Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by National’s Matt Doocey and Labour’s Tracey McLellan to wrap this week’s political stories.
They discussed Phase 1 of the Covid Inquiry and Kiwis’ shaken trust in the government, whether Labour will commit to a capital gains tax as they head into their party conference this weekend, and Matt Doocey touched on the recently revealed texts he received from Mike King.
The Mental Health Minister says he didn't reply to the texts after King’s controversial comments around alcohol because he didn't want to.
The I Am Hope founder told Newstalk ZB last month that alcohol is the solution for mental health issues, until a better solution is found.
Minister Matt Doocey was among those to publicly reject the claim.
King, who receives $24 million in government funding for his mental health charity, sent Doocey a 500 word text attempting to justify his claim.
Doocey told John MacDonald he scanned the message, but doesn't reply to every text he gets, and had already stated his position.
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 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk ZB.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
As we do every Friday, we welcome our politicians and
for politics Friday Nationals. Matt Doocey, Matte Morning, John Labour's
Tracy McClellan. Warning Tracy, good morning. So what's your job
ahead of the Labor Party conference this weekend? What are
you on put the chairs out.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
The most brilliant Yeah, no, I'm not up till Sunday morning,
so I've got all conference to watch my colleagues host
all the other sessions and then I do the big
Sunday morning.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Well what's that about.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
Oh there'll be remits and arguments and.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
All sorts of fantastic and by Sunday we'll have a
capital gains tax policy.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Who knows.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
I'll come back to that. Matt doocey, morning to you morning.
As the Minister of Mental Health, I want to ask
something to put something to you specifically. You remember when
Mike King was in the news recently saying that alcohol
was the solution for people with mental health, which attracted
a lot of criticism. A lot of comment we have
(01:11):
for our staff at Parliament have obtained under the Official
Information Act some material that was sent to you by
Mike King by text, Yes, in response or at the
time or shortly after he'd made those comments, and you
had dismissed those comments. What did he say in those
(01:31):
text messages to you?
Speaker 4 (01:33):
Yeah, so you're right. I mean the comment was at
the time I think on news talk where Mike King
had made I didn't hear the interview specifically, but he
had made a comment about alcohol being the solution.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Yes.
Speaker 4 (01:48):
I quickly came out publicly and said I disagreed with
that comment because I don't think alcohol is a solution.
And broadly, though I have a lot of support for Mike,
I think he does a great job in his advocacy,
but on that point I disagree.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Disagreed, And then he got on the phone and started
bombing you with text messages.
Speaker 4 (02:10):
No, no, he didn't bomb me with text messages, but
he did send me one. And as a minister, a
lot of people do text you, and quite rightly, under
the Official Information Act, people can apply to see correspondence
and that's a good process. And under that process I
released that text might broadly, I can't remember it in detail,
(02:34):
but Mike just text me some content that he was
referring to. I sort of scanned it but did.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
Nothing more with it.
Speaker 4 (02:42):
I didn't respond.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Okay, you didn't reply? No, why not?
Speaker 4 (02:47):
Because I didn't want to, and I don't reply to
every text that I get sent.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Even though it was something he was responding to something
that you had specifically said.
Speaker 4 (02:55):
I'd taken my position. I disagreed with what he said,
and I didn't respond to his text.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
What was the tone of the message in his message
to you? What was his tone? If I remember rightly,
it was more on you got in front of you. Yeah,
it wasn't you.
Speaker 4 (03:09):
Yeah, yeah, it's on my phone because of course as
a minister, we need to keep all correspondents. But look, hey,
the text is publicly available. People can see for themselves.
But from recollection, it was broadly speaking to his point
he was trying to make around alcohol being the solution,
and like I say, I skimmed the text. I didn't
(03:30):
agree with the argument and moved on.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
So why didn't you reply? I just want to clarify that.
Let's say, well, you portray something which sounds like a
bit of a standoff between Mike King and the government.
Speaker 4 (03:41):
There's no standoff there. He texted me with a text
and that was it.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Did he get back in touch saying that you're replying
or not? No? Have you spoken to him since? Have
I spoken to Mike since?
Speaker 4 (03:54):
No? From my recollection, I haven't.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
Email text contact with him since.
Speaker 4 (03:57):
From my recollection.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
No.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
All right, we'll move on. Let's talk about the COVID inquiry.
I said before ten o'clock tracing the book. If people
see people walking around the streets of christ Church with
a copy of the COVID report in front of their
face this weekend, it'll be MPs from the Labor Party
embarrassed by some of the findings of that report. What's
your reaction to it.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
I wouldn't use the word embarrassed. I haven't read the
report properly yet, but I've listened to a lot of
the discourse over the last twenty four hours. There's always
going to be things that didn't go well. I mean,
we lived in those times. I experienced things that didn't
feel like they were going well. The longer that COVID
went on. I think that in the early stages it
(04:42):
felt like we were all in this together. But any
kind of social license or any kind of really precarious,
turn your world upside down situation. People's tolerance only lasts
so long, and we probably didn't pivot and change some
of the communication when we needed to.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
Did you start to doubt the approach?
Speaker 3 (05:04):
No, I didn't doubt the approach. I was I had
been on. No, I didn't doubt doubt the approach. I've
been involved in health, so I didn't doubt the approach,
and I didn't doubt.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Though, even though but I did nothing, nothing was changed.
