MORENA, GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO Q+A. I'M GREG BOYED. TODAY ` I WAS ELECTED TO REPRESENT THE CITIZENS OF PITTSBURGH, NOT PARIS. (APPLAUSE) TRUMP HAS DELIVERED ON HIS PROMISE TO PULL OUT OF THE PARIS ACCORD. WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD AND OUR OWN EFFORTS TO COUNTER CLIMATE CHANGE? WINSTON PETERS LOOKS SET TO BE KINGMAKER AGAIN THIS ELECTION. WHENA OWEN LOOKS AT WHERE HE'S DRAWING SUPPORT: DO YOU THINK YOU'LL VOTE FOR HIM? YES. WHY ARE YOU SO QUIET ABOUT IT? THEN THE TECHNOLOGY GIANTS WHO ARE CHANGING THE WORLD. US AUTHOR JONATHAN TAPLIN CLAIMS THEIR STYLE OF DISRUPTION HAS DIRE CONSEQUENCES FOR US ALL YOU MUST HAVE SOME KIND OF AFFECTION FOR PETER THIEL SINCE YOU'VE ALLOWED HIM TO BECOME A CITIZEN, AND IT'S PROBABLY WHERE HE'S GOING TO GO WHEN HE MAKES THE AMERICAN ECONOMY COLLAPSE. CAPTIONS BY CATHERINE DE CHALAIN AND VIRGINIA PHILP. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2017 AND WE'LL HAVE ANALYSIS FROM OUR PANEL, POLITICAL SCIENTIST DR RAYMOND MILLER FROM AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY; LAILA HARRE, FORMER MINISTER, UNIONIST, CURRENTLY A POST-GRADUATE LAW STUDENT; THOMAS PRYOR, A FORMER NATIONAL STAFFER, NOW GOVERNMENT RELATIONS CONSULTANT. LET'S GO TO JESSICA. AMERICA HAS JOINED AN EXCLUSIVE CLUB WHICH INCLUDES SYRIA AND NICARAGUA. THEY'RE THE ONLY COUNTRIES NOT IN THE PARIS AGREEMENT. DONALD TRUMP PROMISED HE'D DO THIS AND NOW HE HAS. HE SAYS THE DEAL ISN'T FAIR AND ISN'T GOOD FOR THE US ECONOMY. THERE WAS SWIFT REACTION FROM AROUND THE WORLD, INCLUDING NEW ZEALAND. WE'RE VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT THE US HAS DECIDED TO LEAVE THE PARIS AGREEMENT, BUT WE REMAIN COMMITTED, AS I THINK DO ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES WHO SIGNED IT. IT'S AMBITIOUS, IT'S GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE AND WE WILL JUST PROCEED WITH THAT. CHINA WILL CONTINUE TO IMPLEMENT PROMISES MADE IN THE PARIS AGREEMENT TO MOVE TOWARDS THE 2030 GOALS STEP BY STEP STEADFAST. BECAUSE WHEREVER WE LIVE, WHOEVER WE ARE, WE ALL SHARE THE SAME RESPONSIBILITY ` MAKE OUR PLANET GREAT AGAIN. THANK YOU. DESPITE TRUMP'S TALK ABOUT PROTECTING THE US ECONOMY, A NUMBER OF AMERICAN BUSINESS LEADERS HAVE CRITICISED TRUMP FOR THE MOVE, NOT LEAST TESLA CEO ELON MUSK, WHO IS A PIONEER IN ELECTRIC CARS AND SOLAR POWER. HE SAYS HE'LL NO LONGER BE A BUSINESS ADVISOR TO TRUMP. HE TWEETED, JOINING ME NOW IS DR ADRIAN MACEY, A SENIOR ASSOCIATE AT THE INSTITUTE FOR GOVERNANCE AND POLICY STUDIES AT VICTORIA UNIVERSITY. HE WAS ALSO NEW ZEALAND'S FIRST CLIMATE CHANGE AMBASSADOR. Thank you for joining me this morning. I want to ask you when you heard that Donald Trump was pulling out did your heart sank? It was not unexpected. I was disappointed that he did not listen to the appeals coming both from countries around the world and from within the US. When you think about the implications even though they weren't a surprise, Did the gravitas of it hit you a bit? What we've seen in the last 48 hours shows us that things might not be as bad as we thought. The US will not derail the Paris processes. All the countries and it have reiterated their resolve. You have also seen within the US That the effect of them leaving Paris will be attenuated by what we've heard from big business and big cities. This is where the reductions in emissions will happen. This will compensate to some extent for the loss of the US as a major player in this negotiation. It will still have an impact because the US is the second largest emitter. It will have an effect on one thing we've learned from the science is that it's important to get started on this transition to renewable energy. We cannot minimise that fact. We don't yet know what the effect will be on the huge contribution the US makes to research on climate. NASA is responsible for world leading research. If money is pulled from that it will be very serious for the world. Another thing that is stuck out is that Donald Trump has not said he believes in climate change. Does that concern you? He hasn't said that climate change is a hoax and the US should do nothing. He is no longer contesting the fact that the US can be part of the solution. Instead he is saying that this is too harsh. His points are not factually true but He is not contesting the idea that the US will contribute to solving climate change. He has said that this agreement will be bad for the US economy and bad for jobs. What about those green jobs? While there are far more jobs in the green