February 26, 2025 • 22 mins
The government has announced changes to the laws surrounding citizens arrests - but how would this law work in practice, and could retailers be put even further in harms way?
Also, the government is introducing legislation to allow for a four year term - but only if the public supports it at referendum. Will they?
Labour's police spokesperson and National's Wairarapa MP Mike Butterick joined Nick Mills for Politics Thursday.
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 Talks at B focusing in on the issues
that matter politics Thursday on Wellington Mornings News Talk said bon.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Joining us for politics Thursday. This week is latest Police
spokesperson Ginny Anderson.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Morning, Jenny, Good morning, Neck.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
How are you doing.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
I'm good, Thank you very well, nast day out there.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Great national wire, Apple MP. Mike Butterick, are you doing, Mike?
Speaker 4 (00:46):
Yeah, good, thanks, Next morning, Jenny. Morning.
Speaker 5 (00:48):
Note.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Let's start with the announced government's announcement yesterday that we
beat up citizens arrest powers allowing people to restrain even
tie up shoplifters. But both the Police Association and Retail
New Zealand have slammed the plan, calling it risky and necessary. Mike,
I want to start with you on this one. If
(01:09):
Retail New Zealand and Police didn't ask with us, who
the hell did and who wants it?
Speaker 4 (01:15):
Oh? Look yeah, thanks Nick, obviously the retailers and I
think if we dial it back a little bit. Look,
this will go through a select committee process. There will
be a range of use people that have an ability
to give their input. But you know, people have hit
a Gustel and I've got made of mind that are
in the retail business, and I hear about them. You know,
someone walks out of a shop carrying a boxer beer
(01:36):
or a leg of lamb or something like that, and
they basically say, you can't touch me, and they just
carry on the merry way. But I think also too,
you know, it's about choices, right. People don't have to
go and steal stuff.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Why do you think that your retail mate is different
than the retail association? If your retail mate says he
wants it, yet the retail association slam. Is there some
disconnect between the organizations or what's going on here?
Speaker 4 (02:03):
Look, I probably couldn't comment on whether there's a disconnect
or not, but you know, I talk to people that
actually experience it and on a staggeringly regular basis actually
in it too. It's not once a week, it's multiple
times a day. And you know, but like I said,
it's a bit like the game pictures, you know, and
give people had a choice that they could make, and
(02:24):
you know, if the law says you can't do this,
well you shouldn't do it.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Ginny, do we really want people putting taking the law
into their own hands.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
No, we don't, and police have repeatedly advised that this
could have grave consequences for our communities. But it's not
just retail in zed and the police who don't support that.
It's Indian business owners. I've just seen a video this
morning of retail owners in Auckland who are in the
front line of crime. They are worried that this will
just mean that those attackers will come with bigger weapons
(02:55):
and it will be even more severe consequences. So I
acknowledge that that retail crime is a problem, but this
is not the solution to the problem.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Let's just listen to what the retail Karen and Young
Retail news on CEO said.
Speaker 5 (03:10):
It will create a situation where if an offender thinks
that they might be a physically approached and restraint, that
they will come and armed with more expensive weapons. We'll
see more knives, will see guns, all of those sorts
of things.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Mike, what do you say to that?
Speaker 4 (03:29):
Well, look, I mean, look, I think it's you know,
let's not get a mountain and blow a mountain in Remoto.
And I mean we heard something very similar about the
game patches that there was going to be violent resistance
and all the rest of it. It never came to pass.
But so but look, it's not about people taking to
the law into their own hands. And you know it
really is so really not because they do, They are
(03:50):
not compelled. They don't have to use them. You know,
it's an option. And quite simply, I'll come back to
you know, someone that's walking out or a box of
bear or that leg of land. Currently you can't do anything.
And they know that, and they go, you can't touch me.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
What happens? What it might What happens if it's a
kid and he pinches a chocolate bar and a big
burly the dairy owner comes and grabs them and ties
them up.
Speaker 4 (04:15):
What happens then, Well, I'm not sure that if the
kids plugged the chocolate or something like that, that someone's
going to grab them and tie them up. It is
about using discretion and judgment and all those things that
I think it wouldn't be an unfair expectation that we
could actually trust people to use a bit of judgment.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Jinny, how do we trust the public to do the
right thing?
Speaker 3 (04:35):
Well, it's the job of the police to do that.
That's why we should resource the police properly have more
police officers, both things this government has failed to do.