As I said an hour ago, it was a volatile situation,
and as all crises do quite often, they go on
and on and on, and you realize that actually the
plan we had at the start isn't necessarily the best
plan for now. But as the report points out, the
government didn't do anything to change that. It stuck to
(05:37):
the song sheet until it got too hard and then
its completely gave up.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
Yeah, I think if we remember correctly, though, there was
a lot of phases, like we had to do things
before the vaccine was available. Then once the vaccine was available,
we had to get those vaccine rates up to ninety
something percent for it to be efficacious throughout them. So
there was natural phases and natural stages. So things did
change and it was difficult holding that that really solid
(06:05):
we're all in this together like it was for that
first month.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
How come the government was really reticent on taking leadership
or getting certainly taken advice from the business community, because
I know that Rob five, Remember he was brought in
and it seemed from what I read that he was
just sitting on the couch in the hallway and everyone
kept walking past him. He sort of looked, un don't
you want me to We'll get back to your Rob.
(06:28):
And that's kind of been covered off in the report
as well, saying that the government was self righteous and
thought it had all the answers looking back. Would you
agree with that?
Speaker 3 (06:40):
Well, I wasn't there, so I don't know what was
happening behind the scenes, but I do know.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
That, right. I wasn't there either on it, but I
know it was self righteous.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Well, I didn't experience that. I did think that, Like
when you think about the wage subsidy, there was always
that consideration, if we're going to lock down, what on
earth happens to the economy, And so the decision to
have the wage subsidy to be able to say collectively
will keep things afloat whilst we all work through this,
because that's the incentive to stay home. I mean that
(07:11):
absolutely saved businesses. It kept people tied to their jobs,
and more importantly, when we were able to reopen, when
lots of other parts of the world were going into
their second and third lockdowns. It kept people tied to
their job so they were able to trade and to
contribute to the economy without a big wind up.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
Matt Doucy, do you accept or do you what do
you make of my view that the loss of trust
in the government with a small g as a result
of the way labor handled the pandemic. Do you think
that's going to make your job in any other politician
or every other government's job harder to win the trust
of people.
Speaker 4 (07:51):
Oh, I think potentially yes, And that is one of
the reasons why we've widened the terms of reference for
Phase two. We don't think the initial inquiry into the
COVID nineteen response will really get to some of the
nub of the issues that people want to understand. It's
more about the insights of the response and how that
(08:13):
might inform future pandemic response. Our terms of reference for
Phase two will be a lot more detailed, looking at
issues specifically around the social impacts, the economic impacts.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
The result isn't vaccine injury also part of it?
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Yeah, do you agree with that? Do you agree with that?
Or is that just in there because of the coalition
agreement with ZIM first.
Speaker 4 (08:36):
Yeah, it's obviously a coalition agreement agreement.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
Do you agree with it?
Speaker 1 (08:40):
No?
Speaker 4 (08:40):
I think you'll find the coalition agreement was between national
an Act. You've got Brook van Valden who's received the
report and is leading on phase two. The reports only
just landed seven hundred pages. I've only read the high
level summary of it. But the point you're raising about
the confidence is important because the issue that if you
(09:03):
set me finished on, the issue we had was government
that got up on the podium of truth. And there's
a real concern when you start calling it that they
started calling it a single source truth.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
And just.
Speaker 4 (09:17):
Hold on. And I don't have any problem with fact checking.
Of course, at the time when there's a lot of
information out there, we do want things fact checked. But
the problem is the government itself right set up their
own disinformation unit, but actually time and time again they
got proved putting out wrong information themselves. Look at the
(09:38):
issue we had with those ladies who broke the border
in the Auckland lockdown and got accused of being sex
workers and all sorts of things and that got dispelled.
So that is the issue around the confidence when you
are told by a government who are constantly trying to
control the narrative. And that's why we're doing Phase two
to actually understand things like social and economic impact.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
You've sidest the question a bit vaccine injury. Is that
something that you yourself thinks is a legitimate inquiry or
is that only part of Phase two because of museum first?
Speaker 4 (10:10):
No, I think it's important that when we look at
an inquiry quite the terms of reference will look at
the issues around mandates as well as the issue you
highlight it, as well as social and economics. We have
been very clear that the inquiry needed to go further
and that's what this government's still.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
So you accept that that there is that there was
vaccine injury to an extent that warrants further investigation.
Speaker 4 (10:35):
No, you're asking me to take a view that I
don't have the evidence to take a view on. But
if you're asking me, is it right for the inquiry
to look into it. Yes, and then we can draw
our conclusions from phase two of the inquiry.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
The official cash rate, it's getting males heading in the
right direction. Matt Doucy' is the not the only answer? Though?
Was it to our economic problems?
Speaker 4 (10:57):
And what do you mean by that time? So you're
asking a question with an intent there, Well.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
I'm finding out if you agree with me or do
you think the OCRs will be all on end or
surely not?
Speaker 4 (11:07):
Well, it's one lever clearly. And when you look at
the OCR being the lowest it's been in a couple
of years. I mean, let's think of the outcome of
a low OCR for an average mortgage owner maybe five
hundred thousand K over twenty five years. That's a reduction
of one hundred and eighty dollars. That's one hundred and
eighty dollars in their back pocket, a fortnite and a
(11:29):
cost of living crisis.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
That's huge.