economy in the US. There are five times the number of jobs in renewable energy than there are in fossil fuels. The rate of job creation and green energy is 12 times the rate of jobs creation in the US economy as a whole. It's much better to invest in renewables. Coal is extracted using massive machines are not many people. Jobs in renewable energy, not fossil fuels. Do you think that this move should make New Zealand rethink our contribution? We are such a small player. I think New Zealand like others is reaffirming our contribution. This is a long game. We have to think well beyond 2030 to 2050 and beyond. This is not just about what we do between 2020 and 2030. It's about getting out of fossil fuels altogether. It's about reducing emissions down to net zero. As we get into various stages of the Paris agreement We will be reviewing how far global efforts have gone And there will be pressure to go further and faster. Do you think this creates an opportunity for China and Europe to step into the void that the US has left? China is already there at the leadership table. The reason we have this agreement at all is the Chinese and US leadership. They worked very well together to get this deak With the help of the French and their diplomacy. We have ready seen that Europe wants to step in and India has made a statement recently. The leadership of global climate efforts is being taken away from the US. Inevitably they will suffer a loss of influence over the next few years. The US have said that they want to renegotiate this. Is that possible? No, it's not possible. There were a lot of concessions made to make sure the US would stay on board. To achieve what the US wants they don't need to renegotiate the Paris agreement. The first thing they are complaining about is the target that they have put in And the fact that there is money to be paid into what they've called a slush fund. Neither of those two aspects is legally binding. The answer is that the US does not need to renegotiate. It can do whatever it wants to do unilaterally. Thank you for your time this morning. SEND US YOUR THOUGHTS. WE'RE ON TWITTER @NZQANDA. 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 50C. WE'LL BRING IN OUR PANEL AFTER THE BREAK. Time to chat with our panel. Layla, he said he was going to do this But what was your reaction when he finally said were out? The only benefit to him is that he has honoured an election promise. There is now a real downside. It will be seen as a rejection of both science and diplomacy internationally. I think it will also have a domestic reaction. The real hoax areas the promise of jobs out of a resuscitation of fossil fuel industries. We know that is not where future jobs are going to come from. Secondly we will see a huge increase in interest in power at the state and municipal level As there is overwhelming support in the US for taking action on climate change In the Federal level of government will become less relevant in this issue. Hill have to front up with this jobs quite quickly won't he? It will play well with his base. Rustbelt workers don't necessarily believe in climate change. In the long term there will be some consequences as these jobs don't deliver. How much of a move towards isolating the US is this on top of TPP? It's hard to exaggerate the profound effect it has on world leadership. His opponents thought that the populist Trump would be replaced by a more moderate Trump after the election. They now know that he is a real believer in this. He personally plays the role of an outsider. When he went to Europe he was quite clear about the importance for him Of taking America into the next decade, America first. Now we see that he is very serious about it. We also have to start asking what this means in terms of what politics. We've traditionally believed that the United States would be the sort of country that would Take a role of leadership. Now we have confirmation that that is not the case does this open the door for China and Europe to fill that void? I don't think America has ever had any other policy than America first. The question now is what is meant by America? In Pittsburgh 75% voted for Hillary Clinton. The Pittsburgh Mayor has express support for the Paris climate agreement. At this point it's very hard to know what the game plan as. What does the future look like under a reorganised, swamp drained America? On the positive side, the United States a very pluralistic society. Many of the states will largely ignore And even redouble their efforts towards alternative