We're seventy two fewer police than when they started, and
we've had big cuts to the police themselves. So if
we resourced our police properly, they would be able to
respond to crime in our communities instead just passing us
(04:57):
over to the community to manage themselves, which is a
recipe for disaster. And it's really on this government here
to some of those negative things start coming back, Jinny.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Realistically, if a big, rough, strong looking, stoppy person comes
and tries to pinch something out of a retail shop,
the girl behind the counter is not going to be
able to do anything, is she. I mean, she's not
going to say, you're under citizens' arrest, put your hands up,
I'm going to handcuff you.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
Well, it really depends on individual circumstances. But under this
law it's unclear they could use cable ties, tie someone up,
lock them in a room, and keep them there for
an extended period of time, and in the scuffle and
doing that, injuries can happen on both sides. Police will
tell you that the very process of arresting someone and
(05:46):
handcuffing them more often than not end up an injury,
whether it's a dislocated shoulder, wrist, finger. Doing that process
needs a trained professional who's got the right equipment and
the right approach, and putting this back upon people in
our community is just unfair.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
Mike, I want to remind you too of I mean,
it must be a couple of years ago where that
guy was relieving as manager of a dairy and someone
came in and robbed stuff and he ran after him
and got stabbed and died. Yeah, now that's a reality
of what could happen here now when people think they've
got the power to do something. That was a relieving
(06:24):
manager at the store and died.
Speaker 4 (06:27):
And of this incredibly treasure. And you know, again it's
about using judgment and we're not saying that people are
compelled to do anything. It is usual judgment. But it's interesting,
you know, these these there's similar jurisdictions. Was you know,
sort of very similar legislation Ozzie England, Wales, Canada, I
think Ireland as well. And so look again it comes
(06:50):
back to no one is compelled to do anything, but
you know, and it's going to go through a select
committee process and I'm sure there'll be a range of
views that will be will be will be put in
front of the slect Committee.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Jenny, surely, if you are going to make a stand
on our new law, you'd be a little bit more
up to play than what we've seen over the last
twenty four hours.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
I think this has not been well thought through at all,
and I wonder whether they've come out with the four
year turn today just because they see that the citizen's
arrest announcement has completely bombed. I mean, people in ethnic
communities in Auckland are asking the question why the government
allocated three point six million dollars to a group led
(07:34):
by Sonny Kushol who has had the same ideas given
to me eighteen months ago as Minister for Police and
he gave me those for free. So what a waste
of government resource on a bunch of ideas that have
been floating around in quite frankly are dangerous for community safety.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Singing my song that there was paying Sonny kush Or
nine hundred and thirty dollars a day. But let's move on.
A Minister of the Consumer Affairs and acc resigned on
Monday after he laid his hands on a staff member
during an animated discussion, Andrew only, I'm talking about, of course,
should he remain as an MP?
Speaker 3 (08:11):
Ginny, well, you can't actually, in terms of out the
way our democracy works, you can't physically remove someone who's
been voted in. So that's you know, that's that would
be a by election, and that's a big call to make.
But I think there's a bit more to the story
than what we've heard. It seems really bizarre that, you know,
he had this whole two days of just having some
(08:33):
time out to think about it, and he's resigned so quickly.
So and the lack of detail around what the physical
contact was, you know, Biggs, the question was he more
to it than what we were told?
Speaker 2 (08:44):
Ginny? Putting that to one side. He could have resigned
completely though, couldn't he? I mean he couldn't. He could actually,
I know he's an elected member, but he could have
actually gone to the Prime Minister and said, look, I
think this is pretty bad second stripe, I want out.
I'm going to resign completely. He could have done that,
couldn't he.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
He could have done that yet, and it would have
triggered a by election at a cost of a significant amount.
So typically it takes quite a high bar, usually a
criminal charge for that sort of thing to happen.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
Mike, Butterick, is it ever acceptable to lay your hands
on a staff member?
Speaker 4 (09:19):
I would suggest, I would suggest not.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
You know, well, it's either a yes or no. Suggesting
not pretty much, you know. I mean that's a pretty
light that's a pretty light reply, Mike. I mean, are
you are you reading the Goldsmith's handbook there?
Speaker 4 (09:35):
You know, No, No, I'm not right. Look, I think
it is about expectations and standards, and I don't think
anyone would argue with that, Nick, And you know, Andrew
obviously didn't meet his own expectations nor the PM's expectations,
and it's incredibly unfortunate, and you know he has resigned,
you know, so I think right across all of Parliament.
(09:57):
You know, it's not the first time on the show
we've talked about expectations and standards from all members of Parliament,
and you know, I do think we need to focus
on being good people and behaving properly.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Jinny, I'm sure you both heard that. The Prime Minister
Christopher Luxin's interview with Mike Hoskins on Tuesday. Why can't
he seem to answer a question. It took him to
go to Vietnam before he could actually answer the question
should he have be been fired if he wasn't going
to resign? And why couldn't you have answered that on
that show.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
I think that moment is going to We're going to
look back in time and that will be a pivotal
moment in the life cycle of the prime minister, because
when you've got the lead ZB journalist interviewing someone and
they can't give a straight answer, that just shows lack
of leadership. And when it's off the back of Andrew
(10:50):
Bailey laying ahead on staff member and the Prime Minister
can't give a straight answer, it just makes people look
at him and say he's weak and he can't make
a decisive call, and that's not what we want in
a prime minister.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
Mike, will you a little bit bem you? Is that
he wouldn't come straight out and said, hey, he either
was going to resign or I was going to fire him.
