOME OF THAT DETAIL IN A MOMENT, BUT I'M INTERESTED FOR YOUR ANALYSIS ` IN SHAPING GEOPOLITICAL, TRADE AND SECURITY POLICY AT THE MOMENT, CAN COUNTRIES LIKE AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND TRUST THE UNITED STATES? WE'RE DEALING WITH A GOVERNMENT AND AN ADMINISTRATION THAT IS VERY, VERY FOCUSSED THAT IS VERY, VERY FOCUSED ON AMERICA FIRST. I MEAN, THAT'S THEIR AGENDA. OF COURSE. YEAH. SO IN A SENSE, TRUMP IS A VERY HONEST POLITICIAN, IN THAT HE IS ACTUALLY SAYING THE QUIET BITS OUT LOUD. BECAUSE, FOR YEARS, PEOPLE WHO'VE BEEN CYNICAL ABOUT AMERICA HAVE SAID, 'OH, 'THEY GO ON WITH ALL THIS IDEALISM 'ABOUT DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW, 'BUT, YOU KNOW, THEY ONLY BELIEVE IT 'WHEN IT SUITS THEM, YOU KNOW, AND THEY BASICALLY 'DO WHATEVER THEY LIKE.' YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT THE CYNICS HAVE SAID. AND, LOOK, LET'S BE HONEST ` AMERICA HAS BEEN AN IMPERFECT PRACTITIONER OF ITS OWN VALUES, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. BUT NOW, TRUMP ISN'T EVEN PRETENDING TO HAVE THOSE VALUES. - SO WOULD A SWITCH BACK TO A MORE CONVENTIONAL-TYPE PRESIDENT AND SO WOULD A SWITCH BACK TO A MORE CONVENTIONAL-TYPE PRESIDENT AND ADMINISTRATION IN THREE AND A HALF OR FOUR YEARS' TIME ` WOULD THAT CHANGE THE EQUATION? OR, WHEN IT COMES TO RELIABILITY AND TRUST, THAT NEW ZEALAND AND AUSTRALIA CAN HAVE IN THE UNITED STATES LEADERSHIP, IS THE DAMAGE DONE? I THINK SO MUCH TRUST HAS BEEN LOST. YOU KNOW, TRUST ` AND YOU SEE THIS, THIS APPLIES IN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, JUST AS IT DOES IN PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS ` TRUST TAKES A LONG TIME TO BUILD UP, BUT IT CAN BE LOST VERY QUICKLY. SO YOUR MESSAGE IS THAT COUNTRIES LIKE NEW ZEALAND AND AUSTRALIA NEED TO GET USED TO A WORLD WITHOUT STRONG US LEADERSHIP, WITHOUT STRONG U.S. LEADERSHIP, AND WITHOUT, MAYBE, THE FAITH IN INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE TRADITIONALLY HAD THE US BACKING. SO THERE ARE TWO DIMENSIONS WE WANT TO FOCUS ON ` TRADE AND SECURITY. LET'S START WITH TRADE. WHY HAVEN'T WE SEEN A MORE COORDINATED RESPONSE TO DONALD TRUMP'S TARIFFS? WELL, I THINK IT'S EARLY DAYS, AND, OF COURSE, HE KEEPS ON CHANGING THEM. BUT THE ANSWER, PLAINLY, I THINK, IS THAT COUNTRIES LIKE AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND THAT DO BELIEVE IN FREE TRADE, THAT DO BELIEVE IN A RULES-BASED TRADING SYSTEM, HAVE GOT TO WORK TOGETHER AND WITH OTHER COUNTRIES THAT SHARE THOSE VIEWS ` EUROPEAN UNION BEING ONE OF THEM, FOR EXAMPLE, TO REALLY DEVELOP AN ALTERNATIVE ORDER. I MEAN, AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE, THAT AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND HAD A BIG, VERY BIG ROLE IN, WHICH IS THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP. I MEAN, THAT WAS AN OBAMA-ERA INITIATIVE STRONGLY PUSHED BY THE AMERICANS, ALTHOUGH ITS ORIGINS ARE ACTUALLY IN DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN SINGAPORE AND NEW ZEALAND, WAY BACK IN