Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by National’s Vanessa Weenink and Labour’s Reuben Davidson to dig into some of the biggest political stories of the week.
Christchurch City Council is pushing back against the closure of a cycleway at Heathcote, KiwiRail ordering upgrades due to a one in one-thousand-year risk. Is this really acceptable?
Is New Zealand capable of having an open and calm conversation about the Treaty Principles Bill?
Why does it seem as though only the “well off” students are making it into medical school?
And this week’s US Election saw Donald Trump election President – how will these next four years play out?
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 Morning's Podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk ZB eight.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Minutes past ten, Politics, Friday Nationals. Vanessa Winning, good morning,
Good morning John. We've let you know, haven't we. The
chocolate bar sitting out there, the Donald Trump chocolate bar.
It's not yours to take home. It's saved for another
four years.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
Yeah, well, I'm not sure if it'll be any more
tasty in four years.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Your prediction was that last week of a Kamala Harris victory.
That was was more what you're wanted as opposed to
what your thought wasn't it.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Well, you know what, we'll work with anyone our government,
be happy to see what happens and go with the flow.
My personal opinions. Nobody really cares about, oh I do?
Oh well, yeah, you know, it was pretty clear what
I would prefer.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
All Right, we'll get to that. Comeback to shortly. Reubend Davidson,
Labor morning.
Speaker 4 (00:56):
Good morning.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Where are you this morning?
Speaker 4 (01:00):
I'm I'm in Wellington this morning, John, and good morning Vanessa.
I've got some meetings here and I'm looking forward to
welcome a new Biden Catholic to Parliament. A local school.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Oh very nice. That'll be good. Let's talk about Ansue
we've talked about during the first hour on the show
this morning, and Kiwi Rail telling the christi At City
Council needs to shut down a stretch of the heath
Get Express cycle away for two years. It needs to
spend six and a half million dollars on safety improvements,
which will mean kids and other cyclists using the more
dangerous stretch of roads and competing for space with trucks.
(01:32):
Vanessa Wennick, this is your neck of the woods. How
do you feel about this?
Speaker 3 (01:36):
I think it's illogical completely, and I've seen a letter
to the chair of the board asking them to please
review their decision. And I know I spoke with Simeon
Brown this week and asked him, you know what we
might be able to do, and he's brought in some
advisors from Kiwi Rail to please explain to him. And
(01:58):
I think they've gone away to look at it again,
because honestly, when you've done a risk assessment that tells
you that maybe one in a thousand years kind of risk,
and you want to spend six and a half million
dollars and shut down the cycle way that doesn't even
cross the Blimen railway. I think locals are rightly up
in arms.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Does it not even cross the railway?
Speaker 3 (02:19):
No, No, that's the ridiculous. But the road crosses it
and where pedestrians and other cyclists who might go on
to it at that point on Scratton's Road, they might
go and use that. But actually the majority of the
people coming on the cycles just going completely parallel to
the railway.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
But it is still possible or cyclists are able to
cross over the track.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
Yeah, right, yeah, And the council measured at about fifty
a day on the most busy day. It's actually very
low and the risk is very very low. I would
think now nobody wants to see anybody injured, and I
can understand that, but when the CEO is talking about
the fact that he once saw somebody that had died
(03:05):
on a cross and that's kind of affected how he's thinking,
it makes me think that actually there's a lot more
emotion behind this decision than there is logic. And when
you're talking about spending this amount of money, and more
than that, putting the risking people's lives by sending them
down a more risky route, I think we need to
reassess it because we need to use really clear decision
(03:28):
making processes and not allow ourselves to get tied up
in the emotion of it.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
Ruben Davidson, the council, we spoke with Sarah Temple to
the last down and she said that, you know, the
council had had a budget for this work because it
knew it had to be done. And then Kew Wei
Rolls come back and said it's going to cost six
and a half million rather than two million. My take is,
look at the council's quibbling over four and a half
million bucks, then it's any consequences are on them. It
should just spend the money and avoid this delay.
Speaker 5 (03:52):
What do you think, Yeah, look, I think I think
there's a couple there's a few things going on here,
but at a part I think the issue here is
that you've got a government but Thomas to get easier
under his back on track.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Ruben, Rubb Ruben, I'm gonna say this politely. This is
getting really boring. How you do this because it's it's
called politics, Friday, but really you just you just take
to put too much of the politics into it. Sometimes
I'm asking you about the city Council.
Speaker 4 (04:24):
Yeah, but that's the slogan, back on track and you
can't cross the track.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
Oh okay, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant and boring, Rubin, irrelevant
and boring.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
Honesty, John, This is a simple matter. Vanessa could have
a really straightforward conversation with Simeon. Put the pressure on
and get this thing open.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Right, I'm going to move on to the US election. Now.
