Interview: Helen Clark, Labour party leader

Helen Clark

The official election campaign has not yet begun, but there can be no doubt the political parties are already limbering up for the battle. Political correspondent John Armstrong spoke to the Prime Minister about the upcoming campaign. An edited version of this interview was published in today's Weekend Herald.

When are you going to announce the date of the election?

The date of announcement isn't terrifically far away. With the election having to be held by September 24, it can't be, so it's not long.

What is the most pressing reason why people should vote Labour?

The most pressing reason is because Labour has shown it can run a very successful economy, create a tremendous extra number of jobs, lift family living standards, and the quality of essential services like health and education. In addition, I believe under Labour, we have been able to stake out quite a unique position for New Zealand in the world which makes us a more interesting country to live in, migrate to, work in, invest in, study in, become a tourist in. And what I have endeavoured to do with the hat of Minister of Arts, Culture and Heritage combined with prime ministerial portfolios is to emphasise the uniqueness of New Zealand and what makes us a country worth being associated with.

Why are some voters not responding to those messages and are instead drifting away from Labour?

I think the political marketplace has been a bit crowded this year. I recall one of your own pieces four or five years ago about the National Party being like tuatara lying in the sun and for a good part of both of these three-year terms that has been the case. They woke up at the start of last year then went back to sleep. They woke up this year and started pressing hard on a lot of issues and Labour as the major party in Government is under attack from five other parties. From the Greens and United, it is often friendly fire. But it is fire nonetheless. And from the parties on the right, it is outright fire. Now that creates a lot of noise about one party with a big brand which is Labour. But I think as we head down the home straight to the election and as you move from the phase of governing into campaigning, we have the opportunity to sharpen up and clarify our messages which I believe are fundamentally very strong.

You have warned a vote for National is a vote to return to the "nastiness" of the 1990s. Do you seriously think voters will buy your party's packaging of Don Brash as Ruth Richardson in drag?

I think that would be a fair description. But I am one who looks forward, not backwards. I don't think there is any place in the 21st century for the divisive politics which are preached by modern day conservative parties whether it is the Tory party in Britain or wherever. I think those policies are about exclusion, whereas I stand for inclusion. That's why you'll see very different definitions of "mainstream". I've gone on the public record as saying that any decent hard working, law abiding Kiwi is mainstream for me and I'll work very hard for everybody who meets that definition, to have a stake in our society, (and) not to be excluded.

What do you think are Dr Brash's personal strengths?

I'm always very reluctant to comment on other leaders. It is obvious that Don Brash has come into politics from a career in banking and business and he has come into politics rather late. So he comes with that experience and many might say that would make him the Minister of Finance in a National administration. But will it make him a prime minister? So one can see the strengths that come from a career of being in banking and business. But one can also see the downside that comes from coming into politics so late and making a run with very little experience in the political system.

What are his weaknesses?

I think it is the inexperience. I think it is offering the public a line-up of a potential leader and Minister of Finance each of whom have fewer than three years experience in Parliament. I've often said I have personally valued every minute of the 18-year parliamentary apprenticeship I did before moving into the top job and I think you emerge the better for that and the better for having taken a lot of knocks along the way.

Is the demand for tax cuts evidence Labour has lost touch with middle New Zealand?

I think that when the election comes, people are looking at a broad range of issues and they know there's trade-offs. They know the money has to come from somewhere. When we came into Government five-and-a-half years ago, people said "please do something about our broken-down health and education systems" and bringing greater security for people in old age and other circumstances where things weren't going so well. And there was a huge need to start the big infrastructure investments and reinvest in core services like police. So what we've done is invest with a passion in those things. Now you come up to this election and we can see that that work is not done. We can see that if we were to enter a tax-cut auction, we could not look the public in the eye and say we could guarantee quality in health and quality in education and in my view these services have to continually improve as does the infrastructure. So we are really working here on fundamental beliefs that there are things that are not right, that we have work to do still to get the quality to a level that citizens in a first world society are entitled to and our concern is that if you fundamentally undermine the tax base, we would undermine our ability to ever deliver the services and the infrastructure that kiwis deserve and tell us that they want.

Your Government had a pretty strong track record of competence, cohesion and self-discipline, dealing smartly with problems as soon as they arise. But not this year. Why have things been going wrong for Labour?

I believe we have dealt with them and sometimes the process of dealing with them is very painful. For example when the problems with scholarship came up, we dealt with them all right and the long-term outcome of that is that we will have a very credible system. The chair of an agency went; the chief executive went; the agency has new leadership; we have done a wide-ranging review of where the structure of the education was letting not only the Government down but the public down. We are fixing those problems. They are complex problems; they are not bumper-sticker solutions, but they are being dealt with. We have prompted that. With the 111 calls, we fronted it. There was an investigation. It identified the problems; the police said we will fix them and we are funding them to fix them. But again you don't sort complex issues like that out with one bumper sticker. Similarly with the foreshore and seabed. When that Court of Appeal decision came out, we said it couldn't stand and I absolutely stand by that judgment. But it was a very complex issue and it took 18 months from beginning to end to put the solution in place. Now you can't run a Government with simplistic answers to difficult problems.