TIME. BUT, ANYWAY, IT WAS VERY MUCH OBAMA'S INITIATIVE. TRUMP GOT ELECTED ` TRUMP PULLED OUT OF IT. AND THEN ACTUALLY IT WAS IN LIMA, IN PERU, AT THE END OF 2016, THAT JOHN KEY AND I WERE HAVING A BEER AT THE... YOU KNOW, WHATEVER PUB WE WERE IN, IN LIMA. AND WE CAME TO THE VIEW THAT WE SHOULD KEEP GOING WITH THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP. AND JOHN SAID ` YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT, AND JOHN SAID, 'WELL, 'EVERYONE WILL SAY WE'RE FLOGGING A DEAD HORSE.' AND WE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT, AND WE CONCLUDED THAT, THE ANIMAL LOVERS, THAT IF THE HORSE WAS INDEED DEAD, THEN NOBODY COULD OBJECT TO THE FLOGGING, SO WE HAD NOTHING TO LOSE. AND, YOU KNOW, A FEW MONTHS AFTER THAT, I PERSUADED SHINZO ABE, WHO WAS INITIALLY VERY RELUCTANT, THAT WE SHOULD STICK WITH IT, AND SO WE DID. AND THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP, NOW CALLED THE COMPREHENSIVE AND PROGRESSIVE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP, CPTPP, YOU KNOW, HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO ` IT'S UP AND RUNNING. UK HAVE JOINED. THAT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A VERY AMBITIOUS FREE TRADE DEAL, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WAS MUCH MORE THAN JUST A, YOU KNOW, 'LOWER TARIFFS ON GOODS' TYPE OF FREE TRADE DEAL, RCEP, AND IT DOESN'T INVOLVE THE US. AND I THINK WE'VE JUST GOT TO DO A LOT MORE THAN THAT. WELL, LET'S TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE SECURITY IMPLICATIONS IN THE INDO-PACIFIC REGION. IN YOUR VIEW, WAS IT A MISTAKE FOR AUSTRALIA TO SIGN UP TO AUKUS? IN MY VIEW, IT WAS A BIG MISTAKE TO SIGN UP TO THE AUKUS SUBMARINE DEAL ` MASSIVE MISTAKE. IT'S A VERY UNEQUAL DEAL FOR AUSTRALIA, AND, IN MY VIEW, IT IS MOST LIKELY OR MORE LIKELY TO END UP IN AUSTRALIA HAVING NO SUBMARINES AT ALL. AUKUS PILLAR II, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE AUSTRALIA, UK AND THE U.S. TO COLLABORATE ON NEW TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE RELEVANT TO DEFENCE. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT ` THAT'S A PERFECTLY GOOD IDEA. I MEAN, THAT'S GREAT. AND I THINK OTHER COUNTRIES, LIKE SOUTH KOREA AND JAPAN, HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN BEING PART OF IT. THERE HASN'T BEEN A LOT OF PROGRESS ON IT, THOUGH. NEITHER OF THE THREE COUNTRIES HAVE INVESTED VERY MUCH IN IT, AND IT'S DIFFICULT TO POINT TO ANY REAL PROGRESS. SO I WOULD SAY AUKUS PILLAR II IS A GOOD IDEA, BUT, YOU KNOW, GOOD IN THEORY, BUT THE PRACTICE IS YET TO BE DEMONSTRATED. STRATEGICALLY, WOULD IT MAKE SENSE FOR NEW ZEALAND TO JOIN AUKUS PILLAR II, ESPECIALLY WHEN, ARGUABLY, THAT MORE CLOSELY ALIGNS US WITH THE UNITED STATES, WHICH YOU BEGAN BY STARTING THIS INTERVIEW IN SAYING IS A LESS RELIABLE PARTNER THAN IN THE PAST. WELL, LOOK, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE. I MEAN, IT'S A TECHNOLOGY SHARING EXERCISE ` I DON'T THINK IT'D DO YOU ANY HARM TO JOIN IT. IT'S A BIT LIKE THE FIVE EYES ` YOU