Speaker 4 (11:31):
So we received a mandate the end of last year
to come and rebuild the economy. You know, part of
bringing down inflation, which is at two point two percent
now was cutting out the wasteful spending, returning the Reserve
Bank to a single mandate around inflation, and that's what
we're doing. You know, we're delivering on what we said
(11:52):
we would do.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
And actually, well, Stephen Joyce would probably say otherwise you
might have heard him, all right, might have heard him
on the radio.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
You just have other commentators out there.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
Saying the government's do a lot of talking but not
a lot of delivery. What's your responsible Well, like.
Speaker 4 (12:05):
I say, when you've got inflation down now at two
point two, we want it to clearly go down further.
You've got the ocr now at the lowest it's been
in two years. People are starting to see the benefit
of a government that's focusing on rebuilding the economy. But look,
we've got a lot more to do, right when you
think of the economic vandalism of the last labor government.
(12:26):
There's a lot of work to do and that's what
we'll focused on because ultimately what we want to do
is provide better jobs and incomes. But you can't have
a society where actually inflation is outstripping wage growth, and
that's what happened under the last government.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
Would you call a capital gains tax economic vandalism. I'll
come back to you on that. Tracy McLean, Why is
it such a good idea? You guys are going to
consider it the conference in christ Church this weekend. Well,
let's cut to the chase. Is it going to be
a yes or no?
Speaker 3 (12:53):
Who knows it's bucked up?
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Come on to members.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
It's a democratic process. It's on it's certainly on the table.
I suspect it'll get a lot of support and it'll
go through the process. It'll it'll be next year before
we know what the outcome of that process is.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
What do you mean by that?
Speaker 3 (13:09):
Well, because this is just phase one.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
So the vote will be what, Yeah, work further on
it or just ditch it for now? The two options.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
Yeah, the vote is that there was like fifteen different
taxes gone through the regional process, and I think the
vote is let's forget about all the others. Let's just
focus on the top two and do all the hard
work that needs to all the leg work that needs
to go into it. And that's what the vote is
this weekend. But getting back to what Matt said about
the ocr I mean that is good if you're a
(13:37):
mortgage holder. But the flip side of that conversation, which
he alluded to whilst he was taking credit for a
reduction in things that were always scheduled to happen. Was
that unemployment, you know, dropping the unemployment rate. There's twelve
thousand fewer people working in the construction sector, as one example.
So it's all very well if you're a business, which
is fantastic, or you're a mortgage holder, and there's plenty
(13:58):
of those, but if you're losing your job. Economies are
about people, not just about those numbers. And you know,
telling one half of the story is not ideal in
this situation.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
So what a capital goinges tas the economic vandalism in
your view, well a lot.
Speaker 4 (14:14):
We can't tax our way out of prosperity. And when
you look at the last government's formula, more taxes, more
more spending, and more debt.
Speaker 2 (14:22):
Maybe one of those maybe you'd like to answer the question.
Speaker 4 (14:25):
Well, Tracy raised a very good point about the increasing
unemployment rate, which is a real concern for this government.
But let's be very clear. Who employs people. It's business.
How do you give business confidence to invest another dollar
and employ another person. It's bringing down the cost of
borrowing so they can invest in more plant, they can
(14:47):
invest in more employees, and that's what this government will do.
So to actually address the unemployment issue, you've got to
grow the economy. Don't forget the government didn't have a
plan for We've got a plan to grow the economy.
When you look at what we're going to do around
doubling exports, look at the free trade agreements Todd McClay
signed in the last few months. We're a small trading
(15:08):
nation at the bottom of the world. We need to
get out and sell our exports. And that's what this
government will do. John, And you know the code. It's
going to really deliver for New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
Full marks on the key messages. Man alive and you
were doing that little puppet thing.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
It's a capital gains tech. Of course it's going to
happen because who controls the Labor Party. It's the unions
and they want it.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Can you believe these guys are going to sit in
a conference room at the weekend and talk about fifteen
different taxes.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
That's not that's not what we've got later.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
To spend.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
Oh, you need a drink after that. Charter schools, the
first charter school in the country is going to work
well in this lot of charter schools anyway, is opening
to christ Church in February, and over four years, one
hundred and fifty three million dollars in government funding is
going into creating thirty five or converting thirty five schools
to charter schools and opening another fifteen brand new charter schools.
(16:05):
Tracy McClellan from the teachers' unions are saying, oh, yeah,
that's great. Yeah, all that money should be going into
state schools, existing schools. What's your response today, Well, that one.
Speaker 3 (16:14):
Hundred and fifty three million could pay for five hundred
or seven hundred teachers aide.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
So you're saying it's a waste of money.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
I just think we have a good public school system.
Kids are not for profit and teaching should be a
registered profession.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
What about the parents such as the parents who contacted
me yesterday saying these schools are going to be game
changes because because they have kids with learning disabilities that
just struggle get lost in the mainstream, and I have
a lot of hold on. What would you say to
those parents They don't know what they're talking about.
Speaker 3 (16:46):
No, not at all, And we have special character schools.
