WEBVTT - Chris Hipkins reflects on move into Opposition and what's next for Labour 0:00:04.480 --> 0:00:06.720 Hello and welcome to on the titles the New Zealand 0:00:06.720 --> 0:00:09.920 Heeriorals Politics podcast. I'm your host Thomas Coglan. Today we've 0:00:09.960 --> 0:00:13.360 got a really interesting interview it's worth Labor leader Resipkins. 0:00:13.880 --> 0:00:17.639 It's eight months since Hepkins lost the election and became 0:00:17.720 --> 0:00:20.320 Leader of the Opposition, but it's quite an interesting look 0:00:20.360 --> 0:00:22.520 back at the failed election campaign last year and what 0:00:22.520 --> 0:00:24.959 he's doing to rebuild the party in the election machine 0:00:25.079 --> 0:00:35.080 for the next election. Recipkins leader of the Opposition currently. 0:00:35.080 --> 0:00:37.479 Congratulations on holding that role. It's not a role that 0:00:37.520 --> 0:00:41.479 one is typically congratulated on holding, but the guy, I. 0:00:41.479 --> 0:00:43.760 Don't think it's a job that anybody particularly wants. The 0:00:44.479 --> 0:00:46.879 most people would recognize that being leader of the Opposition 0:00:47.000 --> 0:00:49.199 is a prerequisite to becoming Prime minister. In my case, 0:00:49.240 --> 0:00:50.600 I'm kind of doing it the wrong way around. I 0:00:50.600 --> 0:00:52.800 had a brief stint as Prime minister for nine months 0:00:53.120 --> 0:00:54.760 now doing this job and the goal is to be 0:00:54.840 --> 0:00:56.280 Prime minister again after the election. 0:00:56.440 --> 0:00:58.720 Well, thank you very much for joining us and sitting 0:00:58.720 --> 0:01:01.240 down with us to discuss Sam. Your first six months 0:01:01.320 --> 0:01:03.360 been but longer than six months now in the role. 0:01:04.000 --> 0:01:07.160 Can I ask you thought we'd struggure structure this in 0:01:07.240 --> 0:01:10.080 three parts, sort of the past and then looking forward 0:01:10.080 --> 0:01:14.000 to the future. Later did a campaign review of twenty 0:01:14.000 --> 0:01:16.480 twenty three. That's that returned some time ago. 0:01:16.800 --> 0:01:19.360 Yeah, I mean the campaign review was mostly structured on 0:01:19.880 --> 0:01:22.360 you know, what parts of the campaign worked well, what 0:01:22.400 --> 0:01:24.959 parts didn't? You know, mechanically, how does the campaign work? 0:01:25.080 --> 0:01:27.920 You know, did we do the right things during the campaign? 0:01:28.800 --> 0:01:31.240 No campaign reviews ever going to give you a conclusive 0:01:31.280 --> 0:01:32.119 answer as to. 0:01:32.080 --> 0:01:33.640 Why did you win or why did you lose? 0:01:34.440 --> 0:01:37.559 That's much more subjective, and every voter has an individual 0:01:37.640 --> 0:01:41.240 decision making process that they make. The overall conclusion is 0:01:41.240 --> 0:01:43.840 pretty clear, we lost because not enough people voted for us. 0:01:44.800 --> 0:01:47.360 Why they didn't vote for us, that's something that is 0:01:47.360 --> 0:01:49.600 a bit more complicated, and we need to take the 0:01:49.640 --> 0:01:52.480 time to make sure we I mean, we can spend 0:01:52.520 --> 0:01:54.240 a lot of time trying to figure out why they 0:01:54.280 --> 0:01:56.320 didn't vote for us last time. Really the focus has 0:01:56.360 --> 0:01:57.480 to be on how do we get them to vote 0:01:57.480 --> 0:01:58.080 for us next time? 0:01:58.320 --> 0:01:59.080 Who did the review? 0:01:59.520 --> 0:02:02.240 So the review was done by Marion Street, former Labor 0:02:02.280 --> 0:02:04.880 Party president. She'd been a minister in the Clerk government 0:02:05.360 --> 0:02:07.520 and she had a panel of people who worked with her, 0:02:07.560 --> 0:02:09.560 but Marion was the lead reviewer. 