MORENA, GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO Q+A. I'M GREG BOYED. TODAY ` AMERICA'S STRIKE AGAINST SYRIA. WE'VE GOT THE LATEST ON THE RISING TENSIONS OVER THE ATTACK AND ANALYSIS FROM ROBERT AYSON, PROFESSOR OF STRATEGIC STUDIES AT VICTORIA UNIVERSITY. THEN AN EXCLUSIVE FIRST LOOK AT LABOUR'S NEW MONETARY POLICY. GRANT ROBERTSON TALKS CANDIDLY ABOUT WHAT HE'LL DO IF HE BECOMES FINANCE MINISTER: ARE YOU GOING TO BE A REFORMING FINANCE MINISTER? ARE WE GOING TO SEE BIG CULLENESQUE PROGRAMMES FROM YOU? THEN MARAMA FOX. LOCK UP YOUR CHILDREN, COS HERE COME THE MAORIS. WE SHOULD ALL BE VERY SCARED. HITTING BACK AT WINSTON PETERS, A CRITIC OF IWI PARTICIPATION IN RMA DECISIONS. SHE'S UP LIVE TODAY TO TELL US HOW IT WILL WORK. ANOTHER WEEK OF FLOODING AND CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS SAY EXPECT MORE IN FUTURE. CORIN MEETS MARK WILSON, THE KIWI HEADING ONE OF THE WORLD'S BIGGEST INSURERS. THERE'S STILL DOUBTERS ON CLIMATE CHANGE. I FIND THAT BIZARRE. CAPTIONS WERE MADE POSSIBLE WITH FUNDING FROM NZ ON AIR. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2017 AND ALL THE ANALYSIS YOU'LL NEED FROM OUR PANEL. JOSIE PAGANI, WELLINGTON-BASED PUBLIC AFFAIRS SPECIALIST, DIRECTOR OF THE COUNCIL FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT; MARIANNE ELLIOTT, HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER, NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF ACTION STATION; AND MICHAEL BARNETT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE AUCKLAND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. WE'LL HEAR FROM YOU SHORTLY, BUT FIRST HERE'S CORIN WITH THE LATEST ON SYRIA. THANKS, GREG. THERE HAVE BEEN FRESH ATTACKS THIS MORNING ON THE SYRIAN TOWN HIT BY THE CHEMICAL ATTACK LAST WEEK. THERE'RE REPORTS THAT TWO PEOPLE WERE KILLED IN AIRSTRIKES ON THE OPPOSITION-HELD NORTHERN TOWN OF KHAN SHEIKHOUN. MEANWHILE, A RUSSIAN WARSHIP ARMED WITH CRUISE MISSILES IS POSITIONED OFF THE COAST OF SYRIA AS PART OF MOSCOW'S RESPONSE TO THE US MISSILE STRIKES ON THE SYRIAN AIRBASE OF SHAYRAT. THE MOVE COMES AHEAD OF US SECRETARY OF STATE REX TILLERSON'S PLANNED VISIT TO MOSCOW, WHERE HE'S EXPECTED TO MEET WITH RUSSIAN PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN. FOREIGN MINISTER MURRAY MCCULLY WAS UNAVAILABLE FOR AN INTERVIEW BUT DID SAY IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ADEQUATE RESPONSE FROM THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL, NEW ZEALAND COULD UNDERSTAND WHY THE US TOOK UNILATERIAL ACTION. JOINING ME NOW FROM WELLINGTON IS ROBERT AYSON, PROFESSOR OF STRATEGIC STUDIES AT VICTORIA UNIVERSITY. President Trump campaigned on in America first policy. I thought he wasn't going to get into Fights like this. What is going on? That is right. A lot of Mr Trump's supporters might be surprised to see this. There is an element of a Trump Administration taking on a world policeman. It is a limited one. It does not mean the United States will be active world security spots. It is not pure self-interest. The president saw photographs of those who have suffered from chemical weapons attacks has made a response out of a humanitarian risk concern. Russia are upset about this. They are talking about taking away the cooperation agreement about flying planes over Syria. What you make of that response? It means Russia can give up on thinking a trump administration will be a close partner of Russia and a major change of the Obama administration. Russia wants to show This has not dented its support for the Assad regime. It has not dented its desire to run the show in terms of what happens in Syria's security. It wants to show that while there has been this US attack that Russia is also able to shadow US forces And show that it can intimidate. But I don't think this means Russia will use force against the United States. I don't think it is necessary that there will be an escalation in that military sense. So perhaps no world war three. But it does increase the risk of a miscalculation. Something could go wrong. Trumps unpredictability could create a conflict. Something could have gone wrong with the Tomahawk cruise missile attacks. But they are usually very reliable pieces of equipment. There is a possibility and their interaction with the Russians That they have cut off communication and that American aircraft fly to drop bombs on Isis They might be more vulnerable to air defence systems of Syrians and Russians. There is a possibility and we need to remember that should the worst worst thing happen we are talking about to countries that have 90% of the world's nuclear weapons. So the Americans wereCautious about responding to what Russia did in Crimea. But I don't want to get too alarmist. This has been at discrete response by the trump administration. They are trying to say about this is the response to Syria not the response to Russia. How does NZ play this? What do the people of the Ministry of foreign affairs do here? It does not seem like there is a clear pan from America. We are waiting to see where this goes next. It is possible that militarily This is a one-off. Diplomatically it increases the tensions Between two of the largest powers on the Security Council and NZ is not there. NZ's foreign policy relies upon the great powers getting on. It relies upon strong international machinery. There was not a concerted United Nations security response. That is unlikely because Russia holds the veto. NZ want to keep an eye on this And we have seen from the English government is cautious support And not the most voice of wrist support for this action. We have seen from Donald Trump that he is expecting his allies to do more. We are not a full ally but we are in the Five Eyes alliance. We are in the anti-Isis coalition in Iraq. And it was Santa reason there will be more pressure for us to offer more support. Opposition parties have taken a different line. I think unless the trump administration Decides they want to be dragged into more stuff on the ground