It's just one way or the other, his way or
my way. That's all we wanted to see from a leader,
isn't it.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
Well, actually I missed all that. I'll be down with
a very hard working slept Rural Primary Production SLIPT committee
down in the top of the South. But no, no longer.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
How the hell could you have missed that story? Mike, Mike,
I'm sorry, but how could you have missed that story?
I don't care if you were in timbucktoo. You must
have got hold of that story. You must have had
internet or a phone. You must have known about that story,
you know.
Speaker 4 (11:41):
Look, I know about the story, but I haven't seen
the interview. The interview. But at the end of the day,
what has done has done, and the PM has made
it since made it very clear that if Andrew hadn't
have resigned, he would have effectively asked for his resignational sectum.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
And what is it with your party? Mike? Sorry to interrupt,
and I know it's rude. What is it with your
party right now? That can't say sacked? You couldn't even
say it. You went around around the Rosebury Bush as well.
If someone plays up and doesn't make a mistake, you
got to fire them. Why is it that you can't
say that?
Speaker 4 (12:13):
I mean, look at what's done is done right, It's
it's incredibly unfortunate. And you know the PEMS spoken about
you know the time. He gave Andrew time to do
all the rest of it, which is you know it's
a good call and and so you know it's Andrew
is no longer a minister.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
Okay, we currently have three Chinese.
Speaker 3 (12:34):
I was just gonna say, I wonder whether he wasn't.
He was reluctant to go and spent the weekend arguing
about it and then finally went on Monday. That's you know,
these questions like that being asked about whether or not
at wards the weekend.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
I think you're ruined a long bow dere Jenny, that's
an interesting one to take to take a break.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
I think that that's why you need decisive leadership from
your leader, and it's not happening.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
Mike, you want to say something on that.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
Look, I think the Prime Minister is very decisive and
an incredibly focused on actually growing the economy and talking
about the things that we need to do to make
a big difference in people's lives.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
You're listening to Politics Thursday with Ginny Anderson and Mike Butterick.
We currently have three Chinese warships sitting in the Tasman season.
Defense Minister Judith Collins is signaled we're in for a
store for a big defense funding boost. Mike, what do
you make of the situation with the Chinese warships being
in our not in our oceans, but in our area,
(13:35):
never been here before? Is there something that we should
be thinking about here?
Speaker 4 (13:39):
Yeah, well, I guess the first comment is, you know
they are in international orders, so there's been no actual
breach of international law obviously has been spoken about. Would
have been nice to have had a bit of notice
of the live fire, but you know, look, it's in
terms of the defense spend. You know, there's obviously been
(14:01):
signaled from the Minister Judith Collins that we do need
to increase our defense spending, and so I guess let's
just wait for the budget and see what comes out
of that.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
You must be hearing a bit about it. I mean,
is this a good thing? Is is it going to
be a big spend?
Speaker 4 (14:14):
You think that would be very speculative and it would
be just that neck as well. So I think we've
really just got to wait and see what comes out
in the budget.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Ginny, your government's just as responsible for the situation we
are in right now because of lack of spending over
the years, years and years of neglected spend more in it.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
If you go back, we actually had put quite a
bit in over time, quite more in both in areas
such as police and defeat. Labor has invested far more
than their national governments if you go back and check it.
But saying that it was Helen Clark.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
That got rid of out, it was Helen Clark that
got rid of our. Of course, you cannot tell me
that labor are giving more to the defense. I mean
labor are anti defense's they've always been anti defense.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
We've actually replaced, we've replaced things quite well. There's some
big I don't know all the names of the different airplanes,
but there's been some replaced over time. That was done
under US, and there was a program in place that
when those when those big ships were needing to be replaced,
there was a program in place to do that. It
takes a significant amount of investment. The next big one
(15:22):
up is the frigates. That's a significant investment if we
want ocean capability. And the latest developments with these three
Chinese military vessels and the tesman see would you know,
suggest that we might want to take a good look
at replacing those frigates.
Speaker 2 (15:37):
I think sorry, Jenny, but I think we're in the
problems we are now because of your last government. I
think you actually avoided spending on defense and that's probably
why we're in a little bit of the trouble we
are now.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
I'll go back and find you the figures if you like.
But there was a significant investment in the last six years,
all right, Mike, And I'm happy to break.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
That, all right. I'd love to have those, Jenny. Please,
can we rely Mike? Can we rely on Australia and
the US? Now? Do you think that we're feeling okay?
Are you? Are you feeling pretty confident that the big
boys will help us if we need them.
Speaker 4 (16:07):
Yeah, Look, it's a very good question. And look, I
think we do need to be We do need to
have some self sufficiency see ourself as well in capability.
There's no doubt about that and what that looks like.
You know, there's obviously depends capability plan coming out that
will be now soon. You know, I would just make
the comment detect on plates of world power. You know,
(16:27):
they're shifting, they are different than what they have been previously,
and you know we need to be mindful of that,
and we need to have the capacity to do some
stuff ourselves while maintaining I guess, you know, friendships with
our allies.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
Jinny, is the time we seriously considered. Augustine just gets
on and signed with it and pretend that we're friends
and show that we're going to do something. I mean,
we can't put this off, can we?
