The Nation: Green Party co-leader debate
On The Nation:
Green Party co-leader candidates Kevin Hague, Gareth Hughes, James Shaw and Vernon Tava debate, hosted by Lisa Owen.
Headlines:
Three out of four Greens co-leader candidates fail to answer economic questions on Official Cash Rate, economic growth, unemployment rate and inflation; only James Shaw gets close
Candidates show differing views on relationship with National, from a coalition being “unfathomable” to “need to be able to work with both”
Kevin Hague calls for GCSB to be shut down and New Zealand to pull out of Five-Eyes and says there would be no economic damage, while Hughes wants out of Five-Eyes but backs “New Zealand having domestic intelligence abilities”
Hague says interest rates too high; Vernon Tava says they’re not
Gareth Hughes backs Green’s superannuation policy but calls for a “discussion” on retirement age and compulsory super. Also wants super tax for those earning over $1 million.
Shaw and Tava support “wild law” that calls for “personhood” rights for “ecological features”, as with corporations. Hague says “It does seem a little bit odd to me, I must say”
Key lines:
Kevin Hague:
“The Greens will be a bigger party and will be in
government.”
James Shaw: “We’re running out of
time, and I’m running out of patience.”
Gareth
Hughes: “What I want to see is a bigger, more powerful,
more influential Green Party.”
Vernon Tava: “We need
to be able to work with both [major parties], because the
problems we’re facing are too urgent to wait.”
Lisa Owen: This morning I’m joined by Gareth Hughes,
Kevin Hague, James Shaw and Vernon Tava. I want to start
with you, Kevin. Tell me in one sentence, under your
leadership, what will the Greens look like?
Kevin
Hague: The Greens will be a bigger party and will be in
government. I’ve been the caucus strategist for six years,
working alongside Metiria and Russel, and I want to carry us
through to the next stage, which is into government so we
can actually implement our policies for the first
time.
The Greens are fighting for relevance here. Have
you got enough of the mongrel in you for that
fight?
Hague: I don’t think we are fighting for
relevance. I think we’ve had six years, perhaps longer, of
actually doing things pretty well. What we need to do is
fine-tune that strategy and take it to the next level. In
terms of mongrel, I’m the person who took on the
Government over ACC, over Pike River, and we actually
achieved some pretty decent reform out of those
fights.
James Shaw, imagine you’re the leader; what
does the Greens look like under you?
James Shaw: So I
took the Green Party from 20 per cent of the vote in
Wellington to up to 30 per cent of the vote in the last
election, and so if I was the co-leader, I’d be looking to
expand that around the rest of the country and be over 15
per cent of the vote.
But you’re a baby Green, a
baby with a little G. You’ve been around five
minutes.
Shaw: I first joined the Green Party in
1990, and since that time our greenhouse gas emissions have
doubled, 60% of our rivers have become unswimable, and
we’ve gone from being one of the most unequal societies—
sorry, one of the most equal societies in the OECD to one of
the most unequal. We’re running out of time, and I’m
running out of patience.
Okay, Gareth, what would the
Greens look like if you were at the helm?
Gareth
Hughes: Good morning, Lisa. The Greens under my helm would
be larger. My mission is to excite and inspire, to reach out
and represent a new generation of voters. We’d be making
sure we’re seeing action on climate change. What I want to
see is a bigger, more powerful, more influential Green
Party, because the issues we work on, they’re more
important than ever.
Do you have the gravitas, the
credibility to be a co-leader?
Hughes: This is my
opportunity over the next two months to stand up and show
the members of my party what I know I have inside, which is
I know who I am, I know what I stand for, I know where I
want to go. This is my opportunity, and the members have a
fantastic choice. I’m standing as someone who’s been a
campaigner for 15 years. I’ve got the experience, I’ve
got the wins under my belt, and I want to lead our party to
a bigger Green Party.
Vernon Tava, in one sentence,
what would the Greens look like if you were one of the
leaders?