But NZ might say they are supporting training and doing enough. I think the other thing is Mr Trump, this is his first crisis Where he has as commander-in-chief useless unilateral force in this way. This might be a turning point. It might be a sign for him to show that the United States can lead. Not in the way that Mr Obama wanted to. This is maybe a new normal. As it is a great risk for the world? We have seen an incredibly erratic 70 days from this president. He can barely be trusted on anything and yet he will see a poll boost from the snow. Even the New York Times appraise him. He will be emboldened by this. But these people are fairly serious But are fairly cautious operators. And I think what this action reveals as the Steve Bannon's of this world do not have Mr Trump here on this. These lash out responses, this was not one of those. It was a carefully calculated response. It was a sort of thing another president would have done if they decided to use force against Syria. Hitting the airbase where the aircraft came from. We need to wait and see whether we are now seeing the maturation of Mr Trump as a president. He is still going to be Donald Trump But we are seeing some signs Of a more moderate approach. His meeting with the president of China was a very low-key meeting. No grand statements. It got overshadowed by this decision that meeting. Mr Trump was trying to show him who was boss. But there was no disasters or massive surprises In the China and US relationship. That went off pretty well. Mr Trump has his Supreme Court justice in. Something is emerging As an administration that is finding its feet. But NZ are still unhappy with the stars he is taking on trade. LET'S BRING IN OUR PANEL. Sabre rattling according to Robert Ayson. How will this play out? I have no idea. I think if anyone pretends what Mr Trump is going to do, they are overstating it. Listening to Robert Ayson, what we have is the relationship between America and Russia. I'm interested in the people on the ground in Syria and how it plays out for them. We have known for a very long time that terrible things have been perpetrated against the civilians and citizens of Syria. Whatever comes next, I hope at the heart of that decision-making is the interest of the people on the ground in Syria. Something has to be done. No leader of a country has a right to kill its own civilians. This is an illegal act that America has taken. That is true. You can only use force through a Security Council resolution or self defence. Neither of those things are true here. But people feel that you must do something when chemical weapons are used. What NZ needs to do now is behind the scenes encourage the US To have some kind of multilateral or regional response even if you can't get a Security Council resolution. NATO in Kosovo was semilegal. There was implicit support from the Security Council without a resolution. It must be precise. It is To prevent the use of chemical weapons. When you talk about world War three How do you think this will play out? It is about the US and Russia now. Syria is to the side of this. The words avenues are unpredictable when we talk about Trump. The other word I would use is retaliatory. We need to be careful. The warlords have come out. They have condoned it and they expect the world will condone it. Yet we have killed millions and millions of people in that country for years. Where should we be on this? We should not have condoned in any way. Softly or firmly. We should sit and wait. I know there is a lot of sabre rattling as you called it. But international law is behind the international community standing up against the use of chemical weapons. There is a precedent there. It should be done multilaterally. If it can't be done through the Security Council there should be a regional response. Keep the mission very precise. If we are called on to be involved in this, what should NZ's position be? I don't think we should be involved in unilateral strikes of any form. If there is a regional response which has some sort of validity And a multilateral mandate And which was precise, then I think we might be able to consider that. But our experience in Iraq makes me wonder if that is possible. Is there such a thing as a precise and contained response that does not ultimately lead Two some dream that if you change the regime you will fix it. SEND US YOUR THOUGHTS. WE'RE ON TWITTER. YOU CAN EMAIL US AT Q+A@TVNZ.CO.NZ, OR TEXT YOUR THOUGHTS AND FIRST NAME TO 2211. KEEP THEM BRIEF. EACH TEXT COSTS 50 CENTS. OUR INTERVIEW WITH LABOUR'S FINANCE SPOKESPERSON GRANT ROBERTSON IS NEXT. PLUS THE PANEL, AFTER THE BREAK. GRANT ROBERTSON COULD BE THE COUNTRY'S NEXT FINANCE MINISTER IF THE ELECTION PLAYS OUT LABOUR'S WAY. I SAT DOWN WITH HIM ON FRIDAY FOR A WIDE-RANGING INTERVIEW ABOUT HOW HE'D RUN THE COUNTRY'S BOOKS. I STARTED BY ASKING WHAT'S THE FIRST THING HE'D DO? I THINK THE BIG THING FOR ME WILL BE GETTING THE TREASURY OFFICIALS IN AND SAYING, 'THE ECONOMY IS NOT AN END IN ITSELF. 'IT'S ABOUT THE KIND OF LIFE WE WANT NEW ZEALANDERS TO BE ABLE TO LIVE.' AND WE'RE GOING TO START SITTING DOWN AND WORKING OUT EVERY ECONOMIC POLICY AND HOW IT BENEFITS PEOPLE ON THE GROUND IN THEIR DAILY LIVES. IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE MANAGE THE ECONOMY RESPONSIBLY, THAT WE LOOK AFTER EVERY TAXPAYER DOLLAR WELL, BUT IN THE END, THAT'S ONLY USEFUL IF WE'RE DELIVERING TO NEW ZEALANDERS A GOOD QUALITY OF LIFE IN TERMS OF THE BASICS, LIKE HOUSING AND HEALTH AND EDUCATION. SO WHAT ARE SOME ACTUAL CONCRETE EXAMPLES YOU COULD GIVE ME OF WAYS YOU COULD IMPROVE PEOPLE'S LIVES? WELL, IN HOUSING A REALLY SIMPLY EXAMPLE IS TO GET THAT KIWIBUILD PROGRAMME UNDERWAY RIGHT AWAY. WE WANT TO BUILD 100,000 AFFORDABLE HOMES OVER 10 YEARS. IT'S GONNA BE REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THE BACKGROUND WORK ON THAT DONE STRAIGHT AWAY. THAT'S GONNA HAVE A DEMONSTRABLE IMPROVEMENT ON PEOPLE'S LIVES. ON THAT ISSUE, THE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY