June 25, 2026 • 33 mins
For Friday Faceoff this week Nick Mills is joined in the studio by heavy hitters and former ministers Christopher Finlayson and Peter Dunne.
The panel get started by debating the changes Tama Potaka has backed down on in his conservation bill. Did he make the right choice politically and ethically? Or should Kiwis be up for the conversation around conservation?
The WCC have opened up a rates system change to public consultation. What would be better for Wellington - rating by land value or capital value?
They also take a look at the history of two major party leaders challenging each other twice. Then Finlayson and Dunne discuss Mayor Andrew Little and the council's calls to defy move on orders.
Also, on the agenda is the risk with TOP, the polls, superannuation age change, Winston Peters creating a media storm and share their hot and nots.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
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 Betar with Kudov Property Management, a better rental experience
for all visit Kudovic dot co dot its head. Now.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
I guess we're excited seven minutes past eleven with Friday
based off because not only do I know it's nearly
time to go home for the week, but I also
get two very very special guests to come in the
studio and talk about the things that we've talked about
all week and give you a completely different opinion on it.
And to have to esteemed is that the right word?
Ex politicians in the studio with me, I feel like
(00:51):
I don't aren't even deservant and being here morning to
you both Chris fin Listen and Peter Dunn.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Although Pete is much more esteemed than I am. Why well,
because he formed a political party, he's served both administrations,
he's been a minister for about fifteen years, and he's
got a lot of life left in him.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
In my opinion, Chris is become a bit closer. Please.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
Chris has always impressed me because when I first encountered
you as a debater, very silver tongue, very good with
running an argument, and that's the legal training. So well,
i'll take that. I'll also take the fact that you've
got both sides of the argument.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Well, let us rock on, Nicholas, stop waffling. What's the
first topic? Please?
Speaker 2 (01:39):
My god? How's your mom?
Speaker 3 (01:42):
She is great. She turns ninety seven on the sixth
of July, so I'm very proud of it.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
I like to always ask after your mum.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
Well, it's interesting she told me some years ago. She said,
we've got the southerly going through. And she said, well,
a lot of people think it's tough when these sorts
of things happened. I recall the time I had you
three boys in bed with measles and we had continuous
southerly and I couldn't dry a single piece of washing.
So mothers are pretty special people.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
They are very very special people. Minister Tama Potucker has
back down on a controversial clause and the Lord a
change that would make conservation land to be sold. It
was said it was an issue of how he worded.
Who wants to go, Peter, you go first on this.
Speaker 4 (02:26):
He's made the right call. Eventually. I think that the
point he set out to resolve I think was a
valid one. But the way he went about it, and
the way he persisted with it so defiantly for so long,
I think is politically disastrous. But he's back down now. Ironically,
had he backed down a few weeks ago, he might
have got some cutos. I think now he would just
(02:47):
get the sense of, well, you know, that was always
going to happen.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Wasn't the delivery that hurt him.
Speaker 4 (02:53):
It was the insensitivity. I mean, he makes a valid
point when he says, there's a lot of conservation on
a lot of but there are pieces of conservation land
that are no good for anything. We should just get
rid of them. I think no one argues with that.
But he managed to the issue when Forest and Bird said, well,
sixty percent of the conservation estate could be up for grabs,
he sort of said, that's nonsense, but well, you know,
(03:15):
the way the acts rerouted it could it just looked
ham fisted, and he dug himself into a hole and
took a long time to get out of it.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Chris, what did you what was your thoughts when you
first saw him announce that on election year? Then you knew.
I mean, you're a pretty as stute person. You'd know
that Greenpeace would be jumping up and down and the
Green Party you'd be jumping up. Well.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
I think there are a number of absolutists in this area.
I agree with Peter the idea is very sensible. When
the Department of Conservation was formed and I think nineteen
eighty seven, it inherited a lot of land from the
Old Lands and Survey Department and much of it could
easily be sold off. It doesn't qualify as conservation land.
(03:58):
I recall this issue coming up when John Key was
Prime Minister, and he's still going to be careful because
people will say any concertvation land has to be protected,
and there's Schedule four and so on. So I think
TIMA made exactly the right call in relation to the
issue of selling certain conservation land that it name is
(04:22):
conservation land, but in substance isn't. But it's not an
issue that I think the Ninth Floor should have allowed
to have occurred an election year because there are so
many loud voices in this area and as I say,
they would say anything that is part of the conservation
estate of Schedule four, which is just simply not right.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
So I mean what you're saying, and what I suggested
earlier in the day is there's an old boys home
in the outskirts of live In that's on that land.
Is that the sort of thing we're talking. I'm not
saying there is, but you know what I mean, that's
the sort of.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
That's the sort of surplus land. Yeah. Look, I could
go through the country and identify pieces that are technically
conservation land, but they have very very limited conservation value,
and they have been inherited from lands and survey and
they should be available for sale.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Will they be?
Speaker 3 (05:17):
Well, this is the problem. It's I think Tarma's instincts
are absolutely correct, but you're up against people who regard
any land within the broader conservation estate is the garden
of Eden.
Speaker 4 (05:35):
I remember chairing a cabinet committee in the in the
late eighties where we were looking after the abolition of
harbor boards. What happened to a lot of surplus harbor
board land, there's an example those days, and the default
position was chuck it over to conservation they can look after.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
So there'd be some downtown land by round Wars.
Speaker 4 (05:55):
That could be commercially going back a few years now,
but potentially yes, but it was never. My god, this
has got huge conservation value. This is Christine, this is
you know, we must pre That wasn't The argument was
where can we sort of house it? Conservation is an
easy place. Bug it in there, and you know, I
think that's what he's aiming at. But the selling of
(06:16):
this thing was so bad it looked like the whole
whole conservation was up up to the highestpit.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
I don't know whether either of you heard on Mike
Cosky Show this morning, but he was a completely different
Tama Potucker that I've had on the show and before.
He was more sensible and relaxed about the decision. Did
you either of you know?
Speaker 3 (06:38):
I regret to say it didn't. I I have a
confession to make, which is a very serious one. I
was listening to constant FM.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Okay, well, that's that's all right, that's okay. Let's talk
about Wellington trying to change their rate scheme. Now. I
don't know whether you guys are up to it or
picked up on it, but they're going to have the
discussion of going back to land value instead of capital value.
Chris are going to start with you on this. What
are you What was your initial thoughts when you you
heard this.
Speaker 3 (07:07):
I think this council has actually got off to a
pretty good start, mainly because we've got, for the first
time for many many years, excellent leadership in Andrew Little,
who's I think doing a superb job. So I'm quite
relaxed about her back to basics review of the rating system.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
And do you think it could work? I mean it's
worked before in early two thousand.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
I think I'd have to default Peter on that because
I just waffle.
Speaker 4 (07:36):
I'm not sure about whether it will work or not.
But what I think is welcome is that after all
the controversy we've had over the last number of years
about rising rate bills in Wellington and the seeming inability
of councils to want to do very much about it,
here's a mayor coming out and saying I'm going to
actually consult with the public seek their views. And I
think that whatever the outcome, the fact that we're going
(07:57):
to have some consultation prior to the decision as a
step forward. If we go back to land based rather
than capital value, I think that's an argument with just
have to look at what the facts demonstrate at the time.