Has your six-year-old Government been guilty of a measure of arrogance and complacency?

I don't believe so. I am known for homilies and strictures against arrogance within the cabinet room, within the Labour Party caucus and in public to full party meetings. I hate arrogance. I've been around Parliament long enough to know that once you think you've got your feet under the table for life is exactly the time the public is thinking it's time you found another job. I've always been very conscious that every day in the job is a privilege and that's why I have pushed myself to physical limits and beyond to constantly be out and about around the community, up and down, across the country. Someone once wrote it was as if I conducted one big focus group across New Zealand continuously, but it's true. I do keep my ear to the ground, I do report problems back to ministers, I am constantly saying you can't let this rest, it has to be dealt with, what's the issue here, we have to be responsive. So I don't believe that I have set any tone of arrogance from the top - to the contrary.

How damaging was John Tamihere's critique of the Labour Party?

It was so fundamentally untrue and unfair that I don't believe it was fundamentally damaging at all. But of course to political opponents, anything that someone from inside the tent says will be seized on and magnified.

Prior to the Budget, did you not foresee that a minimal upwards adjustment of income thresholds at which higher tax rates take effect and which was delayed for three years would get such a negative reaction?

It wasn't a tax cut. I think the problem was that it was described as a tax cut by many commentators. It was presented as a tax cut when we were not presenting it as a tax cut. We have never campaigned on tax cuts. If we wanted to campaign on tax cuts, you'd hear it up front, full frontal but that was an acknowledgment that thresholds do have to change at some point. There was a very significant underlying policy statement there which was "and they will be indexed" which has never been the case before. But it was never a tax cut.

Did you personally favour a larger increase, a more immediate one, or both?

I never disclose what my personal views might be in any internal debate. As a Government we are very collegial, we put all the cards on the table. We are very preoccupied with the need to always be raising the bar and raising the level of what we can do across the core areas of health and education, transport, policing, you name it. And so that has loomed very very large in our thinking.

In retrospect, how should Labour have handled that announcement?

In retrospect, if I had had the slightest inkling that an anticipation of a tax cut had built up I would have dealt with it very decisively at a press conference at the start of the week. But I run on full speed seven days a week. Some days I barely get to read the details of what is in the paper or see the news or the headlines. I depend on people to let me know if something is building. If I had had any idea that that anticipation was building I could have ruled it out very decisively but while it was being raised - will there be a tax cut or not - you wouldn't in the normal course of events answer a question like that unless you walked into a press conference believing that this was something that had to be killed then and there. And that wasn't my belief four days out from the Budget.

What's your message to a family with two children with a household income of $50,000 which currently does not qualify for income assistance under Working for Families, but which will benefit from National's tax cuts?

I dispute that they would benefit, because there is no free lunch. If that family has a mortgage of $100,000, the likely consequence of a rise in interest rates even of 1 per cent would be somewhere between $16 and $19 a week. That would more than likely cancel out any tax cut they would have any hope of getting. If their mortgage was $150,000 then their interest rate extra per week would be in the vicinity of $29 a week. So they would stand to be considerably worse off and in addition, because spending on health and education would unquestionably be affected they would be facing more user-pays in those areas which again would more than cancel out the effect of any tax cut they would be likely to receive.

How will the new policies Labour is unveiling in coming weeks capture or recapture the hearts and minds of such crucial middle-income voters?

Firstly for middle-income voters, a sense of security and stability about the way the economy is managed and social policy is managed is incredibly important. If you are those middle-income voters and you don't feel certain about the prospects of your superannuation in the future, that's very destabilising. So Labour offers stability looking ahead. It says "committed to superannuation; committed to it being there for future generations", furthermore, prepared to support people to save at work, make it easy as possible to kick-start your account, give you support for home ownership if you wish to use the account for those purposes. So I think that sense of security and helping people move ahead to get a stake in society is absolutely critical. As well I think the middle-income family is very pre-occupied by healthcare costs. A lot of people don't want to budget for health insurance so ensuring those primary healthcare costs and prescription charges are kept low as they are now for the under 24s and indeed the 65 pluses is very very important and there's more improvements coming for the age groups in between 25 and 64 as well. In addition I think the money pouring into the school system is something every family is very, very interested in. Every family wants the best for their kids. They want to know the technology is up to date, that the teachers have got the resources they need, they want to know the physical stock, the buildings, is in good repair. There are so many fundamental issues where Labour is on the button for middle-income families. You can expect new policies across education, health, law and order and skills training. Obviously in the saving area we've already outlined where we are going. We have outlined the key issues for older people with the rates rebate scheme coming into effect next year, huge improvements there, the drivers' licence test which is very stressful for the 80 pluses.