Vernon Tava: The Greens would be a party
that leads on sustainability, and sustainability is neither
a left nor a right thing. It’s bigger than that. And the
Greens should be a part of every government.
But
you’re not even an MP. Isn’t this about raising your
profile so you get a better possie on the list next time
round?
Tava: In fact, I didn’t stand for the list
in 2014, and I don’t really have designs on the list
necessarily in 2017, all depending on how this goes. The
thing is that I think that the party needs to be a
sustainable axis around which governments turn. I think
urgency of the local and global ecological, social, economic
crises that we’re facing need resolution now, and we
can’t wait until the political weather is
perfect.
So if you lose, you’re not going to stand
for a position in Parliament next time round?
Tava:
Not necessarily.
Not necessarily? Okay. I want to get
to know you a bit during this debate, because some people
won’t know a lot about you, so we’re going to have some
quick-fire questions. The first one is now. Each of you, who
is your political hero? Gareth?
Hughes: Clearly,
Jeanette Fitzsimons.
Kevin?
Hague: Michael
Joseph Savage.
James?
Shaw: David
Lange.
Vernon?
Tava: I’d say David Lange as
well.
Okay. Now more substantive issues. Is social
justice and environmentalism inseparable? Vernon
Tava?
Tava: Yes, they are. Well, social justice –
what the Green charter actually talks about is social
responsibility, which is a broader concept. It’s one that
takes into account our place as but one species in the
environment. It recognises that unlimited material growth is
impossible, because we live in a world of finite limits. So
the approach we see from National and Labour of, ‘Well,
all we need to do is grow the pie, and the higher tide will
raise all boats,’ isn’t going to work. We need to take a
different approach. But the two must go together.
What
about you, Kevin? What do you think?
Hague: Well, I
mean, Vernon’s right. They’re inseparable. I mean,
social injustice and environmental degradation are both
driven by the same thing, that says that people and the
environment are just inputs into the economy. Actually, that
in situation, you’re always going to get the firm, in
economy theory, actually maximising profit by extracting as
much as they can from both of those inputs. We need to
reverse it. We should set out our environmental goals and
our social justice goals, and the economy needs to be the
tool box that we use to help achieve those goals.
But,
James Shaw, are you sacrificing your environmental identity
by focusing too much on social policy as a
party?
Shaw: I don’t think that we are. I mean, we
fought the last election on a range of policies, which
included social policies, economic policies and
environmental policies, and they were designed to work
together. As Kevin said, the economy should be a— is a
wholly owned subsidiary of the environment and of human
society, and it’s important that we— I think this is
actually one of the great things about the Green Party is
that when we put our policies together, they are policies
that are designed to hit all of those levers.
But in
your maiden speech, you actually said, ‘We need to— To
get unstuck, we all need to give some of these things up.
Some things up.’ So are you talking about chopping off
your red roots?
Shaw: No, not at all. What I said is
that we need to give up the notion of being right and other
people being wrong. We’re in a stuck— I was talking
about the political discourse, the idea that there’s this
great sort of Punch and Judy Show game show that we’re
involved in. That system is completely dysfunctional. It
produces terribly poor quality decisions for the country and
for the world. I think that we need to lift the quality of
our political dialogue and work together to solve the
problems facing our country and facing our world.
And
I want to talk about that a bit more, but let’s give
Gareth a chance on this. Social justice and environmentalism
– is the Green brand green enough?
Hughes: We’ve
championed protecting the environment. We’ve done a
fantastic job there. We’ve also championed people, lifting
kids out of poverty. They’re inseparable, just as peace,
the commitment to democracy, our commitment to Te Tiriti o
Waitangi. This is what makes the Greens unique. We aren’t
like the other parties. We’re something new, we’re
something different, and we’re something better.
But
doesn’t that trap you in a ghetto to the left of
Labour?
