19.06.04
AGENDA
PETER DUNNE
Interviewed by SIMON DALLOW
This transcript is copyright to Front Page Ltd but may be used provided acknowledgement is given to Agenda and TVOne.
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It should be checked against a tape of the programme to ensure complete accuracy.
PART 1
SIMON
As Leader of United Future Peter Dunne has called the upcoming Civil Union Bill "a pc piece of nonsense". Mr Dunne joins me this morning to discuss both the Bill and one of his pet projects the constitutional review.
Mr Dunne on Tuesday night you met Helen Clark to discuss the terms of reference for a constitutional review what was decided?
PETER
Well I meet Helen Clark regularly and this was a regular meeting and that was one of the topics. Where we're at this stage is we're looking at essentially a process that's going to have a couple of parts to it, first we're looking at setting up some form of widespread public discussion with New Zealanders to get them (a) to express the concerns that they've got about a range of issues including the Treaty of Waitangi and (b) also to get their buy in and then secondly there'll be a more expert process, a commission of inquiry, a royal commission something of that order. Where we're at at the moment is we're looking still at terms of reference and just getting the wording right and we've also had a very brief discussion about personnel …
SIMON
How far have you gone down that track with terms of reference?
PETER
Oh that work is quite advanced, I would be reasonably confident that a decision on all of this will become apparent within the next few weeks, I think we're very close to it.
SIMON
What sort of people would you be looking for to be on the commission?
PETER
Well I think it's very important that we don't have people who are pointy headed academics people who are going to give a very narrow focus, I think we want to have a group of people who are representative and who are seen to be in tune with where New Zealand's heading and feet on the ground practical people who can lead a general debate and discussion.
SIMON That's very non specific, can you be any more specific, can you give me any examples of people you'd like to see there?
PETER
I've got lots of examples but I think it would be inappropriate to start naming names at this point, but I think there are many New Zealanders who have that degree of - inspire that degree of confidence in the wider public, that they are not coming with a pre determined agenda that they have got integrity, credibility and a broad feel for the country's identity and that's the focus I'm on about rather than some sort of very narrow highly specific almost pre-determined outcome type of exercise.
SIMON
What do you actually, what do you believe should happen with the constitution, do you believe we need a written constitution to avoid uncertainties?
PETER
I think we do, the problem we have in New Zealand at the moment as you well know is that our constitutional arrangements are scattered over various pieces of legislation and there are arguments that arise from time to time about the primacy of one over the other etc, and just simply where you find what the relevant device is, I think codifying all of those in a written constitution is a good idea. My own personal view is I think New Zealand should become a republic but I think that's got to flow from this process at a time of the people's choosing.
SIMON
You mentioned the Treaty too, what role do you think it should play if we do codify a constitution?
PETER
Well I think it needs to be there, you can't simply corral it to the dustbin of history.
SIMON
But isn't it past its use by date?
PETER
I was gonna say at the same time you've gotta be very careful you don't elevate it to a status beyond which it's entitled, I think you've gotta recognise some of the matters that are contained in the Treaty as being the founding principles of a nation and incorporate that into your constitutional preamble if you like and then move forward. The Treaty is an 1840 document you can't simply pick it up and say here we are 160 something years later and it fits unchanged, no that's not the case, but you can't equally say it never happened it has no relevance.
SIMON
Does it need to be reinterpreted so that you avoid the multiple interpretation …
PETER
It does, and my own view is that I think that if it's good enough for the Americans for instance to have a series of constitutional amendments to the United States constitution because they see it as part of an ongoing process we shouldn't be bashful if the need arises about looking again at the Treaty and whether there are elements of that that we might want to renegotiate and reconsider, but I'm not saying that in any sort of dark or dire way I'm just simple saying if we accept that it's a part of our history and it's ongoing role is going to be a part of our constitution then let's see how it fits and adjust it as need be.
SIMON
You mentioned constitutional review as a necessary first step towards becoming a republic which you support, what sort of timetable would you like to see here?
PETER
Oh I think the constitutional review process that we're about to embark upon needs to take some time, I don't think this is the sort of job you do in a hurry before the next election for instance, I think that the first stage process may well be completed by then and then the second stage of the commission of inquiry and anything that arises from that would move on into the future.
SIMON
How far into the future?
PETER
Oh I'd put years on it frankly, I'm not putting too many years but rather than months I think this is something you do over the next few years.
SIMON
Five years?
PETER
Somewhere in that time frame. If the decision was made that we wanted to give people the option of whether or not New Zealand became a republic then it seems to me that's a separate process which would lead to a referendum and a final decision there, so I spose all up I'd be looking about over the next decade.
SIMON
How would you describe your relationship currently with Labour?
