Wellington Airport is in store for a $500m upgrade to allow for larger aircraft - but will we see new airlines arriving in the capital?
Also, behaviour in Parliament has been a hot topic this week with Te Pati Maori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi Clarke named for leading a haka, and Education Minister Erica Stanford referring to Labour MP Jan Tinetti a "stupid bitch". Are standards of behaviour in the house dropping?
To answer those questions, Nick was joined by former Wellington mayor Dame Kerry Prendergast and former Minister and Ohariu MP Peter Dunne on Friday Faceoff.
LISTEN ABOVE
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 (00:07):
You're listening to the Wellington Mornings podcast with Nick Mills
from News Talk said B dissecting the week sublime and ridiculous.
Friday face off with Quinovic Property Management a better rental
experience for all Call eight hundred. Quinovic starts Friday's.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Day without positive Friday.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
Today we've got a couple of real positive wal Italians
jumping into Friday face Off. Joining us for the show
this morning is former willing to Mayor Dame Carey Printagask
good morning.
Speaker 4 (00:50):
Carry, good morning, a positive welling journey in.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Now and the second positive Walalian former minister at O'Har.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Are you in p Peter done?
Speaker 5 (00:59):
Good morning, morning, good morning, carry, good to be here,
good to be positive from fine weather and it was
freezing when I went out of but the sun's coming through, so.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
Okay, let's let's have a positive hour. I want to
start this morning by talking about rates. The government is
indicator that's looking at options to cap rates around the
country and local government New Zealand met and Wellington.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
Yesterday to talk about it.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Do either of you lost up with you Kerry, because gosh,
you know all about rates. Have you ever looked at
the idea of capping rates because I love I love
this idea.
Speaker 6 (01:33):
No, I haven't ever looked at it. I just want
to take a couple of minutes to go back. So
first of all, we're a young country and most of
our towns, except for some of the older ones like
Wellington Auckland, have got younger infrastructure, and all councils used
to be run by engineers basically, so they looked after
the infrastructure, the roads, and the rates and the rubbish,
(01:55):
et cetera. They changed the law in the late eighties
which gave councilors the ability to do a lot more
stuff and a lot more consulting. And then the public
started asking for more stuff, more pools, more libraries, more
convention centers, more marketing for tourism, more events, etc. And
suddenly the rates started to go up and up and up.
(02:16):
At the same time, some of that early infrastructure started
to get worn out, and it's like the perfect storm.
Plus government forgets it keeps giving local government stuff to
do without the money to do it.
Speaker 4 (02:29):
So rates capping.
Speaker 6 (02:30):
They tried it in the UK, it hasn't been particularly successful.
They've tried a little bit in Australia, hasn't been particularly successful.
Over the years, there's been lots of reports on new
funding tools for local government, so someone needs to look
at it properly and say what is the best way
to fund local government? I mean one of the classics
(02:52):
is GST. It's spent locally, but the government collects the
GST and they keep it for health and education and hospitals,
so it doesn't ever get distributed back to.
Speaker 4 (03:02):
Where it was raised.
Speaker 6 (03:03):
So my view is I don't think it'll work, but
local government does need help with funding tools, and we've
got to stop these double digit digit funding increases that
are unaffordable.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
Unaffordable is exactly right, I mean, Peter Done, what are
your thoughts because it is unaffordable?
Speaker 5 (03:19):
Yeah, I think. I think the current rates crisis around
the country is spiraling out of control. Well Incoin's a
classic example, but by no means the only one. Something
needs to be done. I'm skeptical about whether a rates
cap can work, simply because where would you apply it at.
Would you take a zero base, some would would you
make it the inflation rate? All sorts of things. If
(03:41):
you do that, then the government should apply the same
principles to its own spending. But I think Kerry makes
an interesting point about the GST. When GST was introduced,
the government agreed to give back the GST on rates
to local government. That was that was. I remember that discussion,
which passed narrowly in the Labor Caucus at the time,
(04:01):
and was implemented with the law. It happened for a
couple of years. Then the global financial the eighty seven
share market crash it and the government put that on hold,
and unfortunately it's never taken it off hold. So I
think you can make the argument GST is on rates
as a tax on at tax. I think that as
a start, the government should commit to returning the GST
(04:21):
component on rates back to local government. I think the
second thing is that governments need to review quite the
scope of local government activities. They have grown hugely over
the years. We've got duplication in some areas. Housing is
a good example. The government provides public housing through Kynga,
or you've got counsels providing their own social housing programs.
(04:43):
I think there's scope for rationalization there, and I think
if some of those things happened, then the pressure on
rates will be reduced. But I think the cap idea
sounds good. That maybe just be a bit too simplistic
in practice.
Speaker 6 (04:57):
Just say so on introductor, you just say the other
thing is the government sector doesn't pay runs.
Speaker 4 (05:03):
They only pay for water and stormwater and sewage.
Speaker 6 (05:07):
So if they started paying their share and Wellington is
disproportionately affected by that, right, can.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
I just ask you about the social housing because there's
something that I really pushed the barrier on the show,
and I know that a deal was done with the
government on social housing. So this is where it gets
complicated because I've said it's really simple, give it back
to Congerora, give all the well Even city council based
social housing to conger Or. Now when you were and me,
I think there was a deal done with the government
(05:35):
to get a whole lot of money to tidy that
all up. And you can't do that, can.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
You, Well, we can't do that.
Speaker 6 (05:41):
Me and John Banks did a deal. He went in
and he said, unless you buy it off me, we're
going to sell it and there'll be no more social
housing Auckland. So the primus at the time, Helen Clark,
did a deal. I went in a wee while later
and she said, if you're in here to ask me
to buy your social housing. The answer is no, And
I said no, No, don't want you to buy. I
(06:01):
want a partnership. If you put in half to recognize
the resilients issues Wellington has the earthquake issues. We put
in half. Let's work together and that worked very well.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
But you've got we as a city now cannot sell, can.
Speaker 6 (06:17):
We Well you wouldn't get this council to sell the.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
No, but I'm saying we can't legally sell because of
the deal that you guys did with it.
Speaker 6 (06:24):
Now it was a one off capital and it wasn't
that it couldn't be sold.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
I thought it was up to a certain year that
you had to stay in social housing.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
Is that not right?
Speaker 4 (06:33):
I don't remember that detail. I'm sorry about that.
Speaker 6 (06:35):
I do know that because it's subsidized, people in Wellington
City Council housing can't get other government benefits. And there's
been a story today about the disadvantage they have. If
you're in city council housing, you can't pick up government benefits.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Why are we so? Why are we so having social housing?
Speaker 6 (06:55):
Well?
Speaker 5 (06:56):
The problem, I think Carrie's just put a finger on
the point. The problem is that you've got well intentioned
governments and local governments providing social housing, different rules and
conditions apply, and so if you're in one, you get
a certain level of treatment. I'm not talking about comfort.
I'm just talking about the way you respect being treated.
If you're in another, you get a different level that
(07:17):
needs to be rationalized. And I think along with that
then the eligibility criteria, so you don't get people being
bumped from one to the other. All of those sorts
of things. And I do think ultimately you've got to
make a call of one provider, whether it's going or
or whether it's a different entity, it doesn't matter. But
I think at the moment you've got so many different providers,
different rules, confusion.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Isn't that simple?
Speaker 4 (07:38):
Certainly give consistency across the country.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
Yeah, wouldn't that be simple, Garry, why are.
Speaker 4 (07:43):
We not talking?
Speaker 6 (07:44):
It would be simple, and then it would be means tested.
So you know, we have to have the ability when
people start earning money, they've got a job, then they
need to be able to move with dignity and time
to allow people who don't have that advantage.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Almost old fashioned state housing.
Speaker 6 (08:01):
Well that's the way it started. But I guess Wellington
got into it because You've got all of these people
coming up from the UK for jobs, single men. So
they built a whole lot of single mean accommodation. And
then it just got bigger and bigger and bigger.