Speaker 5 (16:52):
Well?
Speaker 4 (16:52):
It is.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
It is a really interesting time, and with the dynamics
between America and China, and I think we need to
be really cautious about how we position ourselves. Yep, it's
a concern about what's happening particularly and around that testamency,
but it is still forty percent of our export market,
and so we need to be thinking about our local
economy as well. And always we need an open dialogue.
(17:15):
We need you need to be able to talk to
both those partners and be able to push our interest
through as an independent nation to do the best for
our people.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
Mike Orcus, get it signed, get it done. What are
your thoughts?
Speaker 4 (17:26):
I look, that's obviously not a decision that I'll be
that I need to make. Look, I thinking what will
be will be. There is obviously discussions, But just the
Ginny's point, I mean, we are a trading nation and
we rely on exporting our products to a number of
countries around the world, and sometimes we will agree to disagree,
but it is about being adults and keeping the dialogue
(17:47):
open and navigating those tensions that do exist.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
We've just heard the government is introducing Jenny, do you
want to quickly say something is very quick.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
I was just going to say one of the things
that I think New Zealanders will feel really strongly about
is having nuclear powered we're mutually capable submarines or vessels
in our waters. In our history in terms of David
Longie and that nineteen eighty sevens at a moment, you know,
that's a strong part of our national identity to be
neutralar free, and I think those challenges could come back again.
A focus is on the cards.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
Okay. The government has introduced new legislation to allow four
year term would have to go to a referendum and
the government could only introduce it. I they handed control
of some of the Select committees to the opposition. Ginny
is labor supportive of the four year term.
Speaker 3 (18:32):
Look, we don't We're not going to oppose that. We
think it's a good idea, probably to have more time
to bed in three years is really quick to get
stuff done and to make sure it's working. And I
think both both sides of the House sort of agree
with that. So it's probably appropriate that New Zealand people
get to have a say on that. It's a significant thing.
(18:53):
You shouldn't have politicians deciding how long their term is.
People get to say on that. The bit that we're
not so sure on is David Seymour's Select committee part
where all the opposition parties just make up Select committee.
Now that could be quite a I guess, like a
gridlock in terms of how we pass legislation. So while
(19:13):
we think that for your term's got real possibilities, not
so sure on the other proposals around changing the rules
of select committees.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
Mike, do you think it actually makes perfect sense to
have a four year term?
Speaker 4 (19:25):
Yeah, Look, I guess by commented particularly is the you'll
be one of the things I had noticed, you know,
regardless of who's in government, and I would agree with Jenny.
Your enemy is time and it takes the democratic process
you have. It takes a long time to pass law,
and there's the limiting factor and just that time just
disappears so quick so I think, you know, it would
(19:48):
be very beneficial for a government to have more time
to actually implement their policies that at the end of
the day that would have been voted into government by
the public. So yeah, can I.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
Just ask you very quickly because I know you both
got to go, and I want to ask you the
same question Jenny. Starting with you, Jenny, what happens if
you get a bad government? You're stuck going extra year?
Speaker 3 (20:08):
Yeah you are, really, We've got that now anyway, with
three years.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
You are.
Speaker 3 (20:16):
But then, but what I've seen with this government, particularly
the three separate coalition partners, is that I've got their
list of things just to get done and take them off,
and you get stuff like the Citizens and Arrest announcement
yesterday that hasn't been thought through. It's just a tech
box exercise. So I would rather have long term, lasting
change that makes a difference in people's lives than just
(20:38):
a political wish list that takes a box were supposed
to be it doesn't help anybody.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
There was supposed to be a quick answer, Mike, Butterick,
tell me if you tell me your answer of what
happens if we get a bad government with a four
year term? Do we just put up for another year?
Speaker 4 (20:51):
Will do show? I could say we had one of
the previous abilization to a Jinney's answer. But basically, under
our m MP environment, you could probably take the view
that if any particular government wasn't functioning well, they would
probably probably pload anyway, and so you may end up
him in an early election. So that would be my view.
Speaker 3 (21:12):
Are you protecting the demise of your government is going
to happen? On your side?
Speaker 4 (21:17):
I'm taking a very neutral view of what in the future,
But just with the political environment we do.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
Here really really quickly, because I got to go do
you think it? Do you think the referendum will will
get us four years? Yes?
Speaker 4 (21:30):
Or no?
Speaker 2 (21:30):
That's all I want?
Speaker 4 (21:32):
Yeah, I yes?
Speaker 2 (21:35):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (21:36):
Or no?
Speaker 2 (21:36):
Please yes? Ginny? Yes, okay? So you both all right?
Speaker 4 (21:42):
Good.
Speaker 3 (21:42):
I wanted to say no, you cannot.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
It wasn't part of the deal, I said, one quick answer.
We will talk about this after we're going to go
to headlines and then we will have a chat about it.
So I'm I'm actually still for three years, and I
tell you why I'm still for three years after the
break and Ginny, you'll have to tune in and Mike.