You have contributed absolutely nothing to that aspect of the conversation, Ruben,
but we will move on. I'll start with you, Ruben,
because in the wake of the US election, I saw
a very interesting piece online. I started a conversation involving
political writers at the New York Times, and they said,
the result and the loss that Kamela Harrison the Democrats
(05:08):
are enduring and coping with now is because they have
lost touch with the people that were once core to
the Democrat Party. How much of a danger do you
think that is for the Labor Party?
Speaker 3 (05:24):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (05:24):
Look, I don't think I don't think that's a danger,
and that's certainly not my experience on a daily baby.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Well that happened. Well, let me let me put it
back to you. They were saying that Donald Trump came through,
and the people who would typically align with the Democrats
voted for Donald Trump because he appeared to be more
interested in the fact that they are suffering economically. That
exact same thing happened last year with the election. The
people that you might think would vote for labor actually
or actually Christopher Luxen cares more about my back pocket
(05:51):
than Chris Hipkins does.
Speaker 4 (05:55):
Yeah. Look, I wouldn't agree with that in any way,
shape or form, but what I would what I would
suggest is that what we've seen around the world off
the back of the challenges social and economic that we
experienced through COVID is that people people had an appetite
for change and to change governments. And that's something that's
(06:18):
consistently happened around the world as a result of those
really big challenges that came through from COVID.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
So you're saying that there was nothing labor could do
to win last year.
Speaker 4 (06:31):
Uh, I think that's probably oversimplifying it. Well, but that
was government have an uphill challenge, right.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
But you're saying that there was no way labor could
have won anyway last year based on the global sentiment.
Speaker 4 (06:48):
No, I'm not saying I'm not saying that I'm saying
that the trend globally has been for people to be
seeking change.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Essa Wennick, you said that your government, you've stuck to
the key message very nicely. You said that your government
is looking forward to working with the Trump administration. How
can you say that when we talk about parties being
representative of certain sectors, and I think it's fair to
say that the National Party is representative of the export sector.
(07:16):
How can you be so excited and polite? And I
know that you're sticking to a key message, but how
can Christopher Luxen be so excited and polite when he
knows it's going to impact the very sector that put
your party in government.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
I think we've got to wait and see what happens,
because there's one person that I know is pretty unpredictable
and we all know that, and that's how Donald Trump's
going to react and behave And I don't know that
we can be that certain about how his relationship with
New Zealand will be. So I think that it's our
jobs in politics and in our diplomacy to make the
(07:53):
relationship with America as strong as we can. It's a
very important one as long along with all of the
others that we're working on. But I don't think that
we should downplay the fact that this is going to
be a difficult time. There's going to be a lot
of disruption in the world. There's going to be a
lot of difficulty, and that's difficult for everybody, and exporters
(08:15):
will have a tough time. Yeah, it's going to be hard.
I think it probably will be an unsettled time and
things will be hard, but I don't think we can
really predict what it will look like.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
Soe I said, yes, I'm not going to I'm not
buying into the hysteria until I see evidence of it.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
You are you buying into the hysteria now, I'm not
buying into the hysteria. I'm saying we have to wait
and see, because I don't think we can.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
How come your Prime Minister is not saying that.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
I think that's pretty close to what he's saying.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
But he would just put it differently.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
Possibly slightly different words.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
As he might say. Well, it would seem Vanessa that
the governor port a bite of a swifty and the
treaty principles built came on the on the agenda slightly
earlier and it's going to be in Parliament while the
Prime minister's out of town.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
Any coincidence, Well, I don't have anything to do with
what the Business Committee decides to do. But there's a
lot of shuffling around lots of times.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Do you hate this bill as much as the rest
of the Well, the leadership of the National Party seems.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
To I'm definitely in the same camp as the Prime
Minister that we are supporting it only at the first
reading and then we will not support it at the
second reading.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
All right, Labour's Reuben Davidson at the start. Well, when
we were talking earlier and I called you to account,
it was because of what I think was party or
political tribalism coming to the fore. And I don't think
people are interested in that. I reckon that this is
part of the problem. And I think this is why
(09:42):
your party and the Greens Party and Tabardi Mary are
so excitable about the Treaty Principals Bill, Because what is
so wrong about at least and maybe national as well,
or maybe National to scared of voters or losing voters,
but what is so wrong with at least discussing what
David Seymour has come up with but it seems you
guys are just block in your ears and don't even
want to talk about it, let alone think about it.
