Donald Trump has won the United States presidential election by a surprising margin — but what will a second Trump presidency mean for New Zealand?
Also, David Seymour's Treaty principles bill has been introduced to Parliament today, earlier than originally scheduled. Is this just a waste of time, and will we see "hikois from hell"?
National MP and Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith and Labour's health and Wellington issues spokesperson Ayesha Verrall 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 Talk.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Said B.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
News Talk SEDB Wellington Time, Save the Traffic eighty eight
to two.
Speaker 3 (00:17):
See it in Cinema's November the fourteenth, The Goods Morning,
the Urban Motorway. You're going to hit traffic from Bowen Street,
Rudeford Street, heading up towards Adelaide roadslow at times, State
Highway one flowing.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Focusing in on the issues that matter Politics Thursday on
Wellington Mornings, Used Talk said Bilaican, can you be again?
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Decision join us politics Tuesday? This week as National MP
and Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith.
Speaker 4 (00:51):
Good morning, Paul, morning, How are you great?
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Welcome to the show. Thank you, nice to have you here.
Got a busy weekend. We'll talk about that later. Labor,
Health and Mornington Issues spokesperson Aishavira.
Speaker 4 (01:01):
Morning I Show, Morning Neck.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Hi, Paul, There's only one real story. I mean, now
we've got lots of this question still ask but there's
one major story that's happened over the last twenty four hours.
Isn't there one big deal? Donald Trump has been elected
the forty seventh President of the United States. Are you sure,
I'm going to start with you on this one. What
do you make of the result?
Speaker 5 (01:19):
Yeah, convincing win by Donald Trump, not only in those
battleground states, but the first Republican to win the popular
vote in twenty years. So that's a big victory for him.
And I think really that economic pitch that he made
to vote is really influential in his victory, and a
dissatisfaction with the progress and the promise of the Biden
(01:42):
Harris administration over the progress they promised to make on
economic issues but were unable to with that post pandemic
inflation there.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
What do you make of the result?
Speaker 4 (01:53):
Yeah, I look, I mean, I think essentially that's the
right observation in the sense that the right direction wrong
direction graph is always an important one. In the vast
majority of felt like they're in the wrong direction, so
that points towards change. And Trump was talking about the
economy also, the border of security was a big issue
(02:15):
as well, and so yeah, very very dramatic, and also
the Senate as well. Obviously all New Zealanders are interested
in what goes on over there, but you know, we
have to work with whoever's the president there, and we
want to make the most of the opportunities for that relationship.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Was it simply, and I'm asking you both this, was
it simply just the fact that the Americans people were
doing it tough like everyone else and just wanted to change.
We've seen it all over the world, haven't we. This
is not unique and probably Canada will be next. They
just want change. Do you think it's as simple as that?
Speaker 5 (02:49):
I think that's part of it and a large part
of it. It's not always the case in US election.
So if you think back to their last two years ago,
their last round of congressional elections, that seemed to be
very heavily influenced by concerns about abortion rights and things.
But this one, with that massive increase in the popular
(03:10):
vote for the Republicans, was a change election because of
the economic conditions.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (03:15):
Well, and you know, I think the reality is that
as the candidate, you know, Donald Trump was talking about
that more. It's focused on a plan for the economy
and there wasn't such a clear one on the other side.
And so that's how it works. And it just goes
back to the basics that you know, in politics, you've
really got to be focused on the things that people
(03:37):
are most concerned about and be talking about that and
actually have a plan to make a change.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
You both experienced politicians. You've got good political brains, both
of you. Why can you tell me why is Trump
so popular despite all the scandals and the controversious.
Speaker 4 (03:51):
Paul, Well, I don't know. I wouldn't seek to explain
what goes on in the US, but I think you know,
ultimately there's a lot of froth and spray and in
all media and political landscapes. But people, you know, when
it comes to a US presidential election, you just got
(04:11):
a binary choice. You've got to choose one or the
two people in front of you, And people have to
make a judgment, notwithstanding all the things are going on,
which person do they think will do a better job
on the thing that matters most of them? And so
that's that's that, you know, That's what that's what you're
dealing with. You're not you don't have a choice of
who was the perfect person I want to wait for.
It's out of the two that are there, which one
do I think will do a better job.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
But Trump has I shall got himself into a little
bit of stock, isn't he. I mean, he's a convicted Felon.
Speaker 5 (04:37):
Yeah, that's true, but I think, you know, absolutely stick
with what I've set up front. He won that election
fair and square, but he won it in the context
of an incredibly polarized electorate where basically you win by
pulling over a small small number of undecideds into your
into your column. And either side really is in that
(04:58):
somewhere between forty seven percent and fifty percent percent band,
and so in his base and on either side space
quite strongly held views, and people forgive the faults of
their leader just because they'll support the one that's on
their side. So I don't think that's that sort of
partisanship is a positive development for politics, but it doesn't
(05:22):
distract from the victory, he said.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
Paul Gosmith, you're in the inner sanctum of Parliament, so
this morning, well last night, there would have been a
few conversations going on and talking about it, wondering what's
that doesn't concern you guys? I mean the tariffs? Does it?
Are you talking about it? Are you thinking about what
are we going to do next?