0:02:09.400 --> 0:02:11.720 Right and and you know, if you if you were 0:02:11.760 --> 0:02:15.320 to digest its findings into three sort of key takeaways, 0:02:16.400 --> 0:02:17.280 threw yourself on the part. 0:02:17.280 --> 0:02:19.200 I mean, I think it was mostly focused at the 0:02:19.200 --> 0:02:23.160 practical level about how we make sure our candidate selections 0:02:23.200 --> 0:02:25.400 are good and robust. I mean, that's there's increasing concern 0:02:25.440 --> 0:02:29.000 across the political spectrum about the vetting process for political candidates. 0:02:29.000 --> 0:02:30.959 So you know, what are the lessons that we learned 0:02:30.960 --> 0:02:33.920 from the last round that we can take into future elections. 0:02:34.320 --> 0:02:37.440 What's the right timing for candidate selection processes, what's the 0:02:37.520 --> 0:02:40.640 right timing for reduced for releasing policy. We released a 0:02:40.639 --> 0:02:43.160 lot of policy in the last sort of six weeks 0:02:43.200 --> 0:02:47.600 of the campaign, but nobody really heard it. I think 0:02:47.639 --> 0:02:50.600 increasingly the way people consume that kind of information has 0:02:50.720 --> 0:02:54.560 changed in recent times. The campaign itself now has a 0:02:54.600 --> 0:02:57.360 different feel to it than it might have done, you know, 0:02:57.880 --> 0:03:00.160 a decade ago, and so we have to adjust the 0:03:00.160 --> 0:03:01.400 way we campaign to that. 0:03:01.840 --> 0:03:04.520 It's an interesting point. I mean, National release its main 0:03:04.600 --> 0:03:08.079 text policy in twenty twenty two March of twenty twenty two, 0:03:08.280 --> 0:03:10.480 and they campaigned it for more than a year. 0:03:10.480 --> 0:03:12.639 That's right, and so I think we have to recognize 0:03:12.639 --> 0:03:17.000 that now the political cycle has changed, policy takes longer 0:03:17.040 --> 0:03:20.679 to filter through the days of the big campaign surprise. 0:03:21.120 --> 0:03:24.040 In terms of new policy, they're not what they used 0:03:24.080 --> 0:03:25.520 to be. And I don't think we'll see as much 0:03:25.560 --> 0:03:28.160 of that in the future because the big campaign surprise 0:03:28.480 --> 0:03:30.840 often doesn't resonate in the way that it used to. 0:03:31.000 --> 0:03:35.080 I suppose early voting, you know, it changes the calendar, 0:03:35.120 --> 0:03:38.280 pushes everything forward a few weeks despite the campaign period 0:03:38.360 --> 0:03:40.920 not really changing. It means that the grunt work really 0:03:40.960 --> 0:03:43.000 has to be done quite early, and the final couple 0:03:43.040 --> 0:03:45.360 of weeks are just relitigating previous points. 0:03:45.680 --> 0:03:48.080 Yeah, and it's a really good lesson. If you look 0:03:48.120 --> 0:03:50.760 at the last election. For example, we put a lot 0:03:50.760 --> 0:03:53.520 out in the last few weeks. We actually had a 0:03:53.560 --> 0:03:56.480 swing towards US on election day relative to the early 0:03:56.520 --> 0:03:59.920 vote by quite a significant margin, but it was too late. 0:04:00.120 --> 0:04:02.360 You know, that the advanced vote had already consumed up 0:04:02.480 --> 0:04:04.000 enough that it guaranteed there was going to be a 0:04:04.040 --> 0:04:06.640 change of government. So even though the votes flowed more 0:04:06.680 --> 0:04:09.320 strongly towards US on election day, it was too late 0:04:09.320 --> 0:04:12.160 to change the overall demograph. You know overall profile by then. 0:04:12.200 --> 0:04:14.000 Did it make any points about Auckland. 0:04:14.480 --> 0:04:16.880 Yet certainly made points about some of the issues of 0:04:16.880 --> 0:04:19.360 concern in Auckland, you know, issues around crime and cost 0:04:19.400 --> 0:04:22.279 of living. I mean, I think almost every post election 0:04:22.360 --> 0:04:25.000 review will find that crime and cost of living were 0:04:25.160 --> 0:04:27.440 really big issues, but even more so in Auckland than 0:04:27.440 --> 0:04:28.320 the rest of the country. 