Hughes: No, not at all. I’m glad that we
are the most progressive voice in our Parliament. This is
our role. This is why I am proud to be a Green, because we
champion people. We care about people. And at the moment,
our entire economy, well, as long as I’ve been alive, has
been putting profit before people and planet. What the
Greens want to do is put people, planet at the top, and, in
fact, this is actually going to grow a richer New
Zealand.
But, Vernon, you disagree slightly, don’t
you? You think you want to open up another opportunity on
the right?
Tava: Well, the thing is we’re beyond
the left-right spectrum, and as long as people insist on
framing us as it’s either red-green or blue-green or
whatever, then, yeah, that’s obviously how it’s going to
look. But if you look at the party’s policies, some of
them seem—
But then you’re more open to National.
You are more open to National than some of the others
sitting here.
Tava: Not because of any great
love.
In terms of MMP politics—
Tava: Not
because of any— Well, absolutely, because that’s the
reality of MMP, and I think we’re taking a long time as a
system and as a society to actually adapt to that. So
there’s this, ‘Oh, you’re caught on the horns of the
dilemma, you can only go one way or the other,’ but, in
fact, the Green Party – it’s about sustainability and it
should be the axis, and it’s one that needs to be able to
talk to both parties. We need to be able to work with both,
because the problems we’re facing are too urgent to
wait.
Gareth?
Hughes: Well, I got into politics
to get stuff done. I’m happy to work with anyone on any
issues where we can agree, but a coalition with National
after the last election, after the growing emissions,
growing poverty—
But you told this programme last
week that the likelihood of you being in a coalition or
within an agreement with National when happen when ‘hell
froze over’.
Hughes: That’s right. It’s
unfathomable. I stand by our party’s decision. When you
look at the growing emissions, the growing poverty, the
dirty politics, the crony capitalism—
So you are
stuck on the left, then?
Hughes: …how could we even
consider it?
You are stuck in a trench on the
left.
Hughes: No, I’m stuck on the green. I’m
proud to call myself on the left. This is where many of our
policies, values and our vision has emerged from. But, look,
I’m happy to work with anyone on issues. I’m proud of
the achievements we’ve had in terms of home
insulation.
So could you work with the current
government, then, having said what you did last
week?
Hughes: I could work on issues where Green
policy— A coalition, though? It’s
unfathomable.
Hague: Listen, I think one of the things
that I say is that we need to show voters that we know how
to reach out to other political parties, to build on common
ground that we have with them but also to be able to
negotiate differences in order to achieve good green change.
I know over the past six years I’ve worked directly with
the Government on the New Zealand cycleway project, also on
resetting traps as an alternative to 1080 and on marriage
equality.
Kevin, you started there talking about being
in government, but you have to get there with the votes. So
how do you shore things up for the Greens so that you’re
not so tied to Labour’s fortunes, that a Labour loss is a
loss for you guys as well?
Hague: I think what we
need to do is focus on our knitting so that, actually, we
show voters what our vision is for the future, and I suspect
that this is maybe an error we’ve made over the past three
years that we’ve actually talked about individual policies
but not shown that big-picture vision. So I think that’s
one of the things we need to do.
Tava: But there are so
many people out there for whom the environment is one of
their major concerns, and that’s a crossover thing
whatever people’s political complexion is normally. Now,
as long as we’re saying it’s not enough that you care
about the environment, you also need to be on the left, then
we’ve got a definite cap on the ability to grow our vote.
We need to grow it larger so that we can actually have
National and Labour competing to be sustainable enough to
work with us.
Should you be aggressively going after
Labour’s vote?
Tava: We should be going over
whichever vote we can get that actually holds sustainability
as their primary value.
Shaw: Lisa, at the last election,
28 per cent of New Zealanders considered voting Green but
did not, and they split between— the people who didn’t
vote Green but thought about it, they’d split between
Labour and National. So what that says is in addition to the
11 per cent of the vote that we’ve got, there’s a
further third of the electorate that we could be going
after. Some of those—
In fact, your own polling
showed almost 19 per cent went with Labour. Gareth, just
what Vernon is saying there – you’re actually saying
that you should kind of cosy up with Labour. You’re saying
maybe get some deals going where we only stand one candidate
in the electorate. That’s poles apart from where Vernon
Tava is.
