November 20, 2025 • 33 mins
Nick Mills wraps the week withpolitical commentator and academic Dr Bryce Edwards and lawyer and political commentator Brigitte Morton.
They get into the hot topics of the week starting with NZ police culture, the commissioner and the email’s sent to the electorate office.
Morton and Dr Edwards also discussed the rise in prisoner numbers and the building of new prisons, the new ferry announcement, the Golden Mile, the new state highway improvement plans, the uber court case and give their hots and nots for the week.
Plus, Winston Peters and the regulatory standards bill. Could Winston Petersjoina coalition with Labour again? Morton and Dr Edwards give their thoughts.
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 Wellington's official week interview. It's
Friday face off with Kudovic Property Management, a better rental
experience for all. Visit Quovic dot co dot It's head.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Start Friday face off today. We have two special guests.
We have always have special guests, but bridget more than
political commentator and lawyer Morning Bridget Morning, and we have
doctor Bryce Edwards, political commentator and academic. You know what
was a dream of mine to be an academic? Oh
(00:48):
you're born like that? Oh no, no, definitely not a look.
I think you're much better where you are. You have
much more impact.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
On the nation, much more educational.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Sort of stop stop stop now, stop now. I can
see you turning the radios off there. Don't try and
say say things about a police police, police, who's calling
the police? Bryce? Start me up? Where are?
Speaker 3 (01:13):
I just rarely agree with Mark Mitchell. Last Sunday on
tvnz Q and A, he called the police executive corrupted.
He said that the previous police executive work corrupt, and
then he retracted it later on and said, oh he
had misspoke, but I think he said it right when
you got it the first time. I think we do
have a corruption problem in New Zealand. We are really
(01:37):
feel uneasy about using that word corruption or corrupt, and
it's hard to define what corruption means. For some people,
just means a system broken, something that's not working properly.
More academic definitions would be that you've got people in
authority misusing that authority for personal gain. I think that's
absolutely what has happened here, and it has been a
cover up. It's been people working together as a gang,
(02:01):
as a club, and we're still seeing basically this playing out,
and I think it will play out for a long
time as suddenly there's more scrutiny on police authority and
that's how it should be. And that's why I think
this is a really good scandal because suddenly we are
more awake, we're less complacent. Now we're going to start
(02:23):
putting in rules and scrutinizing the powerful, and the police
do need to be scrutinized because they have a lot
of power over us, and a good police force should
be very clean.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Bridget Morton, you're a lawyer, so you won't use the
word corrupt, but there's something going on where a young
woman has been sending emails and complaining and everything that's
covered under there's something that's not right, and we I mean,
we know it's not right because the report came out
and said it's not right. But how bad is it?
Speaker 4 (02:53):
Oh, it's extremely bad.
Speaker 5 (02:54):
And I think most importantly with police, they have extraordinary
powers that they can exercise over us, and even for
people that are in you know, I would say positions
of power. You know, someone like me who's a lawyer
who knows the law, they still have an extraordinary power
over me and the ability to search and seize and
to put me in salves and hold me all these
(03:15):
kind of powers.
Speaker 4 (03:16):
And so when you see an example of this.
Speaker 5 (03:17):
At the highest level of police are, where they have
used their power to cover up and protect their own,
it makes you worried about how that's flowing through and
that culture is flowing through the whole service. I do
have a lot of sympathy though, for our frontline police.
You know, we've got a lot of people out there
doing that hard work on the beat, face to face
with criminals, and at the moment they're getting sullied by
(03:39):
this reputation of the people sitting at desks and HQ
and here in Wellington, and so I think we do
need to keep that in mind that this is definitely
not all police, but there is, without a doubt, a
cultural problem that has to be fixed.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
How did you feel, Bridget I'll come to you because
of your law background, that Chambers actually jets off on Friday,
this is the same week that this is all going down.
I know it's pre arranged, and I know it's really important.
I know all that stuff, but he jets off and
leaves nobody. Actually, as Acting Commissioner.
Speaker 5 (04:09):
If I was advising him, I would have told him
not to go. This is a point. You are a
domestic police force. You are here to make sure that
you're keeping you know, people safe, that you're making sure
the exercise of powers, and we have seen every day.
I think since that IPCA report come out, another element
that I think makes our public worried. There is no
doubt that he should be here and should be dealing
(04:31):
with it. I think, you know, there's a lot of
value in him doing these overseas trips and we need that,
but this is not the right time.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
And Bryce, I mean it's two days ago, fifteen years
ago that Pike River happened. Imagine if there was a
Pike River incident and now, Heaven help us, we never
have that again. But you know, some sort of disaster
with no commissioner, no one actually physically in charge.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
Yeah, I'm not sure how much the commissioner actually does
have a day to day sort of role in those
sort of things. But I totally agree with Bridget that
Chambers has mister Mark on this one. So I mean,
in general, I think everyone's been quite impressed with his
behavior and dealing with this, as with the cabinet ministers
(05:20):
when this has come out. But I think he has
led us down with disappearing. Maybe it's only a symbolic thing,
maybe in practice it makes no difference, but yeah, it
doesn't quite fit the gravity of the situation, him going
off overseas.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
What did you think, both of you? And I'll come
to you first, Bridge, and I'll come back to you Bryce.
But when you saw the latest article which Mark Mitchell's
office was getting the information from this young woman, and
you know everyone was saying, especially you know, Mitchell was saying,
I didn't know anything about it, knew nothing about it,
didn't get it to me. But now we find that it.
Speaker 5 (05:55):
Had got to well, I think we need to be
a little bit careful here because I think those stories
are actually overblown. You know, I've worked in minister's offices
and I've dealt with electric matters. There's two ones here,
won one and then coming into the minister's office. It's
clear that there was a protocol put in place at
staff for following and that the minister wasn't actually aware
of about those emails going straight to police to be
(06:15):
dealt with. So that I think is a police problem,
not a minister problem. In terms of the elected office.
You look at the actions that were reported this morning
of the electric agent saying very clearly this is a
police and portfolio. This is where you need to send
your emails. She did absolutely everything right, and I actually
think it's a little unfair to have that story printed
with her name and saying that she had done something wrong.
Speaker 4 (06:36):
She has not done anything.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Okay, Well, that's that's clear up. What about the new
six offices under investigation. I mean, this is supposed to
be all cleaned up by now, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
Bryce Yeah, but sorry, I just want to throw on
a different point on that last one. No, I totally
believe that the ministerial officers aren't up to scratch on this.
They need to. There needs to be some thought into
how they deal with these protocols. I think they had
the protocols wrong and the system's wrong. Every minister's office
kind of deals with these things differently. There's no sort
(07:05):
of formula, there's no sort of standards, and likewise with
electric officers. Basically, these mostly operate as the campaign officers
for the MPs, and I think that's why a lot
of these things slip. The minister should have been informed
when electorate official received these messages, but I think they're
(07:26):
too busy, rarely trying to get the politician re elected.
Speaker 5 (07:29):
I think that is sorry, you're just completely wrong on us.
I think we just need to go for a really
practical here. There might be an academic view of what's happening.
Electric officers electric agents, by and far ninety percent of
the time they're dealing with immigration, employment, they're sending people
to services. They're absolutely doing things like organizing community meetings
and things like that. But to say that their primary
job is keeping them relected, I think is completely dupicious.
(07:52):
It's not fear at all, and you're actually undermining a
really important part of our system, which is constituent representation.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
Sue representation isn't working very well at the moment. I
don't believe.
Speaker 5 (08:01):
Well, here's what she did is that she directed this
person to the right place the problem and it still
goes back to the police and the police's actions here,
which were completely wrong. I agree with you in terms
of the Minister's office that absolutely the protocol around police
matters wasn't being dealt with. But to blame frankly, the
most junior staffer in the offers who sits on the
front desk following police commissioner's protocol is completely unfair. And
(08:24):
that's what I take start with these articles.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
You're right about the personalities involved, absolutely, but I still
don't think the processes are there.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
Okay. What scared me when I saw that same Q
and a program that you saw Bryce, and I don't
know whether the bridget you saw it or not. When
Mark Mitchell was on, I mean, once he got he's
got sport, he's got looking after a disaster, he's got police,
he's got the jails. What's it called corrections, And each
(08:54):
one of those has three or four staff in his office.
