CAPTIONS BY JASON CONRAN AND TOM CLARKE. 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 WE ASK ` HOW DO YOU BRING DOWN A DICTATOR? AND THE NEW BOSS OF THE SOCIAL INVESTMENT AGENCY TRIES TO BUILD THAT FENCE AT THE TOP OF THE CLIFF. BUT WE BEGIN THIS MORNING WITH BUDGET WEEK ` AND A VERY DIFFERENT VISION FOR THE COUNTRY. THE GREENS WANT TO EXTEND FREE GP VISITS, FREE DENTAL CARE, FREE CHILDCARE, AND INTRODUCE AN INCOME GUARANTEE. AND THEIR PLAN TO PAY FOR IT INCLUDES A MASSIVE CHANGE TO THE TAX BASE AND TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT DEBT. CHLOE SWARBRICK IS THE GREEN PARTY CO-LEADER. GOOD MORNING. GIVE US THE VISION. DIVISION IS FOR A NEW ZEALAND WHERE EVERYONE CAN THRIVE. WANT TO BRING DOWN ADMISSIONS AND COST-OF-LIVING. ADJUSTMENT TO HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE SPENT THE PAST 40 YEARS BEING TOLD THE STORY OF HOW GROWTH WILL GET US OUT OF ALL THE ISSUES WE ARE FACING. AFTER 40 YEARS OF THAT TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS FALLACY WE HAVE FOUND THAT DESPITE THE ECONOMIC BEING BIGGER THAN IT HAS EVER BEEN BIGGER IN OUR HISTORY, WE ALSO SEEM TO HAVE THE HIGHEST RATES OF WEALTH INEQUALITY THAT WE HAVE SEEN ON RECORD, CHILD POVERTY AND HOMELESSNESS. WE CAN CONFRONT THESE ISSUES IF WE ARE WILLING TO CONFRONT THE REALITY THAT NO MATTER HOW BIG THE ECONOMY AS IT IS HOW WE SHARE. NOW TO SEE YOUR PARTIES BIG PICTURE VISION WITH US CO-LEADER, WHAT IS NOTABLE WHEN COMPARING IT TO YOUR CAMPAIGN AND JAMES SHAW IS YOU ARE PROPOSING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAXES IN ADDITION TO THE TENS OF BILLIONS YOU CAMPAIGNED ON LAST ELECTION. WHY? THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO BE GROWN-UPS AND TO BE SERIOUS ABOUT HOW MUCH INVESTMENT WE NEED. RIGHT NOW WE KNOW FROM STATISTICS NEW ZEALAND DATA RELEASED, I BELIEVE, THIS PAST WEEK THAT 191 NEW ZEALANDERS LIVING IN THIS COUNTRY, WE NEED TO INVEST IN MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE KEEPING NEW ZEALANDERS HERE AND BUILDING A COUNTRY WORTH FIGHTING FOR, AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE PUTTING A POSITIVE VISION FORWARD. AND IF WE ARE INVESTING YOU ARE PUTTING TENS OF BILLIONS ACROSS THE WEALTH TAX AND INHERITANCE TAX, WHICH I'LL GET TO ANOTHER. HOW DID YOU ACCOUNT FOR CAPITAL FLIGHT? WHY WOULDN'T WEALTH NEW ZEALANDERS JUST MOVE OVERSEAS? IT IS BEING ACCOUNTED FOR THROUGH AVOIDANCE MEASURES. OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO GET THE GRANULAR DETAIL FOR YOU, THAT'S A BIG PART OF IT, RIGHT? WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT THESE FIGURES HAVE BEEN INDEPENDENTLY COSTED BY INFO METRICS AND WE HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR THE POTENTIAL OF SOME AVOIDANCE MEASURES ARE AUTHORISED. THAT MAY ASK THIS THEN, WHEN YOU HAD YOUR ELECTION CAMPAIGN I THINK YOU HAD ACCOUNTED FOR CAPITAL FLIGHT WITH A 25% MARGIN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR ACCOUNTING FOR CAPITAL FLIGHT TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ADDITIONAL TAXES YOU ARE NOW PROPOSING? I'LL BE COMPLETELY HONEST INSIDE NEED TO COME BACK TO YOU ON THAT. SHOULDN'T YOU KNOW THIS? THIS IS YOUR BUDGET. ABSOLUTELY. AND THE FIRST THING I WILL SAY IS THAT WE KNEW THAT PUTTING THIS COMPLEX AND COHERENT AND FULSOME PIECE OF WORK OUT THERE THAT WE WOULD BE PROVIDING PEOPLE WITH OLDER DETAILS. BY ALL MEANS OF US THE DETAILS. IT IS NOT NITPICKING TO ASK. IF YOU'RE GOING TO PROPOSE MORE THAN $70 BILLION IN TAXES, THE OBVIOUS QUESTION IS WHAT WILL WEALTHY PEOPLE DO? IT IS A RISK THAT TREASURY HAS IDENTIFIED AND IF YOU CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THIS RISK, AND YOU WANT TO BE CONSIDERED ADULT AND SERIOUS I DON'T HAVE THOSE SPECIFIC FIGURES OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO COME BACK TO YOU AND TALK ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS, BUT IT OUT THINK THIS WILL BE A CONSTRUCTIVE GET DATES IF WE ARE JUST FOCUSING ON GOT-YOU MOMENTS. HOW THAT AFFECT FORMS THAT ARE BEEN HANDED DOWN GENERATION TO GENERATION? ONE THING WE ARE PROPOSING IN OUR SUITE OF CHANGES OF TAXES, 90% OF NEW ZEALANDERS WILL PAY LESS TAXES. IT IS CONSIDERED A GIFT TAX AS WELL, THAT INHERITANCE TAX. WE KNOW THE INHERITANCES WILL NOT BE PASSED DOWN TO JUST ONE INDIVIDUAL SOLE PERSON. WE ARE SAYING THAT IF THERE ISSUES PEOPLE CAN SAY LATER STILL WITH THE DATA. I AM EAGER GET IN FRONT OF AGRICULTURAL AUDIENCES AS WELL. BASED ON THE AVERAGE FIGURES, $5 MILLION IS THE AVERAGE DAIRY FARM SALE. IF WE DON'T INCLUDE THAT IN THE INHERITANCE, IF YOUR HAND DURING IT DOWN THROUGH GENERATIONS, LET'S SAY THREE GENERATIONS PREVIOUSLY, HOWEVER FARMERS GOING TO DO THAT? IF WE CAN BRING BACK TO THE BIGGER PICTURE, FROM THE MOST RECENT AVAILABLE DATA, THE MOST AVERAGE WEALTH OF THE HOUSEHOLD IN THIS HOUSEHOLD IS HUNDRED 43 MILLION AT THE HIGHEST RANGE. . HOW ARE FARMERS GOING TO DO THAT BECAUSE MY HOW THEY PAYOFF 33% TAX AND A $4 MILLION.. LET'S GET THE DEATH AND EVIDENCE AND SEE HOW BIG OF AN ISSUE ACTUALLY IS. IT COULD AFFECT EVERY DAIRY FARMER IN THE COUNTRY. I HEAR YOU, AND I SAY THAT THERE IS NOT GREAT DOUBT ABOUT THIS AT THE MOMENT WHICH IS WHY WE ARE PUSHING THIS OUT. IF THERE ARE ISSUES PEOPLE WE HAVE, LET'S HAVE A RATIONAL DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. OF COURSE WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE POTENTIAL FISHHOOKS ARE. YOU HAVE A 1.5% TAX ON ASSETS HELD BY TRUSTS. DOES THE TAX APPLY FROM THE FIRST DOLLAR OR ONLY OVER TRUST WEALTH OVER $2 MILLION? THE ENTIRETY OF THE TRUST. SO IT WILL APPLY TO ANYONE WHO HAS ANYTHING IN A TRUST? WHAT ABOUT BUSINESSES THAT ARE HELD INTERESTS? THIS IS US PUTTING IT ON THE TABLE AND IT IMPLIES THE ONLY REASON PEOPLE HAVE TRUSTS IS TO AVOID TAXES. HE SAID IT WILL INCLUDE EVERYONE. IF YOU HAVE A BUSINESS THAT IS HELD IN A TRUST OR A FAMILY HOME HELD IN A TRUST JUST TO PROTECT ASSETS BECAUSE YOU WORK IN AN INDUSTRY WHERE YOU COULD BE SUED FOR DEFAMATION, SAY, YOU WILL BE STYMIED 1.5% ON THOSE ASSETS EVERY SINGLE YEAR. WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS THAT RIGHT NOW WE KNOW THAT THE AVERAGE WEALTH IN THOSE IS APPROXIMATE THE $1.7 BILLION. AGAIN THIS IS ABOUT PUSHING THE DEBATE FORWARD AND SAYING WE CAN FIX THESE THINGS, WE CAN HAVE THE KIND OF CONTRIBUTORS. WE CAN FIX OUR INFRASTRUCTURE IF WE ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR IT. THE NEW ZEALAND HERALD NOTED THAT IT WOULD LEAVE NURSES WORSE OFF WITH TAKE-HOME PAY TAN UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM. DID YOU ACCOUNT FOR THAT? IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT 90% OF PEOPLE WILL PAY LESS THAN THEY DO NOW. BUT NURSES WILL PAY MORE? SOMEONE EARNING 120,000 A YEAR, YOU ARE TALKING FIVE DOLLARS EXTRA. