FACE TO FACE WITH KIM HILL – TARIANA TURIA AND RODNEY HIDE 24TH AUGUST
2005
PRESENTER: KIM HILL
KIM HILL: Good evening. Welcome to Face To Face. Tonight we begin our Leaders’ series, interviewing the eight party leaders currently in Parliament. First up tonight, Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia. Then I’ll talk to ACT leader Rodney Hide.
The Maori Party was formed last year, after Tariana Turia left Labour over the foreshore and seabed legislation. The party has candidates standing in all seven Maori seats, plus a party list of 51.
According to the polls, they could win more than one of the Maori seats and may be in the position of deciding who will be the next prime minister. Welcome, Ms Turia.
TARIANA TURIA (Maori Party co-leader): Kia ora, Kim.
HILL: Helen Clark dismissively said you’d be the last cab off the rank in any coalition that she had anything to do with, and Don Brash, indeed, is fairly unhappy about the prospect of doing anything with you either. Is that insulting?
TURIA: Well, I think that the cab left the rank last year, Kim, and, no, I don’t feel insulted by it. I think it’s a lot of rhetoric to ensure that Middle New Zealand votes stay with both of them. But I think it is insulting to Maori people, because Maori want a very strong and independent voice in Parliament, and it’s very clear that neither of these two want that.
HILL: Why do you think Middle New Zealand finds you so frightening?
TURIA: Well, I’m not sure why they do, but I think it’s basically because the Government-
HILL: You accept that they do, though.
TURIA: Well, I’m not sure, because they don’t appear to when I’m out amongst them. But I think that I have been portrayed as somebody who doesn’t seek unity in this country, whereas that’s not true.
HILL: Helen Clark’s clear about that. Helen Clark says you are divisive – you are radically divisive.
TURIA: Well, that’s really interesting, because it wasn’t beyond Helen Clark to invite me to join the Labour Party. I haven’t changed in 30 years, Kim, and I see radicalism is about people who want fundamental change. And, yes, for 30 years, I have worked for fundamental change in the communities that I come from. And I don’t think that that’s a bad thing – I think it’s positive. Because I want to be able to have people focus on our potential as a people, rather than to continue to always focus on our problems.
FORESHORE AND SEABED LEGISLATION
HILL: Let’s look at some of the policies that may frighten some people. First of all, I mean, you’d repeal the foreshore and seabed legislation for starters, wouldn’t you?
TURIA: Yes.
HILL: And replace it with what?
TURIA: What we want to do is to be able to go back to the people to take them with us on this issue. This was-
HILL: Take them where?
TURIA: Take the country with us, because…
HILL: Where are you going on an issue?
TURIA: Well, at the end of the day, we don’t try to take away other people’s property rights. This was about a denial of justice, a denial of due process. Our people were treated as second-class citizens in their own land.
HILL: All right. No, I understand you don’t like the legislation. What would you replace it with?
TURIA: No, it’s not about liking the legislation, Kim. This is about our right to go to court. We were denied that.
HILL: Your right to go to court and seek what?
TURIA: To seek customary rights to the foreshore and seabed.
HILL: You can do that now. You can do that under Labour’s legislation.
TURIA: No, we can’t. No, we can’t.
HILL: There is an area within the legislation for you to go and seek customary rights.
TURIA: No. No, that’s quite wrong. Customary rights are property rights, Kim, and the property right has actually been taken. What the Government has done-
HILL: So customary use is what they can do; customary rights is what you can’t do.
TURIA: That’s exactly right. That’s exactly right. Customary use is what we…
HILL: All right. So, Middle New Zealand is now saying, ‘Ah, you want to exclude people from stretches of the foreshore and seabed.’
TURIA: You know, I should take Middle New Zealand down to the beach at Kuku,…
HILL: What, all of them?
TURIA: …where the people have a big sign up there, which was put up well before the foreshore and seabed became a debate. And, basically, it says what all our people say around the country, and that is, ‘You are free to use these areas of the beach. All we ask is that you don’t drive your four-wheel drives up and down the beach and that you have respect for the environment and you don’t leave rubbish here.’ I don’t think it’s a big ask.
RESPECT FOR MAORI
HILL: You want it to be compulsory for public servants to learn Maori?
TURIA: No. What we’re saying is that we believe that public servants should pronounce Maori correctly. They are dealing with a lot of Maori clientele. That’s about respect.
HILL: You can’t legislate or force for respect, though.
TURIA: No. No, you can’t legislate or force respect. But I think that what you can is require… the Minister for State Services to require his public servants to, at the very minimum, pronounce people’s names correctly.
And I could use the example of Jonathan Hunt in the House. He never pronounced our names correctly, but when Rodney Hide called Elmar Toime ‘Elmar Toimay’, Jonathan corrected him. And that amused me, because he never ever once pronounced my name or any of the Maori names correctly in the House. This is about respect for people, to pronounce their names correctly, and I was pleased that he pulled Rodney up. But he doesn’t – or he didn’t – think it was necessary for him to pronounce our names correctly.
HILL: Did you ever talk to him about that?
TURIA: Yes, I did. I actually wrote him a note on the day that he pulled Rodney up.
HILL: And what was his response?
TURIA: Oh, he just smiled at me.
HILL: Is that what you call discrimination?
TURIA: Well, I think it is discriminatory to have no respect for people that you would mispronounce their names. I mean, I’m sure if you had a name… Kim’s a very easy name to say, of course.
HILL: It’s not hard.
TURIA: But if you did have a name that did have some complexity to it… You know, Maori’s very easy to pronounce, Kim. The vowel sounds never change. English is actually more complex. But it’s just about a lack of desire. And many people in the House do pronounce Maori correctly, because they do have respect for the dignity of other people.
PENSION FOR MAORI
HILL: All right. So, many people will be happy to practise pronouncing Maori correctly. They will be less happy with your suggestion that Maori get the pension five years earlier than Pakeha because they live less long.