Speaker 5 (08:15):
And the problem is that its original concept public housing
or state housing was a transition to help you in
times of need to move, has now become a lifestyle.
I was amazed when I was an MP of the
number of cases I would deal with where people would
talk about, well, this house has been in our family
for forty years and you can't you know, you the
(08:35):
state can't say we're going to move you on because
it's our home. I mean, then we went on to it.
Speaker 6 (08:41):
We went through a stage with the previous National government
I think where you could buy the house, but what
they didn't do was replace it with new stocks. We
ended up with this deficit in the amount of housing available.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Peter, I want to start with you on this one.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Went into the airport is investing five hundred million in
a big upgrade plan, a new logo and new terminal improvements.
But they're also building an energy absorbing blocks on the
runway to allow for bigger place to come in. There
is expectation This could lead to much bigger planes and
finally we get flights from the US Singapore.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Is this realistic?
Speaker 5 (09:13):
Well, I'm a wee bit skeptical about it, frankly because
I'm not so much the feasibility of the plan, but
where the demand is. I'm just not certain that there's
going to be enough demand and I'm happy to be
proven wrong to justify that level of commitment over a
period of time. It seems to me that Wellington's got
very good trans Tasmin and Pacific potential, but I'm not
(09:36):
sure about longer hall beyond Wellington. I'm not sure, for instance,
how successful when Singapore was flying and here that service was.
I heard mixed views about it.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
I think it was starting to come right. I mean,
I must.
Speaker 5 (09:47):
Confess I've I've got a slightly jauntoue view because I
was due to fly with them out of Wellington when
we went into lockdown, and of course by the time
we came out but had gone. But never mind.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
Well, I've just been told this morning by someone and
don't quote me on this in case I'm wrong, but
someone quote said to me this morning that you can
get your credit back through in New Zealand if you wanted.
Speaker 5 (10:05):
To anyway, look good luck to them. But as I say,
I'm just a wee bit skeptical that the case mightn't
be strong enough on the demand side.
Speaker 6 (10:14):
You're entirely the opposite. I think it's a fantastic opportunity.
All the years ago when I was involved with the airport,
this was always the hope.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
It's got to happen.
Speaker 6 (10:24):
Aircraft are lighter, they need shorter runways to land, putting
these little shock absorbers at each end. It's great, and
they will have done a business case. There's no way
the owners of the airport are going to go ahead
and spend this sort of money unless they're guaranteed that
they've got the both of the cargo and the passengers
to fill the plane. So I think it's a wonderful
(10:46):
I'm sick of flying to Auckland to get on an
international flight, not that I spent all my time doing that,
but be able to do it direct and where the
capital city for some cultures like China, they like to
fly straight into Wellington, and so I say good luck
to them. There's just a little point I'll make here,
which sort of hinted that in the paper this morning.
(11:06):
They say they're going to raise it all on debt.
It's good pay interest on the debt. That means the
income to council will go down.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
No, you obviously weren't listening to the show when Matt
Clark was on the shows.
Speaker 4 (11:19):
That just doesn't make sense.
Speaker 6 (11:20):
Of course, once it's built, they will, but they could
do a call on capital, which is probably what he's saying.
We're not going to ask for a third of the money,
We'll do it on debt. We've got to service the debt.
So in the short term, till the business case is
being met by increased numbers of people arriving and you
pay a price per passenger, then maybe the return to
(11:41):
council will go down a bit.
Speaker 3 (11:42):
Okay, but I can't see there being a downside to it.
And my argument with your you, Peter, not that I
want to have an argument with you.
Speaker 4 (11:48):
Just said you agreed with them a minute ago.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
I didn't agree with them. No, I didn't agree with
I'm saying it's all positive too.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
No, I'm saying when he said that the numbers, I
don't expect there to be a flight a day to
LA from Wellington. I think there'll be like two flights
a week from LA two flights a week to Hong Kong,
two flights a week, you know what I mean?
Speaker 5 (12:05):
And I guess that comes to my point. Will there
be enough demands in terms of those flights to justify
the level of expenditure that's going to be required to
do this? Now, as I say, I'm happy to be
proven wrong, but I'm just a little bit wary of
getting into something that's going to be a significant investment
that mightn't produce the return.
Speaker 6 (12:25):
Airports don't invest unless they've signed, don't. They don't extend
in the hope they'll come. They actually sign a deal
with an airline, and it's sort of a back to
back deal.
Speaker 5 (12:36):
Let's we do this, Let's see the deals.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Well Matt Matt had Matt Clark was on the show
earlier saying that they already talked to airlines and airlines
were real keen. And the other thing that you keep
forgetting is don't think of Wellington as a basin. Think
of Wellington as an area.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
Now.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
I you know was born in New Plymouth and Ethan
lived lived his whole life in New Plymouth, New Plymouth.
People down will come to Wellington to fly out internationally.
They don't want to go to Auckland. They don't want
to have anything to do with Auckland.
Speaker 4 (13:03):
So on the top half the.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
South Island they'll get the ferry over.
Speaker 4 (13:06):
And on a fly all the little planes that could
come over forward.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
So I think I think you're being a little bit
negative on this.
Speaker 5 (13:12):
I'm I'm just being I'm just being cautious.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Okay, all right.
Speaker 6 (13:18):
Why you have the two of us, mister cautious and
miss positive.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
Okay, let's go. No, he's not he's not big. He wasn't. Yeah,
he was being cautious. You're right. I was thinking.
Speaker 5 (13:25):
I didn't say no. I just said he show me
the evidence.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
Show me the buddy. We all want that in PA's behavior.
I want to talk about that because in Parliament it's
been a hot topic this week. Yesterday, Education Minister Erica
Stanford apologized for calling Labor MP.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
Jan Toinetti a stupid quote bitch.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
I'm not allowed to use that word online unless I
say quote. Then there was a harker by the party
Maori during the first reading of the Treaties Principal Bill,
racking up just under a billion views on social media.
Now I know for a fact that you, Kerry are
going to be up in arms about this behavior, Well,
I thought you would be.
Speaker 6 (14:06):
Did officials you expect them to be there? Is they
have to be better than the rest of the there's
a respect being there. And I'm surprised at Minister Stanford
that she would say that under her breath.
Speaker 2 (14:22):
I know this was it under a breath. I hadn't
seen it.
Speaker 6 (14:24):
Well, well, I know she's apologized both the speaker and
she's apologized to it.
Speaker 4 (14:28):
She shouldn't have seen it. You don't say stuff like that.
Speaker 6 (14:31):
And I found the thek hakka. Yeah, I found that
intimidating and threatening, which was what it was designed to be.
And I thought it was inappropriate and I think it
was the right response. But Peter has much more experience
of this than I do.
Speaker 5 (14:49):
Well, there's a simple word in my mind in both cases,
and it's called respect. And I think what's happening in
both are examples of it. In a way, is that
respect for Parliament as an institution in the eyes of
its members is reducing that You should I've always felt
you should have a certain sort of awe and fear
(15:10):
of the place. But like when you tread into a cathedral.
You know, you don't sort of shout and scream, you
behave appropriately. But I think what's happened over the years,
and I'm not quite sure of the reasons why, is
that that level of respect has diminished. So it's okay
to say things under your breath to your colleagues and
with cameras have them picked up and transmitted. In the
(15:30):
case of the standard incident or the Harkat, which I
think is unprecedented in terms of its interruption, and it
seems to me that Parliament's got to really and it
comes back to the Speaker and in the probably the
Privileges Committee take a very strong look at what its
expectations of its members are and how it requires them
to comply. Being in Parliament's not just like being in
(15:51):
the works calf and having a heated discussion, but that's
the sort of mentality.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
It's almost like that they feel that they have more
and they'd be able to do it in Parliament and
the den and the label you almost.
Speaker 5 (16:02):
Need I anyway, you almost need to have a slight
fear of the institution because it's bigger than you. It's
about our democracy, it's about our system of government. But
I think what's happening is that there's a sense that
this is just a vehicle for us to say and
do what we want to the reality that is diminishing
the whole thing.
