Ep 5 Let's Talk Politics with Jay and Beattie

In this episode of Velvet Social Book Squawk, the host and guests discuss the importance of open conversations about politics. One guest shares their experience of changing their voting role and the reasons behind it. They also discuss the concept of representation and the policies that align with their values. The conversation touches on the influence of media and the importance of creating a safe space for discussions about differing views. They emphasize the importance of freedom of speech while also acknowledging the need for respectful challenges. Kia ora and welcome to another episode of Velvet Social Book Squawk. I've got two wonderful guests with me who I'm going to ask to introduce themselves. And today we're going to be talking about Let's Talk Politics because we want to be able to open the conversation. We want to be able to make politics a space where we can actually explore ideas, think about what we feel, what are our values, what are our beliefs, what's making us decide how we want to vote, what's influencing us and being able to have those robust conversations in a really safe, constructive way. So thank you so much to my two wonderful guests for being available and open to having this conversation. So I'm just going to ask them to introduce themselves. Kia ora, I'm Beattie. I'm not a social worker but I'm happy to squawk a little bit. I've been a voter in New Zealand for 40 years but I've no bugger at all about politics. That's me. Kia ora, I'm Jay Marino. I'm the Transitions Youth Worker at the Rotorua Youth Centre and I've voted twice in my life. Kia ora, so welcome and I think it's not about social work per se but it is about community, right, and it's about how we enable some self-determination around voting, how we talk about voting, how we get engaged in what is important around how policies are developed and how they're impacting everything that we do and how we live our lives. So it's really important to squawk away as you say, Beattie, so I'm up for it. So Jay, I'm going to throw you in the deep end with the first curly question because one of the things we've talked about is Māori changing role from general role to Māori role or Māori to general and you mentioned that you were one of the people who has changed role in this last few months and I just wanted to talk about what made you change role, what was the decision around that, how are you feeling about that? Sure, so when I enrolled, I enrolled late, I enrolled at 20, that's when I moved back to New Zealand and I asked whānau what role I should be on, you know, not really knowing anything about the difference between them and they all said Māori role and I took their word for it and that's the role I was on up until I started to inform myself and look into the policies that some of the people that were on the Māori role at the time and although I agreed with some of what they stood for, I felt that the general role was speaking more holistically to how I felt about how this country should be led and it's still how I feel in this particular district, yeah, that's how I, that's why I swapped over. Because I think it's a really interesting concept because absolutely I hear a lot of Māori saying, you know, Māori should be on the Māori role, Māori representation and I think it's interesting, you know, I've mentioned before that, for example, Te Pāti Māori for the first time are actually standing a Māori candidate in the general seat and that happens to be in our rohi in Rotorua and so how do you find yourself being represented as a Māori in a general, by a general kind of party I guess or how the Māori party is able to influence for the betterment of everybody if they are only restricted to Māori voters in Māori seats, if you see what I mean, like it's an interesting kind of concept, so what's your kind of thinking around how you want to be represented, what's your, who do you, what are the policies that are coming through that you're feeling you align to that are perhaps not from Te Pāti Māori's point of view but more kind of in that general role space? Good question. I guess I have a simple answer and that comes down to my dislike of personality politics and I feel that I don't need someone to look or sound like me to represent me, it's really what they stand for and if that's, you know, if that's someone who wasn't born here, I'm all for it if I feel like what they're standing for is what I feel is right and without picking on Te Pāti Māori too much, I feel like, I feel Te Rangatiratanga is important for this country and having sovereignty but I also feel that it's, they do it because no one else is doing it but I feel that it's still a tunnel visioned approach to progression and there's more that can be done for everyone than just solely focusing on the benefits of Māori full stop. Yeah, I feel like they're, how can I put it lightly, as it should be their reach out, the reach is more than their grasp and a general role, they just have a bigger reach in general, that's why it's the general role. Absolutely, I mean, you know, the seats that are held in the Māori electorates are, you know, very restricted I guess versus the general role, I mean obviously, so in a previous podcast I talked about the Māori Representation Act and when that first came out Māori only had four seats versus 72 that are held by the Europeans, you know, so that representation or that proportionality is restricted but I like what you're saying in terms of, you know, my philosophy is I don't vote for people, I don't vote for party but I vote for policy so maybe we'll broaden that out a bit and put BT in the hot seat for a moment and just think about what are some of the policies that align for you or that would drive you to be like, actually they might be somebody I vote for, so rather than talking about the party, what are the policies that you consider to be important kind of areas in which we make considerations for voting? I guess overall a kind of umbrella statement for me is that I care about policies that aim to make New