Speaker 4 (10:06):
We Look, I think I think it's this is a
really divisive both on the part of well.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Hold well, hold on, hold on, aren't you guys. Aren't
you guys telling people it's divisive? I mean, what are
we so immature in this country that we can't actually
have at least conversations about these things. I listened to
David c WA today and you might say, oh, yeah,
when you've junked the call idem McDonald, but I'll listened
to him and I thought, well, actually, where I would
agree with them is that there is a level of
political immaturity when it comes to this bill that I
(10:36):
think has been The flag is being waived, certainly by
the Labor Party, and there's a very small flag being
waved by the National Party.
Speaker 4 (10:43):
Yeah. Look, I think I think the important thing here
too is to listen to what people are saying. And
I'm sure Vanisa's had messages about this. I certainly had
lot of communication from people across New Zealand, but particularly
from people in it should have christ you to East
and they do not want to take up time having
(11:04):
this conversation, but want Sims and Wellington to pick us
apart to see a continuation of the positive progress that
was being made.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
Have you read the bill? Have you read? Have you
read the draft bill? Reuben? Have you read the book?
Have you read it?
Speaker 4 (11:23):
I think good leaders would focus on bringing people and
those opinions together.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
Sorry, theres something wrong with the line, I think, Reuben.
I just I just asked you, Reuben, have you read
the draft bill?
Speaker 4 (11:34):
Answered the question? I said, no, I haven't, Right I have.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
I have, and having read it, it highlights to me
the political immaturity around the discussion or the commentary about it.
Speaker 4 (11:51):
I just think that's the whole act.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Hold on the second, how can you be so opposed
to something and you haven't read.
Speaker 4 (11:57):
It, know what the principle behind it is?
Speaker 2 (12:02):
How can you be hum How can you be opposed
to something that you haven't read.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
No exactly what it's doing. It's taking us backwards. It's
it's having a conversation about saying, let's make positive progress
together off partnerships and in respecting and honoring that is
it is instead going back litigating things and taking us backwards.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
But you haven't read it, Vanessa, when did you have you?
Have you read? Have you read the drop book about
doing that?
Speaker 5 (12:34):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (12:35):
I couldn't quote it to you, but yeah, I have
read it.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
Okay. Did it strike you that maybe it doesn't deserve
the heat that it's attracting.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
Well, I think the point is here that most people
wouldn't read it, and most people don't get involved that
deeply in these kinds of discussions, which is exactly why
it wouldn't be right to have a referendum about something
as complex as this. But within national we do think
that it is okay to have a discussion about these things.
(13:03):
We think it's all right to have differing views.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Only to a certain but only to a certain point.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
Well, because we think that this is far too complex
of a discussion to be having in the context of
a referendum.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Do you think or would nationally be more supportive of
it if the referendum component was removed.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
Well, that's what we've done. This is the line in
the sand for us was that there is no there
is no place for any kind of referendum about this
and anything further, and we won't be supporting any of
the changes that we're we're prescribed and were suggested why
(13:42):
because we are not in the position to be making
those decisions at this point. It is not the right time.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
When will be the right time?
Speaker 3 (13:50):
I don't think that there will be a right time.
I think that you know, these things have been in
place for a long time and have got President.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
Vanessa for a government that to itself as being responsible
with tax payer money. How can the government defend spending
one ero point six million dollars on consultants on this
idea of putting a four kilometer tunnel under Wellington when
it was looked at three years ago and it was
chucked out because it was work. It was decided then
(14:18):
it would just be too expensive. How can you justify
that when before the election that you were banging on
about labour spending money on stuff from then not going
ahead with it and pouring money down the drain.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
You need to have expert advice and you need to
take it from the areas and the people that have
got that information and that knowledge, and it's not logical
to employ those people all the time. So we never
said that we would completely get rid of consultants. We
said that we would reduce the use of consultants and
we have done.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
You're comfortable with that level of spend.
Speaker 3 (14:48):
It would be great if they'd charge is less.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Be nice, Reuben Davidson. It's probably a bit of labor
light on the consultant use frontier. There's no criticism. You
guys can throw out the government on that one.
Speaker 4 (15:01):
Be careful what I say this morning, John.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
Well, actually on the attack. I'll put it differently, Reuben.
I've got high confidence and high faith in your ability
to somehow find a way to criticize the government over this.
Speaker 4 (15:18):
Be important thing here is that a lot of money
to spend on not a very good idea in the
first place.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
Let's one more thing to look at this new study
which has come out, and Vanessa, I'm particularly interesting in
your take on this. It says that it's still mostly
students from wealthy backgrounds and top schools who make it
through to medical school. And this is despite all the
efforts to get people from disadvantaged communities into the medical profession.