0:04:28.960 --> 0:04:31.600 You've just your sister party in the UK has just 0:04:32.040 --> 0:04:36.040 won a massive majority on quite a small share of 0:04:36.040 --> 0:04:37.520 the vote. Has to be said, but you know that 0:04:37.839 --> 0:04:39.720 you play you played the electoral system you're dealt and 0:04:39.760 --> 0:04:42.640 they played it very well. One of the criticisms that 0:04:42.720 --> 0:04:45.520 was made of the Tory Party going out over there 0:04:45.560 --> 0:04:48.960 was that it sort of in its final well final 0:04:49.000 --> 0:04:52.560 five years, I suppose, became increasingly focused upon itself and 0:04:52.680 --> 0:04:55.800 voters kind of spung against that. I was wondering if 0:04:55.800 --> 0:04:58.400 there are a few moments in Labour's final term where 0:04:58.400 --> 0:05:00.800 the same the same criticism could been made about the 0:05:00.839 --> 0:05:03.800 Labor Party. There was a moment, I think the entrenchment 0:05:03.839 --> 0:05:08.080 of the Three Waters of one part of three Waters legislation, 0:05:08.160 --> 0:05:12.680 that the part of the anti privatization measure. Just Sinder 0:05:12.680 --> 0:05:15.120 at the time said a mistake has been made and 0:05:15.160 --> 0:05:17.880 we are taking it as a team. But Labor sort 0:05:17.880 --> 0:05:22.560 of protected itself, I guess, and refused to explain what 0:05:22.720 --> 0:05:25.039 had happened, how that had happened to be fear you 0:05:25.080 --> 0:05:27.160 did fix it, and you, as leader of the House 0:05:27.160 --> 0:05:29.200 at the time, you know, contributed to fixing it, But 0:05:29.279 --> 0:05:31.719 there was a sense of protecting yourselves rather than getting 0:05:31.720 --> 0:05:33.120 to the bottom of the issue. Is that Do you 0:05:33.120 --> 0:05:35.680 feel like at times you focused on yourselves but too much? 0:05:36.240 --> 0:05:38.960 I don't think that example resonated particularly with the public. 0:05:39.000 --> 0:05:42.120 It resonated with some constitutionalists who were outraged by what 0:05:42.200 --> 0:05:45.240 had happened, But actually the things that resonated for us 0:05:45.480 --> 0:05:48.000 much more were losing three ministers and the run up 0:05:48.000 --> 0:05:49.440 to the election campaign. 0:05:49.000 --> 0:05:49.760 That really hurt. 0:05:50.440 --> 0:05:53.239 And that does give you the impression that you're focused 0:05:53.279 --> 0:05:55.400 on yourselves rather than focused on the needs of the 0:05:55.440 --> 0:06:00.440 general public. And there's no question that when they're kicked 0:06:00.440 --> 0:06:02.800 off and there were three ministers in very rapid succession, 0:06:03.240 --> 0:06:05.480 our polling took a real knock during that time, and 0:06:05.520 --> 0:06:08.680 I think that the combination of that and the cost 0:06:08.680 --> 0:06:10.760 of living crisis being at real crunch point at that 0:06:10.880 --> 0:06:14.520 time suggested to people we're focused on ourselves and not 0:06:14.560 --> 0:06:15.839 on fixing the cost of living. 0:06:16.400 --> 0:06:19.360 Has Michael wood Is on your campaign, your policy councils, 0:06:19.400 --> 0:06:21.680 he signal he's keen to come back and run again 0:06:21.720 --> 0:06:22.640 in his electorate. 0:06:23.040 --> 0:06:26.000 I haven't had a conversation with him about that. Ultimately, 0:06:26.040 --> 0:06:28.839 you know, candidate's elections are really a matter for the party. 0:06:30.240 --> 0:06:32.200 But I mean, I think you know, he will need 0:06:32.240 --> 0:06:35.440 to rebuild his relationship with the party, with the electorate 0:06:35.520 --> 0:06:37.359 and with the country ultimately, if he wants to be 0:06:37.440 --> 0:06:38.400 an MP again. 0:06:38.240 --> 0:06:40.160 Does he have his trained relationship with the party When 0:06:40.160 --> 0:06:41.200 you talk about rebuilding it? 0:06:41.279 --> 0:06:44.680 Oh, I mean, I think anybody who has left and 0:06:45.040 --> 0:06:48.400 those circumstances needs to make sure they're rebuilding some relationships. 0:06:49.320 --> 0:06:51.160 And just I mean, just on that three Waters thing 0:06:51.279 --> 0:06:55.479 is like, now it's been two nearly two years, what 0:06:55.680 --> 0:06:56.279 did happen? 