Speaker 4 (05:43):
Oh? Well, look, there's no question we've got real challenges
going forward to you know, if you look at the
international scene generally. You know, twenty thirty years ago we
could talk about a benign and international environment. Ellen Clark
would talk about that that's not the case anymore. There's
real risks everywhere we look in terms of security, but
also a drift away from you know, that trend towards
(06:07):
lowering tariffs and free trade, and so that's a challenge
for us as a small country, and that's why we've
got to really focus on a strong economy internally and
being ever more innovative and competitive in our export. So
those challenges remain and they've got stronger. Of course, there's
(06:28):
also real opportunities. To the extent to which the United
States economy is strong and growing, then that's a good
thing for the world as well. So you know, we're
just watching. Ultimately, the challenge for New Zealanders are not changed.
That is, you know, we've really got to find restore growth,
we're getting on top of inflation and look for ways
to make a living in an incredible and increasingly difficult
(06:52):
and hostile world.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
I shall the fact that China has been looked at
pretty strongly by Trump. He's saying that all the tariffs
are going to be sixty percent everye else. It can
be a lot low. So trade's going to be less
for China. Does that open the doors for New Zealand
to do more trade China? And would you do more
trade with China?
Speaker 5 (07:08):
I think a nation like ours is disadvantaged by a
situation where the rules of trade are eroded and tariff's
are brought back in. And I think that I'm a
little more concerned than what Paul's just expressed. Last time
Trump was in we had tariff's slapped on our steel
exports and the Free Trade Agreement, the TPP was canned.
(07:32):
So there are risks to US as a trading nation.
And obviously we benefit if we can trade freely with
either block with the US or China, but as restrictions
on trade escalator around the world, it's certainly disadvantage disadvantages
a nation like ours.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
You'll be interested to know, Paul, that we had former
Senator and US Ambassador to New Zealand Scott Brown on
the show just ten minutes ago, and he said, New
Zealand shouldn't be We've got all concerned. We've got a
great relationship with America. He set it all up, he said,
will be fine. You believe them.
Speaker 4 (08:08):
Oh, well, let's hope.
Speaker 5 (08:10):
So.
Speaker 4 (08:10):
I mean, like I say, we're a small country. We've
got to focus on what we can control. And yes,
we've got to continually making the case for free trade
and lower tariffs. We've got to keep on building relationships
with new markets wherever we go, and that's what we're
you know, that's why Todd McLay has been so active
out in the in the Gulf States and the Saudi Arabia,
(08:30):
and why we're talking to India. So many many opportunities
we've got to keep looking for and also continue to
work on that fundamental relationship with the US. And yeah,
I think it's you know, there's it's whenever there's change,
you've got to figure out how you're going to respond
to that. And I've got every confidence that we can
do well.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
I want to quickly talk to you about the second
Mount Victoria Tunnel. The government has spent one point six
million dollars investigating the idea of a mega tunnel from
the terrorist of Kilbernie, but the idea has been canned
in favor of a second Mount Victoria tunnel and a
second terrorist tunnel. Paul was the mega tunnel really taken seriously.
Was it something that they were really working or was
it just a time waster.
Speaker 4 (09:10):
No, I don't think it was a time waster. But
it was a proposal that was put forward, and you know,
you know, if you're going to start building a tunnel,
some you know, it might be worthwhile making it longer
while you've got everything going. But when we looked at
the details and the cost wasn't manageable, and so we've
got back to what is still a fundamental thing. I mean,
I'm an Aucklander. I come into Wellington obviously regularly, and
(09:35):
it amazes me that a relatively small city can contrive
to have, you know, take forty minutes to get from
the airport into the town where it's only a few kilometers.
And so there's massive problems in the transport arrangements. And
we've had for too long people who have just really been,
you know, naively thinking that somehow, you know, it's not
(09:56):
important for people to be able to get around in
an efficient manner, and so purpose of transport policy is
to help people go from A to B in a
timely manner and get on with their lives and be productive.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
Have they been talking about tolling. The second amount Victory
Tunnel has that been talked about.
Speaker 4 (10:10):
Well that the specifics of that obviously will have to
be dealt with as you get closer to it, but
we've signaled as a government that we're up for different
ways to continue to fund the roads, and tolls may
be appropriate, but that's ultimately for the Transport Minister to
determine at the appropriate time.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
I showed would have we been better off just biding
on the bullet and actually doing the Mega Tunnel. The
figures that I had from a person that was involved
was about a billion dollars a kilometer. That actually went
to two billion dollars based on what the figures that
the National release and they would know. So eight billion
dollars is a lot of money, isn't it.
Speaker 5 (10:44):
Yeah, And a lot of it would have had to
be paid out of tolls because because the government has
a gap in terms of funding its roating agenda, which
I think has estimated at about five billion dollars the
worth of unfunded projects that on that list. Look, we
went into whether or not this Mega Tunnel should have
been funded in twenty twenty one, so it's no surprise
(11:05):
that three years later the same same finding as an
has come out of this analysis. But we've wasted a
year and the promise from the government was that there'd
be work on this tunnel as the earthworks would begin
this term. I think that looks really in doubt and
I guess here's here's a prediction.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
You don't think that spades are going to be in
the ground.
Speaker 5 (11:27):
The team, Well, I didn't say that because I think
there may well be a token media No, no.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
We're not.
Speaker 4 (11:35):
We're not talking nothing, nothing like what was that fellow
of Michael Wood. I think he did something like that?
Speaker 2 (11:40):
He did? He did.
Speaker 4 (11:41):
You're right, we're going to get it, actually delivering some
decent roading infrastructure for Wellington, which is desperately needed.