But I think the fact that the council is prepared
to engage with people about the rates rather than the
previous view was, well, that's the price you pay for
(08:17):
living in the city and renewing the water pipes and
all those sorts of things. I think that's a welcome
change that come Maybe no different, but people will at
least feel they've been involved.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
Do either of you think that it's problematic when you
live next door to a house same size section, they've
spent a million dollars extra on their house and done
it into the three story mansion, and you're still a
nice little humble home that they should have to pay
more rates than you.
Speaker 3 (08:43):
Oh, at first principles, the first glance, I'd have to say,
I can't see why they necessarily should. So that's why
I said I'm quite relaxed about a review so that
those sorts of hypotheticals can be addressed.
Speaker 4 (08:58):
Well, I think the big problem that lies behind all
of this is the adequacy of the rating system per
se to fund local government. We haven't yet come up
with a better alternative, and councilors right around the country
are struggling with us. To some extent. Now, if the
government returned, for argument's sake, the GST collected on rates,
(09:19):
that would be a positive step, but a very small
one in terms of the total costs. But until we
know in a way, Margaret Thatcher did the world a
terrible service and a disservice with the poll tax. That
was such a disaster no one will ever try it.
But the principle of saying everyone pays according to their
ability to consume was a good one, and the disaster
(09:42):
was of its implementation was such we won't even look
at that alternative now. So we're struggling around how do
we make the rate system, which I think is pretty
inadequate anyway, how do we make it work more effectively?
Speaker 2 (09:53):
And we haven't even started talking about water.
Speaker 4 (09:56):
That's absolutely no.
Speaker 3 (09:57):
But I mean, these issues are going to come down
the line. I've been very disappointed that successive Ministers of
Local Government in the last ten years have not taken
a good look at the Local Government Act two thousand
and two because it is past its use by date.
I have a real objection to just amending bits and
(10:20):
pieces from time to time. The critical question has been
raised by Peter this morning. The rating systems almost a
second tier issue. The primary issue is how do you
fund local authorities so that they can do their job properly,
and that is the responsibility primarily of the Minister of
(10:43):
Local Government.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
Some would say and this comes to both of you.
Some would say that actually we just need the government
to control them, so they're doing it. So spending isn't
all over the place.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
Yeah, but you know, I mean there are plenty of
stories of profligate councils and all that, but I do
think by a large they are struggling under the current system.
I mean, look at the Chatham Islands at the moment,
very small ratepayer base, struggling to keep the show going.
(11:12):
So it's happening everywhere.
Speaker 4 (11:14):
And you take something like the big cost blowout on
the refurbishment of the town Hall in Wellington. This is
a bugbear of mine, not so much of the town
hall per se, but the fact that we have buildings
classified as heritage buildings by the Crown really through through
the national process, and yet the responsibility for upgrading them
(11:34):
rests with the local authority. So I think there's all
those sorts of imbalance. I think that also Council's general
comment don't do a good job in terms of managing
their assets. You know, we shy away from the concept
of user pays, but maybe if you had a modest
fee for using being a member of the public library,
(11:55):
for instance, that could help defray some of the other expenses.
But councilors like to provide those services free. I understand that.
I'm not I reckon about it. You know, I reckon,
but it's in the rates.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
But don't you shut down the kadala Paul, I reckon, I.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
Reckon If you try charging for the library, you'd be
worse off the time a boat tugger.
Speaker 4 (12:14):
Right now, all I'm saying is we need to think
a little bit more laterally.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
I'm glad you're don't standing for them, and I'm not.
Speaker 4 (12:21):
I'm not assume in favor of charging for the library.
I'm just using that as an example of how councilors
don't generally manage their assets.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
You raise a very important point, and that is, when
do you introduce these sorts of changes. You should do
your thinking so that they are introduced in the first year.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
We had a bit of a quiz at the ad
break because it's a fact that I love talking and
we're an election year, so we love little facts about
election year. Friday face off with Chris Phinlisson and Peter Dunn.
I asked them both, when was the last time the
leader of Labor and the leader of National went at
each other in two elections? And I thought they would
both snap. They did, They worked it out. I'm not
(12:57):
going to I'm not going to, you know, dog them.
But it's a great story, isn't it. Yeah?
Speaker 1 (13:04):
It is.
Speaker 4 (13:04):
I mean we sort of off think, God, they've been
around for a long time, but actually we came to
the conclusion that it was Mike Moore and Jimboldier in
nineteen nineteen and nineteen ninety three, so that's over thirty
years ago. There's been constant change.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
What does that tell you?
Speaker 3 (13:22):
Well, I can only talk for the National Party, but
there was a period when they were changing leaders regularly,
almost as badly as the Conservative Party in Britain, and
of course the Labor Party's done it with Burnham. Now,
once you get into that mindset that a change of
leaders going to solve your problems, then I think you've
(13:42):
got a big problem. I would have stuck with Starma.
I thought that there's a guy want four hundred seats
in the second biggest I think in recent history, smashed
the Tories. A bit of loyalty doesn't go.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
I thought exactly the same thing, but I never wanted
to say it on air because I thought they were
wrong going to think I was an idiot. I thought
I thought he was doing okay.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
I mean, oh, I don't know that he was doing okay,
but I mean second year in they've still got five
year terms over there, three years to go. I think,
what did Keith Hollyoaks say? Loyalty announce of loyalties worth
a ton of cleverness.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
Well, this sort of view at the moment that you
get one shot at it and if you lose, you've
got to stand down and make way for a new leader.
You know, it's become the pattern over the last couple
of decades. Had it been in place a few years earlier,
Norman Kirk lost two elections before he won an election.
Helen Clark lost an election before she won. Jim Bolger
(14:44):
lost an election before he won Prime. Ministers that are
regarded as some of our best would never have had
the opportunity the way things work at the moment.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
And as you can see in Australia it's gone really
well for the Liberals because they got rid of Susan
Lee and then they lost her seat. The ball guy
they called Voldemort lost he was the leader of the opposition.
He lost his seat after twenty four years. So lack
(15:13):
of loyalty to the leader has.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
Its consequences really quickly. So want to move on, but
really quickly. If Chrisphinersen does not win this election.
Speaker 4 (15:24):
Now there's a news proper.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
For gory Chris, I said, Chris, what do I say?
Would you? Chris, Chris Hopkins, I'll do this every time
with you? Don't I'm sorry. Sharpen up, yeah, sharpen up.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
What happens, Well, it depends on the on the result. Obviously,
if he comes within an inch of winning, they may
well say, well we'll keep him.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
I think the question if that situation arises, the question
becomes if not Chris, who or whom? And I don't
think there's an easy answer to that. So the reason
he survived much of the last three years is the
lack of a challenger. And I suspect if they lose
this around, I don't think you'd survive a full three
year term, but it'd hang on until a a credible
challenger emerged.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (16:12):
Which is a bit of a commentary on their selection
process of candidates.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Right this talk about Andrew Little saying that the Wellington
City Council will defy the government's move on Order moving
on orders after the council voted against them. Chris Finlassen,
I'll get your name right this time. Should they stop
blaming the government and offer a solution themselves. I mean,
this is a pretty serious issue in Wellington.