Speaker 4 (16:18):
And the reality is a privilege.
Speaker 6 (16:20):
I don't think we should Where you're elected at local governments,
it is a privilege to represent people and you should
treat the institution appropriately.
Speaker 3 (16:30):
Peter, what do you make of the penalties or so
called penalty?
Speaker 2 (16:35):
Is it appropriate? Do we need to get tougher? Do
we need to do something?
Speaker 5 (16:38):
We certainly need to do something. I think there needs
to be much a clearer set of guidelines for what's
acceptable behavior and not and that needs to be accompanied
by sanctions where that behavior is breached at the moment,
a sort of a censure or a slap on the hand.
With the bus ticket variety. It was interesting that it
might be Clark was named, which is a very serious
(17:03):
penalty in terms of things, which means you're suspended all privileges,
including pay for the period of that which was only
twenty four hours. But if you get named a second
time within a specified period, and a third time then
you get suspended for months. So I think a little
bit of a little bit more application of the rules.
I thought Jerry Browne was an impossible position. I thought
(17:25):
all his years as a school teacher served him extremely
well as to how he handled the I.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
Thought he was weak veritable children. I thought he was weak.
I thought, oh no, don't do that. It was weak.
Speaker 5 (17:35):
Well, I think it was more frustration and surprise, but also,
you know, just trying to read the room in terms
of what the next steps might have been. I mean,
had he called for more effective enforcement, it comes down
to the sergeant of arms to do that. It's not
really you know.
Speaker 3 (17:52):
Okay, Hikoy. I was about to start on my little
rant and ray for Hikoy. But now I'm allowed to
estimated forty thousand, which I think is well under I
think it's the biggest thing I've ever seen in Warrington.
People marched on Parliament on Tuesday protesting David Seamow's treating
his principal bill.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
Firstly, Peter, what did you make of the turnout?
Speaker 5 (18:09):
I thought it was huge. I mean, I'm not good
at estimating numbers. When they said that they were going
to have thirty one thousand, forty thousand, I thought, well
that they're not going to fit all of those into
Parliament grounds, it's not big enough. But when I saw
the spill over into nearby streets, it was huge and
there's no point in trying to pretend otherwise. Did everyone
know what they were therefore? I don't know, but look,
(18:31):
it was a significant occasion and the thing I thought
was most interesting about it was it seems to have
been handled pretty well. There was one or two arrests only,
and I thought compared to, for instance, the occupation of
a couple of years ago, this was a pretty well
conducted affair. Whatever your point of view about the issue.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
At hand, Kerrie, you would have been disrupted because it
was around your we live, so you would have been
disrupted more than Peter and I were.
Speaker 2 (18:59):
I thought it was an amazing event. What was your
thoughts on it?
Speaker 6 (19:03):
So, first of all, I think a big call out
to the organizers and the participants, because the reality is
it was peaceful, It was respectful, there was a lot
of singing, there was no aggression, and I think, well
in Tony's been warmed enough. The clean up afterwards was amazing.
Ask Parliament that night at five point thirty and you
(19:25):
would not have known that anyone had been on the grass.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
Well, I was at white Tangy Park the next day
and it was like absolute Christine.
Speaker 6 (19:34):
So a call out to the city. I presume they
did that. But the bigger picture, this is just a
vote getting for To Party, MARI and of course for
ACT and if I was Labor or the Greens and
the Nets. I think our next polling is going to
show a big dip down as the to Party MARI
and ACT really pick up from their supporters. Run by
(19:59):
to Party Murray the young lad running at his mother's
and MP. I presume they helped fund it. The reality is,
as Peter said, this was all about them raising their profile,
so their supporters will think it's marvelous. Ex supporters will
think it's marvelous, and those votes will come for somewhere.
And I think as a country we've got a challenging
(20:20):
six months ahead of us.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
Yeah, I agree. Well, well both the I'm going to
go and ask you both the same question. I'll start
with you, Peter. Were you disappointed with the performance of
christalh Luxon as Prime Minister.
Speaker 5 (20:30):
I wasn't disappointed. I think he's in an impossible position.
He's got a commitment he's got to honor. He was
away at the Apex conference for a significant portion of
the lead up to it. I think that he's now
got to grit his teeth and bear it for the
next six months. But I'll tell you what I suspect
you if I was in Issues, I'd be saying to
my team, look, this is not our issue. We need
(20:53):
to focus on our issues and the things we're doing
and want to achieve and try and get that up
on the agenda. I'm sure we will see, you know,
when he goes to China earlier in the new year.
That would be a huge, big publicity event, and I'm
sure he'll try and do other things that magnify his
status as Prime Minister. But frankly, the moment the bill
comes out of the Select Committee, the sooner the National
(21:15):
Party is able to vote it down from their point
of view, the better. The longer it lingers, the worse
it will be for Labor. It's the same in reverse.
They're sort of trapped in a me too situation here,
and I think for them to avoid getting sort of
caught in this downward spiral, they also need to cut
loose and find their own issues to be promoting separate
from this, but it looks like Hipkins is going to
(21:35):
go along with this process to the bitter end, I think,
to his detriment.
Speaker 2 (21:41):
Here are you you'reine?
Speaker 6 (21:42):
I think well after the Coalition agreement was signed and
Luxeon equivocated on whether they would support or wouldn't, I
mean he he never was adamant until recently, and I
think they do polling. It didn't take them long to
work out the country was pretty divided and this was
a no win for them. So I think he's finally
(22:02):
come out saying they won't support it, but from X
point of view, delivering exactly for his electorates. So he's
doing what he has to do, and Luxeen's committing to
deal with the issues around the treaty, as you know,
in a different way rather than the big bang approach.
Speaker 5 (22:20):
There's one complication in all of this which occurred to
me yesterday. This bill will be at the Select Committee
for about six months, that's about May of next year,
and it's due to be reported back around the same date.
Under the Coalition agreement, David Seymour takes over as the
Deputy Prime Minister, and I think that's rather awkward because Also,
around May of next year, there'll be the budget and
(22:42):
the government will want to get all of the stuff
out of the way before then. So I think political management,
which hasn't been this government strong point, is going to
be under real stress over the next six months.
Speaker 6 (22:53):
I can't see it doing it in six months reality,
they're all going to come and speaking to are they
going to have to wait for translation translations. I can
see it going on a lot, and that.
Speaker 5 (23:02):
Makes it even worse, you know. I think if the
Select Committee decides to travel and as you say, you know,
you can just see the optics of if the chairman says,
look for all the chairperson says, we're going to give
everyone fifteen.
Speaker 4 (23:16):
Minutes, it won't work.
Speaker 5 (23:18):
Won't work. I've chared select committees, We've had to do that,
and it carries on, drags on and dragons drags on.
The Select Committee's master of its own business, so it
could carry on as long.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
As it takes your Christmas next year.
Speaker 5 (23:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (23:31):
At midnight yesterday a new ban on wearing gang in
singor in public places came into force and it took
just three minutes for police to issue their first court summons.
At twelve three a m and Hastings carry pride gas.
Is the gang patch ban a good idea.
Speaker 6 (23:48):
They're very They make people feel intimidated, which is what
it's all about. So I understand from their perspective it's
about their family, it's their right of passage. But for
the majority of New Zealanders they fel intimidated. I feel
very sorry for the police. I see there's a lot
of clashes coming up in the own. Other comment I'll
say is the night before early evening, quite a large
(24:12):
contingent of Harley Davidson's with guys with their patches on
drove on the footpath around Orient making a point weaving
in and around pedestrians. So I can't see this is
going to end well, but I do wish the police
the best.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
Peter. Will it work.
Speaker 5 (24:30):
I'm skeptical that it will work for a whole variety
of reasons. I think the issue is about intimidation and
about the fear people feel, and it seems to me
that that rather than banning patches per se, banning congregation
might have been a bigger, a better way of dealing
with this. I mean, I can't see that someone wandering
(24:52):
into the local supermarket wearing them among them mob patches.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
Do they are they allowed to walk into your supermarket?