We already have the ability to do that. When you
look in central christ Church we've had discovery. I can't
remember what they're paying or what or I wanted to
do limited what used to be called that's where my
kids went really really different concept of education. We have
the ability to do now different since we don't make profits.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
A different concept of education. But do those schools necessarily
cater for kids with learning disabilities that are going to
be catered by the likes of the new school wipening
in christ Church.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
I think so, yes, There's plenty of avenue within the
special character schools to accommodate everybody. This is about turning
education into profit and it's actually about making undermining We
just read the Registration of Teachings.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
What do you mean turning education into profit? What do
you mean what do you make.
Speaker 3 (17:39):
Exactly what I said? Charter schools are you know, we
shouldn't be making profit from schools.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
So what about private schools?
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Well that's that you know, those already exist, But we're
not having that conversation. We're talking about are we going
to spend a huge amount of money that could be
spent inside the current education system converting schools to charter
schools because this is ex pet projects.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
But you would criticize a private school for making profit
out of education the same way you're criticizing.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
We're not investing one hundred and fifty three million of
our combined tax payers money into converting schools. We know
that charter schools spend more money per student, We know
that all of the evidence shows that the outcomes haven't
been particularly positive at all. And like last time, when
we abolish charter schools, we'll do it again next time.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
Matt, do see again? Is this another thing just to
accommodate the coalition arrangement or do you personally genuinely believe
in charter schools?
Speaker 4 (18:34):
Yeah? I think when you look at the outcomes the
school we're talking about, which will be the first in
christ Church and the first in New Zealand, I mean
their attendance rate eighty two percent. These are kids who
have disengaged and are disenfranchised from mainstream schooling with learning difficulties.
Like you say, I mean the problem labour has. It's
a bit contortionist really because they do actually like this
(18:57):
and they call it, what is it, character schools, But
of course the teaching unions hate it, so they stop
labor supporting it. And actually it is really about the
like you say, parents of these kids want them to
be in an environment that will be supportive of their needs.
What I like about Mastery Schools and z or Adapaki
is they actually team up with the local teaching colleges
(19:21):
provide placements for those trainee teachers to learn to work
with children with learning disabilities. There's a lot of plus
plus here and I just wish Labour would get on
and support it.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
I agree with you. Right, let's move on to the
last thing up for discussion. It's been reported today in
the Medical Journal that research from Alcohol Health Watch has
found that seventy three percent of alcohol orders delivered to
the door there involves no checking of ID and almost
half of them are simply left unattended at the door.
(19:57):
Do you think, Matt, particularly with your mental health minister's
hat on and given we were talking about the Mike
King thing earlier, you think this is something that needs
to be looked at very much? So.
Speaker 4 (20:09):
Is that a New Zealand study or an international an
Auckland that really concerns me? Seventy three percent, you say.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
Who seventy three percent of the alcohol orders delivered to
the door with no ID checks?
Speaker 4 (20:22):
Yeah, that concerns me, like, I've never bought alcohol like
that online, so I don't know what the checks and
balances are, but I would have expect someone to have
show a proof of ID. Let's be very clear. We
have we have on license premises who provide good host responsibility,
(20:45):
good quality dining experiences, and I think they should be supported.
But my view is they are let down by off
licensed premises. And when you talk to police, they would
say it's not necessarily the first round of drinks purchased,
but it's when someone drinks them potent, becomes intoxicated and
(21:08):
goes back for the second round is when we see
all the problematic behavior and the relationship to crime and violence.
So I think we've got to be a lot tougher
in this space.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
Personal, So, do you think more regulation is needed to
require deliverers to get idea before they leave the grong?
Speaker 4 (21:26):
Yeah, Look, you're asking me for a solution to the problem.
Definition I don't know, because I don't know in detail
what the current regulation is. But at first Blush, what
you are presenting me is very concerning and quite frankly
doesn't seem right.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Because Tracy McCallum, what the alcohol health Watch is saying,
is that the study demonstrates that regulations are needed to
address online alcohol delivery.
Speaker 3 (21:47):
Absolutely, and I think it'd be interesting to know what
time of the day these are occurring, because we know
that huge amount of all of those problems that Matt
just described happen after alcohol that's purchased after nine o'clock.
That's when, as you said, someone may have had the
first round.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
Oh yeah, But when you're ordering a line, when you're
about what time is to go online? Are you a
team click on that yet? Absolutely?
Speaker 3 (22:08):
So there could be a double whammy here. Not only
is it happening after nine o'clock, but with no idea.
It's just outrageous. I mean, it makes a mockery out
of all of the existing regulations and certainly begs the
question that the government needs to look at a swathe
of different ways that we can tighten up on this
because real harm is caused.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
Nice to see you both enjoy the Christmas. What sweets
are on the on the table and the plates on
the tables at the conference? Fruit bursts, mints? What are
they going to be? I have no idea.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
Your two steps ahead of me, John, I haven't even
thought about it. We're at the we're at the Theater Royal.
So I don't think we're not going to be it's
not corporate. We're not going to be sitting around tables.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
Well, here we go, here we go. Nice to see
you being fed lollies, Matt dooci. Thank you.
Speaker 4 (22:51):
Thanks John. I'm off now to join the Prime Minister.