Hughes: Well, I’m a Green because I
support our new, different, independent party. Now, at the
last election, John Key spent more time talking about what a
Green-Labour government would look like than the Green and
Labour Parties. I want to be part of the most progressive
government this country has seen in generations. I think
voters want to see a stable, united, future-focused
alternative to National, and that’s what I’d like to be
part of.
All right, I want to go round all of you
here. The Greens manifesto says a coalition agreement with
National is “highly unlikely”. Do you personally want to
keep that wording, Gareth, or is it time for a
change?
Hughes: I support what the members want. They
make the decision, not the leader.
I asked you
personally, Gareth. Do you want to change it?
Hughes:
No, I do not. I think it’s accurate.
All right.
Kevin?
Hague: I think the members made a realistic
assessment.
I’m asking you. What do you
want?
Hague: That’s what I’m saying. Our members
look at what’s the level of agreement, and they say
there’s much more commonality with Labour than with
National.
And you agree with them?
Hague:
That’s right. That’s accurate.
James
Shaw?
Shaw: I also agree with them. I think it’s
perfectly fine as it is.
Vernon?
Tava: I think
it’s unhelpful, and we should express the will to work
with whichever party will help us advance Green
policy.
Okay. We will take a short break, but up next
we test the economic nous of these would-be leaders and ask
how far they’ll go to save the planet.
You're back in
with The Nation and the men vying to be the next Green Party
co-leader, and they are Gareth Hughes, James Shaw, Kevin
Hague and Vernon Tava. When was the last time, Gareth, that
you broke the law for a green cause?
Hughes: Well, it
would have been 2009. I was protesting palm-kernel
shipments. So I've been arrested a few times, and I've put
my body on the line for my beliefs. I love our planet, our
environment, and I've campaigned to protect it.
Have
you still got a Ronald McDonald costume?
Hughes: I
do.
Kevin, when was the last time you broke the
law?
Hague: First time? I’m trying to think.
Probably the last time I got arrested for breaking the law,
um, would have been something like, uh, the
1990s.
Well, how often do you break the law, then, if
you don't know when you got arrested?
Hague: Are we
talking about maybe speeding to get to a demonstration
or...?
All right, James, last time you broke the law
for the green cause?
Shaw: Uh, I haven't knowingly
broken the law, and I've never been arrested. So I - I don't
have a last time.
OK, well, this week, the kauri tree.
There was a big debate over the kauri tree there. People
broke the law to save that tree. Was that a good
idea?
Shaw: Uh, yes, I think it was, and I think
Michael is a real hero for the work that he did in bringing
attention to that cause. I don't think it's appropriate for
a member of parliament to break the law because we're in
charge of making the laws. It's two different
things.
So the guys to your right shouldn't break the
law while they're in Parliament? For a cause?
Shaw:
I-I think that... I-I don't think... to my left or to my
right, I don't think members of parliament, people who are
seeking to make laws, I don't think it's appropriate for
them to knowingly break the law.
All right. Well,
Vernon, have you broken the law?
Tava: Well, I'm a
practising lawyer as well, so you know, that's the thing you
think about. You know, there are all sorts. For instance, I
cared deeply about the area of animal welfare and animal
rights, but I can't break the law to those ends, you know? I
can do better doing other things.
If and when was the
last time you smoked a joint?
Tava: It's been quite a
while. Um, yeah, it's really been quite a while.
But
while you were a practising lawyer? While you were a
practising lawyer?
Tava: No, I was a
student.
OK, back to James. Last time you smoked a
joint?
Shaw: Maybe 10 years ago?
Yeah.
Kevin?