PETER
It's a professional relationship, I think it's a good working relationship, in some senses it's close at a personal level, but in other senses it's quite distant because we have different views on different issues.
SIMON
What about the knock back over foreshore and seabed?
PETER
Well that was a tough point.
SIMON
Was that political expediency in action?
PETER
It was and I accept that, I mean it was a numbers game, but I also know the way in which the Prime Minister and particularly the Deputy Prime Minister felt gutted over what happened and I know from comments Michael Cullen has made privately and publicly that he felt he'd been really put through the ringer by New Zealand First, so that tempered the blow to some extent, but hey look this is the real world, politics is about numbers.
SIMON
Assuming we end up with a coalition environment after the next election who would you actually prefer to be in government with?
PETER
Well our position has always been that the people make that choice, they give a certain party the largest number of seats, our position is we would work with that party if we had policy compatibility and if our numbers were necessary to an arrangement there.
SIMON
So you will lean towards the party with the biggest vote?
PETER
That's where we'll start from.
SIMON
What if we're talking about a really tiny margin?
PETER
Look you've gotta then work out what the possibilities for forming a government are, but our principle would be to start with the party that gets the largest number of votes and seats first, and the reason is simple. I think New Zealanders had a gutsful in 1996 of the circus they saw with New Zealand First, I think that's why New Zealand First can never be trusted in the government frame again, you cannot run a credible government formation process where you're having a trade off auction, see one group in the morning, one group in the afternoon, up the ante all the way through.
SIMON
So you couldn't work with New Zealand First?
PETER
I think that they have put themselves in a position where it would be very difficult for anybody to work with them.
SIMON
You've got another problem there, I mean if you can't work with them you obviously couldn't work with the Greens in spite of the fact that both of you have propped up the Labour government, you couldn't work with the Greens because of the cannabis positions, what other party policies are deal breakers for you?
PETER
Well we're not really interested in what some of the minor parties are offering we're looking at the major party positions. In the case of the Labour Party cannabis was clearly one, and that was recognised in the agreement that we concluded with them, I think that we've indicated that will continue to be the case in the future with Labour or National, there will be other matters at the time that we will put forward that will be bottom lines but I'm not gonna get into that negotiation process a year before the election even before we know who's likely to be in the frame at that time.
PART 2
SIMON
You're back with Agenda and we're coming to you live from Wellington this week and with me in the studio is the capital's longest serving MP Peter Dunne. Mr Dunne the Civil Union Bill hits the house this week, a piece of legislation aimed at removing discrimination, yet you've taken out extensive advertising opposing it, why?
PETER
Because the Civil Union Bill doesn't remove the discrimination, there's a companion measure that addresses the discriminatory issues. The Civil Union Bill which you indicated earlier I described as a piece of pc nonsense is exactly that. What this is about is setting up what is effectively same sex marriage but under a different name and that's why I'm opposed to it.
SIMON
But surely there is discrimination, a marriage confers something more than a hundred entitlements.
PETER
Yes but the Civil Union Bill doesn't change any of those, there is to be an accompanying piece of legislation which will address a number of those areas of discrepancy and I have no problem supporting a number of those measures, but I have a real problem because I think it is unnecessary, I think it is going to diminish the status of marriage in many people's eyes to then establish a parallel system that says look this is not marriage but the Civil Union Act and Marriage Act are going to look exactly the same except that the one word that differs between them is the word civil union and marriage, and that if you're in a civil union under this bill you can buy application to the registrar trade it up to be a marriage and vice versa, you can trade your marriage down to be a civil union. Now this is really - you can't have it both ways, you can't say we're not setting up a parallel form at the same time as you're saying but you can swap between the two as it suits you.
SIMON But isn't your position anachronistic, I mean doesn't it reflect a past social position? Haven't we moved on?
PETER
No I don't think it does, I think that from my vantage point, the reason why the State got involved in sanctioning marriages is actually more because of the product of the marriage, it's the children in terms of the gene pool so to speak. I think actually the quality and the nature of people's relationships are their own business and they don't need the State sanction.
SIMON
So is it fair to say that you would support Bishop Vercoe's controversial vision of a world without Gays on quote this week.
PETER
No, no absolutely not, I supported the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in 1985, 86 or whenever it was.
SIMON
Aren't they disempowered though?
PETER
And I would do so again, and the reason I support it is because I think that to criminally sanction people's actions in the way that the previous legislation did was fundamentally wrong. What people's private lives are about are people's private business and I'm not interested in getting into being some sort of moral warden.
SIMON
Is your view consistent with the rest of your MPs?
PETER
Well I have no idea what my view is in terms of consistence with regard to theirs, what we've done is treat this as a conscience issue and that's quite appropriate. All of my colleagues are voting against the bill for their own reasons.