ISSUE IS AN ACUTE ISSUE. SO IN SIX MONTHS', SEVEN MONTHS' TIME, YOU'LL HAVE THAT ISSUE, IF YOU WIN, ON YOUR DOORSTEP. SO THE KIWIBUILD WILL NO DOUBT MAKE A DIFFERENCE, BUT AS YOU SAY, IT'S GONNA TAKE A COUPLE OF YEARS TO GET UP TO SPEED. HOW DO YOU MAKE HOUSING MORE AFFORDABLE STRAIGHT AWAY? EVERYBODY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT SOLVING THE HOUSING CRISIS IS GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME. IT'S DEVELOPED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. SO WE DO HAVE TO START THE BUILD OF HOUSES. BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE, WE CAN CRACK DOWN ON SPECULATORS RIGHT AWAY. AND WE'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR WE'RE GONNA EXTEND THE RULES THAT TAX SPECULATORS IF THEY FLIP A PROPERTY THAT THEY'VE BOUGHT WITHIN FIVE YEARS. WE'RE GONNA MAKE THAT CHANGE IMMEDIATELY. WE'RE ALSO GONNA BAN OFFSHORE SPECULATORS FROM BUYING EXISTING HOUSING. THOSE THINGS ON THE DEMAND SIDE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF CONTROLLING THAT DEMAND WHILE WE GET THE BUILDING OF HOUSING UP TO SPEED. WOULD YOU DO THAT`? AND WOULD YOU DO THAT IF, FOR EXAMPLE, WE'RE SEEING THE AUCKLAND HOUSING MARKET PLATEAU AT THE MOMENT. AND IF WE SAW A REASONABLY STRONG CONTRACTION THERE, WOULD YOU STILL DO THAT IF THE AUCKLAND HOUSING MARKET WAS ACTUALLY COMING OFF? YEAH, LOOK, I THINK WE'VE SEEN OVER A LONG ENOUGH TREND THAT WE DO HAVE TO CONTROL SPECULATION IN HOUSING. AND ACTUALLY, THAT'S A BIG ISSUE FOR THE ECONOMY AS A WHOLE. WHILE WE'VE GOT PEOPLE FOCUSING ON MAKING MONEY FROM SELLING HOUSES TO EACH OTHER, THAT MEANS WE'RE NOT INVESTING IN THE PRODUCTIVE SIDE OF THE ECONOMY. IF WE REALLY WANNA GROW NEW ZEALANDERS' WAGES, IMPROVE THE ECONOMY, THEN WE'VE GOTTA TURN INVESTMENT TO THAT PRODUCTIVE SIDE. SO WHY NOT GO THE WHOLE HOG WITH A CAPITAL GAINS TAX? LOOK, WE'VE BEEN REALLY CLEAR ABOUT THAT. ANDREW LITTLE WAS CLEAR FROM THE DAY HE BECAME LEADER, WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE TAX SYSTEM AS A WHOLE. WE'RE GONNA HAVE A TAX WORKING GROUP THAT WILL LOOK AT ALL THE STRUCTURAL ISSUES IN THE TAX SYSTEM. BUT WE BELIEVE RIGHT NOW WE'VE GOT THIS BRIGHTLINE TEST IN PLACE THE GOVERNMENT PUT IN FOR TWO YEARS. THEY WERE TOLD TWO YEARS WOULDN'T WORK. THEY WERE TOLD IT SHOULD BE FIVE YEARS. WE'RE GONNA DO THAT RIGHT AWAY, WHILE WE ANALYSE THE TAX SYSTEM AS A WHOLE. YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT MONETARY POLICY AND CHANGING THAT. WHY DOES MONETARY POLICY NEED TO BE CHANGED? WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT AT THE MOMENT? I THINK IF YOU LOOK AROUND THE WORLD, PARTICULARLY SINCE THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS, THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF CHANGES IN TERMS OF THE MONETARY POLICY, BUT IT HASN'T HAD A BIG IMPACT ON WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING IN THE REAL ECONOMY. IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE CONTROL INFLATION. AND THAT'S WHAT THE RESERVE BANK ACT IN NEW ZEALAND WAS SET UP TO DO 28 YEARS AGO. BUT THAT'S NOT ENOUGH ANY MORE. FOLLOWING ON FROM THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS, WE'VE GOTTA HAVE EVERY PART OF THE ECONOMIC APPARATUS WORKING TOWARDS OUR GOALS. FOR LABOUR, THAT MEANS GETTING OUR UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DOWN. SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE RESERVE BANK NOT ONLY CONTROLS INFLATION BUT PLAYS ITS PART IN GROWING THE ECONOMY SUSTAINABLY. SO WHAT, YOU PUT EMPLOYMENT INTO ITS MANDATE? THAT'S RIGHT. SO WHAT WE WANNA DO IS DO WHAT'S DONE IN THE US AND AUSTRALIA AND OTHER COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD AND SAY, 'YES, CONTROL INFLATION. THAT'S IMPORTANT. BUT ALSO MONETARY POLICY, 'THE RESERVE BANK'S GOT A ROLE TO PLAY IN THE REST OF THE ECONOMY, 'PARTICULARLY IN TERMS OF JOBS.' TELL ME HOW THAT ACTUALLY MANIFESTS ITSELF IN REAL LIFE. SURE. SO THE RESERVE BANK, WHEN IT'S FACED WITH A DECISION ABOUT WHAT TO DO WITH INTEREST RATES, WHICH AFFECTS EVERYBODY, THEY WILL LOOK AT, AT THE MOMENT, WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE PRICE STABILITY, WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH INFLATION. WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING THEM TO ALSO THINK ABOUT HOW WE GET MORE NEW ZEALANDERS INTO WORK, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT WE BRING THAT UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DOWN? SO IF YOU WANT A REAL-LIFE NEW ZEALAND EXAMPLE, IN 2014, WHEN THE RESERVE BANK GOVERNOR WAS THINKING, 'WHAT DO I DO WITH INTEREST RATES?' INFLATION WAS INCREDIBLY LOW, BUT UNEMPLOYMENT WAS STILL QUITE HIGH. IF THEY'VE GOT A DIFFERENT MANDATE NOW TO THINK ABOUT BOTH OF THOSE THINGS, THEN THEY MAY WELL HAVE LOWERED INTEREST RATES RATHER THAN INCREASED THEM AT THAT POINT. SO ALL THAT YOU CAN ULTIMATELY DO WITH THIS NEW MANDATE IS HAVE A SLIGHTLY HIGHER INTEREST RATE OR A SLIGHTLY LOWER INTEREST RATE? WELL, THAT'S THE RESERVE BANK'S JOB. THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. NOBODY'S SAYING THAT THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS CONTROLLED ONLY BY THE RESERVE BANK. WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR, BECAUSE THIS IS IMPORTANT TO LABOUR ` IT'S IN OUR DNA, WE WANT PEOPLE IN WORK ` I WANT EVERY BIT OF THE ECONOMIC APPARATUS WORKING TOWARDS THAT. SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE A LOAD OF POLICIES AROUND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDITS, TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE GET MORE PEOPLE IN WORK. I JUST WANT THE MONETARY POLICY PART OF THE EQUATION GOING TOWARDS THAT AS WELL. THEY DO CONSIDER EMPLOYMENT ALREADY, DON'T THEY? THEY GO OUT AND TALK TO BUSINESSES, THEY TALK TO UNIS, THEY TALK TO EVERYBODY ALREADY. THAT'S PART OF THE OVERALL ECONOMY. AND IS THERE NOT A DANGER YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THEM TRYING TO GO IN TWO DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS HERE? IF THEY'RE ALREADY DOING IT, THEN THEY SHOULDN'T BE AT ALL AFRAID OF IT GOING INTO THE ACT, SHOULD THEY? WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS OUR JOB AS THE GOVERNMENT IS TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR WITH EVERYONE WHO WORKS IN ECONOMY ABOUT WHAT WE WANT. FOR THE LABOUR PARTY, GETTING MORE PEOPLE INTO WORK AND REDUCING THE RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT IS A CORE ECONOMIC GOAL, AND WE EXPECT THE RESERVE BANK TO PLAY THEIR PART IN THAT. THIS IS NOT UNUSUAL. THE UNITED STATES DOES THIS ALREADY. NO, I ACCEPT THAT. BUT UNEMPLOYMENT IS NOT EXACTLY A` IT'S HOVERING AROUND THE 5% MARK. WHAT EXACTLY ARE THEY DOING WRONG AT THE MOMENT? I THINK IT'S WRONG IF THERE ARE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF NEW ZEALANDERS WHO COULD BE IN WORK WHO AREN'T WORKING. WE SHOULD TAKE THAT SERIOUSLY. BUT HOW WILL HAVING SLIGHTLY LOWER INTEREST RATES ACTUALLY PUT PEOPLE INTO MORE WORK? BECAUSE THAT WILL ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO INVEST MORE IN THE PRODUCTIVE SIDE OF OUR ECONOMY. WE KNOW THAT. WE KNOW THAT IF PEOPLE CAN GET THAT MONEY AND THEN BUILD THEIR BUSINESSES UP, THAT MEANS THEY'LL EMPLOY MORE PEOPLE. IN 2013, WHEN YOU CAMPAIGNED TO BE LEADER, YOU TALKED ABOUT, 'IT'S TIME TO THROW OUT THE NEOLIBERAL AGENDA.' WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THIS CHANGE TO MONETARY POLICY AS 'THROWING OUT THE NEOLIBERAL AGENDA'? I'D CERTAINLY DESCRIBE THIS CHANGE AS ONE THAT PUTS THE GOALS OF A PROGRESSIVE GOVERNMENT, A LABOUR GOVERNMENT, RIGHT THERE IN THE FACE OF THE RESERVE BANK. BECAUSE YOUR CRITICS FROM THE LEFT WILL ARGUE THAT YOU'VE NOW CONSTRAINED YOURSELF TO SPENDING LIMITS OF THE GOVERNMENT, THAT IN FACT, REALLY, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO THROW ANY OF THE NEOLIBERAL FOUNDATIONS OUT AT ALL, ARE YOU? WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THE FOCUS OF GOVERNMENT HAS TO BE ON THE KIND OF LIFESTYLE WE CREATE FOR NEW ZEALANDERS. I THINK THE PROBLEM WITH THE NEOLIBERAL AGENDA IS IT'S BASED ON A FALSE VIEW OF TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS, THAT SOMEHOW OR OTHER PEOPLE WILL BENEFIT IF THOSE AT THE TOP GET THE MOST. BUT YOU'RE NOT GONNA CHANGE ANY OF THAT. THERE'S STILL GONNA BE AN INDEPENDENT RESERVE BANK, YOU'RE STILL GONNA HAVE A FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT, YOU'RE STILL GONNA HAVE ALL OF THOSE PILLARS. THERE'S NOTHING THAT ISN'T PROGRESSIVE ABOUT BEING FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE. LET'S THINK ABOUT WHAT THE LAST LABOUR GOVERNMENT DID. THE LAST LABOUR GOVERNMENT WAS ABLE TO KEEP DEBT EXTREMELY LOW, TO HAVE UNEMPLOYMENT VERY LOW, TO BE VERY DISCIPLINED AND DELIVER MAJOR SOCIAL PROGRAMMES LIKE 20 HOURS' FREE CHILDHOOD EDUCATION, KIWISAVER. WHAT ABOUT ` AND I KNOW THERE ARE SOME IN THE SENIOR PARTS OF THE UNION MOVEMENT IN NEW ZEALAND WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS ` WHERE YOU MOVE TO INDUSTRY-WIDE NEGOTIATIONS? NOT QUITE A RETURN TO THE AWARDS SYSTEM, BUT WHERE, SAY, BUS DRIVERS HAVE A MINIMUM STANDARD. DO YOU SEE SOME MERIT IN THAT? LOOK, THERE'LL BE ANNOUNCEMENTS MADE BEFORE THE ELECTION IN THIS AREA. WHAT I CAN SAY IS WE WANT TO STRENGTHEN THE RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, BECAUSE WE DO FEEL THAT'S A WAY OF CREATING` PAN-INDUSTRY? ACROSS INDUSTRIES? I'M NOT GONNA MAKE THOSE ANNOUNCEMENTS TODAY. WHAT I AM SAYING IS OVER THE LAST NINE YEARS WE'VE SEEN THE RIGHTS OF WORKERS TO BARGAIN DECREASE, AND WAGES ARE NOT KEEPING UP` IF YOU'RE GONNA REFORM INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE IT? A PRETTY MAJOR PIECE OF REFORM? WE'RE THE LABOUR PARTY, CORIN. WE'RE ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE GET A FAIR DEAL IN THE WORKPLACE. WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY. IT'S ABOUT A BALANCE. NOBODY WANTS TO SEE A SITUATION IN WHICH WE CREATE AN UNBALANCED SYSTEM WHERE WE'RE NOT GIVING PEOPLE A FAIR GO. I THINK THE TIME'S COME TO REBALANCE. JUST TO CLARIFY ON THE 90-DAY TRIAL PERIOD, BECAUSE I THINK THE LAST POLICY WAS THAT YOU WOULD KEEP IT BUT IT WOULD BE ADJUSTED. WHY WOULD YOU KEEP THAT IF, AS YOU SAY, THE LABOUR PARTY, IT'S NOT LIKED BY UNIONS. LOOK, THERE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN TRIAL PERIODS AVAILABLE UNDER EMPLOYMENT LAW. THE CONCERN THAT THE LABOUR PARTY HAS HAD IS THAT PEOPLE COULD BE DISMISSED WITHOUT ANY FEEDBACK OR ANY RECOURSE. AND WE'VE BEEN VERY CONSISTENT IN SAYING WE DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIR. WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THE SMALL-BUSINESS OWNER, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF THEM IN NEW ZEALAND, WHO HAVE JUST HEARD YOU SAY THEY MIGHT HAVE TO PAY A HIGHER MINIMUM WAGE THAT MIGHT HAVE TO COME OUT OF THEIR POCKET? THEY MIGHT FACE STRONGER UNION BARGAINING UNDER LABOUR. WHAT IS YOUR MESSAGE TO THOSE SMALL-BUSINESS OWNERS WHO MIGHT BE A BIT WORRIED THIS MORNING, HEARING THIS? THE CONSISTENT MESSAGE WE'VE HAD FROM SMALL BUSINESSPEOPLE IS THAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR THE SUPPORT FROM GOVERNMENT TO HELP THEM GROW. AND I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE MAKE SURE IF WE'RE GONNA IMPROVE PRODUCTIVITY THAT WE ACTUALLY GET MORE RESOURCES, MORE SUPPORT FOR CAPITAL GROWTH INTO SMALL BUSINESSES. THEY'RE ALSO LOOKING FOR A BETTER-TRAINED WORKFORCE, AND WE'RE SAYING VERY CLEARLY THAT WE'RE GONNA SUPPORT MORE SKILLS, WE'RE GONNA SUPPORT MORE TRAINING. WE'RE ALSO GONNA GET ALONGSIDE THEM IN TERMS OF REDUCING COMPLIANCE COSTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'VE GOT MORE TIME TO FOCUS ON THIS. SO THEY'VE GOT NOTHING TO FEAR? ABSOLUTELY NOT. THE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT I WORK WITH ARE ACTUALLY THE ONES WHO PAY THEIR STAFF REALLY WELL ALREADY. THEY ARE NOT THE ONES WHO ARE THE FOCUS OF MINIMUM-WAGE INCREASES. THEY TEND TO BE THE BIG MULTINATIONALS WHO AREN'T PAYING PEOPLE WELL ENOUGH. CORIN