You have to tune in to find out. Okay, Twinny,
thank you both very much, Ginny Anderson and Mike.
Speaker 1 (22:06):
But 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 Talks at B focusing in on the issues
that matter politics Thursday on Wellington Mornings News Talk said bon.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Joining us for politics Thursday. This week is latest Police
spokesperson Ginny Anderson.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Morning, Jenny, Good morning, Neck.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
How are you doing.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
I'm good, Thank you very well, nast day out there.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Great national wire, Apple MP. Mike Butterick, are you doing, Mike?
Speaker 4 (00:46):
Yeah, good, thanks, Next morning, Jenny. Morning.
Speaker 5 (00:48):
Note.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Let's start with the announced government's announcement yesterday that we
beat up citizens arrest powers allowing people to restrain even
tie up shoplifters. But both the Police Association and Retail
New Zealand have slammed the plan, calling it risky and necessary. Mike,
I want to start with you on this one. If
(01:09):
Retail New Zealand and Police didn't ask with us, who
the hell did and who wants it?
Speaker 4 (01:15):
Oh? Look yeah, thanks Nick, obviously the retailers and I
think if we dial it back a little bit. Look,
this will go through a select committee process. There will
be a range of use people that have an ability
to give their input. But you know, people have hit
a Gustel and I've got made of mind that are
in the retail business, and I hear about them. You know,
someone walks out of a shop carrying a boxer beer
(01:36):
or a leg of lamb or something like that, and
they basically say, you can't touch me, and they just
carry on the merry way. But I think also too,
you know, it's about choices, right. People don't have to
go and steal stuff.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Why do you think that your retail mate is different
than the retail association? If your retail mate says he
wants it, yet the retail association slam. Is there some
disconnect between the organizations or what's going on here?
Speaker 4 (02:03):
Look, I probably couldn't comment on whether there's a disconnect
or not, but you know, I talk to people that
actually experience it and on a staggeringly regular basis actually
in it too. It's not once a week, it's multiple
times a day. And you know, but like I said,
it's a bit like the game pictures, you know, and
give people had a choice that they could make, and
(02:24):
you know, if the law says you can't do this,
well you shouldn't do it.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Ginny, do we really want people putting taking the law
into their own hands.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
No, we don't, and police have repeatedly advised that this
could have grave consequences for our communities. But it's not
just retail in zed and the police who don't support that.
It's Indian business owners. I've just seen a video this
morning of retail owners in Auckland who are in the
front line of crime. They are worried that this will
just mean that those attackers will come with bigger weapons
(02:55):
and it will be even more severe consequences. So I
acknowledge that that retail crime is a problem, but this
is not the solution to the problem.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Let's just listen to what the retail Karen and Young
Retail news on CEO said.
Speaker 5 (03:10):
It will create a situation where if an offender thinks
that they might be a physically approached and restraint, that
they will come and armed with more expensive weapons. We'll
see more knives, will see guns, all of those sorts
of things.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Mike, what do you say to that?
Speaker 4 (03:29):
Well, look, I mean, look, I think it's you know,
let's not get a mountain and blow a mountain in Remoto.
And I mean we heard something very similar about the
game patches that there was going to be violent resistance
and all the rest of it. It never came to pass.
But so but look, it's not about people taking to
the law into their own hands. And you know it
really is so really not because they do, They are
(03:50):
not compelled. They don't have to use them. You know,
it's an option. And quite simply, I'll come back to
you know, someone that's walking out or a box of
bear or that leg of land. Currently you can't do anything.
And they know that, and they go, you can't touch me.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
What happens? What it might What happens if it's a
kid and he pinches a chocolate bar and a big
burly the dairy owner comes and grabs them and ties
them up.
Speaker 4 (04:15):
What happens then, Well, I'm not sure that if the
kids plugged the chocolate or something like that, that someone's
going to grab them and tie them up. It is
about using discretion and judgment and all those things that
I think it wouldn't be an unfair expectation that we
could actually trust people to use a bit of judgment.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Jinny, how do we trust the public to do the
right thing?
Speaker 3 (04:35):
Well, it's the job of the police to do that.
That's why we should resource the police properly have more
police officers, both things this government has failed to do.
We're seventy two fewer police than when they started, and
we've had big cuts to the police themselves. So if
we resourced our police properly, they would be able to
respond to crime in our communities instead just passing us
(04:57):
over to the community to manage themselves, which is a
recipe for disaster. And it's really on this government here
to some of those negative things start coming back, Jinny.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Realistically, if a big, rough, strong looking, stoppy person comes
and tries to pinch something out of a retail shop,
the girl behind the counter is not going to be
able to do anything, is she. I mean, she's not
going to say, you're under citizens' arrest, put your hands up,
I'm going to handcuff you.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
Well, it really depends on individual circumstances. But under this
law it's unclear they could use cable ties, tie someone up,
lock them in a room, and keep them there for
an extended period of time, and in the scuffle and
doing that, injuries can happen on both sides. Police will
tell you that the very process of arresting someone and
(05:46):
handcuffing them more often than not end up an injury,
whether it's a dislocated shoulder, wrist, finger. Doing that process
needs a trained professional who's got the right equipment and
the right approach, and putting this back upon people in
our community is just unfair.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
Mike, I want to remind you too of I mean,
it must be a couple of years ago where that
guy was relieving as manager of a dairy and someone
came in and robbed stuff and he ran after him
and got stabbed and died. Yeah, now that's a reality
of what could happen here now when people think they've
got the power to do something. That was a relieving
(06:24):
manager at the store and died.