Speaker 3 (16:38):
It is a serious issue, and I think I go
back to first principles and say, look, everyone's got individual
rights and we've got the Bill of Rights to protect that,
but there are also community rights and people have the
right to walk along the street without being Harris Bay
not live on the street, No, no, I'm talking about
(16:59):
people walking along the street not being harassed by those
who either live on the street or go to the
street at seven o'clock in the morning and earn some
money for the day. So I just think it's a
balance of community rights and personal rights. And I'm a
bit of a singapore Ian in that regard, so I
wouldn't tolerate it. The issue was how do you go
(17:19):
about not tolerating it. And I think that saying oh,
well to central government, you can go and see a
taxidermis because we're not going to do it is I
don't think that's an appropriate response.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
Peter dun'ne your thoughts. I mean, why would they just
pick a fight when the government's trying to help.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
I think most people I've just walked down in the
appalling weather today, walked down from Thempton Key down to
the studio and saw half a dozen of the regulars
on their slots. They weren't being offensive, but they're there.
It's their day job, and I think that they don't add, frankly,
anything to the city. If they need help, then social
agencies should be stepping in and providing that help. But
(17:59):
to simply say we're going to defy the government, I
don't think it's a very bright look, frankly, because I
think most of the citizens would probably say, we actually
agree that there should be, if not active move on laws,
but somewhere getting these people off the streets and stopping
them harassing people as they move along.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
It's interesting that you saw some because yesterday I did
exactly the same thing with the suddenly first came in
and the rain first came in. I didn't see a
single person on the streets, and I thought, well, if
they can do it in bad weather, they can do
it in good weather.
Speaker 4 (18:26):
But there weren't as many as normal, but they were there.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
Right Friday face off of Chrisphnersen and Peter Done. Let's
talk polls for a second. TOP the Opportunities Party are
getting closer and closer to that magical five percent in
the polls. Major parties are at the lowest combined score
in thirty years since MMP started. Peter Done, what do
(18:50):
you make of TOP? I mean we we It seems
every election we hear a little bit from them, then
they disappear. Yeah, I think.
Speaker 4 (18:59):
We're to start with TOP. No party has managed into
parliament under MMP if it has not been left by
either a former politician or a current politician. So the
Conservative's got four percent and twenty fourteen that was about
That was the closest that any party's got outside that model.
So they've got a big hurdle to overcome. I think
(19:20):
they've got some good ideas. I think they've got some
quite dreamy ideas, But I think that this could be
their time. Whether they'll get there, I think is an
entirely different question because I found in a small party
two things. Firstly, whose side are you really on? You know,
you say you can work with either side, but whose
(19:41):
side are you really on? And when you say, well,
actually I'm on neither side, I'm on my side, you're
dismissed as being opportunistic. That's the first thing. The second
thing about them is people. There's a wonderful John clisad
done for the Liberal Democrats many years ago when he
said that when he says, people tell me that they'd
vote for the Liberal Democrats if they thought we could win,
(20:03):
I'm going to go awn with a cup of tea now,
and you just think about that. And that's the same point.
People say, great to have them there, but we don't
think you'll make it, so we weren't resconing for you.
So they've got to break through those two things if
they don't succeed, And I think, while I'll give it
a good crack, I still think it's going to be
an uphill battle.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
I kind of think that leadership thing I agree with,
but I think this q La Wong has sort of
hit the road running. She went on and did a
full program on Q and A a few months ago
and made every every opportunity, pardon the part to put
them out there. Of course you're looking very thoughtful there.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
Yeah, I don't disagree with what Peter has said. I
was just reflecting on when MMP came into forces thirty
years ago this selection. The great tragedy for me was
that Peter's party never got up, because that would have
been a sensible centrist party that had some outstanding people
at Clive Matthewson, Margaret Austin is one of the loveliest
(21:02):
people who could come across, some good former National MPs,
that guy from Bruce Klae and who was the fellow
from Papakura, John Roberts. That would have been the party
that could have served either the center left or center right,
and instead we got New Zealand first and the tragedy
(21:26):
drama that goes with that every three years. Then you
could have had act to provide a bit of spice
and steel to the National Party's spine. But it is
just we got off on the wrong start and I
just I see the Opportunity Party as maybe getting close
but missing out. Of course, when you think of the Conservatives,
(21:46):
you think, thank goodness they did miss out because they
were led by a fellow called Graham Capel, who, as
subsequent events show, was not shall we say a saint.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
Wasn't quite as religious as he was selling himself to us.
Speaker 3 (22:01):
I may well have been as religious as he was
selling it was, shall we the disjunct between private practice
and professed believing.
Speaker 2 (22:11):
So you really haven't, I mean, for a person that's
normally very committed on the show, you haven't really given
us an answer on whether you think that q A
one will get through.
Speaker 3 (22:20):
I don't think she'll win Mount Albert because I mean
that is ancient labor territory and has been for eighty years,
and just to prove that Peter and I are fossils,
it's had labor leaders, three labor leaders in there, David Shearer,
just Sinderdurn briefly, and then that very long term with
(22:44):
Helen Clark. Before that, it was Warren Freer who won
it in nineteen forty seven.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
We are history. I can't I can't.
Speaker 3 (22:56):
I can't see Helen White losing Mount Albert.
Speaker 4 (22:58):
No, I mean she did nearly did so last ellection.
I think her majority is thirty one, but there's going
to have to be if she's to lose, there's going
to have to be strategic voting. And we just see
the Prime Minister yesterday telling the voters of Tommaky, for instance,
when they want to reclaim that seat from Act which
is not to waste their time on strategic voting. So
(23:20):
the chances of there being strategic voting in Mount Albert
from either the left or the right, I think a
minimal QA Wong will have the challenge of splitting her
time between the electorate and the national campaign. I think
what we're going to see there and probably nationally is
a good noble fight from the Opportunity Party, but it
just won't quite be enough in the end.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
You don't think so either.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
I agree, And you know, there are some very good candidates.
I think Jessica Hammond in Wellington North candidates you're very
very and she's a very nice person. But I can't
see her coming through.
Speaker 5 (23:55):
You know what.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
I kind of maybe disagree with that because I think
we haven't had a lot. Yeah, no, I think that
she I don't think she's going to come through. But
I'm funny you should say that because I read about
her yesterday. I thought I never heard of it, didn't.
I was reading very interesting woman, very clever woman.
Speaker 4 (24:12):
Her third third gay third, go the seat at least
maybe four.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
I'm getting yelled out to take a.
Speaker 3 (24:19):
Break, guys, and there are too many commercial breaks.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
So fourth time, I know, I wasn't getting yelled It
was the fourth time that she's got so interesting. Chris
finers and Peter doesn't take a short break and be back.
I want to ask them about Super. I haven't got
around to it yet. Kind of confused by this because
I'm not sure which way you guys are going to
go on this. But Labour says it won't even talk
about changing the age of super or any of the
(24:43):
entitements or anything like that. There's a kind of a
little bit of talk that National us going to make
a decision before the election. Chrispinerson, what do you think
should happen? What will happen? It's election year.