0:06:56.600 --> 0:06:57.279 You know? What? 0:06:57.080 --> 0:06:59.480 What? Why? How did that? How did that get entrenched? 0:06:59.480 --> 0:07:02.960 How did how how did something which which I guess 0:07:03.000 --> 0:07:05.320 you weren't meant to vote for get voted on? Can 0:07:05.360 --> 0:07:06.760 you explain it? 0:07:06.920 --> 0:07:09.360 I mean, ultimately, you know, I think it was it 0:07:09.400 --> 0:07:11.600 was a mistake made by the labor team who were 0:07:11.640 --> 0:07:13.960 in the house at the time. You know, they they 0:07:14.040 --> 0:07:16.600 voted in favor of an amendment which they which they 0:07:16.640 --> 0:07:19.720 shouldn't have And I mean, I wasn't in the House 0:07:19.760 --> 0:07:21.120 at the time, so I can't give a blow by 0:07:21.160 --> 0:07:23.480 blow account of the discussions that took place on the 0:07:23.480 --> 0:07:26.080 floor of the House, but it was pretty immediate. It 0:07:26.080 --> 0:07:27.960 was obvious to me as Leader of the House, immediately 0:07:28.000 --> 0:07:30.520 after it had happened, that it was the wrong thing 0:07:30.560 --> 0:07:32.400 to do, and so we were going to need to 0:07:32.400 --> 0:07:32.800 fix it. 0:07:32.920 --> 0:07:35.200 So Dan, it didn't go to cortcause obviously it wasn't discussed. 0:07:35.240 --> 0:07:38.040 No, I didn't and it wasn't discussed. And you know, 0:07:38.080 --> 0:07:39.720 had it been discussed, I think the position would have 0:07:39.760 --> 0:07:41.640 been much clearer from the beginning that we shouldn't have 0:07:41.680 --> 0:07:42.440 supported it. 0:07:42.240 --> 0:07:44.720 Did it Was it an honest mistake or do people 0:07:44.720 --> 0:07:47.720 actually try to vote for it because they wanted wanted 0:07:47.720 --> 0:07:48.440 it to pass? 0:07:48.760 --> 0:07:50.880 I think, I mean, certainly the people who voted for 0:07:50.880 --> 0:07:53.600 it thought it was a good idea, But I don't 0:07:53.600 --> 0:07:56.600 think there was any deliberate intention to kind of slip 0:07:56.640 --> 0:07:59.840 one through. I think it was just perhaps people had 0:07:59.840 --> 0:08:02.960 an thought through the overall consequences. 0:08:02.200 --> 0:08:05.000 Of you and and and obviously you know you you 0:08:05.360 --> 0:08:08.600 restate that in a system like them, the New Zealand system, 0:08:08.720 --> 0:08:25.600 stuff like that always goes to caucus first. Absolutely, let's 0:08:25.600 --> 0:08:29.400 talk about the prison so so far. Now, look correct 0:08:29.440 --> 0:08:31.440 me if I'm wrong, because this is taking a fair 0:08:31.480 --> 0:08:33.440 bit of googling on my part. But the main thing 0:08:34.200 --> 0:08:36.439 that you've currently said is not going to survive a 0:08:36.559 --> 0:08:42.160 future Reciplicans government is charter school's bagne anything else that 0:08:42.240 --> 0:08:44.320 you've that you've pleached her overturn. 0:08:44.960 --> 0:08:45.760 I mean, we're not going to. 0:08:47.240 --> 0:08:50.079 Sort of respond to every government policy p announcement by 0:08:50.080 --> 0:08:52.040 announcing what we would do in the future, because you 0:08:52.760 --> 0:08:55.200 running into an election campaign, you need to have a 0:08:55.360 --> 0:08:58.040 complete package, and you can't necessarily come up with a 0:08:58.080 --> 0:09:00.520 complete package if you're doing it on an ad basis 0:09:00.520 --> 0:09:04.600 as you're going along charter schools. That's a pretty important 0:09:04.640 --> 0:09:06.720 point of principle for Labor though. We believe in a 0:09:06.760 --> 0:09:10.240 publicly funded public education system and we think charter schools 0:09:10.320 --> 0:09:13.960 undermines that. And you know, the past experience of charter 0:09:14.000 --> 0:09:16.000 schools in New Zealand was not a good one. You know, 0:09:16.040 --> 0:09:18.520 they ended up costing a lot of money for not 0:09:18.559 --> 0:09:22.520 particularly good outcomes. So yes, we're opposed to that one. 0:09:22.520 --> 0:09:24.440 But in terms of the rest of the policy. You know, 0:09:24.480 --> 0:09:27.920 we have a well developed manifesto before the election. 