Speaker 4 (06:27):
And of this incredibly treasure. And you know, again it's
about using judgment and we're not saying that people are
compelled to do anything. It is usual judgment. But it's interesting,
you know, these these there's similar jurisdictions. Was you know,
sort of very similar legislation Ozzie England, Wales, Canada, I
think Ireland as well. And so look again it comes
(06:50):
back to no one is compelled to do anything, but
you know, and it's going to go through a select
committee process and I'm sure there'll be a range of
views that will be will be will be put in
front of the slect Committee.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Jenny, surely, if you are going to make a stand
on our new law, you'd be a little bit more
up to play than what we've seen over the last
twenty four hours.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
I think this has not been well thought through at all,
and I wonder whether they've come out with the four
year turn today just because they see that the citizen's
arrest announcement has completely bombed. I mean, people in ethnic
communities in Auckland are asking the question why the government
allocated three point six million dollars to a group led
(07:34):
by Sonny Kushol who has had the same ideas given
to me eighteen months ago as Minister for Police and
he gave me those for free. So what a waste
of government resource on a bunch of ideas that have
been floating around in quite frankly are dangerous for community safety.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Singing my song that there was paying Sonny kush Or
nine hundred and thirty dollars a day. But let's move on.
A Minister of the Consumer Affairs and acc resigned on
Monday after he laid his hands on a staff member
during an animated discussion, Andrew only, I'm talking about, of course,
should he remain as an MP?
Speaker 3 (08:11):
Ginny, well, you can't actually, in terms of out the
way our democracy works, you can't physically remove someone who's
been voted in. So that's you know, that's that would
be a by election, and that's a big call to make.
But I think there's a bit more to the story
than what we've heard. It seems really bizarre that, you know,
he had this whole two days of just having some
(08:33):
time out to think about it, and he's resigned so quickly.
So and the lack of detail around what the physical
contact was, you know, Biggs, the question was he more
to it than what we were told?
Speaker 2 (08:44):
Ginny? Putting that to one side. He could have resigned
completely though, couldn't he? I mean he couldn't. He could actually,
I know he's an elected member, but he could have
actually gone to the Prime Minister and said, look, I
think this is pretty bad second stripe, I want out.
I'm going to resign completely. He could have done that,
couldn't he.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
He could have done that yet, and it would have
triggered a by election at a cost of a significant amount.
So typically it takes quite a high bar, usually a
criminal charge for that sort of thing to happen.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
Mike, Butterick, is it ever acceptable to lay your hands
on a staff member?
Speaker 4 (09:19):
I would suggest, I would suggest not.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
You know, well, it's either a yes or no. Suggesting
not pretty much, you know. I mean that's a pretty
light that's a pretty light reply, Mike. I mean, are
you are you reading the Goldsmith's handbook there?
Speaker 4 (09:35):
You know, No, No, I'm not right. Look, I think
it is about expectations and standards, and I don't think
anyone would argue with that, Nick, And you know, Andrew
obviously didn't meet his own expectations nor the PM's expectations,
and it's incredibly unfortunate, and you know he has resigned,
you know, so I think right across all of Parliament.
(09:57):
You know, it's not the first time on the show
we've talked about expectations and standards from all members of Parliament,
and you know, I do think we need to focus
on being good people and behaving properly.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Jinny, I'm sure you both heard that. The Prime Minister
Christopher Luxin's interview with Mike Hoskins on Tuesday. Why can't
he seem to answer a question. It took him to
go to Vietnam before he could actually answer the question
should he have be been fired if he wasn't going
to resign? And why couldn't you have answered that on
that show.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
I think that moment is going to We're going to
look back in time and that will be a pivotal
moment in the life cycle of the prime minister, because
when you've got the lead ZB journalist interviewing someone and
they can't give a straight answer, that just shows lack
of leadership. And when it's off the back of Andrew
(10:50):
Bailey laying ahead on staff member and the Prime Minister
can't give a straight answer, it just makes people look
at him and say he's weak and he can't make
a decisive call, and that's not what we want in
a prime minister.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
Mike, will you a little bit bem you? Is that
he wouldn't come straight out and said, hey, he either
was going to resign or I was going to fire him.
It's just one way or the other, his way or
my way. That's all we wanted to see from a leader,
isn't it.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
Well, actually I missed all that. I'll be down with
a very hard working slept Rural Primary Production SLIPT committee
down in the top of the South. But no, no longer.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
How the hell could you have missed that story? Mike, Mike,
I'm sorry, but how could you have missed that story?
