A blow to South Canterbury as Timaru's Smithfield meat-works is confirmed to be closing.
The entire nearly 140-year-old site will close by December's end.
Alliance Group's told staff they'll be offered re-deployment at its other processing plants, where possible.
Waimakariri MP Matt Doocey told John MacDonald that he's gutted.
He says it'll impact many families and be felt by the wider community.
Christchurch Central MP Duncan Webb says it will have a knock-on effect for the city.
He says the loss of 500 jobs means 500-less incomes being spent, which local businesses will feel.
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 Newstalk.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
ZB Politics, Friday Labour's Duncan Web Morning Duncan.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
Good to see you, great to be here.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Thank you Nationals. Matt Docye morning Matt, Morning John. I'll
just get first off, lean lean into the microphone a bit, Matt.
I just want to get reaction first of all, to
confirmation that the Alliance Group is going to shut down
the its meatworks at Smithfield and Matte. Your initial reaction.
Speaker 4 (00:33):
To that, yeah, gutted. Really, I know that it'll be
affecting many families and the community down there. They'll be
feeling that. I mean, it has been something that has
been discussed and played out for a period of time
and we can only hope that I know. I have
(00:54):
read that Alliance are looking to offer some roles within
their other processing plants. I think they have a half
a dozen round the country and also the local MP
James Mea and mayors are looking to put a job's
fear together to help support people into employment. But hey,
there's no dressing this up. This will this will be
(01:15):
a real blow to the local area and families.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Why do you think this has happened.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
Well, largely from my understanding, it's a commercial decision. There
has been a decline in cheap processing down there and
Alliance has made a decision that they can pick the
processing up within other parts of their processing chain and so,
like I say, it's a big blow for the area
(01:43):
and just want to say our thoughts are with those
families and the community affected.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Don'tkan web what do you make of the of the
fact that when the meeting was held this morning, waiting
for these workers when they came out were representatives from
Abatois in Australia wanting to recruit staff.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
Yeah, I mean this is a problem for us right.
The fact is that we've got a contracting economy of
the government's quite deliberate approach to austerity. And when jobs
are lost and there's an economy not far away that's
doing okay, people are fully within their rights to get up,
(02:21):
impact their bags and sometimes for their families. They've got
to do it. And it's important. This is about five
hundred people work at smith Fields. That's going to have
a knock on effect in a small place like Timorrow.
It's not going to be just five hundred jobs that
go there's five hundred incomes there that are no longer
in that timorrow economy and so that's going to be
felt down the main street as well. So this is
a tough time for Timoru. And it's all very nice
(02:43):
to have jobs fear, but the increase and only yesterday
in Parliament Louise Epston said we expect jobless numbers to
continue to rise. So it's joblessness by design and that's
this is what you end up with, which is heartbreak.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
How can you how can you blame the closure of
a plant which has been around for one hundred thirty
nine years on a government which has been in office
for probably what Matt nine ten months? Yeah, I think that.
Speaker 4 (03:15):
Lesizing Duncan And look if you really want to look
at the track record of your government and the impact
that's had on the primary industries and the rural communities.
I just think your tone today is appalling.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Right, Matt, tame break for a sec How can you
how can back to my question, how can you accuse
the government which has been an office for five minutes
for the closure of a plant which has been around
for one hundred and thirty nine years.
Speaker 3 (03:38):
This government came in answer the question, how can you
do that because the government has come in to manage
the economy and said we want to we want to
call the heels. We want a slower growing economy. And
that is why Nicola Willis is claiming that inflation is
down because of who work the You know, the corollary
(04:01):
of that is a shrinking economy. Across the board. Economic
canis are worse because that is what Nikola Willis wanted
to happen. That's what being Minister of Finance is.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Do you think people in tim who particularly the workers
that have walked out from half an hour ago knowing
that their jobs are gone. People have been around, we
were content by someone who's about a cousin work there
for twenty three years. How do you think they would
feel knowing that you're sitting here politicizing this. Oh look,
I think because I just asked, I just asked for
your reaction, and straight away you went into an accusation mode.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
Look, look, I absolutely feel for those people who are
now having to find work or go down to the
MSD office.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
But it's a chance for you the school.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
No, but we've got to recognize that the number of
people who don't have jobs in New Zealand is part
of the way in which the economy is being managed
and that needs to be recognized and acknowledged.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
So you can blame a government which has been in
power for five minutes on the closure of a plant
which has been around for one hundred and thirty nine years.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
Increasing interest rates, increase the cost of businesses, it's out
of the mix. That's what's going on in the economy.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
Let's talk about dollars. Matt Ducy, with your Minister of
ACC hat On, what was your first reaction when you
heard about the seven point two billion dollar deficit.