energy. Many leading businesses do not agree with Trump. We will see that Trump support base diminishing slightly As states in business began to take greater initiative. The line he's taken is that that will cost consumers and cost businesses. Can we see New Zealand or any other country following suit? I think the ones to look for a big developing polluters like India and Brazil. Those developing bigger matters have reiterated their commitment. With the exception of Nicaragua and Syria you will see almost a renewed commitment to the Paris court. Where does this put our relationship with the US? It was a very personal relationship between Obama and John Key. It will be interesting to see what's on the table when our Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Meet with the Secretary of State on Tuesday. The first question is how strong is New Zealand and its opposition to what the United States has done And after that what really lies ahead for New Zealand? What does Friendship mean in the context of a Trump administration? What are the costs and likely outcomes, Particularly in areas like the Middle East where we have a stake? There will need to be some hard words spoken in order to preserve and protect our own identity. Rex Tillerson is here in just a few days. We should not offer increased commitment in Afghanistan. This is not a time to criticise them for withdrawing from Paris and then offering them New Zealanders to slaughter in Afghanistan. We have to give a strong message of support to South Pacific countries Who are under threat of drowning as a result of climate change. I don't think it will be conveyed to him in Australia that we are on the side of our Pacific neighbours. The problem is we have a new prime minister and a new Foreign Minister and I just don't know how that message will be delivered. Rex Tillerson as a grown up in the administration and someone we should try to build a relationship with. There were significant tensions in the White House around pulling out of the Paris court. It was Trump and banner on one side and Ivanka, Tillerson etc. On the other side. What he's done ` is it actually that significant or is it quite symbolic? You could make the symbolic argument Around the fact that things will continue in the direction they're going in the United States And much of it is very progressive. On the other hand I think it's much more than symbolism, Both in terms of the science of climate change but also in terms of international politics. This represents some sort of transformation happening in international politics in terms of global leadership. I don't think it can be swept away as being relatively unimportant. It will be very interesting to see what happens within the United States over the next 12 to 18 months As they move towards mid-term elections To see how people really are responding. 71% of Americans wanted to stay in the Paris agreement. Layla, it seems a lot of business leaders say that this is wrong. Technology is now increasingly and always future focused towards renewable energy sources. All the stuff that they will give funding to and will allow to happen is yesterday's technology. There won't be new investment in new ways of doing that. People who equate this to withdrawing from the TPP Just don't understand the difference in the quality of these agreements. The TPP is in agreement about the past and the last 30 years. The Paris agreement represented a new form of global cooperation Around actually holding business and government to account on something that was beyond the immediate national interest of countries. They are very different agreements. That's why Paris was seen as such an achievement. It was an achievement despite its non-binding nature. There is no question this is a serious gutting of international solidarity. Do any of you think there's any chance of this being renegotiated in America's favour? Can you see China and the EU Who came out in absolute solidarity over this Reopening the negotiation? I think the language he used showed that he doesn't believe in renegotiation. It was very cut and dried. He was talking to his constituency and there was no room for flexibility there. I don't think he serious at all about renegotiating. AFTER THE BREAK, WHENA OWEN SPENDS A DAY WITH WINSTON PETERS AS HE WOOS DUNEDIN VOTERS. WHO ARE HIS REAL SUPPORTERS AND WHAT DO THEY WANT? THAT'S NEXT. FOR MONTHS, WINSTON PETERS HAS BEEN ON A BUSY SPEAKING TOUR OF PROVINCIAL CITIES AND TOWNS, POSITIONING HIMSELF AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO BOTH MAJOR PARTIES. IT'S A FORMULA THAT'S WORKED BEFORE, AND MANY POLITICAL COMMENTATORS BELIEVE HE'LL ONCE AGAIN BE IN THE POSITION OF KINGMAKER ONCE THE ELECTION RESULTS ARE IN ON SEPTEMBER 23RD. WHENA OWEN SPENT A DAY IN DUNEDIN AND WATCHED AS HE PITCHED HIS MESSAGE TO YOUNG AND OLD. (RELAXED MUSIC) DUNEDIN HAS TURNED ON A CRISP SOUTHERN DAY FOR THE VISIT OF A NORTHLAND POLITICIAN. PEOPLE ARE ARRIVING AT THE RACECOURSE. DESPITE HER BAD HEALTH, BEVERLEY RUSHTON IS DETERMINED TO GET THERE TO SEE WINSTON PETERS. BIG, BIG SUPPORT BASE DOWN HERE. HAS HE? YEAH. (LIGHT GUITAR MUSIC) MR PETERS SEEMS TO BE PROBABLY THE ONLY ONE AT THE MOMENT WHO HAS ANY SOLID POLICIES. RIGHT DOWN THE BACK, THERE'S A GUY AROUND 60 YEARS YOUNGER THAN MOST HERE. SO, WHY HAVE YOU COME ALONG TODAY? UH, I JUST WANTED TO SEE THE MAN HIMSELF. (CHUCKLES) WINSTON PETERS. WOW. I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE HE'S A ROCKSTAR IN YOUR WORLD. UM, I READ HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY, YOU KNOW, AND I'M VOTING FOR THE FIRST TIME THIS YEAR, SO I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO SEE WHAT HE'S ABOUT. AND WERE YOU ALLOWED TO GET OUT OF SCHOOL? NO. (LAUGHS) HE HAS THIS RETRO APPEAL WITH THE KIDS THAT THEY LOVE HIM. HE DOES HAVE THAT ICONIC STATUS, AND SO WITH YOUNG PEOPLE, HE'S A CULTURAL SYMBOL AS WELL AS A POLITICAL FIGURE. # YOU NEVER GET AWAY FROM ME. # YOU CAN CLIMB THE TALLEST TREE. # I'LL BE THERE SOMEHOW. # (APPLAUSE) AND IT'S A SPEECH TAILOR-MADE FOR DUNEDIN ` PRAISE FOR THE HIGHLANDERS, OUTRAGE FOR CADBURY JOBS GONE AND EMPATHY WITH THE REGIONS. BUT FARMERS ARE EXPORTERS, AND THEY'VE BEEN GIVEN NO HELP WHATSOEVER BECAUSE WE'VE GOT THIS TAX NEUTRALITY, AND YET THEIR INDUSTRY IS CRITICAL FOR THIS COUNTRY'S FUTURE. PETERS MOVES ON TO THE MEDIA, GIVES THEM A KICKING. THE PUNTERS LOVE IT. TAXPAYER EARNED. MEANT TO BE INDEPENDENT, MEANT TO BE NEUTRAL. COULDN'T GIVE A RAT'S DERRIERE ABOUT BEING FAIR. NOW THE IMMIGRATION ISSUE. IT'S A GOOD AIRING. BUT WHEN WE CAN'T PROVIDE FOR OUR OWN IN OUR COUNTRY, WHY IN THE HELL ARE WE HAVING THEM? BUT HALF THE WORLD IS A HELLHOLE, MADAM. THEY'RE COMING HERE BECAUSE CANADA WON'T LET THEM GO THERE, AUSTRALIA WON'T LET THEM GO THERE, THE UK WON'T LET THEM GO THERE AND NOR WILL HALF OF EUROPE. HE OWNS IT. HE'S SEEN AS AUTHENTIC ON THAT ISSUE, BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN BANGING ON ABOUT IT FOR SO VERY LONG. BACK AT THE RACECOURSE, PETERS IS PARADING HIS SOUTHERN CANDIDATES. MARK PATTERSON IS A SHEEP AND BEEF FARMER STANDING FOR THE PARTY IN CLUTHA SOUTHLAND. I THINK THE FOREIGN OWNERSHIP THING IS A BIG THING DOWN SOUTH. WE'VE GOT JERICHO STATION GETTING SOLD INTO FOREIGN OWNERSHIP, IN THE PROCESS OF. HUNTER VALLEY STATION GONE. SILVER FERN FARMS, OF COURSE, AND THERE'S A REAL SENSE THAT WE NEED TO TAKE SOME CONTROL OF THIS AND OWN OUR OWN FUTURE. WHAT IS OBVIOUS TO ME IS A BROADENING OF NZ FIRST NOW, AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE THINKING ABOUT SHANE JONES IS A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT BROADENING OF THE NZ FIRST CHURCH. WHO'S GOT THE CAMERA? OUR OTAGO BOYS' HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT HAS FINALLY GOT HIS SELFIE. IT'S VERY REASSURING FOR NEW ZEALAND'S FUTURE. (LAUGHS) DO YOU THINK SO? I THINK SO, YEAH. DO YOU THINK MR PETERS IS GOING TO GET YOUR FIRST VOTE? DEFINITELY. AND NZ FIRST? YEAH. (OLD-FASHIONED SWING MUSIC) OVER AT OTAGO UNIVERSITY STUDENT UNION, THEY'RE STARTING TO GATHER TO HEAR THE NZ FIRST LEADER. YOU'RE HEAR TO LISTEN TO WINSTON PETERS? YES, I AM. I JUST WANT TO HEAR WHAT HE SAYS. NOT A BIG FAN. I MIGHT JUST BE VERY WILLING TO CONCLUDE THAT MAYBE IMMIGRATION, WE NEED LESS OF IT. HOWEVER, MY ONLY THING IS I THINK HE GOES ABOUT IT IN THE CLASSIC KIND OF POPULIST, OLD WINSTON WAY, WHICH FOSTERS RACISM. AND SOMETIMES I'M HURT BY THAT. WELL, WINSTON PETERS IS JUST ABOUT TO ARRIVE HERE AT OTAGO UNIVERSITY, AND HE SAID HE'S LOOKING FOR A MORON. HE SAYS SOMEBODY WROTE AN ARTICLE ABOUT HIM, CHALLENGING HIS POLICIES AND GOT EVERYTHING WRONG, AND HE WANTS A FACE-TO-FACE WITH THIS GUY. SO WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS. (OLD-FASHIONED SWING MUSIC) THIS ADDRESS IS ALSO TAILOR-MADE TO TERTIARY EDUCATION. ...RUN BY BEAN COUNTERS. THEN THE DAD JOKES. MY FAVOURITE KIND OF BEER? A FREE ONE. (LAUGHTER) WOULD I CALL MYSELF A POPULIST? YEAH. YOU KNOW, IT'S EXTRAORDINARY. THANK YOU FOR ASKING ME THAT QUESTION. I MEAN, HE LEARNT AT THE FOOT OF MULDOON, WHO WAS A VERY DISTINCTIVE KIWI POPULIST IN HIS OWN