"If you're not a liberal at 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by 35, you have no brain." Well, he's got the second part down pat. At 35, self-confessed conservative Simon Power is National's Senior Whip and bright-young-thing. Salient talks to him about conservatism, his generation, and visiting Mary-Jane. This is the second in a series of interviews conducted with young MPs for Salient magazine, and reprinted here with kind permission from Editor Emily Braunstein.
[At a candidates forum on 20 July, Vic Politics Professor] Margaret Clark told us that you had wanted to be in Parliament since university. Did you have political ambitions before that?
No, not really. I went to Vic to study law and picked up first-year politics in 1988. I was one of those rugby-jersey wearing, back-row sort of fellows who had a relaxed view of lectures, and at the end of the first year politics class, Margaret said, 'look, if you feel passionately about politics, you should get involved, don't just sit on the sidelines'. That rang pretty true for me, and she's been a bit of a mentor in the sense that she really ignited in me my interest in NZ and US politics from the late 80s. [She's] someone who I have very high regard for.
At that stage, where did you see yourself in 20 years' time - now, I suppose?
I was practicing law busily in Auckland for Kensington Swan and I got a phone call from a friend of mine to say that they thought [sitting MP Dennis Marshall] was going to retire from [the] Rangitiki [electorate seat], and if I wanted to run, I'd better get back. So I gave up my job in the law firm and came back home to run, primarily because I thought if I didn't do it now, that's the kind of seat where somebody could hold it for 20 years and you'd never get another go at it.
When you first started out, did you see yourself where you are today, in terms of your position and the views that you hold?
I'm probably more conservative that I thought I'd be, at a younger age. And I represent a conservative electorate. Yeah, I guess perhaps I always thought I'd be doing it a bit older, but the opportunity came along and had to be taken.
You think in another 20 years, you'll be even more conservative?
No, I don't think so.
You've hit the ceiling?
I think I have - I'd be disappointed if I was more conservative in 20 years, to be frank.
Do you have any aspirations to be leader of the National Party one day?
It's not something I've turned my mind to.
Yeah? Okay... So, what do you see as the important issues for the country in the mid-/long-term?
When I came out of university, I had ten good mates. We all went through together. Seven of those live overseas and are bringing up their families in [other] countries. So the medium-term goal for me is to get some of those people back to New Zealand.
And what will bring them back?
I think a country that's run on a basis of freedom and less involvement by government will attract people home. People of my generation don't like being told what to do all the time. This is the generation that has had to balance student loans with retirement savings, this is the generation that has had to balance higher overseas earnings with lifestyle and family choices in New Zealand. They are capable, bright people, who don't need to be told what to do by Helen Clark and her government.
They don't want help from the government?
I don't think that the expectations that people of my generation have of the government are high, in the sense that I think they'd just rather they were left alone.
Do you think it's a product of your generation's experiences?
Yeah, I do. This is a group of people who were brought up in the Roger Douglas, Reaganomics, Thatcherite years, and are capable of making their own decisions in a pretty smart way. They won't need to be told what to think or what to do by people who, frankly, have pretty minimal life experiences themselves.
What are the other defining characteristics of your generation?
It's probably a generation who have had to come to grips with the fact that there is no something for nothing, whether it be in tertiary education, saving for your retirement [or] battling floating mortgage interest rates. It's a generation of people that are kinda squashed between wanting to exercise their own overseas ambitions to better themselves and to repay loans [and] trying to balance that with wanting to make a contribution to their country and stay in New Zealand. And at the moment, certainly if my friends are anything to go by, we're losing that battle a bit, because more of them are away than they're here.
Would you say that they've had a bad experience of government?
Yeah, that may be right. Reagan always use to say that government isn't the answer to the problem, government is the problem, and I have some sympathy for that view.
What's your interest in American politics, anyway?
It's just something I've always taken an interest in. Did a couple of courses at Victoria in the later part of my degree, and always really enjoyed it. It's a complex political system, and I enjoy following it.
Who's your favourite American leader?
Different leaders bring different qualities. I suppose it's a combination of recent US President that have got a combination of qualities that vary from ease, to battler... having an optimistic and sunny disposition is always a helpful thing for a politician to have. I think that if people see that politicians are grim, it's pretty hard to get enthusiastic about politics.
Who's qualities would you most like to have?
Oh, I'm quite happy with my own qualities, Keith!
If National had its way and Don Brash's vision was carried out, what would race relations in NZ be like in 20 years' time?
I hope that it would be harmonious, I hope that controversy would have fallen behind some time ago. I hope that [the] issues that still provide the stinging nettle for people around treaty negotiations and settlement would have been concluded. And I'm pretty confident that NZers are tolerant, fair-minded people who just want to see everybody have a fair go.
Do you think that, in that future, there will be a place for independent Maori identity?
There'll always be a place for ethnic diversity across the board. Because [the Treaty of Waitangi is] between two parties, [it] will always provide a special place for those two parties. The trick is not to allow it to create a whole lot of unclear division and undefined legal rights, I think that's where some of the difficulty has arisen in recent years.
Things like including the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation... as a lawyer, I look it that and find it quite difficult to get my head around, because it doesn't give any certainty as to the meaning. Don Brash has said very clearly that we will remove from legislation, where appropriate, any references to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
So it's the "Principles of the Treaty" that you're concerned with, rather than the Treaty itself?