Speaker 3 (24:55):
Well, I am all in favor of raising the age
and I'm quite heartened to see what the National Party's
policy on Kiwi Saver is and that builds on the
Culen scheme, which was it was Michael Cullen who introduced it. So, yes,
it's election year. Yes, I can understand Labor want not
(25:17):
to have any big targets. But I think that my
perception is that the country's getting ready for a mature
discussion on National Super because my personal view is that
it's a fifty year policy disaster. And I was a
(25:38):
member of the Kendala branch of the National Party just
as a kid when it was announced, and I remember
a lot of people in the National Party were very
unhappy with it, but it was the leader knows best
and Mildern introduced it. And it's been a monumental cockup.
Speaker 4 (25:55):
So what do we do.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
You haven't given me an eye to do we go
to sixty seven and.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
Ten years time, Well, I'd start heading to seventy. Here's
a blinding insight for people. I write seventy on four
December this year. I don't feel like seventy. I'm continuing
to work. When I got my gold card, I chopped
it up because I don't like mister Peters and I
(26:20):
would never use it, and I give away the super anyway.
But I think if you're working, you shouldn't really get it.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
Peter doesn't. A lot of people will be screaming on
our text machine. He doesn't work with a shovel and
he doesn't work with it.
Speaker 3 (26:35):
Well, I think that's the point, that's the question.
Speaker 4 (26:37):
Yea, yeah, I think we've had I just write an
article just week about fifty years of superannuation wars ended
last weekend when National, by adopting compulsory q WE save
as a policy, took us back to where Kirk was
in nineteen seventy four, and.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
The whole Muldoon was it got rid of it.
Speaker 4 (26:56):
Muldoon got rid of it on the basis that the
government would accumulate all these funds which could you know,
the dancing Cossacks, which you could use to buy up everything,
and it would take too long. Twenty twelve, when the
maximum implementation occurred, Have we had all those funds over
the last fifty years, we'd have had a much greater
resilience against economic shocks, etcetera.
Speaker 3 (27:15):
And it can tell me it be about a trillion dollars.
Speaker 4 (27:17):
So now we go back to that point. I think that.
But I think that changes the game about National super
or New Zealand supers. It now is because in fifty
years from now, today's fifteen year olds will be sixty five,
drawing out their compulsory KIV saver balances on current settings,
they will also be able to draw down a state
(27:38):
funder pension called New Zealand Super. I think the next
debate is going to have to be about the future
of New Zealand Super anyway. Well that's coming, yeah, But
in that respect, I think argument's about the age now
are a bit sort of immateial. I think the bigger
picture is as compulsory kivsaver takes hold, you need to
start phasing down the level of and reliance on NEWSABE.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
From when you turn the particular aga you turn that,
rather than actually going back to is charity out anymore?
Speaker 4 (28:07):
We end the current superannuation wars only to start the
next one over the whole future of national superannuation unless
we're prepared to begin the debate in the structured an
ordered way.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
Chris Finnison's pushed the barrow right out. He said, seventy
I say sixty seven. What do you say? People?
Speaker 4 (28:22):
Look, I'm perfectly comfortable leaving it at sixty five for
the reasons I've just stated. Because at the point we
move over the next few years to have more and
more people in key, we savor and getting a balance
from that. Frankly, the age of entitlement for New Zealand superannuation,
assuming you're making some adjustments to the rate, becomes a material.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
Okay really quickly, because I know I want to discuss
and I know you probably guys do too. Winston Peters
has kicked up a fuss over the health and safety
law changes. But at the point when it was actually
put around, you know, when they were talking it, when
they were allowed announcing it all, he said nothing. And
suddenly when we come into election and it comes to
de Parliament, Winston Peters jumps up and says that he's
(29:01):
going to actually change it if he becomes in power.
Are we getting a little tieder? Winston Peter's doing everything
he possibly can just to get in front of a camera.
Speaker 3 (29:11):
Chrisphinerson, Well, I defer to Peter because I don't want
to be defamatory.
Speaker 4 (29:16):
Sure answer, yes. Winston Peters this week also said that
he's opposed to the Indian Free Trade Agreement because the
immigration provisions in it are discriminatory to Indians. A few
weeks ago, he was opposed to the Indian Free Trade
Agreement because it was going to lead to a flood
of them. What was the butter chicken tsunami?
Speaker 5 (29:35):
Readlade, you kicked him under the chair because he read
Jim Bulger's book A View from the Top, and I
quoted in that it's something I've just done for the
Helen Clark Foundation. Thirty years ago, New Zealand first was
running the anti Indian argument. As I keep saying to people,
I mentioned my dear Mum and Booper and crofton Dance,
(29:56):
who looks after it, wonderful Indian nurses. It's time we
stop this defamation.
Speaker 1 (30:02):
And you know you got to.
Speaker 3 (30:04):
I'm sure this will appeal to you as a good press.
But you go to Mass on Sunday at Saint Mary
of the Angels, nine o'clock Mass, I'm surrounded by Sri Lankan's, Indians, Filipinos, Samoen's.
They are our brothers and sisters. I sound like a
revivalist preacher. Look, you know, why do we have to
treat these people so badly?
Speaker 2 (30:23):
Stop it right? Nice way to go to a break
and come back with hots and knots. Why do we
treat by the way. I'm Anglican, just just for you,
just for your information. The Friday Okay, it's the time
(30:46):
of the show that we get our opportunity for our
guests to actually give us their hots and not start
with you, Peter Dunn.
Speaker 4 (30:53):
Please has to be. I'm continuing to be impressed by
Andrew Little as Maya. I think he's actually bringing a
sense of sanity and maturity to the Council, and to
my surprise, he's managing to control the crazies. So I
think that's really positive and I hope you can continue
mine not. I am fed up with the way opinion
(31:13):
polls are being reported. I study them intently and the
sort of the hype we get about this pole says that,
and this pole says something else.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
Which polls do you trust?
Speaker 4 (31:22):
I don't trust any of them. I look at the
total picture and what the trends they display show rather
than rely on our pole says or our polses. And
I just think that the way media outlets report their
own polls is irresponsible.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
Chris Vnerson, who do you trust in the polls? You trust?
Speaker 4 (31:41):
You?
Speaker 2 (31:41):
Do you like polls? No, I'm not.
Speaker 3 (31:43):
I'm with Peter the Royal Morgan ones always but Roby,
But anyway, are you going to ask me what's not. Yes, well,
thank you, and I apologize for calling you a Presbyterian.
You have correctly said you're an Anglican, but you're still
a Protestant.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
But I mean, it's all right to say someone's a Catholic,
but if you say it's another religion, that just classify
them all. Togain?
Speaker 3 (32:02):
Is it my turn or yours?
Speaker 2 (32:03):
Your?
Speaker 3 (32:04):
What's hot? The guys at Vale Parking at Wellington Airport,
great bunch of people I drop. I drop him there
from time to time, lovely people in a shout out
for them? What's not? I often go into Parsons and
Ganges Road and Candala in the morning and meet with
a couple of guys I call them the Parsons Consulting Group.
Greg O'Connor sometimes comes along. They are in a really
(32:25):
bitchy mood this morning, especially one little fellow I call
Frodo and I hope he's listening, who went to Scott's College.
As Sam Pats boy came in, he was very rude
to him. So, what's not hot this week? The Parsons
Consulting group?
Speaker 2 (32:42):
So do you reckon? He was getting shitty because he
came from Scott's or he came from Ken Scott's.