He's speaking to several hundred people in Ashburton about backing
our rural economy and our royal communities.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
All right, just don't leave the program on the on
the dashboard of police Cat this time, all right to
say it safe travels.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
For more from Catbory Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to news talks at be Christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk ZB.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
As we do every Friday, we welcome our politicians and
for politics Friday Nationals. Matt Doocey, Matte Morning, John Labour's
Tracy McClellan. Warning Tracy, good morning. So what's your job
ahead of the Labor Party conference this weekend? What are
you on put the chairs out.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
The most brilliant Yeah, no, I'm not up till Sunday morning,
so I've got all conference to watch my colleagues host
all the other sessions and then I do the big
Sunday morning.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Well what's that about.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
Oh there'll be remits and arguments and.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
All sorts of fantastic and by Sunday we'll have a
capital gains tax policy.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Who knows.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
I'll come back to that. Matt doocey, morning to you morning.
As the Minister of Mental Health, I want to ask
something to put something to you specifically. You remember when
Mike King was in the news recently saying that alcohol
was the solution for people with mental health, which attracted
a lot of criticism. A lot of comment we have
(01:11):
for our staff at Parliament have obtained under the Official
Information Act some material that was sent to you by
Mike King by text, Yes, in response or at the
time or shortly after he'd made those comments, and you
had dismissed those comments. What did he say in those
(01:31):
text messages to you?
Speaker 4 (01:33):
Yeah, so you're right. I mean the comment was at
the time I think on news talk where Mike King
had made I didn't hear the interview specifically, but he
had made a comment about alcohol being the solution.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Yes.
Speaker 4 (01:48):
I quickly came out publicly and said I disagreed with
that comment because I don't think alcohol is a solution.
And broadly, though I have a lot of support for Mike,
I think he does a great job in his advocacy,
but on that point I disagree.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Disagreed, And then he got on the phone and started
bombing you with text messages.
Speaker 4 (02:10):
No, no, he didn't bomb me with text messages, but
he did send me one. And as a minister, a
lot of people do text you, and quite rightly, under
the Official Information Act, people can apply to see correspondence
and that's a good process. And under that process I
released that text might broadly, I can't remember it in detail,
(02:34):
but Mike just text me some content that he was
referring to. I sort of scanned it but did.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
Nothing more with it.
Speaker 4 (02:42):
I didn't respond.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Okay, you didn't reply? No, why not?
Speaker 4 (02:47):
Because I didn't want to, and I don't reply to
every text that I get sent.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Even though it was something he was responding to something
that you had specifically said.
Speaker 4 (02:55):
I'd taken my position. I disagreed with what he said,
and I didn't respond to his text.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
What was the tone of the message in his message
to you? What was his tone? If I remember rightly,
it was more on you got in front of you. Yeah,
it wasn't you.
Speaker 4 (03:09):
Yeah, yeah, it's on my phone because of course as
a minister, we need to keep all correspondents. But look, hey,
the text is publicly available. People can see for themselves.
But from recollection, it was broadly speaking to his point
he was trying to make around alcohol being the solution,
and like I say, I skimmed the text. I didn't
(03:30):
agree with the argument and moved on.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
So why didn't you reply? I just want to clarify that.
Let's say, well, you portray something which sounds like a
bit of a standoff between Mike King and the government.
Speaker 4 (03:41):
There's no standoff there. He texted me with a text
and that was it.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Did he get back in touch saying that you're replying
or not? No? Have you spoken to him since? Have
I spoken to Mike since?
Speaker 4 (03:54):
No? From my recollection, I haven't.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
Email text contact with him since.
Speaker 4 (03:57):
From my recollection.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
No.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
All right, we'll move on. Let's talk about the COVID inquiry.
I said before ten o'clock tracing the book. If people
see people walking around the streets of christ Church with
a copy of the COVID report in front of their
face this weekend, it'll be MPs from the Labor Party
embarrassed by some of the findings of that report. What's
your reaction to it.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
I wouldn't use the word embarrassed. I haven't read the
report properly yet, but I've listened to a lot of
the discourse over the last twenty four hours. There's always
going to be things that didn't go well. I mean,
we lived in those times. I experienced things that didn't
feel like they were going well. The longer that COVID
went on. I think that in the early stages it
(04:42):
felt like we were all in this together. But any
kind of social license or any kind of really precarious,
turn your world upside down situation. People's tolerance only lasts
so long, and we probably didn't pivot and change some
of the communication when we needed to.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
Did you start to doubt the approach?
Speaker 3 (05:04):
No, I didn't doubt the approach. I was I had
been on. No, I didn't doubt doubt the approach. I've
been involved in health, so I didn't doubt the approach,
and I didn't doubt.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Though, even though but I did nothing, nothing was changed.
As I said an hour ago, it was a volatile situation,
and as all crises do quite often, they go on
and on and on, and you realize that actually the
plan we had at the start isn't necessarily the best
plan for now. But as the report points out, the
government didn't do anything to change that. It stuck to
(05:37):
the song sheet until it got too hard and then
its completely gave up.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
Yeah, I think if we remember correctly, though, there was
a lot of phases, like we had to do things
before the vaccine was available. Then once the vaccine was available,
we had to get those vaccine rates up to ninety
something percent for it to be efficacious throughout them. So
there was natural phases and natural stages. So things did
change and it was difficult holding that that really solid
(06:05):
we're all in this together like it was for that
first month.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
How come the government was really reticent on taking leadership
or getting certainly taken advice from the business community, because
I know that Rob five, Remember he was brought in
and it seemed from what I read that he was
just sitting on the couch in the hallway and everyone
kept walking past him. He sort of looked, un don't
you want me to We'll get back to your Rob.