Speaker 4 (05:18):
A look, it's hugely concerning. ACC needs to quite frankly
lift its game.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
I think, what do you mean by that?
Speaker 4 (05:26):
Well, I'll get into that, John, I'll explain what I mean.
The first thing I'd say is just want to be
very clear. We're not talking about any financial sustainability issues
in the short to medium term for ACC. So I
just want to be clear for those who are receiving
support from ACC today. What we're talking about is the
(05:47):
ocl which is the outstanding claims liability. Now that's grown
by eight billion dollars over the last year, which is
we've seen in that deficit of seven point two billion dollars.
There's a few reasons for that. In ACC, we have
stuff that is called influenceable, so inside accase control and
(06:07):
things that are outside its control. Outside of their control
think of treatment costs, inflation. What's inside their control is
declining rehabilitation rates that have been declining since COVID, which
is clearly not acceptable. So they need to focus on
their rehabilitation rates.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
We're current. What does that mean getting people off the
a SEC payments as soon as possible.
Speaker 4 (06:32):
Yeah, Basically the role of ACC is to rehabilitate people
from an accident where possible and support them getting back
into their work, and what we've seen is declining rehabilitation rates.
One other area I'd like to highlight two is court ruling.
So one court ruling alone is added three point six
(06:55):
billion dollars onto the future liability.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
Well, what was that ruling.
Speaker 4 (07:01):
It was to do with a loss of potential earnings.
Primarily have different buckets with an acc or different areas.
This is around sensitive claim and the ruling was that
the loss of potential earnings would be taken from the
time of the assault, yes, rather than the time it.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Was reported Okay, So when the government comes around to
deciding compensation for people as part of the Abuse and
Care inquiry, is it ACC's pocket of money or bucket
of money that that compensation is going to come from. Well,
because if that's the case, then the deficit's going to
get way worse.
Speaker 4 (07:49):
Yeah. No, you've got the redress. The financial redress is separate.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
How there will still be a succeeded as well, won't there.
Speaker 4 (07:58):
Well, what we'll be looking at is also the social
supports and rehabilitation supports that survivors that are for as well,
and that'll be a cross departmental response as well. So
this won't impact on those decisions.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
But those decisions will impact on ACC.
Speaker 4 (08:21):
You have to be very clear what you're asking their John,
because I'm not sure I am.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
So the government's determined determination on compensation, there will be
an aspect, an aspect that ACC is culpable for based
on this court decision you're talking about there, because people
who were abused in care will have lost opportunities to
earn money or have jobs or all of that, and
so that will fall on ACC, won't.
Speaker 4 (08:43):
Yes, but that that will just go through their entitlement process.
So that that will be separate. But like I say,
the court rulings have added some of those pressures. So
when you when you look at what has caused the deficit,
a third of that is around population growth inflation, a
third of it on declining rehabilitation rates, and the third
(09:06):
around court ruling.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
So how can you say, then lift your game when
all of those things have happened, All those things you're
talking about there, most of those things are not of
ACC's doing. Or like I say, there's two areas.
Speaker 4 (09:17):
It's influenceable and uninfluenceable, things inside their control and things
that aren't. And rehabilitation rates are you would have seen
ACC restructure this year to go back to one to
one case management. Restructuring's fine. It gives them a period
of time to address but actually at the end of
(09:38):
the day, they've got to make sure they're delivering better
in rehabilitation.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Which doesn't necessarily mean a better result for the people,
does it. It means a better balance on the balance?
Speaker 4 (09:48):
No, it is about a better result for the individual
because the individual is rehabilitating to a point where they
can go back to work, and that is what we
want ACC to be doing.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
Duncan very quickly your reaction.
Speaker 3 (10:03):
Look, last year it was one billion dollar surplus. This
year's seven odd billion deficit. A lot of this is actually,
as Matt has rightly said, outside of their control, because
it's about return on investment on the ACC fund and
what that looks like projected out across the claims period.
So those and we've said it actually happened before. Those
(10:24):
wild variances in deficits or surpluses actually are due to
projected investment returns in some cases. And that's I think
Matt said, that's about three billion dollars of it.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
Man love, they call it walker jumping. That's been more
like the slow boat of China. Can we can we
just tick this one off? Because man alive? This one
good result last night.
Speaker 4 (10:43):
Oh, to be quite candid, I don't care. It's up
to the Green Party.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
You do care.
Speaker 3 (10:47):
I don't see about time, right, And who knows what
Darling Darnel do now?