Speaker 3 (32:47):
College kid came in and you said, oh, that's the
best school. And then a sat patskild came in and
nice kid, but he was just picked on by this
little brat.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
Okay, school bullying still exists. Thank you both, so very
very much. Christopher Finlisson, I got his name right for once,
and Pete had.
Speaker 1 (33:04):
Done for more From Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills. 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 Wellington's official week interview. It's
Friday Betar with Kudov Property Management, a better rental experience
for all visit Kudovic dot co dot its head. Now.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
I guess we're excited seven minutes past eleven with Friday
based off because not only do I know it's nearly
time to go home for the week, but I also
get two very very special guests to come in the
studio and talk about the things that we've talked about
all week and give you a completely different opinion on it.
And to have to esteemed is that the right word?
Ex politicians in the studio with me, I feel like
(00:51):
I don't aren't even deservant and being here morning to
you both Chris fin Listen and Peter Dunn.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Although Pete is much more esteemed than I am. Why well,
because he formed a political party, he's served both administrations,
he's been a minister for about fifteen years, and he's
got a lot of life left in him.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
In my opinion, Chris is become a bit closer. Please.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
Chris has always impressed me because when I first encountered
you as a debater, very silver tongue, very good with
running an argument, and that's the legal training. So well,
i'll take that. I'll also take the fact that you've
got both sides of the argument.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Well, let us rock on, Nicholas, stop waffling. What's the
first topic? Please?
Speaker 2 (01:39):
My god? How's your mom?
Speaker 3 (01:42):
She is great. She turns ninety seven on the sixth
of July, so I'm very proud of it.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
I like to always ask after your mum.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
Well, it's interesting she told me some years ago. She said,
we've got the southerly going through. And she said, well,
a lot of people think it's tough when these sorts
of things happened. I recall the time I had you
three boys in bed with measles and we had continuous
southerly and I couldn't dry a single piece of washing.
So mothers are pretty special people.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
They are very very special people. Minister Tama Potucker has
back down on a controversial clause and the Lord a
change that would make conservation land to be sold. It
was said it was an issue of how he worded.
Who wants to go, Peter, you go first on this.
Speaker 4 (02:26):
He's made the right call. Eventually. I think that the
point he set out to resolve I think was a
valid one. But the way he went about it, and
the way he persisted with it so defiantly for so long,
I think is politically disastrous. But he's back down now. Ironically,
had he backed down a few weeks ago, he might
have got some cutos. I think now he would just
(02:47):
get the sense of, well, you know, that was always
going to happen.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Wasn't the delivery that hurt him.
Speaker 4 (02:53):
It was the insensitivity. I mean, he makes a valid
point when he says, there's a lot of conservation on
a lot of but there are pieces of conservation land
that are no good for anything. We should just get
rid of them. I think no one argues with that.
But he managed to the issue when Forest and Bird said, well,
sixty percent of the conservation estate could be up for grabs,
he sort of said, that's nonsense, but well, you know,
(03:15):
the way the acts rerouted it could it just looked
ham fisted, and he dug himself into a hole and
took a long time to get out of it.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Chris, what did you what was your thoughts when you
first saw him announce that on election year? Then you knew.
I mean, you're a pretty as stute person. You'd know
that Greenpeace would be jumping up and down and the
Green Party you'd be jumping up. Well.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
I think there are a number of absolutists in this area.
I agree with Peter the idea is very sensible. When
the Department of Conservation was formed and I think nineteen
eighty seven, it inherited a lot of land from the
Old Lands and Survey Department and much of it could
easily be sold off. It doesn't qualify as conservation land.
(03:58):
I recall this issue coming up when John Key was
Prime Minister, and he's still going to be careful because
people will say any concertvation land has to be protected,
and there's Schedule four and so on. So I think
TIMA made exactly the right call in relation to the
issue of selling certain conservation land that it name is
(04:22):
conservation land, but in substance isn't. But it's not an
issue that I think the Ninth Floor should have allowed
to have occurred an election year because there are so
many loud voices in this area and as I say,
they would say anything that is part of the conservation
estate of Schedule four, which is just simply not right.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
So I mean what you're saying, and what I suggested
earlier in the day is there's an old boys home
in the outskirts of live In that's on that land.
Is that the sort of thing we're talking. I'm not
saying there is, but you know what I mean, that's
the sort of.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
That's the sort of surplus land. Yeah. Look, I could
go through the country and identify pieces that are technically
conservation land, but they have very very limited conservation value,
and they have been inherited from lands and survey and
they should be available for sale.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Will they be?
Speaker 3 (05:17):
Well, this is the problem. It's I think Tarma's instincts
are absolutely correct, but you're up against people who regard
any land within the broader conservation estate is the garden
of Eden.
Speaker 4 (05:35):
I remember chairing a cabinet committee in the in the
late eighties where we were looking after the abolition of
harbor boards. What happened to a lot of surplus harbor
board land, there's an example those days, and the default
position was chuck it over to conservation they can look after.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
So there'd be some downtown land by round Wars.
Speaker 4 (05:55):
That could be commercially going back a few years now,
but potentially yes, but it was never. My god, this
has got huge conservation value. This is Christine, this is
you know, we must pre That wasn't The argument was
where can we sort of house it? Conservation is an
easy place. Bug it in there, and you know, I
think that's what he's aiming at. But the selling of
(06:16):
this thing was so bad it looked like the whole
whole conservation was up up to the highestpit.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
I don't know whether either of you heard on Mike
Cosky Show this morning, but he was a completely different
Tama Potucker that I've had on the show and before.
He was more sensible and relaxed about the decision. Did
you either of you know?
Speaker 3 (06:38):
I regret to say it didn't. I I have a
confession to make, which is a very serious one. I
was listening to constant FM.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Okay, well, that's that's all right, that's okay. Let's talk
about Wellington trying to change their rate scheme. Now. I
don't know whether you guys are up to it or
picked up on it, but they're going to have the
discussion of going back to land value instead of capital value.
Chris are going to start with you on this. What
are you What was your initial thoughts when you you
heard this.
Speaker 3 (07:07):
I think this council has actually got off to a
pretty good start, mainly because we've got, for the first
time for many many years, excellent leadership in Andrew Little,
who's I think doing a superb job. So I'm quite
relaxed about her back to basics review of the rating system.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
And do you think it could work? I mean it's
worked before in early two thousand.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
I think I'd have to default Peter on that because
I just waffle.
Speaker 4 (07:36):
I'm not sure about whether it will work or not.
But what I think is welcome is that after all
the controversy we've had over the last number of years
about rising rate bills in Wellington and the seeming inability
of councils to want to do very much about it,
here's a mayor coming out and saying I'm going to
actually consult with the public seek their views. And I
think that whatever the outcome, the fact that we're going
(07:57):
to have some consultation prior to the decision as a
step forward. If we go back to land based rather
than capital value, I think that's an argument with just
have to look at what the facts demonstrate at the time.
But I think the fact that the council is prepared
to engage with people about the rates rather than the
previous view was, well, that's the price you pay for
(08:17):
living in the city and renewing the water pipes and
all those sorts of things. I think that's a welcome
change that come Maybe no different, but people will at
least feel they've been involved.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
Do either of you think that it's problematic when you
live next door to a house same size section, they've
spent a million dollars extra on their house and done
it into the three story mansion, and you're still a
nice little humble home that they should have to pay
more rates than you.