Zealand somewhere that's safe and workable and for everyone that care of policies that aim to care for all of us, that's pretty vague, eh? Well it talks of your values because I think that some of the debates is quite a lot of people are motivated from that quite selfish point of view, it's like what do I get out of this, what tax cuts are going to benefit me, what's my kind of, you know, are my rates going up, all that kind of stuff, so it's a very kind of social responsibility kind of view, but maybe talking specifically about Rotorua or specifically about certain things, what are the real kind of hot topics that get you fired up when you're thinking about what's right or wrong? Yeah, so you're right, I've come from a broadly socialist kind of perspective I guess in a really vague kind of way. The policies that are interesting to me right now, I'd really like to see a universal basic income in place for Aotearoa, like a move away from punitive welfare, not from welfare state, from a welfare system where you get a benefit but that somehow makes you a lesser citizen in some way that has stigma attached to it, I think there's real value in a universal income and maybe alongside that a tax system that equalises what tax looks like for business and regardless of wealth. So what's tricky for me is that the party that actually is promoting those policies is top, but it's such a small party, why vote for them? And that's really hard for me, so I wouldn't vote top for that reason, but UBI is what I would like to see brought in, I think that could be a real game changer for how it feels to be a member of the society. And that's a real chicken and egg conundrum isn't it, because the smaller parties, how do they ever get to influence, if we don't vote for them because they're a small party, how do we ever shift that kind of perspective so we end up going for the larger parties because they are the ones with the more power and yet you want some representation, I mean part of the point of MMP is to get a broader sense of representation if top got their 5% and they were actually in the House and able to vote, but they're not going to get 5% if people don't vote for them, right? So it's the whole kind of system is still very bipartisan in terms of we have two main parties and then we've got these allies, right? Yeah, although let's not forget how much it's changed. Those of us who lived through the 70s and the 80s, oh god, MMP has just changed the scene so much, it's hard to explain to anyone who wasn't there when it was first past the post, but yeah you're right, 5% is still a real barrier, so what would make a difference I guess is people like us and media actually talking to the small parties about their policies and not just giving airplay to two or three key parties in terms of the endless narrative about pre-election. I think that makes an interesting point too around the role of media and how it influences and I guess that's one of my kind of policy issues that obviously often our media is actually government influenced, it's government funded or there's aspects of it that are therefore there's an element of are they actually really neutral? People talk about TV One being one way and TV Three being another way and some of the platforms that are given to certain personalities to very much promote their own political view. I used to get really frustrated with Mark Richardson on the AM show and his platform for how he felt and in some ways it's good because it opens a debate but it creates this divisiveness and I think that's something that I worry about inside politics is that people stop being able to feel able to talk about their views because they're worried about it being divisive or people not feeling safe to talk about it. What do you think in terms of having that safety I guess for those conversations? Yeah, that was interesting actually because one of our colleagues did feel that his views would be scrutinised if he was to say them and that's not a country I want to be in. I feel like everyone should have the right to say what they feel and what they think with the condition that those views can be challenged. That only seems fair, freedom of speech. If you say something that I don't like, that's kind of my problem. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone physically or lead to something like that and we've seen examples in other countries where hate speech has obviously contributed to a bigger issue. That being said, I feel like conservatism and liberalism do differently here. At least from the classic standpoint, from the United Kingdom, they've almost become the same bird in this country in that there's no real left or right. It's centre left, centre right. That being said, we're talking about views that are polarising. I still feel like there should be a platform here. That being said, like you said, you should have the right to challenge it. I think we've got a very centrist political system in the middle. Everyone's really going for that middle vote and there's an element of that vote buying the middle group. Sometimes it can be quite hard to differentiate. Obviously, I'm British and I grew up in the UK and they have still got the first past the post system. I know, having moved to New Zealand, the difference of that political system. It's a very interesting space when I look at British politics. The last Labour leader to be Prime Minister was Tony Blair. That was back in 2000, around. He was the first Labour leader in 30 years. If you think about 60 years or 70 years of British politics, you've had one Labour leader and the rest has all been conservative. It's a pretty stronghold stance that it's being broached on. Whereas, I feel Aotearoa New Zealand is a little bit more fluid and I think that is because of MMP. There's ability to be more influential and those smaller parties having those influences. Something else that I wanted to ask about because we all work with Rangatahi is the idea of lowering the voting age. That was something that had been talked about a lot to get 16 year olds voting. I don't know