WAY. BECAUSE YOU'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE WANT AND YOU MAKE A CONNECTION COS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT THEY DO, AND BECAUSE YOU HEAR THEM, THEY CALL YOU A POPULIST. NOW, IS THAT A CRITICISM? NO. IT'S A STATEMENT OF THEIR PERSONAL NAIVETY. COS WHO THE HELL WANTS TO BE UNPOPULAR? FINALLY, THERE'S THE MESSAGE FOR THE SO-CALLED MORON FROM THE STUDENT MAGAZINE. THE POLLS SHOW ONE PARTY GOING THAT WAY EVERY DAY. I HOPE YOU WRITE ABOUT THAT IN A RATIONAL, SANE, LOGICAL WAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. (APPLAUSE) A BUNCH OF MASTERS POLITICS STUDENTS HAVE BEEN LISTENING CAREFULLY. IT'S LIKE TRUMP. WINSTON PETERS IS TRYING TO CATCH A REACTION TO THINGS CHANGING, AND HE'S TRYING TO CAPTURE WHAT'S GOING ON THERE. IF OTHER PARTIES DON'T ADDRESS THAT, I THINK THEY WILL LOSE OUT. SO YOU MEAN HE'S RIDING THE FARRAGE, LE PEN, TRUMP WAVE? YES, ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY. WOULD YOU VOTE FOR WINSTON, NZ FIRST NOW? IS THAT A POSSIBILITY? YEAH. WELL, YEAH. IT'S A POSSIBILITY? DEFINITELY. WHY ARE YOU SO QUIET? PEOPLE ARE SORT OF IN THE CLOSET ABOUT IT, I'VE FOUND. AND THERE'S EVIDENCE NZ FIRST VOTERS ARE IN THE CLOSET ABOUT THEIR SUPPORT, SAYS JON JOHANSSON. THE NUMBERS FOR THE PARTY ON ELECTION DAY ALWAYS OUT-PERFORM THE CAMPAIGN POLLS. PEOPLE AREN'T AS WILLING TO SAY TO A POLLSTER, 'YES, NZ FIRST.' BECAUSE MAYBE THEY THINK THAT THEY NEED TO PROJECT A DIFFERENT SELF IMAGE. NOW WINSTON PETERS IS HOPING THIS TIME HIS IMAGE, HIS BRAND WILL BRING WIDER SUPPORT FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY. Is he going to be kingmaker again? I think there's a chance he will be. As a confluence of two things here. One is the populist narrative that is known for. The other thing is of course opportunity. Looking ahead to the selection you can imagine that national Won't be able to hold on to its full 47% that it's had the last two or three elections. If it loses support in the direction of New Zealand first In labour and the greens don't do well enough Then he is in a position where he can help either sides, which is a position he loves. Both sides have indicated that they can deal with Winston Peters. At least, labour and national have said they can deal with them. The greens have been less forthcoming about their attitude towards him. It currently looks inevitable. Labour and the greens are relatively balanced with national at 42 or 43%. It doesn't look like any other party could make up that gap. Unless there is a scenario where you see either labour or the greens escalating quickly Or national escalating quickly than that's inevitable. It's actually only happened once before. It was Helen Clark who chose Winston Peters, not Winston Peters who chose Helen Clark last time around. 1986 was hardly a smoothie for anyone around. I think the relationship between key and Peters was terrible. English has obviously worked with Peters previously and that 96 government. The return of Shane Jones back into the fold will help the relationship between New Zealand first national. How important is that for the future of New Zealand first? For most people New Zealand firsts Winston Peters. Winston is showing no signs of wanting to leave Parliament. He's been that close to for decades. In a sense he is the personification of New Zealand first. Shane Jones may attract more Maori voters. I don't think it will be a fundamental change. I don't see in the short term Shane Jones taking over the leadership. I think it will continue to be Winston's party. Layla, you were in Parliament when Winston Peters was there. Can you explain his ongoing appeal? I think he has a solid core constituency who have remained loyal And who has delivered to. Every time someone uses their gold card to get a free bus ride, that is a tribute to ham. He can chalk up real achievements in government. This is the key to the way that he will behave post-election this year. In order for him to sustain New Zealand first with or without him< He has to continue to gain policy wins. If you look at the possibility of doing that in a labour green combination, It seems to me that it is much harder to distinguish policy wins there Given that their policies are pretty consistent with New Zealand first policy now Then it will be in relation to national. With National he can win the argument over not raising the superannuation age. He can win important arguments of differentiation. That's much more difficult to do from labour. I think I agree with that. He has a desire for