I've just there's probably more. So that's four times. That's
like a lot of staff. Is that are we overloading
our politicians? Should he be minister of nothing else?
Speaker 5 (09:07):
Oh, without a doubt that we are overloading our politicians.
And when you talk about that sort of number of staff, actually,
if you look at someone like Mark Mitchell's offers, he
would probably have two what's called minister your advisors, so
it might be seeing as your sort of political advisors,
but generally the ones that are trying to get the
work program through and two pre secretaries and then everyone
else is coming in from the department. You don't actually
(09:28):
have a lot of staff to deal with. And if
you're talking about the mounted correspondence that comes through to
those offices, it is in the hundreds per day, And
I understand it's actually since I've left the beehive, increased
even more so because now everything is so easy to
send the electronic piece of correspondence. So I think it's
I like completely and it might sound, you know, completely
(09:49):
self interested, but the actually does need to be more
staff and the officers to actually support ministers because this
is where things fall through the cracks because they don't
have that time and that resource to actually be able
to do this sort of stuff.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
But surely Bryce, so you've got a background on this,
you know this. I mean, surely they can have other
what is there undred and twenty eight or something, whatever
the number is. Surely that they could have someone doing sports,
someone else doing I don't think.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
I wouldn't advise that we have more ministers. I mean, yes,
maybe there's a question of some ministers being overloaded with
too many ministerial portfolios, but generally we probably have too
many ministers and some of these portfolios could be combined.
Probably is more that.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
That's absolutely do we reduce it because I don't think
when I was growing up that a Minister of Education
had a Minister of something else as well beside them.
Speaker 5 (10:37):
No, so I think if you look, the New Zealand
Initiative did a really good report a couple of months
ago that looked at how many departments each they were
sort of reporting to different ministers. It's a little bit
of a creature of our MMP system and that Coalish
and government because now you know you've got a finance minister,
but you've got an associate Finance minister and the Coalish
and Partner and of course in the other Coalish and Partner.
So actually, I think one of the issues wider and
(10:59):
I don't think this is necessary for police, is too
many officials reporting too many ways. Actually, some streamlining would
actually probably fix some of these problems.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Take a short break and be back with Bridget Morton
and doctor Bryce Edwards. When we come back, I want
to talk about prisons, actually prisons. Friday face off of
Bridget Morton and doctor Bryce Edwards. We're nearly got eleven
thousand people in prisons. Christopher Luxon is positive about it.
(11:29):
He said he's had not we didn't I want to
use the word happy. He said that he's pleased that
we've got more people in jail. Bryce, What's what are
your thoughts when you hear that.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
Sometimes I think Prime Minister Christopher Luxon does misspeak and
doesn't get the tone right on things actually quite a lot,
and this was one of those examples. Prime ministers should
never be glee for or positive about the prison numbers
going up. But I mean, I do take his point
that it's better having some violent, dangerous people in prison
(12:04):
than on the streets. And you know, the government I
think has. It's one of the key areas that I
think they have convinced the public on law and order.
But obviously this isn't ultimately a good thing for society.
Just have more and more people locked up. Prisons aren't
the answer. But even the last government did try and
(12:24):
get those numbers down quite considerably. So Labor under Jesinder A.
Dun did have an agenda of locking up fewer and
fewer people, and I think that was something that was
quite progressive and it was yeah, ideal, but it also
had a lot of negative ramifications. I think it did
have an impact on crime, locking up fewer people, and
(12:45):
so they actually reversed that and in the last year
or so of the Labor government, the numbers started skyrocketing
back up. And so what National has done has just
dis continued that.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Over the past couple of weeks, we've heard that p
is up by huge amounts, double from two years ago.
Gang numbers are up. We've also heard that we've got
thirty eight thousand less victims of crime. So how do
we read this.
Speaker 5 (13:11):
Bridget Yeah, I think it's wrong to say that the
Prime Minister misspoke on this. I think he's talking directly
to the people that at the last election were just
frankly sick of Labour's record on law and order because
they were going into their local mall and you know,
Michael Hill was being ram rated while they were trying
to shop with their kids and ram raids.
Speaker 4 (13:30):
I think, are you know.
Speaker 5 (13:32):
I think they're down to about thirty percent or even
less of what they were a couple of years ago.
There's an extraordinary effort to get something that was quite
frightening and fury gang related activity. There's also, as you say,
the victims of crime has gone down considerably, so I
think there'll be a lot of people out there in
the community and go, yes, I do feel safer because
these dangerous people are locked up.
Speaker 4 (13:52):
But we cannot ignore.
Speaker 5 (13:53):
The reality that prisoners don't create, you know, good citizens.
You've got to also invest in that rehabilitation programs and
the circumstances that actually allow people to actually turn their
lives around. One of the problems with Labour's policy of
trying to reduce the prison of population by thirty percent
was actually the fact that they used it as a
(14:14):
way of not investing in prisons, and that was in
the capitals of the necessary space for people to live
in prison, but also the programs and things that actually
allow people to get some of those life skills to
get their life back on track. And that is I
think some of the circumstances that we're seeing at the
moment that prisons were getting more dangerous people locked up,
but they're also coming out still dangerous.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
So I think that's a really good explanation. I think
it's brilliant and I think your critique of Labour's right,
would you say the same about the current government? Are
they investing in the right ways with you?
Speaker 5 (14:44):
Yeah, I think if you look at the meth announcement
from about ten days ago, there was a big announcement
that looked across the fact that we need to look
at customs, we need to look at police in terms
of investment, but also a very heavy investment in that
the meth addiction programs, which are large percentage of them,
are going to be run through prisons. So I think
they are actually getting some of that mix right. It's
probably not the headlines that are being reported because frankly,
(15:06):
they it's much better for a sense right government to
be being seen.
Speaker 4 (15:10):
As tough on law and order. But if you look at.
Speaker 5 (15:12):
Underneath you look at those budget lines are investing quite
heavily in some of those signals towards crime, which is
those programs and youth justice.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
Right, do you feel happy the fact that, Bryce, I mean,
I'm going to simplify it here a little bit, we're
building more and more jails.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
No, no, it's a disaster. I mean everyone knows the
Bill English line on this back from about what ten
years ago, saying that prisons are a moral and fiscal failure,
and I think most people agree with that. You want
as fewer prisons as possible. I don't know if we
can move to no prisons anytime soon, but no, no,
(15:46):
you want them reducing, not getting bigger.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
Okay, let's talk fairies. Before we go to the news. Bryce,
I'll start with you, what's your gut, what's your feeling?
I mean, oh, for instance, out there clapping and rightly so,
I saved us one and a half billion dollar.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
I've got a really boring answer on this, which is
labor stuffed this up in the way that they were
doing the I REX program, not really convinced that National
has done a much better job. They've everything just that
gets done so fast and sort of fast now that
(16:21):
I'm misspaking. What I'm saying is that infrastructure is so
important to this nation that it has to be carefully done.
This should have been planned ten twenty years ago, and
it should have been all the ports and infrastructure and
transport systems all were aligned producing an optimal outcome. The
way Labor did it was very much just telling key.
We were oh, you come up with what you want
and tell us how much money you want and we'll
(16:41):
do it. And that was that was fast corn, and
it would have blown out to something terrible. National or
the Coalition have quickly tried to come up with a
cost effective way. They've kind of cut costs on the
port infrastructure. I tend to think it's a better outcome
than what we were going to see from the last government,
but I'm not really convinced it's it seems a bit
(17:04):
still patchy in my view.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Bridge. Any one concerned that the old girls that are
doing the job right now are going to last of twill.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
Be a moment.