DANN WITH GRANT ROBERTSON. GRANT ROBERTSON'S ANNOUNCING HIS MONETARY POLICY TOMORROW, WHICH WILL INCLUDE A PROPOSAL TO CONTROL THE OFFICIAL CASH RATE BY A BOARD, NOT JUST A RESERVE BANK GOVERNOR. Did he sound like a man with a credible plan? He is right about the reserve bank act and the need for it to change and widen its mandate. There is a tendency for it to sound like a bunch of panels and working groups and taskforces And not actually what we will do. It starts to sound like word shaped air to people. The big challenge for left parties across the world at the moment Is working people who are not an elite middle-class job, their wages have not gone up, they are not voting labour or Democrat. What is going on? There is a lack of emotional connection there. Labour need to get that transformational message out. It is that figure last year that Nash the economist came up with. People would be $10,000 better off if they have the same share of wealth they did 10 years ago. It has to be a tax on capital and speculation. Not just an extension of the bright line. You replace it with a tax cut for people who work in the low and middle income wages. What did you think Marianne? I noticed a shift in some of the language that Grant was using. He was trying to bring the conversation back to the concrete impact on people's lives. That is important when you talk about fiscal responsibility and economic policy. Who really has any idea what that means? Does it make it easier for me to get a house and earn more money? I did hear and effort in the way Grant was framing things to keep coming back to that. I know in my work that is what people want. What does it mean for me? Will I make more money? Will my wages come up? Will it be easier for me to get a house? I have to say personally I think people might wonder what a tax working group is going to do. Need a little clearer sense of what that will do. Was there anything that might sway business? I thought The groups that Josie appeared not to like I look at that and think it is including others into the conversation. Rather than thinking we are government and we can do this, we are prepared to listen to a wider group. When he spoke of employment, yes it is 5%, But he is acknowledging that in South Auckland the unemployment rate for Maori and Polynesian is more like 40%. And we need to look at the consequence of the reserve bank act And changes people's lives. If they do come in, they are prepared to look at every bit of policy and budget that is in place now and challenge it and make sure it is doing what it should be doing. He is spending a lot of time in Auckland. He is laying groundwork. Is it the right thing to be doing? I think he is doing a lot of things under the radar. He is connecting with people and talking to people. The Labour Party has always been transformational - The welfare state and the 40 hour week. Where is the transformational idea? There has to be something that really emotionally engages with working-class people who otherwise` That is my point. If you are going to really engage people. So far it is just making a list of people with Chinese sounding surnames. That made an emotional connection. If you stop everyone with a Chinese sounding surname buying a house in Auckland, you don't solve the housing crisis. The big idea is to do this tax switch. How would we make sure people get their fair share of the economy, of national wealth? It is classic labour. Labour need to go would be the Labour Party. They need a big message like that. It is not about transformation. It won't be from the finance minister. He was smart not to pretend he could say something transformational. This election will be about the homeless, housing, infrastructure. It won't be about some smart and confusing fiscal policy that he will talk about now. He was clear in saying he does not have to be smart in those areas. Is not a good message saying that you don't have to be smart. It something most people don't understand. It was having a conversation that people do understand. I thought he did it well. Marianne, on the housing, pushing out the bright line to 5 years, but shying away from capital gains. Is it a mistake? I don't understand why there is such a reluctance. They should call a speculation tax rather than a capital gains tax. I can tell you amongst action station at members there is huge support for it. People want something That will make the shift from housing being a place that you think of as a get rich quick scheme Two being a place that families live and we make sure that all families in NZ can get hold of one. I don't know why they are so scared of it. Isn't it too late for that to be an effective tool because a lot of people have got rich? If you come up with a message that isn't just saying we will tax you if you are making money out of houses. We will tax if you have a house over $1 million. Instead we say we will give you a tax cut if you are on a low or middle income wage so you benefit. It is a tax switch. You talk about it being a tax on speculation and drive it to the productive sector. You don't get away from making the tough decisions and making a policy that says we will deliver this to you. We will bring back that $10,000 that should be in your pocket andYou have not had your fair share. The consequences Of looking at the speculators is about moving the money back into the productive sector. That is simple language. Understanding the consequences. Talking tax switches will not engage anyone. I agree. They are saying they will have this tax working group And they are saying that it can't stand alone it has to be part of the bigger picture and will be considered among the contents of the tax system. You don't need a committee to make that policy decision. You win elections by engaging people With something where they feel their life will be better off. They need to champion in the marketplace. That is the benefit of partnership. The 90 day trial period which has been a thorn in