I've never seen more. I've never seen any.
Speaker 5 (25:01):
One off situation or someone just wandering up the street
out here, for instance, is a problem. But I think
the grouping together and the scenes we've seen at funerals
and other things is what gives the public. The police
are in an impossible position, though, because I think what's
going to happen, and I was thought about this when
I heard at twelve h three am someone was arrested.
(25:22):
It's going to be relatively easy pickings for the police.
And my fear is that they'll be concentrating on picking
up people wearing gang patches and avoiding all the other
things they should be doing.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
So we're both skeptical it's going to work, you see.
Speaker 6 (25:35):
My view.
Speaker 3 (25:36):
My view is that you drive them underground and you
make them hell of a lot more dangerous. Least, when
you see them driving down that footpath with their patches
on carey, you know exactly who you're dealing with.
Speaker 6 (25:44):
Oh. The other thing I'd just say is that individually,
most of these people I've had a bit to do
with them. I was as a midwife. That's fine, but
you put them in a group and peer pressure happens.
That's what's the intimidatory part of it. I mean, I've
seen them in supermarkets and things around the region. Individually.
(26:04):
How you policed it? Do you really want to create
a scene if you're the local policeman in Fakatani and
you're going to have to remove someone. It's they want
to build relationships. They don't want to be constantly at
war with the police, and.
Speaker 5 (26:17):
The moment you don't do it, then the police will
be in the gun for not enforcing the law.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
So it's okay.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
The government is making changes to name suppression laws, giving
victims the power to decide if their sexual abuser is
granted suppression.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
Peter, I like this idea. Should victims or judges have
the power to decide?
Speaker 5 (26:35):
Look I like the idea. I think the idea that
someone who is a sexual offender should somehow be hidden
from public view once convicted, I find intolerable, whether it's
the victim or the judge, or a combination of both,
the fact that we could have greater clarity, I think
it's a great ideas the case in Auckland today. Forens,
I'm not going to go into the details the well
known political figure.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
He gets named today?
Speaker 5 (26:57):
Does he get named?
Speaker 2 (26:58):
But I don't know.
Speaker 5 (26:58):
But the point is, informally we all know who it is.
That person shouldn't be able to hide behind the fact
that they were had political connections forever once they've been convicted.
Speaker 6 (27:13):
So at the moment the judge can take into account
the views of the victims. So my only consent, I
think agree with Peter absolutely, except if the victims are
immature or young and they don't understand the implications by
naming the victim or outing them the perpetrator, then it
(27:35):
identifies them, and that would worry me. It would you're
scarred for life anyway, And if you're young and you think, yes,
I want that person it turns out to be your
uncle or whatever, then everybody knows that you were the victim,
and I'd worry about.
Speaker 2 (27:51):
Well, that's where they get the choice, they say, But.
Speaker 6 (27:53):
If you're young and you don't understand that implication, So
as long as they're well counseled and well supported, then
absolutely they should have the right.
Speaker 3 (28:01):
Okay, really really quickly, because I've got to go to
hots and knots. But the popular terrorist attraction at the
po Tanical Gardens needs eighteen million dollars worth of work
Bygonia House we're talking about, but the council is considering
demolishing the building carriers eighteen million two much And how
important is Bagonia House to Wellington's Botanical garden?
Speaker 6 (28:19):
Very very important open in nineteen sixty. I'm passionate about it.
It's the it's not an earthquake risk. It's to do
with heating and the glazing. I understand it's a Washington monument.
Councilor putting that up, but not putting up the stuff
they know Wellingtonians don't want. The reality is I understand
a group went to council and said, you give us
a twenty five year lease, we'll run the cafe and
(28:42):
we'll do the work for you. And councils still thinking
about that. Why don't they let the private sector take
it over and do it and save the building.
Speaker 5 (28:49):
You should do this show exactly what I said, and
I'd say exactly the same thing. I mean, well, there's three.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
Of us saying the same thing in any common sense.
Speaker 5 (28:56):
One of the things that identifies the Botanic Gardens and Wellington.
What are you going to have there in its place
a sort of a bear patch or more roses. I
think the begin only a house is significant. It was
it was a donation I think, originally from the Norwood family.
You're right, and it seems to me that that donation
should be respected. In a private consortium that's got the
(29:18):
capacity to upgrade and run it, I think should be
invited in immediately.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
I love the fact that you say about the Washington
Everything that they release is stuff that they know is
going to create emotion, isn't it. It's not like we
might get rid of the base in reserve.
Speaker 4 (29:32):
You can go to the Menaced and say that Wellingtonians wanted.
Speaker 1 (29:35):
It the Friday Fast.
Speaker 3 (29:42):
Right, Okay, Peter Dunne, I see you're a little bit
excited about this.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
Now you don't have to get excited. But hots and dots,
what do you think?
Speaker 5 (29:49):
Well, I'll tell you what's hot for me is the
report at the moment that the bhutakawa and the rata
are flowering early, which is the harbinger of a good, long,
hot summer. I think that's great and I think we
all need it after the sort of year we've all
enjoyed or not enjoyed. I've got two knots. Though I
was going to talk about Black Friday. I'm sick of
these American commercialisms being imported into our way of life.
(30:11):
Valentine's Day was bad enough, now we've be I got
two emails this morning unsolicited about Black Friday specials. I'm
not interested, and I just think we should develop our
own thing. But more significantly, I read in the Herald
this morning of a trial in wrote a rua yesterday,
or at the committal stage of a murder case where
the person has been bound over for trial but the
(30:33):
trial won't take place until twenty twenty seven.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (30:37):
I always thought that justice delayed was justice denied, and
I think that's We've got to do something about speeding
up the process of court cases coming to trial. It's
just ridiculous that someone's going to be waiting the best
part of three years for their case to come before
the court. Let alone the victims and the families etc.
Who are obviously affect too.
Speaker 3 (30:55):
Much stress all around there. Dame Carrie Prinagath, give me
your hots and knots for the week.
Speaker 6 (31:01):
So hopefully everyone in Wellington has noticed that Saint Gera,
it's has got that fantastic monument has got some work
happening to it. So my understanding there's two or three
wealthy gentlemen who are bought it and they're funding it.
They're making it water proof, they're making it secure.
Speaker 4 (31:21):
While they work out what to do with it.
Speaker 6 (31:22):
So well done to them, and I look forward to
them deciding what's going to be inside it so we
can continue to enjoy it, not just from the outside,
but have access to it as well. Sorry, it's Injured's monastery.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
Oh the monastery.
Speaker 3 (31:35):
Sorry, I thought you For a minute, I thought you
were talking about the band retunder. I don't know why,
but I just got.
Speaker 6 (31:39):
No, no, no, you see that. Yeah, And what's not
good is the people who keep putting down our city.
We've got to be positive about its future. We're a
great city and we need to all start talking it
up to continue to enjoy living here. The great lifestyle,
(32:00):
the great opportunities for jobs and work and weather, and
let's have a g eight summer and a great Christmas.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
Have you had a look at back House and terias
opened in the city. Have you had a look at that?
You know they've opened up on Allen Street.
Speaker 3 (32:13):
You see that your Peter great great new shop that's
just opened on our street, Allen Street. Yeah, yeah, it's
you know, when you want to talk about positive stuffing.
You walk in there and Michelle's like this so positive
welling Tonian and she's got she make a great meal,
make a great mer carey, twist her arm.
Speaker 2 (32:31):
Go in there and twist her arm.
Speaker 3 (32:32):
And say, Nick Mills thinks you'd be a great Meyor
can I twist your arm? Can I tell you all
the good things about Big Beer of Wellington?
Speaker 2 (32:39):
And we're having a positive Friday.
Speaker 3 (32:42):
I still look at Peter. Peter would be a great beer,
would they? You just have to be a little bit
more positive. You didn't really buy into the positive Friday,
did it. Thank you both so much for joining us
on the show today. Have a really really good positive weekend, Carrie.