legacy projects. It's unlikely that he will go on beyond the next term. How we looking for some concrete commitments that he can show he is delivered. It wouldn't surprise me if he would go for something like Minister of regional development So that hell have bridges and roads up and down the country. He won't do it for free, though will he? He is clever enough as a politician to know exactly what he wants But in terms of policy gains and portfolios. What will be interesting is whether he comes into a formal coalition agreement with National Or as a support party that will take some portfolios from national. If you goes into a formal coalition then he will be able to lay claim to a significant amount of influence in the next government. , There is talk of his populism and Donald Trump, but he's been doing this message for a long time. His support base seems to be replenishing. Just from anecdotal evidence like the Dunedin meeting we saw, There seems to be quite a lot of popularity among young people for the message. There's also been some work done by Tracy Adams and so on Herb and building audiences around education. There is a ripple out from Winston Peters. I don't understand the Shane Jones part of the equation. This is someone who on economics is completely at odds with Winston Peters. He was on the right wing of the labour call caucus in terms of trade liberalisation. He was enticed to a plum job with the national party. It seems to me that I don't understand that part of the picture. What is the strategy there? He is a person that seems to have been forgiven for spending our money on his blue movies. The capacity of people to forgive and forget seems quite extraordinary. New Zealand first support space Has been pretty consistent over the years, It's mostly older New Zealanders, more male than female, more Maori voters And there's more support among lower income voters. His support comes mainly from Northland and the Bay of Plenty. He needs to grow his support. This is perhaps why he is pitching towards young voters. The reason people forgive Shane Jones is that he has a level of charisma and charm That is unusual in New Zealand politicians. He can go and speak to a diverse range of audiences. I don't think there is any other politician that could bring in people from so many areas And have them will support him. He comes across very well with blue-collar male voters. WE'VE GOT A FASCINATING INTERVIEW AFTER THE BREAK. GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, AMAZON. THESE BIG INTERNET COMPANIES ARE CHANGING THE WORLD, BUT IT'S NOT FOR THE BETTER, ACCORDING TO AMERICAN AUTHOR JONATHAN TAPLIN. PETER THIEL'S NOTION WAS THAT WITH A FEW SPECIFIC DEREGULATIONS THE INTERNET COULD BE A WINNER-TAKES-ALL BUSINESS. JONATHAN TAPLIN STARTED HIS CAREER MANAGING BANDS AND MAKING MOVIES. HE SAW FIRSTHAND HOW THE INTERNET CHANGED HIS BUSINESS ` AND HOW SOME CREATIVE PEOPLE SUDDENLY FOUND THEIR INCOME DESTROYED BY A BURGEONING DIGITAL ECONOMY WHERE IT SEEMED NO-ONE WANTED TO PAY. THESE DAYS, HE'S AN ACADEMIC AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. HIS LATEST BOOK IS CALLED 'MOVE FAST AND BREAK THINGS: 'HOW GOOGLE, FACEBOOK AND AMAZON CORNERED CULTURE 'AND UNDERMINED DEMOCRACY.' WHENA OWEN SPOKE TO HIM LAST WEEK, AND STARTED BY ASKING ABOUT THAT TITLE. WELL, IT WAS ORIGINALLY THE MOTTO OF FACEBOOK, SO IT WAS THIS IDEA THAT THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES WOULD BE DISTRUPTIVE, THEY'D DISRUPT OLD TECHNOLOGIES AND SOMEHOW THEY'D PUT SOMETHING MUCH BETTER IN PLACE. OF COURSE, ONE OF MY ARGUMENTS IS THAT HASN'T REALLY HAPPENED, THAT THE NEW NEWS MEDIA'S FOCUS ON FACEBOOK IS NOT NECESSARILY BETTER THAN THE OLD NEWS MEDIA, WHICH WAS KIND OF LOCALLY FOCUSED. AND, QUITE FRANKLY, FACEBOOK HAS MANAGED TO PUT A GREAT DEAL OF LOCAL NEWSPAPERS OUT OF BUSINESS. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE PROBLEMS. OK, SO, WITH FACEBOOK, WITH ZUCKERBERG, YOU CLAIM THAT HE HAS BEEN LED ASTRAY BY A RADICAL RIGHT-WING GROUP LED, ACTUALLY, BY A NEW ZEALAND CITIZEN, PETER THIEL. WELL, ZUCKERBERG HAS A REAL PROBLEM IN THE SENSE THAT HIS PLATFORM IS REALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FAKE NEWS EXPLOSION. AND IN THE UNITED STATES, OF COURSE, THAT WAS A HUGE PROBLEM. IT CREATED A PLATFORM IN WHICH ANYBODY COULD PUT ANYTHING UP, AND THEN OF COURSE ANYBODY COULD PLAY THE ALGORITHM THAT THEY USE TO CREATE THE TRENDING TOPICS ONCE HE TOOK THE HUMANS OUT OF THE ALGORITHM. AND IT ALLOWED STEVE BANNON AND DONALD TRUMP TO COMPLETELY DOMINATE THE NEWS, AND ACTUALLY