Does this tell us that, despite what we might like
(15:48):
to think, you still have to come from money to
get ahead in this country.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
It's really tough to get into med school. It really is.
And when I went to medical school. I did come
from a disadvantaged background, and I felt quite alone. It's
quite a lonely feeling when there's not many people like
you around. And yeah, I felt like a lot of
my classmates at that time were from much wealthier backgrounds
than me and still the same. It is like that
(16:17):
because and especially now, because our education system and the
public sector, it does seem to have poorer outcomes unfortunately.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
So what was your background compared to your fellow med students.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
So I went to a public high school, Muble Girls College,
and I was raised by a solo mother and my
father went to jail when I was five years old.
I you know, I had from time to time. My
mum was on the DPB and I had to work
from the time I was about twelve years old and
(16:53):
holidays and after school to be able to save up
enough money to be able to pay for my own
first year at university in the halls. And you know,
I had a student allowance and loan.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
What made you think, coming from background, that you could
a go to university b get through that health sciences
year and make it into the medical course.
Speaker 3 (17:16):
Well, my biology teacher in sixth form had told me
that she was a tutor at mid school and it
doesn't really matter where you come from, and it doesn't
matter what sort of marks you get or anything. What
you need to do is work really hard and if
you can focus on something and believe in yourself, then
you can do it. And my mother always taught me
(17:38):
that if you believe in yourself and can picture yourself
in that position and then work your way through it,
you will get there. And it's always been the way.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
So why is it there aren't more people like you?
Because the numbers of the study has been done and
it says that the majority are still from wealthy backgrounds
that train as doctors.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
Yeah, look, they have to get high percentage marks to
get into medical school. So an element of it is
that you need to be very academically able. Can't go away,
and I don't think anyone in New Zealand wants that
to happen. But actually the skills that you need to
be a doctor probably aren't that reliant on your intellect.
(18:17):
It's as much on your ability to relate to people
and to solve problems and do other things. But the
thing is that there are hurdles in place that are
hard for people to get past, and it's difficult if
you don't have that starting point to get into university.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
And to what's the starting point.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
Well, the starting point for getting into medical school is
that you need to be able to get through and
get very high grades in the first year at med school.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
But you don't have to be rich to be clever, No,
you don't.
Speaker 3 (18:48):
But you need to be well resourced to be able
to have the time to go to university. You need
to you know, when I went to university in the
late nineties. When I started, it was a different world
to where it is now. The cost of living was different.
There were Now it's really difficult for students, and a
(19:08):
lot of them from disadvantaged backgrounds need to work to
be able to support their families. All of these kind
of things make it difficult. It's harder to study and
learn when you're poor.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
So do you think opening another medical school, really, that's
just a waste of time when actually warwork needs to
be done at school. I encourage more people to go
to medical school.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
Well. The advantage of having a graduate program is that
people can come from a lot of different backgrounds and
have worked through some of those to those sort of
issues rather than going through the straight from school. Have
different degrees from different backgrounds, and so that is a
useful thing.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
Ruben Davidson, what does it say the findings about, you
know the fact that mainly it's still rich kids doing medicine.
What does it say about the way or the ability
for people to get ahead in this country?
Speaker 4 (20:00):
Firstly, I just want to acknowledge Aneth the story and
I was lucky enough to hear it in person when
you delivered your mate speech, Vanessa. And there's a powerful
and inspirational story about someone absolutely following and pursuing their
dream and believing in themselves to be there. And you know,
I have huge admiration for what you did to become
(20:21):
a doctor. And I think if and in order for
that to happen more.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
Often, Oh you're there, Robin, Oh are you there? On
the lines was getting a bit wonky and cut out.
You're going to have to start from after after congratulating Vanessa.
Speaker 4 (20:48):
Congratulations Vanessa forgetting there. And I think what would be
great would be more often for people because I meet
kids who absolutely have the to pursue their dream and
they have the smart they have everything they need to
be able to go to be and careers in any
(21:11):
field they choose, but there are obstacles in their way,
and we really do need to system in a two
street education sector.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
Okay, Reuben, the lines out of the lines of Paul,
and can I just bring up just said, we can
get one final comment. What are the barriers that you
talk about.
Speaker 4 (21:33):
Early engagement? And also people need to as Vanessa talked
about in her they need to see it to be it,
So they need someone in the school and when they're young,
they need to see people like them and those dreams
that they want.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
All right, brilliant, Hey, Reuben, thank you your time today.