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FRY DENTAL HEALTHCARE, EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION, BRINGING DOWN CLIMATE CHANGE AND BRAIN TAINTING DOCTORS MAINTAINING DOCTORS AND NURSES IN THIS COUNTRY. MANY PEOPLE HAVE TOLD ME THAT THEY WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE PAYING MORE TAX IF THEY KNEW THAT IT WAS GOING TOWARDS FIXING THE SOCIETY THAT ALL OF US WANT. THAT COMES DOWN TO DELIVERY. IT ASSUMES THE DELIVERIES ABSOLUTELY NAILED. OF COURSE, BUT I WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT WE ARE NOT 5 MILLION RANDOM ISOLATED INDIVIDUALS. OUR HEALTH HAPPINESS AND SAFETY RELIES AT LEAST IN PART ON THE HEALTH AND HEALTH AND HAPPINESS AND SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBOURS, AND IF WE WANT TO ACTUALLY IMPROVE THIS COUNTRY WE HAVE TO INVEST IN IT AND WE ARE UNASHAMED OF THAT. AT THE SAME TIME AS YOU ARE PROPOSING A HUGE INCREASE IN CORPORATE TAX, YOU'RE ALSO PROPOSING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN DEBT. WHAT DOES TREASURY NOT UNDERSTAND? TREASURIES MODELS AT THE MOMENT, AND WE WILL PROVIDE MORE DETAIL IN THE NEXT THREE WEEKS, WE ARE EXCITED THAT WE ARE BREAKING OPEN THIS DISCUSSION AND DEBATES THAT IS WELL OVERDUE IN THE COUNTRY, TREASURIES MODELS DO NOT POSITIVELY ACCOUNT FOR THE INVESTMENT NECESSARY TO BUILD OUT OUR ECONOMIC RESILIENCE, WHICH INVOLVES INTERNATIONAL CREDIT RATING AGENCIES AND SO ON WHEN THEY ARE THINKING OF LENDING TO US. LET US TALK ABOUT DELIVERY. IN ORDER TO MAKE YOUR SUMS WORK, YOUR ACCOUNTING FOR A DIVERSION OF PEOPLE WHO MIGHT OTHERWISE BE IMPRISONED. YOU FORECAST SAVING $205 MILLION IN THE NEXT YEAR ALONE, THREE QUARTERS OF $1 BILLION OVER THE NEXT FOUR YEARS. WE CURRENTLY HAVE 10 AND HALF THOUSAND PRISONERS, COSTING AN AVERAGE OF HUNDRED AND 80,000 ALSO YEAR. IN ORDER TO SAVE CHILDREN $5 MILLION A YEAR NEXT YEAR, YOU WILL HAVE TO RELEASE 1100 PRISONERS NEXT 12 MONTHS. WHO DO YOU PROPOSE WILL BE RELEASED? TO COME BACK TO SOME BASIC FACTS, ARBITRATION FOR THOSE FIGURES ARE CHANGING WHAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD PROPOSED IN THEIR BUDGET OF LAST YEAR TO INCREASE VISITOR NUMBERS AND THEREFORE INCREASE PRISONER CAPACITY. OUR BUDGET MEANINGFULLY INVESTS IN PEOPLE'S QUALITY OF LIFE AND REDUCES CRIME. IN ORDER TO MAKE THOSE SUMS, YOU HAVE TO RELEASE PEOPLE FROM PRISON. THERE ARE CHANGES THAT HAVE TO BE INTERROGATED AROUND HALF THE PRISON POPULATION BEING HELD ON REMAND. FOR EXAMPLE. WOULD THAT INCLUDE VIOLENT PRISONERS? JACK, WHAT WE ARE FOCUSED ON IS IMPROVING PEOPLE'S QUALITY OF LIFE. NOT IF THEY ARE SUBJECTED TO A CRIMINAL ACT BY SOMEONE WHO SHOULD BE IMPRISONED. WE KNOW FROM THE REVIEW CHAIRED BY CHESTER BURROWS, THE MORE TIME PEOPLE SPEND IMPRISONED THE MORE THEY ARE LIKELY TO OFFEND. I'VE SEEN RECIDIVISM NUMBERS. THAT IS NOT TRUE. THE LONGER PEOPLE SPEND IMPRISONED THE MORE LIKELY ARE TO BE SUBJECTED TO REHABILITATION PROGRAMS, AND BECAUSE THEY ARE OLDER WHEN THEY LEAVE PRESENT THERE ARE ACTUALLY LESS LIKELY TO COMMIT CRIMES. THE PEOPLE MOST LIKELY TO REOFFEND ARE THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN IN PRISON FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. THOSE PRESENTLY, FOR EXAMPLE, ON REMAND, AND IF WE ARE PROPERLY INVESTING IN REHABILITATION IN THE COURT SYSTEM IN IMPROVING PEOPLE'S LIVES AND WE ARE NOT LOCKING PEOPLE UP AND THROWING AWAY THE KEY TO GET WORSE AND WORSE OUTCOMES. BEFORE IT WAS CANCELED, LIGHT RAIL WAS PROPOSED TO COST $15 BILLION FOR AUCKLAND. YOU SAY YOU COULD DELIVER IT IN AUCKLAND, WELLINGTON AND CHRISTCHURCH FOR LESS THAN 12 BILLION. HOW? WE'VE SEEN THAT IT IS ENTIRELY FEASIBLE, PART OF IT IS ECONOMIES OF SCALE AND PART OF IT IS BUILDING UP THE MINISTRY FOR GREEN WORKS TO PROPERLY TO DELIVER THIS WITHIN THE STATE AND NOT GETTING INVOLVED IN PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS OR ANYTHING ELSE. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE FANTASY DELIVERED LIGHT RAIL ACROSS THREE CITIES FOUR 12 BILLION WHEN IT WAS GOING TO COST 15 BILLION IN AUCKLAND ALONE. I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO GET THESE DETAILS FOR YOU AND ANYONE ELSE WHO IS INTERESTED WHO IS POURING OVER THOSE DETAILS. I CAN TELL YOU THEY ROBUST DETAILS BASED ON INTERACTIONS WE HAVE HAD WITH EXPERTS IN THE SPACE BUT ALSO HAS BEEN INDEPENDENTLY COSTED. HE REBUILT HAD VAST RESOURCES AND ULTIMATELY DELIVERED LESS THAN 5000 HOUSES, YOU SAID YOU WOULD DELIVER MORE THAN 35,000 IN THE SAME PERIOD. WE ARE LOOKING AT DOING IS BUILDING THE CAPACITY OF THE STATE, BUILDING OUR COLLECTIVE CAPACITY OF NEW ZEALANDERS. GOES HAND-IN-HAND WITH OUR INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY RELEASED TWO WEEKS AGO WHERE HE COULD TURN THE CENTRAL NORTH ISLAND INTO A HUB FOR FUTURE FOCUSED TIMBER PRODUCTS. SEVEN TIMES FASTER? KEEPING IN MIND THE CONSTRUCTION CAPACITY REQUIRED TO DELIVER LIGHT RAIL IN THREE SURVEYS FOR LISTEN TO $1 BILLION, YOU WILL ALSO DO SEVEN TIMES BETTER THAN KEY REBUILD? HOW WILL YOU EXPAND OUR CONSTRUCTION CAPACITY THAT QUICKLY? BY INVESTING IN A PROPERLY FULL STOP THAT'S WHY IT COSTS REAL MONEY. ABOUT 2100 DENTAL SURGEONS IN NEW ZEALAND. TE WHATU ORA REAGAN'S WE ARE A SHORTENED DENTIST NEW ZEALAND, BUT YOU WILL INTRODUCE UNIVERSAL DENTAL ON DAY ONE. HOW WILL THAT WORK? THERE IS A PHASING IN PROCESS THAT WE HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR IN OUR TOOL AND BUDGET STUFF SOMETHING WE ACCOUNTED FOR IN 2023. THERE WILL NOT BE A HOMOGENOUS VIEW WITHIN PEOPLE WHO WORK IN DENTISTRY, BUT MANY IN DENTISTRY WE HAVE SPOKEN WITH AND SALARIED MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS HAVE SPOKEN TO HOW IMPORTANT IT IS THAT WE ARE FINALLY HAVING THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT PUBLIC PREVENTION OF DENTAL SERVICES. BUT IT IS FANTASY STUFF, RIGHT, IF WE ARE 340 SHORT, HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE TO TRAIN THE ADDITIONAL DENTISTS? POTENTIALLY DECADES. THE LONGER WE KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD THE WORSE IT GETS. BUT IF YOU WANT TO BE CONSIDERED ADULT SERIES ABOUT THIS, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT IS REMOTELY REALISTIC. IT IS REALISTIC IF WE INVEST THE REQUISITE RESOURCES TO ACHIEVE THESE THINGS. THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THERE MAY BE FOR SHIPS OR OTHERWISE. WHAT WE HAVE ACHIEVED WITH THE SCREEN BUDGET IS SOMETHING WITH THE RESOURCES OF 15 GREEN MPS IN OPPOSITION. WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO ALL THOSE BOFFINS. WE SHOULD TAKE THIS BUDGET LITERALLY? OF COURSE HE SHOULD. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF HAVING IT INDEPENDENTLY COSTED. MINISTRY FOR RAINBOW COMMUNITIES, MINISTRY FOR ENVIRONMENT? WHERE WOULD I FIND THOSE IN THE SERIOUS PIECE OF WORK? THE BUDGET FOR THIS. THE BUDGET IS BITING OFF A LOT OF REALLY BIG ISSUES SO NOT EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE ISSUE UNDER EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT OF THE ECONOMY HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR. BUT SURELY YOU SHOULD INCLUDE YOUR OWN POLICIES. WE HAVE INCLUDED A NUMBER OF OUR POLICIES. FOR EXAMPLE IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RAPID REDUCTION OF CLIMATE CHANGE EMISSIONS... YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE MINISTRIES HE WANTS TO INTRODUCE THERE, INCLUDING THE MYSTERY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. AGAIN, JACK, THOSE ARE OUR POLICIES THAT OUR MINISTERS HAVE WORKED ON. THIS IS WHAT OUR PARLIAMENTARY TEAM HAS WORKED ON, THIS BUDGET, THE MASSIVE PRIORITIES, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE WHOLE OF ECONOMY TRANSFORMATION, THIS IS THE BIG STUFF ABSOLUTELY. THERE IS STILL FOCUS ON THOSE BITS AND PIECES AND THAT'S WHERE WE WILL HAVE ENGAGEMENT WITH COMMUNITY. IF YOUR TAX POLICY WAS NOT ENOUGH IN THE LAST ELECTION TO WIN THE GREENS A GOVERNING POSITION, WHY DO YOU THINK NEXT ELECTION WILL BE DIFFERENT? I THINK NEW ZEALANDERS SEE THE WHEELS FALLING OFF THE ECONOMY. PEOPLE ARE ACCESSING FEEDBACKS EVERY WEEK, I TALKED TO PEOPLE EVERY WEEK WHO ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE VISIBLE HOMELESSNESS INCREASING IN THE CITY CENTRE. I AM WORKING WITH AGENCIES PRESENTING OUR KIDS, AS A YOUNG AS 11, FROM SLEEPING ON THE STREET, SO I THINK NOW MORE THAN EVER IT IS CRITICAL THAT WE PRESENT NOT ONLY A HOPEFUL VISION BUT ALSO SOME REALLY KEY SOLUTIONS THAT AS WE SAY ARE INDEPENDENTLY COSTED AND CAN HELP PUSH THE DEBATE FORWARD. THESE ARE THE STUDENTS WE CAN MAKE IF WE INVEST IN THE COMMON GOOD, THINGS I THINK ALL NEW ZEALANDERS CAN AGREE ON REGARDLESS HOW THEY VOTE, SAYING THAT IF PEOPLE ARE IN TOUGH TIMES WE LOOK AFTER THEM, WITH THE REQUISITE EXPECTATION THAT WE ARE LOOKED AFTER TWO. THE C WORD I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN DONE TO DEATH AND NOT BEING EDIFYING FOR ANYONE INVOLVED, BUT AS A PROMINENT WAHINE LEADER WHO IS COLD OUT SEXISM IN THE PAST, WHERE ARE YOU ON THIS? I WAS IN THE HOUSE WHEN BROOKE VAN VELDEN CHOSE TO USE THAT WORD, TRYING TO POSITION HERSELF AS A VICTIM WHEN CUTTING OFF THOUSANDS OF WOMEN WORKERS FROM THEIR RIGHTS TO ACCESS PAY EQUITY. I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO CRITICIZE THE USE OF THAT TERM, BUT THE REALITY IS THAT IF WE ARE LOOKING AT THE STATE OF POLITICS AT THE MOMENT IT IS DISTRACTION STUFF, JACK. YOU HAVE REALLY FORCEFULLY COLD OUTSIDE THE SIGNAGE IN THE PAST, AND THIS IS LANGUAGE THAT IS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT ONE THINKS OF IT, DIRECTED TO OPPOSITION MPS. WHY DID YOU NOT SEEK OUT? I WILL CALL IT OUT IF YOU WANT, WE SHOULD RAISE THE TONE OF THE DEBATE. WE ARE LOSING SIGHT OF MATERIAL IMPACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS INITIATIVE AND UNDER URGENCY, CUTTING OUT HUNDREDS OF THOUSAND WOMEN WORKERS WHO HAVE WORKED FOR DECADES TO GET TO WHERE THINGS ARE AT. I AM ABSOLUTELY STANDING IN THE NEXT ELECTION. IF NEW ZEALANDERS HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THE BUDGET WILL WORK IN OPERATION, IF THEY WANT TO SEE SOMETHING GOOD AND POSITIVE HAPPEN IN THIS COUNTRY, JOIN US ON THE ROAD AS WE WILL BE ACROSS THE COUNTRY ENGAGING WITH URBAN AND RULE COMMUNITIES ABOUT THIS URGENT. ON THURSDAY, THE AUDITOR-GENERAL ISSUED A SCATHING REPORT INTO SERVICE COMMISSIONING BY ORANGA TAMARIKI, FINDING THE AGENCY HASN'T FOCUSED ON OUTCOMES OR EVEN MONITORED PERFORMANCE IN A MEANINGFUL WAY. THAT IS ONE OF THE KEY PROBLEMS THE GOVERNMENT SAYS IT'S TRYING TO ADDRESS WITH ITS NEW SOCIAL INVESTMENT AGENCY. HEADED UP BY FORMER POLICE COMMISSIONER ANDREW COSTER, THE AGENCY HAS BEEN GIVEN $190 MILLION FOR A SOCIAL INVESTMENT FUND. IT WILL USE THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEGRATED DATA INFRASTRUCTURE, AN ANONYMISED DATABASE OF NEW ZEALANDERS' INFORMATION, TO INFORM THE COMMISSIONING OF SOCIAL SERVICES. SOCIAL INVESTMENT IS ABOUT GETTING BETTER OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE AND COMMUNITIES, PARTICULARLY BY THE USE OF DATA TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S MAKING A DIFFERENCE, AND TO FUND MORE OF IT. THIS 'OUTCOMES VERSUS OUTPUTS' IS A VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION, AND IT'S ONE THAT I HEAR OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHEN DESCRIBING SOCIAL INVESTMENT. JUST EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS. YEAH. SO MUCH OF GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY AT THE MOMENT IS TRACKED THROUGH OUTPUTS ` AND BY THAT, WE MEAN THE ACTIVITIES, THE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING EVERY DAY, THE WIDGETS IF YOU LIKE. BUT IN THE SOCIAL SPACE, WHAT WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND IS ARE WE MAKING A DIFFERENCE? ARE ALL THOSE ACTIVITIES ADDING UP TO BETTER OUTCOMES IN PEOPLE'S LIVES? AND THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. SO IS THE PURPOSE OF SOCIAL INVESTMENT MORAL AND SOCIAL OR IS THE PURPOSE TO SAVE MONEY? THE PURPOSE OF SOCIAL INVESTMENT IS TO GET THE BEST VALUE IN THE BROADEST SENSE, WHICH MEANS THE BEST OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE, THE BEST OUTCOMES FOR COMMUNITY, AND THE BEST USE OF FUNDING IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THAT, WHICH WE'RE ALL INTERESTED IN. OK, SO THERE ARE TWO SORT OF BROAD RESPONSIBILITIES THAT YOU AND THE SOCIAL INVESTMENT AGENCY HAVE AT THIS STAGE. THERE'S THE CROSS-AGENCY WORK THAT'S KIND OF REVIEWING, COMMISSIONING, COLLECTING DATA ` THE LEADERSHIP ROLE, AS THE MINISTER HAS DESCRIBED IT ` AND THEN THERE'S THE DIRECT COMMISSIONING. SO LET'S START WITH THE DIRECT COMMISSIONING. THE SOCIAL INVESTMENT FUND IS GOING TO OPEN OFFICIALLY IN AUGUST. YOU'VE ANNOUNCED THIS WEEK THREE INITIAL INVESTMENTS ` AUTISM NEW ZEALAND, EMERGE AOTEAROA, AND HE PIRANGA WHARE. SO WHY AND HOW WERE THEY CHOSEN? WHAT WE SEE IN THE WAY WE INVEST TODAY IS THAT WE DON'T NECESSARILY PICK THE INITIATIVES THAT DELIVER CROSS-CUTTING OUTCOMES. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY DON'T FALL TIDILY WITHIN ANY PARTICULAR AGENCY'S RESPONSIBILITY. IT'S ABOUT PEOPLE. AND OFTEN WE DON'T BRING DATA AND EVIDENCE TO UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT, AND THESE INITIATIVES CAME THROUGH A PROCESS THAT WE RAN AS REALLY GOOD EXAMPLES OF ORGANISATIONS THAT ARE DELIVERING CROSS-CUTTING OUTCOMES. THEY ARE RELATIVELY EARLY INTERVENTIONS, AND THEY HAVE A VERY STRONG APPROACH TO THE USE OF DATA AND EVIDENCE. THEY'RE DEMONSTRATOR INITIATIVES. THEY WILL HELP US TO TEST ASPECTS OF SOCIAL INVESTMENT, AND SO THEY'RE THE FIRST CABS OFF THE RANK. OK. SO TO TAKE HE PIRANGA WHARE FOR EXAMPLE, OK. SO TO TAKE HE PIRANGA WHARE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT'S GOING TO SUPPORT 130 FAMILIES AT A TIME TO LIVE IN WARM DRY HOMES, TO ENGAGE THEM IN EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT, AND TO SUPPORT WHANAU TO LIVE IN RELATIONSHIPS THAT ARE FREE FROM VIOLENCE. THOSE ARE REALLY DISPARATE GOALS ` AND I GET THAT THIS IS THE POINT OF THE KIND OF CROSS-CUTTING MEASURES, BUT HOW DO YOU MEASURE SUCCESS IN THOSE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPACES? SO, TE TIHI WHICH HAS BEEN RUNNING THIS PROGRAMME FOR A WHILE, SO, TE TIHI, WHICH HAS BEEN RUNNING THIS PROGRAMME FOR A WHILE, HAS STRUGGLED TO GET FUNDING, AND FUNDING HAS OFTEN BEEN COBBLED TOGETHER, SUPPORTED BY LOCAL LEADERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. THIS