(06:28):
And that's kind of been covered off in the report
as well, saying that the government was self righteous and
thought it had all the answers looking back. Would you
agree with that?
Speaker 3 (06:40):
Well, I wasn't there, so I don't know what was
happening behind the scenes, but I do know.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
That, right. I wasn't there either on it, but I
know it was self righteous.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Well, I didn't experience that. I did think that, Like
when you think about the wage subsidy, there was always
that consideration, if we're going to lock down, what on
earth happens to the economy, And so the decision to
have the wage subsidy to be able to say collectively
will keep things afloat whilst we all work through this,
because that's the incentive to stay home. I mean that
(07:11):
absolutely saved businesses. It kept people tied to their jobs,
and more importantly, when we were able to reopen, when
lots of other parts of the world were going into
their second and third lockdowns. It kept people tied to
their job so they were able to trade and to
contribute to the economy without a big wind up.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
Matt Doucy, do you accept or do you what do
you make of my view that the loss of trust
in the government with a small g as a result
of the way labor handled the pandemic. Do you think
that's going to make your job in any other politician
or every other government's job harder to win the trust
of people.
Speaker 4 (07:51):
Oh, I think potentially yes, And that is one of
the reasons why we've widened the terms of reference for
Phase two. We don't think the initial inquiry into the
COVID nineteen response will really get to some of the
nub of the issues that people want to understand. It's
more about the insights of the response and how that
(08:13):
might inform future pandemic response. Our terms of reference for
Phase two will be a lot more detailed, looking at
issues specifically around the social impacts, the economic impacts.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
The result isn't vaccine injury also part of it?
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Yeah, do you agree with that? Do you agree with that?
Or is that just in there because of the coalition
agreement with ZIM first.
Speaker 4 (08:36):
Yeah, it's obviously a coalition agreement agreement.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
Do you agree with it?
Speaker 1 (08:40):
No?
Speaker 4 (08:40):
I think you'll find the coalition agreement was between national
an Act. You've got Brook van Valden who's received the
report and is leading on phase two. The reports only
just landed seven hundred pages. I've only read the high
level summary of it. But the point you're raising about
the confidence is important because the issue that if you
(09:03):
set me finished on, the issue we had was government
that got up on the podium of truth. And there's
a real concern when you start calling it that they
started calling it a single source truth.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
And just.
Speaker 4 (09:17):
Hold on. And I don't have any problem with fact checking.
Of course, at the time when there's a lot of
information out there, we do want things fact checked. But
the problem is the government itself right set up their
own disinformation unit, but actually time and time again they
got proved putting out wrong information themselves. Look at the
(09:38):
issue we had with those ladies who broke the border
in the Auckland lockdown and got accused of being sex
workers and all sorts of things and that got dispelled.
So that is the issue around the confidence when you
are told by a government who are constantly trying to
control the narrative. And that's why we're doing Phase two
to actually understand things like social and economic impact.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
You've sidest the question a bit vaccine injury. Is that
something that you yourself thinks is a legitimate inquiry or
is that only part of Phase two because of museum first?
Speaker 4 (10:10):
No, I think it's important that when we look at
an inquiry quite the terms of reference will look at
the issues around mandates as well as the issue you
highlight it, as well as social and economics. We have
been very clear that the inquiry needed to go further
and that's what this government's still.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
So you accept that that there is that there was
vaccine injury to an extent that warrants further investigation.
Speaker 4 (10:35):
No, you're asking me to take a view that I
don't have the evidence to take a view on. But
if you're asking me, is it right for the inquiry
to look into it. Yes, and then we can draw
our conclusions from phase two of the inquiry.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
The official cash rate, it's getting males heading in the
right direction. Matt Doucy' is the not the only answer? Though?
Was it to our economic problems?
Speaker 4 (10:57):
And what do you mean by that time? So you're
asking a question with an intent there, Well.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
I'm finding out if you agree with me or do
you think the OCRs will be all on end or
surely not?
Speaker 4 (11:07):
Well, it's one lever clearly. And when you look at
the OCR being the lowest it's been in a couple
of years. I mean, let's think of the outcome of
a low OCR for an average mortgage owner maybe five
hundred thousand K over twenty five years. That's a reduction
of one hundred and eighty dollars. That's one hundred and
eighty dollars in their back pocket, a fortnite and a
(11:29):
cost of living crisis.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
That's huge.
Speaker 4 (11:31):
So we received a mandate the end of last year
to come and rebuild the economy. You know, part of
bringing down inflation, which is at two point two percent
now was cutting out the wasteful spending, returning the Reserve
Bank to a single mandate around inflation, and that's what
we're doing. You know, we're delivering on what we said
(11:52):
we would do.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
And actually, well, Stephen Joyce would probably say otherwise you
might have heard him, all right, might have heard him
on the radio.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
You just have other commentators out there.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
Saying the government's do a lot of talking but not
a lot of delivery. What's your responsible Well, like.