0:09:28.679 --> 0:09:30.360 I mean the ones that I was thinking about, things 0:09:30.360 --> 0:09:33.679 that I would you think would be and the realm 0:09:33.720 --> 0:09:35.920 of stuff that you'd overturn would be the smoke free changes, 0:09:35.960 --> 0:09:39.000 reverting to the status quo. On that the clean card 0:09:39.000 --> 0:09:41.200 discount would be one I would have thought that you 0:09:41.280 --> 0:09:43.199 might be looking to bring back for a pay agreement, 0:09:43.280 --> 0:09:44.360 something dear to Labour's heart. 0:09:44.840 --> 0:09:46.680 I mean, on all of those, the world will have 0:09:46.760 --> 0:09:48.959 changed by the time the next election rolls around. So 0:09:48.960 --> 0:09:51.040 if you look at smoke free, for example, it won't 0:09:51.040 --> 0:09:53.520 be a case of just simply reinstating what we've done before, 0:09:53.559 --> 0:09:56.320 because we will have had three more years. If you 0:09:56.320 --> 0:09:58.640 look at the most recent change that they've just made, 0:09:58.679 --> 0:10:03.200 for example, where they're allowing for they're not vapes, what 0:10:03.240 --> 0:10:07.719 do they call the heated devices heated tobacco devices. So 0:10:08.160 --> 0:10:09.760 that's a new thing and we don't know how fast 0:10:09.800 --> 0:10:11.880 the uptake of that will be before the next election, 0:10:12.040 --> 0:10:13.240 so we're going to have to. 0:10:13.200 --> 0:10:13.960 Respond to that. 0:10:14.040 --> 0:10:16.480 So, yes, it is the overall agenda, right, Yes, we 0:10:16.520 --> 0:10:18.560 still want New Zealand to be a smoke free country. 0:10:19.000 --> 0:10:21.080 What will be the process for us to get there. 0:10:21.720 --> 0:10:25.520 We'll have to have a different package for that. Issues 0:10:25.559 --> 0:10:28.439 around the clean car discount, the nature of the vehicles 0:10:28.480 --> 0:10:31.719 being purchased has changed, so we've gone from having a 0:10:31.760 --> 0:10:33.800 high uptake of electric vehicles as a result of the 0:10:33.800 --> 0:10:38.920 clean card discount to a reversion of purchasing the double. 0:10:38.679 --> 0:10:39.520 Cab diesel use. 0:10:40.160 --> 0:10:42.080 But we don't necessarily know whether that's still going to 0:10:42.080 --> 0:10:43.280 be the case two years from now. 0:10:43.400 --> 0:10:44.560 What about fair pay agreements? 0:10:44.960 --> 0:10:46.359 Fair pay agreements absolutely. 0:10:46.440 --> 0:10:48.560 I mean I have said that we want to have 0:10:49.200 --> 0:10:52.000 New Zealanders earning better money and we want to make 0:10:52.040 --> 0:10:53.800 sure that those who are in the lowest income jobs 0:10:53.800 --> 0:10:54.680 are getting better pay. 0:10:54.760 --> 0:10:55.560 You're worried about AI. 0:10:57.679 --> 0:11:00.280 I'm worried and excited by AI at the same time. 0:11:00.559 --> 0:11:03.160 I think AI has got huge potential for New Zealand. 0:11:04.200 --> 0:11:06.800 We could be quite uniquely positioned. If you look at 0:11:06.920 --> 0:11:09.439 renewable energy, for example, one of the biggest constraints to 0:11:09.520 --> 0:11:13.720 AI development and uptake is going to be access to energy. 0:11:13.880 --> 0:11:16.880 AI is very energy hungry and New Zealand can be 0:11:16.880 --> 0:11:18.920 part of the answer to that. So there's opportunities for 0:11:19.000 --> 0:11:21.920 us in there. There's opportunities for us to use AI 0:11:22.040 --> 0:11:24.240 in new and creative ways. But we need to go 0:11:24.280 --> 0:11:26.920 into that eyes wide open. I think the world and 0:11:26.960 --> 0:11:29.360 this will be a topic and world politics in the 0:11:29.440 --> 0:11:31.319 next few years will be around well, what kind of 0:11:31.400 --> 0:11:35.440 constraints should we ethically and morally have around where AI 0:11:35.720 --> 0:11:37.640 is used and how it's used. 0:11:37.640 --> 0:11:39.679 Part of the growth