Really enjoyed at the phone line that I think Donald
Trump wi been interfering, is targeting labor, labor party phone lines.
Vanessa Wenning, thank you for your time.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
Thank you young or for more from Caterbory Mornings with
John McDonald, listen live to news Talks It'd be christ
Church from nine am weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Canterbury Morning's Podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk ZB eight.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Minutes past ten, Politics, Friday Nationals. Vanessa Winning, good morning,
Good morning John. We've let you know, haven't we. The
chocolate bar sitting out there, the Donald Trump chocolate bar.
It's not yours to take home. It's saved for another
four years.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
Yeah, well, I'm not sure if it'll be any more
tasty in four years.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Your prediction was that last week of a Kamala Harris victory.
That was was more what you're wanted as opposed to
what your thought wasn't it.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Well, you know what, we'll work with anyone our government,
be happy to see what happens and go with the flow.
My personal opinions. Nobody really cares about, oh I do?
Oh well, yeah, you know, it was pretty clear what
I would prefer.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
All Right, we'll get to that. Comeback to shortly. Reubend Davidson,
Labor morning.
Speaker 4 (00:56):
Good morning.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Where are you this morning?
Speaker 4 (01:00):
I'm I'm in Wellington this morning, John, and good morning Vanessa.
I've got some meetings here and I'm looking forward to
welcome a new Biden Catholic to Parliament. A local school.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Oh very nice. That'll be good. Let's talk about Ansue
we've talked about during the first hour on the show
this morning, and Kiwi Rail telling the christi At City
Council needs to shut down a stretch of the heath
Get Express cycle away for two years. It needs to
spend six and a half million dollars on safety improvements,
which will mean kids and other cyclists using the more
dangerous stretch of roads and competing for space with trucks.
(01:32):
Vanessa Wennick, this is your neck of the woods. How
do you feel about this?
Speaker 3 (01:36):
I think it's illogical completely, and I've seen a letter
to the chair of the board asking them to please
review their decision. And I know I spoke with Simeon
Brown this week and asked him, you know what we
might be able to do, and he's brought in some
advisors from Kiwi Rail to please explain to him. And
(01:58):
I think they've gone away to look at it again,
because honestly, when you've done a risk assessment that tells
you that maybe one in a thousand years kind of risk,
and you want to spend six and a half million
dollars and shut down the cycle way that doesn't even
cross the Blimen railway. I think locals are rightly up
in arms.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Does it not even cross the railway?
Speaker 3 (02:19):
No, No, that's the ridiculous. But the road crosses it
and where pedestrians and other cyclists who might go on
to it at that point on Scratton's Road, they might
go and use that. But actually the majority of the
people coming on the cycles just going completely parallel to
the railway.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
But it is still possible or cyclists are able to
cross over the track.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
Yeah, right, yeah, And the council measured at about fifty
a day on the most busy day. It's actually very
low and the risk is very very low. I would
think now nobody wants to see anybody injured, and I
can understand that, but when the CEO is talking about
the fact that he once saw somebody that had died
(03:05):
on a cross and that's kind of affected how he's thinking,
it makes me think that actually there's a lot more
emotion behind this decision than there is logic. And when
you're talking about spending this amount of money, and more
than that, putting the risking people's lives by sending them
down a more risky route, I think we need to
reassess it because we need to use really clear decision
(03:28):
making processes and not allow ourselves to get tied up
in the emotion of it.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
Ruben Davidson, the council, we spoke with Sarah Temple to
the last down and she said that, you know, the
council had had a budget for this work because it
knew it had to be done. And then Kew Wei
Rolls come back and said it's going to cost six
and a half million rather than two million. My take is,
look at the council's quibbling over four and a half
million bucks, then it's any consequences are on them. It
should just spend the money and avoid this delay.
Speaker 5 (03:52):
What do you think, Yeah, look, I think I think
there's a couple there's a few things going on here,
but at a part I think the issue here is
that you've got a government but Thomas to get easier
under his back on track.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Ruben, Rubb Ruben, I'm gonna say this politely. This is
getting really boring. How you do this because it's it's
called politics, Friday, but really you just you just take
to put too much of the politics into it. Sometimes
I'm asking you about the city Council.
Speaker 4 (04:24):
Yeah, but that's the slogan, back on track and you
can't cross the track.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
Oh okay, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant and boring, Rubin, irrelevant
and boring.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
Honesty, John, This is a simple matter. Vanessa could have
a really straightforward conversation with Simeon. Put the pressure on
and get this thing open.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Right, I'm going to move on to the US election. Now.