Speaker 5 (11:47):
People would love to see it.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
The controversial Treaty Principles Bill has been introduced to Parliament
today ahead of schedule. What's going to look like, Paul,
you know what's going on? Tell us what's happening. Was
there any surprise, isn't it?
Speaker 4 (12:00):
Oh? Well, it's been very well flagged over a long
period of time, which is something David Siemol has been
working on in the act Party's part of the coalition
agreement around attempting to define the principles and so the
exact wording will be made available when well, when the
(12:21):
legislation is introduced, and so that's as it is.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Are you expecting these he coys from hell? Is what
John Key once called them to parliament? I should just
said there's already a few outside Parliament today.
Speaker 4 (12:35):
Oh yeah, well there's Look, that's absolutely appropriate for people
to be able to protest or have their say or
to express themselves, as long as they do it obviously
peacefully and don't disrupt the ability of other people to
get on with their lives. And so there may be
a bit about that. There's always speculation about the size
and scope of what's coming down the track. But you know,
(12:56):
obviously as a government we're focused primarily on getting on
with rebuilding the economy and doing all the sorts of
things that we want to do.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
I show this a complete waste of time. We know
the bill's never going to pass. Is it just I
don't know, an opportunity for David Seymour to flex his muscle.
Speaker 5 (13:13):
Well, I think it's certainly a political opportunity for David
Seamour to nibble away votes from National and to it
gives him a platform to get attention, but at what
cost is really the issue and the point I disagree
with Paul. The point isn't that people have a right
to protest, but that we're going to see increasing division
(13:37):
over this spill, which is totally unnecessary because the National Party,
the main party of government, doesn't agree with it. And
that's the problem here. The tale has been able to
wag the dog in terms of Seymour getting an opportunity
to have this spill bring a debate that will be
quite destructive for our country and threatens to undermine a
lot of progress that we've made. You know, I'm pakiher,
(14:00):
but let's reflect on this from the Mardy point of view.
We're having a performance in Parliament about removing some of
their and that must feel pretty awful for them, and
I think it's really unfair.
Speaker 4 (14:10):
Well, I mean, I think we've kind of off side
of the fact that we're in an mp environment and
what the election delivered last year was the need for
National Act in New Zealand first to have a conversation
and to form a government to change. Countries certainly want
to change, and so part of those negotiations were arrangements
(14:31):
made and this was one of them. And you know
that's as it should be. It's well flagged. Everybody knows
the broad sort of situation and so that's where we're at.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
Paul, will National support the bill under any circumstances, even
if it starts to become popular, you know, like it
becomes gets its own little bit of energy. Do you
reckon that the National will ever support it?
Speaker 4 (14:51):
No, don't. Look, the Prime Minister has been very clear
about that. Ultimately, you know, we don't think it's having
a referendum on the change principles is not the way
that we think it's the best way to handle what
is a very personally like it topic. What's that?
Speaker 2 (15:11):
Do you personally like it?
Speaker 4 (15:13):
Like?
Speaker 2 (15:13):
What the bill? Do you like the idea?
Speaker 4 (15:14):
Well, look, I agree with the Prime Minister on this topic.
And you know, I think as a government we're dealing
with a whole range of issues around the Treaty and
it's place in our in modern society. And you know
I'm responsible for a number of those areas and trying
to correct new treaty settlements up in Pui. Are also
dealing with the marine and coastal area where we're making
a very rare step to overturn a Court of appealed decision.
(15:37):
So that there's a lot going on in this space,
and some of it's are uncomfortable, and that's just you know,
life in the in the modern world. We've got to
work our way through that. And we're trying to navigate
as a country between honoring treaty, honoring treaty settlements, and
also never losing sight of the basic expectations of people
living in a modern democratic society to have a quality
(15:59):
before the law and equal saying what goes on in
their environment. And so these are conversations that we should
have and we're going about it in a careful considered
way as government.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
Aishaverra I want to start with you on this question.
Kebinet has agreed that the providers of military style academies
or boot camps will have the power to use force
against young people and rebilitative programs. We also lent this
week that a leaked document from Children's Minister Karen Chaw
admitted the power may increase the risk of abuse and custody.
I mean, this is pretty terrifying stuff, isn't it.
Speaker 5 (16:31):
It is a worry because you know, knowledge. Paul will
know a lot more about these areas being Minister of Justice,
But in my mind, it's the police that legitimately uses
force against against people and it's very rare in our
law that that's given to other people. One other area
is the people who work in youth justice facilities. So
(16:52):
the idea that this is being given out to either
for profit companies or community providers seems like quite an
unusual step, and it appears from some of the documentation
that there's very little d details on how this would
this would work, and most embarrassingly, the Prime Minister wasn't
(17:13):
across the details that his cabinet had made this decision.
So I think when we're going into next week with
this abuse in state care apology, it's worth remembering that
these other sorts of issues we do need to be
on top on of in order to stop those sorts
of abuses happening again in the future.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
Paul, we know how much abuse occurred in the previous
iterations of boot camps, for that's all detailed in the
Royal Commission. Is it there are some sort of cause
for concern that we're doing this all over again.
Speaker 4 (17:43):
No, Look, I mean it's fairly common sense that if
you're dealing with young people who have been convicted of
very serious crimes, that you know, you don't go into
this for you know, a little bit of shoplifting. It's
people who young people have been in very serious crimes,
and so can I just interrupt from hurting each other?
Speaker 2 (18:02):
Can I just interrupt a little bit?
Speaker 4 (18:04):
Then?
Speaker 2 (18:04):
Should third party providers even be running these if you're
talking about how serious these offenders.