story. One of the criticisms that 0:11:39.920 --> 0:11:41.720 that's been made of the labor opposition at the moment 0:11:41.800 --> 0:11:45.440 is opposition to fast Track. You've launched that campaign things 0:11:45.640 --> 0:11:49.400 this weekend on that. There's also there's a long standing 0:11:49.400 --> 0:11:53.680 disagreement between perhaps not long standing because national broke broke 0:11:53.720 --> 0:11:59.280 from that, but the recent disagreement over agricultural emissions pricing. Now, 0:11:59.440 --> 0:12:03.480 obviously fast track is about economic development. That's well, that's 0:12:03.520 --> 0:12:08.120 what the government is arguing. Agricultural emissions pricing is a 0:12:08.200 --> 0:12:12.679 challenge for one of our most important, strategically competitive industries. 0:12:13.240 --> 0:12:15.080 The criticism that's made of Labor is that, you know, 0:12:15.120 --> 0:12:18.160 if it's not if we're not going to fire up 0:12:18.160 --> 0:12:21.280 the resource extraction economy, if we're going to if we're 0:12:21.320 --> 0:12:26.320 going to target the primary industries with more regulation, where 0:12:26.320 --> 0:12:28.920 does the New Zealand Where does New Zealand's growth come from. 0:12:28.960 --> 0:12:32.439 Where's that bet driver of economic growth and prosperity. 0:12:32.600 --> 0:12:34.760 I think that's an overly simplistic argument. So if you 0:12:34.760 --> 0:12:38.160 look at agricultural pricing, for example, the government haven't said 0:12:38.160 --> 0:12:39.760 that they're not going to do it. They've just said 0:12:39.760 --> 0:12:41.880 that they're going to do it. And by twenty thirty, 0:12:42.360 --> 0:12:44.800 what have they done In the meantime They've created six 0:12:44.840 --> 0:12:48.600 more years of regulatory uncertainty for the primary sector. What's 0:12:48.640 --> 0:12:51.240 that going to do? Ultimately, it's going to delay investment 0:12:51.320 --> 0:12:55.880 in the primary sector and decarbonizing and reducing their methane emissions, 0:12:55.920 --> 0:12:57.360 because why would they do that if they don't know 0:12:57.400 --> 0:13:00.360 what the regulatory settings are going to be. I spent 0:13:00.400 --> 0:13:03.120 some time visiting farms two weeks ago, used the parliamentary 0:13:03.120 --> 0:13:05.920 recess as the opportunity to do that. They know that 0:13:05.960 --> 0:13:07.520 this is a big issue. They know that they're going 0:13:07.559 --> 0:13:09.120 to have to grapple with it because the market is 0:13:09.160 --> 0:13:12.880 already driving them towards that. If anything, they do need 0:13:12.920 --> 0:13:16.199 to see some regulatory certainty because the sorts of investments 0:13:16.200 --> 0:13:18.240 that they need to make are investments that are going 0:13:18.280 --> 0:13:21.040 to take ten to fifteen years to pay back. So 0:13:21.120 --> 0:13:24.079 will they make those investments now, no, they won't because 0:13:24.080 --> 0:13:26.120 they aren't going to do that if the whole regulatory 0:13:26.160 --> 0:13:29.120 environment's going to change by twenty thirty. So I actually 0:13:29.160 --> 0:13:32.000 think that the government should take the opportunity to try 0:13:32.040 --> 0:13:35.520 and find a bipartisan way forward because the issue around 0:13:35.960 --> 0:13:39.120 agricultural emissions is not going to go away. It's going 0:13:39.160 --> 0:13:41.200 to continue to be a challenge for New Zealand. The 0:13:41.240 --> 0:13:43.800 international market is going to continue to demand that we 0:13:43.880 --> 0:13:46.400 do something about it. And I think the biggest hurdle 0:13:46.440 --> 0:13:48.760 for our farmers is going to be lack of regulatory 0:13:48.800 --> 0:13:51.720 certainty and consistency. So I think they should be aiming 0:13:51.760 --> 0:13:54.280 to try and achieve that sooner rather than later. So 0:13:54.320 --> 0:13:57.120 I actually think they've left farming in a worse position 0:13:57.800 --> 0:13:59.400 in the sense of they've now got a huge question 0:13:59.440 --> 0:14:01.640 mark hanging over the terms of what's going to happen. 