All Episodes

July 11, 2024 30 mins

Labour's deputy leader, and former deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Social Development, Carmel Sepuloni joins Thomas this week. She discusses how Labour lost Auckland and their response to crime in the city, before a deep dive on welfare, benefits, and what needs to be done to fix this issue. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mark as Played
Transcript

Episode Transcript

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Hello, and welcome to on the Tiles. I'm your host,
Deputy political editor of The Herald, Thomas Codlin. Today a
meeting of deputies, a double deputy and a deputy of
History of Deputization. Carmel Sipeloni, deputy leader of the Labor
Party and and former Deputy Prime Minister as well. Thomas
welcomed to on the Tiles.

Speaker 2 (00:25):
How you doing, I'm doing very well, thank you.

Speaker 1 (00:28):
I wanted to start with Auckland. You know you're you're
an Auckland and you've been an MP since two thousand and eight,
a spell outside of Parliament, your seeing term, I think,
but you've you've represented an Auckland electorate for most of
that time. Calston Labour's trying to win back the city.
I mean, when did you Did you ever feel last

(00:49):
year that you were about to lose it to the
extent that you did.

Speaker 2 (00:52):
I started to feel that decline and support during the
Auckland lockdown. I was living up there, living the lockdown,
doing the zoom world, trying to continue with all of
the work I needed to do as a minister. But
I could feel it and see it even amongst those

(01:12):
that I knew, and within my own neighborhood.

Speaker 1 (01:15):
And yeah, that's an experience shared by many of your colleagues.
There's really it started then, it's a long time ago.
Did you you know throughs it was what twenty twenty
one through twenty twenty two to twenty three? Did you
were you trying to message to the Wellington leadership like, hey,
let's we're losing up here. We can't afford to lose
this city. What was What were the discussions like there
there was retail crime issues, happened after the lockdown, you know,

(01:39):
a general sense that Wellington was just not quite in
sync with Auckland.

Speaker 2 (01:43):
Yeah, and we did have those conversations. I feel like maybe,
in hindsight, I and some of the other Auckland MPs
could have been more assertive on what we felt was
happening in Auckland. And so there's probably a level of
regret there that we didn't push a little bit harder.
I feel like some of the decisions that we made,
for instance, around how we would address retail crime were

(02:06):
the right decisions? Were they fast enough? I think that's
the question that we need to ask ourselves.

Speaker 1 (02:11):
I remember, I think your former colleague Kadie Allen mentioned
an into your One of your colleagues might have mentioned
how difficult it was as a labor cabinet some of
those decisions around crime. I think looking at the additional
search powers where we're put through last year watches and
jewelry and other things of high value were added to

(02:35):
a list of goods prohibited for sale for cash over
specified value. There's anti porning kind of legislation. That was
difficult I think for labor to come around to. Did
you share that difficulty, Well, what wasn't difficult. It was
the work that we did around our young people. So
those that were getting into trouble that we're committing the
ram raids, we had all the evidence. We were fully cognizant.

Speaker 2 (02:57):
Of the fact that they had multi poor, complex issues
and that we weren't going to be able to resolve
the issue of them offending and committing crimes against retailers
unless we got in there and addressed all of the
issues that were occurring. Now, that program of work was
actually successful. Even the Minister for Children during scrutiny week

(03:18):
said that it was. It didn't necessarily do what some
people wanted, which was to come out looking tough on crime,
and you know, and and punishing in certain ways these
young people. But it was the more effective approach and
it's proved to work.

Speaker 1 (03:38):
In Heinz I think and some of Prisippins Precipicins interviews.
Surely after he became Prime minister there there was just
a discussion about that, some of the differences in cabinet
around the Auckland Lockdownhes was saying, look, I was I
was sort of pushing. I probably would have gone a
week faster to lift that lockdown in Auckland. I think

(03:59):
grant rop And might have been on Society mentioned. This
is just from memory now, but just Sindra Juams was
quite wedded to the position that was ultimately taken in
terms of just stamping out delta. Where were you on
in that discussion as someone wh.

