She doesn't go to work in a skateboard, is not a vegetarian, and has - Jah have mercy! - a law degree from Auckland University! At the tender age of 35, though, Metiria Turei is the Green Party's youngest MP, as well as its newest. In the first of Salient's election year profiles, we talk to her about the environment, how the Greens keep so hip and down with the yoof, and life as a former anarcho-feminist in Parliament.
[In case you missed my earlier posts, Salient is the Victoria University student magazine, where I work as the News Editor. I was going to link to a hilarious article that was in this week's issue, but it's not up on the net yet. Check back on Wednesday, when the link should be up - it's worth it, I promise.
As part of Salient's election coverage, I'm interviewing some of the young MPs around Parliament to find out where they think this country is heading. I was originally going to entitle this series "Thirty-Something-Parliamentarians are Our Future", but nobody else found it funny - but that's the theme, anyway.
These people (I'm looking at you, Darren Hughes and Simon Power) are well-positioned to lead the country in a few decades, and their vision for the future of this country will be (they hope) more influential and (we hope) more far-sighted than that of the current generation.
Or, at the very least, I can have a good laugh throwing these back at them in 20 years' time.]
If the Greens' ecological efforts fail, and we keep doing things the way we do them today, what do you think New Zealand will look like in 20 years' time?
The changes over time to our ecology from the failure to be responsible now will take a long time to kick in seriously, but what we will see is more polluted rivers, we'll see more damage from flooding and climate change effects.
There are various climate change effects happening at the moment. We've just had a huge number of floods, and they have cause a massive amount of damage to land that we use to grow food on, because we have invested so heavily in deforestation. So there will be much more of that sort of damage.
We'll see a decline in our ability to produce our own food. It won't be completely wiped out, but it will be a reduction. And when that happens, then there'll be an increased use in agri-chemicals to boost production, which is going to cause more pollution, and it'll probably lead to a much more urgent need for some people to invest in genetic engineering technologies as a way of solving the problem.
What about in terms of energy usage and oil peak?
We're already seeing the effects of increased demand and lower [production] capacity. It's getting to the point now where it takes 4 barrels of oil to produce 5, and we're seeing an increase in the price of petrol as a result. So we're talking about a much more limited use of private vehicles - at least by those who can't afford it, so [there'll be] a greater separation between rich and poor, in terms of using certain kinds of services, transport being one.
If we let our public transport system, including our rail, continue to decline, then transport issues will become much more serious for those on low incomes, and even middle income. It's already difficult for people paying $1.20, $1.30 for their petrol as it is.
So if the changes that the Greens want were implemented, how would that change?
We would see a much greater investment in public transport and the reinstitution of rail. The urban use of public transport would increase. Part of that is cultural - you just need to look at the use of the rail system in Wellington compared to that of Auckland, which is embedded in the way Wellingtonians live, but not yet embedded in Auckland city's way of living.
In terms of electricity generation, we need to diversify our generation capacity, so that we have wind-farms, we have solar, we have localised generation so we don't need huge power-lines shifting energy from one end of the country to the other - and losing large quantities of it in the process.
And much better education on reducing consumption, [which] doesn't mean going without, it just means basic things like new houses being required to have insulation, or when hot-water cylinders are put in, they are insulated as well. It doesn't mean people miss out. I think that's a really important message that we need to get across to people, because whenever you say energy conservation, they immediately think turning off their heaters and not being warm and stuff. That's just not true.
So you think the cumulative effects of those small measures will be significant?
Oh, absolutely! They'll be huge! If we invested more in public transport than we do in roading, we would have a major reduction in the use of private cars. It might take five years to kick in, but it will happen. And that would have a huge impact on our energy use, pollution into the air, and road deaths. Don't forget that the number one killer of children in this country is cars. All of those measures will be effective in fixing the problem that we've got, because they're about taking very real, practical steps.
Will those changes have flow-on effects on how people live?
If you're talking about things like insulation for new houses, it has a massive effect on people's health, particularly the health of children. If you have a public transport system that people can use and get access to all the places that they need to go relatively cheaply, you're reducing the cost of transport for those people, insulating their houses so that they don't get as sick as often, so that they don't need to access healthcare as often, and therefore they're not using their income for those sorts of things.
Better food production - we're still very committed to organics as an industry - and more localised food production as well, all of those things have huge benefits long-term, for people. And that's the point, you can't think short-term when you're trying to deal with serious issues like peak oil, energy consumption and people's health. None of them can be fixed in the short-term, but you need to get started.
Why do you think the Greens do so well with young voters?
I think because we're very broad thinkers. We think outside the square, and we're prepared to challenge the dominant ideologies - particularly economic ideologies. We're also committed to decision-making that is much more localise and participatory, rather than domineering, and that has a huge resonance. It's interesting, because not all our MPs are particularly young, really. We have the same average age as other [parties], but most of our stuff is about quite thinking outside the square.
Why does that particularly attract the youth?
The dominant power structure that we have, and that most Western countries have, is very much structured on the maintainance of power in the hands of those who already have it. There's a traditional group [which has the power], and that group wants to maintain power for itself and tends to identify people as "Others".
You can see that happening with National, talking about "mainstream New Zealanders". What they're talking about is people "just like them", and a very narrow definition of who those people are. And young people are - it sounds a bit naff to say it - young people are exploring what it means to be themselves - who they are, what their beliefs and philosophies are... but they're being identified as "Other".
That's a very fierce and direct exclusion of those people from what some people define as the mainstream. And because we know that's happening, and we talk about it, and because we're very inclusive of broad [range of] ideas, we aren't seen as exclusive in that same way.
Also, we're infinitely sensible, in terms of direct things, like student loans policies, we're infinitely sensible.