Speaker 4 (17:12):
You're talking about boats, Well.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
You always call a boat of woman, don't you.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
Do you do?
Speaker 5 (17:18):
I'm worried where you were going on, and that's not
how you should identify Winston Peters. So I think, you know,
absolutely there's always that concern, and you know, we are
this kind of weird nation that's two big islands connected
by this tiny bit of water. You know, we can
see pretty much the South Island most days here in
Wellington and the fact that we it can be so vulnerable,
I think.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
Without a doubt the government will.
Speaker 5 (17:40):
Also be hoping that there's not going to be issues
between now and twenty twenty nine in terms of our
current fairy fleet. But I think, really I think some
credits should go here to Winston Peters and Nicola Willis
because it was this massive you think where we were
sitting two years ago, it was this massive immediate post
election issue. It you know, they acted really decisively to
cut off that money train that was flying through to
(18:02):
Kiwi Rail and they had a lot of criticism since
then about it. Now they've come up with a solution
that looks deliverable, that has saved a large amount of
money that actually, you know, I suppose the proof will
be in the putting, but it does look like it's
quite a reasonable solution that people can live with.
Speaker 4 (18:17):
It's you know, you've got.
Speaker 5 (18:18):
Rail you've got trucks, you've got more freight capacity, all
of those things. I think they have taken it quite
successfully with the announcement this week off that political agenda.
I'd be kind of fuming if I was labor.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
Can anyone else but me? Remember when we got these
new the old fairies in first when those warta song
cruising on the End to Rlander and we were all
this perfect New zeal to be beautiful boats and it
was a oh can you remember.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
That from my childhood remembers that. It's kind of like
I remember it as a time that New Zealand seemed
to be working really well because you were.
Speaker 4 (18:50):
A child and it was just depended on what lollies
were available.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
I wasn't a child, and it just felt like it
was you know, the cruising on the you know, it
was just a big, great happy family.
Speaker 4 (19:02):
I mean, it was a great song. And I do
remember that too. I don't know if that actually told
us about the fairy performance though.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Felt felt good, felt good by the song. Anyway, take
a short break and have some headlines. Your Friday Face
Off guests today are Bridget Morton and Bryce Edward's Friday
Face Off with Bridget Morton and Bryce Edwards. Winston Peters
has vowed to repeal the Regulatory Standards Bill, which only
became law two days ago. Bryce, what do you make
(19:29):
of this? What's he gearing up? What's the point? I mean,
it was only a couple of weeks ago that one
of his members was clapping your hands and saying it
was fantastic.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
I think what Winston Peters is saying is it's quite logical.
This is a piece of legislation that New Zealand First
didn't really know about but signed on to in their
coalition agreement. It's an act party policy basically to try
and make future laws that are passed more compliant with
my view of sort of business friendly worldview. And he
(19:58):
doesn't like it, and he's never been keen on it,
but he's had to vote for it. It's come in
to effect two days ago. Now he's saying at the
next election he'll campaign against it. It does look a
bit mickey mouse. It does look.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
Is it a big deal? It's a law change, a
big deal.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
I don't think he practice the law change is a
huge deal. No, But it's symbolic of corporate power, business
power and of the act kind of worldview. Winston Peters
doesn't like it. I think he's quite right to say
he'll campaign against it, and I don't know if he's
going to make it a bottom line. And the next
he's this morning.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
On Hoskins that he wasn't going to make it a
bottom line, but the media picked up that he said
yesterday that it was a bottom line.
Speaker 3 (20:38):
Well, that's Winston Peter's world, isn't it. It's always moving
between different things. It's hard to pin down.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
Okay, Bridget give us the lawyer view of the whole thing.
I mean, if David Seymour has been working on this
for twenty years, as he says, I mean, obviously it's
quite a big deal to him. Is it a big
deal in your world?
Speaker 4 (20:56):
So I think without a doubt.
Speaker 5 (20:58):
I mean, it has been worked on for sort of
twenty years and probably giving David smore the credits, probably
over eating it. Actually, it's been a lot of academics
and lawyers actually working on it because they foresee that
we actually don't have a great regulatory process in New
Zealand about examining costs and benefits. What actually is the
regulary impact on people? We tend to rush a little
bit through lawmaking, and that was particularly bad during the
(21:20):
COVID years, and particularly bad under the last labor government
where you didn't have some of the standards. And this
is very sort of insider you know, the regulatory impact
statements and things that actually provide some of our safeguards
against having policies that are made without consideration of what
they do. This bill is meant to address that. I
think it's my personal view as well. I'm supporter of
solving that problem. I don't know if legislation is the
(21:42):
right tool. It has become a political football because people
have picked up on what some of those tests are.
And you know, I think, as Bryce said, you know,
a business friendly kind of view. I don't think it
does what Winston says, which constrains you know, future governments.
Speaker 4 (21:56):
It's still just advisory.
Speaker 5 (21:58):
It's still it's not stopping them from making laws, and
it is really questionable about what kind of impact that
we'll have, you know, in terms of a campaign, I
think he probably got a little bit over excited yesterday
in terms of his comments and realizes today that actually
this is not a big thing to campaign on.
Speaker 4 (22:14):
His voters don't.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Are you talking about that? Are you talking about David
Seymour or Winston Peters?
Speaker 5 (22:18):
Yes, say talking about Yeah, you get on radio watching
when he came on, and so he said that, you know,
this is something that we're going to set a campaign against.
I think he probably realizes that this is not the
big sit of political football that his particular voters are
interested in.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
Bryce. I mean, we had David Seymour saying that, you know,
almost signaling that that this could mean that Winston Peters
is going to jump ship and go with Labor. I mean,
was that an over reaction.
Speaker 3 (22:43):
It's probably an overreaction, and David Seymour will say, you
know what's best for ACT and paint New Zealand First
like that. But I think there is a kernel of
truth and what Seymour was saying, certainly everyone just assumes
that New Zealand First and Peters are joined at the
hip with National and that if there is another National
led government at well after the next election, New Zealand
(23:06):
First will stay aligned with National. I don't think it's
the case. I do think that he could go with
Labor at the next election. You think he could, Oh absolutely,
I think he could. I'm not saying he will, but
he could and I think New Zealand First will be
wanting to Well, we'll have to wait and see him
close to the election, but I think he will want
to be the kingmaker again and he'll want to be
(23:29):
on the Labour side of history if that gives him
more power.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
Bridget, you're not going to load agree with that at
you ah.
Speaker 4 (23:36):
To a certain extent.
Speaker 5 (23:37):
I think that comment from David Symol you stay saying
that it was looking like he might go with Labor
with smart politics from David Symour, because the competition going
into next year is for a group of sort of
center right type politicians who may not be satisfied we're
National sitting and ACT to New Zealand foster of both
fighting over those votes. And we know back in twenty
(23:58):
seventeen when Winston went with Disinda Adurna and went with Labor,
there was a lot of disaffect in New Zealand First
voters and you know they were out the next selection.
So pointing that risk out lots of people thinking about
whether I vote ACT or.
Speaker 4 (24:11):
New Zealand First is smart from David Seymour.
Speaker 5 (24:13):
I don't think that means it gives any more credits
to whether or not he would go with either. I
think if we look at the history of Winston Peters,
Winston Peters will do what is best for him at
New Zealand first, and therefore everything is always on the table.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
Wow, I I'm surprised you'd have that comment. I'm really
surprised Doctor Bryce Edwards and Bridget Morton are on Friday
face off. Let's get to some Wellington topics. Council meet
yesterday decided that they needed a review into the Golden Mile,
put big pause button in the middle of it and
said let's stop now, Bryce, what are your thoughts?
Speaker 3 (24:49):
Oh, absolutely the right thing to do. The costs we're
looking to blow out. I was never convinced, and as
most Walingtonians, I think we're not convinced that the council
had this right, especially after the town Hall, after the
sewerage blowout, after everything else. The council have trouble at
doing big projects. I'm not sure they had this right.