Speaker 2 (04:14):
I was living in Oakland and I am near the
end of the Auckland lockdown, I feel like we were
losing the social license. You know, I saw pretty respectable
people when I'd go for a walk, completely breaking the rules,
you know, having people over. And at that point, when
you've lost social license, you really do need to reassess
whether it whether or not you can continue. So probably

(04:34):
would have been down for a reduction in that lockdown,
ending it much sooner. At the same time, I have
to say there were some parts of our community that
were pretty adamant that we needed to continue, and I
do want to acknowledge disabled people who were really scared

(04:55):
of getting COVID and what the implications might mean for them,
and so there were so many things to weigh up.

Speaker 1 (05:02):
Sort of it's interesting looking back at it now. You know,
Labor's a mainstream party, it has a very broad church support.
You've got people who well, you know, half the country
in twenty twenty, which is as bad as broad as
you can get. But then you've got that, you've got
a core or a small element of your vote which
is very wedded to the very rigorous stance you took

(05:24):
on COVID nineteen, and then you've got a much you know,
there's a spectrum beyond that. Is it impossible to keep
those two groups of people together, people who were who
were so wedded to that very stringent early twenty twenty
position and the people who are probably quite happy with
where you got to, which is a traffic light and
then ultimately lifting restrictions altogether.

Speaker 2 (05:46):
I think for a large part of the COVID period,
not saying that we've got rid of COVID, but the
intense COVID period, most people were on the same page.
It was nearing the end of that intense period where
there started to be much more differing views, and I

(06:06):
think you started to see a split, and as I said,
there were some groups of people who very rightly wanted
to hold on to much harsher measures for a longer
period of time.

Speaker 1 (06:26):
You held the Social Development Portfolio for the whole six
years of your time in government. What are you most
proud of.

Speaker 2 (06:33):
I'm most proud of the work that we did around
actually addressing incommatequacy and the welfare system. That investment into
lifting benefits was hugely significant. It was a reversal of
Ruth Richardson's changes back in nineteen ninety one. But it
wasn't just that that saw the increase or addressing of incommatequacy,

(06:54):
lifting their abatement thresholds so that people could earn more
and still receive the benefit. So work a little bit
more part time still receive the benefit. But that's the
income adequacy side of things. And I've always been really
clear that for me, the welfare system is also about
supporting people into work. So we made huge investments into
upskilling and training opportunities, and many of those programs that

(07:16):
we instigated over the six years that we were in
were really successful and that's work that I'd want to
continue as well.

Speaker 1 (07:22):
Yes, it's interesting you should raise that budget twenty twenty one,
which was the benefit increases. So I was looking through this,
so the cost was three point earlier. Yeah, a lot
of money, and that was over the four or four years,
and I think that I was just adding up the
so of that budget, which I think was a three
point eight billion dollar over one year, about a billion

(07:43):
of that was for us. And I was looking at
the Child Poverty Report for that last night and part
of me I meant to print it off, but the
image has decided not to appear on my print up.
But it lifted. It was estimated to lift between twelve
and twenty eight thousand more children out of poverty on
the before housing cost me in the year after it
was implemented, and between nineteen and thirty three thousand more

(08:05):
children out of poverty on the after house after housing
cost measure and that same year, So quite it's probably
I think of all the budgets, probably the most impactful impactful,
I think.

Speaker 2 (08:16):
So, But it was never about one initiative that was
one of the ones I'm most proud of. But there
were other measures and policies that we implemented where people
didn't even know there was an issue. So one of
those was child support pass on, where sole parents had
been discriminated against in the welfare system since nineteen thirty six,

(08:37):
and by passing on child support, I think we were
forecasts to lift between six to fourteen thousand kids out
of poverty. So it was always about a suite of
measures that would help us achieve the main goals.