Let's be real positive. Let's keep Wellington positive. God, I
(33:02):
love that idea.
Speaker 1 (33:04):
For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mill, listen live
to news Talks It'd be Wellington from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Wellington Mornings podcast with Nick Mills
from News Talk said B dissecting the week sublime and ridiculous.
Friday face off with Quinovic Property Management a better rental
experience for all Call eight hundred. Quinovic starts Friday's.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Day without positive Friday.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
Today we've got a couple of real positive wal Italians
jumping into Friday face Off. Joining us for the show
this morning is former willing to Mayor Dame Carey Printagask
good morning.
Speaker 4 (00:50):
Carry, good morning, a positive welling journey in.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Now and the second positive Walalian former minister at O'Har.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Are you in p Peter done?
Speaker 5 (00:59):
Good morning, morning, good morning, carry, good to be here,
good to be positive from fine weather and it was
freezing when I went out of but the sun's coming through, so.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
Okay, let's let's have a positive hour. I want to
start this morning by talking about rates. The government is
indicator that's looking at options to cap rates around the
country and local government New Zealand met and Wellington.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
Yesterday to talk about it.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Do either of you lost up with you Kerry, because gosh,
you know all about rates. Have you ever looked at
the idea of capping rates because I love I love
this idea.
Speaker 6 (01:33):
No, I haven't ever looked at it. I just want
to take a couple of minutes to go back. So
first of all, we're a young country and most of
our towns, except for some of the older ones like
Wellington Auckland, have got younger infrastructure, and all councils used
to be run by engineers basically, so they looked after
the infrastructure, the roads, and the rates and the rubbish,
(01:55):
et cetera. They changed the law in the late eighties
which gave councilors the ability to do a lot more
stuff and a lot more consulting. And then the public
started asking for more stuff, more pools, more libraries, more
convention centers, more marketing for tourism, more events, etc. And
suddenly the rates started to go up and up and up.
(02:16):
At the same time, some of that early infrastructure started
to get worn out, and it's like the perfect storm.
Plus government forgets it keeps giving local government stuff to
do without the money to do it.
Speaker 4 (02:29):
So rates capping.
Speaker 6 (02:30):
They tried it in the UK, it hasn't been particularly successful.
They've tried a little bit in Australia, hasn't been particularly successful.
Over the years, there's been lots of reports on new
funding tools for local government, so someone needs to look
at it properly and say what is the best way
to fund local government? I mean one of the classics
(02:52):
is GST. It's spent locally, but the government collects the
GST and they keep it for health and education and hospitals,
so it doesn't ever get distributed back to.
Speaker 4 (03:02):
Where it was raised.
Speaker 6 (03:03):
So my view is I don't think it'll work, but
local government does need help with funding tools, and we've
got to stop these double digit digit funding increases that
are unaffordable.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
Unaffordable is exactly right, I mean, Peter Done, what are
your thoughts because it is unaffordable?
Speaker 5 (03:19):
Yeah, I think. I think the current rates crisis around
the country is spiraling out of control. Well Incoin's a
classic example, but by no means the only one. Something
needs to be done. I'm skeptical about whether a rates
cap can work, simply because where would you apply it at.
Would you take a zero base, some would would you
make it the inflation rate? All sorts of things. If
(03:41):
you do that, then the government should apply the same
principles to its own spending. But I think Kerry makes
an interesting point about the GST. When GST was introduced,
the government agreed to give back the GST on rates
to local government. That was that was. I remember that discussion,
which passed narrowly in the Labor Caucus at the time,
(04:01):
and was implemented with the law. It happened for a
couple of years. Then the global financial the eighty seven
share market crash it and the government put that on hold,
and unfortunately it's never taken it off hold. So I
think you can make the argument GST is on rates
as a tax on at tax. I think that as
a start, the government should commit to returning the GST
(04:21):
component on rates back to local government. I think the
second thing is that governments need to review quite the
scope of local government activities. They have grown hugely over
the years. We've got duplication in some areas. Housing is
a good example. The government provides public housing through Kynga,
or you've got counsels providing their own social housing programs.
(04:43):
I think there's scope for rationalization there, and I think
if some of those things happened, then the pressure on
rates will be reduced. But I think the cap idea
sounds good. That maybe just be a bit too simplistic
in practice.
Speaker 6 (04:57):
Just say so on introductor, you just say the other
thing is the government sector doesn't pay runs.
Speaker 4 (05:03):
They only pay for water and stormwater and sewage.
Speaker 6 (05:07):
So if they started paying their share and Wellington is
disproportionately affected by that, right, can.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
I just ask you about the social housing because there's
something that I really pushed the barrier on the show,
and I know that a deal was done with the
government on social housing. So this is where it gets
complicated because I've said it's really simple, give it back
to Congerora, give all the well Even city council based
social housing to conger Or. Now when you were and me,
I think there was a deal done with the government
(05:35):
to get a whole lot of money to tidy that
all up. And you can't do that, can.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
You, Well, we can't do that.
Speaker 6 (05:41):
Me and John Banks did a deal. He went in
and he said, unless you buy it off me, we're
going to sell it and there'll be no more social
housing Auckland. So the primus at the time, Helen Clark,
did a deal. I went in a wee while later
and she said, if you're in here to ask me
to buy your social housing. The answer is no, And
I said no, No, don't want you to buy. I
(06:01):
want a partnership. If you put in half to recognize
the resilients issues Wellington has the earthquake issues. We put
in half. Let's work together and that worked very well.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
But you've got we as a city now cannot sell, can.
Speaker 6 (06:17):
We Well you wouldn't get this council to sell the.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
No, but I'm saying we can't legally sell because of
the deal that you guys did with it.
Speaker 6 (06:24):
Now it was a one off capital and it wasn't
that it couldn't be sold.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
I thought it was up to a certain year that
you had to stay in social housing.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
Is that not right?
Speaker 4 (06:33):
I don't remember that detail. I'm sorry about that.
Speaker 6 (06:35):
I do know that because it's subsidized, people in Wellington
City Council housing can't get other government benefits. And there's
been a story today about the disadvantage they have. If
you're in city council housing, you can't pick up government benefits.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Why are we so? Why are we so having social housing?
Speaker 6 (06:55):
Well?
Speaker 5 (06:56):
The problem, I think Carrie's just put a finger on
the point. The problem is that you've got well intentioned
governments and local governments providing social housing, different rules and
conditions apply, and so if you're in one, you get
a certain level of treatment. I'm not talking about comfort.
I'm just talking about the way you respect being treated.
If you're in another, you get a different level that
(07:17):
needs to be rationalized. And I think along with that
then the eligibility criteria, so you don't get people being
bumped from one to the other. All of those sorts
of things. And I do think ultimately you've got to
make a call of one provider, whether it's going or
or whether it's a different entity, it doesn't matter. But
I think at the moment you've got so many different providers,
different rules, confusion.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Isn't that simple?
Speaker 4 (07:38):
Certainly give consistency across the country.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
Yeah, wouldn't that be simple, Garry, why are.
Speaker 4 (07:43):
We not talking?
Speaker 6 (07:44):
It would be simple, and then it would be means tested.
So you know, we have to have the ability when
people start earning money, they've got a job, then they
need to be able to move with dignity and time
to allow people who don't have that advantage.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Almost old fashioned state housing.
Speaker 6 (08:01):
Well that's the way it started. But I guess Wellington
got into it because You've got all of these people
coming up from the UK for jobs, single men. So
they built a whole lot of single mean accommodation. And
then it just got bigger and bigger and bigger.
Speaker 5 (08:15):
And the problem is that its original concept public housing
or state housing was a transition to help you in
times of need to move, has now become a lifestyle.
I was amazed when I was an MP of the
number of cases I would deal with where people would
talk about, well, this house has been in our family
for forty years and you can't you know, you the
(08:35):
state can't say we're going to move you on because
it's our home. I mean, then we went on to it.