(25:10):
So yes, it's good to have a rethink on that.
What was interesting I thought was that Andrew Little campaigned
on this, his labor supporters, his labor colleagues on council
were right behind him. His main opposition has been the
Green Party counselors, and I think that's what we are
now going to see on this council. The main divide
(25:30):
is going to be between Labor and the Green.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
Twenty four left of the Greens isn't so.
Speaker 3 (25:34):
Yeah, but they'll be the noisiest ones. No, no, no.
Maybe we'll end up being more symbolic than real, but
that's where we're going to see some of the biggest
fights between Labor and the Greens.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
Bridget the right decision or should we have bitten on
the bullet and gone ahead with it?
Speaker 5 (25:49):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (25:49):
No, Absolutely the right decision.
Speaker 5 (25:51):
And I think also key for our new men and
for Andrew Little, who really campaigned on bringing back some
sensible and conservative decision making. I think two councils, particularly
around spending in some of these what we might call
vanity projects, about making things look pretty rather than make
things work well.
Speaker 4 (26:07):
I think one of the most.
Speaker 5 (26:08):
Concerning things when I actually read this story about them
pausing the decision was the discovery that once again we've
discovered after the fact that the pipes under the road
are actually the aging out We actually need.
Speaker 4 (26:18):
To replace those.
Speaker 5 (26:20):
You know, this felt like it was possibly going to
be another Thornton Key where we did all this pretty
you know, pedestrianization and then had to rip it up
for some pipes. So I think if they redirect some
of that planned investment into the pipes, I think well
Antonians will be very happy.
Speaker 2 (26:32):
I want to carry on and talk about the tunnels
in a second, but while we're talking about the first
council meeting and Andrew Little, I just want to quickly
ask you both, just in a sentence, Bridget starting with you,
your view on how well Andrew Little is doing as
Mayor of Wellington in the short time he's been there.
Speaker 5 (26:48):
Well, I think he's doing a really good job because
he's immediately coming out and being sensible some of those
key things. We've no longer got fences around the waterfront.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
Right and Bryce, we were told we were going to
get an adult in the room, and we have got
an adult in the room.
Speaker 3 (27:00):
All I would say is if the election was held
tomorrow Andrew Little wild romp in with even a much
majority than he did, how.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
Can you say that was the biggest majority ever?
Speaker 3 (27:10):
I know, I think he would have impressed Wellingtonian's with
how he's gone so far.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
He has done a pretty damn good job, is it right?
Let's talk about something that he can't control, but we'll
have something to do with. I mean, the numbers are
eye watering, aren't they. The Mount Victoria MOUNTCT tunnels it carries.
I mean, this is what I don't understand. A price
tag of between two point nine billion and three point
eight billion. I mean it's you know, a billion dollars.
(27:35):
Bridget the difference and it'll go higher. Is that price
too high?
Speaker 4 (27:39):
No?
Speaker 5 (27:39):
I don't think it is. And I think that's what
we have to be censul about. It is that this
is the type infrastructure we have to invest in. And
this you know, looking at the plans that have come
out this week, it's clear they had not just you know,
drawn a hole in the middle of the hill saying
this might be where it goes through. They've thought about
where that traffic flowers, have thought about cycling, about walking about,
you know, minimizing the impact on the town belt, and
(28:00):
you know how many houses will have to go, all
of those things.
Speaker 4 (28:03):
It does seem well thought out. I just wanted to
get on with it.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
Yeah, it is. I mean, we keep forgetting too it
starts on the Terrace Tunnel, and you know, we go
through Vivian Street, which is bloody stupid, isn't it? Going
through the CBD on State Highway One. So it cleans
up all that as well, it does.
Speaker 3 (28:20):
I think again there'll be a consensus that this is
the right thing, that finally they've got it right, that
this is finally being fixed and it should have been
done fifteen years ago, and it could have been done.
You know, New Zealander just doesn't take infrastructure planning well enough,
and I think they're finally biting the bullet. The cost
isn't too low. This is just what you need to spend,
I think with Vivian Street, if anything, I would have
(28:42):
undergrounded it and got rid of it, used more tunnels,
not less.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
Yeah, they're not a bad idea, I mean, just the cost.
I mean. Yeah, So let's talk. Do you both catch ubers?
Speaker 4 (28:53):
I do got one here today, of course.
Speaker 2 (28:57):
So what did you think of the I'll go with
Bridget because he's a lawyer. I don't want to What
did you think of the court rulings? You see, I
thought it was a terrible ruling as because I'm a contractor.
Speaker 5 (29:06):
Yeah, I think it was a till we're ruling too,
because what it goes towards is the fact it seems
to assume that people don't want to be contractors, that
actually there's mobidle in this flexibility that actually has been
built more and more into our system over the last
ten years doesn't actually work for a lot of people
when we actually know it does. And I think Uber
drivers in particular, if you want to be in the
passenger service business, there's a lot of options out there
(29:27):
in which you can be an employee. You know, this
is one of the and you go into eyes open,
knowing the conditions and what you're signing on to. So
I think it's it's wrong for the court to then
assume that they should then have employment contracts across the
top bryce.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
It feels to me that the people that went took
the court case what their cake and eat it too.
Speaker 3 (29:45):
No. I think they just want to be properly paid
and have proper and conditions in the work that they do.
So I think it was a great decision by the
Supreme Court, and I think it deals with a big
problem of the gig economy of contractors.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
Down are you making a problem that there isn't one, No.
Speaker 3 (30:05):
Because I think workers' rights and conditions have been ground
down over recent decades, and this is just one little
way of fighting back, trying to regain a.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
Lot of advantage for a lot of these people though
in the gig economy by being a contractor though, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
Yeah, And I think as a society around the world,
we have to work out how to make that work
properly because at the moment it just tends to mean
that the businesses get their way and workers are ground doown.
So no, I think we need to get some sort
of rules that are better than the current ones.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
Yeah. See, my view on a contractor is that they're
not a worker. They're a contractor, which is completely different
to working for someone for a wage. But that's my opinion,
and you're welcome. You've got a different one, and that's great. Yeah,
that's why you're here. Yours is an academic one, and
why it's.
Speaker 1 (30:52):
Not the Friday fat than not.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
Okay, it's my favorite part of the show because I
get to find out what's hot and what's not hot
around time. Bryce you go first, I've forgotten them, I
think my bridget what is your hots or not.
Speaker 4 (31:10):
My hot is a very local one.
Speaker 5 (31:11):
In fact, it's about two hundred meters up the road
and that's the Social Project, which is a new gym
that's opened here in the CBD. That's an offshoot of
the Polydor one. They've had a number of troubles getting
the gym open in terms of construction. But I just
love to see people infesting in business, infesting in Wellington
making that commitment, particularly in the current economy. So I
think that opened and I've got some very sore muscles
(31:33):
from if you join I have so yeah, so I
as yeah, congratulate them. I think on making that investment.
My not goes international, and that's what's happening in Sama
at the moment. We've got the PM over there cutting
off access to their main print newspaper, which is basically
their main media outlet, over supposedly the fact that he
doesn't like a particular article. There's been some developments about
(31:56):
the editor ending up in a scuffle with the PM security.
I think that's a bit of a worrying situation and
one to watch.
Speaker 2 (32:01):
Oh gosh, come on, Bryce, you must have reached.
Speaker 3 (32:04):
Okay, yes, I have. This week has been for ten
years since that Pike Rivers asked talked about earlier. We've
had a lot of remembrance this week and a lot
more focus on the need to finally get accountability on that.
And in the Herald today on the front page was
news that the police may be about to take some
(32:25):
charges on that. So I think that's actually a sad story,
but it's a good it's a hot not for me.
Chris Bishop this week was found to have shifted money
from the housing budget to build a pedestrian bridge in
his electorate. It's probably going to be a great bridge,
but it's a bit sad the way he's done it.
It really starts shifting New Zealand back into pork barrowed politics.