Speaker 1 (08:52):
Sorry such and pass on child support. That is when
the sole parent access is the child support through Sorry.

Speaker 2 (08:59):
I'm so. Traditionally, what's happened is that if you're on
a benefit and you're in a new relationship your kids
to someone else, and that someone else pays child support.
If you're in a relationship with someone you're both on benefit,
you can get that child support. If you're a sole
parent and you had an ex who was paying child
support for the children, then that money went to the

(09:20):
state to subsidize the benefit that you were receiving so
clearly discriminatory. And as we know, sole parents or children
and households where there's a sole parent are more likely
to be living in poverty. So measures like that make
a difference.

Speaker 1 (09:35):
Now you mentioned before that you see what you see
the welfare spaces is about helping people into work as well.
Some that's quite that view often divides people in that
space you often see. I mean there's big debate about
the way in which working for families, by seeking to
encourage people into work, actually penalizes people and pushes them

(09:57):
into poverty. I mean, do you think could is there
anything that you are looking at or think could be
done to ensuring comeadequacy help people but achieve your aim
of getting people into work as well.

Speaker 2 (10:10):
Well, we certainly hadn't finished what we wanted to do
with working for families, and we had that under review.
We made some first step promises in our manifesto going
into the election, but there was more that needed to occur.
One thing I would recognize is there is always that
debate with the in work tax credit and whether or
not that should be given to war families or not.

(10:31):
Now I'm not saying that all families don't need financial
support in some way. But one thing I've always been
keenly aware of is that for our poorest families there
are in work expenses that can sometimes make it really
difficult to work. You know, the additional cost of having
to move around, transport, the additional costs, even though some

(10:53):
might be subsidized, not all of it is for childcare.
And so there are very real in work expenses we
need to be mindful of for our lowest income working
families as well.

Speaker 1 (11:05):
Right, So, so yes, for people often talk about marginal
the marginal text rate issue, and but then obviously transport
and child here, it does it does mount up? Would
you be open to I mean, the inwork text credit
was that was the sort of centerpiece of your Working
for Families policy of the election. It was national stole
and then you tuned on part of it. Yeah when

(11:26):
they got into government, so they and they you tuned
on the abatement threshold, which was a twenty twenty six change.
I hope, I'm yeah, And he's going to lift for
two thousand, that's right, yes, thank you? Would would you
look at this and just for our listeners following along, So,
the family text credit is a tax credit that basically

(11:46):
goes to everyone on a benefit, but also people who
are in work and receiving Working for Families. It's quite
a broad based text credit a few hundred thousand families.
The inwork text credit is only for people who are
and work, And there is a debate around whether or
not you should beef up the family tax credit because
it goes to more people. Would you be interested in

(12:06):
perhaps broadening the family the work tax credits to help
people who are only receiving the family tax credit.

Speaker 2 (12:13):
I wouldn't want to kind of preempt what our changes
might be, but this is a policy that we need
to look at seriously going into the next election. What
we were made very aware of when we're in government
is that if we were going to do anything significant
that was going to lift children out of poverty, it
needed to be in the Working for Family space. And
what we announced in the lead up to the election

(12:35):
were only first steps that, you know, in terms of
what we might do with our manifesto, there had to
be something else that was done through Working for Families
if we were going to be genuine about lifting children
out of poverty. So there is definitely more work to
do in that space.

Speaker 1 (12:50):
And I'm not going to ask you to what I
would love to twist your arm and give you to
get you to spill the election manifesto in this podcast.

Speaker 2 (12:57):
We don't have it yet, that we're still consulting. There's
really nothing to spill it this stage except it is
an area that we're taking seriously and we're looking at right.

Speaker 1 (13:07):
So, but are you could be interested in looking at that?
I mean, it's it's that family tax credit when I
whenever I profess to be an expert or to even
talk to a great number of people about this, but
whenever I do, that is really the thing that everyone sees.
It's that that family text credit issue is really one

(13:27):
that people want to see.