You have contributed absolutely nothing to that aspect of the conversation, Ruben,
but we will move on. I'll start with you, Ruben,
because in the wake of the US election, I saw
a very interesting piece online. I started a conversation involving
political writers at the New York Times, and they said,
the result and the loss that Kamela Harrison the Democrats
(05:08):
are enduring and coping with now is because they have
lost touch with the people that were once core to
the Democrat Party. How much of a danger do you
think that is for the Labor Party?
Speaker 3 (05:24):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (05:24):
Look, I don't think I don't think that's a danger,
and that's certainly not my experience on a daily baby.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Well that happened. Well, let me let me put it
back to you. They were saying that Donald Trump came through,
and the people who would typically align with the Democrats
voted for Donald Trump because he appeared to be more
interested in the fact that they are suffering economically. That
exact same thing happened last year with the election. The
people that you might think would vote for labor actually
or actually Christopher Luxen cares more about my back pocket
(05:51):
than Chris Hipkins does.
Speaker 4 (05:55):
Yeah. Look, I wouldn't agree with that in any way,
shape or form, but what I would what I would
suggest is that what we've seen around the world off
the back of the challenges social and economic that we
experienced through COVID is that people people had an appetite
for change and to change governments. And that's something that's
(06:18):
consistently happened around the world as a result of those
really big challenges that came through from COVID.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
So you're saying that there was nothing labor could do
to win last year.
Speaker 4 (06:31):
Uh, I think that's probably oversimplifying it. Well, but that
was government have an uphill challenge, right.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
But you're saying that there was no way labor could
have won anyway last year based on the global sentiment.
Speaker 4 (06:48):
No, I'm not saying I'm not saying that I'm saying
that the trend globally has been for people to be
seeking change.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Essa Wennick, you said that your government, you've stuck to
the key message very nicely. You said that your government
is looking forward to working with the Trump administration. How
can you say that when we talk about parties being
representative of certain sectors, and I think it's fair to
say that the National Party is representative of the export sector.
(07:16):
How can you be so excited and polite? And I
know that you're sticking to a key message, but how
can Christopher Luxen be so excited and polite when he
knows it's going to impact the very sector that put
your party in government.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
I think we've got to wait and see what happens,
because there's one person that I know is pretty unpredictable
and we all know that, and that's how Donald Trump's
going to react and behave And I don't know that
we can be that certain about how his relationship with
New Zealand will be. So I think that it's our
jobs in politics and in our diplomacy to make the
(07:53):
relationship with America as strong as we can. It's a
very important one as long along with all of the
others that we're working on. But I don't think that
we should downplay the fact that this is going to
be a difficult time. There's going to be a lot
of disruption in the world. There's going to be a
lot of difficulty, and that's difficult for everybody, and exporters
(08:15):
will have a tough time. Yeah, it's going to be hard.
I think it probably will be an unsettled time and
things will be hard, but I don't think we can
really predict what it will look like.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
Soe I said, yes, I'm not going to I'm not
buying into the hysteria until I see evidence of it.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
You are you buying into the hysteria now, I'm not
buying into the hysteria. I'm saying we have to wait
and see, because I don't think we can.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
How come your Prime Minister is not saying that.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
I think that's pretty close to what he's saying.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
But he would just put it differently.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
Possibly slightly different words.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
As he might say. Well, it would seem Vanessa that
the governor port a bite of a swifty and the
treaty principles built came on the on the agenda slightly
earlier and it's going to be in Parliament while the
Prime minister's out of town.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
Any coincidence, Well, I don't have anything to do with
what the Business Committee decides to do. But there's a
lot of shuffling around lots of times.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Do you hate this bill as much as the rest
of the Well, the leadership of the National Party seems.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
To I'm definitely in the same camp as the Prime
Minister that we are supporting it only at the first
reading and then we will not support it at the
second reading.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
All right, Labour's Reuben Davidson at the start. Well, when
we were talking earlier and I called you to account,
it was because of what I think was party or
political tribalism coming to the fore. And I don't think
people are interested in that. I reckon that this is
part of the problem. And I think this is why
(09:42):
your party and the Greens Party and Tabardi Mary are
so excitable about the Treaty Principals Bill, Because what is
so wrong about at least and maybe national as well,
or maybe National to scared of voters or losing voters,
but what is so wrong with at least discussing what
David Seymour has come up with but it seems you
guys are just block in your ears and don't even
want to talk about it, let alone think about it.