whether or not you have a view on that and who would like to respond to that? Shall I put you on the spot? Yes, sure. I would welcome a lowering of the age to 16 but lowering the age won't actually change anything. I think it's definitely a problem that not enough voters of any age in Aotearoa are voting and particularly young voters aren't voting. But I think one of the reasons for that and one of the change opportunities is that we don't learn about politics, we don't learn about our political system. Here I am nearing the end of my voting life and no one's ever yet taught me how Parliament works. I realise I could work it out for myself but I'm lazy and don't. You know I think if we teach about our political system in schools, if that's something that we actively promote as people grow up, then it will not only encourage voters and 16 year old voters, but also I think that's the thing that will change us having conversations about politics because we'll put politics at the centre of what it means to be a citizen. It's not there at the moment. I totally support the same view. I welcome the lowering of the voting age with the education that comes with it. Not that I'm worried that 16 year olds would wreck the system or anything, but just to give them that informed education on the importance of voting and how much it actually influences their lives. They get me thinking, you know, because we sit here in the country and we call ourselves a democracy but there's so many people that can't because of their age. I don't know the case of our prisoners anymore. I believe they can vote again. Is that what happened? They can vote if their sentence is less than three years. Yes. So I guess my question to you both is, if not everyone can vote and that's the idea of democracy, what's a better alternative? Yes, and I remember when we were talking about, you know, the debate going on and I actually rang into one of those radio shows, I think I spoke to Ryan Bridges, and I was saying the thing about prisoners or people who are incarcerated having the right to vote, for me, is that actually there may be people in prison who are there because of policy and legislation that they themselves disagree with, right? And that was really critical for me around the referendum about marijuana or cannabis use. You know, if you've got people who potentially have got custodial sentences because of, you know, because of marijuana or cannabis and yet we're having a referendum on whether or not we, you know, decriminalize it, why can they not vote on that? Because they themselves would have a view and yet we're not allowing them that perspective because of the very reason that they want to vote on, kind of thing. And Ryan Bridges' response to me was kind of, yeah, but people have, you know, acted out against the party, you know, people are only in prison if they've done bad things. And I said, but, you know, back in the day, homosexuality was illegal, right? So you'd have people who are homosexuals put in prison because of their sexual choices and then you might have a law change around homosexuality that those people in prison weren't able to vote on, right? To say, actually, we don't agree with that. So if policy is supposed to be representative of society, people in prison or people who are disenfranchised are still part of that system that they have a right to have an opinion on, right? And that's kind of how I see it. So I think it's kind of complicated when we exclude a group of people because we've decided that they don't have an important enough voice. It's the same with younger people and I also think about a whole lot of people around, you know, part of my challenge with this electoral system is you need to have a postal address in order to be able to vote, right? So you have to be able to receive your voting papers. So what do we do for people who are transient, who don't have a stable home? We have a lot of homelessness, we have a lot of emergency housing going on. How are we disenfranchising a whole group of people from being able to participate in probably a system that they themselves need changed because they're disenfranchised from it? So it's kind of, you know, it's still serving people who are educated, comfortable, you know, wealthy, you know, we're not serving people who actually, like you say Vicky, don't even know potentially how the political system works, don't even know to think about whether or not they're registered. They don't have an address to register. In total, of course, everything you're saying, and I think jumping off from your last comment about people who don't know the system, don't know how to register, Larida, I think something Jay and I were talking about the other day was so many people see this as someone else's system. It's about a they, you know, and why would I vote as them? Actually, voting is us. It's like, it's as if we have this mass misunderstanding about what a franchise is. And people don't seem to get how lucky we are. I mean, our democracy isn't, you know, glowing and shiny with glitter all over it or anything. But if you think of the whole of human history and how few people in any age, in any civilization have had the opportunity, no matter who they are, what role they've got in society, what gender they are, what age they've got, they are, if they're an adult, have had the right to choose who decides how their lives are run, how their societies run. Man, we are just so privileged to be there. Man, it's only 120 years since I couldn't have voted. You know, we're so privileged and yet we just throw that franchise away thinking that system isn't about us. That's what we need to teach kids. This is yours. You can take hold of our electoral system and own the future of your country, your society. Do you think that's why it's hard to actually give informed education about politics and schools where there's so much facets that lie in subjective views of how things should be run? That's kind of what I'm thinking as I'm hearing you speak. It's almost like, you know, vote for Conservative because they'll do