KNOW, THE INTELLIGENCE-SHARING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, THE SIGNALS INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES OF US, THE SIGNALS INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES OF U.S., UK, CANADA, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND, YOU KNOW, AND NEW ZEALAND, OBVIOUSLY` SORRY TO INTERRUPT. WOULDN'T IT ANTAGONISE NEW ZEALAND'S LARGEST TRADING PARTNER? I MEAN, IT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS A CONTAINMENT STRATEGY FOR CHINA BY SOME, AND SO WOULDN'T THAT POTENTIALLY DAMAGE THOSE RELATIONSHIPS? YEAH, WELL, IT MIGHT, BUT, TO BE HONEST, I DON'T THINK AUKUS... LOOK, AUKUS PILLAR I, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD, YOU COULD DRAW A VERY LONG BOW AND SAY THAT'S A PART OF A CONTAINMENT STRATEGY. I MEAN, REALLY, IT'S DESIGNED TO GIVE THE AMERICANS A SUBMARINE BASE IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA. AND IF THE YANKS CAN SPARE THE SUBMARINES, GIVE AUSTRALIA SOME NUCLEAR-POWERED SUBMARINES THEMSELVES, I THINK THE CHINESE MIGHT OBJECT TO IT, THEMSELVES. I THINK THE CHINESE MIGHT OBJECT TO IT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WOULD DO YOU A LOT OF HARM. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE REALITY IS THERE HAS BEEN VERY LITTLE PROGRESS ON AUKUS PILLAR II. SO I THINK THE QUESTION WOULD BE THE PRACTICAL ` YOU KNOW, IF I WAS IN MR LUXON'S POSITION, I WOULD BE SAYING, 'HOW MUCH VALUE 'AM I REALLY GOING TO GET OUT OF AUKUS PILLAR II?' I MEAN, IS THIS ACTUALLY A REAL THING? IS THERE SOME REAL VALUE IN IT, AND WEIGH THAT UP AGAINST THE FLAK YOU MIGHT GET FROM CHINA AND OTHERS. NEW ZEALAND HAS JUST RELEASED ITS DEFENCE CAPABILITY PLAN, WHICH EXPLICITLY AND REPEATEDLY TALKS ABOUT DEVELOPING BETTER INTEROPERABILITY CAPABILITY WITH AUSTRALIAN FORCES. CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY IT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR NEW ZEALAND TO MORE CLOSELY ALIGN WITH AUSTRALIAN'S DEFENCE FORCES, IF AUSTRALIA STILL RELIES ON THE SUPERPOWER ALLY IN THE UNITED STATES WHEN IT COMES TO SECURITY AND DEFENCE? WELL, LOOK, YOU KNOW, THERE IS STRENGTH IN NUMBERS. SO, NEW ZEALAND AND AUSTRALIA SHOULD BE WORKING SEAMLESSLY TOGETHER ` THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. I MEAN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO... YOU KNOW, WE'RE ON THE EVE OF ANZAC DAY, AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS. BUT, YOU KNOW, AUSTRALIANS AND NEW ZEALANDERS ARE STRONGEST WHEN THEY'RE WORKING TOGETHER. SO I'VE GOT NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. I THINK THE REAL ISSUE IS THAT AUSTRALIA HAS TO DO MORE, TO MAKE ITS DEFENCE CAPABILITIES SOVEREIGN, THAT IS TO SAY, INDEPENDENT OF ANY OTHER COUNTRY, INCLUDING THE US, OTHER COUNTRY, INCLUDING THE U.S., AND FOCUS ON OUR ABILITY TO DEFEND OUR OWN COUNTRY, AND IN YOUR CASE, YOUR COUNTRY, AND TO DO SO IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE WE CANNOT NECESSARILY RELY ON THE UNITED STATES. IT WOULD BE REMISS