Speaker 4 (18:08):
Well, the reality is we've got it. We do need
to try some different things. So the reality is we've
got a small group. A vast majority of young people
are never get into trouble with the law and life's great.
And the vast majority of people that do young people
who do get in trouble with the law. The very
light touch approach that we have rehabilitation family group conferences
work because they get in trouble once and are never
(18:30):
seen of again.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
But there's a.
Speaker 4 (18:31):
Small group of serious, repeat youth offenders who have been
causing mayhem and that got out of control in the
previous six years, and the ram raiders were the classic example,
and we do need some extra tools, different ways to
deal with that group. Even you know, I mean even
just into a durned admitted we need a different tools,
and so what we're doing is providing two basic additional tools,
(18:52):
the young serious offender category, which amps up the consequences
for that group, and then secondly boot camp. Now it's
not going to solve every problem, but as part of
a broader effort, it provides another opportunity to try and
deal with what is a very tricky situation.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
I'm going to come to you because exactly what Paul's saying,
I'm going to ask you the same question. I mean,
he's right, but should third party providers be running these
boot camps? Because these are these are going to be
people unskilled, untrained or a little bit of skill and
a little bit of training. This is kind of where
where they're.
Speaker 4 (19:22):
Well, no, no, no, no, no, they're not they're not going
to be.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
A third party. They are employ me to do it.
Speaker 5 (19:26):
Want to answer that they'll be trained, and I think
this is the point. Paul's made the point that these
are a group of kids who have had serious, have
committed serious offenders offenses, and I agree with that. When
I read the Royal Commission report, I see that among
the people who end up in care roles or supervising
these kids. We also have a hardcore of occasional sadists
(19:49):
or pedophiles. And the problem is that there are no
safeguards been put in place at this stage, according to
the leak document, around making sure that that use of
force is limited protected and that there is some sort
of way in which we stop these mistakes that have
happened in the past from happening. So by exactly the
same logic that Paul says we need to get tough
(20:11):
on this group, we also can't forget and here we've
had these tremendous problems.
Speaker 4 (20:16):
And there'd be enormous amount of safeguards. I mean, there's
absolutely no the cabinet paper, the no comparison between what
happened on Great Barrier Island thirty years ago, which was
a disgrace and something that we're dealing with appropriately as
a country, and what we're trying to do now in
a modern, focused and highly trained environment with some clear
rules in place. And it comes down to the supervision
(20:36):
and the oversight of those agencies. And so yeah, we've
learned some very painful lessons as a country, there's no
question about that. But we've got real problems.
Speaker 5 (20:43):
Of death is reflected in what you're doing.
Speaker 4 (20:45):
Now, because you know, ultimately you got to find some
way of dealing with that very small group of serious
repeat youth offenders. Because you know, if you're if you're
a victim of a violent crime.
Speaker 5 (20:57):
It doesn't reflected in your proposals.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
If you're a victim of a violent crime, it doesn't
matter if the person that bashes you over the head
is thirty two or fifteen, still bashed over the head.
And so we've got to actually have consequences for that.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
And can I just ask you one quick question, because
you are Minister of Justice, We did a story on
the show. Sorry, I just got to bring this up.
We did a story on the show about a young
offender he was too young to go for you. In
front of the adults court. He beat the living daylights
out of a seventy eight year old man lying in bed.
His bone came out of his leg. He ends up dying.
(21:32):
This man. He went in front of a judge. The
judge said, you know hard times, but we're going to
give you a break on this one. You go free.
Three months later, he beat up a man that had
bad eyesighted a atm machine in Tawa went in front
of the same judge again the second time and she
basically gave him home detention. If your government is being
(21:56):
strong on crime, surely we've got a problem when judges
aren't adhering to what your wishes are.
Speaker 4 (22:03):
Well, I mean, obviously the first way for a Minister
of Justice to get it would be to directly criticize
the judiciary. So I'm not going to do that. But
by what I'm going to say.
Speaker 2 (22:11):
You can see what people are feeling.
Speaker 4 (22:12):
Absolutely, and that's why we're responding with firstly with when
it comes to adults, bringing back three strikes to deal
with that serious group of repeat offenders and also restricting
the ability of judges to massively reduce sentences. That legislation
is before the House. Hasn't been passed yet because we've
got to go through a process, but it's through that,
(22:33):
it's in the House and we're going to make a
real difference here.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
My question is judges, My question is judges are judges
listening to you?
Speaker 4 (22:41):
Well, I mean they are independent, but Parliament sends clear
signals and Parliament sets the Sentencing Act, and for young
people it sets the sentencing arrangements, and so the lever
that we've got is to change that act and to
be much clearer in what we want. And so what
we're doing is we're changing it and saying, well, actually,
you can't apply all these discounts endlessly so that people
(23:01):
end up who are convicted of serious violent crimes end
up on home detention because of all sorts of little
discounts have been applied. So that's what we're going to do,
and we're going to send that clear message through the
legislation and over time that will make a difference. How
long do we have to wait, Well, there'll be the
legislation we passed early next year and that'll flow through
(23:22):
to the courts of the three strikes is going to
be back in forth and early next year as well. Yeah,
obviously it's important to go through proper parliamentary processes what
we've been doing.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
Thank you both for taking time out of your day.
I know you're both very very busy. It's been a
pleasure to have you in the studio and talking a
bit of politics. Paul Goldsmith and I severe or thank you.