(32:48):
It's his own electorate. He promised to get this done
in his campaign. He's now diverted funds to do that.
I don't think that's the best way to run the country.
Speaker 2 (32:58):
Dr Bryce Edwards, bridget Morton, thank you very much for
coming on the show. Have a great weekend.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills, listen 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 Wellington's official week interview. It's
Friday face off with Kudovic Property Management, a better rental
experience for all. Visit Quovic dot co dot It's head.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Start Friday face off today. We have two special guests.
We have always have special guests, but bridget more than
political commentator and lawyer Morning Bridget Morning, and we have
doctor Bryce Edwards, political commentator and academic. You know what
was a dream of mine to be an academic? Oh
(00:48):
you're born like that? Oh no, no, definitely not a look.
I think you're much better where you are. You have
much more impact.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
On the nation, much more educational.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Sort of stop stop stop now, stop now. I can
see you turning the radios off there. Don't try and
say say things about a police police, police, who's calling
the police? Bryce? Start me up? Where are?
Speaker 3 (01:13):
I just rarely agree with Mark Mitchell. Last Sunday on
tvnz Q and A, he called the police executive corrupted.
He said that the previous police executive work corrupt, and
then he retracted it later on and said, oh he
had misspoke, but I think he said it right when
you got it the first time. I think we do
have a corruption problem in New Zealand. We are really
(01:37):
feel uneasy about using that word corruption or corrupt, and
it's hard to define what corruption means. For some people,
just means a system broken, something that's not working properly.
More academic definitions would be that you've got people in
authority misusing that authority for personal gain. I think that's
absolutely what has happened here, and it has been a
cover up. It's been people working together as a gang,
(02:01):
as a club, and we're still seeing basically this playing out,
and I think it will play out for a long
time as suddenly there's more scrutiny on police authority and
that's how it should be. And that's why I think
this is a really good scandal because suddenly we are
more awake, we're less complacent. Now we're going to start
(02:23):
putting in rules and scrutinizing the powerful, and the police
do need to be scrutinized because they have a lot
of power over us, and a good police force should
be very clean.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Bridget Morton, you're a lawyer, so you won't use the
word corrupt, but there's something going on where a young
woman has been sending emails and complaining and everything that's
covered under there's something that's not right, and we I mean,
we know it's not right because the report came out
and said it's not right. But how bad is it?
Speaker 4 (02:53):
Oh, it's extremely bad.
Speaker 5 (02:54):
And I think most importantly with police, they have extraordinary
powers that they can exercise over us, and even for
people that are in you know, I would say positions
of power. You know, someone like me who's a lawyer
who knows the law, they still have an extraordinary power
over me and the ability to search and seize and
to put me in salves and hold me all these
(03:15):
kind of powers.
Speaker 4 (03:16):
And so when you see an example of this.
Speaker 5 (03:17):
At the highest level of police are, where they have
used their power to cover up and protect their own,
it makes you worried about how that's flowing through and
that culture is flowing through the whole service. I do
have a lot of sympathy though, for our frontline police.
You know, we've got a lot of people out there
doing that hard work on the beat, face to face
with criminals, and at the moment they're getting sullied by
(03:39):
this reputation of the people sitting at desks and HQ
and here in Wellington, and so I think we do
need to keep that in mind that this is definitely
not all police, but there is, without a doubt, a
cultural problem that has to be fixed.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
How did you feel, Bridget I'll come to you because
of your law background, that Chambers actually jets off on Friday,
this is the same week that this is all going down.
I know it's pre arranged, and I know it's really important.
I know all that stuff, but he jets off and
leaves nobody. Actually, as Acting Commissioner.
Speaker 5 (04:09):
If I was advising him, I would have told him
not to go. This is a point. You are a
domestic police force. You are here to make sure that
you're keeping you know, people safe, that you're making sure
the exercise of powers, and we have seen every day.
I think since that IPCA report come out, another element
that I think makes our public worried. There is no
doubt that he should be here and should be dealing
(04:31):
with it. I think, you know, there's a lot of
value in him doing these overseas trips and we need that,
but this is not the right time.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
And Bryce, I mean it's two days ago, fifteen years
ago that Pike River happened. Imagine if there was a
Pike River incident and now, Heaven help us, we never
have that again. But you know, some sort of disaster
with no commissioner, no one actually physically in charge.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
Yeah, I'm not sure how much the commissioner actually does
have a day to day sort of role in those
sort of things. But I totally agree with Bridget that
Chambers has mister Mark on this one. So I mean,
in general, I think everyone's been quite impressed with his
behavior and dealing with this, as with the cabinet ministers
(05:20):
when this has come out. But I think he has
led us down with disappearing. Maybe it's only a symbolic thing,
maybe in practice it makes no difference, but yeah, it
doesn't quite fit the gravity of the situation, him going
off overseas.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
What did you think, both of you? And I'll come
to you first, Bridge, and I'll come back to you Bryce.
But when you saw the latest article which Mark Mitchell's
office was getting the information from this young woman, and
you know everyone was saying, especially you know, Mitchell was saying,
I didn't know anything about it, knew nothing about it,
didn't get it to me. But now we find that it.
Speaker 5 (05:55):
Had got to well, I think we need to be
a little bit careful here because I think those stories
are actually overblown. You know, I've worked in minister's offices
and I've dealt with electric matters. There's two ones here,
won one and then coming into the minister's office. It's
clear that there was a protocol put in place at
staff for following and that the minister wasn't actually aware
of about those emails going straight to police to be
(06:15):
dealt with. So that I think is a police problem,
not a minister problem. In terms of the elected office.
You look at the actions that were reported this morning
of the electric agent saying very clearly this is a
police and portfolio. This is where you need to send
your emails. She did absolutely everything right, and I actually
think it's a little unfair to have that story printed
with her name and saying that she had done something wrong.
Speaker 4 (06:36):
She has not done anything.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Okay, Well, that's that's clear up. What about the new
six offices under investigation. I mean, this is supposed to
be all cleaned up by now, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
Bryce Yeah, but sorry, I just want to throw on
a different point on that last one. No, I totally
believe that the ministerial officers aren't up to scratch on this.
They need to. There needs to be some thought into
how they deal with these protocols. I think they had
the protocols wrong and the system's wrong. Every minister's office
kind of deals with these things differently. There's no sort
(07:05):
of formula, there's no sort of standards, and likewise with
electric officers. Basically, these mostly operate as the campaign officers
for the MPs, and I think that's why a lot
of these things slip. The minister should have been informed
when electorate official received these messages, but I think they're
(07:26):
too busy, rarely trying to get the politician re elected.
Speaker 5 (07:29):
I think that is sorry, you're just completely wrong on us.
I think we just need to go for a really
practical here. There might be an academic view of what's happening.
Electric officers electric agents, by and far ninety percent of
the time they're dealing with immigration, employment, they're sending people
to services. They're absolutely doing things like organizing community meetings
and things like that. But to say that their primary
job is keeping them relected, I think is completely dupicious.
(07:52):
It's not fear at all, and you're actually undermining a
really important part of our system, which is constituent representation.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
Sue representation isn't working very well at the moment. I
don't believe.
Speaker 5 (08:01):
Well, here's what she did is that she directed this
person to the right place the problem and it still
goes back to the police and the police's actions here,
which were completely wrong. I agree with you in terms
of the Minister's office that absolutely the protocol around police
matters wasn't being dealt with. But to blame frankly, the
most junior staffer in the offers who sits on the
front desk following police commissioner's protocol is completely unfair. And
(08:24):
that's what I take start with these articles.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
You're right about the personalities involved, absolutely, but I still
don't think the processes are there.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
Okay. What scared me when I saw that same Q
and a program that you saw Bryce, and I don't
know whether the bridget you saw it or not. When
Mark Mitchell was on, I mean, once he got he's
got sport, he's got looking after a disaster, he's got police,
he's got the jails. What's it called corrections, And each
(08:54):
one of those has three or four staff in his office.