TURIA: Well, it certainly was about lifespan. And, you know, sometimes we have policies that are put into place that actually don’t take into account the majority of people who are going to miss out on the pension – Maori people, Pacific people, poor Pakeha people, ethnic minorities. Many of them don’t live beyond 60 years of age.
HILL: But you’re not suggesting this policy on the grounds of poverty – you’re suggesting it on the grounds of race.
TURIA: We did initially, Kim, you’re right. And when we looked at it and we were criticised for it, we did review it and we did include the others in it.
HILL: That sounds like a cosmetic inclusion.
TURIA: Well, no, it isn’t a cosmetic inclusion.
HILL: So that the horses won’t become frightened by it.
TURIA: No. No, that’s not true. I mean, in the end, we’re proudly Maori, and we do focus on Maori first. And there will be occasions when we will put them first.
HILL: But hang on. I mean, let’s just talk about that for a moment. So, rich Maori, and there are, you’ll accept, an increasing number, won’t get the pension at 60?
TURIA: Well, the interesting thing about that, Kim, is that middle-class Maori still die at a greater rate than poor Pakeha people. That’s the question.
HILL: Why do you think that is?
TURIA: Well, I think that that’s a question that you should ask Dr Papaarangi Reid, who, of course, in the public-health conference that was recently held in Wellington, said that there was the practice of discrimination in denying people access to services. And I think that that has played a critical part in our ability to actually remain alive longer than what we should.
HILL: I suspect that there’s a whole ‘nother interview in this, but that doesn’t explain why rich, affluent, well-off Maori are dying earlier. Because they would have access to every service that they wanted.
TURIA: No, they don’t, Kim. To be able to access specialist services, to be able to access tertiary services, you have to be referred.
HILL: And you’re suggesting that Maori aren’t being referred?
TURIA: Oh, look, there’s research that says it. It’s not something I’m making up.
HILL: So all this is leading to the fact that you want more race-based funding, not less.
TURIA: No. No. We want justice.
HILL: You want more race-based- No, well, let’s- No, call it what it is. Pita Sharples, your co-leader has said, ‘Yes, bring it on. I am going to Parliament. I am wanting more race-based funding.’
TURIA: We want justice.
HILL: What’s the difference? To Middle New Zealand?
TURIA: Well, I think that justice is the ability, as Don Brash always says, to have one law for all and people being able to access everything in the same way. I don’t think that that’s a big ask. And access has been a critical issue for Maori, Pacific and ethnic minorities.
HILL: So if you are Maori, primarily, you are, by the simple fact of you being Maori, disadvantaged in as many ways… in accessing health, in education, social welfare – all of those things?
TURIA: Well, when you consider that these systems… We haven’t been included in the design of these systems, and in actual fact, Kim…
HILL: No, but hang on a minute. No, but I know you say that Maori are marginalised in decision-making.
TURIA: Well, we are.
HILL: Dr Brash constantly points out that Maori have separate representation on this, that and the other thing – DHBs and PHOs and separate seats in Parliament. How can that be marginalised?
MAORI VALUES AND PRACTICES
TURIA: Kim, the systems of this country are not systems that have been built on Maori values or practices, but systems-
HILL: What are Maori values and practices? Because I know that this is what you say is the root of the Maori Party. What are Maori values and practices? And if they’re that strong, why aren’t all Maori in the Maori Party instead of, you know, six MPs in New Zealand First?
TURIA: Well, Kim, I think that that’s an unfair question, because all Pakeha aren’t the same either. But Maori people generally – generally – have values and practices. And they’re based on tikanga, they’re based on kaupapa. And, you know, those kaupapa-
HILL: Explain to me what that means.
TURIA: Well, I’ll give you one. I’ll give you one example, and I’ll use the example of manaakitanga. Now, manaakitanga is about treating others in a mana-enhancing way. Having respect. Having more respect for others, basically, than you do for yourself.
Now, if that was operating in Parliament, don’t you think that the parliamentary environment would be considerably different to what it is? I mean, we’ve got politicians who, in the last two days, have said that, ‘In education, we’re going to bring values into schools. We’re going to bring the values of respect and honesty.’ Well, shouldn’t we bring that into the parliamentary environment first, before we dictate to schools?
HILL: Yeah, but hang on. If your Maori values were alive and well and known within the Maori world, the Maori world would be considerably different as well, right? You are not suggesting, surely, that Maori are nicer to other people than Pakeha, are you?
TURIA: No, Kim, I’m not. And what I am saying is that for many of us, we have lost those values. And it’s really important for us to restore those things to ourselves. If we want to make headway – if we want to move forward – then we’ve got to pick up on all those very positive values that have been handed down to us if we’re going to make it in the world outside of ourselves.
HILL: But, you know, John Tamihere, for example, says, ‘Look here – the Maori renaissance has happened.’ He says in education, in the media; Maori control over 40% of the fish stocks in New Zealand; you have health, welfare, education providers who are Maori; you’ve got the Treaty settlements. And yet here you are, still stuck in grievance mode and blaming colonialism for every damn thing that goes wrong.
TURIA: Well, could I say that those are you words and John’s words? They’re not mine. I totally accept that we are moving onwards and upwards. I mean, in terms of entrepreneurial spirit, if we were a nation standing on our own, we’d actually come fourth in the world. So I know that our people are moving onwards and upwards. But what I also know, Kim, is that the majority of our people live on less than $25,000 a year. John’s talking about those of our people who have reached their potential. And at the Hui Taumata, the very clear message that came through from that is, ‘Yes, we have to be highly successful, but we also have to take our kaupapa and our tikanga with us.’
HILL: We’ll pick up on part of that point after the break. The Maori Party wants more self-reliance as well as more race-based funding. Can you have both? That’s next.
SELF-RELIANCE VS RACE-BASED FUNDING
HILL: Welcome back. I’m talking to Tariana Turia, co-leader of the Maori Party. As I said before, you say you want to tell Maori – and I’m quoting you directly – that they can stop relying on the state, that they can do it for themselves. Yet as we also found earlier, you want – and you didn’t call it that, but that’s what Pita Sharples called it – you want more race-based funding. How can you have both?