I don't care if you were in timbucktoo. You must
have got hold of that story. You must have had
internet or a phone. You must have known about that story,
you know.
Speaker 4 (11:41):
Look, I know about the story, but I haven't seen
the interview. The interview. But at the end of the day,
what has done has done, and the PM has made
it since made it very clear that if Andrew hadn't
have resigned, he would have effectively asked for his resignational sectum.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
And what is it with your party? Mike? Sorry to interrupt,
and I know it's rude. What is it with your
party right now? That can't say sacked? You couldn't even
say it. You went around around the Rosebury Bush as well.
If someone plays up and doesn't make a mistake, you
got to fire them. Why is it that you can't
say that?
Speaker 4 (12:13):
I mean, look at what's done is done right, It's
it's incredibly unfortunate. And you know the PEMS spoken about
you know the time. He gave Andrew time to do
all the rest of it, which is you know it's
a good call and and so you know it's Andrew
is no longer a minister.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
Okay, we currently have three Chinese.
Speaker 3 (12:34):
I was just gonna say, I wonder whether he wasn't.
He was reluctant to go and spent the weekend arguing
about it and then finally went on Monday. That's you know,
these questions like that being asked about whether or not
at wards the weekend.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
I think you're ruined a long bow dere Jenny, that's
an interesting one to take to take a break.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
I think that that's why you need decisive leadership from
your leader, and it's not happening.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
Mike, you want to say something on that.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
Look, I think the Prime Minister is very decisive and
an incredibly focused on actually growing the economy and talking
about the things that we need to do to make
a big difference in people's lives.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
You're listening to Politics Thursday with Ginny Anderson and Mike Butterick.
We currently have three Chinese warships sitting in the Tasman season.
Defense Minister Judith Collins is signaled we're in for a
store for a big defense funding boost. Mike, what do
you make of the situation with the Chinese warships being
in our not in our oceans, but in our area,
(13:35):
never been here before? Is there something that we should
be thinking about here?
Speaker 4 (13:39):
Yeah, well, I guess the first comment is, you know
they are in international orders, so there's been no actual
breach of international law obviously has been spoken about. Would
have been nice to have had a bit of notice
of the live fire, but you know, look, it's in
terms of the defense spend. You know, there's obviously been
(14:01):
signaled from the Minister Judith Collins that we do need
to increase our defense spending, and so I guess let's
just wait for the budget and see what comes out
of that.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
You must be hearing a bit about it. I mean,
is this a good thing? Is is it going to
be a big spend?
Speaker 4 (14:14):
You think that would be very speculative and it would
be just that neck as well. So I think we've
really just got to wait and see what comes out
in the budget.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Ginny, your government's just as responsible for the situation we
are in right now because of lack of spending over
the years, years and years of neglected spend more in it.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
If you go back, we actually had put quite a
bit in over time, quite more in both in areas
such as police and defeat. Labor has invested far more
than their national governments if you go back and check it.
But saying that it was Helen Clark.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
That got rid of out, it was Helen Clark that
got rid of our. Of course, you cannot tell me
that labor are giving more to the defense. I mean
labor are anti defense's they've always been anti defense.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
We've actually replaced, we've replaced things quite well. There's some
big I don't know all the names of the different airplanes,
but there's been some replaced over time. That was done
under US, and there was a program in place that
when those when those big ships were needing to be replaced,
there was a program in place to do that. It
takes a significant amount of investment. The next big one
(15:22):
up is the frigates. That's a significant investment if we
want ocean capability. And the latest developments with these three
Chinese military vessels and the tesman see would you know,
suggest that we might want to take a good look
at replacing those frigates.
Speaker 2 (15:37):
I think sorry, Jenny, but I think we're in the
problems we are now because of your last government. I
think you actually avoided spending on defense and that's probably
why we're in a little bit of the trouble we
are now.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
I'll go back and find you the figures if you like.
But there was a significant investment in the last six years,
all right, Mike, And I'm happy to break.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
That, all right. I'd love to have those, Jenny. Please,
can we rely Mike? Can we rely on Australia and
the US? Now? Do you think that we're feeling okay?
Are you? Are you feeling pretty confident that the big
boys will help us if we need them.
Speaker 4 (16:07):
Yeah, Look, it's a very good question. And look, I
think we do need to be We do need to
have some self sufficiency see ourself as well in capability.
There's no doubt about that and what that looks like.
You know, there's obviously depends capability plan coming out that
will be now soon. You know, I would just make
the comment detect on plates of world power. You know,
(16:27):
they're shifting, they are different than what they have been previously,
and you know we need to be mindful of that,
and we need to have the capacity to do some
stuff ourselves while maintaining I guess, you know, friendships with
our allies.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
Jinny, is the time we seriously considered. Augustine just gets
on and signed with it and pretend that we're friends
and show that we're going to do something. I mean,
we can't put this off, can we?
Speaker 5 (16:52):
Well?