I've just there's probably more. So that's four times. That's
like a lot of staff. Is that are we overloading
our politicians? Should he be minister of nothing else?
Speaker 5 (09:07):
Oh, without a doubt that we are overloading our politicians.
And when you talk about that sort of number of staff, actually,
if you look at someone like Mark Mitchell's offers, he
would probably have two what's called minister your advisors, so
it might be seeing as your sort of political advisors,
but generally the ones that are trying to get the
work program through and two pre secretaries and then everyone
else is coming in from the department. You don't actually
(09:28):
have a lot of staff to deal with. And if
you're talking about the mounted correspondence that comes through to
those offices, it is in the hundreds per day, And
I understand it's actually since I've left the beehive, increased
even more so because now everything is so easy to
send the electronic piece of correspondence. So I think it's
I like completely and it might sound, you know, completely
(09:49):
self interested, but the actually does need to be more
staff and the officers to actually support ministers because this
is where things fall through the cracks because they don't
have that time and that resource to actually be able
to do this sort of stuff.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
But surely Bryce, so you've got a background on this,
you know this. I mean, surely they can have other
what is there undred and twenty eight or something, whatever
the number is. Surely that they could have someone doing sports,
someone else doing I don't think.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
I wouldn't advise that we have more ministers. I mean, yes,
maybe there's a question of some ministers being overloaded with
too many ministerial portfolios, but generally we probably have too
many ministers and some of these portfolios could be combined.
Probably is more that.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
That's absolutely do we reduce it because I don't think
when I was growing up that a Minister of Education
had a Minister of something else as well beside them.
Speaker 5 (10:37):
No, so I think if you look, the New Zealand
Initiative did a really good report a couple of months
ago that looked at how many departments each they were
sort of reporting to different ministers. It's a little bit
of a creature of our MMP system and that Coalish
and government because now you know you've got a finance minister,
but you've got an associate Finance minister and the Coalish
and Partner and of course in the other Coalish and Partner.
So actually, I think one of the issues wider and
(10:59):
I don't think this is necessary for police, is too
many officials reporting too many ways. Actually, some streamlining would
actually probably fix some of these problems.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Take a short break and be back with Bridget Morton
and doctor Bryce Edwards. When we come back, I want
to talk about prisons, actually prisons. Friday face off of
Bridget Morton and doctor Bryce Edwards. We're nearly got eleven
thousand people in prisons. Christopher Luxon is positive about it.
(11:29):
He said he's had not we didn't I want to
use the word happy. He said that he's pleased that
we've got more people in jail. Bryce, What's what are
your thoughts when you hear that.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
Sometimes I think Prime Minister Christopher Luxon does misspeak and
doesn't get the tone right on things actually quite a lot,
and this was one of those examples. Prime ministers should
never be glee for or positive about the prison numbers
going up. But I mean, I do take his point
that it's better having some violent, dangerous people in prison
(12:04):
than on the streets. And you know, the government I
think has. It's one of the key areas that I
think they have convinced the public on law and order.
But obviously this isn't ultimately a good thing for society.
Just have more and more people locked up. Prisons aren't
the answer. But even the last government did try and
(12:24):
get those numbers down quite considerably. So Labor under Jesinder A.
Dun did have an agenda of locking up fewer and
fewer people, and I think that was something that was
quite progressive and it was yeah, ideal, but it also
had a lot of negative ramifications. I think it did
have an impact on crime, locking up fewer people, and
(12:45):
so they actually reversed that and in the last year
or so of the Labor government, the numbers started skyrocketing
back up. And so what National has done has just
dis continued that.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Over the past couple of weeks, we've heard that p
is up by huge amounts, double from two years ago.
Gang numbers are up. We've also heard that we've got
thirty eight thousand less victims of crime. So how do
we read this.
Speaker 5 (13:11):
Bridget Yeah, I think it's wrong to say that the
Prime Minister misspoke on this. I think he's talking directly
to the people that at the last election were just
frankly sick of Labour's record on law and order because
they were going into their local mall and you know,
Michael Hill was being ram rated while they were trying
to shop with their kids and ram raids.
Speaker 4 (13:30):
I think, are you know.
Speaker 5 (13:32):
I think they're down to about thirty percent or even
less of what they were a couple of years ago.
There's an extraordinary effort to get something that was quite
frightening and fury gang related activity. There's also, as you say,
the victims of crime has gone down considerably, so I
think there'll be a lot of people out there in
the community and go, yes, I do feel safer because
these dangerous people are locked up.
Speaker 4 (13:52):
But we cannot ignore.
Speaker 5 (13:53):
The reality that prisoners don't create, you know, good citizens.
You've got to also invest in that rehabilitation programs and
the circumstances that actually allow people to actually turn their
lives around. One of the problems with Labour's policy of
trying to reduce the prison of population by thirty percent
was actually the fact that they used it as a
(14:14):
way of not investing in prisons, and that was in
the capitals of the necessary space for people to live
in prison, but also the programs and things that actually
allow people to get some of those life skills to
get their life back on track. And that is I
think some of the circumstances that we're seeing at the
moment that prisons were getting more dangerous people locked up,
but they're also coming out still dangerous.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
So I think that's a really good explanation. I think
it's brilliant and I think your critique of Labour's right,
would you say the same about the current government? Are
they investing in the right ways with you?
Speaker 5 (14:44):
Yeah, I think if you look at the meth announcement
from about ten days ago, there was a big announcement
that looked across the fact that we need to look
at customs, we need to look at police in terms
of investment, but also a very heavy investment in that
the meth addiction programs, which are large percentage of them,
are going to be run through prisons. So I think
they are actually getting some of that mix right. It's
probably not the headlines that are being reported because frankly,
(15:06):
they it's much better for a sense right government to
be being seen.
Speaker 4 (15:10):
As tough on law and order. But if you look at.
Speaker 5 (15:12):
Underneath you look at those budget lines are investing quite
heavily in some of those signals towards crime, which is
those programs and youth justice.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
Right, do you feel happy the fact that, Bryce, I mean,
I'm going to simplify it here a little bit, we're
building more and more jails.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
No, no, it's a disaster. I mean everyone knows the
Bill English line on this back from about what ten
years ago, saying that prisons are a moral and fiscal failure,
and I think most people agree with that. You want
as fewer prisons as possible. I don't know if we
can move to no prisons anytime soon, but no, no,
(15:46):
you want them reducing, not getting bigger.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
Okay, let's talk fairies. Before we go to the news. Bryce,
I'll start with you, what's your gut, what's your feeling?
I mean, oh, for instance, out there clapping and rightly so,
I saved us one and a half billion dollar.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
I've got a really boring answer on this, which is
labor stuffed this up in the way that they were
doing the I REX program, not really convinced that National
has done a much better job. They've everything just that
gets done so fast and sort of fast now that
(16:21):
I'm misspaking. What I'm saying is that infrastructure is so
important to this nation that it has to be carefully done.
This should have been planned ten twenty years ago, and
it should have been all the ports and infrastructure and
transport systems all were aligned producing an optimal outcome. The
way Labor did it was very much just telling key.
We were oh, you come up with what you want
and tell us how much money you want and we'll
(16:41):
do it. And that was that was fast corn, and
it would have blown out to something terrible. National or
the Coalition have quickly tried to come up with a
cost effective way. They've kind of cut costs on the
port infrastructure. I tend to think it's a better outcome
than what we were going to see from the last government,
but I'm not really convinced it's it seems a bit
(17:04):
still patchy in my view.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Bridge. Any one concerned that the old girls that are
doing the job right now are going to last of twill.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
Be a moment.
Speaker 4 (17:12):
You're talking about boats, Well.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
You always call a boat of woman, don't you.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
Do you do?
Speaker 5 (17:18):
I'm worried where you were going on, and that's not
how you should identify Winston Peters. So I think, you know,
absolutely there's always that concern, and you know, we are
this kind of weird nation that's two big islands connected
by this tiny bit of water. You know, we can
see pretty much the South Island most days here in
Wellington and the fact that we it can be so vulnerable,
I think.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
Without a doubt the government will.