Enjoy the rest of your day and have a really
good busy weekend. Paul, I'm pleased that you're zipping around
the country and you're going to wang Anui on a
(23:52):
little plate. Good luck with that, put your headphones on.
Thank you both so much.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
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.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Said B.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
News Talk SEDB Wellington Time, Save the Traffic eighty eight
to two.
Speaker 3 (00:17):
See it in Cinema's November the fourteenth, The Goods Morning,
the Urban Motorway. You're going to hit traffic from Bowen Street,
Rudeford Street, heading up towards Adelaide roadslow at times, State
Highway one flowing.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Focusing in on the issues that matter Politics Thursday on
Wellington Mornings, Used Talk said Bilaican, can you be again?
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Decision join us politics Tuesday? This week as National MP
and Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith.
Speaker 4 (00:51):
Good morning, Paul, morning, How are you great?
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Welcome to the show. Thank you, nice to have you here.
Got a busy weekend. We'll talk about that later. Labor,
Health and Mornington Issues spokesperson Aishavira.
Speaker 4 (01:01):
Morning I Show, Morning Neck.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Hi, Paul, There's only one real story. I mean, now
we've got lots of this question still ask but there's
one major story that's happened over the last twenty four hours.
Isn't there one big deal? Donald Trump has been elected
the forty seventh President of the United States. Are you sure,
I'm going to start with you on this one. What
do you make of the result?
Speaker 5 (01:19):
Yeah, convincing win by Donald Trump, not only in those
battleground states, but the first Republican to win the popular
vote in twenty years. So that's a big victory for him.
And I think really that economic pitch that he made
to vote is really influential in his victory, and a
dissatisfaction with the progress and the promise of the Biden
(01:42):
Harris administration over the progress they promised to make on
economic issues but were unable to with that post pandemic
inflation there.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
What do you make of the result?
Speaker 4 (01:53):
Yeah, I look, I mean, I think essentially that's the
right observation in the sense that the right direction wrong
direction graph is always an important one. In the vast
majority of felt like they're in the wrong direction, so
that points towards change. And Trump was talking about the
economy also, the border of security was a big issue
(02:15):
as well, and so yeah, very very dramatic, and also
the Senate as well. Obviously all New Zealanders are interested
in what goes on over there, but you know, we
have to work with whoever's the president there, and we
want to make the most of the opportunities for that relationship.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Was it simply, and I'm asking you both this, was
it simply just the fact that the Americans people were
doing it tough like everyone else and just wanted to change.
We've seen it all over the world, haven't we. This
is not unique and probably Canada will be next. They
just want change. Do you think it's as simple as that?
Speaker 5 (02:49):
I think that's part of it and a large part
of it. It's not always the case in US election.
So if you think back to their last two years ago,
their last round of congressional elections, that seemed to be
very heavily influenced by concerns about abortion rights and things.
But this one, with that massive increase in the popular
(03:10):
vote for the Republicans, was a change election because of
the economic conditions.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (03:15):
Well, and you know, I think the reality is that
as the candidate, you know, Donald Trump was talking about
that more. It's focused on a plan for the economy
and there wasn't such a clear one on the other side.
And so that's how it works. And it just goes
back to the basics that you know, in politics, you've
really got to be focused on the things that people
(03:37):
are most concerned about and be talking about that and
actually have a plan to make a change.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
You both experienced politicians. You've got good political brains, both
of you. Why can you tell me why is Trump
so popular despite all the scandals and the controversious.
Speaker 4 (03:51):
Paul, Well, I don't know. I wouldn't seek to explain
what goes on in the US, but I think you know,
ultimately there's a lot of froth and spray and in
all media and political landscapes. But people, you know, when
it comes to a US presidential election, you just got
(04:11):
a binary choice. You've got to choose one or the
two people in front of you, And people have to
make a judgment, notwithstanding all the things are going on,
which person do they think will do a better job
on the thing that matters most of them? And so
that's that's that, you know, That's what that's what you're
dealing with. You're not you don't have a choice of
who was the perfect person I want to wait for.
It's out of the two that are there, which one
do I think will do a better job.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
But Trump has I shall got himself into a little
bit of stock, isn't he. I mean, he's a convicted Felon.
Speaker 5 (04:37):
Yeah, that's true, but I think, you know, absolutely stick
with what I've set up front. He won that election
fair and square, but he won it in the context
of an incredibly polarized electorate where basically you win by
pulling over a small small number of undecideds into your
into your column. And either side really is in that
(04:58):
somewhere between forty seven percent and fifty percent percent band,
and so in his base and on either side space
quite strongly held views, and people forgive the faults of
their leader just because they'll support the one that's on
their side. So I don't think that's that sort of
partisanship is a positive development for politics, but it doesn't
(05:22):
distract from the victory, he said.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
Paul Gosmith, you're in the inner sanctum of Parliament, so
this morning, well last night, there would have been a
few conversations going on and talking about it, wondering what's
that doesn't concern you guys? I mean the tariffs? Does it?
Are you talking about it? Are you thinking about what
are we going to do next?
Speaker 4 (05:43):
Oh? Well, look, there's no question we've got real challenges
going forward to you know, if you look at the
international scene generally. You know, twenty thirty years ago we
could talk about a benign and international environment. Ellen Clark
would talk about that that's not the case anymore. There's
real risks everywhere we look in terms of security, but
also a drift away from you know, that trend towards
(06:07):
lowering tariffs and free trade, and so that's a challenge
for us as a small country, and that's why we've
got to really focus on a strong economy internally and
being ever more innovative and competitive in our export. So
those challenges remain and they've got stronger. Of course, there's
(06:28):
also real opportunities. To the extent to which the United
States economy is strong and growing, then that's a good
thing for the world as well. So you know, we're
just watching. Ultimately, the challenge for New Zealanders are not changed.