Speaker 2 (13:28):
You know, we will look at a range of things
and and what our overall objectives will be and what
will help us to achieve that. I think the thing
to keep in mind, and this is when we were
weighing things up and looking at it over the course
of the year or even two years and the lead
up to the last election, is that unless there's an
injection of money, then you are going to be taking

(13:49):
something from someone and giving it to someone else. And
you know, right now, I don't know whether there are
any families that could have to lose given the current
economic climate, and are the cost of living issues that
people are facing. So you know, these are things that
we're going to have to discuss over the course of
the next right.

Speaker 1 (14:10):
And so when you say that this is this is
this idea that you would take, you would would change
the way that the scheme works. So you would be
increasing the eligibility of the in work text credit by
reducing what other people get somewhere else.

Speaker 2 (14:26):
And so who would stand to lose then, and are
they in a position to lose really, So you know,
whatever we look at, we need to be mindful of
the fact that, yeah, unless there is an injection of money,
then you don't want to be taking from one group
to give to another and creating, you know, people that
are worse off.

Speaker 1 (14:46):
Would you that the the most working for family's tax
credits I think become are adjusted for inflation, but only
when inflation exceeds five percent And that's a problem too.

Speaker 2 (14:59):
Yeah, it's it very complex and you can't anticipate what's
going to happen.

Speaker 1 (15:05):
And very expensive. Are when when it when it when
it triggers, when it hits five percent but also very
punitive when inflations through three percent. Well you you, you know,
Labor's rightly proud of the child poverty impacts of the
of the benefit indexation that Andrew Beecroft was then Children's
Commissioner said it was the single greatest thing you could
do to alleviate at child poverty. That's now been reversed.

(15:27):
But but would you know, would you look at future
and actually doing indexation of both benefits and those texts.

Speaker 2 (15:33):
Well, at this stage I can't say that's off the table.
You know, I'm quite open minded as to what we
might look at over over the next couple of years
and the lead up to the election. And I know
that that issue is very complex. It is difficult to
be able to ascertain what might happen. And it does
mean that some years you get a big increase, in
other years do you just for below the five percent

(15:55):
and then there's nothing for nothing extra for those that
are receiving working for families. So it's not off the
table in terms of something that we might look at.

Speaker 1 (16:02):
I think historically I think the Clark government it was
indexed and then it was you know that the Key
government maybe to stop the indexation, so you know it's
a trend herexation.

Speaker 2 (16:17):
It is also the really hard thing about when you
come in after a government have changed a whole lot
of things, because then you're weighing out what you reinstate
back to what for us, you know, my view, what
was fair, and then at the same time looking at
the exciting new things and looking at what is fiscally possible,
I guess, And so those are some of the considerations.

Speaker 1 (16:39):
Going into what else are you looking at as part
of the Working for Families review? That's sort of It
was under review for a long time and there weren't
many major changes that emerge from it, but possibly because
changing it is very expensive.

Speaker 2 (16:51):
It's very expensive, and it's very complex. So I can't
even say that we landed on anything other than what
we went into the two thousand twenty three election with
in our manifesto, because we hadn't it was continued to
look at it and try and ascertain what we could do,
where we would get the money from to do it,
and what issues we were trying to address by any

(17:14):
changes that we're implementing. So obviously child poverty reduction remains
a focus and a priority for us, and that will
continue to be a focus and a priority going into
the next election. There were other issues where there working
for families. It was the complexity of the system and
the fact that so many people didn't understand how it worked.

Speaker 1 (17:31):
But it is a nightmareishly complicated system.

Speaker 2 (17:33):
It is it is, and so how do we simplify
the system so that it's more accessible to New Zealanders
so they actually understand what they're entitled to, so that
they can access what they're entitled to and have a
daily conversation about it as if it's every day because
people actually get it, as opposed to stab in the dark.
Am I eligible for something here? Oh? Yeah, I am?