Yeah, I think that if you attempt to turn a historical document into a living document, you have to be clear about what it's terms are, and I don't think that we've had that clarity.
How's National going to get that clarity?
I think that these things evolve, I think that New Zealanders have a generous view of where their country is going to be in the next 15-20 years. And I think that stuff will naturally grow. What I don't think is helpful is Parliament attempting to create a sentiment in legislation which is ambiguous.
Would you say that Don Brash is of the Rogernomics generation? With the Ruth Richardson crowd?
No, I think that Don has proven himself to be one out of the mould, actually. Quite a different politician to any politician that we've seen in recent history. He brings a unique set of built-in credibility as a former Governor of the Reserve Bank, and [he's] sort of an anti-politician, which makes him a good politician. I think he's doing a great job.
Would you say that, philosophically, he's still part of the Rogernomics era?
No, I wouldn't say that. That was nearly 20 years ago. Politics of New Zealand has moved on, in my view, from a straight left-right debate, and is becoming more about finding a path that meets people's expectations about government in their lives without returning to a highly interventionist state that you saw before 1984.
Isn't that a left-right debate?
No, not necessarily, because [that] can occur as much in social policy as in economic policy, and we've seen that in this last term in Parliament with legislation around prostitution law reform, and civil unions, smoking in bars, etc. It's not whether you agree or disagree with those issues, it's whether you think government has a role.
Isn't more or less government intervention the left-right debate?
I see it as being wider than that, because the left-right debate in the 80s and 90s was very much focused on the economic theories. We've seen a debate emerge in the last 5 or 6 years which is much more based on social policy, I think.
So is economics no longer the primary axis of contention in New Zealand politics?
When you look at the Reserve Bank Act and Fiscal Responsibility Act, those pillars haven't changed. Do we agree that inflation should be kept capped somewhere between 1-3%? Well actually, yeah, the two main political parties do agree about that. Has the Labour Party adopted what could be seen as a fiscally prudent approach to managing the economy? Arguably. So yeah, I think the debate has probably shifted more to the social context than the economic one, in many ways.
Economically, are the differences between Labour and National still significant?
Yes, I think there are some areas that are still significant, and that relates to the extent - the size - of government, rather than completely different economic foundation for making policy decisions, which you saw in the difference between the 70s and then the 80s and 90s. Looking back now, between the late 80s and early 90s, in many ways, it was a continuum of the same type of political policies.
Would you characterise this as a consensus on key economic issues?
Superannuation is a good example. There is consensus there. The two major political parties have agreed: 65% of the average wage at 65 years old, and to maintain the Cullen Fund. That's consensus.
Is that consensus a temporary phenomenon?
Who knows? The political personalities of the time will decide that. I think that people would be surprised at how much the two major political parties agree on, in the sense of voting for or against legislation in the house. If we vote with the Labour Party on different issues, that never makes the headline, because there's no story there. Free trade is a good example. [It'd] be pretty churlish of us in Opposition, to oppose free trade agreements when we would do the same in government. You have to maintain your credibility on the issue itself.
You said that you're more conservative than you thought you'd be. What's your position on raising the drinking age?
I voted for the bill to go to a Select Committee, but I haven't made my mind up about what I'm going to do about it when it comes out of the Select Committee, which now will be after the election.
What's your position on decriminalising marijuana?
No. I've spent a bit of time doing some criminal work as a lawyer, at the courts on a Monday morning. And the prisons cells, police cells, etc. I don't believe that cannabis is something that we should be, in any way, encouraging usage of in New Zealand.
And you think that the current legislation is the best way of tackling the problem?
I think there needs to be a lot more work done in the education field, but I don't think that any form of decriminalisation or legalisation will help the issue.
Back when you were at Weir House, did you ever smoke pot?
At Weir House, no.
During your time at university?
Once.
That would have been illegal, right?
Well, it's not something that I've ever done since, and with the benefit of hindsight, I wouldn't have done it.
So what would you say to other young people who want to try it?
Don't waste your time.
And the people that have tried it - should they be considered criminals?
I think the current situation is right where it is.
How do you justify saying that government should intervene less in peoples' lives and then saying that the government should ban personal drug use?
It's what you're always balancing, the right of the individual against the right of others. But, oh, I don't really see it that way, actually, to be honest. I just think there are certain fundamental things that the state has a role in. It's a question of where you draw the line. Simple as that.
ACT would probably say you're a freedom-hater, because you're saying that the individual doesn't have the right to do his/her own body as they please...
And ACT's message is very popular with the electorate at the moment.
Well, come on, I think that issue needs to be address. If you're saying that the government should stay out of people's lives, then shouldn't drugs be part of that?
No.
Why not?
Because the public elects a government to sanction certain things, and not to sanction other things. Presently, drug use is illegal, and there is no call for a change of law.
But *you* are calling for a government that gives more freedom to people.
It's just an extreme on the continuum. It just depends on where you draw the line on the continuum. I don't draw it that far down the continuum.
So you think that the government is going too far in areas like taxes and social welfare, but not in its drugs policies?
Yeah. I would draw the line more closely on those issues that you related to formerly.