That is, you know, we've really got to find restore growth,
we're getting on top of inflation and look for ways
to make a living in an incredible and increasingly difficult
(06:52):
and hostile world.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
I shall the fact that China has been looked at
pretty strongly by Trump. He's saying that all the tariffs
are going to be sixty percent everye else. It can
be a lot low. So trade's going to be less
for China. Does that open the doors for New Zealand
to do more trade China? And would you do more
trade with China?
Speaker 5 (07:08):
I think a nation like ours is disadvantaged by a
situation where the rules of trade are eroded and tariff's
are brought back in. And I think that I'm a
little more concerned than what Paul's just expressed. Last time
Trump was in we had tariff's slapped on our steel
exports and the Free Trade Agreement, the TPP was canned.
(07:32):
So there are risks to US as a trading nation.
And obviously we benefit if we can trade freely with
either block with the US or China, but as restrictions
on trade escalator around the world, it's certainly disadvantage disadvantages
a nation like ours.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
You'll be interested to know, Paul, that we had former
Senator and US Ambassador to New Zealand Scott Brown on
the show just ten minutes ago, and he said, New
Zealand shouldn't be We've got all concerned. We've got a
great relationship with America. He set it all up, he said,
will be fine. You believe them.
Speaker 4 (08:08):
Oh, well, let's hope.
Speaker 5 (08:10):
So.
Speaker 4 (08:10):
I mean, like I say, we're a small country. We've
got to focus on what we can control. And yes,
we've got to continually making the case for free trade
and lower tariffs. We've got to keep on building relationships
with new markets wherever we go, and that's what we're
you know, that's why Todd McLay has been so active
out in the in the Gulf States and the Saudi Arabia,
(08:30):
and why we're talking to India. So many many opportunities
we've got to keep looking for and also continue to
work on that fundamental relationship with the US. And yeah,
I think it's you know, there's it's whenever there's change,
you've got to figure out how you're going to respond
to that. And I've got every confidence that we can
do well.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
I want to quickly talk to you about the second
Mount Victoria Tunnel. The government has spent one point six
million dollars investigating the idea of a mega tunnel from
the terrorist of Kilbernie, but the idea has been canned
in favor of a second Mount Victoria tunnel and a
second terrorist tunnel. Paul was the mega tunnel really taken seriously.
Was it something that they were really working or was
it just a time waster.
Speaker 4 (09:10):
No, I don't think it was a time waster. But
it was a proposal that was put forward, and you know,
you know, if you're going to start building a tunnel,
some you know, it might be worthwhile making it longer
while you've got everything going. But when we looked at
the details and the cost wasn't manageable, and so we've
got back to what is still a fundamental thing. I mean,
I'm an Aucklander. I come into Wellington obviously regularly, and
(09:35):
it amazes me that a relatively small city can contrive
to have, you know, take forty minutes to get from
the airport into the town where it's only a few kilometers.
And so there's massive problems in the transport arrangements. And
we've had for too long people who have just really been,
you know, naively thinking that somehow, you know, it's not
(09:56):
important for people to be able to get around in
an efficient manner, and so purpose of transport policy is
to help people go from A to B in a
timely manner and get on with their lives and be productive.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
Have they been talking about tolling. The second amount Victory
Tunnel has that been talked about.
Speaker 4 (10:10):
Well that the specifics of that obviously will have to
be dealt with as you get closer to it, but
we've signaled as a government that we're up for different
ways to continue to fund the roads, and tolls may
be appropriate, but that's ultimately for the Transport Minister to
determine at the appropriate time.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
I showed would have we been better off just biding
on the bullet and actually doing the Mega Tunnel. The
figures that I had from a person that was involved
was about a billion dollars a kilometer. That actually went
to two billion dollars based on what the figures that
the National release and they would know. So eight billion
dollars is a lot of money, isn't it.
Speaker 5 (10:44):
Yeah, And a lot of it would have had to
be paid out of tolls because because the government has
a gap in terms of funding its roating agenda, which
I think has estimated at about five billion dollars the
worth of unfunded projects that on that list. Look, we
went into whether or not this Mega Tunnel should have
been funded in twenty twenty one, so it's no surprise
(11:05):
that three years later the same same finding as an
has come out of this analysis. But we've wasted a
year and the promise from the government was that there'd
be work on this tunnel as the earthworks would begin
this term. I think that looks really in doubt and
I guess here's here's a prediction.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
You don't think that spades are going to be in
the ground.
Speaker 5 (11:27):
The team, Well, I didn't say that because I think
there may well be a token media No, no.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
We're not.
Speaker 4 (11:35):
We're not talking nothing, nothing like what was that fellow
of Michael Wood. I think he did something like that?
Speaker 2 (11:40):
He did? He did.
Speaker 4 (11:41):
You're right, we're going to get it, actually delivering some
decent roading infrastructure for Wellington, which is desperately needed.
Speaker 5 (11:47):
People would love to see it.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
The controversial Treaty Principles Bill has been introduced to Parliament
today ahead of schedule. What's going to look like, Paul,
you know what's going on? Tell us what's happening. Was
there any surprise, isn't it?