Hague: Similar kind of time. Uh,
yeah.
10 years ago, you think?
Hague: I would
guess so, yeah.
Gareth?
Hughes: Gee,
probably... probably about six years ago, I'd say.
Tava:
And look at us — we're all fine.
So six years ago,
you were an—? You were an elected MP at that
point?
Hughes: No, I've been in Parliament for five
years.
For five? Just, yeah, OK. So just outside the
time frame. All right. Is there a place for spying in our
society? Vernon?
Tava: It needs to be extremely
carefully circumscribed. There are people— you know, we're
seeing with the 1080 threat. You know, we're seeing there
are people who want to do malevolent things. But we need
far, far stronger oversight and far less politically
oriented oversight than we're seeing now. It needs to be
treated very, very carefully.
So it's OK to spy as
long as you keep a tight rein on it?
Tava: Extremely
tight rein.
James?
Shaw: Yeah, I agree. I mean,
I think the rules around it have to be very clear. There has
to be transparent oversight. People need to understand what
we're doing. I think the thing that we've had in the last
few years that people have become increasingly worried about
is this idea that everyone is being spied on. You know,
countries have spied on each other from time immemorial. Uh,
for, you know, trade deals. Uh, you know, wars. All that
kind of thing. I think there's sort of an expectation in our
society that that's OK. I don't think that there's an
expectation that it is okay to spy on everybody.
So,
Gareth, is it OK to spy on people?
Hughes: I support
the police having intelligence-gathering, uh, abilities with
appropriate oversight. When it comes to the Five Eyes
network, you know, I'm a dad. I teach my kids to do what's
right. Spying on our friends and allies. Spying on our major
trading partner, that's not right.
So leave Five Eyes
and shut down the GCSB?
Hughes: I believe NZ should
get out of the Five Eyes network. I don't believe it's in
our economic interest. I don't believe it is the right thing
to do. I support NZ having domestic intelligence abilities
with appropriate oversight and transparency, but we should
not be spying on other countries.
But you name-checked
the police, then. You said it's OK for the police. What
about the GCSB? Yes or no?
Hughes: I think we should
have a GCSB with appropriate oversight, and I think they
should be supporting our companies to prepare themselves
against cyber-attack intrusions.
So, Kevin, bail out
of Five Eyes as Gareth says?
Hague: Yeah, I
definitely would bail out of Five Eyes, and I would shut
down the GCSB. I think, uh, that isn't to say that there
isn't a place for surveillance, provided that there is a
reasonable cause and that is independently verified. Um, and
I think Gareth's right that it could be the police that
actually carries out that function.
But are you aware
what damage that would do to us to bail out of that
agreement?
Hague: I don't see any damage. What are
you thinking of?
Economic damage with our trading
partners.
Hague: Yeah, I don't believe it would
result.
Hughes: How do you think our major trading
partner, China, feels about us gathering their data? How do
you think our allies and friends in the Pacific feel about
it? Now, two decades ago, NZ stood up for an independent
foreign policy. What we see now is we're part of
this—
Well, in the Pacific, a lot of the island
nations have said they are not bothered by it. They accept
it.
Hughes: And, to be frank, they're in a different
power situation vis-a-vis NZ. I don't think they want,
seriously, us to be surveilling and scooping up all of their
communications.
Shaw: So they're in a really tough
position, right, because as Gareth says, they're the weaker
partner in terms of the trading relationship. So when we say
that, you know, we're going to be including them in a group
of countries that we spy on, they're in a really invidious
position because, at the moment, they're trying to negotiate
a trade deal with us — the PACER Plus agreement — and
they want to ensure that that works for their
countries.
Vernon, I want to bring you in on the
conversation. Biggest problem that is facing NZ right now
— what is it?
Tava: The biggest problem that's
facing NZ right now is we are committed to industries that
are environmentally destructive and low wage — our two
biggest industries. Dairy is very profitable, but we just
can't scale it up any more without causing enormous
environmental damage. Tourism — it's a low-wage industry.