Speaker 1 (17:53):
You know, and then people are hedging and not getting
everything they are entitled to because they're afraid of getting
them too much in triggering that's.

Speaker 2 (17:59):
Right of you being overpaid and then at the end
of the text you having to repay money to in
then revenue. So there is work around simplicity as well
to make it more accessible for New Zealanders that I
think we need to undertake.

Speaker 1 (18:14):
What could you do? You have any idea of what
we we You could have the.

Speaker 2 (18:19):
Answer if I had the answers. I might have gone
into the election campaign with a more wholesome working for
families policy, but we didn't yet have all the answers.
We just knew Stage one was the boost and the
threshold lift so that more families could access it.

Speaker 1 (18:44):
Do you think, I mean one of one of the
other complaints is that you're getting to quite high marginal
tax rates around you know, people who are families whoever,
someone full time on the minimum wage was really getting
smashed just because of high wage inflation. Which is a
good thing about text policy, well, it has an interface

(19:07):
with the working for families and I just you know,
I think of all the if you're taking a step
back and labor and national fighting over text, but I
think that the possibly the most difficult thing for labor
on text is that is that forty eight thousand threshold
for the thirty percent tax rate kicking and that's this year.

(19:28):
Is someone on the minimum wage just just just nudging
that so that they have a couple of hundred dollars
which would have been textedt thirty percent had threshold not lifted.
Is that something you know, with your chip poverty reduction,
with your social development had on that would have been
difficult as a labor imp because that is that that
is such a high marginal tax rate, that's such a

(19:52):
minimum wage income. You know that that is not good
for you achieving what you wanted to achieve. Having that
level of.

Speaker 2 (19:58):
Textshold without being backward looking on that looking forward, then
these are considerations that we need to be very mindful of,
and we need to be having conversations about chippies. Made
it really clear that you know, nothing's off the table
that we're having conversations about tax and our party membership

(20:19):
is keenly informing that looked like I'm really excited about this,
and so we and we need to be mindful of
a range of things, including the interactions with other systems
like working for families, like the welfare system, and we
need to be looking at it in that kind of
fulsome way to make sure that what we end up

(20:40):
with leads New Zealand to a place where New Zealanders
are better off.

Speaker 1 (20:45):
I mean, you could, you know, you wouldn't need to
do it was very costly what the current government did,
and Labor's prosecuted that ruthlessly, but you know you could
just lift that forty eight thousand dollars threshold, which you know,
ensures that that people on a minimum wage would keep
far more of their of their income over the next
few years to avoid getting texted their text brackets.

Speaker 2 (21:05):
It's one idea, Thomas, but.

Speaker 1 (21:07):
You know, you could there are many things you could.
You know, that's just it. You can see why the
after fourteen years, you know, and obviously that there is
there is substantially less child poverty impact from lifting the
seventy thousand dollars threshold and even actually lifting the bottom threshold,
which is a lot of university students and part time

(21:30):
you know, schoolwork and stuff. But you can see why
even child poverty advocates look at that forty eight thousand
dollars threshold the minimum wage full time and like you know, yes,
it's a text card and it's a text cut from
a right wing government, but there is a there is
a sort of social welfare issue at that level.

Speaker 2 (21:46):
Do you think No, I think we just take away
all these rather than how.

Speaker 1 (21:50):
Are the text discussions going? You know, you're enjoying kind
of like as it. I mean, it's horrible going into opposition,
but it's also quite liberating.

Speaker 2 (21:58):
Yeah, And I mean they The conversations are really good. However,
it's not just tax that we're talking You know, our
membership has a broad interest across every possible sector and
area that you can imagine. I guess that the tax
discussion is the one that seems to garner the most
media interest, and I understand it has huge implications any

(22:20):
ideas that we might have anything we might want to do.
But it's not the only thing that.