THE MAINSTREAM NEWS GOT PUSHED TO THE SIDE WHILE THE FAKE NEWS BECAME THE DOMINANT FORM. WHAT WAS PETER THIEL'S ROLE IN IT, THOUGH, IN TERMS OF, THE PHILOSOPHY WITH THE CURRENT DIGITAL GIANTS? SO, PETER THIEL CAME OUT OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN THE LATE '80S. THE ORIGINAL IDEA OF THE INTERNET WAS THIS GREAT DECENTRALISING FORCE. IT HAD BEEN PAID FOR BY THE US GOVERNMENT, AND IT WAS VERY NO-PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE, NO NOTHING, AND PETER THIEL'S NOTION WAS THAT WITH A FEW SPECIFIC DEREGULATIONS, THE INTERNET COULD BE A WINNER-TAKES-ALL BUSINESS. SO HE WANTED TO GET RID OF ALL REGULATION. HE WANTED TO GET RID OF ALL COPYRIGHT. HE WANTED TO GET RID OF ALL TAXES. SO JEFF BEZOS AT AMAZON COULD UNDERSELL EVERY LOCAL BOOKSTORE THAT HAD TO PAY LOCAL TAXES AND BASICALLY PUT MOST OF THE LOCAL BOOKSTORES OUT OF BUSINESS. AND, OF COURSE, HE WANTED A SOCIETY IN WHICH ONLY A FEW COMPANIES COULD WIN. AS HE SAID, COMPETITION IS FOR LOSERS. SO WHAT HAPPENED WAS HIS PROPHECY WAS TURNED CORRECT. GOOGLE BECAME THE TOTAL DOMINANT FORCE IN SEARCH ADVERTISING, WITH 88% OF THE MARKET SHARE. FACEBOOK BECAME THE TOTAL DOMINANT SOURCE BETWEEN FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM AND WHAT'S APP AND MESSENGER With about 75% market share. And am is on became the dominant force in the book business with about 75% market share. Are you concerned about the fact that he is an Trumps in a circle now? In New Zealand you must have some affection for him since you've allowed him to become a citizen. It's probably where hell go when he makes the American economy collapse. Is obviously very close to Donald Trump. In terms of thinking about whether any regulation Will happen on to these Internet monopolies, I doubt that anything will happen as long as Peter TL is close to Donald Trump. How massive are these Internet monopolies? We've had a quiet revolution. These corporations are the largest companies in the world's. The top five companies in the world are Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook and Microsoft. It didn't used to be that way. They have totally gained control. They also have a great deal of political power. When Facebook or Google says, this is the way regulation should be, Usually politicians think these guys are billionaires so they must know what they're talking about. What do you know about our regulations here? What can we do to regulate against these monopolies? New Zealand has this kind of D regulatory the notion That there shouldn't be regulation on the Internet. The problem is that these businesses are surveillance capitalism businesses. They don't care about content. They only care about data. Their job is to make you into the workers that give them the raw materials for free That they then sell to advertisers. The first thing would be some kind of strong privacy regulations That would give the individual the right to opt out of being tracked by these companies. The second would be some kind of strong protection of your artistic community. I know that Peter Jackson and others A fairly strong proponents of intellectual property rights, Even though you've managed to harbour a two-time felon Kim Dotcom. If an artist could say to you tubes that they want their tune taken off Youtube And it would actually stay off instead of being put up again the next day, That was set an example that the EU and Americans would gravitate towards. I think a country like New Zealand could be a leader. In terms of our news organisations, do you think they can survive? No. Most of the advertising revenue is flowing to Facebook. In the United States There are 50% fewer people working in journalism today than they were 10 years ago. If that continues and we lose another 50% There will be a disaster and will have The New York Times, the Wall Street journal in the Washington post, But we won't have local newspapers. You need to have a market that is supportive of local news. Facebook will have to start sharing the billions of advertising revenue that they could collect every year And start sharing it with the people that make that content. People would not think of Facebook as their primary new source of there was no news there. Why is it crucial that we maintain an objective new service? Perhaps we should be looking at a new model? We've just been through an election Where fake news basically determined the outcome of the election. That to me is horrendous. If we don't have some objective place of sense It's probably the objective at TVNZ to publish