0:14:01.920 --> 0:14:04.000 I mean, the sectors worried it will make them uncompetitive. 0:14:04.520 --> 0:14:06.600 They are highly productive, that they worried it will make 0:14:06.600 --> 0:14:09.520 them less productive and therefore less competitive internationally. I mean, 0:14:09.640 --> 0:14:11.079 is that a fair criticism. 0:14:11.240 --> 0:14:13.400 I think the biggest risk to the sector at the 0:14:13.400 --> 0:14:16.520 moment is that international consumers stop buying their stuff, So 0:14:17.040 --> 0:14:20.400 you know, big companies Esclay, Tesco, Walmart. These are all 0:14:20.480 --> 0:14:25.040 major international brands have said that they're going for a 0:14:25.080 --> 0:14:27.800 reduction in their emissions and they're not going to be 0:14:27.840 --> 0:14:30.920 buying goods if we can't demonstrate that we're driving down 0:14:30.920 --> 0:14:33.640 our emissions in the process of producing those goods. There 0:14:33.640 --> 0:14:36.440 are a range of options for the primary sector. Electrifying 0:14:36.480 --> 0:14:38.200 farms is one of the ways they can reduce their 0:14:38.200 --> 0:14:41.040 carbon emissions, for example, but it requires a long lead 0:14:41.160 --> 0:14:43.280 time to both get that in place and then to 0:14:43.360 --> 0:14:48.760 pay add off. Reducing methane emissions, there is technology available 0:14:48.960 --> 0:14:51.320 that can be rolled out sooner rather than later, but 0:14:51.360 --> 0:14:53.240 you need regulatory certainty for that to happen. 0:14:53.280 --> 0:14:56.720 Well, what about what about resource extraction mihining? You know, 0:14:56.960 --> 0:14:59.520 you must look over at Australia. They've got your very 0:14:59.560 --> 0:15:02.920 powerful unions but a very permissive culture when it comes 0:15:03.000 --> 0:15:05.960 to mining. You see immense wealth being dug out of 0:15:06.000 --> 0:15:10.680 the ground and that wealth being shared with labor thanks 0:15:10.720 --> 0:15:14.360 to title label laws. It's a very attractive kind of 0:15:14.440 --> 0:15:17.480 economic model to anyone from New Zealand, you'd think. 0:15:17.600 --> 0:15:20.560 But the primary extractives that the government are talking about 0:15:20.560 --> 0:15:23.680 are coalon gas and coal and gas aren't part of 0:15:23.720 --> 0:15:27.040 our energy future and shouldn't be part of our energy future. 0:15:27.320 --> 0:15:30.040 So they're talking about reopening coal mines on the West Coast, 0:15:30.080 --> 0:15:32.960 and they're talking about drilling for more natural gas. Well, 0:15:32.960 --> 0:15:35.080 we haven't had a significant natural gas find in New 0:15:35.160 --> 0:15:38.320 Zealand since two thousand and one. Bearing in mind the 0:15:38.320 --> 0:15:41.320 oil and gas the expiration band has only been in 0:15:41.320 --> 0:15:44.840 place for the last five years or so. So the 0:15:44.920 --> 0:15:47.120 reality here is if there was a whole lot of 0:15:47.200 --> 0:15:49.360 natural gas, they're ready to be tapped into. You think 0:15:49.400 --> 0:15:52.200 they might have found that in the period between two 0:15:52.200 --> 0:15:54.440 thousand and one and twenty seventeen. 0:15:54.640 --> 0:15:57.320 What about these other these climate free new minerals which 0:15:57.320 --> 0:16:00.000 are needed for the transition antimony? I'm maybe saying it right. 