Speaking of thinking outside the square - would you still describe yourself as an anarcho-feminist?
Oh no, certainly not! I'm a politician now, I couldn't possibly describe myself...
You can't, or you won't?
You can't be an anarcho-feminist and a politician at the same time - they're mutually exclusive.
Do you find it difficult to work in a parliamentary system?
Yes. It is a system that doesn't respect anything but the exercise of power, so it's very difficult.
It's very sexist, it's very racist, it's very ageist, it's very us-and-them, it's very exclusionary. My personal view is that the way the system is set-up completely marginalises significant parts of the population. It's a screw-up from the beginning. But one of the purposes in my life is to make whatever difference to people's lives that I can, so I'm not going to give up the opportunity to do that. One of the things I continually remind myself is that I might be wrong - it might have been a wrong decision to leave activist politics and to go into establishment politics, but I won't know that for a wee while, and I don't think I should give up the opportunity to make change where I can.
To those people who say that, just by participating in parliamentary politics, the Greens have sold out, what would you say to them?
I don't see how we've sold out on anything, actually. And the fact that we suffer the continual litany of abuse from the rest of those in Parliament, I think, is a demonstration that we haven't sold out at all; that we've stuck steadfastly and firmly to our principles. We continually repeat them, and we're getting growing support for them, but it's still a real struggle. I can't imagine what people could say we've sold out on.
How do you find working with some of the other parties? In particular, I'm interested in what you think about the Maori Party, especially in light of their recent statements on Zimbabwe.
I have a good working relationship with a number of people in the [Maori] party, and so do Greens across the board. It's a very good, effective relationship, but we'll never agree with them on everything - that's part of the way it works.
I am disappointed in their position on Zimbabwe. I think I understand where they're coming from... they're suspicious of what they're being told, and they want verification. I think that's understandable, but I don't think there's any reason to be suspicious. If they're saying we need a more consistent approach to human rights abuses across the world, I completely agree - and the Greens have been fighting the free trade agreement with China and Thailand for precisely for those reasons.
Would you agree with the subtext of what the Maori Party is saying? That the current antipathy towards the Zimbabwean regime is a result of the beat-up of a racist media?
No. I don't think that's it. I think that the feeling towards Zimbabwe comes from the community and political pressure from groups like ourselves and from human rights organisations in the country. I do think that the media does exhibit racist tendencies on a number of occasions...
In regards to Zimbabwe?
Possibly, previously. But most importantly in regards to our indigenous people here. What I do think is important from a Maori point of view - and I'm surprised [the Maori Party] haven't talked about this yet - is that we've had bulldozers destroy communities in this country, that belong to indigenous people. The township of Turangi was built in the 60s on Maori land, the Crown had a choice. It had its own land further up the road, but they chose to take Maori land under the Public Works Act.
As far as I am aware, there was very little or no compensation paid to the people of those towns, and the Crown made a huge mistake in their process - they didn't tell people that they were turning up. The Waitangi Tribunal Report shows really clearly people saying that they were at home, the bulldozers turned up in front of their doorsteps, they were told to pack and get out, and then they watched the bulldozer smash their house to bits.
Frankly, I don't understand why [the Maori Party] are not talking about that, because that highlights that we must fight human rights abuses in other people's countries, but we cannot forget that we have had them in our very own. This [is the] exact same issue of people's houses being bulldozed and then being left homeless by our own government, in the 60s.
I can understand where the Maori Party are coming from, but I don't think that their justification for their position is 100% legit. And I do think, though, that their concerns are legit and we have our own examples here that we should turn to.
Would you see their socially conservative views as intrinsically linked to the Treaty?
The Maori community is not the Borg. We don't all think with the same mind. Some of us will be socially conservative, some of us will be very liberal. And it just so happens that the predominant view in the Maori Party is a socially conservative one.
It doesn't surprise me at all, but I'm very interested in seeing what their economic policies look like, because they could be quite economically conservative as well. And it's not relevant to their Treaty approach. We might find that, just like National and Labour, which are predominantly Pakeha parties, we may find that other Maori parties, or other parties with a predominantly Maori membership arrive that have quite a divergent view on other things as well.
Back to the young voters - do you think that once they get older, start earning real money, get mortgages, do you think that they will "grow out" of voting for the Greens?
No!
The Greens' challenge is to remain relevant to the times, and that will always be a challenge for political parties, because political parties come and go. We will have to change over time, to some extent, but I think that if people hold the same values that we do and are voting with us now, then it would take quite a dramatic thing for people to change their minds to such an extent that they would change their voting patterns in the future.
And as you can see from our growing support, we are collecting people. We don't have a [situation where] once you hit 45, you stop voting for us. We're actually collecting people over time, and growing our support base. As the young ones get older, they are staying with us.
How committed are the Greens to their student support and tertiary education policies? How far are they willing to go to make sure it happens?
We can't make any guarantees or promises about those kinds of discussions until we're in them. And that is really hard. We've said we'll only enter into those discussions with Labour, because we think their policies are so much like ours and we can work together. We have refined and better identified our policies, so we can introduce them in a way that is fiscally responsible, and so I think there's a good chance of our policies becoming part of government policy if we're in a close relationship [with the next government]. But we certainly couldn't make any guarantees or promises about what's going to happen in coalition discussions. That will always depend on things at the time like what numbers we've got, what their positions have been over time and the relevant issues at the time.
Can you give us an indication of how high a priority this is for the Greens?
It's priority issue for our campaign [and] for the party as a whole, so it will be an issue that we'll take in our kete of issues if we went into discussions with Labour, but it would be irresponsible to make any promises about that. It is a very strongly held policy, and we've had it for a very long time. We're the only ones that recognise the betrayal of Labour in the past.
--
Thanks, Metiria!