everyone's side. What you make of what he had to say about that? I don't think people are afraid of it. It is part of our employment process. As far as business is concerned it means everyone gets a fair look at their employment. I don't see the 90 day trial as being the bogie that it was five years ago. Something that should have been there And we have heard about moving from a high-volume economy to a high-value economy. Where is the big idea that will engage business that will increase our exports, That we will shift from making more staff to better stuff. That is how you will lift wages. They need to come up with something that will say they will intervene in the market I think labour has done a lot, especially in Auckland. They have done a lot here in Auckland To move around and talk to business and be understood. I think the language he was using this morning, understanding the consequences, Understanding the processes and talking the language that people understand. Is it enough to make that push? I don't think it is a big push. I think national will be foolish if they thought they were comfortable in Auckland. AFTER THE BREAK, MAORI PARTY CO-LEADER MARAMA FOX. HER PARTY SAYS THEY'VE MADE HISTORY IN SECURING A SEAT FOR IWI ON COUNCIL CONSENT DECISIONS. HOW WILL IT WORK? THAT'S COMING UP NEXT. THE GOVERNMENT FINALLY PASSED ITS RMA REFORM BILL THIS WEEK AFTER EIGHT YEARS OF WRANGLING OVER THIS CONTROVERSIAL LAW. AND IT WAS THE SUPPORT OF THE MAORI PARTY THAT GOT IT OVER THE LINE. CO-LEADER MARAMA FOX JOINS ME IN THE STUDIO. I wonder if we could start with Grant Robertson a potential new finance minister of labour wins. Did you like what you heard? We've always said we can work with anybody. What I'd like to see from labour is a message to our people About how to get real money back on our hands. As it indexing it to the median wage? Simple stuff we can recognise and understand this will be beneficial to me. I'm not sure that that was motivational for somebody on the street. He said he wanted to increase the minimum wage by one or two dollars quickly. They will be focused on that. Is that enough for you to support them? There are a number of things to eliminate poverty. We need to put money in people's hands. We need to look at Working for Families tax credit. That needs to be paid universally, that would put $70 in the hands of everyone on the benefit now that happened. Your party of two Mps at the moment. What sort of leverage, if you had four or five Mps, would that be a top demand that you could get that out of Bill English? Absolutely. New Zealand signed up to the sustainable goals agenda in which eliminating poverty is one of the goals. A target of eliminated poverty by 50% in the next 15 years, to do that we need a fiscal injection into people's hands. We need to do something. That's why Andrew Little said you were not Kaupapa Maori. Are you popping this government up? Where not propping them up. With the RMA, when they need to get that across the line, we are going to walk in and say these are our bottom line is, if you want a boat, this is what we need. CORRECTION: our vote. How important is the RMA? Iwi have been in the RMA consenting process for a long time. They have worked hard on how they do that, they are pragmatic. They come to the local council table when they are invited and notified to do so. They are only notified 5% of all the times, so it is ad hoc but not just by Maori/� that's a significant change.. The council has to go to local iwi and say we have to draw up terms. That's right. It formalises the arrangements that are there but they are variable depending on capacity across the nation. We want to remove the variability, that everyone has an onus to front up at the beginning and say these are our sacred places. You can't stop the council doing something? If you have an arrangement that says for notification over things like fracking, like GE, like putting the sewage from your council tanks into our rivers, we want to have a say about that. You have a say but the council makes the final decision. It's collaborative. We say these things are important to us. If they ignore that, they do it at their own peril. What does that mean? If you go to Wairarapa, start dumping sewage into our sacred river, people will not stand for that belong before they come out and force the local council to change. Would you see that evolve over time? There is potential for mediation if you can't make these agreements, that they become set in stone? I believe that is a real power for Maori. We have been left out of decisions about consent over our environment. We are linked to mother Earth. Kaitakitanga is about making sure we look after it. If Maori had been at local and regional government, we would have done something about that. Winston Peters attacked this policy. He says you are creating a separate system, tthat Maori get a special right over council consents. That is an irrational fear. The power is to collaboratively plan what is best for our environment around consenting. How is that to be feared? That is unifying. He argues that is a power to one group over the rest of the community. What has happened in the past 60 years is that Maori have been left out of the conversation. Look what's happened to our water. Once it's been allocated you can sell it. You said that would be at the council's peril if they ignore Maori views. We need all the stakeholders at the table, make real decisions about the future, so that our water and land is held in pristine state for future generations. Winston is going after the vote, he is dividing and conquer. Is this Maori racism? Of course it is. Ron Marks stood up in the house and said our goal is to destroy the Maori party, take treaty out of every bit of law, make sure that Maori is ignored and the law. We went through this with Don brash and the Orewa speech. Has New Zealand moved on? I think New Zealand has moved on. Young people are growing up having more understanding about the Maori