this, this, and this, this. Vote for Labour because they'll do this, this, and this. But it's kind of more than that, isn't it? It really depends on what the person in those parties will do and even if they call themselves this or that, they might operate in a different manner, which we've seen, and no matter what country we look at. I think it's really interesting because I think there are lots of facets to it. I think we've moved into a space where politics is about selling an idea, right? Like, vote for me. It's like a beauty contest. Vote for me. Yeah, I'm all sparky and shiny. And then we have had parties who have then gone on and done things that they didn't campaign on that weren't in their manifesto, so we didn't know that that was going to be something that they did. But I also think that, you know, I think about fuck or puffer and the importance of kind of the energy that sits within a space. We sit within a democratic system that was fundamentally built on the privilege of white men, right? It was designed to suit them. Mali were disenfranchised from the beginning. You know, they weren't allowed to vote privately. They had to public vote, whereas Europeans could vote privately. Women couldn't vote until 1893. You know, so we've got this kind of space of automatic kind of disenfranchisement. So how do we reclaim that in a way that says... And I worry about the apathy of people who feel like, well, it's not a system that serves me, so therefore I'm not going to participate in it. Because actually, if we were to turn around and say, well, OK, we're going to remove your ability to vote, you're now not a voter. We should be up in arms about that, right? Like, actually, you know, people killed themselves. You know, the suffragettes, you know, went through a huge amount of pain to have the right to vote, and then we just throw that away? I mean, in the local elections, I was quite amazed. You know, Rotorua was heralded as being one of the areas that had the highest turnout. Forty-six percent. Forty-six percent. So more than half of our community didn't even vote. They are not represented. Now, not to say that's not a judgment on the councillors that we have, who do represent or do their best to represent the whole community, but a voice was not heard. An opportunity was not taken to be self-determining in our own choices. And I think that I worry. I don't know. I worry about what that means long-term impact around the people who are powerful, the lobbyists, the ability to be able to promote personal agendas or business agendas. And I guess that comes back to what I was thinking when you say about the facets to how do we teach that in school. Because actually the influence of external drivers, the lobbyists, the funders, the sponsors, right, if I give $100,000 to my local MP or my local party candidate, are they then going to make decisions or vote on policies that suit me personally because I'm now a sponsor of them as opposed to, you know, at what cost to somebody else's point of view. And that worries me inside a political system. I would like to see a system where sponsorship is eradicated, where there's a set amount given to each party equally to campaign on. I think that's a really fundamental inequality. That's interesting. I don't know about eradicating, but I wouldn't mind transparency. Is that something that we have? Transparency in sponsorships? On paper we do, but there's a lot of loopholes, I think. Yeah, because no party ever mentions where the money's coming from willingly, do they? It's only when people look. It is reported. Anything over $2,000, I think, has to be named and reported, but of course I could quite easily give you $2,000 to give to my party. And you can't. No paper trail or anything. Yeah, that's problematic. And that's why I've been inclined to say, hey, let's just have a really solid line on that. And actually, these are the ways that you can promote. And we used to, gosh, in the mists of time, there used to be, before, this was probably in the 70s, I guess, because I remember being quite young, there used to be, before an election there'd be, like after the 6 o'clock news or 7 o'clock news then, I think, there'd be a party political broadcast and each party would have a TV ad that would play in succession so you'd see what Jay's party wanted and you'd see what Rachel's party wanted. It was bizarre, but I guess that's the kind of thing I'm talking about, like a little bit more equality about it. Not possible these days, the way that media happens, but still. Equality and exposure. Yeah. Exactly, and that comes back to me around that 5% mark, because you see New Zealand First, who's a well-known party, they're talked about in the media, even though they didn't necessarily get to their 5% last time, but you don't see much about TOP. So how is the media influencing that exposure? Because it doesn't feel fair, it's certainly not equitable around different people's choices because there's that agenda that always sits underneath the decision-making. Influence, and I don't know if this is fact, but I saw an alarming number that 70-plus people of the general population get most of their news from social media, and that concerns me. Not because it's social media, I don't have social media, not because it's social media, but because it can be, you know, we all know the algorithms and how they're used to influence what you want to watch, so it's almost like you're feeding the beast. I try to get my news from more than one source, and that's something that I've had to learn from myself, so I'd like to see some type of move around educating people in that way, yeah. And I agree, there's just no guarantee of integrity and professionalism around that. Yeah, there's no guarantee on social media of truth, integrity, professionalism, anything. I can't imagine why anyone would be looking to social media for their core information that's important to their life. And it's almost not just their political standpoint, it's their views on everything in the world, and I'm constantly telling family members or friends to