How many constituency seats will the Maori Party win?

I don't think they should be counting their chicken before they come home to roost. I think there is a lot of thought being given in Maoridom to this election. The polling I am seeing makes it very clear that overwhelmingly Maori are giving their party vote to Labour because they know that Labour has delivered for Maoridom in Government. There is a real battle going on for the Maori seats and our message will be that the best way to ensure that Labour continues in government is to give Labour two ticks. Not to have Labour Maori members of Parliament could fundamentally weaken Labour's chances of going back into Government.

How?

By creating an overhang with a Maori Party which has not ruled out supporting National in Government. I think there is a real debate on in Maoridom as to the wisdom of splitting votes. Maori are making the choice for Labour on the party vote and our argument will be that Maoridom's desire to have a Labour Government returned will be fundamentally undermined by Maori Party candidates winning Maori seats because of the Maori Party's refusal to rule out supporting the National Government.

Doesn't Labour have an impossible task in countering the Maori Party's appeal as a fresh expression of Maori identity?

My impression is that Maori seek opportunity to be part of the mainstream of New Zealand society and that there is very little support for the sovereignty end of the spectrum. Maori want to be proud and confident in their culture and their Maoritanga within the mainstream of New Zealand Society and what Labour offers is a broad church and an inclusive approach and fundamentally I think that is what people are looking for rather than separatism and division.

Will voters buy your message of Government stability when the polls suggest you and Jim Anderton could have to strike a deal with two or more minor parties to govern next time?

Well in effect we've had to do that this time. Labour in this term in Government has operated generally in a foursome. There has been Labour and Jim Anderton's two members. There has been United Future always in the loop and the Greens always in the loop. So we have operated a foursome and I think it has operated very well. There is often some surprise when one reminds people that Labour is a minority Government because we've given an impression of being much stronger than a minority Government but it works because we have been prepared to work on the relationships even when there are differences - and there are often quite substantial differences - in a way which keep people talking, consulting and working to a constructive outcome. So I don't have any fears of a foursome. I have in effect worked a foursome.

Is there any obstacle which would block Labour going into coalition with NZ First after the election?

That's not our preference because we have very good working relationships with Jim Anderton, the Greens and United Future. What I've said for the record is that Labour has worked well with New Zealand First on a small number of issues, most prominently in people's memories is the resolution of the very difficult foreshore and seabed issue. So it is not our preference but we know we have been able to work with New Zealand First.

Would NZ First's stance on immigration be such an obstacle?

It's not really clear what that stance is at this time. Anyone looking at the economic situation currently can see that continued migration is absolutely vital to the health of the New Zealand economy. I don't think any party seriously wanting the New Zealand economy to grow would be denying the economy the ability to bring in skilled migrants which, after all, make up 60 per cent of the quota. So we have re-oriented the immigration system so that it does ensure we get people to fill the vacant slots in the workforce and I'd be very surprised if any party seriously wanted to change that.

What about New Zealand First's insistence that pensions be increased?

That creates some difficulties because of our concern that it would destabilise superannuation arrangements for the future. When the calculations were done around the Superannuation Fund the design was for it to accumulate sufficient investment to be able to meet half the difference between what the state pays now for super and what it will pay at the height of the demographic bulge in the older years. When you move from that assumption which is around 65 (per cent) at (aged) 65 formula to 72 at 65 you do fundamentally undermine the economics of it. That means that more of the super at the height of the demographic bulge would have to be met out of current revenue and that's what makes the current scheme suddenly seem uncertain and unstable because of the ongoing costs that taxpayers would be picking up.

What has been the high point of the last three years?

The high point that stands out for me was the way in which the public took the project of the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior to heart. It was something I took up both as Prime Minister and as Minister of Arts, Culture and Heritage and it was something that returned servicemen have long called for. It could easily have been dismissed; the cynics would say as "why are you bothering doing that?" ... We ended up with a very elegant and simple tomb, then the whole process of the repatriation of the remains of the Unknown Warrior from France was very very moving. The public became very engaged with the story, what had happened, and then the formal proceedings in Wellington attracted enormous interest and I took a lot of pride in that because one thing I have tried to do as Prime Minister is boost national pride so we have history we can be proud of, we have a contribution we can be proud of, we have incredibly clever and talented people we can be proud of. We have to project this sense of national pride to ourselves and to the wider world, and that's what will help give us our edge.

And the low point?

Oh probably the Court of Appeal decision (on the foreshore and seabed) because I could see there was a long road ahead to sort that out. And I knew coming from my background - a New Zealand European - that it just wasn't on to have any prospect of freehold ownership where Kiwis have had it as their birthright to roam.