world. When those young people come up, they look at the type of rhetoric that Winston spews. ARe they are out of touch? Are you representing a new New Zealand? Absolutely. Celebrate our diversity and sit at the table together and make collaborative planning moves in our towns and central government. They are harking back to the Stone Age of colonisation. We can celebrate diversity. We don't have to all be in the same melting pot. One issue with the RMA was genetic modification. You have said if the council wants to grow GM crops, the council has the right to be GM free. Are you opposed to GM? Both things. The Maori party has been about GE free since 2004. It has been our policy manifesto. If the local council wants to be GE free because it is beneficial to their local growing environment, if they are wine off reproduces to the world and they have an added benefit to being organic... what if it is the University that has a vaccine with GMO? Do you have a problem with that? No we don't. Anything that is GE you have to go through the environmental protection agency. The RMA is not about defining the standards for GE. Has this just created more confusion? New Zealand is going to need to rely on GM science in the future. It already is with Scion, pine, at the new wave of GM. Hasn't this created confusion? Not at all. That will continue. If you want to do anything GE in this country you get permission to do that. That's where the protection comes. But if you are a local council whose region benefits from being GE free, you need to allow them to do that. If you want to do GE pine forests and your council is okay with that, fine. But some areas have said that we are benefiting from being GE free. COMING UP NEXT, IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE, THE KIWI HEAD OF ONE OF THE WORLD'S BIGGEST INSURANCE COMPANIES HAS SOME WORDS FOR YOU COMING UP. ROTORUA-BORN BUSINESSMAN MARK WILSON HEADS UP AVIVA, ONE OF THE WORLD'S BIGGEST INSURANCE COMPANIES. HE'S ALSO A CHEERLEADER FOR SUSTAINABILITY IN BUSINESS AND WAS THE ONLY GLOBAL BUSINESS LEADER TO ADDRESS THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT THE LAUNCH OF THEIR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS BACK IN 2015. I CAUGHT UP WITH HIM ON HIS VISIT TO NEW ZEALAND THIS WEEK AND ASKED WHY HE SPEAKS OUT ABOUT ISSUES SOME MIGHT CONSIDER OUTSIDE A CEO'S ROLE. I THINK IT IS THE CORE ROLE OF A CEO, AND I THINK TOO MANY COMPANIES AND TOO MANY POLITICIANS, AND TOO MUCH OF THE MEDIA AS WELL, THINK WAY TOO SHORT-TERM. MY VIEW IS BUSINESS CAN DO A LOT OF GOOD OR BAD. IN ASIA, I SAW BOTH THE UNACCEPTABLE FACE OF CAPITALISM AND THE FACT THAT BUSINESS HAS BEEN THE BIGGEST FORCE OF GOOD IN HISTORY. IN CHINA ALONE IN THE LAST 15 YEARS, IT TOOK 680 MILLION PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY. SO BUSINESS IS THERE TO DO GOOD. THE ROLE OF BUSINESS ISN'T TO MAKE MONEY. THAT'S A CRITICAL AND IMPORTANT PART OF IT. THE ROLE OF BUSINESS IS TO HAVE A SOCIAL PROFIT AS WELL. AND THEY'RE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. AND THE MORE THAT BUSINESSPEOPLE WAKE UP AND SAY, 'I'M THERE TO THINK 'LONG TERM, I'M THERE TO DO GOOD AND I'M THERE TO MAKE MONEY'... MAKE NO MISTAKE, I'M A CAPITALIST, BUT I'M A CAPITALIST WITH A SOCIAL CONSCIENCE. AND YOU REALLY NEED BOTH OF THOSE THINGS. I MEAN, CLIMATE CHANGE AND SUSTAINABILITY ` A COMPANY LIKE US HAS HUGE INVESTMENT ASSETS. WE'VE GOT ABOUT $800B KIWI. NOW, WE HAVE TO THINK LONG TERM BECAUSE OUR ASSETS HAVE GOT LONG-TERM LIABILITIES, AND SO` CALL IT ENLIGHTENED SELF-INTEREST, IF YOU LIKE, BUT WE HAVE TO THINK LONG TERM. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE THERE FOR. SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, THOUGH? THE NUTS AND BOLTS FOR AN INSURANCE COMPANY LIKE YOURS, CLIMATE CHANGE, DOES IT MEAN IN FUTURE THAT YOU JUST SIMPLY WON'T COVER EVENTS SUCH AS FLOODS WE'RE SEEING AT THE MOMENT IN NEW ZEALAND? WE'RE SEEING MORE FREQUENT FLOODS. DOES IT MEAN BIG CHANGES FOR INSURERS? WELL, IT MEANS CHANGES, BUT WE'RE THERE AS AN INSURANCE COMPANY WHEN THERE ARE FLOODS AND EARTHQUAKES. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE THERE TO DO. BUT YOU HAVE TO PRICE THE RISKS. FACTORS IN THE UK, FOR EXAMPLE, THE WORST THREE FLOODS IN THE LAST 100 YEARS ARE 2012, 2014, 2015. THE WORST I CAN FIND IN NEW ZEALAND IN RECORDED HISTORY ARE THREE OF THE LAST FIVE YEARS. NOW, I THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM. AND IT IS A SIGN OF CLIMATE CHANGE. THE SCIENCE IS COMPELLING, AND WE PRICE IT IN. BUT IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT PAYING OUT, IT'S ABOUT PREVENTION, IT'S ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE, IT'S ABOUT WHAT CAN THE GOVERNMENT AND COMPANIES LIKE US AND BUSINESS AND NEW ZEALANDERS DO TO PROTECT US, PROTECT THE PEOPLE, PROTECT THE ECONOMY WHEN BAD STUFF HAPPENS? THAT'S WHAT WE DO. THAT'S OUR JOB. SHOULD PART OF IT BE SIMPLY TELLING PEOPLE OR RATING THEIR PROPERTIES THAT IF YOU'RE IN A FLOOD ZONE OR IF YOU'RE RIGHT BY THE COAST YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY HIGHER PREMIUMS OR 'WE WON'T INSURE YOU'? SHOULD THERE BE A RATING, ALMOST, ON THAT? WELL, THERE IS IN LOTS OF PLACES AROUND THE WORLD. WE'VE MAPPED EVERY INCH OF THE UK, FOR EXAMPLE. IN NEW ZEALAND WE DON'T HAVE THAT SAME DATA. BUT WE NEED TO TELL PEOPLE, AND WE SHOULDN'T BE BUILDING ON FLOOD PLAINS. BUT IT'S ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE AS WELL. NEW ZEALAND DOES HAVE AN ISSUE WITH INFRASTRUCTURE. AND WE HAVE` THE GOVERNMENT, I KNOW, HAS A BIG PLAN OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND THERE ARE ISSUES TO FUND THAT. BUT I THINK THERE'S AN EASY ANSWER. I THINK YOU'VE GOT NZ$40B IN KIWISAVER NOW. LET'S FORCE INVESTORS TO KEEP SOME OF THAT ONSHORE AND HAVE PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND GROW THE DEBT MARKETS AND GROW THE EQUITY MARKETS. KIWISAVER IS THIS MASSIVE POOL OF MONEY THAT WE SHOULD BE USING FOR THE GOOD OF NEW ZEALAND, AND IT CAN ALSO GET EXCELLENT