TURIA: Well, Kim, we’re not actually saying we want race-based funding, but what we are saying is there is a lot of money being spent on us and for us, and most of it negatively.
HILL: In what way?
TURIA: Well, look at the numbers of our people who are in prison. Look at the numbers of our people who are with Child, Youth and Family. You know, look at the numbers of our people who are on benefits. And what we are saying is that we want-
HILL: Take the benefits away?
TURIA: No, I’m not saying that.
HILL: I know you’re not.
TURIA: No, I’m not.
HILL: Why not, though?
TURIA: No, I’m not saying that, because I think that you can’t do that. You can’t take away a benefit without having something in place. At the end of the day, we don’t want mothers to be leaving their children alone, because in the end, that’s only going to create more social problems. We support mothers being at home, raising their children, or if fathers choose to do that. We believe that parents should have the right to raise their children with the right support around them.
But let’s get back to this other question of the money. Now, if I look at the community and the voluntary sector, if I look at the Pacific Island communities, and if I look at our communities, they all say the same thing. ‘Look, the Government doesn’t know what is best for us. The Government keeps on dreaming up these projects and programmes and they except us to implement them, and when things don’t change for us, they blame us.’ Now, all of those communities are saying, ‘We know our people best.’ If you talk to the community and voluntary sector, they are sick and tired of all these projects and programmes that ministers and bureaucrats dream up.
BENEFITS OF A SEPARATE MAORI PARTY
HILL: All right. Assuming you’re right, then, what on earth is the benefit of forming a party called the Maori Party, extremely limited in extent and reliant, certainly at this stage, on the Maori seats? Special pleading again. Go out there, spread yourself around, or insert yourself into other parties – as you already have, as is happening elsewhere in Parliament. Why ghettoise?
TURIA: Oh, I don’t believe we’re ghettoising at all, Kim.
HILL: How many Pakeha will vote for you? How many Pakeha will vote for you?
TURIA: I think we were more ghettoised when we were in the Labour Party. Helen Clark doesn’t want a strong, independent and Maori voice – she wants a Maori voice that she can contain and constrain, just as she did on the Foreshore and Seabed. Those Maori members sold out on their people for the Labour Party.
HILL: They won’t say that. They will not say that.
TURIA: We will never sell out on our people again – never.
HILL: They will not accept that they’ve sold out.
TURIA: Well, they don’t.
HILL: They say that they have enabled a compromise to take place so that Pakeha and Maori can live together.
TURIA: No. They sold out. Oh, look, we could have lived together. We’ve lived together for 165 years, Kim, and I’ll tell you what – it’s not Maori people who stop people from going to the beaches. In fact, it is wealthy landowners, non-Maori landowners, who, in fact, stop people accessing those areas of the foreshore and seabed. It’s absolute nonsense to say that because of the foreshore and seabed legislation, we can’t go forward together. 54% of our people live with non-Maori. You know, let’s wake up to what the reality is in this country. And we know -- we know that we can build unity between people, because we don’t need to play the race card to do it, Kim. And that’s what Labour did and that’s what National does.
HILL: Are you seriously thinking that many Pakeha are gonna be voting for Maori Party candidates?
TURIA: I think that many Pakeha people are looking for a new way forward, and I’m talking about thinking Pakeha people. They are looking for a new way forward, and they need to look for a new way forward. 23% of our young people are under 18 years of age. By the year 2021, this country is going to be decidedly browner. It’s going to have more Maori, more Pacific, more Asian, more ethnic minorities. We’ve got to start getting on together, Kim.
HILL: Yeah, but that calls for some compromise, and I don’t think you’re a woman to compromise, are you?
TURIA: No, I do. And I spent a lot of time compromising on many occasions when I was in the Labour caucus. Remember, I was there for eight years.
HILL: All right. Well, that’s what I wanted to get back to, really. You were in there for eight years, along came the foreshore and seabed legislation, and at that point you realised that, what, Helen Clark wouldn’t tolerate a strong Maori presence because she wanted to control everybody? Suddenly, you felt that?
TURIA: No. No. No, Kim. Let’s get down to the fundamental of what that was all about. I wasn’t prepared to stay with the Labour Party when they were prepared to forgo our vote, forgo our aspirations, forgo our people on one of the most significant issues that had confronted the Government. This was the last piece of customary land that our people held by default. Look, that whole rohe where I come from is about confiscated lands. You don’t really think that I could have stayed and been party to a further confiscation? I couldn’t, and I didn’t.
HILL: But you must surely have understood why Helen Clark did what she did.
TURIA: Well, you tell me why she did.
HILL: Because she’s the Prime Minister of a country that is both Pakeha and Maori.
TURIA: That’s right, and she could have allowed due process. There were other things that she could have done which would have ensured that Pakeha people’s rights would have been cemented. She could have ensured that people had access to the beaches – she could have changed Ture Whenua Act.
FORMING A GOVERNMENT
HILL: So, for the future, assuming that you return to Parliament-
TURIA: I will be, along with six others and maybe three more.
HILL: Well, all right. What will your relationship with Helen Clark be, assuming that she’s Prime Minister?
TURIA: Look, I…
HILL: Straight question.
TURIA: Yeah, straight question.
HILL: You’ve got a lot of bitterness.
TURIA: No.
HILL: Hello.
TURIA: No, not personal to Helen Clark. Let’s not go there, Kim. If anybody’s feeling bitter, it’s Helen Clark.
HILL: I thought you went there. You’ve just told me that Helen Clark is such a control freak she couldn’t sustain the idea of a strong Maori presence.
TURIA: Well, I think that that’s a fair comment to make. I’m not saying anything that nobody else knows about, Kim.
HILL: So how can you work with her in the future, do you think?