fact-check things that they tell me, because, you know, like, maybe take the Kitty Allen situation, for example. If I know on both sides of the spectrum you've got the same story, but completely different views on how it was, on what happened. And, you know, that might make for a more informed view on Kitty's situation, but it also shows that it's not reliable. So what are the media sources that you go to primarily at the moment? I usually go on Stuff, Al Jazeera, but I'm also partial to The Guardian, The Herald. I pick up any and every paper, and it comes with a pinch of salt, doesn't it? You have to read between the words, and I know no matter what the story, that's what I have to do. And no matter the outlet, even if it's an outlet that I support, I have to check with myself and ensure that the view coming across is what it is. What about you? That's really interesting. Yeah, like you, Stuff is an important one. And I don't regularly, but when I've got time, The Guardian, because I really trust The Guardian. But my main source of information about everything, really, is Radio New Zealand. I trust the integrity of them, and they're the source that has, I guess, immediate news. They're quick, they're thorough, and I feel like there's a reasonable balance from them. So that's the kind of ear I have turned in. But I've got a huge confession for me, a lingering impact from COVID, is that I have periods now where I just can't listen to news or current affairs, I suppose, rather than news, especially election cycle. Oh, my God, sometimes I wake up in the morning and I'm listening to, you know, the bickering, the political bickering that goes on, and I just think, you know, I just can't hear this anymore. And so, yeah, it improves. There's times when I just turn everything off and don't listen for a few days. My mental health's much better for that. Yeah. Oh, that's interesting. I, for one, don't mind bickering as long as it's public, you know. And it's not like I enjoy listening to people bicker, but I'd rather... We've got a debate. Yeah, I'd rather know what they're arguing about. It's the decisions behind closed doors that I get worried about in our political system, or any political system, to say that much. You know, like us as humans, we're really good at repeating cycles. And even in the best of intentions, to try to work in outcome. And that's the question I wanted to ask earlier, but I'll ask now. There is no perfect system. That we know of. Democracy's the best one that we have. It's based off of a co-public that's, what, 2,000 years old? Ancient Roman? Yeah, we're kind of... Yeah, maybe a little bit more than that, but yeah, it's pretty brief, I think. Yeah. And, you know, we're basing our whole political and justice system on people who used candlelight. So I'm really hoping that technology itself will influence our systems towards the betterment of representation, how it should be. And sometimes call us out, you know? Sometimes the masses don't know what's best for them. And I feel like it should be a more, a fluid way of delivering a political system that isn't so rigid. Because life isn't rigid. Nature isn't rigid. It has its curves. And everything should be the same way. I mean, for example, let's take our jury system. Yeah. It's based off eyewitness accounts. Eyewitness accounts are so unreliable. Any justice, anyone in the justice system will back that up. Yeah, that's what we use. How that looks, I don't know. I guess if we're talking Black Mirror, that might be electing an AI. Ooh, Jay, going out there. Who can compound all the data available and source, not solutions, but alternative pathways that will give a percentage success rate and how it will affect each one. And, you know, we say we're taking, people will say they're taking the human aspect out of it. But our political leaders use these tools. The only difference is our humans making the decision. And if there's one thing that's going to be the end of us all, it's human error. And that's my opinion. That's true out there. I think one of the things that would concern me about that is that AI is still only based on what humans already know and see them. And therefore, to some extent, human error is built in. You know, an idea that just jumped into my mind while you were talking, though, was when you were talking about who represents us and how they represent us. It's interesting, isn't it, that we automatically assume that policies we want and the people we want to lead have to be knitted together. What would our system look like if we voted for the policies that we wanted to see in place and we also voted for the people we trusted to enact them? Well, that's kind of what I was getting to with an AI solution. Like, they will just be strictly policy and then you vote on that, not the person. You've removed the personality aspect out of the politics because I think that's the problem. You know, I'm not going to vote or act but Seymour does say things that I align with. And could I be making the wrong decision not voting for him strictly because I don't like 90% of the things he says? 90% is quite a high percentage. It's quite a high percentage but that percentage is no better in most of the other parties. At least of late, I feel like no one, or no party for that matter is equipped to handle the problems that we currently face. And we're getting better. Everyone's getting better. Everyone's learning. I just feel that technology is better equipped at learning from those mistakes whereas humans haven't proven otherwise. Well, at least not in history. Yeah, well, you heard it here first. AI takes over New Zealand. No, no, that's not what I heard. Oh yeah, yeah, that's what I heard. That's not what I stood for. I think at least using technology because we already do. They use technology to influence their decisions. I'm not saying let's get 2001 AI to lead us but I feel it's a more fair and equitable way to get policies in place. I'd really like to see in an election cycle or I guess at any time more accountability for the evidence that backs up what people