RETURNS WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT. SHOULD SOME OF THAT MONEY IN INFRASTRUCTURE BE USED, THOUGH, FOR FLOOD PROTECTION OR FOR MITIGATING THE IMPACTS OF INCREASED WEATHER EVENTS? YEAH, SO FLOOD PROTECTION. HOW ABOUT EDUCATION ON IT AS WELL, ON CLIMATE, ON SUSTAINABILITY. SO FLOOD PROTECTION, FLOOD DEFENCES, THE RIGHT ROADING, THE RIGHT BUILDING. THERE'S SO MUCH YOU CAN DO BOTH FOR FLOODS AND EARTHQUAKES, AND NEW ZEALAND DOES HAVE TO STEP UP THERE. WHEN I SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING IN EUROPE AND OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD, WE AREN'T SO GOOD, BUT I KNOW THERE'S PLANS UNDERWAY SO WE CAN GET THERE. WE'RE FAR FROM FINISHED. DO YOU WORRY THAT WE'VE GOT A U.S. PRESIDENT IN DONALD TRUMP WHO SEEMS TO BE ROLLING BACK ON CLIMATE CHANGE? THAT THERE'S ALWAYS GONNA BE STILL A POLITICAL DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT? WELL, WHEN COLUMBUS SET OFF TO PROVE THE WORLD WAS FLAT, THERE WERE MANY DOUBTERS. AND THERE'S STILL DOUBTERS ON CLIMATE CHANGE. I FIND THAT BIZARRE BECAUSE THE SCIENCE IS COMPELLING. THE FACT THAT MANKIND CAN DO SOMETHING TO FIX IT IS ALSO PRETTY CLEAR. BUT TO ME IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. WHAT ABOUT POVERTY? WHAT ABOUT EQUALITY? WHAT ABOUT THE OCEANS? AND IT IS BUSINESS' ROLE TO BE GOOD ANCESTORS. SO THE DECISIONS THAT PEOPLE LIKE ME AND OTHER BUSINESSPEOPLE MAKE, THEY SHOULD BE MEASURED ON WHAT PEOPLE SAY IN 20 YEARS' TIME ` DID WE DO THE RIGHT THING? I WANNA BE A GOOD ANCESTOR. AND IT'S NOT JUST CLIMATE; IT'S A MUCH BROADER SUSTAINABILITY THAT WE REALLY HAVE TO GET REAL. AND I THINK WE'RE MAKING PART OF IT. PAULA BENNETT'S DOING SOME GREAT THINGS ON CLIMATE. I THINK WE'RE MAKING PROGRESS THERE. I THINK HER BRIEF SHOULD BE EXPANDED. I KNOW SHE'S GOT A LOT TO DO, BUT HER BRIEF SHOULD BE EXPANDED. MAKE IT MINISTER OF SUSTAINABILITY AS WELL, WHERE CLIMATE IS PART OF THE PROBLEM, BUT IT'S NOT THE ENTIRE PROBLEM. DO YOU WORRY`? WE'VE SEEN A MASSIVE ASSET BUBBLE AND IT'S CAUSED HUGE PROBLEMS WITH HOUSING IN NEW ZEALAND. FROM AN INSURER'S PERSPECTIVE, DOES THAT CREATE ENORMOUS PROBLEMS, THAT YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE BUYING HOUSES AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN WITHIN A YEAR THEY'RE WORTH $200,000 OR $300,000 MORE AND THEY HAVE TO TRY AND INSURE THEM? IT'S BEEN AN EXTRAORDINARY BUBBLE NOT JUST IN NEW ZEALAND BUT MANY WESTERN COUNTRIES. THE HOUSING PROBLEM IS NOT UNIQUE. IT'S AN ISSUE RIGHT ROUND THE WORLD. UK, U.S. AND IF IT GETS OUT OF HAND IT CAN CREATE A BIG CREDIT PROBLEM. THAT'S SOMETHING THE GOVERNMENT AND RESERVE BANK ARE FOCUSED ON ` AND THE BANKS HERE ARE FOCUSED ON. AND I THINK THEY'RE PRETTY CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT THEY DO WITH LENDING. THE PROBLEM IS` THE ISSUE PROBABLY ISN'T SO MUCH WHERE IT IS AT THE MOMENT, THE ISSUE IS IF YOU CONTINUE TO SEE THAT GROWTH. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO SEE THE SAME GROWTH IN HOUSING PRICES. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S A BAD THING. BUT I THINK IT'S REALLY A SUPPLY ISSUE. AND WE'RE IN AN ELECTION YEAR NOW, I WANT TO SEE WHAT THE POLICIES ARE GOING TO COME OUT ON THE SUPPLY ISSUE OF THE HOUSING AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. THE OTHER ISSUE WE HAVE GLOBALLY, OF COURSE, IS WE'VE BEEN IN LOW RATES NOW FOR A DECADE OF LOW RATES. IT'S INEVITABLE RATES ARE GOING TO GO UP. IF SOMETHING CANNOT GO ON FOREVER, IT WILL STOP. AND LOW RATES CANNOT GO ON FOREVER. SO AS RATES GO UP, HOW WILL CONSUMERS REACT? HOW WILL HOUSE PRICES REACT? HOW WILL OTHER COMMODITY PRICES REACT? AND ANYONE THAT SAYS THEY REALLY KNOW, WELL, THEY HAVE A BETTER CRYSTAL BALL THAN I DO. THE BREXIT IS ANOTHER INTERESTING ISSUE FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE. DO WE REALLY BELIEVE THAT NEW ZEALAND WILL BE AT THE FRONT OF THE QUEUE OF A FREE TRADE DEAL WITH THE UK? SHOULD WE GET OUR HOPES UP? IT'S INTERESTING. I THOUGHT THE UK SHOULD STAY. I WAS A 'REMAINER'. I THINK THAT NOW WE'VE DECIDED TO EXIT IN THE UK, WE SHOULD. AND I THINK NEW ZEALAND'S IN AN INTERESTING POSITION. IN THE '50s, OUR TRADE WAS` ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF OUR TRADE WAS TO THE UK. THEN NOW IT'S LESS THAN 4% OF OUR TRADE'S WITH THE UK. THEY ARE FRIENDS OF OURS, THEY ARE VERY CLOSE TO US CULTURALLY, THEY LIKE NEW ZEALAND. WE'RE ALMOST COUSINS, I GUESS. I THINK YOU MIGHT NOT BE THE FIRST, BUT NEW ZEALAND, THE CHANCE OF A FREE TRADE DEAL EARLY I THINK IS VERY HIGH. I THINK IT'LL BE GOOD FOR BOTH COUNTRIES, AND I THINK OUR PERCENTAGE OF TRADE TO THE UK WILL GO UP. SO BREXIT'S GOING TO BE COMPLICATED FOR THE UK, IT'S GOING TO BE UNCERTAIN, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES BOTH FOR THE UK AND NEW ZEALAND IF WE CAN USE THEM. MARK, FINALLY, WHAT'S NEXT FOR YOU? YOU TALK ABOUT BEING A TRANSFORMATIONAL TYPE OF LEADER WHO COMES IN AND FIXES COMPANIES. I UNDERSTAND YOU'VE DONE A GOOD JOB WITH YOUR CURRENT COMPANY. IS THERE ANOTHER MOVE FOR YOU? ARE YOU THINKING OF COMING BACK TO NEW ZEALAND? WHAT'S NEXT ON THE HORIZON? I THINK I'VE GOT A FAIR BIT TO DO WHERE I AM AT THE MOMENT. THE COMPANY HAS GONE PRETTY WELL. WE PROBABLY HAD OUR BEST YEAR EVER LAST YEAR, AND SHAREHOLDERS SEEM PRETTY HAPPY. BUT I WANT TO TURN IT INTO MORE OF A DIGITAL COMPANY, MORE OF A GIANT TECH COMPANY. AND THE UK IS THE RIGHT PLACE TO DO THAT AND WE'RE HAPPY THERE. BUT I LOVE NEW ZEALAND, AND AT SOME STAGE I'LL BE BACK. AVIVIA CEO MARK WILSON TALKING TO CORIN DANN THERE. STAY WITH US. YOUR FEEDBACK AFTER THE BREAK. TIME FOR YOUR FEEDBACK. MARAE IS NEXT. REMEMBER, Q+A REPEATS TONIGHT AT 11.35 PM. THANKS FOR WATCHING AND THANKS FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS. THOSE WERE THE QUESTIONS AND THOSE WERE THE ANSWERS, THAT'S Q+A. SEE YOU NEXT SUNDAY MORNING AT 9. CAPTIONS BY INGRID LAUDER AND TRACEY DAWSON. CAPTIONS WERE MADE POSSIBLE WITH FUNDING FROM NZ ON AIR. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2017