NOT TO ASK YOU A COUPLE OF DOMESTIC POLITICS QUESTIONS, GIVEN EARLY VOTING HAS OPENED FOR THE FEDERAL ELECTION, AND POLLING SUGGESTS THAT LABOUR HAS IMPROVED ITS POSITION RELATIVE TO THE LIBERALS OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS? WELL, THE POLLS WOULD TELL YOU, AND I THINK THEY'RE BROADLY RIGHT, THAT THE... DUTTON'S... YOU KNOW, PEOPLE'S CONCERNS ABOUT DUTTON AND HIS PERSONALITY HAVE BECOME AN ISSUE. I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE SEE HIM AS BEING TOO LIKE DONALD TRUMP. HE HAD A NUMBER OF POLICIES WHICH WERE PLAINLY INSPIRED BY TRUMP, YOU KNOW, INCLUDING A PROPOSAL WHICH HE'S NOW, YOU KNOW, REVERSED, WHICH, OF COURSE, IS A HUGELY EMBARRASSING THING TO DO IN AN ELECTION CAMPAIGN. BUT HE HAD A PROPOSAL TO BAN WORK FROM HOME FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE, AND, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE DO WORK FROM HOME, AND REALLY, MOST PEOPLE WOULD SAY THAT'S A MATTER FOR EMPLOYERS TO MANAGE. YOU KNOW, IT'S GOT PLUSES, AND IT HAS GOT ADVANTAGES IF MANAGED WELL. SO THAT WAS THAT WAS VERY NEGATIVE FOR HIM. HE'S GOT A PROPOSAL FOR THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT TO BUILD A SERIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS, SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE, WHICH IS JUST, YOU KNOW, A CULTURE-WAR POLICY ` IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE ECONOMICALLY. IT IS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY FRIENDLESS ` THERE'S NO ONE IN THE ENERGY SECTOR OR THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY THAT SUPPORTS IT. THERE'S CERTAINLY NO ONE IN THE ENERGY SECTOR SAYING 'WE'D LIKE TO DO IT.' SO IT'S PRETTY WEIRD FOR THE CENTRE-RIGHT PARTY ` YOU KNOW, THE EQUIVALENT OF YOUR NATIONALS ` TO BE PROPOSING TO HAVE A, YOU KNOW, GOVERNMENT-OWNED SET OF, NUCLEAR-POWER STATIONS BUILT, YOU KNOW, AT A TIME WHEN, YOU KNOW, OUR ENERGY SECTOR IS, FOR THE MOST PART, HELD BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR. SO I CAN'T RECALL AN ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN WHICH A PARTY HAS GONE BACKWARDS BY AS MUCH IN THE COURSE OF THE CAMPAIGN. I MEAN, LIKE YOU, WE HAVE SHORT CAMPAIGNS, FOR FIVE WEEKS NORMALLY. BUT I HAD AN EIGHT-WEEK CAMPAIGN IN 2016, WHICH NO ONE'S EVER FORGIVEN ME FOR, BUT THAT WAS FOR ARCANE CONSTITUTIONAL REASONS I WON'T BORE YOU WITH. BUT, YEAH, SO THEY'RE NORMALLY FIVE WEEKS. AND SO NORMALLY, YOU KNOW, THE MOVEMENTS IN THE COURSE OF THE CAMPAIGN ARE QUITE SMALL, BUT THIS HAS BEEN PRETTY MARKED. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S 10 DAYS TILL POLLING DAY. AND ALTHOUGH, AS YOU SAY, PEOPLE ARE VOTING, YOU KNOW, BY THE TIME WE GET TO MAY THE 3RD, WE WOULD EXPECT CLOSE TO HALF OF THE ELECTORATE TO HAVE VOTED. MM. I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF ATTENTION ON THE SO-CALLED TEAL INDEPENDENTS OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. DARE I BE VERY CHEEKY AND ASK, WILL YOU VOTE FOR A LIBERAL CANDIDATE IN THIS ELECTION? WELL, LOOK, I'M