Speaker 6 (08:41):
We went through a stage with the previous National government
I think where you could buy the house, but what
they didn't do was replace it with new stocks. We
ended up with this deficit in the amount of housing available.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Peter, I want to start with you on this one.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Went into the airport is investing five hundred million in
a big upgrade plan, a new logo and new terminal improvements.
But they're also building an energy absorbing blocks on the
runway to allow for bigger place to come in. There
is expectation This could lead to much bigger planes and
finally we get flights from the US Singapore.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Is this realistic?
Speaker 5 (09:13):
Well, I'm a wee bit skeptical about it, frankly because
I'm not so much the feasibility of the plan, but
where the demand is. I'm just not certain that there's
going to be enough demand and I'm happy to be
proven wrong to justify that level of commitment over a
period of time. It seems to me that Wellington's got
very good trans Tasmin and Pacific potential, but I'm not
(09:36):
sure about longer hall beyond Wellington. I'm not sure, for instance,
how successful when Singapore was flying and here that service was.
I heard mixed views about it.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
I think it was starting to come right. I mean,
I must.
Speaker 5 (09:47):
Confess I've I've got a slightly jauntoue view because I
was due to fly with them out of Wellington when
we went into lockdown, and of course by the time
we came out but had gone. But never mind.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
Well, I've just been told this morning by someone and
don't quote me on this in case I'm wrong, but
someone quote said to me this morning that you can
get your credit back through in New Zealand if you wanted.
Speaker 5 (10:05):
To anyway, look good luck to them. But as I say,
I'm just a wee bit skeptical that the case mightn't
be strong enough on the demand side.
Speaker 6 (10:14):
You're entirely the opposite. I think it's a fantastic opportunity.
All the years ago when I was involved with the airport,
this was always the hope.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
It's got to happen.
Speaker 6 (10:24):
Aircraft are lighter, they need shorter runways to land, putting
these little shock absorbers at each end. It's great, and
they will have done a business case. There's no way
the owners of the airport are going to go ahead
and spend this sort of money unless they're guaranteed that
they've got the both of the cargo and the passengers
to fill the plane. So I think it's a wonderful
(10:46):
I'm sick of flying to Auckland to get on an
international flight, not that I spent all my time doing that,
but be able to do it direct and where the
capital city for some cultures like China, they like to
fly straight into Wellington, and so I say good luck
to them. There's just a little point I'll make here,
which sort of hinted that in the paper this morning.
(11:06):
They say they're going to raise it all on debt.
It's good pay interest on the debt. That means the
income to council will go down.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
No, you obviously weren't listening to the show when Matt
Clark was on the shows.
Speaker 4 (11:19):
That just doesn't make sense.
Speaker 6 (11:20):
Of course, once it's built, they will, but they could
do a call on capital, which is probably what he's saying.
We're not going to ask for a third of the money,
We'll do it on debt. We've got to service the debt.
So in the short term, till the business case is
being met by increased numbers of people arriving and you
pay a price per passenger, then maybe the return to
(11:41):
council will go down a bit.
Speaker 3 (11:42):
Okay, but I can't see there being a downside to it.
And my argument with your you, Peter, not that I
want to have an argument with you.
Speaker 4 (11:48):
Just said you agreed with them a minute ago.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
I didn't agree with them. No, I didn't agree with
I'm saying it's all positive too.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
No, I'm saying when he said that the numbers, I
don't expect there to be a flight a day to
LA from Wellington. I think there'll be like two flights
a week from LA two flights a week to Hong Kong,
two flights a week, you know what I mean?
Speaker 5 (12:05):
And I guess that comes to my point. Will there
be enough demands in terms of those flights to justify
the level of expenditure that's going to be required to
do this? Now, as I say, I'm happy to be
proven wrong, but I'm just a little bit wary of
getting into something that's going to be a significant investment
that mightn't produce the return.
Speaker 6 (12:25):
Airports don't invest unless they've signed, don't. They don't extend
in the hope they'll come. They actually sign a deal
with an airline, and it's sort of a back to
back deal.
Speaker 5 (12:36):
Let's we do this, Let's see the deals.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Well Matt Matt had Matt Clark was on the show
earlier saying that they already talked to airlines and airlines
were real keen. And the other thing that you keep
forgetting is don't think of Wellington as a basin. Think
of Wellington as an area.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
Now.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
I you know was born in New Plymouth and Ethan
lived lived his whole life in New Plymouth, New Plymouth.
People down will come to Wellington to fly out internationally.
They don't want to go to Auckland. They don't want
to have anything to do with Auckland.
Speaker 4 (13:03):
So on the top half the.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
South Island they'll get the ferry over.
Speaker 4 (13:06):
And on a fly all the little planes that could
come over forward.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
So I think I think you're being a little bit
negative on this.
Speaker 5 (13:12):
I'm I'm just being I'm just being cautious.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Okay, all right.
Speaker 6 (13:18):
Why you have the two of us, mister cautious and
miss positive.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
Okay, let's go. No, he's not he's not big. He wasn't. Yeah,
he was being cautious. You're right. I was thinking.
Speaker 5 (13:25):
I didn't say no. I just said he show me
the evidence.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
Show me the buddy. We all want that in PA's behavior.
I want to talk about that because in Parliament it's
been a hot topic this week. Yesterday, Education Minister Erica
Stanford apologized for calling Labor MP.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
Jan Toinetti a stupid quote bitch.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
I'm not allowed to use that word online unless I
say quote. Then there was a harker by the party
Maori during the first reading of the Treaties Principal Bill,
racking up just under a billion views on social media.
Now I know for a fact that you, Kerry are
going to be up in arms about this behavior, Well,
I thought you would be.
Speaker 6 (14:06):
Did officials you expect them to be there? Is they
have to be better than the rest of the there's
a respect being there. And I'm surprised at Minister Stanford
that she would say that under her breath.
Speaker 2 (14:22):
I know this was it under a breath. I hadn't
seen it.
Speaker 6 (14:24):
Well, well, I know she's apologized both the speaker and
she's apologized to it.
Speaker 4 (14:28):
She shouldn't have seen it. You don't say stuff like that.
Speaker 6 (14:31):
And I found the thek hakka. Yeah, I found that
intimidating and threatening, which was what it was designed to be.
And I thought it was inappropriate and I think it
was the right response. But Peter has much more experience
of this than I do.
Speaker 5 (14:49):
Well, there's a simple word in my mind in both cases,
and it's called respect. And I think what's happening in
both are examples of it. In a way, is that
respect for Parliament as an institution in the eyes of
its members is reducing that You should I've always felt
you should have a certain sort of awe and fear
(15:10):
of the place. But like when you tread into a cathedral.
You know, you don't sort of shout and scream, you
behave appropriately. But I think what's happened over the years,
and I'm not quite sure of the reasons why, is
that that level of respect has diminished. So it's okay
to say things under your breath to your colleagues and
with cameras have them picked up and transmitted. In the
(15:30):
case of the standard incident or the Harkat, which I
think is unprecedented in terms of its interruption, and it
seems to me that Parliament's got to really and it
comes back to the Speaker and in the probably the
Privileges Committee take a very strong look at what its
expectations of its members are and how it requires them
to comply. Being in Parliament's not just like being in
(15:51):
the works calf and having a heated discussion, but that's
the sort of mentality.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
It's almost like that they feel that they have more
and they'd be able to do it in Parliament and
the den and the label you almost.
Speaker 5 (16:02):
Need I anyway, you almost need to have a slight
fear of the institution because it's bigger than you. It's
about our democracy, it's about our system of government. But
I think what's happening is that there's a sense that
this is just a vehicle for us to say and
do what we want to the reality that is diminishing
the whole thing.
Speaker 4 (16:18):
And the reality is a privilege.
Speaker 6 (16:20):
I don't think we should Where you're elected at local governments,
it is a privilege to represent people and you should
treat the institution appropriately.