TURIA: Well, you know, who knows? Who knows? And that remains, really, up to our people. We’ve been very clear with our people all along. They are the ones who will decide whether we will go into a Treaty relationship - a Treaty-based relationship - with either Labour or with National, and that’s what it will be. And it’s entirely up to them whether they accept it.
HILL: What’s a Treaty-based relationship?
TURIA: Well, what we’re saying is that government was established in this country through the Treaty of Waitangi. It was based on a partnership and a relationship between tangata whenua and others. We ask nothing less.
HILL: Well, I think Labour could go at least most of the way towards that, but Don Brash seems to have ruled that out.
TURIA: Well, let’s wait and see.
HILL: Are you hopeful that you could cement a relationship of some kind with him?
TURIA: I think that our people want to have a relationship, a Treaty-based relationship, with whoever is the government.
HILL: After the Orewa speech?
TURIA: Our people have been very very clear, Kim. One of them, at least, has stabbed us in the front and the other has stabbed us in the back. Now, they see them as being as bad as each other, actually. And in the end, our people will decide who they believe should be the government in this country, not me.
HILL: And it will take them, I think, a week after the election.
TURIA: Well, we’re very clear and we’re already well organised. If there’s one thing as a political party with 20,000 members, we’re probably better organised than anyone else on the ground.
HILL: You know, there aren’t very many other people around who think you’re gonna get seven or more seats.
TURIA: Well, you know, we’re doing our polling and we’ve been back to our people. We think that we will win the seven seats and we also think that we will win some list seats.
STANCE ON ZIMBABWE
HILL: One more point, and it comes down to the special pleading that I was suggesting to you before. Your position on Zimbabwe and our cricket team going there. You appeared to fall far short of any condemnation of Robert Mugabe. You were about the only one in the country that failed to do that. What was that all about?
TURIA: No, that’s not true, Kim. What we said – and in actual fact, we were quite right to say it – we said that the United Nations was coming out with a report very shortly, which they did do, on the Zimbabwe issue.
HILL: No, what you actually said was it was a media beat-up and you didn’t trust it.
TURIA: No, that’s- I did not say that.
HILL: You blamed the media and said that it did not have credibility.
TURIA: I did not say it was a media beat-up. What I said is that we would wait for the United Nations report to come out and that we didn’t believe in human rights abuses anywhere in the world. But we also felt that the Government needed to be consistent in its approach. It’s one thing to be telling cricketers to not go to Zimbabwe, and yet on the other hand, going to China to do trade deals. Is there a price on human rights, Kim?
HILL: You’ll have an interesting time if you get back to Parliament.
TURIA: Thank you.
HILL: Nice to talk to you. Thank you. In a moment, I’m face to face with ACT leader Rodney Hide, upon whom the tide seems to have gone out. That’s next.
KIM HILL TALKS TO RODNEY HIDE
HILL: Welcome back. This year has been a difficult one for Rodney Hide and the ACT Party. It’s languished on 2% in the polls for much of this year. It needs 5% of the party vote to get back into Parliament because it doesn’t have a safe seat. And based on the latest poll, the party will soon be history in the House. Mr Hide promised to give up scandalmongering to concentrate on leadership, but that doesn’t seem to have been too successful. He joins me now. Hi.
RODNEY HIDE (ACT Leader): Hi.
HILL: Um, can I get your reaction, first of all, to your former MP Donna Awatere Huata’s conviction for fraud?
HIDE: Oh, I thought it was inevitable that she would be-
HILL: Does not reflect well on the party.
HIDE: Oh, actually, it does, because while all the other parties were saying ACT acted too quickly, we actually did have zero tolerance for crime and we moved very fast on Donna once we realised what was going on and we expelled her from Parliament.
HILL: And so your judgement of character was never flawed?
HIDE: Ah, we did make a mistake with Donna, but so did the Government in terms of handing out that money.
HILL: So your reaction to the conviction is?
HIDE: Ah, sad.
HILL: You regret that she’s in prison?
HIDE: Oh, I wish she’d never done it.
HILL: You think imprisonment’s the appropriate place for her?
HIDE: Yes, I do.
POLLING OF ACT
HILL: ACT’s been in Parliament for nine years. It has eight or nine MPs in the House, depending on Donna Awatere Huata.
HIDE: Nine.
HILL: Why hasn’t your membership, why hasn’t your poll support, held up better?
HIDE: Well, I actually think there’s two ways of looking at it.
HILL: (LAUGHS) There is one way.
HIDE: No, no, there is. There is. ACT’s at 2%. We’ve got a challenge on. But look on the bright side - our ideas are doing very very well. When we first came to Parliament, to mention tax cuts you were considered mad.
HILL: Mr Hide, when you first came to Parliament, you were substantially a ginger group.
HIDE: Yes.
HILL: I think that Mr Prebble and Mr Douglas – Sir Roger…
HIDE: Yes.
HILL: …described you as a ginger group.
HIDE: That’s right.
HILL: Consequently, you were happy to disseminate ideas.
HIDE: That’s right.
HILL: You are now insisting that you are a political party.
HIDE: Yes, but look at the impact that our ideas have had on our Parliament.
HILL: Well, congratulations.
HIDE: Yes, we’ve got tax cuts on the agenda, we’ve got welfare reform to stop the abuse on the agenda, we’ve got actually one law for all on the agenda, and, in fact, our ideas are going very very well. What we need to do is get the party going well, because it’s only by ACT being there that we’ll be able to deliver on it.
HILL: All right. Well, let’s get back to that point, then. If you have disseminated your ideas so well, then why are you polling only at 2%?
HIDE: We’ve got 7% of New Zealanders that support ACT. They’re actually voting National right now because they believe under MMP that’s what they need to do to rid the country of Helen Clark as prime minister. And what we’re saying to New Zealanders, “No, that’s not gonna work. If you want our ideas implemented, if you want Don Brash as prime minister, ACT’s gonna have to be there.”
HILL: And what Don Brash is saying, obviously, is that because you’re polling at 2% and you have no safe seat, a vote for ACT is a wasted vote and you’re a liability to him.