A GREAT BELIEVER IN THE FACT THAT IT'S A SECRET BALLOT. AND SO I'VE ALWAYS RESPECTED THAT ` I DON'T ASK PEOPLE HOW THEY'LL VOTE. AND I ALWAYS SAY IT'S A SECRET BALLOT, BUT THE TEALS ARE VERY INTERESTING PHENOMENON. AND BY THE WAY, THEY ALL HATE BEING CALLED TEALS, BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL COMMUNITY INDEPENDENTS, AND THEY'RE NOT A PARTY. SO, YOU KNOW, IN AUSTRALIA, WE'VE GOT COMPULSORY VOTING, AND WE'VE GOT PREFERENTIAL VOTING, AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW. AND THAT BRINGS OUR POLITICS TO THE CENTRE. NOW, THIS, I THINK, HAS BEEN A BIG PROBLEM FOR DUTTON, BY THE WAY, BECAUSE IF YOU IF YOUR POLITICAL INSPIRATION AND YOUR POLICIES ARE COMING OUT OF THE BUBBLE OF RIGHT-WING POPULIST MEDIA, YOU KNOW, LIKE SKY NEWS AUSTRALIA, UH, LIKE THE MURDOCH TABLOIDS, LIKE SOME OF OUR SHOCK-JOCK, YOU KNOW, RADIO STATIONS, LIKE 2GB IN SYDNEY. YOU KNOW, AND THE COUNTERPART TO THAT IN AMERICA IS FOX NEWS, OBVIOUSLY. BUT IF YOU'RE GETTING YOUR POLICY IDEAS OUT OF THAT, AND YOU'RE SEEKING TO WIN THE APPROVAL OF THAT TYPE OF MEDIA, THEN YOU GO OUT INTO THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN AND EVERYONE HAS TO VOTE ` I MEAN, YOU KNOW, 92% OR 93% OF ALL THE PEOPLE ON THE ELECTORAL ROLL WILL VOTE. AND WE LIKE VOTING IN AUSTRALIA. YOU KNOW, SO THEN YOU'VE GOT PREFERENTIAL VOTING. AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT IF A PARTY, IN THIS CASE, THE LIBERAL PARTY, IS SEEN AS MOVING TOO FAR TO THE RIGHT, TOO FAR TO ONE EXTREME, PEOPLE HAVE GOT AN OPTION, AND AN INDEPENDENT CAN COME THROUGH THE CENTRE. AND SO THE MATHEMATICS OF IT WAS THAT IN MOST OF THESE SO-CALLED TEAL SEATS, WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE LIBERAL INCUMBENT, THESE SAFE LIBERAL SEATS, INCLUDING MY OLD SEAT OF WENTWORTH, THE LIBERAL INCUMBENT WHOSE VOTE HAD BEEN, SAY, YOU KNOW, 50% OR A BIT OVER 50% PRIMARY VOTE, HIS PRIMARY VOTE COMES DOWN TO 40% OR EVEN A BIT LESS ` WEE BIT LESS. THE INDEPENDENCE PRIMARY VOTE, WHICH IS DISGRUNTLED LIBERALS, LABOUR PEOPLE, GREENS PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, GETS, SAY, TO 30%. NOW, IN A FIRST-PAST-THE-POST SYSTEM, LIKE THE UK, THE LIBERAL WOULD STILL WIN. BUT WITH PREFERENTIAL VOTING, THAT INDEPENDENT WHO'S SITTING ON 30%, GETS LABOUR PREFERENCES, GREEN PREFERENCES, AND THEN COMES OVER THE TOP AND WINS. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE REALLY PROUD OF OUR ELECTORAL SYSTEM. WE'VE HAD THIS THESE FEATURES FOR A HUNDRED YEARS, WE'VE HAD THESE FEATURES FOR A HUNDRED YEARS, BUT THEY DO BRING POLITICS TO THE CENTRE. AND SO IF YOU WANT TO RUN OFF TO THE RIGHT TO GRATIFY YOUR, YOU KNOW, CRAZIER PEOPLE WHO ARE MEMBERS OF YOUR PARTY OR CRAZIER PEOPLE IN THE MEDIA, YOU RUN THE RISK OF ALIENATING THE CENTRAL GROUND AND ACTUALLY LOSING ON ELECTION DAY. HEI AKUANEI ` Q+A IS BACK AFTER THE BREAK. 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 BRIGIT KELLY AND FAITH HAMBLYN. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. WWW.ABLE.CO.NZ COPYRIGHT ABLE 2025.