the truth. At Facebook and Google It's easy to manipulate the algorithms to force untrue things to the top. Lies are more clickable than truth. You're one of the writers who are spearheading this resistance Against these monopolies, but on a personal level, I notice your book is for sale on Amazon. There are U-tube clips of you giving your lectures. We have to use the Internet as a vehicle for ourselves. Nobody cannot sell books on Amazon on. They make up 75% of the book business in the United States. If I wanted to not some a book on Amazon I would be shooting myself in the foot. That's what monopolies do. It would be very hard for me to operate without Google to. I'm not saying they're not useful it's a problem though when three companies collect most of the money and control most of the resources. That's going to be is destructive to society as a whole. I need to ask you why you are so interested in these Internet monopolies And what it is doing to our culture economy and politics. What is your connection? You have a background as a tour manager. I started out working for a group called the band. They made extraordinarily great music in the 60s and 70s. They stopped touring and 79. They would continue to make a living off their records. The drummer in the band happen to get throat cancer in 2000 The same year that Napster arrived. All of a sudden he was no longer making any money off his records And he couldn't work because he had throat cancer And so he basically ended his life in deep poverty Even though you could go on you tube and see that over 3 million people were streaming his music. That seemed to me extraordinarily unfair. If a musician could get a million downloads on iTunes, He would make $900,000. If you had a million streams on you tube you would get $900. That wouldn't pay rent for my son. You're saying it's killing culture. YOUR FEEDBACK AFTER THE BREAK AND THE FINAL WORD FROM THE PANEL. WE'LL HAVE A LOOK AT THE UK ELECTION. WITH A WEEK TO GO THE RACE HAS GOT MUCH TIGHTER. THAT'S NEXT. In breaking news, British police are responding to reports of a major incident on London Bridge. Van has had a number of pedestrians and arm police are at the scene. The bridge has been closed in both directions while the Metropolitan police investigate. These are the latest live pictures from the scene. It is nearly 11 p.M. In London at the moment. About five people are being treated for injuries at the moment After a vehicle mounted the pavement and hit them. If this is terrorism , it is the second example in the UK in as many weeks . Leading into the election, what sort of an effect is this likely to spur ? I think for the next few days the preoccupation of the media Will be the question of terrorism and safety. That's what happened after the Manchester bombing And I will imagine that that would be the same this time. We don't know if that will have any effect on the election itself Or whether this will favour tourism may in the Conservatives. It's a tragic event and I'm sure people will be concerned about its implications. The Tories are getting a hurry up. Did anyone expect this? I think when Teresa may made the call to call an early election, She thought that she would get a landslide victory. In fact she's been exposed. This is probably the worst campaign the Conservatives have had in living memory. You have met a couple of times. What's your impression? She is a very competent and very strong Home Secretary. An unusual politician and that she is not particularly warm or engaging. She has no natural constituency within the party. She became the leader post bricks that when people are looking for strength and stability, But her ability to appeal to the masses is quite low. She has aggravated the Tory base quite significantly Because they've taken the party quite to the centre. She has aggravated her right wing base. To give Corbin his credit, despite being unsuitable to be prime minister in many ways, His run a very good campaign. I am so excited for the results. It's a huge tribute to him. He is mobilise such grassroots support. This is somebody who at the start of this campaign Had absolutely everything against him, including his own caucus. He has capitalised on the disastrous campaign run by the Conservatives But he has also produced an inspiring manifesto. We have to leave it there. MARAE IS NEXT. REMEMBER Q+A REPEATS TONIGHT AT 11.35PM. 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 CATHERINE DE CHALAIN AND VIRGINIA PHILP. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2017