HIDE: Well, it’s not that we’re a liability, it’s that the National Party believe, their strategists believe, that they can govern on their own. They’ve gotta wake up and understand it’s MMP-
HILL: But you’re not-
HIDE: …and they can’t implement those policies on their own. It’s gonna take ACT.
HILL: You haven’t made sufficient impression in the polls for a vote for you to be anything other than a wasted vote.
HIDE: That’s right. And that’s why we’re having a campaign, Kim. And people are gonna vote on the 17th of September and they will decide who will be in government. And I can tell you this, if ACT’s not there, then it won’t be Don Brash, cos they won’t have a supporting partner.
HILL: If they thought you were worth it, they would have - if you excuse the pun - they would have given you Epsom, right?
HIDE: Well, ah, that’s… I mean, it’s gonna be the voters that decide who wins Epsom, and I’m campaigning hard there and I believe that I will win Epsom, and I believe this - that we will get over 5% and we will be there.
HILL: The party’s newsletter recently suggested that Don Brash and you strolling down Remuera Road together would be enough to swing Epsom your way, and you wouldn’t even have to kiss him.
HIDE: (LAUGHS) No, I wouldn’t need to kiss him.
HILL: Do you want that to happen?
HIDE: Oh, I think I’d love to see the National Party appreciate that it’s MMP, to understand that they can’t go it on their own. They can’t win this election on their own. They are gonna need a supporting partner, and that partner, obviously, is ACT, and I’ll tell you why. New Zealand needs these tax cuts. We endorse the National Party’s tax-cut package. We think they should go a bit further. We think they should get the top rate down and the company rate down immediately, but we endorse that package. We’re the only party that’s supporting it. It’s not gonna happen if ACT’s not there.
MMP
HILL: There’s something sad about this. I mean, were you dismayed when National’s tax cuts were announced? It reduced your brand.
HIDE: Not at all. I loved it. I mean, politics-
HILL: You’d love it if you were in PR. You’d love it if you were still a ginger group. In politics, you’ve been sidelined.
HIDE: No. What you go into politics for – and I don’t know about other people – is you go into politics to make a difference. One of the key things that we wanted to do from day one is to give every worker in New Zealand a tax cut. That is now in prospect this election. In fact, it’s the number-one issue this election. That’s actually a very positive thing for New Zealand.
HILL: The irony is that you would have expected to find a pal in Dr Brash and he spurned you. He’s stolen your ideas, whatever, but he’s spurned you. Does that hurt?
HIDE: It’s not a matter of hurting. It’s a matter of saying, “Well, hang on. If we’re going to achieve this result, it’s going to take at least two parties to do it.”
HILL: So why doesn’t he get that?
HIDE: Ah, you’d have to ask him.
HILL: No, I’m asking you. Why do you think-? Have you ever said to him, “What is your problem? This is MMP. I’m here for you, Don.”
HIDE: I’ve discussed this with the National Party at length, and their answer has always been the same. They’re gonna get 51% of the vote. Well, clearly, you can see, they’re not going to.
HILL: But if they keep saying that- Because obviously, Rodney, and this is where the hurt may come in, they think-
HIDE: It’s very hard to hurt my feelings, Kim.
HILL: Apparently so. But if they say to themselves, “If we hold out the hand of friendship, if we stroll down Remuera Road with Rodney, people are gonna go off us, therefore we have to pretend that we don’t like him”…
HIDE: No. Look, Helen Clark could walk down the road with Jeanette Fitzsimons and people didn’t go off Helen Clark. What they saw was- and it was a government, an operation. They know that it’s gonna take more than one party to be a government under MMP. The same for Don Brash.
HILL: So what you’re saying to me- All right.
HIDE: What I’m saying to you is this, and it’s very clear-
HILL: No, what you are saying to me, and I’ll just- Correct me if I’m wrong. You are saying that Don Brash is either arrogant or stupid.
HIDE: He’s neither. But what happens is they do not get MMP, because if you’re gonna be a government under MMP, you need supporting parties.
HILL: They’ve had enough practice with MMP. What is it this time that makes the difference? It’s Don Brash, isn’t it?
HIDE: Well, and Don Brash is doing well. They’re campaigning on the ideas that we’ve brought to Parliament. That’s a good thing. And at the end of the day, if New Zealanders want those policies in place – and I believe they do – they’re actually gonna have to tick the ACT box in the party vote, and tick the Rodney Hide box in Epsom, otherwise it won’t happen.
HILL: In actual fact, National haven’t picked up that many of your policies. What they’ve actually done is they came in, scared a few of the horses with the prospect of Don Brash being a proxy ACT man, and he promptly moved towards the centre.
HIDE: Oh, I don’t think that’s fair. I mean, we’ve got tax cuts. $3.9 billion is a sizable tax cut in anyone’s language. We’ve got a commitment to welfare reform, and I think the package makes sense. Sure, do they go as far as ACT? No. We’d like to do a lot better for New Zealand. And don’t forget this isn’t about, you know, “This is my idea, that’s your idea, you can’t have that.” This is about the sort of New Zealand that we’re gonna have over the next 10 years. That’s what gets debated in an election. It’s not about ownership of particular policies. It’s about painting a vision, saying, “Here’s how we can get there,” and that’s what we need to do in New Zealand. And we need to understand that under MMP, it’s only gonna happen if ACT is there.
HILL: If National don’t understand MMP… and they should be holding hands with you, then they’ve given away the election.
HIDE: Oh, I think they’re in danger of that, very much so.
HILL: So you can sit there on 2% and tell me that you are making the difference between a National government and a Labour government?
HIDE: Ah, what I know is that I have to take-
HILL: That’s madness, isn’t it, Rodney?
HIDE: I have to take responsibility for the vote that ACT’s got. I’ve got to campaign to get it over 5%. I’ve gotta campaign to win Epsom. That is my responsibility. I have to accept responsibility for that, and I do and I will. And we will do it.