Speaker 3 (08:43):
Oh, at first principles, the first glance, I'd have to say,
I can't see why they necessarily should. So that's why
I said I'm quite relaxed about a review so that
those sorts of hypotheticals can be addressed.
Speaker 4 (08:58):
Well, I think the big problem that lies behind all
of this is the adequacy of the rating system per
se to fund local government. We haven't yet come up
with a better alternative, and councilors right around the country
are struggling with us. To some extent. Now, if the
government returned, for argument's sake, the GST collected on rates,
(09:19):
that would be a positive step, but a very small
one in terms of the total costs. But until we
know in a way, Margaret Thatcher did the world a
terrible service and a disservice with the poll tax. That
was such a disaster no one will ever try it.
But the principle of saying everyone pays according to their
ability to consume was a good one, and the disaster
(09:42):
was of its implementation was such we won't even look
at that alternative now. So we're struggling around how do
we make the rate system, which I think is pretty
inadequate anyway, how do we make it work more effectively?
Speaker 2 (09:53):
And we haven't even started talking about water.
Speaker 4 (09:56):
That's absolutely no.
Speaker 3 (09:57):
But I mean, these issues are going to come down
the line. I've been very disappointed that successive Ministers of
Local Government in the last ten years have not taken
a good look at the Local Government Act two thousand
and two because it is past its use by date.
I have a real objection to just amending bits and
(10:20):
pieces from time to time. The critical question has been
raised by Peter this morning. The rating systems almost a
second tier issue. The primary issue is how do you
fund local authorities so that they can do their job properly,
and that is the responsibility primarily of the Minister of
(10:43):
Local Government.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
Some would say and this comes to both of you.
Some would say that actually we just need the government
to control them, so they're doing it. So spending isn't
all over the place.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
Yeah, but you know, I mean there are plenty of
stories of profligate councils and all that, but I do
think by a large they are struggling under the current system.
I mean, look at the Chatham Islands at the moment,
very small ratepayer base, struggling to keep the show going.
(11:12):
So it's happening everywhere.
Speaker 4 (11:14):
And you take something like the big cost blowout on
the refurbishment of the town Hall in Wellington. This is
a bugbear of mine, not so much of the town
hall per se, but the fact that we have buildings
classified as heritage buildings by the Crown really through through
the national process, and yet the responsibility for upgrading them
(11:34):
rests with the local authority. So I think there's all
those sorts of imbalance. I think that also Council's general
comment don't do a good job in terms of managing
their assets. You know, we shy away from the concept
of user pays, but maybe if you had a modest
fee for using being a member of the public library,
(11:55):
for instance, that could help defray some of the other expenses.
But councilors like to provide those services free. I understand that.
I'm not I reckon about it. You know, I reckon,
but it's in the rates.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
But don't you shut down the kadala Paul, I reckon, I.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
Reckon If you try charging for the library, you'd be
worse off the time a boat tugger.
Speaker 4 (12:14):
Right now, all I'm saying is we need to think
a little bit more laterally.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
I'm glad you're don't standing for them, and I'm not.
Speaker 4 (12:21):
I'm not assume in favor of charging for the library.
I'm just using that as an example of how councilors
don't generally manage their assets.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
You raise a very important point, and that is, when
do you introduce these sorts of changes. You should do
your thinking so that they are introduced in the first year.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
We had a bit of a quiz at the ad
break because it's a fact that I love talking and
we're an election year, so we love little facts about
election year. Friday face off with Chris Phinlisson and Peter Dunn.
I asked them both, when was the last time the
leader of Labor and the leader of National went at
each other in two elections? And I thought they would
both snap. They did, They worked it out. I'm not
(12:57):
going to I'm not going to, you know, dog them.
But it's a great story, isn't it. Yeah?
Speaker 1 (13:04):
It is.
Speaker 4 (13:04):
I mean we sort of off think, God, they've been
around for a long time, but actually we came to
the conclusion that it was Mike Moore and Jimboldier in
nineteen nineteen and nineteen ninety three, so that's over thirty
years ago. There's been constant change.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
What does that tell you?
Speaker 3 (13:22):
Well, I can only talk for the National Party, but
there was a period when they were changing leaders regularly,
almost as badly as the Conservative Party in Britain, and
of course the Labor Party's done it with Burnham. Now,
once you get into that mindset that a change of
leaders going to solve your problems, then I think you've
(13:42):
got a big problem. I would have stuck with Starma.
I thought that there's a guy want four hundred seats
in the second biggest I think in recent history, smashed
the Tories. A bit of loyalty doesn't go.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
I thought exactly the same thing, but I never wanted
to say it on air because I thought they were
wrong going to think I was an idiot. I thought
I thought he was doing okay.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
I mean, oh, I don't know that he was doing okay,
but I mean second year in they've still got five
year terms over there, three years to go. I think,
what did Keith Hollyoaks say? Loyalty announce of loyalties worth
a ton of cleverness.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
Well, this sort of view at the moment that you
get one shot at it and if you lose, you've
got to stand down and make way for a new leader.
You know, it's become the pattern over the last couple
of decades. Had it been in place a few years earlier,
Norman Kirk lost two elections before he won an election.
Helen Clark lost an election before she won. Jim Bolger
(14:44):
lost an election before he won Prime. Ministers that are
regarded as some of our best would never have had
the opportunity the way things work at the moment.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
And as you can see in Australia it's gone really
well for the Liberals because they got rid of Susan
Lee and then they lost her seat. The ball guy
they called Voldemort lost he was the leader of the opposition.
He lost his seat after twenty four years. So lack
(15:13):
of loyalty to the leader has.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
Its consequences really quickly. So want to move on, but
really quickly. If Chrisphinersen does not win this election.
Speaker 4 (15:24):
Now there's a news proper.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
For gory Chris, I said, Chris, what do I say?
Would you? Chris, Chris Hopkins, I'll do this every time
with you? Don't I'm sorry. Sharpen up, yeah, sharpen up.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
What happens, Well, it depends on the on the result. Obviously,
if he comes within an inch of winning, they may
well say, well we'll keep him.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
I think the question if that situation arises, the question
becomes if not Chris, who or whom? And I don't
think there's an easy answer to that. So the reason
he survived much of the last three years is the
lack of a challenger. And I suspect if they lose
this around, I don't think you'd survive a full three
year term, but it'd hang on until a a credible
challenger emerged.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (16:12):
Which is a bit of a commentary on their selection
process of candidates.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Right this talk about Andrew Little saying that the Wellington
City Council will defy the government's move on Order moving
on orders after the council voted against them. Chris Finlassen,
I'll get your name right this time. Should they stop
blaming the government and offer a solution themselves. I mean,
this is a pretty serious issue in Wellington.