WILL GIVE IT A FUNDING BASE FROM WHICH TO CONTINUE ITS WORK, BUT THEIR STRENGTH IS GREAT USE OF DATA TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT THAT THEY'RE HAVING. THE SOCIAL INVESTMENT AGENCY HAS A PARTICULAR SKILL IN THE USE OF POPULATION-LEVEL DATA, PARTICULARLY FROM THE INTEGRATED DATA INFRASTRUCTURE, TO SEE WHETHER LIFE TRAJECTORIES ARE CHANGING AS A RESULT OF THE SERVICE. ESSENTIALLY, IF YOU'RE SAYING HE PIRANGA WHARE IS BEING FUNDED TO ENGAGE PEOPLE IN EDUCATION AND TO LIVE IN WARM, DRY HOMES, PREVIOUSLY, THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN COMMISSIONED FOR THE WARM, DRY HOMES, PART OF THAT FROM ONE AGENCY. THEY MIGHT HAVE THEN BEEN SEPARATELY COMMISSIONED FROM ANOTHER AGENCY FOR THE EDUCATION ELEMENT; FOR THE LIVING IN RELATIONSHIPS THAT ARE FREE FROM VIOLENCE MIGHT HAVE INVOLVED ANOTHER AGENCY. THE PURPOSE IS THAT YOU HAVE ONE CENTRAL AGENCY FOR THIS. YEAH, AND WHEN WE'RE FUNDING THROUGH DIFFERENT AGENCIES FOR A CROSS-CUTTING OUTCOME, WHAT WE SEE IS ORGANISATIONS TRYING TO COBBLE TOGETHER OR AGGREGATE A SERVICE FOR THE PEOPLE THEY'RE TRYING TO HELP, BUT PEOPLE DON'T PRESENT AS SILOS, PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY HAVE COMPLEX CHALLENGES. AND SO THIS IS ENABLING AN ORGANISATION THAT IS WORKING WITH A PARTICULAR GROUP OF FAMILIES IN THE COMMUNITY TO DO THAT IN A VERY HOLISTIC WAY THAT HELPS THOSE FAMILIES TO REACH THEIR ASPIRATION. SO HOW DOES THAT WORK? THEY WILL DO A RANGE OF THINGS. AND THE IMPORTANT PART HERE IS WE'RE NOT SITTING IN WELLINGTON PRESCRIBING THE SERVICES THAT THEY WILL DELIVER FOR THE PEOPLE THAT WE'VE NEVER MET. RIGHT. THE ORGANISATION KNOWS THE FAMILIES IN THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY'RE CONNECTING WITH. THEY WILL UNDERSTAND THEIR NEEDS, AND TE TIHI IN PARTICULAR HAS PLAYED A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE IN HELPING THOSE FAMILIES TO ACCESS UNIVERSAL SERVICES IN A WAY THAT RESPONDS TO THEIR ASPIRATION AND WHERE THEY'RE TRYING TO GET TO IN THEIR LIVES. SO IT ENGAGES THEIR AGENCY AS WELL. AND SO TO THE EVIDENCE SIDE OF THIS ` HOW WILL YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS WORKING? SO, THERE ARE REALLY A COUPLE OF STREAMS ` ONE IS THAT THE ORGANISATIONS THAT WE WORK WITH WILL HAVE A STRONG UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS HAPPENING FOR THE FAMILIES THAT THEY'RE SUPPORTING; THE OTHER ASPECT IS THAT WHEN SERVICE INTERVENTION INFORMATION IS CAPTURED IN THE I.D.I., WITH ENOUGH PEOPLE THROUGH A SERVICE, WE CAN SEE WHETHER THE SERVICE IS HAVING A LASTING IMPACT. POINT 37 OF THE CABINET PAPER, SAYS THIS, QUOTE, POINT 37 OF THE CABINET PAPER SAYS THIS, QUOTE, 'THE OVERSIGHT MODEL WILL ALLOW MINISTERS TO HAVE INPUT 'INTO ENSURING THE APPROPRIATE OUTCOMES OF SOUGHT.' SO MINISTERS ARE GOING TO DECIDE NEXT MONTH WHAT THE SOCIAL INVESTMENT FUND SHOULD BE PRIORITISING. WHY ISN'T THE FUND COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT? MINISTERS ARE ELECTED BY THE PUBLIC TO BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES, AND SO THE ROLE THAT MINISTERS WILL PLAY IN THE FUND IS SAYING, WHAT ARE THE OUTCOMES THAT GOVERNMENT CARES ABOUT? AND THEY WILL BE EXPRESSED IN CROSS-CUTTING TERMS. THE FUND THEN HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO COMMISSION SERVICES THAT ADDRESS THOSE OUTCOME AREAS, AND TO MONITOR FOR ACHIEVEMENT OF THOSE OUTCOMES OVER TIME. WILL MINISTERS HAVE A VETO? THIS FUND ` THE MINISTER HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR ` WILL SIT SEPARATE FROM MINISTERIAL DECISION-MAKING IN TERMS OF THE SPECIFIC SERVICES. THE SOCIAL INVESTMENT AGENCY HAS AN ADVISORY BOARD, A BIPARTISAN ADVISORY BOARD, AND POINT 49 OF THAT SAME CABINET PAPER SAID THIS, QUOTE, 'THE BOARD HAS CONCERNS THAT THE PROPOSALS, WHILE BEING PRESENTED 'AS TRANSITIONAL, WILL BECOME THE FUTURE STATE. 'THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE FUND IS ESTABLISHED 'AS AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY,' AND OBVIOUSLY THAT ADVICE HAS BEEN REJECTED BY CABINET. SO HOW DO I KNOW THAT THE SOCIAL INVESTMENT AGENCY AND THE FUND IS GETTING THE ABSOLUTE BEST RETURN ON TAXPAYER DOLLARS WHEN IT COMES TO COMMISSIONING SOCIAL SERVICES, AS OPPOSED TO SIMPLY FOCUSING ON AREAS THAT MIGHT BE A POLITICAL PRIORITY FOR ANY GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY? CABINET HASN'T OUTRIGHT REJECTED THAT ADVICE. THE REASON THE FUND IS WITHIN THE S.I.A. IN THE FIRST PERIOD IS SO THAT WE CAN ESTABLISH THIS END TO END IN THE WAY IT NEEDS TO WORK. AND THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT FOR GOVERNMENT. WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING QUITE LIKE IT. ONCE IT'S ESTABLISHED, THERE'S A HIGH LIKELIHOOD THAT THE FUND WILL SPLIT OUT FROM THE SOCIAL INVESTMENT AGENCY, AND THAT WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF FURTHER CABINET DECISION. AND THAT WOULD BE AT ABOUT 2026 AT THE EARLIEST. YEAH, IT'LL BE IN THAT KIND OF TIME FRAME, YEAH. THE VERY FIRST WORDS YOU SEE ON THE WHANAU ORA HOME PAGE ARE, QUOTE, 'COMMISSIONING FOR OUTCOMES.' DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR? ABSOLUTELY. SO HOW DOES THE COMMISSIONING FUND FOR THE SOCIAL INVESTMENT AGENCY COMPARE TO WHANAU ORA? YEAH. WHANAU ORA IS A GREAT EXAMPLE, PARTICULARLY AT THE DELIVERY LEVEL, OF ENABLING FAMILIES, WHANAU, TO SIT THEIR ASPIRATIONS, OF ENABLING FAMILIES, WHANAU, TO SET THEIR ASPIRATIONS, TAKE CONTROL OF THEIR OWN CIRCUMSTANCES AND MOVE INTO A BETTER PLACE. SO IT'S A GREAT EXAMPLE IN TERMS OF THAT. WHANAU ORA HASN'T SCALED SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE IT WAS FIRST ESTABLISHED, AND PART OF THE REASON FOR THAT IS IT'S VERY HARD TO COMPARE WHANAU ORA AND ITS IMPACTS TO A RANGE OF OTHER THINGS THAT GOVERNMENT INVESTS IN. WHAT THE FUND WILL DO IS GIVE US A WAY OF UNDERSTANDING ACROSS A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENT INVESTMENTS WHICH ONES ARE HAVING THE BEST EFFECT, AND THEN OUR FUNDING DECISIONS CAN FOLLOW. SO AT WHAT POINT DO YOU MEASURE THE IMPACT THAT YOU'VE MADE FOR DIFFERENT SERVICES? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING COULD LOOK REALLY DIFFERENT AFTER, SAY, 12 MONTHS COMPARED TO 10 YEARS. YEAH, WE KNOW THAT WE NEED TO GET INTO EARLY PREVENTION. YOU KNOW, IF I LOOK BACK TO MY POLICING EXPERIENCE, WE WOULD SPEND A LOT OF TIME RESPONDING TO SYMPTOMS OF A PROBLEM, YOU KNOW, KIDS AGED 11, 12 RAM-RAIDING. WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY AND THEIR LIVES, WHAT YOU SEE IS FAMILY VIOLENCE, WHAT YOU SEE IS A RANGE OF OTHER DISADVANTAGES. SO WE HAVE TO INVEST EARLY. BUT WITH ALL THESE THINGS, WE NEED TO SHOW VALUE ALONG THE WAY, AND SO YOU MIGHT EXPECT TO SEE WITH AN INTERVENTION WORKING WITH YOUNG PEOPLE THAT THE FIRST STEP IS WE'RE SEEING IMPROVED SCHOOL ATTENDANCE. AND THEN DOWN THE TRACK, WE WANT TO SEE SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT AND WE WANT TO KNOW THAT THEY HAVEN'T FALLEN INTO YOUTH OFFENDING. AND SO YOU GET A NEAR-TERM THING ` POSITIVE SIGNS ` AND YOU GET A LONG-TERM THING ` A GREAT OUTCOME. BUT WHY WILL THE FUND, AND COMMISSIONING AUDIT UNDER THE FUND, BE ANY BETTER THAN COMMISSIONING FROM ANOTHER AGENCY? THE PARTICULAR FRAME THE FUND WILL BRING IS A FOCUS ON OUTCOMES. AND IT'S A BIT ASTOUNDING, BUT THAT'S PRETTY RARE ACROSS OUR COMMISSIONING PRACTICE AT THE MOMENT. WHAT WE NORMALLY DO AT THE MOMENT IS WE SAY, 'WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE? 'WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE SAY WOULD SOLVE IT?' AND THEN WE GO AND BUY A SERVICE THAT DOES THAT THING, AND WE MEASURE WHETHER IT'S DOING THAT THING. WE DON'T MEASURE WHETHER IT GOT THE OUTCOME. SO THE FUND HAS GOT A DIFFERENT STARTING POINT. AND ULTIMATELY, WE ENVISAGE THERE BEING COMMISSIONERS BEYOND THE FUND SO THAT YOU COULD HAVE COMMUNITY-BASED COMMISSIONING WHERE AN ORGANISATION HAS THE RIGHT CAPABILITY TO DO EXACTLY THAT. RIGHT. SO THE COMMISSIONING OF SERVICES IS JUST PART OF THE AGENCY'S ROLE AT THE MOMENT. THE OTHER THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER IS THE KIND OF CROSS-AGENCY WORK IN COMMISSIONING AND DATA COLLECTION. ASIDE FROM THE FUND AND THE DIRECT COMMISSIONING THAT YOU'VE UNDERTAKEN SO FAR, WHAT DOES THE SOCIAL INVESTMENT AGENCY ACTUALLY DOING? WHAT IS THE SOCIAL INVESTMENT AGENCY ACTUALLY DOING? WE SPEND ABOUT $80 BILLION ON THE SOCIAL SECTOR EVERY YEAR. THE COMMUNITY-COMMISSIONED SERVICES, WHICH IS THE AREA WHERE THE FUND WILL PREDOMINANTLY OPERATE, IS ABOUT 6 BILLION TO 8 BILLION, SO ABOUT 10%. THE REST SITS IN CORE GOVERNMENT SERVICE DELIVERY, AND THERE ARE LOTS OF OPPORTUNITIES THERE AS WELL. THAT'S ABOUT HOW DATA AND EVIDENCE CAN INFORM APPROACHES WITHIN PORTFOLIOS TO IMPROVE THE IMPACT THAT WE ARE GETTING IN HEALTH, IN EDUCATION, IN HOUSING. AND SO WE HAVE A KEY ROLE IN FORMING THAT AS WELL. SO HOW DO YOU DO THAT? WHAT DO YOU DO? TO GIVE A PRACTICAL EXAMPLE, IF WE CAN SEE IN THE POPULATION THAT CERTAIN STUDENTS... GROUPS OF STUDENTS IN THE COMMUNITY ARE DOING BETTER UNDER A KURA KAUPAPA MODEL THAN UNDER A TRADITIONAL SCHOOLING MODEL, AND THERE'S A GAP IN SERVICE PROVISION IN AN AREA, THEN ONE OF THE BITS OF ADVICE COULD BE ` IN THIS AREA, WE SEE THERE'S A GROUP OF YOUNG PEOPLE COMING THROUGH WHO ARE GOING TO NEED THAT KIND OF SERVICE DELIVERY. YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. SO HOW DO YOU GET AND PROCESS THAT DATA? WE CAN FIRSTLY SEE NEED AT A POPULATION LEVEL ` OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS ALL ANONYMIZED ` AND WE CAN SEE TRENDS AND IN PARTICULAR SEE THAT` WHERE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT BE SERVING GROUPS IN THE POPULATION PARTICULARLY WELL, AND THAT RAISES A QUESTION AS TO WHAT TO DO. IT'S THEN A DIALOGUE WITH WHICHEVER PART OF GOVERNMENT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE OPPORTUNITIES ARE IN ` AND THOSE METHODS CAN BE APPLIED BY AGENCIES AS WELL. SO ARE YOU RELYING ON THE AGENCIES TO GIVE YOU THE DATA, OR IS THIS DATA THAT ALREADY EXISTS? THE DATA ALREADY EXISTS. THE I.D.I. HAS EXISTED FOR A LONG TIME, AND IT'S A RICH TOOL. MANY OTHER COUNTRIES WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE ASSET THAT WE HAVE IN THE I.D.I. HOW HAVE OTHER AGENCIES RESPONDED TO YOUR EFFORTS SO FAR? LOOK, THIS IS DISRUPTIVE. WE ARE PROPOSING QUITE A BIG SHIFT IN THE WAY GOVERNMENT COMMISSION SERVICES FOR CROSS-CUTTING OUTCOMES, AND CHANGE IS HARD, AND, YOU KNOW, IT TAKES TIME TO BUILD UNDERSTANDING. BUT EQUALLY, IF WE KEEP DOING WHAT WE'VE ALWAYS DONE, THEN OUTCOMES WON'T IMPROVE ` AND WE KNOW THAT OUTCOMES ARE NOT IMPROVING FOR SOME. CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF THE KIND OF PUSHBACK YOU'VE RECEIVED? LOOK, I THINK ALL OF THE DEBATES` I MEAN, WE'VE GOT A VERY WELL ESTABLISHED MODEL OF GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS VERY PORTFOLIO-CENTRIC ` A MINISTER WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR AN AGENCY, WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR AN AREA. THAT WORKS WELL FOR 80% OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE DELIVERY. BUT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE COMPLEX CROSS-CUTTING NEEDS, TRYING TO SEGMENT THEM INTO A PARTICULAR PORTFOLIO, DOESN'T SHIFT THE DIAL IN TERMS OF OUTCOMES, AND THAT'S WHERE THE OPPORTUNITY IS. SO ARE YOU TELLING ME, THOUGH, THAT SOME AGENCIES HAVE GIVEN YOU THE EQUIVALENT OF, 'SOD OFF, THIS IS OUR PATCH'? OH, NO. NO ONE'S BEEN SO RUDE, BUT THERE'S BEEN ROBUST DEBATE, AND YOU WOULD EXPECT THAT, AND IT'S HEALTHY. WITHOUT A CONTROL GROUP, HOW CAN YOU MEASURE THE TRUE IMPACT OF A PROGRAMME? WE CAN, WITHIN THE I.D.I., SEE COHORTS, COMPARABLE COHORTS, WITHIN THE POPULATION. SO IF A SERVICE IS BEING DELIVERED AND WE CAN SEE A GROUP OF PEOPLE ACCESSING A SERVICE ` ALL ANONYMOUSLY IN THE I.D.I. ` THEN WE ARE ALSO, GENERALLY SPEAKING, ABLE TO FIND A GROUP OF PEOPLE, A SIMILAR COHORT WHO AREN'T ACCESSING THE SERVICE OR MIGHT BE ACCESSING A DIFFERENT SERVICE. WHAT'S THE RISK THAT THE STATE VALUES ARE LIFE ONLY IN ECONOMIC TERMS? WE'RE NOT THINKING ONLY IN ECONOMIC TERMS HERE. WHAT WE SEE IN THE DATA IS THE SAME AS WHAT COMMUNITIES TELL US, WHICH IS THAT THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO` AND FAMILIES, WHO GENERATIONALLY ARE NOT THRIVING, AND THERE'S SIGNIFICANT OPPORTUNITY TO HELP. SO THERE'S NO MISALIGNMENT HERE BETWEEN THE DESIRE TO GET GOOD VALUE FOR TAXPAYER MONEY AND THE DELIVERING OF POSITIVE IMPACTS FOR PEOPLE IN THEIR LIVES. IN FACT, YOU KNOW, IT'S INCUMBENT ON US TO GET GOOD VALUE, BECAUSE THAT DEMONSTRATES AND DELIVERS BEST OUTCOMES. WILL YOU BE COMMISSIONING FOR-PROFIT PROVIDERS? I WON'T SAY WE'RE NOT, BUT THIS THIS MODEL IS NOT FOCUSED ON THAT. I WON'T SAY WE'RE NOT, BUT THIS MODEL IS NOT FOCUSED ON THAT. IT'S PREDOMINANTLY` WHEREAS IN HEALTH, YOU HAVE A LOT OF FOR-PROFIT SERVICE PROVISION; IN SOCIAL SERVICES, MORE BROADLY, YOU SEE A LOT OF NGOs, AND THAT'S JUST A FEATURE OF THE WAY THE SECTOR WORKS. AND SO MOST OF THE FUNDING IN THIS SITUATION, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NGOs. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF SOCIAL INVESTMENT BONDS? I WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE PREVIOUS ITERATION OF SOCIAL INVESTMENT THAT USED BONDS. AND THERE WERE THERE WERE TWO ` AND ONE OF THEM WAS QUITE SUCCESSFUL, AND ONE OF THEM WASN'T. THEY'RE QUITE A COMPLEX INSTRUMENT WITH A LOT OF REPORTING INVOLVED, AND THERE'S A REASONABLE DEBATE TO HAVE ABOUT THE IDEA OF PRIVATE EQUITY PROFITING FROM A SOCIAL GOOD. SO IT'S NOT WHERE WE'VE STARTED, AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SO MUCH OPPORTUNITY WITHIN GOVERNMENT FUNDING ALREADY BEING ALLOCATED OUT THERE TO ORGANISATIONS, THAT WE WANT TO GET OUR OWN HOUSE IN ORDER. THE CABINET PAPER SAYS THAT ONCE ESTABLISHED, THE NEW STANDALONE FUNDING WILL BE ABLE TO ATTRACT INVESTMENT FROM PRIVATE AND PHILANTHROPIC ORGANISATIONS. HOW DO YOU SEE THAT WORKING? INNOVATION IS SUCH A MASSIVE AREA OF OPPORTUNITY HERE. WE'VE GOT A REMARKABLE STUDY HERE IN NEW ZEALAND, THE DUNEDIN STUDY, THAT FOLLOWED THE LIVES OF` IS FOLLOWING THE LIVES OF PEOPLE OVER A LONG PERIOD, AND THERE ARE AMAZING INSIGHTS THAT COME OUT OF THAT. AND WHAT YOU SEE IS PEOPLE WHO PICK UP ON EVIDENCE LIKE THAT, AND THEY'LL SAY, 'ACTUALLY, HERE'S SOMETHING WE DIDN'T KNOW BEFORE, 'THAT IF WE APPLY IT, WE THINK MIGHT GET A GREAT BENEFIT.' AND IT'S OFTEN THE PHILANTHROPICS THAT WILL DO THAT, BECAUSE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T INNOVATE WELL, FRANKLY. THERE'S A LOT OF POTENTIAL RISK ATTACHED. SO THE MODEL COULD BE ` PHILANTHROPIC, COMES WITH SOMEONE WITH THE RIGHT EXPERTISE AND SAYS, 'WE WANT TO TEST THIS THING.' AND IF IT FITS WITH AN OUTCOME THAT MINISTERS WANT, THAT DEVELOPMENT COULD OCCUR; AND IF IT TRANSLATES INTO A SERVICE THAT IS A INVESTABLE PROPOSITION, THEN THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT GETS FUNDED IN THE FUTURE. RIGHT. SO BUT WHY WOULDN'T THE PHILANTHROPY JUST DO IT INDEPENDENTLY? WHY WOULD IT BE HANDING OFF? SOMETIMES THEY DO. OFTEN THEY DO, BUT WHAT THEY STRUGGLE TO FIND IS A PLACE WITHIN GOVERNMENT THAT'S READY TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT INNOVATION. BUT WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE IN GOVERNMENT, IS THE POINT? WELL, IT... COULDN'T THEY DO IT INDEPENDENTLY AND THEN SAY, 'LOOK, THIS IS WORKING, HERE YOU GO, HERE'S THE EVIDENCE'? IT NEEDS A PLACE TO DOCK IN, BECAUSE GENERALLY, PHILANTHROPIC FUNDERS DON'T WANT TO FUND A SERVICE INDEFINITELY. AND SO THEY MAY WANT TO DEVELOP SOMETHING THAT GETS DEPLOYED BY GOVERNMENT IN A GOVERNMENT SERVICE ` YOU KNOW, BE IT IN HEALTH OR IN EDUCATION ` OR THEY MIGHT WANT TO DEVELOP SOMETHING THAT THEY KNOW AT THE END OF IT, THAT IF IT WORKS, THAT GOVERNMENT WOULD CONTINUE TO FUND IT SO THAT THEY CAN GO AND DO THE NEXT INNOVATION. THERE IS OBVIOUSLY A POLITICAL DYNAMIC TO THIS. TREASURY SAYS THIS, QUOTE, 'ONE OF THE PRIMARY CHALLENGES 'IS TO ENSURE THAT LONG-TERM ISSUES RECEIVE AS MUCH CONSIDERATION 'AS SHORT-TERM, POLITICALLY SIGNIFICANT MATTERS.' LABOUR HASN'T COMMITTED TO CONTINUING THIS APPROACH IF IT WINS THE ELECTION IN 18 MONTHS' TIME, UNLESS IT'S SHOWN TO BE WORKING. SO HOW DO YOU GET LONG-TERM THINKING WHEN YOU'RE OPERATING IN SHORT-TERM POLITICAL CYCLES? IT IS A CONSTANT CHALLENGE FOR GOVERNMENT AND FOR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. WHAT WE ARE DESIGNING HERE AND BUILDING HERE IS BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE HEARD AND CONTINUE TO HEAR FROM COMMUNITIES, FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING AT THE COALFACE, TRYING TO HELP FAMILIES. AND SO I'M CONFIDENT IT WILL HAVE A STRONG RESONANCE, AND IT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WILL SECURE A WIDE BASE OF SUPPORT. IT MUST BE PLAYING ON YOUR MIND, THOUGH, RIGHT? YOU HAVE TO PROVE THIS IS GOING TO WORK IN A RELATIVELY SHORT WINDOW, BUT IT'S KIND OF A PERVERSE INCENTIVE, GIVEN THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF SOCIAL INVESTMENT IS THAT IT'S AN INTERGENERATIONAL PAYOFF. THE REASON WHY WE ARE LAUNCHING INTO SOMETHING FAIRLY DISRUPTIVE AND, FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, REASONABLY RISKY IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO PULL IT OFF, IS BECAUSE WE NEED TO EMBED IT AND PROVE IT ` AND THAT'S A REALITY. BUT THIS HAS NOT BEEN PLUCKED OUT OF THE AIR. THIS IS INFORMED BY SO MUCH CONVERSATION, INCLUDING IN MY PREVIOUS ROLE, WHEN YOU GO OUT AND YOU SEE THE THINGS THAT ARE WORKING AND YOU HEAR THE HARD STORIES ABOUT FUNDING AND THE INABILITY SOMETIMES FOR GOVERNMENT TO BE ABLE TO RECOGNISE THE VALUE OF THE INITIATIVE. AND WHEN YOU SEE THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO, IF THEY WERE FUNDED WELL, COULD DO SO MUCH MORE. RIGHT. BEFORE WE LET YOU GO, I HAVE TO ASK, WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING FORMER DEPUTY POLICE COMMISSIONER JEVON McSKIMMING AND HIS RESIGNATION FROM POLICE? YOU PROBABLY WON'T BE SURPRISED THAT I SAY I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT I THINK ABOUT THAT. THERE ARE SEVERAL INVESTIGATIONS ON THE GO. WE NEED TO LET THEM RUN THEIR COURSE. THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING FOR ME TO SAY AT THE END OF THAT, BUT THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY FOR NOW. ARE YOU MISSING POLICE? OH, LOOK, IT'S SUCH AN AMAZING ORGANISATION AND A WONDERFUL CAREER. I'D DO IT ALL AGAIN. IN FACT, I CONSIDERED WHETHER YOU COULD JUST SORT OF FINISH YOUR CAREER AS CONSTABLE, BECAUSE I` YOU KNOW, ALL OF THAT STUFF` I HEAR THEY NEED A FEW MORE OFFICERS ON THE BEAT, SO I'M SURE THEY'D TAKE YOU BACK. BUT THIS IS A WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY, TOO, AND IT REALLY IS THE POSITIVE END OF SO MANY OF THE CHALLENGES THAT POLICE SEE EVERY DAY. THAT'S SOCIAL INVESTMENT AGENCY CHIEF EXECUTIVE ANDREW COSTER. WE'LL BRING YOU MORE DETAILS AND ANALYSIS OF THE BUDGET IN THE Q+A BUDGET SPECIAL THURSDAY FROM 2pm ON TVNZ ONE AND TVNZ+. WE'LL ALSO HAVE A LIVE INTERVIEW WITH THE FINANCE MINISTER ON Q+A NEXT SUNDAY. AFTER THE BREAK ` WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO BRING DOWN A TYRANT? WE ASK AN EXPERT ON DICTATORS AND AUTOCRACIES IF DEMOCRACIES ARE UNDER THREAT. LAST YEAR MORE PEOPLE VOTED IN ELECTIONS THAN ANY OTHER YEAR IN HUMAN HISTORY. BUT WITH THE WAR IN UKRAINE, THE FACE-OFF BETWEEN THE U.S. AND CHINA, AND THE PROMINENCE OF HARDMAN-STYLE LEADERSHIP IN COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, MANY HAVE OBSERVED THAT AUTHORITARIANISM IS HAVING A BIT OF MOMENT. MARCEL DIRSUS IS A POLITICAL SCIENTIST AND THE AUTHOR OF 'HOW TYRANTS FALL'. HE'S HERE FOR THE AUCKLAND WRITER'S FESTIVAL, AND I BEGAN BY ASKING HIM IF DEMOCRACY IS IN RETREAT. IT IS. YOU KNOW, THINGS HAVE NOT BEEN GOING GREAT FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, BUT AS ALWAYS, IT DEPENDS A BIT ON THE TIME SPAN THAT YOU LOOK AT. SO IN THE LONGER TERM, IN THE LONGER TIME SPECTRUM, THINGS ARE GOING VERY WELL. THE WORLD IS A LOT MORE DEMOCRATIC THAN IT USED TO BE. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST 10 YEARS, 20 YEARS, THINGS ARE NOT GOING VERY WELL. YEAH. A LOT OF COUNTRIES OSTENSIBLY HOLD ELECTIONS AND HOLD THEMSELVES UP AS BEING DEMOCRACIES, BUT THE FREEDOM OF THOSE ELECTIONS IS ON A CONTINUUM OF SORTS. SO IF WE TAKE AN EXTREME EXAMPLE, I MEAN, VLADIMIR PUTIN STILL CLAIMS THAT RUSSIA IS A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY. BUT THEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE ELECTIONS THAT ARE HELD IN COUNTRIES LIKE TURKIYE, ECUADOR, EVEN INDIA'S ELECTION LAST YEAR WAS DESCRIBED AS BEING CONTROLLED RATHER THAN BEING FREE BY THE OPPOSITION LEADER. DO YOU THINK THAT FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS IN AN ASCENDANCY? IT IS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT GIVES THESE TYPES OF LEADERS A WAY TO SAY THAT THEY ARE LEGITIMATE. YOU KNOW, THEY CAN SAY, 'LOOK, WE HAVE THESE ELECTIONS. 