Speaker 1 (22:24):
We're talking about. What are you interested in? What are
the other things we're talking about?

Speaker 2 (22:27):
Oh, we're talking about everything. Housing. Of course, child poverty
reduction continues to be an issue that's raised by our membership. Tech.
The other day, I was at the Creative Precinct in
west Auckland, and myself and the members that were there,
I had, you know, an amazing experience, but a really
fruitful conversation afterwards about the role of our creative industries

(22:48):
and technology and what we might want to see moving
forward there. So I mean, I could keep going on.
We're talking about everything as we should be if we
want to be a future Are you going to some
of this regional I didn't get to go to the
regional conferences this year, but apart from the Auckland one, but.

Speaker 1 (23:08):
That would have been an interesting though. Members sort of
given reading you the Riot Act a bit about Britt
winning the city back.

Speaker 2 (23:13):
Yeah, I mean, but still a lot of support. And
so you know, these are really robust conversations that happen
in there. People say what's on their mind. They have
high expectation of their members of Parliament to their leader,
their deputy leader, their finance spokesperson, and that's that's the
Labor Party that we're part of.

Speaker 1 (23:31):
So there's some discontent or perhaps discontents are wrong. Would
some members wanting to ensure that the leader and the
parliamentary team doesn't arbitrarily I guess use the captain's call idea.

Speaker 2 (23:44):
It's been a bit of interesting conversation because there's nothing
there's no such thing formally as a captain's call. And
if we refer to all of the main policy decisions
that were announced last year, they did go through they
did go through a New Zealand Council. So I think

(24:06):
you know, there was some disappointment with perhaps one or
two calls that were made, but we need to be
clear about about how those decisions were made and also
about this thing called a captain's call, which doesn't technically exist.

Speaker 1 (24:22):
Yes, it's sort of something that the media and politicians
have created. And it's useful for both the media and
politicians because I think it's media it's quite useful to
be able to explain what has been done, and as
a politician, it's quite good to be able to say
I have made a captain's call, and I have done this.
When actually said he made a captain call, well, I
think I think it was the rule out is a
kind of I have ruled out for as long as

(24:43):
I am and I think that sort of colloquialism are
You're right. I'm not sure whether we ever actually used
that language, but I think that the it had it
been put to him as a captain's call, I'm not
sure whether he would have disagreed with that language.

Speaker 2 (24:58):
I would think he would. I went through went through
councilaland council, and it also went through caucus. Right.

Speaker 1 (25:06):
So, and your messa to leaders, leaders to the to
the members as as the current processes are okay or
would you would you be open to changing them so
that there is a bit more involvement.

Speaker 2 (25:17):
From always open to change? And you know, I said
on the New Zealand Council now as Deputy Leader. And
so I know that there are probably changes that are
that are coming up, and don't disagree with some of
those changes, but that one you were talking about kind

(25:38):
of is quite difficult. Given that there's no formal thing
called a captain's call, and given the process that policy.

Speaker 1 (25:45):
Went through, members are sort of saying, well that the
next time a policy decision is made like that, that
probably want a bit more important.

Speaker 2 (25:52):
Yeah, but it's hard, I mean yeah, and I mean
certainly now if our members didn't make their voices heard
in the last three years ago, say they are making
their voices heard now and we welcome it.

Speaker 1 (26:03):
So how how are you finding the deputy role? I
remember your your your predecessor Calvin Davis at a sort
of open door policy who did a lot of the
pastoral care for the caucus. Because you know, it's a
tough job. Are you finding you know, sinking into that role? Ae?
We but enjoying it.

Speaker 2 (26:21):
I think I was doing a little bit of it
as a senior cabinet minister anyway, and as someone who's
been around a little bit longer than a few others,
you know, I've kind of actively mentored a few people
that are in there and that have left. And I
enjoy working with my colleagues, so it's not that difficult.
You know, the New Zealand Council stuff, well, I get

(26:43):
along with all the people that are on it, so
when we get together for our meetings, it's a good
opportunity to catch up as well as as do all
of the work that's on the table in front of us.
So I'm enjoying it.