Speaker 3 (16:38):
It is a serious issue, and I think I go
back to first principles and say, look, everyone's got individual
rights and we've got the Bill of Rights to protect that,
but there are also community rights and people have the
right to walk along the street without being Harris Bay
not live on the street, No, no, I'm talking about
(16:59):
people walking along the street not being harassed by those
who either live on the street or go to the
street at seven o'clock in the morning and earn some
money for the day. So I just think it's a
balance of community rights and personal rights. And I'm a
bit of a singapore Ian in that regard, so I
wouldn't tolerate it. The issue was how do you go
(17:19):
about not tolerating it. And I think that saying oh,
well to central government, you can go and see a
taxidermis because we're not going to do it is I
don't think that's an appropriate response.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
Peter dun'ne your thoughts. I mean, why would they just
pick a fight when the government's trying to help.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
I think most people I've just walked down in the
appalling weather today, walked down from Thempton Key down to
the studio and saw half a dozen of the regulars
on their slots. They weren't being offensive, but they're there.
It's their day job, and I think that they don't add, frankly,
anything to the city. If they need help, then social
agencies should be stepping in and providing that help. But
(17:59):
to simply say we're going to defy the government, I
don't think it's a very bright look, frankly, because I
think most of the citizens would probably say, we actually
agree that there should be, if not active move on laws,
but somewhere getting these people off the streets and stopping
them harassing people as they move along.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
It's interesting that you saw some because yesterday I did
exactly the same thing with the suddenly first came in
and the rain first came in. I didn't see a
single person on the streets, and I thought, well, if
they can do it in bad weather, they can do
it in good weather.
Speaker 4 (18:26):
But there weren't as many as normal, but they were there.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
Right Friday face off of Chrisphnersen and Peter Done. Let's
talk polls for a second. TOP the Opportunities Party are
getting closer and closer to that magical five percent in
the polls. Major parties are at the lowest combined score
in thirty years since MMP started. Peter Done, what do
(18:50):
you make of TOP? I mean we we It seems
every election we hear a little bit from them, then
they disappear. Yeah, I think.
Speaker 4 (18:59):
We're to start with TOP. No party has managed into
parliament under MMP if it has not been left by
either a former politician or a current politician. So the
Conservative's got four percent and twenty fourteen that was about
That was the closest that any party's got outside that model.
So they've got a big hurdle to overcome. I think
(19:20):
they've got some good ideas. I think they've got some
quite dreamy ideas, But I think that this could be
their time. Whether they'll get there, I think is an
entirely different question because I found in a small party
two things. Firstly, whose side are you really on? You know,
you say you can work with either side, but whose
(19:41):
side are you really on? And when you say, well,
actually I'm on neither side, I'm on my side, you're
dismissed as being opportunistic. That's the first thing. The second
thing about them is people. There's a wonderful John clisad
done for the Liberal Democrats many years ago when he
said that when he says, people tell me that they'd
vote for the Liberal Democrats if they thought we could win,
(20:03):
I'm going to go awn with a cup of tea now,
and you just think about that. And that's the same point.
People say, great to have them there, but we don't
think you'll make it, so we weren't resconing for you.
So they've got to break through those two things if
they don't succeed, And I think, while I'll give it
a good crack, I still think it's going to be
an uphill battle.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
I kind of think that leadership thing I agree with,
but I think this q La Wong has sort of
hit the road running. She went on and did a
full program on Q and A a few months ago
and made every every opportunity, pardon the part to put
them out there. Of course you're looking very thoughtful there.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
Yeah, I don't disagree with what Peter has said. I
was just reflecting on when MMP came into forces thirty
years ago this selection. The great tragedy for me was
that Peter's party never got up, because that would have
been a sensible centrist party that had some outstanding people
at Clive Matthewson, Margaret Austin is one of the loveliest
(21:02):
people who could come across, some good former National MPs,
that guy from Bruce Klae and who was the fellow
from Papakura, John Roberts. That would have been the party
that could have served either the center left or center right,
and instead we got New Zealand first and the tragedy
(21:26):
drama that goes with that every three years. Then you
could have had act to provide a bit of spice
and steel to the National Party's spine. But it is
just we got off on the wrong start and I
just I see the Opportunity Party as maybe getting close
but missing out. Of course, when you think of the Conservatives,
(21:46):
you think, thank goodness they did miss out because they
were led by a fellow called Graham Capel, who, as
subsequent events show, was not shall we say a saint.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
Wasn't quite as religious as he was selling himself to us.
Speaker 3 (22:01):
I may well have been as religious as he was
selling it was, shall we the disjunct between private practice
and professed believing.
Speaker 2 (22:11):
So you really haven't, I mean, for a person that's
normally very committed on the show, you haven't really given
us an answer on whether you think that q A
one will get through.
Speaker 3 (22:20):
I don't think she'll win Mount Albert because I mean
that is ancient labor territory and has been for eighty years,
and just to prove that Peter and I are fossils,
it's had labor leaders, three labor leaders in there, David Shearer,
just Sinderdurn briefly, and then that very long term with
(22:44):
Helen Clark. Before that, it was Warren Freer who won
it in nineteen forty seven.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
We are history. I can't I can't.
Speaker 3 (22:56):
I can't see Helen White losing Mount Albert.
Speaker 4 (22:58):
No, I mean she did nearly did so last ellection.
I think her majority is thirty one, but there's going
to have to be if she's to lose, there's going
to have to be strategic voting. And we just see
the Prime Minister yesterday telling the voters of Tommaky, for instance,
when they want to reclaim that seat from Act which
is not to waste their time on strategic voting. So
(23:20):
the chances of there being strategic voting in Mount Albert
from either the left or the right, I think a
minimal QA Wong will have the challenge of splitting her
time between the electorate and the national campaign. I think
what we're going to see there and probably nationally is
a good noble fight from the Opportunity Party, but it
just won't quite be enough in the end.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
You don't think so either.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
I agree, And you know, there are some very good candidates.
I think Jessica Hammond in Wellington North candidates you're very
very and she's a very nice person. But I can't
see her coming through.
Speaker 5 (23:55):
You know what.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
I kind of maybe disagree with that because I think
we haven't had a lot. Yeah, no, I think that
she I don't think she's going to come through. But
I'm funny you should say that because I read about
her yesterday. I thought I never heard of it, didn't.
I was reading very interesting woman, very clever woman.
Speaker 4 (24:12):
Her third third gay third, go the seat at least
maybe four.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
I'm getting yelled out to take a.
Speaker 3 (24:19):
Break, guys, and there are too many commercial breaks.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
So fourth time, I know, I wasn't getting yelled It
was the fourth time that she's got so interesting. Chris
finers and Peter doesn't take a short break and be back.
I want to ask them about Super. I haven't got
around to it yet. Kind of confused by this because
I'm not sure which way you guys are going to
go on this. But Labour says it won't even talk
about changing the age of super or any of the
(24:43):
entitements or anything like that. There's a kind of a
little bit of talk that National us going to make
a decision before the election. Chrispinerson, what do you think
should happen? What will happen? It's election year.
Speaker 3 (24:55):
Well, I am all in favor of raising the age
and I'm quite heartened to see what the National Party's
policy on Kiwi Saver is and that builds on the
Culen scheme, which was it was Michael Cullen who introduced it. So, yes,
it's election year. Yes, I can understand Labor want not
(25:17):
to have any big targets. But I think that my
perception is that the country's getting ready for a mature
discussion on National Super because my personal view is that
it's a fifty year policy disaster. And I was a
(25:38):
member of the Kendala branch of the National Party just
as a kid when it was announced, and I remember
a lot of people in the National Party were very
unhappy with it, but it was the leader knows best
and Mildern introduced it. And it's been a monumental cockup.