SIMON
One perception of United Future is that it's a party of expediency and open to almost any suitor. How do you summarise United Future's core philosophy?
PETER
Well that perception is incorrect. Our core philosophy is that we are a moderate centrist party that believes in letting New Zealanders have the maximum degree of freedom possible in terms of their economic and general activities, and also recognising that the State does have responsibilities in respect of things like education health and welfare, in other words it's the classic New Zealand fair deal for the average person.
SIMON
How's the party funded?
PETER
The party's funded by the support of its members, we get some corporate funding like every other party but essentially it's the hard work of our grassroots.
SIMON
Does that corporate funding include money from tobacco companies?
PETER
I'm not prepared to disclose where our funding comes from.
SIMON
Why not?
PETER
Well let me finish, it's been disclosed at election time and I think you'll see there that we receive no funding from tobacco companies.
SIMON
The anti smoking group ASH claims you personally in the past have received money from tobacco companies.
PETER
Yes, and I can tell you what this claim is about. I was in the UK in 1994 and was taken out during the course of a private holiday by a person to lunch at a pub and that person was given a 100 dollars, they were a contact given to me by Rothmans a 100 dollars, or a 100 pounds I think it was to pay for lunch, this is this gross bribe. I never saw the money, I had a very pleasant lunch in an old country pub and that was it.
SIMON
A hundred pounds would buy a nice lunch. What funding sources are off limits for United Future? I mean you said you wouldn't take tobacco company money.
PETER
What I said is we've never been offered tobacco company money.
SIMON
You would take it then?
PETER If people want to give us funding we accept funding on a no strings basis attached. If people want to support us that's their decision not ours, we're very grateful for whatever support we receive but we never ever say that that support comes with a price tag.
SIMON
So nothing's off limits as long as there's no pro quo expected.
PETER
That's right, I mean I think it's a matter for people to make their own decisions whether they be individuals, whether they be corporates or other organisations, if they want to put money into a political party that's their call, but we don't say in return we therefore jump to your bidding, and in fact I wouldn't even know because the process we've set up means that I'm the last person to know who our funding comes from that's handled by the party organisation, that's totally as it should be.
SIMON
The recent budget of course contained the Working for Families package, is that something you take credit for?
PETER
We had a lot of work done regarding that package a lot of input into the notion of getting a better deal particularly for middle income families. I think that the package is a vast step forward in that respect. Having said that I think as Michael Cullen himself acknowledged on budget night we would certainly have preferred to see aspects of it delivered a different way with a greater emphasis on changes to the tax system but I'm not so mean spirited as to say look we're gonna let ideology get in the way of commonsense here in terms of a better deal for New Zealand families.
SIMON
You've also promoted income splitting, how important is that do you believe?
PETER
That is very important and we've been doing a lot of work on that over the last year in particular because it's got the advantage of dealing with a number of the problems that people talk about now in terms of household income, it also recognises the role of both parents as equal partners in a household situation and if you take the average household in New Zealand allowing that average household to split income for tax purposes would give them about an additional 190 dollars a fortnight, so that's a very significant form of assistance.
SIMON How open are Labour and National to it?
PETER
The Labour Party has made it clear it's not something they're prepared to discuss, the National Party historically hasn't been supportive of it, in fact we're the only party that's taken a strong position on income splitting, we'll continue to do so and I guess at election time we'll see the support for it and obviously we'll take that forward in terms of any discussions afterwards.
SIMON
A couple of weeks ago on this programme we had Judge Andrew Becroft talking about youth crime and I see from your website you support early intervention, how would you tackle that problem?
PETER
Well I think you've got to start right at the beginning frankly, we know from some of the work that's been done by groups like the Fergusson Study in Christchurch where the at risk families are, almost who they are and we need to target our intervention I think right from birth. The difficulty I have at the moment is policy is often too broad brush, we have a fear of specific targeting because a helping hand sometimes looks like a pointing finger and yet then when we get problems later on we wring our hands and say oh if only something had happened, so very specific very early.
SIMON
Is that how you get around the inter agency co-operation problem?
PETER
Well I think you do, I think you've actually got to come back to basics, so we've proposed just recently a radical restructure in Child Youth and Family Services because it's not working and there's gotta be much greater ability to incorporate the voluntary sector that does huge work anyway into the work of official agencies, so you are actually dealing with cases on the ground, I mean Plunket for instance is a very worthwhile early identification tool, and yet Plunket tells me it's often being told by official agencies butt out that's not your role. I think we've just gotta put those boundaries aside and say look the focus here are the kids, the focus here are those at risk families, we need all the tools we've got focused in that direction to get maximum impact.
SIMON
Peter Dunne thank you very much for you time this morning.
Copyright to Front Page Ltd but may be used PROVIDED attribution is made to TVOne and Agenda