Speaker 1 (26:55):
Would you ever, would you ever you aspire to be
the leadership yourself?

Speaker 2 (26:59):
Never seen it? Yeah, And actually even having been Deputy
Prime Minister last year during what was a difficult time.
Remember not long after we got made Prime Minister and
Deputy Prime minister then norm of the country was flooding
and including my own elite for it. And then you had,

(27:20):
you know a range of other things happened, including some
internal things that were really unfortunate with colleagues, and there
were times when Chippy was out of the country and
I had to be in the acting role and I
can tell you it certainly wasn't easy.

Speaker 1 (27:34):
Right, But I prefer to be the two I see, right,
So never you don't think I prefer to be the
two I see fair enough. I mean, you know, I
wouldn't say the same about myself. I'd love to be
the letter clear. It doesn't listen all the time, so
I can say that maybe she does. So I mean,
just just again on this sort of labor policy stuff.

(27:55):
I know there is a frustration about the texts, the
texts thing being the main thing that people are debating
at the moment, But where where do you It does
seem to be a bit of a debate on the
capital gains versus wealth tax thing. Where do you? Where
do you line up on that?

Speaker 2 (28:11):
Oh? Look, I'm open to all of the discussions happening
on both of those things at the moment, and then
we'll see where we land with our tax policy closer
to the election. But there's a lot of work that
needs to be done before we land on the ultimate
policies for what we are taking into the election.

Speaker 1 (28:30):
Where were you on the one that we went to
cabinet last year and was ultimately shut down the we're not.

Speaker 2 (28:34):
We're not supposed to speak about cabinet discussion even afterwards. No,
I think, you know, otherwise I might not even be
into cabinet. So I think It's important to maintain the
confidentiality of kebnet and cabinet discussion, so I won't say
where I sat.

Speaker 1 (28:50):
The Grant Robinson and David Parker were given allowance to
sort of say, well, look this is we agree with
the capital decision, but we weekly put this fordam Well, I.

Speaker 2 (28:59):
Mean it would be us if they didn't. I'm given
that it was their policy that they had written and
put forward. Yeah, well, you know, and interesting, I can
be mysterious an interesting discussion.

Speaker 1 (29:11):
Nonetheless, are you allowed to talk about your celebrity trees
right and appearance?

Speaker 2 (29:15):
I don't know what you're talking about.

Speaker 1 (29:16):
Ms your terrible liar and and and and uh and
and this is an audio podcast. But you were you
were injured over the over the break and you are
you're getting better now.

Speaker 2 (29:27):
And yeah, I mean if anyone anyone that's had an
R Kelly's injury or knows anyone that's had a Kelly's injury,
it can take a bit of time.

Speaker 1 (29:35):
Well, I I wish you the best of luck in
any future television appearances that you might you might have which.

Speaker 2 (29:41):
We which could be Q and A or something.

Speaker 1 (29:45):
I hope Jack Tan wouldn't do that. And he's a
tough interviewer. But you know, I don't think many people
have heard in Achilles on Q and A. But but
thank you very much for coming on on the tiles.
And that was that was on the tiles for another week.
And I guess was Calma Sipperloni, who was the Labor
Party a deputy leader and holds a number of portfolios.
Thanking you very much for joining us, Thank you very much.

(30:06):
That concludes the podcast of this week. We are produced
by Ethan Sills, so thank you for that and and
please join us next week for more Amatiles.
Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

1. On Purpose with Jay Shetty

1. On Purpose with Jay Shetty

I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!

2. Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

2. Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.

3. The Joe Rogan Experience

3. The Joe Rogan Experience

The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2024 iHeartMedia, Inc.