Speaker 4 (10:06):
We Look, I think I think it's this is a
really divisive both on the part of well.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Hold well, hold on, hold on, aren't you guys. Aren't
you guys telling people it's divisive? I mean, what are
we so immature in this country that we can't actually
have at least conversations about these things. I listened to
David c WA today and you might say, oh, yeah,
when you've junked the call idem McDonald, but I'll listened
to him and I thought, well, actually, where I would
agree with them is that there is a level of
political immaturity when it comes to this bill that I
(10:36):
think has been The flag is being waived, certainly by
the Labor Party, and there's a very small flag being
waved by the National Party.
Speaker 4 (10:43):
Yeah. Look, I think I think the important thing here
too is to listen to what people are saying. And
I'm sure Vanisa's had messages about this. I certainly had
lot of communication from people across New Zealand, but particularly
from people in it should have christ you to East
and they do not want to take up time having
(11:04):
this conversation, but want Sims and Wellington to pick us
apart to see a continuation of the positive progress that
was being made.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
Have you read the bill? Have you read? Have you
read the draft bill? Reuben? Have you read the book?
Have you read it?
Speaker 4 (11:23):
I think good leaders would focus on bringing people and
those opinions together.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
Sorry, theres something wrong with the line, I think, Reuben.
I just I just asked you, Reuben, have you read
the draft bill?
Speaker 4 (11:34):
Answered the question? I said, no, I haven't, Right I have.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
I have, and having read it, it highlights to me
the political immaturity around the discussion or the commentary about it.
Speaker 4 (11:51):
I just think that's the whole act.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Hold on the second, how can you be so opposed
to something and you haven't read.
Speaker 4 (11:57):
It, know what the principle behind it is?
Speaker 2 (12:02):
How can you be hum How can you be opposed
to something that you haven't read.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
No exactly what it's doing. It's taking us backwards. It's
it's having a conversation about saying, let's make positive progress
together off partnerships and in respecting and honoring that is
it is instead going back litigating things and taking us backwards.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
But you haven't read it, Vanessa, when did you have you?
Have you read? Have you read the drop book about
doing that?
Speaker 5 (12:34):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (12:35):
I couldn't quote it to you, but yeah, I have
read it.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
Okay. Did it strike you that maybe it doesn't deserve
the heat that it's attracting.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
Well, I think the point is here that most people
wouldn't read it, and most people don't get involved that
deeply in these kinds of discussions, which is exactly why
it wouldn't be right to have a referendum about something
as complex as this. But within national we do think
that it is okay to have a discussion about these things.
(13:03):
We think it's all right to have differing views.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Only to a certain but only to a certain point.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
Well, because we think that this is far too complex
of a discussion to be having in the context of
a referendum.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Do you think or would nationally be more supportive of
it if the referendum component was removed.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
Well, that's what we've done. This is the line in
the sand for us was that there is no there
is no place for any kind of referendum about this
and anything further, and we won't be supporting any of
the changes that we're we're prescribed and were suggested why
(13:42):
because we are not in the position to be making
those decisions at this point. It is not the right time.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
When will be the right time?
Speaker 3 (13:50):
I don't think that there will be a right time.
I think that you know, these things have been in
place for a long time and have got President.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
Vanessa for a government that to itself as being responsible
with tax payer money. How can the government defend spending
one ero point six million dollars on consultants on this
idea of putting a four kilometer tunnel under Wellington when
it was looked at three years ago and it was
chucked out because it was work. It was decided then
(14:18):
it would just be too expensive. How can you justify
that when before the election that you were banging on
about labour spending money on stuff from then not going
ahead with it and pouring money down the drain.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
You need to have expert advice and you need to
take it from the areas and the people that have
got that information and that knowledge, and it's not logical
to employ those people all the time. So we never
said that we would completely get rid of consultants. We
said that we would reduce the use of consultants and
we have done.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
You're comfortable with that level of spend.
Speaker 3 (14:48):
It would be great if they'd charge is less.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Be nice, Reuben Davidson. It's probably a bit of labor
light on the consultant use frontier. There's no criticism. You
guys can throw out the government on that one.
Speaker 4 (15:01):
Be careful what I say this morning, John.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
Well, actually on the attack. I'll put it differently, Reuben.
I've got high confidence and high faith in your ability
to somehow find a way to criticize the government over this.
Speaker 4 (15:18):
Be important thing here is that a lot of money
to spend on not a very good idea in the
first place.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
Let's one more thing to look at this new study
which has come out, and Vanessa, I'm particularly interesting in
your take on this. It says that it's still mostly
students from wealthy backgrounds and top schools who make it
through to medical school. And this is despite all the
efforts to get people from disadvantaged communities into the medical profession.
Does this tell us that, despite what we might like
(15:48):
to think, you still have to come from money to
get ahead in this country.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
It's really tough to get into med school. It really is.