Speaker 4 (25:55):
So what do we do.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
You haven't given me an eye to do we go
to sixty seven and.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
Ten years time, Well, I'd start heading to seventy. Here's
a blinding insight for people. I write seventy on four
December this year. I don't feel like seventy. I'm continuing
to work. When I got my gold card, I chopped
it up because I don't like mister Peters and I
(26:20):
would never use it, and I give away the super anyway.
But I think if you're working, you shouldn't really get it.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
Peter doesn't. A lot of people will be screaming on
our text machine. He doesn't work with a shovel and
he doesn't work with it.
Speaker 3 (26:35):
Well, I think that's the point, that's the question.
Speaker 4 (26:37):
Yea, yeah, I think we've had I just write an
article just week about fifty years of superannuation wars ended
last weekend when National, by adopting compulsory q WE save
as a policy, took us back to where Kirk was
in nineteen seventy four, and.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
The whole Muldoon was it got rid of it.
Speaker 4 (26:56):
Muldoon got rid of it on the basis that the
government would accumulate all these funds which could you know,
the dancing Cossacks, which you could use to buy up everything,
and it would take too long. Twenty twelve, when the
maximum implementation occurred, Have we had all those funds over
the last fifty years, we'd have had a much greater
resilience against economic shocks, etcetera.
Speaker 3 (27:15):
And it can tell me it be about a trillion dollars.
Speaker 4 (27:17):
So now we go back to that point. I think that.
But I think that changes the game about National super
or New Zealand supers. It now is because in fifty
years from now, today's fifteen year olds will be sixty five,
drawing out their compulsory KIV saver balances on current settings,
they will also be able to draw down a state
(27:38):
funder pension called New Zealand Super. I think the next
debate is going to have to be about the future
of New Zealand Super anyway. Well that's coming, yeah, But
in that respect, I think argument's about the age now
are a bit sort of immateial. I think the bigger
picture is as compulsory kivsaver takes hold, you need to
start phasing down the level of and reliance on NEWSABE.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
From when you turn the particular aga you turn that,
rather than actually going back to is charity out anymore?
Speaker 4 (28:07):
We end the current superannuation wars only to start the
next one over the whole future of national superannuation unless
we're prepared to begin the debate in the structured an
ordered way.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
Chris Finnison's pushed the barrow right out. He said, seventy
I say sixty seven. What do you say? People?
Speaker 4 (28:22):
Look, I'm perfectly comfortable leaving it at sixty five for
the reasons I've just stated. Because at the point we
move over the next few years to have more and
more people in key, we savor and getting a balance
from that. Frankly, the age of entitlement for New Zealand superannuation,
assuming you're making some adjustments to the rate, becomes a material.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
Okay really quickly, because I know I want to discuss
and I know you probably guys do too. Winston Peters
has kicked up a fuss over the health and safety
law changes. But at the point when it was actually
put around, you know, when they were talking it, when
they were allowed announcing it all, he said nothing. And
suddenly when we come into election and it comes to
de Parliament, Winston Peters jumps up and says that he's
(29:01):
going to actually change it if he becomes in power.
Are we getting a little tieder? Winston Peter's doing everything
he possibly can just to get in front of a camera.
Speaker 3 (29:11):
Chrisphinerson, Well, I defer to Peter because I don't want
to be defamatory.
Speaker 4 (29:16):
Sure answer, yes. Winston Peters this week also said that
he's opposed to the Indian Free Trade Agreement because the
immigration provisions in it are discriminatory to Indians. A few
weeks ago, he was opposed to the Indian Free Trade
Agreement because it was going to lead to a flood
of them. What was the butter chicken tsunami?
Speaker 5 (29:35):
Readlade, you kicked him under the chair because he read
Jim Bulger's book A View from the Top, and I
quoted in that it's something I've just done for the
Helen Clark Foundation. Thirty years ago, New Zealand first was
running the anti Indian argument. As I keep saying to people,
I mentioned my dear Mum and Booper and crofton Dance,
(29:56):
who looks after it, wonderful Indian nurses. It's time we
stop this defamation.
Speaker 1 (30:02):
And you know you got to.
Speaker 3 (30:04):
I'm sure this will appeal to you as a good press.
But you go to Mass on Sunday at Saint Mary
of the Angels, nine o'clock Mass, I'm surrounded by Sri Lankan's, Indians, Filipinos, Samoen's.
They are our brothers and sisters. I sound like a
revivalist preacher. Look, you know, why do we have to
treat these people so badly?
Speaker 2 (30:23):
Stop it right? Nice way to go to a break
and come back with hots and knots. Why do we
treat by the way. I'm Anglican, just just for you,
just for your information. The Friday Okay, it's the time
(30:46):
of the show that we get our opportunity for our
guests to actually give us their hots and not start
with you, Peter Dunn.
Speaker 4 (30:53):
Please has to be. I'm continuing to be impressed by
Andrew Little as Maya. I think he's actually bringing a
sense of sanity and maturity to the Council, and to
my surprise, he's managing to control the crazies. So I
think that's really positive and I hope you can continue
mine not. I am fed up with the way opinion
(31:13):
polls are being reported. I study them intently and the
sort of the hype we get about this pole says that,
and this pole says something else.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
Which polls do you trust?
Speaker 4 (31:22):
I don't trust any of them. I look at the
total picture and what the trends they display show rather
than rely on our pole says or our polses. And
I just think that the way media outlets report their
own polls is irresponsible.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
Chris Vnerson, who do you trust in the polls? You trust?
Speaker 4 (31:41):
You?
Speaker 2 (31:41):
Do you like polls? No, I'm not.
Speaker 3 (31:43):
I'm with Peter the Royal Morgan ones always but Roby,
But anyway, are you going to ask me what's not. Yes, well,
thank you, and I apologize for calling you a Presbyterian.
You have correctly said you're an Anglican, but you're still
a Protestant.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
But I mean, it's all right to say someone's a Catholic,
but if you say it's another religion, that just classify
them all. Togain?
Speaker 3 (32:02):
Is it my turn or yours?
Speaker 2 (32:03):
Your?
Speaker 3 (32:04):
What's hot? The guys at Vale Parking at Wellington Airport,
great bunch of people I drop. I drop him there
from time to time, lovely people in a shout out
for them? What's not? I often go into Parsons and
Ganges Road and Candala in the morning and meet with
a couple of guys I call them the Parsons Consulting Group.
Greg O'Connor sometimes comes along. They are in a really
(32:25):
bitchy mood this morning, especially one little fellow I call
Frodo and I hope he's listening, who went to Scott's College.
As Sam Pats boy came in, he was very rude
to him. So, what's not hot this week? The Parsons
Consulting group?
Speaker 2 (32:42):
So do you reckon? He was getting shitty because he
came from Scott's or he came from Ken Scott's.
Speaker 3 (32:47):
College kid came in and you said, oh, that's the
best school. And then a sat patskild came in and
nice kid, but he was just picked on by this
little brat.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
Okay, school bullying still exists. Thank you both, so very
very much. Christopher Finlisson, I got his name right for once,
and Pete had.
Speaker 1 (33:04):
Done for more From Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills. Listen
live to news talks It'd be Wellington from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
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.
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