Speaker 5 (17:40):
Also be hoping that there's not going to be issues
between now and twenty twenty nine in terms of our
current fairy fleet. But I think, really I think some
credits should go here to Winston Peters and Nicola Willis
because it was this massive you think where we were
sitting two years ago, it was this massive immediate post
election issue. It you know, they acted really decisively to
cut off that money train that was flying through to
(18:02):
Kiwi Rail and they had a lot of criticism since
then about it. Now they've come up with a solution
that looks deliverable, that has saved a large amount of
money that actually, you know, I suppose the proof will
be in the putting, but it does look like it's
quite a reasonable solution that people can live with.
Speaker 4 (18:17):
It's you know, you've got.
Speaker 5 (18:18):
Rail you've got trucks, you've got more freight capacity, all
of those things. I think they have taken it quite
successfully with the announcement this week off that political agenda.
I'd be kind of fuming if I was labor.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
Can anyone else but me? Remember when we got these
new the old fairies in first when those warta song
cruising on the End to Rlander and we were all
this perfect New zeal to be beautiful boats and it
was a oh can you remember.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
That from my childhood remembers that. It's kind of like
I remember it as a time that New Zealand seemed
to be working really well because you were.
Speaker 4 (18:50):
A child and it was just depended on what lollies
were available.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
I wasn't a child, and it just felt like it
was you know, the cruising on the you know, it
was just a big, great happy family.
Speaker 4 (19:02):
I mean, it was a great song. And I do
remember that too. I don't know if that actually told
us about the fairy performance though.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Felt felt good, felt good by the song. Anyway, take
a short break and have some headlines. Your Friday Face
Off guests today are Bridget Morton and Bryce Edward's Friday
Face Off with Bridget Morton and Bryce Edwards. Winston Peters
has vowed to repeal the Regulatory Standards Bill, which only
became law two days ago. Bryce, what do you make
(19:29):
of this? What's he gearing up? What's the point? I mean,
it was only a couple of weeks ago that one
of his members was clapping your hands and saying it
was fantastic.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
I think what Winston Peters is saying is it's quite logical.
This is a piece of legislation that New Zealand First
didn't really know about but signed on to in their
coalition agreement. It's an act party policy basically to try
and make future laws that are passed more compliant with
my view of sort of business friendly worldview. And he
(19:58):
doesn't like it, and he's never been keen on it,
but he's had to vote for it. It's come in
to effect two days ago. Now he's saying at the
next election he'll campaign against it. It does look a
bit mickey mouse. It does look.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
Is it a big deal? It's a law change, a
big deal.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
I don't think he practice the law change is a
huge deal. No, But it's symbolic of corporate power, business
power and of the act kind of worldview. Winston Peters
doesn't like it. I think he's quite right to say
he'll campaign against it, and I don't know if he's
going to make it a bottom line. And the next
he's this morning.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
On Hoskins that he wasn't going to make it a
bottom line, but the media picked up that he said
yesterday that it was a bottom line.
Speaker 3 (20:38):
Well, that's Winston Peter's world, isn't it. It's always moving
between different things. It's hard to pin down.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
Okay, Bridget give us the lawyer view of the whole thing.
I mean, if David Seymour has been working on this
for twenty years, as he says, I mean, obviously it's
quite a big deal to him. Is it a big
deal in your world?
Speaker 4 (20:56):
So I think without a doubt.
Speaker 5 (20:58):
I mean, it has been worked on for sort of
twenty years and probably giving David smore the credits, probably
over eating it. Actually, it's been a lot of academics
and lawyers actually working on it because they foresee that
we actually don't have a great regulatory process in New
Zealand about examining costs and benefits. What actually is the
regulary impact on people? We tend to rush a little
bit through lawmaking, and that was particularly bad during the
(21:20):
COVID years, and particularly bad under the last labor government
where you didn't have some of the standards. And this
is very sort of insider you know, the regulatory impact
statements and things that actually provide some of our safeguards
against having policies that are made without consideration of what
they do. This bill is meant to address that. I
think it's my personal view as well. I'm supporter of
solving that problem. I don't know if legislation is the
(21:42):
right tool. It has become a political football because people
have picked up on what some of those tests are.
And you know, I think, as Bryce said, you know,
a business friendly kind of view. I don't think it
does what Winston says, which constrains you know, future governments.
Speaker 4 (21:56):
It's still just advisory.
Speaker 5 (21:58):
It's still it's not stopping them from making laws, and
it is really questionable about what kind of impact that
we'll have, you know, in terms of a campaign, I
think he probably got a little bit over excited yesterday
in terms of his comments and realizes today that actually
this is not a big thing to campaign on.
Speaker 4 (22:14):
His voters don't.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Are you talking about that? Are you talking about David
Seymour or Winston Peters?
Speaker 5 (22:18):
Yes, say talking about Yeah, you get on radio watching
when he came on, and so he said that, you know,
this is something that we're going to set a campaign against.
I think he probably realizes that this is not the
big sit of political football that his particular voters are
interested in.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
Bryce. I mean, we had David Seymour saying that, you know,
almost signaling that that this could mean that Winston Peters
is going to jump ship and go with Labor. I mean,
was that an over reaction.
Speaker 3 (22:43):
It's probably an overreaction, and David Seymour will say, you
know what's best for ACT and paint New Zealand First
like that. But I think there is a kernel of
truth and what Seymour was saying, certainly everyone just assumes
that New Zealand First and Peters are joined at the
hip with National and that if there is another National
led government at well after the next election, New Zealand
(23:06):
First will stay aligned with National. I don't think it's
the case. I do think that he could go with
Labor at the next election. You think he could, Oh absolutely,
I think he could. I'm not saying he will, but
he could and I think New Zealand First will be
wanting to Well, we'll have to wait and see him
close to the election, but I think he will want
to be the kingmaker again and he'll want to be
(23:29):
on the Labour side of history if that gives him
more power.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
Bridget, you're not going to load agree with that at
you ah.
Speaker 4 (23:36):
To a certain extent.
Speaker 5 (23:37):
I think that comment from David Symol you stay saying
that it was looking like he might go with Labor
with smart politics from David Symour, because the competition going
into next year is for a group of sort of
center right type politicians who may not be satisfied we're
National sitting and ACT to New Zealand foster of both
fighting over those votes. And we know back in twenty
(23:58):
seventeen when Winston went with Disinda Adurna and went with Labor,
there was a lot of disaffect in New Zealand First
voters and you know they were out the next selection.
So pointing that risk out lots of people thinking about
whether I vote ACT or.
Speaker 4 (24:11):
New Zealand First is smart from David Seymour.
Speaker 5 (24:13):
I don't think that means it gives any more credits
to whether or not he would go with either. I
think if we look at the history of Winston Peters,
Winston Peters will do what is best for him at
New Zealand first, and therefore everything is always on the table.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
Wow, I I'm surprised you'd have that comment. I'm really
surprised Doctor Bryce Edwards and Bridget Morton are on Friday
face off. Let's get to some Wellington topics. Council meet
yesterday decided that they needed a review into the Golden Mile,
put big pause button in the middle of it and
said let's stop now, Bryce, what are your thoughts?
Speaker 3 (24:49):
Oh, absolutely the right thing to do. The costs we're
looking to blow out. I was never convinced, and as
most Walingtonians, I think we're not convinced that the council
had this right, especially after the town Hall, after the
sewerage blowout, after everything else. The council have trouble at
doing big projects. I'm not sure they had this right.
(25:10):
So yes, it's good to have a rethink on that.
What was interesting I thought was that Andrew Little campaigned
on this, his labor supporters, his labor colleagues on council
were right behind him. His main opposition has been the
Green Party counselors, and I think that's what we are
now going to see on this council. The main divide
(25:30):
is going to be between Labor and the Green.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
Twenty four left of the Greens isn't so.