say. And I think that's an element of what you're talking about. Like I was listening the other day to Kristen Luxon talking about recession the economy and spouting a narrative that is at odds with some of the evidence that's currently available I believe and yet there's no clear accountability for that. And I remember it must have been the last election someone put enormous resource into calculating and sharing information about how much will your policy cost on this and how much is this and actually where is the evidence behind it. Well Kristen Luxon aside you've made a point that I'm trying to make in that he will only have his own perspective, his only party's perspective and Labour the same. Is there a system where we can bring them all together to see the whole elephant? I think rather than AI I think I'd rather see a think tank that covered the spectrum politically of people with the experience and the knowledge in certain areas being able to do that, doing that analysis. There's other people who'd be feeding in information to an AI system but they have, people have an ability to make contextual judgement and a narrative around what's being said in a way that I think I would trust more. Just kind of reading on the news and the current affairs in our politics now we've seen Elizabeth Kirikiri taken out did you see her exit speech? I heard some of it yesterday, yeah. I haven't what was your opinion? The clips that I heard was primarily just critique of her party and how it had treated bullying allegations and dealt with that that's the only bit I really heard but yeah it sounds like she's intending to come back into politics at some stage which would be good because all I know about it and this has been verified right was she sent a text message accidentally to the group Green Chat calling Swarbrick a crybaby and yeah something like that it was in our House of Representatives right when she did that um if I was damn sure Marama Davidson I think I would have done the same thing you know you've already done what you've already done the same thing there's no need to go through a whole board or anything if you're capable of doing something like that to your own party colleagues what else are you capable of so her testing their leadership is really a reflection of her that's kind of where I'm yeah so loyalty to the party is well disloyalty is a deal breaker so I think Shaw and Davidson did the right thing what about what about the case that people deserve second chances and that people can make mistakes but I guess you're saying it was a mistake but what it revealed was something untenable I don't think she would have changed I take Elizabeth as someone who did what she did and would have been unapologetic about it if she didn't get caught but she did get caught and there's nothing else to say it could have been about anyone in the Green Party it would have still been the same verdict the only way I think she could have been pulled up against the ball is if she said it about an MP in another party then that's the difference then there should be something hey why are you sending this out you can have your opinion but in the House of Representatives choose your time, choose your place it doesn't take in Parliament it doesn't take very many mistakes before your career's shot where I don't know if I was judged by those same criteria crikey it would be pretty hard going and you're right we do need to hold our politicians to a really high standard and expectation but there's a privilege of being there therefore you have to regard yourself be appropriate and right at all times but I think we know that that doesn't always happen to scorch someone's career well that seems harsh to me especially when we know that over the decades there's been plenty of white men in politics who have got away with all sorts of shit and never been called to account on us I absolutely think that media in Parliament are harder on Māori women than they are on any other representative and I'm not denying that I'm just setting a standard for all of them it's my own standard you're there to serve so you have to be of the mind to the body and mind to I really like the concept of a universal basic income you know I think if everyone had if everyone in the country was guaranteed to have enough money to exist to just live on it would not only change what things look like for beneficiaries but it would also change how life could be and how flexible our economic lives could be for everyone it would enable us to do things like take time out to do more training without that being a huge financial burden it would enable us to take more time home with our children when we need to and to be fully immersed in working life at other times in our lives I think that would just be a win it sounds nice it's a fair to assume that for something like that to happen a majority of our population needs to be in the workforce the ones that can work should work and that's something you and I were talking about the other day that ideally everyone everyone except when they're caring for young children but everyone who's in the middle part of our lives should be working because work is work's cause meaning, purpose and wellbeing comes from that feeling and not just putting everyone in a factory actually having infrastructure for people to do the work that they want to do so they never have to work a day in their lives yeah I love that any final notes we're getting a wrap it up signal no, that sounds that's the full extent of my ignorance about New Zealand politics right now same, as am I vote for AI no, I'm just kidding sounds good, I will leave it to Rachel to wrap it up, Rachel thank you so much to Jay and BT for talking politics with us it was really great to listen to some of that korero and to really explore some of those issues I apologise for some of the background noise but this is real workplaces real stories, real people having that conversation and we encourage you to have the conversation too so thank you so much for your time thanks for listening and see you on the next podcast