'PEOPLE ARE VOTING. PEOPLE DO SUPPORT ME.' AND THAT GIVES THEM SOME LEGITIMACY, EVEN IF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION KNOWS THAT THE ELECTIONS ARE NOT FREE AND THEY'RE NOT FAIR. BUT AGAIN, I WOULD ARGUE THAT, PARTLY, THIS IS A GOOD THING, BECAUSE BACK IN THE DAY, YOU KNOW, DICTATORS DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER HOLDING ELECTIONS, BUT NOW THEY FEEL THERE'S A NORM. YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME PRESSURE THAT THEY HAVE TO AT LEAST TAKE THEM. BUT WHAT IS THE NET RESULT? WHAT'S THE END RESULT OF IT? I MEAN, THEY'RE FAKING IT, BUT THEY'RE STILL MAINTAINING AN AUTOCRATIC KIND OF LEADERSHIP. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN PORTRAY THEMSELVES AS LEGITIMATE TO SOME EXTENT. SO NOT EVERYBODY IN THE COUNTRY IS GOING TO BELIEVE IT. NOT EVERYBODY ABROAD IS GOING TO BELIEVE IT, BUT THE PEOPLE THAT CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IT CAN GO AHEAD AND BELIEVE IT. AND IT ALSO GIVES THEM SOME INFORMATION. SO FOR SOMEBODY LIKE VLADIMIR PUTIN, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, HE HAS VERY LITTLE IDEA OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON IN HIS COUNTRY BECAUSE HE'S CONSTANTLY BEING LIED TO. BUT EVERY NOW AND THEN THEY DO HAVE AN ELECTION, AND MAYBE THEY SEE A TOPIC THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN IS ABLE TO MOBILISE PEOPLE, AND THEN THE DICTATORSHIP WILL KNOW, 'OH, OK, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT. 'WE HAVE TO WATCH THIS.' DOES THIS KIND OF LEADERSHIP IN THESE KIND OF COUNTRIES AND DEMOCRACIES HAVE BETTER OUTCOMES FOR THE PEOPLE THAN WHAT WE MIGHT TERM AS BEING MORE FREE DEMOCRACIES? SO, WHEN IT COMES TO THE OUTCOMES, WHAT REALLY MATTERS ARE THE TYPES OF PEOPLE THAT YOU NEED IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN POWER. SO IN A FUNCTIONING DEMOCRACY LIKE NEW ZEALAND, YOU NEED THE SUPPORT OF A LARGE SHARE OF THE POPULATION, BECAUSE YOU NEED TO WIN ELECTIONS THAT ARE FREE AND FAIR. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER END OF THE SPECTRUM, SOMEBODY LIKE KIM JONG UN OR VLADIMIR PUTIN, THEY ONLY NEED A TINY SHARE OF THE POPULATION TO MAINTAIN POWER ` THE GENERALS, THE ADVISORS, THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS. AND THAT DRASTICALLY CHANGES THE INCENTIVES. YOU KNOW, WHEN PUTIN HAS MONEY COMING IN, HE REALLY HAS NO INCENTIVE TO BUILD A SCHOOL IN SIBERIA, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE IN SIBERIA ESSENTIALLY HAVE NO INFLUENCE ON HIS HOLD ON POWER. HE HAS TO GIVE THAT MONEY TO THE GENERALS. HE HAS TO GIVE IT TO THE OLIGARCHS TO MAINTAIN POWER. AND LIKEWISE, IN DEMOCRACIES, OUR LEADERS HAVE TO DO SOME GOOD THINGS FOR US SOME OF THE TIME, NOT BECAUSE THEY LIKE US OR BECAUSE THEY'RE GOOD PEOPLE, BUT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO MAINTAIN POWER. TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU THINK DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES HAVE PROPPED UP MORE AUTOCRATIC REGIMES BECAUSE IT'S IN THEIR ECONOMIC INTEREST TO DO SO? OH, ALL THE TIME. YOU KNOW, DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES SUPPORT DICTATORS ALL THE TIME. AND DURING THE COLD WAR, OFTENTIMES IT WAS VERY BLATANT. YOU KNOW, THEY WEREN'T EVEN TRYING TO REALLY HIDE IT. THEY JUST TRIED TO PUT THEIR GUYS IN CHARGE. WHETHER THEY WERE DICTATORS OR NOT DIDN'T REALLY MATTER TOO MUCH. NOW THEY TRY TO HIDE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE. AND YOU KNOW, WHEN POLITICIANS COME ON TV AND THEY TALK TO YOU, THEY SAY, 'LOOK, WE JUST WANT TO PROMOTE DEMOCRACY. 'THIS IS ABOUT OUR VALUES,' AND SO FORTH. BUT THE WORLD IS COMPLICATED AND COUNTRIES HAVE ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT INTERESTS. YEAH, THEY MAY CARE ABOUT PROMOTING DEMOCRACY, BUT THEY ALSO CARE ABOUT SECURITY. THEY CARE ABOUT CHOKE POINTS. THEY CARE ABOUT INTERNATIONAL TRADE. THEY CARE ABOUT NATURAL RESOURCES. SO JUST AS DICTATORS HAVE TO MAKE TRADE-OFFS TO MAINTAIN POWER, DEMOCRATIC LEADERS HAVE TO MAKE TRADE OFFS WHEN DEALING WITH THEM. IN SYRIA LAST YEAR, AFTER MORE THAN A DECADE OF APPALLING VIOLENCE, BASHAR AL-ASSAD'S REGIME WAS OVERTHROWN AND HE FLED TO RUSSIA. WHAT DO YOU THINK WERE THE KEY REASONS FOR HIS DOWNFALL, AND WHY DID IT HAPPEN SO QUICKLY? YEAH, SO, THIS IS ONE OF THE INTERESTING THINGS ABOUT THESE TYPES OF SYSTEMS. IN A DEMOCRACY, YOU CAN LOSE A FEW VOTERS, MAYBE 5%, MAYBE 10%. BUT THESE SYSTEMS ARE 'WINNER TAKES IT ALL', BECAUSE THEY'RE BUILT ON A PERCEPTION OF INEVITABILITY. SO ASSAD COULD STAY IN POWER BECAUSE HIS PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS NO REAL ALTERNATIVE TO HIM. EVEN THOUGH HE WAS PART OF A RELIGIOUS MINORITY WITHIN SYRIA. EXACTLY. BUT AS SOON AS IT BECAME APPARENT, TO THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS, THE POPULATION AT LARGE, THAT, ACTUALLY, THERE COULD BE AN ALTERNATIVE, HE COULD BE TOPPLED. MAYBE WE COULD EVEN HAVE A DEMOCRACY. WHAT HAPPENED WAS IS THAT HE FELL VERY QUICKLY. AND YOU SAW THAT IN A VERY BLATANT SENSE, ALSO, IN DAMASCUS. HIS OWN SOLDIERS TOOK OFF THEIR UNIFORMS, THREW THEM BY THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, AND THEY JUST WENT HOME. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S HOW THESE TYPES OF LEADERS LOSE POWER. AND IT LOOKS SUDDEN, YOU KNOW, BUT REALLY, THEY ARE ALWAYS AT RISK. THEY'RE INCREDIBLY FRAGILE. YOU DESCRIBE THE LEADERSHIP POSITIONS FOR PEOPLE LIKE BASHAR AL-ASSAD AS BEING PRECARIOUS. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT SECURITY SERVICES AND INTELLIGENCE SERVICES AROUND THE WORLD WERE SO SURPRISED BY HIS DOWNFALL? I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, CUT THEM SOME SLACK, BECAUSE THESE SYSTEMS ARE VERY OPAQUE. SO, OBVIOUSLY, IN DEMOCRACIES YOU ALSO HAVE BACKROOM DEALS, BUT THERE'S AN INDEPENDENT PRESS. AND EVENTUALLY YOU DO HAVE TO FACE VOTERS AT THE BALLOT BOX. IN THESE SYSTEMS, IT IS INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TO TELL WHAT EXACTLY IS GOING ON, AND BECAUSE POWER IS SO CONCENTRATED AND THE ENTIRE SYSTEM DEPENDS ON SO FEW PEOPLE, IF EVEN, YOU KNOW, 2 OR 3, 5 OR 10 PEOPLE CHANGE THEIR MIND, THAT CAN MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SITTING IN THAT PALACE OR HAVING TO FLEE TO MOSCOW. WHAT DO YOU THINK HIS FUTURE HOLDS NOW? SO THE PROBLEM FOR LEADERS LIKE ASSAD IS THAT THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY GOOD OPTIONS, SO THEY HAVE TO CHOOSE THE LEAST BAD OPTION. BUT IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, HE GOT THAT PROMISE FROM VLADIMIR PUTIN. VLADIMIR PUTIN IS BECOMING OLDER. SO THERE'S NO TELLING THAT, WHEN VLADIMIR PUTIN EVENTUALLY DIES OR IS DEPOSED, WHICH WILL HAPPEN, THAT ASSAD WILL CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO LIVE IN MOSCOW. OR WHAT HAPPENS IF PUTIN DECIDES THAT HE CARES MORE ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP TO THE NEW RULERS IN SYRIA THAN HE DOES ABOUT THIS MAN WHO REALLY DOESN'T HOLD MANY CHIPS ANY MORE? HE COULD BE GIVEN UP AT ANY MOMENT, AND HE IS HATED. I MEAN, HE'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, AND THOSE ENEMIES DIDN'T JUST EVAPORATE INTO THIN AIR THE MOMENT THAT HE FLED. SO HE WILL ALWAYS BE