We need to do a lot better and be smarter than
that.
Kevin, is that our top problem?
Hague:
Uh, kind of. I mean, what I would say is it's extraction.
It's an economy that's based on extracting from the
environment and extracting from labour, and that's driving
both of those twin crises, so in environment and in society.
And we talk about climate change and we talk about
inequality as our priority campaigns for this year,
emblematic of that really big problem.
Okay, we'll
talk about the extraction economy later. James, biggest
problem facing us?
Shaw: The greatest problem facing
humankind at the moment is the threat of climate change, and
New Zealand, it is already affecting us. We've had severe
droughts that wouldn't be as bad as they are under the
climate-change scenarios, and we've really got to do
something about that.
Gareth?
Hughes: The
biggest problem is our direction. It's not right for a
country like ours who feeds 20 million people around the
world to have kids going to school hungry. It's not right
for a country like New Zealand who is known for pulling its
weight, to be increasing our emissions by 50 per cent. And
it's not right that Kiwis work some of the longest hours for
some of the lowest wages, in some of the highest costs of
living in the developed world. We're falling down those
economic rankings. And I believe looking after people,
protecting the planet will grow a richer New
Zealand.
Okay. Russel Norman arguably brought the
Green Party economic cred. So let's see what your economic
cred is like. James, what is the unemployment rate
currently?
Shaw: It's just over 5 per cent.
5.7
per cent. Yes. Economic growth in the last quarter or the
last year, Kevin? You choose. Which one would you like to
tell me?
Hague: Oh, I couldn't tell you, but it's a
tiny bit. 0.25 per cent over the last year, I'd
say.
2.9 over the last year and 1.0 in the last
quarter. Now, coming to you, Gareth, what about the rate of
inflation?
Hughes: It's less than 2 per
cent.
Would you like another crack at
that?
Hughes: Well, it's around 2 per cent
recently.
0.8 per cent. All right, Vernon, what is the
official cash rate?
Tava: Official cash rate is... I
think it's 7.8 per cent, but that's the sort of data I could
just look up on my phone right now.
It's 3.5 per cent.
Are interest rates too high, Vernon?
Tava: I don't
think so.
What do you think, Kevin? Interest rates too
high?
Hague: I think arguably they are. They're
actually stifling some of the manufacturing sector that we
actually need to be growing in this society rather than the
extractive economy.
So what's the best way to bring
them down, do you think?
Hague: Well, the Reserve
Bank is in a position to do that itself by altering the cash
rate.
So do they have too much power? Does it have too
much power?
Hague: Well, I tend to agree with those
who say that it doesn't have too much power, but it has a
too narrowly defined power, and, actually, if you expand out
the suite of measures and suite of considerations it has to
bring to bear on its decisions, that actually we could have
the Reserve Bank making a more positive contribution to
macroeconomic policy.
Hughes: But the fact is the macro
prudential tools are actually putting the burden of
inflation on people of my generation; people who are seeing
house prices in Auckland go up $1700 a week and needing a 20
per cent deposit for the LVRs.
All right. While we're
talking, Gareth, do you think super stays at 65? Should
there be compulsory saving?
Hughes: Well, I support
what my party's policy is. Personally...
I'm asking
you, Gareth.
Hughes: I support what our party's
position is, but I think we do, as a country, need to have a
discussion. People know I care about sustainability, but I
also care about economic sustainability, and with an ageing
workforce, changing global trends, we have to have a
discussion — how do we best prepare for a growing and
ageing population.
James Shaw, what should the top tax
rate be? Income tax?
Shaw: We campaigned last year on
a top income tax rate of 40 per cent...
Over 140,000.
So you would stay with that?
Shaw: I would. Yeah. I
believe in a progressive tax system, but we also campaigned
on lowering taxes for 97 per cent of New Zealanders, and
then paying for that using a charge on carbon.
Vernon,
what do you think the top tax rate should be?