HILL: Earlier this year, you attacked Don Brash for his poor showing in Parliament. You said he lost control of his caucus. What was that all about?
HIDE: Oh, I think Don was struggling at that time and I don’t think he was on top of his caucus. I think he’s improved out of sight.
HILL: What’s made the improvement?
HIDE: I think it’s time. I mean, Don Brash is a clever man and he’s figured out politics very quickly.
HILL: You’ve just told me he can’t be that clever, cos he can’t figure out MMP.
HIDE: Well, I think the National Party’s saying we’re gonna get– and they’ve said this publicly. They said it tonight on TV. They’re trying to get as many votes as they can. Well, I hope they get lots of votes. But they’re only gonna be able to govern if they have a supporting party. The only party that’s supporting them, for example, on the tax-cut package, is the ACT Party. ACT’s got to be there to support National to make sure that that package is a happening thing. It won’t happen if they’re with Winston. It won’t happen if they’re relying on United-
HILL: Why wouldn’t they go with Winston?
HIDE: Well, they might go with Winston, but he’s come out and said that their tax-cut package is unworkable. So he certainly ain’t gonna be supporting that. He was asked today at a Business NZ function, “Do you support National’s tax package?” It was a long answer, but in summary, it was no.
HILL: In summary, he’s got a great deal more in common with National than he has with Labour, though, hasn’t he?
HIDE: Well, he was the one that was playing with both phones.
HILL: Yeah, well, one always does tactically things like that in political campaigns, but you’d have to accept that he has more in common with National than Labour, doesn’t he?
HIDE: Would you bet your house that Winston would go with National?
HILL: Well one wouldn’t bet one’s house on anything that Winston Peters would do.
HIDE: No. That’s right. You don’t know.
HILL: But he will be more important than you. Do you accept that?
HIDE: Well, if he gets more votes, maybe. But he-
HILL: No ifs. I mean, it’s almost inevitable, isn’t it?
HIDE: No. The voters haven’t voted yet, Kim.
HILL: No. But you just look at the polls.
HIDE: Yes, and they’re still very fluid. There’s still a lot of water to go under the bridge. There’s still a campaign to be had, and on the 17th of September, it won’t be you, it won’t be me, it won’t be the pollsters, it’ll be the voters of New Zealand that’ll decide. They’re taking a big interest in this election, and there’s a lot at stake. For example, the difference between tax cuts and a sort of welfare package where you pay a lot of tax and the government decides to give you some back.
HILL: We’ll talk a little more about your policies after the break. Has right-wing economic extremism had its day in New Zealand, and if so, where does that leave ACT? That’s coming up.
ACT POLICIES
HILL: I’m back with ACT leader Rodney Hide. OK, assuming that… you go into the election; Don Brash doesn’t hold out the hand that I reckon you need to save you from political obliteration-
HIDE: And you reckon he should.
HILL: And so do you.
HIDE: Yes.
HILL: What’s going to save you? What’s going to get you 5% without that? I mean, is it your tax? You have tax — in a nutshell — two tax rates: top personal and company rate of 25 cents; 15-cent rate for incomes below $38,000; reductions in various benefit tax, withholding tax; cap on real government spending per capita.
HIDE: It won’t be a policy thing that wins it for ACT. It will be an understanding of MMP amongst our voters. There are 7% of New Zealanders that have consistently voted ACT and actually still support ACT-
HILL: But don’t vote. Are not voting.
HIDE: When they get rung by the pollsters, Kim—
HILL: They lie?
HIDE: No. They say, “We like ACT but we’re voting National to get rid of Helen Clark.” Now, what’s my job to do is say, “You want rid of Helen Clark as prime minister; you want Don Brash as prime minister; you want tax cuts, then give your party vote to ACT.” That’s the message that we need to get. People know our policies. They know what we are in support of. What we need to do is explain MMP and say the only way you’re going to have a National government is if ACT is there. Because it won’t happen without us.
HILL: We’ve done the process. Let’s talk a little more about the content. The cost of your tax cuts is about $5.7 billion.
HIDE: Yeah.
HILL: Obviously, people doubt -- this may be one reason why they don’t vote for you in the polls — people doubt you can do that without cuts to social spending.
HIDE: Yeah, people do doubt that. But just appreciate this. We’ve got a surplus of $7.4 billion. We’ve got the National Party saying that they can have tax cuts totalling $3.9 billion a year. And they are leaving the Cullen fund in place. What we’re saying is the best thing you could do with that Cullen fund is actually return it to New Zealanders, lower taxes and make New Zealand a more prosperous country. That’s the best way for looking after the elderly in our future. And don’t forget, the Treasury has actually costed our policies. We’re the only party that’s had their tax policy costed.
HILL: You’ve said no cuts — no cuts to health, education, social welfare?
HIDE: No need to.
HILL: Do you mean no cuts to total spending-?
HIDE: That’s right.
HILL: Or do you mean no cuts to government spending?
HIDE: No cuts to health and education spending. What we’ve done is we’ve done our budgets based on-
HILL: But you want user pays.
HIDE: Well, just- I’ll explain how the tax cuts work, and then we’ll come to the other policies. What you can do is you can return that surplus to New Zealanders and have those tax cuts now. And you’re keeping, actually, Michael Cullen’s budget — his expenditure. Now, I’m not saying it’s the wisest thing in the world to be keeping his expenditure. But you can do it and still have tax cuts of that size.
HILL: People suspect you, of course, because they know that your agenda is very very little government and the individual’s right to spend their own money as they see fit.
HIDE: Absolutely, that is what I believe in; that’s what the ACT Party believes in. We believe in limited government. We believe in private enterprise. We believe in the free market. We believe that government shouldn’t be running everything, that it should be concentrating on a few things and doing them well.
HILL: So, here’s the scenario. You reduce taxes; you say no cuts in social services; and then you say, “But wasn’t it nice to have all that money in your pocket? We’ll just cut a little here and we’ll cut a little there. And then it’s all over, Rover.”