And when I went to medical school. I did come
from a disadvantaged background, and I felt quite alone. It's
quite a lonely feeling when there's not many people like
you around. And yeah, I felt like a lot of
my classmates at that time were from much wealthier backgrounds
than me and still the same. It is like that
(16:17):
because and especially now, because our education system and the
public sector, it does seem to have poorer outcomes unfortunately.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
So what was your background compared to your fellow med students.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
So I went to a public high school, Muble Girls College,
and I was raised by a solo mother and my
father went to jail when I was five years old.
I you know, I had from time to time. My
mum was on the DPB and I had to work
from the time I was about twelve years old and
(16:53):
holidays and after school to be able to save up
enough money to be able to pay for my own
first year at university in the halls. And you know,
I had a student allowance and loan.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
What made you think, coming from background, that you could
a go to university b get through that health sciences
year and make it into the medical course.
Speaker 3 (17:16):
Well, my biology teacher in sixth form had told me
that she was a tutor at mid school and it
doesn't really matter where you come from, and it doesn't
matter what sort of marks you get or anything. What
you need to do is work really hard and if
you can focus on something and believe in yourself, then
you can do it. And my mother always taught me
(17:38):
that if you believe in yourself and can picture yourself
in that position and then work your way through it,
you will get there. And it's always been the way.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
So why is it there aren't more people like you?
Because the numbers of the study has been done and
it says that the majority are still from wealthy backgrounds
that train as doctors.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
Yeah, look, they have to get high percentage marks to
get into medical school. So an element of it is
that you need to be very academically able. Can't go away,
and I don't think anyone in New Zealand wants that
to happen. But actually the skills that you need to
be a doctor probably aren't that reliant on your intellect.
(18:17):
It's as much on your ability to relate to people
and to solve problems and do other things. But the
thing is that there are hurdles in place that are
hard for people to get past, and it's difficult if
you don't have that starting point to get into university.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
And to what's the starting point.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
Well, the starting point for getting into medical school is
that you need to be able to get through and
get very high grades in the first year at med school.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
But you don't have to be rich to be clever, No,
you don't.
Speaker 3 (18:48):
But you need to be well resourced to be able
to have the time to go to university. You need
to you know, when I went to university in the
late nineties. When I started, it was a different world
to where it is now. The cost of living was different.
There were Now it's really difficult for students, and a
(19:08):
lot of them from disadvantaged backgrounds need to work to
be able to support their families. All of these kind
of things make it difficult. It's harder to study and
learn when you're poor.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
So do you think opening another medical school, really, that's
just a waste of time when actually warwork needs to
be done at school. I encourage more people to go
to medical school.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
Well. The advantage of having a graduate program is that
people can come from a lot of different backgrounds and
have worked through some of those to those sort of
issues rather than going through the straight from school. Have
different degrees from different backgrounds, and so that is a
useful thing.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
Ruben Davidson, what does it say the findings about, you
know the fact that mainly it's still rich kids doing medicine.
What does it say about the way or the ability
for people to get ahead in this country?
Speaker 4 (20:00):
Firstly, I just want to acknowledge Aneth the story and
I was lucky enough to hear it in person when
you delivered your mate speech, Vanessa. And there's a powerful
and inspirational story about someone absolutely following and pursuing their
dream and believing in themselves to be there. And you know,
I have huge admiration for what you did to become
(20:21):
a doctor. And I think if and in order for
that to happen more.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
Often, Oh you're there, Robin, Oh are you there? On
the lines was getting a bit wonky and cut out.
You're going to have to start from after after congratulating Vanessa.
Speaker 4 (20:48):
Congratulations Vanessa forgetting there. And I think what would be
great would be more often for people because I meet
kids who absolutely have the to pursue their dream and
they have the smart they have everything they need to
be able to go to be and careers in any
(21:11):
field they choose, but there are obstacles in their way,
and we really do need to system in a two
street education sector.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
Okay, Reuben, the lines out of the lines of Paul,
and can I just bring up just said, we can
get one final comment. What are the barriers that you
talk about.
Speaker 4 (21:33):
Early engagement? And also people need to as Vanessa talked
about in her they need to see it to be it,
So they need someone in the school and when they're young,
they need to see people like them and those dreams
that they want.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
All right, brilliant, Hey, Reuben, thank you your time today.
Really enjoyed at the phone line that I think Donald
Trump wi been interfering, is targeting labor, labor party phone lines.
Vanessa Wenning, thank you for your time.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
Thank you young or for more from Caterbory Mornings with
John McDonald, listen live to news Talks It'd be christ
Church 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
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!