Speaker 3 (25:34):
Yeah, but they'll be the noisiest ones. No, no, no.
Maybe we'll end up being more symbolic than real, but
that's where we're going to see some of the biggest
fights between Labor and the Greens.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
Bridget the right decision or should we have bitten on
the bullet and gone ahead with it?
Speaker 5 (25:49):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (25:49):
No, Absolutely the right decision.
Speaker 5 (25:51):
And I think also key for our new men and
for Andrew Little, who really campaigned on bringing back some
sensible and conservative decision making. I think two councils, particularly
around spending in some of these what we might call
vanity projects, about making things look pretty rather than make
things work well.
Speaker 4 (26:07):
I think one of the most.
Speaker 5 (26:08):
Concerning things when I actually read this story about them
pausing the decision was the discovery that once again we've
discovered after the fact that the pipes under the road
are actually the aging out We actually need.
Speaker 4 (26:18):
To replace those.
Speaker 5 (26:20):
You know, this felt like it was possibly going to
be another Thornton Key where we did all this pretty
you know, pedestrianization and then had to rip it up
for some pipes. So I think if they redirect some
of that planned investment into the pipes, I think well
Antonians will be very happy.
Speaker 2 (26:32):
I want to carry on and talk about the tunnels
in a second, but while we're talking about the first
council meeting and Andrew Little, I just want to quickly
ask you both, just in a sentence, Bridget starting with you,
your view on how well Andrew Little is doing as
Mayor of Wellington in the short time he's been there.
Speaker 5 (26:48):
Well, I think he's doing a really good job because
he's immediately coming out and being sensible some of those
key things. We've no longer got fences around the waterfront.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
Right and Bryce, we were told we were going to
get an adult in the room, and we have got
an adult in the room.
Speaker 3 (27:00):
All I would say is if the election was held
tomorrow Andrew Little wild romp in with even a much
majority than he did, how.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
Can you say that was the biggest majority ever?
Speaker 3 (27:10):
I know, I think he would have impressed Wellingtonian's with
how he's gone so far.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
He has done a pretty damn good job, is it right?
Let's talk about something that he can't control, but we'll
have something to do with. I mean, the numbers are
eye watering, aren't they. The Mount Victoria MOUNTCT tunnels it carries.
I mean, this is what I don't understand. A price
tag of between two point nine billion and three point
eight billion. I mean it's you know, a billion dollars.
(27:35):
Bridget the difference and it'll go higher. Is that price
too high?
Speaker 4 (27:39):
No?
Speaker 5 (27:39):
I don't think it is. And I think that's what
we have to be censul about. It is that this
is the type infrastructure we have to invest in. And
this you know, looking at the plans that have come
out this week, it's clear they had not just you know,
drawn a hole in the middle of the hill saying
this might be where it goes through. They've thought about
where that traffic flowers, have thought about cycling, about walking about,
you know, minimizing the impact on the town belt, and
(28:00):
you know how many houses will have to go, all
of those things.
Speaker 4 (28:03):
It does seem well thought out. I just wanted to
get on with it.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
Yeah, it is. I mean, we keep forgetting too it
starts on the Terrace Tunnel, and you know, we go
through Vivian Street, which is bloody stupid, isn't it? Going
through the CBD on State Highway One. So it cleans
up all that as well, it does.
Speaker 3 (28:20):
I think again there'll be a consensus that this is
the right thing, that finally they've got it right, that
this is finally being fixed and it should have been
done fifteen years ago, and it could have been done.
You know, New Zealander just doesn't take infrastructure planning well enough,
and I think they're finally biting the bullet. The cost
isn't too low. This is just what you need to spend,
I think with Vivian Street, if anything, I would have
(28:42):
undergrounded it and got rid of it, used more tunnels,
not less.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
Yeah, they're not a bad idea, I mean, just the cost.
I mean. Yeah, So let's talk. Do you both catch ubers?
Speaker 4 (28:53):
I do got one here today, of course.
Speaker 2 (28:57):
So what did you think of the I'll go with
Bridget because he's a lawyer. I don't want to What
did you think of the court rulings? You see, I
thought it was a terrible ruling as because I'm a contractor.
Speaker 5 (29:06):
Yeah, I think it was a till we're ruling too,
because what it goes towards is the fact it seems
to assume that people don't want to be contractors, that
actually there's mobidle in this flexibility that actually has been
built more and more into our system over the last
ten years doesn't actually work for a lot of people
when we actually know it does. And I think Uber
drivers in particular, if you want to be in the
passenger service business, there's a lot of options out there
(29:27):
in which you can be an employee. You know, this
is one of the and you go into eyes open,
knowing the conditions and what you're signing on to. So
I think it's it's wrong for the court to then
assume that they should then have employment contracts across the
top bryce.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
It feels to me that the people that went took
the court case what their cake and eat it too.
Speaker 3 (29:45):
No. I think they just want to be properly paid
and have proper and conditions in the work that they do.
So I think it was a great decision by the
Supreme Court, and I think it deals with a big
problem of the gig economy of contractors.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
Down are you making a problem that there isn't one, No.
Speaker 3 (30:05):
Because I think workers' rights and conditions have been ground
down over recent decades, and this is just one little
way of fighting back, trying to regain a.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
Lot of advantage for a lot of these people though
in the gig economy by being a contractor though, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
Yeah, And I think as a society around the world,
we have to work out how to make that work
properly because at the moment it just tends to mean
that the businesses get their way and workers are ground doown.
So no, I think we need to get some sort
of rules that are better than the current ones.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
Yeah. See, my view on a contractor is that they're
not a worker. They're a contractor, which is completely different
to working for someone for a wage. But that's my opinion,
and you're welcome. You've got a different one, and that's great. Yeah,
that's why you're here. Yours is an academic one, and
why it's.
Speaker 1 (30:52):
Not the Friday fat than not.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
Okay, it's my favorite part of the show because I
get to find out what's hot and what's not hot
around time. Bryce you go first, I've forgotten them, I
think my bridget what is your hots or not.
Speaker 4 (31:10):
My hot is a very local one.
Speaker 5 (31:11):
In fact, it's about two hundred meters up the road
and that's the Social Project, which is a new gym
that's opened here in the CBD. That's an offshoot of
the Polydor one. They've had a number of troubles getting
the gym open in terms of construction. But I just
love to see people infesting in business, infesting in Wellington
making that commitment, particularly in the current economy. So I
think that opened and I've got some very sore muscles
(31:33):
from if you join I have so yeah, so I
as yeah, congratulate them. I think on making that investment.
My not goes international, and that's what's happening in Sama
at the moment. We've got the PM over there cutting
off access to their main print newspaper, which is basically
their main media outlet, over supposedly the fact that he
doesn't like a particular article. There's been some developments about
(31:56):
the editor ending up in a scuffle with the PM security.
I think that's a bit of a worrying situation and
one to watch.
Speaker 2 (32:01):
Oh gosh, come on, Bryce, you must have reached.
Speaker 3 (32:04):
Okay, yes, I have. This week has been for ten
years since that Pike Rivers asked talked about earlier. We've
had a lot of remembrance this week and a lot
more focus on the need to finally get accountability on that.
And in the Herald today on the front page was
news that the police may be about to take some
(32:25):
charges on that. So I think that's actually a sad story,
but it's a good it's a hot not for me.
Chris Bishop this week was found to have shifted money
from the housing budget to build a pedestrian bridge in
his electorate. It's probably going to be a great bridge,
but it's a bit sad the way he's done it.
It really starts shifting New Zealand back into pork barrowed politics.
(32:48):
It's his own electorate. He promised to get this done
in his campaign. He's now diverted funds to do that.
I don't think that's the best way to run the country.
Speaker 2 (32:58):
Dr Bryce Edwards, bridget Morton, thank you very much for
coming on the show. Have a great weekend.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills, listen to
news Talks It'd Be Wellington from nine am weekdays, or
follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
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.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.