HIDE: But it’s not about cuts, is it? When you look at, say, health, what you need is a health system that works. We’ve actually had a very interesting experiment under Helen Clark. That is, we’ve increased health expenditure by 57%. And what’s happened to the health waiting list? It’s exactly the same size as it was when they started. What we’re saying is spending the money into that bureaucracy isn’t working. What we’re saying is you should be taking that money and using it to actually get people fixed. And, yes, that means using the private sector where you can.
HILL: But it also means, under your scenario, a purely competitive health system with user pays, except for the relatively small number of people under your system that would be able- So you’d have some kind of vestigial public health system.
HIDE: No, it doesn’t mean that, in terms of our budget. What we’re saying is this — we’ve had people come to us-
HILL: No, I’m not talking about your budget. I’m talking about your ideal society, I suppose.
HIDE: Well, I think in an ideal society, yes, people should be taking more responsibility for themselves. But what I’m saying is how can you take what we’ve got and make it work? And what we’re saying is you can make it a lot better by spending that money into the private sector to make sure that people get their operations. Why have people queued up in pain and, in fact, dying when they could get fixed up, when they could get their operation at a private hospital down the road? That is wrong.
HILL: You also want to axe the super fund, yeah?
HIDE: Yeah.
HILL: And you also want more targeting of what you call ‘lavish superannuation’, and make people save for themselves.
HIDE: People should save for themselves-
HILL: Lavish? Let’s revisit lavish.
HIDE: No, no, no. People should save for themselves. What they need is the money in order to be able to do that. They can’t save for themselves when they’re being highly taxed. And I don’t think there’s anyone that’s credible that believes that our superannuation system is sustainable at its current rate for the next 35 years.
HILL: Is that what you mean by ‘lavish’?
HIDE: No, I mean it’s not sustainable for the next 35 years. We’ve got 470,000 people now. It’s going to become 1.3 million.
HILL: Not sustainable. Lavish?
HIDE: I’ve never said that.
HILL: Uh, I’m sorry.
HIDE: I’ve never said that.
HILL: It’s in your press releases.
HIDE: Well, I’d like to see it.
HILL: Well, you certainly can.
HIDE: Good.
HILL: So, the superannuation scheme that we have at the moment is not lavish?
HIDE: No.
HILL: All right.
HIDE: Did you say there was too much party politicking around superannuation at any point?
HILL: Yes.
HIDE: OK.
HILL: So, when National and Labour are agreed on the so-called Cullen fund, and you don’t, they’re the ones that are politicking?
HIDE: No, what they’re doing is this — they’re saying, “Let’s agree to something that’s unsustainable, that’s not going to last into the future-“
HILL: No, they’re not saying that.
HIDE: Yes, they are.
HILL: You’re saying they’re saying that. They’re not saying that.
HIDE: What, they’re not agreeing?
HILL: They’re saying that this fund is necessary and we can pump money into it and save people from penurious old age.
HIDE: Don Brash called the Cullen fund financial smoke and mirrors.
HILL: But he signed up to it.
HIDE: Yes. And I believe it was a mistake. Michael Cullen has said the Cullen fund isn’t actually going to address the problem — it’s going to shift the cost somewhat. And there’s still a problem of affordability. His own advice-
HILL: No, it’s not going to shift- It’s going to help the cost somewhat.
HIDE: Yes, you’re going to say-
HILL: Whereas you’re saying, “Hey, you guys, pay for yourselves at the same time as paying for your health and paying for your education vouchers.”
HIDE: No. No, no. On super, we’re saying this: if you want to look after the elderly into the future, the best way to do that is to have a prosperous economy. If we’re twice as rich as we are now, it’s going to be that much easier in the future.
HILL: This is why-
HIDE: No, no. Just let me finish. How do you get a prosperous economy? You don’t take $2.5 billion a year out of that economy and stick it overseas in overseas share markets. What you do is you use that money — you give it back to New Zealanders, you lower taxes. You will get more investment, you will get more entrepreneurial activity, you will get more productivity gains. And then you will have a more prosperous economy. And then we’ll be in a better place to look after our elderly. It’s prosperity that does it, not money in a sock.
HILL: A) people don’t believe you. That’s why the polls are 2% right now. And B) and I’m sorry this is such a cliché — I have to say it — why isn’t this supply-side economics? Why isn’t it what didn’t work in America?
HIDE: I don’t know what you’re talking about with supply-side economics.
HILL: Yes, you do, because you pump more taxes into people’s pockets — give them back their taxes — and wait for the economy to go kaboom. And it didn’t.
HIDE: Oh, sure. Sure it does.
HILL: It didn’t. It didn’t.
HIDE: You lower taxes -- people will invest more; they will save more; they will work more. Absolutely true. If you lower taxes, you will have a stronger economy. Otherwise, why not have taxes that are 80% of GDP?
HILL: Well, that’s a ridiculous argument.
HIDE: Why? You’re saying it doesn’t matter if you lower them.
HILL: No, I’m saying that there is obviously some kind of optimum threshold for taxes.
HIDE: Yes, and we’re way above it.
HILL: But you’re carrying it to its illogical other conclusion.
HIDE: No, I’m not. I’m just saying that we should actually take the top rate of tax down to 25 cents. The surplus is there. We can do that. That would be a good thing for New Zealand. I’m saying we should flatten the tax rate. I say we should just have two rates, rather than four. That would be good for New Zealand. I think a company-tax rate of 25 cents in the dollar would be a whole lot better than having one at 33.
HILL: But, anyway, in the meantime, people are a bit worried by that and they’ll go with National because it’s a nice kind of safe sector.
HIDE: Uh, I think they’re going for National because they actually want tax cuts and they want the money in their pockets. And they’re sick of having a rich government sitting on huge surpluses that they’ve actually funded.
ANTI-NUCLEAR LEGISLATION
HILL: If they were that angry and not taking it any more — I’m sorry, I’ll have to come back to this — they would be going for you. Tell me about ANZUS — you want to rebuild ANZUS. Does that mean that you would repeal the anti-nuclear legislation?