Speaker 4 (12:05):
I say, when you've got inflation down now at two
point two, we want it to clearly go down further.
You've got the ocr now at the lowest it's been
in two years. People are starting to see the benefit
of a government that's focusing on rebuilding the economy. But look,
we've got a lot more to do, right when you
think of the economic vandalism of the last labor government.
(12:26):
There's a lot of work to do and that's what
we'll focused on because ultimately what we want to do
is provide better jobs and incomes. But you can't have
a society where actually inflation is outstripping wage growth, and
that's what happened under the last government.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
Would you call a capital gains tax economic vandalism. I'll
come back to you on that. Tracy McLean, Why is
it such a good idea? You guys are going to
consider it the conference in christ Church this weekend. Well,
let's cut to the chase. Is it going to be
a yes or no?
Speaker 3 (12:53):
Who knows it's bucked up?
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Come on to members.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
It's a democratic process. It's on it's certainly on the table.
I suspect it'll get a lot of support and it'll
go through the process. It'll it'll be next year before
we know what the outcome of that process is.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
What do you mean by that?
Speaker 3 (13:09):
Well, because this is just phase one.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
So the vote will be what, Yeah, work further on
it or just ditch it for now? The two options.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
Yeah, the vote is that there was like fifteen different
taxes gone through the regional process, and I think the
vote is let's forget about all the others. Let's just
focus on the top two and do all the hard
work that needs to all the leg work that needs
to go into it. And that's what the vote is
this weekend. But getting back to what Matt said about
the ocr I mean that is good if you're a
(13:37):
mortgage holder. But the flip side of that conversation, which
he alluded to whilst he was taking credit for a
reduction in things that were always scheduled to happen. Was
that unemployment, you know, dropping the unemployment rate. There's twelve
thousand fewer people working in the construction sector, as one example.
So it's all very well if you're a business, which
is fantastic, or you're a mortgage holder, and there's plenty
(13:58):
of those, but if you're losing your job. Economies are
about people, not just about those numbers. And you know,
telling one half of the story is not ideal in
this situation.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
So what a capital goinges tas the economic vandalism in
your view, well a lot.
Speaker 4 (14:14):
We can't tax our way out of prosperity. And when
you look at the last government's formula, more taxes, more
more spending, and more debt.
Speaker 2 (14:22):
Maybe one of those maybe you'd like to answer the question.
Speaker 4 (14:25):
Well, Tracy raised a very good point about the increasing
unemployment rate, which is a real concern for this government.
But let's be very clear. Who employs people. It's business.
How do you give business confidence to invest another dollar
and employ another person. It's bringing down the cost of
borrowing so they can invest in more plant, they can
(14:47):
invest in more employees, and that's what this government will do.
So to actually address the unemployment issue, you've got to
grow the economy. Don't forget the government didn't have a
plan for We've got a plan to grow the economy.
When you look at what we're going to do around
doubling exports, look at the free trade agreements Todd McClay
signed in the last few months. We're a small trading
(15:08):
nation at the bottom of the world. We need to
get out and sell our exports. And that's what this
government will do. John, And you know the code. It's
going to really deliver for New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
Full marks on the key messages. Man alive and you
were doing that little puppet thing.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
It's a capital gains tech. Of course it's going to
happen because who controls the Labor Party. It's the unions
and they want it.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Can you believe these guys are going to sit in
a conference room at the weekend and talk about fifteen
different taxes.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
That's not that's not what we've got later.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
To spend.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
Oh, you need a drink after that. Charter schools, the
first charter school in the country is going to work
well in this lot of charter schools anyway, is opening
to christ Church in February, and over four years, one
hundred and fifty three million dollars in government funding is
going into creating thirty five or converting thirty five schools
to charter schools and opening another fifteen brand new charter schools.
(16:05):
Tracy McClellan from the teachers' unions are saying, oh, yeah,
that's great. Yeah, all that money should be going into
state schools, existing schools. What's your response today, Well, that one.
Speaker 3 (16:14):
Hundred and fifty three million could pay for five hundred
or seven hundred teachers aide.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
So you're saying it's a waste of money.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
I just think we have a good public school system.
Kids are not for profit and teaching should be a
registered profession.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
What about the parents such as the parents who contacted
me yesterday saying these schools are going to be game
changes because because they have kids with learning disabilities that
just struggle get lost in the mainstream, and I have
a lot of hold on. What would you say to
those parents They don't know what they're talking about.
Speaker 3 (16:46):
No, not at all, And we have special character schools.
We already have the ability to do that. When you
look in central christ Church we've had discovery. I can't
remember what they're paying or what or I wanted to
do limited what used to be called that's where my
kids went really really different concept of education. We have
the ability to do now different since we don't make profits.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
A different concept of education. But do those schools necessarily
cater for kids with learning disabilities that are going to
be catered by the likes of the new school wipening
in christ Church.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
I think so, yes, There's plenty of avenue within the
special character schools to accommodate everybody. This is about turning
education into profit and it's actually about making undermining We
just read the Registration of Teachings.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
What do you mean turning education into profit? What do
you mean what do you make.