Speaker 3 (16:30):
Peter, what do you make of the penalties or so
called penalty?
Speaker 2 (16:35):
Is it appropriate? Do we need to get tougher? Do
we need to do something?
Speaker 5 (16:38):
We certainly need to do something. I think there needs
to be much a clearer set of guidelines for what's
acceptable behavior and not and that needs to be accompanied
by sanctions where that behavior is breached at the moment,
a sort of a censure or a slap on the hand.
With the bus ticket variety. It was interesting that it
might be Clark was named, which is a very serious
(17:03):
penalty in terms of things, which means you're suspended all privileges,
including pay for the period of that which was only
twenty four hours. But if you get named a second
time within a specified period, and a third time then
you get suspended for months. So I think a little
bit of a little bit more application of the rules.
I thought Jerry Browne was an impossible position. I thought
(17:25):
all his years as a school teacher served him extremely
well as to how he handled the I.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
Thought he was weak veritable children. I thought he was weak.
I thought, oh no, don't do that. It was weak.
Speaker 5 (17:35):
Well, I think it was more frustration and surprise, but also,
you know, just trying to read the room in terms
of what the next steps might have been. I mean,
had he called for more effective enforcement, it comes down
to the sergeant of arms to do that. It's not
really you know.
Speaker 3 (17:52):
Okay, Hikoy. I was about to start on my little
rant and ray for Hikoy. But now I'm allowed to
estimated forty thousand, which I think is well under I
think it's the biggest thing I've ever seen in Warrington.
People marched on Parliament on Tuesday protesting David Seamow's treating
his principal bill.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
Firstly, Peter, what did you make of the turnout?
Speaker 5 (18:09):
I thought it was huge. I mean, I'm not good
at estimating numbers. When they said that they were going
to have thirty one thousand, forty thousand, I thought, well
that they're not going to fit all of those into
Parliament grounds, it's not big enough. But when I saw
the spill over into nearby streets, it was huge and
there's no point in trying to pretend otherwise. Did everyone
know what they were therefore? I don't know, but look,
(18:31):
it was a significant occasion and the thing I thought
was most interesting about it was it seems to have
been handled pretty well. There was one or two arrests only,
and I thought compared to, for instance, the occupation of
a couple of years ago, this was a pretty well
conducted affair. Whatever your point of view about the issue.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
At hand, Kerrie, you would have been disrupted because it
was around your we live, so you would have been
disrupted more than Peter and I were.
Speaker 2 (18:59):
I thought it was an amazing event. What was your
thoughts on it?
Speaker 6 (19:03):
So, first of all, I think a big call out
to the organizers and the participants, because the reality is
it was peaceful, It was respectful, there was a lot
of singing, there was no aggression, and I think, well
in Tony's been warmed enough. The clean up afterwards was amazing.
Ask Parliament that night at five point thirty and you
(19:25):
would not have known that anyone had been on the grass.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
Well, I was at white Tangy Park the next day
and it was like absolute Christine.
Speaker 6 (19:34):
So a call out to the city. I presume they
did that. But the bigger picture, this is just a
vote getting for To Party, MARI and of course for
ACT and if I was Labor or the Greens and
the Nets. I think our next polling is going to
show a big dip down as the to Party MARI
and ACT really pick up from their supporters. Run by
(19:59):
to Party Murray the young lad running at his mother's
and MP. I presume they helped fund it. The reality is,
as Peter said, this was all about them raising their profile,
so their supporters will think it's marvelous. Ex supporters will
think it's marvelous, and those votes will come for somewhere.
And I think as a country we've got a challenging
(20:20):
six months ahead of us.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
Yeah, I agree. Well, well both the I'm going to
go and ask you both the same question. I'll start
with you, Peter. Were you disappointed with the performance of
christalh Luxon as Prime Minister.
Speaker 5 (20:30):
I wasn't disappointed. I think he's in an impossible position.
He's got a commitment he's got to honor. He was
away at the Apex conference for a significant portion of
the lead up to it. I think that he's now
got to grit his teeth and bear it for the
next six months. But I'll tell you what I suspect
you if I was in Issues, I'd be saying to
my team, look, this is not our issue. We need
(20:53):
to focus on our issues and the things we're doing
and want to achieve and try and get that up
on the agenda. I'm sure we will see, you know,
when he goes to China earlier in the new year.
That would be a huge, big publicity event, and I'm
sure he'll try and do other things that magnify his
status as Prime Minister. But frankly, the moment the bill
comes out of the Select Committee, the sooner the National
(21:15):
Party is able to vote it down from their point
of view, the better. The longer it lingers, the worse
it will be for Labor. It's the same in reverse.
They're sort of trapped in a me too situation here,
and I think for them to avoid getting sort of
caught in this downward spiral, they also need to cut
loose and find their own issues to be promoting separate
from this, but it looks like Hipkins is going to
(21:35):
go along with this process to the bitter end, I think,
to his detriment.
Speaker 2 (21:41):
Here are you you'reine?
Speaker 6 (21:42):
I think well after the Coalition agreement was signed and
Luxeon equivocated on whether they would support or wouldn't, I
mean he he never was adamant until recently, and I
think they do polling. It didn't take them long to
work out the country was pretty divided and this was
a no win for them. So I think he's finally
(22:02):
come out saying they won't support it, but from X
point of view, delivering exactly for his electorates. So he's
doing what he has to do, and Luxeen's committing to
deal with the issues around the treaty, as you know,
in a different way rather than the big bang approach.
Speaker 5 (22:20):
There's one complication in all of this which occurred to
me yesterday. This bill will be at the Select Committee
for about six months, that's about May of next year,
and it's due to be reported back around the same date.
Under the Coalition agreement, David Seymour takes over as the
Deputy Prime Minister, and I think that's rather awkward because Also,
around May of next year, there'll be the budget and
(22:42):
the government will want to get all of the stuff
out of the way before then. So I think political management,
which hasn't been this government strong point, is going to
be under real stress over the next six months.
Speaker 6 (22:53):
I can't see it doing it in six months reality,
they're all going to come and speaking to are they
going to have to wait for translation translations. I can
see it going on a lot, and that.
Speaker 5 (23:02):
Makes it even worse, you know. I think if the
Select Committee decides to travel and as you say, you know,
you can just see the optics of if the chairman says,
look for all the chairperson says, we're going to give
everyone fifteen.
Speaker 4 (23:16):
Minutes, it won't work.
Speaker 5 (23:18):
Won't work. I've chared select committees, We've had to do that,
and it carries on, drags on and dragons drags on.
The Select Committee's master of its own business, so it
could carry on as long.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
As it takes your Christmas next year.
Speaker 5 (23:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (23:31):
At midnight yesterday a new ban on wearing gang in
singor in public places came into force and it took
just three minutes for police to issue their first court summons.
At twelve three a m and Hastings carry pride gas.
Is the gang patch ban a good idea.
Speaker 6 (23:48):
They're very They make people feel intimidated, which is what
it's all about. So I understand from their perspective it's
about their family, it's their right of passage. But for
the majority of New Zealanders they fel intimidated. I feel
very sorry for the police. I see there's a lot
of clashes coming up in the own. Other comment I'll
say is the night before early evening, quite a large
(24:12):
contingent of Harley Davidson's with guys with their patches on
drove on the footpath around Orient making a point weaving
in and around pedestrians. So I can't see this is
going to end well, but I do wish the police
the best.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
Peter. Will it work.
Speaker 5 (24:30):
I'm skeptical that it will work for a whole variety
of reasons. I think the issue is about intimidation and
about the fear people feel, and it seems to me
that that rather than banning patches per se, banning congregation
might have been a bigger, a better way of dealing
with this. I mean, I can't see that someone wandering
(24:52):
into the local supermarket wearing them among them mob patches.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
Do they are they allowed to walk into your supermarket?
I've never seen more. I've never seen any.