HIDE: Yes.
HILL: In a heartbeat.
HIDE: Yes.
HILL: By lunchtime.
HIDE: Yes.
HILL: Really?
HIDE: Yes. But, of course, obviously National Party says they want a referendum, so we’ll put it to a referendum.
HILL: No. They’ve said that if it’s proven that it’s in New Zealand interests, they would put it to the New Zealand people in a referendum.
HIDE: Well, our policy is that we should have- that we shouldn’t have a ban on nuclear-powered warships coming to New Zealand. Indeed, that was David Lange’s policy. He said that in his book. The concern in New Zealand has always been with nuclear weapons. That is now not the issue. Nuclear-powered warships is not a problem. We should be allowing those into
HILL: Well, the majority of New Zealanders surveyed think that it’s not time for a referendum.
HIDE: That’s right. And 34% do. And let’s hope they vote for ACT.
HILL: But you accept that it might not be time for a referendum.
HIDE: That’s right.
HILL: Which is exactly what the National Party is saying.
HIDE: Well, but what I’m saying is you’re asking me what the ACT Party policy is. That’s what it is. When we started out saying-
HILL: A policy for a referendum.
HIDE: The policy is actually to allow ships to come in. When we started out saying-
HILL: Without a referendum?
HIDE: That’s right.
HILL: So, you don’t want a referendum?
HIDE: No, we’re saying it should happen. Now, we haven’t got public support for that, so we can’t do it. But when we started out and said we should have tax cuts in New Zealand, there was no support for that either. Now there is. Even Michael Cullen and Jim Anderton are talking about tax cuts. There’s not a political party in the spectrum into this Parliament that isn’t talking about tax cuts. That’s a huge achievement. So, what have we done? Yes, we have been a ginger group. Yes, we have brought ideas-
HILL: It’s a matter of degree.
HIDE: We have brought ideas to our Parliament, and they have been picked up and adopted by other political parties.
HILL: Come on. How-?
HIDE: What’s wrong with that, Kim?
ACT POLICY
HILL: One moment. Tax cuts being endorsed by the National Party is not the same as having a competitive health system with vouchers for education and, essentially, a flat tax as your ideal society. It’s not the same.
HIDE: Flat tax would be great.
HILL: I know — it would, for you.
HIDE: It would be good for you too. You’d have a much better retirement.
HILL: Don’t even start. It’s a matter of degree. And a point — do you think there’s fat in this economy to be cut, to pay for tax cuts?
HIDE: There’s not fat in the economy. What there is is there’s fat in government.
HILL: All right. Because you know why I asked that question — because your own candidate and former head of Treasury Graham Scott said it won’t be easy to cut enough fat from the state to pay for even National’s tax cuts. So what hope is there for yours? Did you ring him up and say, “Graham, what?”
HIDE: We’ve discussed that at length. We’ve been working on the same models. There’s a $7.4 billion surplus. And let’s go back to education. Do you think it’s right that a parent that decides to send their child to a private school or an independent school or a church school should have to pay twice — once through their taxes for a state system which they’re not using and again for a private school?
HILL: I know-
HIDE: We say no.
HILL: I know that that-
HIDE: That’s a good policy, is it not?
HILL: I know that that is your ideology.
HIDE: But you dismiss it. It’s not a matter of ideology. It’s why should people pay twice?
HILL: Final question — if you don’t make it back, with ACT, into Parliament on September the 17th — you love politics — will you go to National?
HIDE: Ha. We will make it back.
HILL: I said ‘if’. OK, assuming, in some wildest stretch of the imagination, you don’t make it back, will you go to National?
HIDE: I have no plan B. The ACT Party will be back in Parliament. The 7% of New Zealanders that support the ACT Party need to vote for the ACT Party. Why? Because it is time for Helen Clark to go. It is time that New Zealanders had a tax cut.
HILL: Don’t you think plan B might be handy?
HIDE: Look, we live in a great country. I’m focused on this election. Why would I be thinking beyond that? I went into politics to make a difference, to achieve. That’s what I’m focused on. We have the most exciting election for many many elections. I’m a part of it. That’s what I’m focused on. And I want ACT to succeed.
HILL: An excited Rodney Hide. I thank you.
HIDE: Very excited. Aren’t you?
HILL: I’m excited. After the break, your emails and what you think of tonight’s political leaders.
READERS’ EMAILS
HILL: And to your feedback on Tariana Turia. David Tranter of Canterbury, who’s a volunteer health advocate for 14 years, writes, “Discrimination is practised right across our society by a health bureaucracy which has mushroomed over the last 12 years. The problem is bureaucratic and not race-based.”
Bruce Bowie says, “The death rate is the same for all: one per person, regardless of race.”
While Chris Brazendale says he’s a 35-year-old Pakeha who will be voting for the Maori Party because he’s “tired of the indigenous people being treated disrespectfully and used as a political football by white politicians”.
From the Bennet whanau, they write, “We totally respect Tariana. Is there anyone else in Parliament who has ethics and principles? She is a real leader.”
And from Sarah Jowzey, “I’m a 26-year-old New Zealander. It’s such a shame that we still have a national identity crisis. It’s disturbing that we still have to tick a box to identify with our ethnicity.”
And reaction to Rodney Hide — Nick Kearney says, “Rodney Hide talks so much sense, he has just won my vote. I’ve just seen the intelligent Rodney, and it was brilliant.”
And if you’d like a transcript of tonight’s interviews, you can visit www.tvnz.co.nz, of course, the keyword ‘decision05.’ It’ll be there tomorrow afternoon. Next week I’m face to face with Labour leader Helen Clark at 9.30 and with Jim Anderton, the Progressive Party leader, at 10 o’clock. I’ll see you then.
Transcripts are copyright to TVNZ and may contain errors. Transcripts should be checked against a copy of the programme to ensure accuracy.