Speaker 4 (12:00):
Oh? Well, it's been very well flagged over a long
period of time, which is something David Siemol has been
working on in the act Party's part of the coalition
agreement around attempting to define the principles and so the
exact wording will be made available when well, when the
(12:21):
legislation is introduced, and so that's as it is.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Are you expecting these he coys from hell? Is what
John Key once called them to parliament? I should just
said there's already a few outside Parliament today.
Speaker 4 (12:35):
Oh yeah, well there's Look, that's absolutely appropriate for people
to be able to protest or have their say or
to express themselves, as long as they do it obviously
peacefully and don't disrupt the ability of other people to
get on with their lives. And so there may be
a bit about that. There's always speculation about the size
and scope of what's coming down the track. But you know,
(12:56):
obviously as a government we're focused primarily on getting on
with rebuilding the economy and doing all the sorts of
things that we want to do.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
I show this a complete waste of time. We know
the bill's never going to pass. Is it just I
don't know, an opportunity for David Seymour to flex his muscle.
Speaker 5 (13:13):
Well, I think it's certainly a political opportunity for David
Seamour to nibble away votes from National and to it
gives him a platform to get attention, but at what
cost is really the issue and the point I disagree
with Paul. The point isn't that people have a right
to protest, but that we're going to see increasing division
(13:37):
over this spill, which is totally unnecessary because the National Party,
the main party of government, doesn't agree with it. And
that's the problem here. The tale has been able to
wag the dog in terms of Seymour getting an opportunity
to have this spill bring a debate that will be
quite destructive for our country and threatens to undermine a
lot of progress that we've made. You know, I'm pakiher,
(14:00):
but let's reflect on this from the Mardy point of view.
We're having a performance in Parliament about removing some of
their and that must feel pretty awful for them, and
I think it's really unfair.
Speaker 4 (14:10):
Well, I mean, I think we've kind of off side
of the fact that we're in an mp environment and
what the election delivered last year was the need for
National Act in New Zealand first to have a conversation
and to form a government to change. Countries certainly want
to change, and so part of those negotiations were arrangements
(14:31):
made and this was one of them. And you know
that's as it should be. It's well flagged. Everybody knows
the broad sort of situation and so that's where we're at.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
Paul, will National support the bill under any circumstances, even
if it starts to become popular, you know, like it
becomes gets its own little bit of energy. Do you
reckon that the National will ever support it?
Speaker 4 (14:51):
No, don't. Look, the Prime Minister has been very clear
about that. Ultimately, you know, we don't think it's having
a referendum on the change principles is not the way
that we think it's the best way to handle what
is a very personally like it topic. What's that?
Speaker 2 (15:11):
Do you personally like it?
Speaker 4 (15:13):
Like?
Speaker 2 (15:13):
What the bill? Do you like the idea?
Speaker 4 (15:14):
Well, look, I agree with the Prime Minister on this topic.
And you know, I think as a government we're dealing
with a whole range of issues around the Treaty and
it's place in our in modern society. And you know
I'm responsible for a number of those areas and trying
to correct new treaty settlements up in Pui. Are also
dealing with the marine and coastal area where we're making
a very rare step to overturn a Court of appealed decision.
(15:37):
So that there's a lot going on in this space,
and some of it's are uncomfortable, and that's just you know,
life in the in the modern world. We've got to
work our way through that. And we're trying to navigate
as a country between honoring treaty, honoring treaty settlements, and
also never losing sight of the basic expectations of people
living in a modern democratic society to have a quality
(15:59):
before the law and equal saying what goes on in
their environment. And so these are conversations that we should
have and we're going about it in a careful considered
way as government.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
Aishaverra I want to start with you on this question.
Kebinet has agreed that the providers of military style academies
or boot camps will have the power to use force
against young people and rebilitative programs. We also lent this
week that a leaked document from Children's Minister Karen Chaw
admitted the power may increase the risk of abuse and custody.
I mean, this is pretty terrifying stuff, isn't it.
Speaker 5 (16:31):
It is a worry because you know, knowledge. Paul will
know a lot more about these areas being Minister of Justice,
But in my mind, it's the police that legitimately uses
force against against people and it's very rare in our
law that that's given to other people. One other area
is the people who work in youth justice facilities. So
(16:52):
the idea that this is being given out to either
for profit companies or community providers seems like quite an
unusual step, and it appears from some of the documentation
that there's very little d details on how this would
this would work, and most embarrassingly, the Prime Minister wasn't
(17:13):
across the details that his cabinet had made this decision.
So I think when we're going into next week with
this abuse in state care apology, it's worth remembering that
these other sorts of issues we do need to be
on top on of in order to stop those sorts
of abuses happening again in the future.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
Paul, we know how much abuse occurred in the previous
iterations of boot camps, for that's all detailed in the
Royal Commission. Is it there are some sort of cause
for concern that we're doing this all over again.
Speaker 4 (17:43):
No, Look, I mean it's fairly common sense that if
you're dealing with young people who have been convicted of
very serious crimes, that you know, you don't go into
this for you know, a little bit of shoplifting. It's
people who young people have been in very serious crimes,
and so can I just interrupt from hurting each other?
Speaker 2 (18:02):
Can I just interrupt a little bit?
Speaker 4 (18:04):
Then?
Speaker 2 (18:04):
Should third party providers even be running these if you're
talking about how serious these offenders.
Speaker 4 (18:08):
Well, the reality is we've got it. We do need
to try some different things. So the reality is we've
got a small group. A vast majority of young people
are never get into trouble with the law and life's great.