Speaker 4 (16:52):
It is.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
It is a really interesting time, and with the dynamics
between America and China, and I think we need to
be really cautious about how we position ourselves. Yep, it's
a concern about what's happening particularly and around that testamency,
but it is still forty percent of our export market,
and so we need to be thinking about our local
economy as well. And always we need an open dialogue.
(17:15):
We need you need to be able to talk to
both those partners and be able to push our interest
through as an independent nation to do the best for
our people.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
Mike Orcus, get it signed, get it done. What are
your thoughts?
Speaker 4 (17:26):
I look, that's obviously not a decision that I'll be
that I need to make. Look, I thinking what will
be will be. There is obviously discussions, But just the
Ginny's point, I mean, we are a trading nation and
we rely on exporting our products to a number of
countries around the world, and sometimes we will agree to disagree,
but it is about being adults and keeping the dialogue
(17:47):
open and navigating those tensions that do exist.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
We've just heard the government is introducing Jenny, do you
want to quickly say something is very quick.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
I was just going to say one of the things
that I think New Zealanders will feel really strongly about
is having nuclear powered we're mutually capable submarines or vessels
in our waters. In our history in terms of David
Longie and that nineteen eighty sevens at a moment, you know,
that's a strong part of our national identity to be
neutralar free, and I think those challenges could come back again.
A focus is on the cards.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
Okay. The government has introduced new legislation to allow four
year term would have to go to a referendum and
the government could only introduce it. I they handed control
of some of the Select committees to the opposition. Ginny
is labor supportive of the four year term.
Speaker 3 (18:32):
Look, we don't We're not going to oppose that. We
think it's a good idea, probably to have more time
to bed in three years is really quick to get
stuff done and to make sure it's working. And I
think both both sides of the House sort of agree
with that. So it's probably appropriate that New Zealand people
get to have a say on that. It's a significant thing.
(18:53):
You shouldn't have politicians deciding how long their term is.
People get to say on that. The bit that we're
not so sure on is David Seymour's Select committee part
where all the opposition parties just make up Select committee.
Now that could be quite a I guess, like a
gridlock in terms of how we pass legislation. So while
(19:13):
we think that for your term's got real possibilities, not
so sure on the other proposals around changing the rules
of select committees.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
Mike, do you think it actually makes perfect sense to
have a four year term?
Speaker 4 (19:25):
Yeah, Look, I guess by commented particularly is the you'll
be one of the things I had noticed, you know,
regardless of who's in government, and I would agree with Jenny.
Your enemy is time and it takes the democratic process
you have. It takes a long time to pass law,
and there's the limiting factor and just that time just
disappears so quick so I think, you know, it would
(19:48):
be very beneficial for a government to have more time
to actually implement their policies that at the end of
the day that would have been voted into government by
the public. So yeah, can I.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
Just ask you very quickly because I know you both
got to go, and I want to ask you the
same question Jenny. Starting with you, Jenny, what happens if
you get a bad government? You're stuck going extra year?
Speaker 3 (20:08):
Yeah you are, really, We've got that now anyway, with
three years.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
You are.
Speaker 3 (20:16):
But then, but what I've seen with this government, particularly
the three separate coalition partners, is that I've got their
list of things just to get done and take them off,
and you get stuff like the Citizens and Arrest announcement
yesterday that hasn't been thought through. It's just a tech
box exercise. So I would rather have long term, lasting
change that makes a difference in people's lives than just
(20:38):
a political wish list that takes a box were supposed
to be it doesn't help anybody.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
There was supposed to be a quick answer, Mike, Butterick,
tell me if you tell me your answer of what
happens if we get a bad government with a four
year term? Do we just put up for another year?
Speaker 4 (20:51):
Will do show? I could say we had one of
the previous abilization to a Jinney's answer. But basically, under
our m MP environment, you could probably take the view
that if any particular government wasn't functioning well, they would
probably probably pload anyway, and so you may end up
him in an early election. So that would be my view.
Speaker 3 (21:12):
Are you protecting the demise of your government is going
to happen? On your side?
Speaker 4 (21:17):
I'm taking a very neutral view of what in the future,
But just with the political environment we do.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
Here really really quickly, because I got to go do
you think it? Do you think the referendum will will
get us four years? Yes?
Speaker 4 (21:30):
Or no?
Speaker 2 (21:30):
That's all I want?
Speaker 4 (21:32):
Yeah, I yes?
Speaker 2 (21:35):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (21:36):
Or no?
Speaker 2 (21:36):
Please yes? Ginny? Yes, okay? So you both all right?
Speaker 4 (21:42):
Good.
Speaker 3 (21:42):
I wanted to say no, you cannot.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
It wasn't part of the deal, I said, one quick answer.
We will talk about this after we're going to go
to headlines and then we will have a chat about it.
So I'm I'm actually still for three years, and I
tell you why I'm still for three years after the
break and Ginny, you'll have to tune in and Mike.
You have to tune in to find out. Okay, Twinny,
thank you both very much, Ginny Anderson and Mike.
Speaker 1 (22:06):
But 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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.