Speaker 3 (17:39):
Exactly what I said? Charter schools are you know, we
shouldn't be making profit from schools.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
So what about private schools?
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Well that's that you know, those already exist, But we're
not having that conversation. We're talking about are we going
to spend a huge amount of money that could be
spent inside the current education system converting schools to charter
schools because this is ex pet projects.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
But you would criticize a private school for making profit
out of education the same way you're criticizing.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
We're not investing one hundred and fifty three million of
our combined tax payers money into converting schools. We know
that charter schools spend more money per student, We know
that all of the evidence shows that the outcomes haven't
been particularly positive at all. And like last time, when
we abolish charter schools, we'll do it again next time.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
Matt, do see again? Is this another thing just to
accommodate the coalition arrangement or do you personally genuinely believe
in charter schools?
Speaker 4 (18:34):
Yeah? I think when you look at the outcomes the
school we're talking about, which will be the first in
christ Church and the first in New Zealand, I mean
their attendance rate eighty two percent. These are kids who
have disengaged and are disenfranchised from mainstream schooling with learning difficulties.
Like you say, I mean the problem labour has. It's
a bit contortionist really because they do actually like this
(18:57):
and they call it, what is it, character schools, But
of course the teaching unions hate it, so they stop
labor supporting it. And actually it is really about the
like you say, parents of these kids want them to
be in an environment that will be supportive of their needs.
What I like about Mastery Schools and z or Adapaki
is they actually team up with the local teaching colleges
(19:21):
provide placements for those trainee teachers to learn to work
with children with learning disabilities. There's a lot of plus
plus here and I just wish Labour would get on
and support it.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
I agree with you. Right, let's move on to the
last thing up for discussion. It's been reported today in
the Medical Journal that research from Alcohol Health Watch has
found that seventy three percent of alcohol orders delivered to
the door there involves no checking of ID and almost
half of them are simply left unattended at the door.
(19:57):
Do you think, Matt, particularly with your mental health minister's
hat on and given we were talking about the Mike
King thing earlier, you think this is something that needs
to be looked at very much? So.
Speaker 4 (20:09):
Is that a New Zealand study or an international an
Auckland that really concerns me? Seventy three percent, you say.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
Who seventy three percent of the alcohol orders delivered to
the door with no ID checks?
Speaker 4 (20:22):
Yeah, that concerns me, like, I've never bought alcohol like
that online, so I don't know what the checks and
balances are, but I would have expect someone to have
show a proof of ID. Let's be very clear. We
have we have on license premises who provide good host responsibility,
(20:45):
good quality dining experiences, and I think they should be supported.
But my view is they are let down by off
licensed premises. And when you talk to police, they would
say it's not necessarily the first round of drinks purchased,
but it's when someone drinks them potent, becomes intoxicated and
(21:08):
goes back for the second round is when we see
all the problematic behavior and the relationship to crime and violence.
So I think we've got to be a lot tougher
in this space.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
Personal, So, do you think more regulation is needed to
require deliverers to get idea before they leave the grong?
Speaker 4 (21:26):
Yeah, Look, you're asking me for a solution to the problem.
Definition I don't know, because I don't know in detail
what the current regulation is. But at first Blush, what
you are presenting me is very concerning and quite frankly
doesn't seem right.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Because Tracy McCallum, what the alcohol health Watch is saying,
is that the study demonstrates that regulations are needed to
address online alcohol delivery.
Speaker 3 (21:47):
Absolutely, and I think it'd be interesting to know what
time of the day these are occurring, because we know
that huge amount of all of those problems that Matt
just described happen after alcohol that's purchased after nine o'clock.
That's when, as you said, someone may have had the
first round.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
Oh yeah, But when you're ordering a line, when you're
about what time is to go online? Are you a
team click on that yet? Absolutely?
Speaker 3 (22:08):
So there could be a double whammy here. Not only
is it happening after nine o'clock, but with no idea.
It's just outrageous. I mean, it makes a mockery out
of all of the existing regulations and certainly begs the
question that the government needs to look at a swathe
of different ways that we can tighten up on this
because real harm is caused.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
Nice to see you both enjoy the Christmas. What sweets
are on the on the table and the plates on
the tables at the conference? Fruit bursts, mints? What are
they going to be? I have no idea.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
Your two steps ahead of me, John, I haven't even
thought about it. We're at the we're at the Theater Royal.
So I don't think we're not going to be it's
not corporate. We're not going to be sitting around tables.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
Well, here we go, here we go. Nice to see
you being fed lollies, Matt dooci. Thank you.
Speaker 4 (22:51):
Thanks John. I'm off now to join the Prime Minister.
He's speaking to several hundred people in Ashburton about backing
our rural economy and our royal communities.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
All right, just don't leave the program on the on
the dashboard of police Cat this time, all right to
say it safe travels.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
For more from Catbory Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to news talks at be Christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Math & Magic: Stories from the Frontiers of Marketing with Bob Pittman
How do the smartest marketers and business entrepreneurs cut through the noise? And how do they manage to do it again and again? It's a combination of math—the strategy and analytics—and magic, the creative spark. Join iHeartMedia Chairman and CEO Bob Pittman as he analyzes the Math and Magic of marketing—sitting down with today's most gifted disruptors and compelling storytellers.
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 And Charlamagne Tha God!