0:16:00.760 --> 0:16:02.280 They found that on the West coast. I think it 0:16:02.280 --> 0:16:04.840 could be. It can be very, very valuable. You know what, 0:16:05.760 --> 0:16:10.480 why not in the West coast long along a labor 0:16:10.560 --> 0:16:12.800 sort of stronghold. Obviously gon'ta blue this time around, but 0:16:13.200 --> 0:16:17.320 you know what, why can't they unleash the wealth from 0:16:17.360 --> 0:16:18.160 beneath their own feet. 0:16:18.240 --> 0:16:19.880 I think anyone in the Labor Party is saying that 0:16:19.880 --> 0:16:22.720 we should turn our backs on the minerals that we 0:16:22.760 --> 0:16:26.040 need for example, to sustain the renewable energy revolution that's 0:16:26.080 --> 0:16:28.280 happening around the world. But there do need to be 0:16:28.320 --> 0:16:31.680 protections around the natural environment as we extract those minerals, 0:16:31.680 --> 0:16:36.640 So mining on conservation land, mining where it endangers biodiversity, 0:16:36.880 --> 0:16:39.240 these are areas of concern for us. So we've got 0:16:39.280 --> 0:16:40.920 to make sure that any regime that we've got in 0:16:40.920 --> 0:16:44.560 place around consenting for those sorts of activities actually adequately 0:16:44.560 --> 0:16:45.480 protects those things. 0:16:45.720 --> 0:16:48.480 As a basic point, though, if you could, like coal 0:16:48.720 --> 0:16:51.560 and oil and gas accepted, would you like to boost 0:16:51.720 --> 0:16:53.880 mining New Zealand, we see it seemore mining. 0:16:54.520 --> 0:16:57.040 I'm not opposed to the mining of some of the 0:16:57.120 --> 0:17:00.240 minerals that we may need for the renewable energy future, 0:17:00.240 --> 0:17:02.960 as long as there are appropriate environmental safeguards and place, 0:17:03.000 --> 0:17:05.480 as long as there are good consenting processes in place. 0:17:05.920 --> 0:17:07.440 But I don't think that's going to be a huge 0:17:07.520 --> 0:17:11.119 driver of the New Zealand's New Zealand's future economic growth. 0:17:11.320 --> 0:17:13.480 I think that's more likely to be in areas around 0:17:13.520 --> 0:17:16.160 renewable and energy. It's more likely to be in areas 0:17:16.160 --> 0:17:19.240 around digital technology. It's more likely to be in areas 0:17:19.240 --> 0:17:21.960 around sustainable food production. I think those are the sorts 0:17:22.000 --> 0:17:24.960 of things where we will see job rich opportunities for 0:17:25.000 --> 0:17:26.000 New Zealand in the future. 0:17:39.680 --> 0:17:42.679 You've just finished your regional conference circuit, so there's been 0:17:42.680 --> 0:17:45.960 a bit of talk about this captain's calls now. Labour 0:17:46.000 --> 0:17:48.440 says that the idea of a captain's call is a 0:17:48.440 --> 0:17:52.479 bit of a media invention and a creature of New 0:17:52.520 --> 0:17:55.119 Zealand politics obviously, but there's no sort of formal captain's 0:17:55.160 --> 0:17:57.040 call process in that the captain's calls, that what are 0:17:57.040 --> 0:17:58.800 at leads to have been captain's calls are extras to 0:17:58.960 --> 0:18:00.440 follow course process. 0:18:01.119 --> 0:18:01.479 That's right. 0:18:01.520 --> 0:18:03.800 I mean, ultimately the leader of the party is entitled 0:18:03.840 --> 0:18:06.280 to have an opinion and if you want to call 0:18:06.280 --> 0:18:08.800 that a captain's call, go ahead. If you don't want 0:18:08.840 --> 0:18:11.240 to have the leader having an opinion, you're probably looking 0:18:11.280 --> 0:18:14.280 for somebody who's not much of a learner. So but 0:18:14.359 --> 0:18:16.119 the reality is that if we look at the last 0:18:16.119 --> 0:18:19.080 election campaign, our tax policy, lots of discussion about that, 0:18:19.359 --> 0:18:22.639 but our tax policy was ultimately signed off by the caucus. 0:18:23.080 --> 0:18:25.639 It was signed off by the party's policy council. It 0:18:25.800 --> 0:18:27.080 was not determined unilaterally. 0:18:28.080 --> 0:18:30.000 Would you accept I mean, are you open to some 0:18:30.040 --> 0:18:33.119 sort of discussion with members about them having a bit 0:18:33.160 --> 0:18:35.400 more of a say in some of those decisions. I think, 0:18:35.960 --> 0:18:37.719 accepting that there is no such thing as a captain's 0:18:37.760 --> 0:18:39.680 call formally, there seems to have been a bit of 0:18:39.680 --> 0:18:42.000 disgruntlement about the way that the tax policy was handled. 0:18:42.000 --> 0:18:44.520 Would you accept members putting forward some changes to give 0:18:44.560 --> 0:18:46.480