Speaker 5 (25:01):
One off situation or someone just wandering up the street
out here, for instance, is a problem. But I think
the grouping together and the scenes we've seen at funerals
and other things is what gives the public. The police
are in an impossible position, though, because I think what's
going to happen, and I was thought about this when
I heard at twelve h three am someone was arrested.
(25:22):
It's going to be relatively easy pickings for the police.
And my fear is that they'll be concentrating on picking
up people wearing gang patches and avoiding all the other
things they should be doing.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
So we're both skeptical it's going to work, you see.
Speaker 6 (25:35):
My view.
Speaker 3 (25:36):
My view is that you drive them underground and you
make them hell of a lot more dangerous. Least, when
you see them driving down that footpath with their patches
on carey, you know exactly who you're dealing with.
Speaker 6 (25:44):
Oh. The other thing I'd just say is that individually,
most of these people I've had a bit to do
with them. I was as a midwife. That's fine, but
you put them in a group and peer pressure happens.
That's what's the intimidatory part of it. I mean, I've
seen them in supermarkets and things around the region. Individually.
(26:04):
How you policed it? Do you really want to create
a scene if you're the local policeman in Fakatani and
you're going to have to remove someone. It's they want
to build relationships. They don't want to be constantly at
war with the police, and.
Speaker 5 (26:17):
The moment you don't do it, then the police will
be in the gun for not enforcing the law.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
So it's okay.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
The government is making changes to name suppression laws, giving
victims the power to decide if their sexual abuser is
granted suppression.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
Peter, I like this idea. Should victims or judges have
the power to decide?
Speaker 5 (26:35):
Look I like the idea. I think the idea that
someone who is a sexual offender should somehow be hidden
from public view once convicted, I find intolerable, whether it's
the victim or the judge, or a combination of both,
the fact that we could have greater clarity, I think
it's a great ideas the case in Auckland today. Forens,
I'm not going to go into the details the well
known political figure.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
He gets named today?
Speaker 5 (26:57):
Does he get named?
Speaker 2 (26:58):
But I don't know.
Speaker 5 (26:58):
But the point is, informally we all know who it is.
That person shouldn't be able to hide behind the fact
that they were had political connections forever once they've been convicted.
Speaker 6 (27:13):
So at the moment the judge can take into account
the views of the victims. So my only consent, I
think agree with Peter absolutely, except if the victims are
immature or young and they don't understand the implications by
naming the victim or outing them the perpetrator, then it
(27:35):
identifies them, and that would worry me. It would you're
scarred for life anyway, And if you're young and you think, yes,
I want that person it turns out to be your
uncle or whatever, then everybody knows that you were the victim,
and I'd worry about.
Speaker 2 (27:51):
Well, that's where they get the choice, they say, But.
Speaker 6 (27:53):
If you're young and you don't understand that implication, So
as long as they're well counseled and well supported, then
absolutely they should have the right.
Speaker 3 (28:01):
Okay, really really quickly, because I've got to go to
hots and knots. But the popular terrorist attraction at the
po Tanical Gardens needs eighteen million dollars worth of work
Bygonia House we're talking about, but the council is considering
demolishing the building carriers eighteen million two much And how
important is Bagonia House to Wellington's Botanical garden?
Speaker 6 (28:19):
Very very important open in nineteen sixty. I'm passionate about it.
It's the it's not an earthquake risk. It's to do
with heating and the glazing. I understand it's a Washington monument.
Councilor putting that up, but not putting up the stuff
they know Wellingtonians don't want. The reality is I understand
a group went to council and said, you give us
a twenty five year lease, we'll run the cafe and
(28:42):
we'll do the work for you. And councils still thinking
about that. Why don't they let the private sector take
it over and do it and save the building.
Speaker 5 (28:49):
You should do this show exactly what I said, and
I'd say exactly the same thing. I mean, well, there's three.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
Of us saying the same thing in any common sense.
Speaker 5 (28:56):
One of the things that identifies the Botanic Gardens and Wellington.
What are you going to have there in its place
a sort of a bear patch or more roses. I
think the begin only a house is significant. It was
it was a donation I think, originally from the Norwood family.
You're right, and it seems to me that that donation
should be respected. In a private consortium that's got the
(29:18):
capacity to upgrade and run it, I think should be
invited in immediately.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
I love the fact that you say about the Washington
Everything that they release is stuff that they know is
going to create emotion, isn't it. It's not like we
might get rid of the base in reserve.
Speaker 4 (29:32):
You can go to the Menaced and say that Wellingtonians wanted.
Speaker 1 (29:35):
It the Friday Fast.
Speaker 3 (29:42):
Right, Okay, Peter Dunne, I see you're a little bit
excited about this.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
Now you don't have to get excited. But hots and dots,
what do you think?
Speaker 5 (29:49):
Well, I'll tell you what's hot for me is the
report at the moment that the bhutakawa and the rata
are flowering early, which is the harbinger of a good, long,
hot summer. I think that's great and I think we
all need it after the sort of year we've all
enjoyed or not enjoyed. I've got two knots. Though I
was going to talk about Black Friday. I'm sick of
these American commercialisms being imported into our way of life.
(30:11):
Valentine's Day was bad enough, now we've be I got
two emails this morning unsolicited about Black Friday specials. I'm
not interested, and I just think we should develop our
own thing. But more significantly, I read in the Herald
this morning of a trial in wrote a rua yesterday,
or at the committal stage of a murder case where
the person has been bound over for trial but the
(30:33):
trial won't take place until twenty twenty seven.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (30:37):
I always thought that justice delayed was justice denied, and
I think that's We've got to do something about speeding
up the process of court cases coming to trial. It's
just ridiculous that someone's going to be waiting the best
part of three years for their case to come before
the court. Let alone the victims and the families etc.
Who are obviously affect too.
Speaker 3 (30:55):
Much stress all around there. Dame Carrie Prinagath, give me
your hots and knots for the week.
Speaker 6 (31:01):
So hopefully everyone in Wellington has noticed that Saint Gera,
it's has got that fantastic monument has got some work
happening to it. So my understanding there's two or three
wealthy gentlemen who are bought it and they're funding it.
They're making it water proof, they're making it secure.
Speaker 4 (31:21):
While they work out what to do with it.
Speaker 6 (31:22):
So well done to them, and I look forward to
them deciding what's going to be inside it so we
can continue to enjoy it, not just from the outside,
but have access to it as well. Sorry, it's Injured's monastery.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
Oh the monastery.
Speaker 3 (31:35):
Sorry, I thought you For a minute, I thought you
were talking about the band retunder. I don't know why,
but I just got.
Speaker 6 (31:39):
No, no, no, you see that. Yeah, And what's not
good is the people who keep putting down our city.
We've got to be positive about its future. We're a
great city and we need to all start talking it
up to continue to enjoy living here. The great lifestyle,
(32:00):
the great opportunities for jobs and work and weather, and
let's have a g eight summer and a great Christmas.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
Have you had a look at back House and terias
opened in the city. Have you had a look at that?
You know they've opened up on Allen Street.
Speaker 3 (32:13):
You see that your Peter great great new shop that's
just opened on our street, Allen Street. Yeah, yeah, it's
you know, when you want to talk about positive stuffing.
You walk in there and Michelle's like this so positive
welling Tonian and she's got she make a great meal,
make a great mer carey, twist her arm.
Speaker 2 (32:31):
Go in there and twist her arm.
Speaker 3 (32:32):
And say, Nick Mills thinks you'd be a great Meyor
can I twist your arm? Can I tell you all
the good things about Big Beer of Wellington?
Speaker 2 (32:39):
And we're having a positive Friday.
Speaker 3 (32:42):
I still look at Peter. Peter would be a great beer,
would they? You just have to be a little bit
more positive. You didn't really buy into the positive Friday,
did it. Thank you both so much for joining us
on the show today. Have a really really good positive weekend, Carrie.
Let's be real positive. Let's keep Wellington positive. God, I
(33:02):
love that idea.
Speaker 1 (33:04):
For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mill, listen live
to news Talks It'd be Wellington from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
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!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com