AT RISK. SO, YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT CONCENTRATION OF POWER. AND IN THE BOOK, YOU DESCRIBE TYRANTS AS GETTING STUCK ON A SORT OF TREADMILL. ONCE THEY'RE IN THAT POSITION, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO GET OFF GRACEFULLY AND SAFELY. WHY IS THAT? SO, WHEN YOU'RE A DICTATOR, YOU HAVE TO DO TERRIBLE THINGS WITH SOME REGULARITY, RIGHT? SO, YOU'LL BE TALKING TOTALLY NORMALLY TO SOMEBODY. YOU SMILE AT THEM, AND THEN LATER ON THAT DAY YOU ORDER THEIR DEATH. YOU HAVE PEOPLE TORTURED. YOU HAVE PEOPLE ARREST. SO YOU HAVE A LOT OF ENEMIES. AND WHEN YOU STEP DOWN, YOU HAVE TO FIND SOMEBODY WHO IS STRONG ENOUGH TO PROTECT YOU, WHO IS NOT GOING TO CRUSH YOU. AND THAT, OF COURSE, IS AN INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT THING TO FIND IN A SUCCESSOR, BECAUSE IF YOU ARE THAT SUCCESSOR, WHY WOULD YOU TOLERATE THE PREVIOUS RULER BEING AROUND? THAT RULER IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE A THREAT. SO EITHER THE PERSON THAT YOU PICK IS TOO WEAK TO PROTECT YOU, OR THEY JUST CRUSH YOU. AND WHEN POLITICAL SCIENTISTS LOOKED AT THIS, THEY FOUND THAT MORE THAN TWO-THIRDS OF PERSONALIST DICTATORS GET IMPRISONED, FORCED INTO EXILE, OR KILLED. SO WE THINK ABOUT THIS FABULOUS EXISTENCE, BUT IT REALLY ISN'T ALL THAT GREAT. YOU SEE, IT'S INTERESTING ` YOU THINK OF SOMEONE LIKE MUAMMAR GADDAFI. A LIFE OF INCREDIBLE POWER, INCREDIBLE RICHES, AND YET SOMEONE WHO SUFFERED AN APPALLING DEATH. DO YOU THINK TYRANTS AND DICTATORS CALCULATE THOSE KINDS OF RISKS? OH, THEY KNOW. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK AND THEY HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE STATISTICS AND THE OBSCURE ACADEMIC JOURNAL, BUT THEY KNOW, AND WE KNOW THAT THEY KNOW BECAUSE THEY TALK ABOUT IT. SO, THEY SEE WHAT HAPPENS TO THESE OTHER LEADERS, AND, YOU KNOW, THEY WILL SAY, 'LOOK, THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY 'I'M LEAVING THE COUNTRY ` IT'S IN A COFFIN.' AND THIS IS GOOD AND BAD, BECAUSE ON THE ONE HAND, YOU DON'T WANT THESE LEADERS TO ENJOY THEIR RETIREMENT, OR, YOU KNOW, TO TAKE UP GOLF. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THESE LEADERS KNOW THAT THE CHANCES OF DEATH OR MISERY ARE SO HIGH, THEY ARE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING THEY POSSIBLY CAN IN ORDER TO STAY IN POWER. AND THAT IS GOING TO MEAN MORE DEATH AND MORE TORTURE. SO, YOUR BOOK NOTES THAT OFTEN THE BIGGEST RISK TO A TYRANT'S REIGN COMES FROM WITHIN THEIR INNER CIRCLE. HOW OFTEN IS IT THAT ONE TYRANT'S REIGN ENDS ONLY FOR SOMEONE CLOSE TO THEM TO THEN TAKE OVER AND ANOTHER REIGN TO BEGIN? MOST OF THE TIME. SO, YOU WOULD THINK THAT WHEN THE TYRANT IS ON HIS WAY OUT OR THE TYRANT DIES, IT'S THE BIGGEST POSSIBLE OPENING, RIGHT? NOW'S THE TIME TO GO AHEAD. NOW WE CAN TURN THE COUNTRY INTO A FLOURISHING DEMOCRACY. BUT USUALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT THE PEOPLE AROUND THE DICTATOR THAT HAVE KEPT THEM IN POWER HAVE VERY LITTLE INTEREST IN DEMOCRACY. SO EVEN IF THEIR LEADER IS NO LONGER AROUND, THESE MEN WILL SIT AROUND THE TABLE ` USUALLY IT IS MEN ` AND THEY WILL FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO NEXT. AND WHAT THEY WANT IS A CONTINUATION OF THAT SYSTEM. THEY DON'T NECESSARILY CARE ABOUT THE DICTATOR, BUT ABOUT THE SYSTEM THAT GIVES THEM POWER AND THAT GIVES THEM MONEY. SO THEY WILL TRY TO KEEP IT RUNNING IN SOME WAY OR ANOTHER, USUALLY. WHAT HAS SURPRISED YOU ABOUT DICTATORS? I THINK WHAT SURPRISED ME MOST ABOUT IT IS WHY PEOPLE WOULD EVEN WANT TO DO IT, YOU KNOW? BECAUSE, AGAIN, I MEAN, IT'S NOT A GOOD JOB. YOU HAVE TO BE A BROKEN PERSON TO DO IT. AND THE JOB BREAKS THESE PEOPLE FURTHER. YOU KNOW, IT IS A DEEPLY WEIRD ENVIRONMENT WHERE YOU CONSTANTLY HAVE TO WORRY, WHERE YOU CONSTANTLY HAVE TO BE WORRIED ABOUT THE PEOPLE CLOSEST TO YOU. YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE THAT YOU WORK WITH EVERY DAY, MAYBE EVEN YOUR WIFE. SO IT IS A TERRIBLE EXISTENCE. BUT WHAT I DID FIND IS THAT, MOST OF THE TIME, THESE LEADERS, THEY'RE NOT EXACTLY GROWING UP IN NEW ZEALAND OR MODERN GERMANY, SO THEY ALREADY LIVE IN A DICTATORSHIP. SO THE QUESTION IS MORE, 'OK, WELL, I MEAN, IF THERE IS GOING TO BE 'A DICTATOR, IT MIGHT AS WELL BE ME AS OPPOSED TO SOME OTHER GUY.' BUT IT IS SOMETHING OF A PUZZLE AS TO WHY ANYONE WOULD WANT IT. THAT'S MARCEL DIRSUS. HIS BOOK IS 'HOW TYRANTS FALL, AND HOW NATIONS SURVIVE'. AFTER THE BREAK ` AS THE GOVERNMENT PONDERS CHANGES TO KIWISAVER, WE MEET THE MP WHO WANTS TO OPEN UP KIWISAVER WITHDRAWALS TO THOSE WHO WANT TO BUY FARMS. IT'S TIME NOW FOR OUR MEMBERS' BILL OF THE WEEK. TODAY WE'RE WITH RANGITIKEI MP SUZE REDMAYNE, WHO WANTS TO CHANGE SOME ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AROUND KIWISAVER FIRST-HOME WITHDRAWALS. (ANALYTICAL MUSIC) MY NAME IS SUZE REDMAYNE. I'M THE MP FOR THE MIGHTY RANGITIKEI. MY MEMBER'S BILL IS THE KIWISAVER FIRST HOME FOR FARM AND SERVICE TENANCY TENANTS AMENDMENT BILL. (ANALYTICAL MUSIC) IT ESSENTIALLY MAKES TWO CHANGES. SO, IT ALLOWS PEOPLE IN A SERVICE TENANCY, SO THINK FARM WORKERS, SOME POLICE AND SCHOOL TEACHERS AND DEFENCE PERSONNEL, IT ALLOWS THEM TO USE THEIR KIWISAVER TO BUY THEIR FIRST HOME, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LIVE IN IT; AND IT ALSO MAKES IT MUCH EASIER FOR SOMEONE TO BUY A FARM, WHICH THEY ARE GOING TO LIVE ON. AND IT ALSO MAKES IT MUCH EASIER FOR SOMEONE TO BUY A FARM WHICH THEY ARE GOING TO LIVE ON. (LAMBS BLEAT) CALVING GOES ON AT THE SAME TIME AS LAMBING. IT ACTUALLY CAME FROM A GUY, TYRRELL, WHO WAS A REALLY MOTIVATED AND OUTSTANDING STOCK MANAGER ON OUR FARM, TUNNEL HILL, AND HE WANTED TO USE HIS KIWISAVER TO BUY A HOME, BUT THE CURRENT REGULATIONS MEANT THAT HE COULDN'T BECAUSE HE WASN'T ABLE TO LIVE IN IT FOR SIX MONTHS, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY HE WORKED ON THE FARM. HE DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS RIGHT AND NEITHER DID I, SO THAT'S WHAT MOTIVATED ME TO DO IT. FARMING HAS BEEN THE BACKBONE OF NEW ZEALAND FOR THE LAST 100-PLUS YEARS, AND I THINK WE NEED TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN, AND I'M CERTAINLY MOTIVATED TO DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT CONTINUES. I THINK THAT WITH FARMING, YOUR BUSINESS AND YOUR HOME ARE ONE AND THE SAME; THEY'RE INEXTRICABLY LINKED. (ANALYTICAL MUSIC) WHEN YOU'RE LIVING ON A FARM, YOU HAVE GREAT RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE PEOPLE THAT WORK WITH YOU. THEY USUALLY LIVE 50M OR 100M AWAY FROM WHERE YOU ARE, AND YOU WANT THEM TO DO WELL, AND YOU WANT TO GIVE THEM OPPORTUNITIES, ESPECIALLY THAT ARE GOING TO HELP THEM IN THEIR RETIREMENT. RANGITIKEI MP SUZE REDMAYNE WITH THIS WEEK'S MEMBERS' BILL. HEI AKUANEI ` WE'RE BACK AFTER THE BREAK. KUA MUTU, THAT'S Q+A FOR THIS WEEK. WE'LL HAVE DETAILS AND ANALYSIS OF THE 2025 BUDGET LIVE FROM 2pm ON THURSDAY. HEI TE RA O TE PUTEA. WE'LL SEE YOU THEN. CAPTIONS BY JASON CONRAN AND TOM CLARKE. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. WWW.ABLE.CO.NZ COPYRIGHT ABLE 2025