And the vast majority of people that do young people
who do get in trouble with the law. The very
light touch approach that we have rehabilitation family group conferences
work because they get in trouble once and are never
(18:30):
seen of again.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
But there's a.
Speaker 4 (18:31):
Small group of serious, repeat youth offenders who have been
causing mayhem and that got out of control in the
previous six years, and the ram raiders were the classic example,
and we do need some extra tools, different ways to
deal with that group. Even you know, I mean even
just into a durned admitted we need a different tools,
and so what we're doing is providing two basic additional tools,
(18:52):
the young serious offender category, which amps up the consequences
for that group, and then secondly boot camp. Now it's
not going to solve every problem, but as part of
a broader effort, it provides another opportunity to try and
deal with what is a very tricky situation.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
I'm going to come to you because exactly what Paul's saying,
I'm going to ask you the same question. I mean,
he's right, but should third party providers be running these
boot camps? Because these are these are going to be
people unskilled, untrained or a little bit of skill and
a little bit of training. This is kind of where
where they're.
Speaker 4 (19:22):
Well, no, no, no, no, no, they're not they're not going
to be.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
A third party. They are employ me to do it.
Speaker 5 (19:26):
Want to answer that they'll be trained, and I think
this is the point. Paul's made the point that these
are a group of kids who have had serious, have
committed serious offenders offenses, and I agree with that. When
I read the Royal Commission report, I see that among
the people who end up in care roles or supervising
these kids. We also have a hardcore of occasional sadists
(19:49):
or pedophiles. And the problem is that there are no
safeguards been put in place at this stage, according to
the leak document, around making sure that that use of
force is limited protected and that there is some sort
of way in which we stop these mistakes that have
happened in the past from happening. So by exactly the
same logic that Paul says we need to get tough
(20:11):
on this group, we also can't forget and here we've
had these tremendous problems.
Speaker 4 (20:16):
And there'd be enormous amount of safeguards. I mean, there's
absolutely no the cabinet paper, the no comparison between what
happened on Great Barrier Island thirty years ago, which was
a disgrace and something that we're dealing with appropriately as
a country, and what we're trying to do now in
a modern, focused and highly trained environment with some clear
rules in place. And it comes down to the supervision
(20:36):
and the oversight of those agencies. And so yeah, we've
learned some very painful lessons as a country, there's no
question about that. But we've got real problems.
Speaker 5 (20:43):
Of death is reflected in what you're doing.
Speaker 4 (20:45):
Now, because you know, ultimately you got to find some
way of dealing with that very small group of serious
repeat youth offenders. Because you know, if you're if you're
a victim of a violent crime.
Speaker 5 (20:57):
It doesn't reflected in your proposals.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
If you're a victim of a violent crime, it doesn't
matter if the person that bashes you over the head
is thirty two or fifteen, still bashed over the head.
And so we've got to actually have consequences for that.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
And can I just ask you one quick question, because
you are Minister of Justice, We did a story on
the show. Sorry, I just got to bring this up.
We did a story on the show about a young
offender he was too young to go for you. In
front of the adults court. He beat the living daylights
out of a seventy eight year old man lying in bed.
His bone came out of his leg. He ends up dying.
(21:32):
This man. He went in front of a judge. The
judge said, you know hard times, but we're going to
give you a break on this one. You go free.
Three months later, he beat up a man that had
bad eyesighted a atm machine in Tawa went in front
of the same judge again the second time and she
basically gave him home detention. If your government is being
(21:56):
strong on crime, surely we've got a problem when judges
aren't adhering to what your wishes are.
Speaker 4 (22:03):
Well, I mean, obviously the first way for a Minister
of Justice to get it would be to directly criticize
the judiciary. So I'm not going to do that. But
by what I'm going to say.
Speaker 2 (22:11):
You can see what people are feeling.
Speaker 4 (22:12):
Absolutely, and that's why we're responding with firstly with when
it comes to adults, bringing back three strikes to deal
with that serious group of repeat offenders and also restricting
the ability of judges to massively reduce sentences. That legislation
is before the House. Hasn't been passed yet because we've
got to go through a process, but it's through that,
(22:33):
it's in the House and we're going to make a
real difference here.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
My question is judges, My question is judges are judges
listening to you?
Speaker 4 (22:41):
Well, I mean they are independent, but Parliament sends clear
signals and Parliament sets the Sentencing Act, and for young
people it sets the sentencing arrangements, and so the lever
that we've got is to change that act and to
be much clearer in what we want. And so what
we're doing is we're changing it and saying, well, actually,
you can't apply all these discounts endlessly so that people
(23:01):
end up who are convicted of serious violent crimes end
up on home detention because of all sorts of little
discounts have been applied. So that's what we're going to do,
and we're going to send that clear message through the
legislation and over time that will make a difference. How
long do we have to wait, Well, there'll be the
legislation we passed early next year and that'll flow through
(23:22):
to the courts of the three strikes is going to
be back in forth and early next year as well. Yeah,
obviously it's important to go through proper parliamentary processes what
we've been doing.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
Thank you both for taking time out of your day.
I know you're both very very busy. It's been a
pleasure to have you in the studio and talking a
bit of politics. Paul Goldsmith and I severe or thank you.
Enjoy the rest of your day and have a really
good busy weekend. Paul, I'm pleased that you're zipping around
the country and you're going to wang Anui on a
(23:52):
little plate. Good luck with that, put your headphones on.
Thank you both so much.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
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
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
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!