Tava:
Uh, I'm happy with that policy. But I think we really need
to move away from just using income as our only cash cow.
Because that's really punishing people. We live in a country
where capital is almost entirely untaxed, and that's
creating really perverse consequences.
Gareth, do you
believe in a supertax, though, don't you?
Hughes: For
millionaires?
Yes.
Hughes: I think there should
be a progressive tax rate in New Zealand.
What would
your supertax be and who would it apply to?
Hughes:
Well, Lisa, in my party the leader and the caucus do not
decide the policy. It's our members.
Give me your
opinion.
Hughes: I would have a discussion with our
members, and I think 40 per cent is a good rate for above
100,000, and I think we could look at a higher rate for
income over a million dollars.
50 or 60 per
cent?
Hughes: Well, I don't want to put a number on
it.
Shaw: If we stay stuck on looking just at income tax
in isolation, we miss the bigger picture; that inequality in
New Zealand isn't been driven by the gap between taxation
rates on income, it's been driven between people who are in
employment and people who have capital, and capital is
almost completely untaxed.
We're running out of time,
gentlemen. I want to ask you, James — you say that the
rights of personhood should extend to all habitants of the
Earth. What do you mean by that?
Shaw: Well, we give
corporations legal personhood. So humans have legal
personhood. Also, corporations have legal personhood. In New
Zealand, the Whanganui River and Te Urewera also have legal
personhood, and I think that that is a great way of starting
to think about protecting our environment.
So does
that mean the rimu, the chicken and the snail — they all
have personhood along with me — the same?
Shaw:
Well, a corporation has the same legal personhood as you
do.
I hear what you're saying there, but I'm asking
you about these other things. Does that mean we all have the
same rights?
Shaw: No. I'm talking ecological
features. So this is sort of playing out differently in
different parts of the world. It's a new area of law called
Nature's Rights Law or Wild Law as it is sometimes referred
to.
But in your maiden speech you talked about all
inhabitants. So all inhabitants of the planet, should they
have personhood?
Tava: I totally agree with this,
because what it means is that you grant legal standing to
those things, because at the moment we've got this really
perverse situation where we treat animals, trees, so on,
only as property, or even worse, something that's not owned
at all.
So Vernon thinks all the
inhabitants...
Shaw: We have to remember, we used to
treat black people as property as well. And over the last
several hundred years, we've gotten a little more
enlightened about that. We used to treat women as property
as well in our legal system. So this is just talking about
expanding our view of what rights extend to.
Tava: It
doesn't mean they'll be treated the same way as us.
Is
this a bit of a risk to the Greens, Kevin, because this is
the kind of talk that makes people go, 'Whoa, the
Greens.'
Hague: It does seem a little bit odd to me,
I must say. I'm interested in talking to Vernon and James
about that. I think that we do need to have constitutional
protection for our natural environment, but I'd go in the
opposite direction in relation to legal personhood. I would
take it away from corporations, cos I think that's damaging
to our society.
Gareth, you're going to get the last
word on this one.
Hughes: Bit of philosophical
discussion, but I think what voters and our members want to
see from us is pragmatic solutions. They want to see us put
the flesh on the policy. They want to see us talk about how
we're going to protect animals, the planet, people, and
that's why I got into parliament — to get stuff done. They
want to see us talking about the issues.
All right,
seeing as we are talking about all creatures great and
small, let's end with this one — your favourite animal.
Vernon?
Tava: Maui dolphin.
Shaw: I was going to
say dolphin.
Everybody wants to say dolphin. James,
what have you got?
Shaw: I'm going to go
whale.
Kevin?
Hague:
Weka.
Gareth?
Hughes: I would have said Maui
dolphin but I'll say my dog, Joe.
Three out of four
for the Maui dolphin. Thank you very much to my guests
today. The Greens leadership will be decided at the party's
annual conference in May.
Transcript provided by
Able. www.able.co.nz