Speaker 2 (10:51):
But think she was just holding on because I say,
I don't quit a job unless you've got one to
go to.
Speaker 3 (10:56):
That's perfectly feasible. Right leaving politics? Who know not? Everyone's
got something to fall back on, right?
Speaker 2 (11:02):
You know what she leaves? I threatened to make this
really quick. But I'm just curious now that she's got
to leave. Does she does she? Is she paid out
for a certain period or is there a three month
the payments continue for three months? Does she?
Speaker 3 (11:15):
Good? Question?
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Does she get free year travel? I mean, what does
you get?
Speaker 4 (11:19):
I've got no understanding of the entitlements and maybe whether
it's in the walker jumping legislation it refers to entitlements as.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
Well, because if you get voted out, you get a
three month little payment to tide you over. But but
I don't think she'll get it. I think she's just
she's no longer remember, and that's that.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
Are you saying she shouldn't get it?
Speaker 3 (11:43):
Well? Probably not, you know, but I'll actually that you've
you've piqued my interest. I'll go and check.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
All right, very good? All right, let's look at being
an ex academic yourself. Duncan I suppose once an academic,
you're always one?
Speaker 3 (11:55):
I tell you just call me prof So.
Speaker 4 (11:57):
What do you what a lot of things?
Speaker 2 (12:00):
What were you a professor?
Speaker 3 (12:02):
I still am. Actually I'm an adjunct professor the university.
Actually we've slipped that out, professor.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
Clear that in your pecuniary interest.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
They want to get a desk and that's about it.
Speaker 3 (12:13):
Did you get that?
Speaker 2 (12:15):
All right, Professor Webb. But let me ask you this
staff and students at a tag university. They want the
university to take a stand. They're not interested in institutional neutrality.
They want the university to take a stand on the
conflict in the Middle East. What do you think?
Speaker 3 (12:31):
Yeah, you might know that I've got pretty strong views
on what's going on. I think it's appalling and that
Israel's well out of line. Having said that, you've got
an institution which has to protect academic freedom across the board,
including people holding views which are contrary to mine and
expressing them. So whilst I think it's appropriate for the university,
(12:53):
for instance, not to invest on an illegal operations on
the West Bank occupied West Bank, I think that's just
following international law, I'm not sure actually a university should
take a position itself, although every academics a titled to what.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
Do you think?
Speaker 3 (13:11):
Matt?
Speaker 4 (13:12):
Yeah, I mean I support the principle of neutrality. Although
I did have we giggle to myself when I read
Duncan's mate Grunt Robertson is putting a working group together
to look into this at the university. I thought old
habits die hard of all the old working groups. But look,
I think it's a valid discussion. I think you know
that's the words.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
No.
Speaker 4 (13:33):
No, I think Duncan will hopefully agree that. You know,
that is the place of universities to have those discussions
and those debates. But ultimately, I think you do have
to have neutrality because, like anything, universities are not homogeneous
and there will be a range of ideas and a
range of views and I'm not sure how a university
(13:55):
could accurately reflect only one certain group's view.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
Yeah. Someone once told me who happened to be a
provised chancellor at University Canterbury. He told me that he
defined university as a whole bunch of people connected by
a heading system. It's about it, not a thing.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
I mean, there are things you could take a stand on.
Right we look back at now and we think of
apartheid South Africa. No one would suggest that universities should
be you know, you couldn't take a stand on those things.
The difference well, you know, in my view of very
little israelis operating in apartheid state.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
So you've just said that they should remain neutral on this,
but not on a part time.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
Well, I'm just looking, you know, I do. As Matt said,
it's a really worth reflecting on. There's people who are
advocating for the Israel's position and saying that it's not illegal.
They're allowed to do that in a university. But you know,
I'm just you know, these are big historic issues and
we've turned Israel has kind of turned a real corner
(14:51):
with the kind of really disproportionate response they've taken here.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
I'm sorry hus this morning. The war's not over yet.
Speaker 3 (14:58):
Not over, Yeah, getting wide all right, it's a real tragedy.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
So Matt, when are you When are you sending the
crow in to take over Wellington City Council.
Speaker 4 (15:06):
Obviously the local government Minister Simeon Brown has met with
Wellington Mayor Tory far Now to talk about the issues
they have. Fair to say, it comes across as quite
as shambles. Are not being able to perform statutory functions
like a long term plan. Rate payers are down the
(15:28):
barrel of exponential rate increases, so we're really concerned, although
it is a whig concerned.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
Are you concerned or excited at the opportunity.
Speaker 4 (15:37):
No, I think it actually is a high threshold and
people want to see their ability through local democracy. Obviously
there's an election year next year for local councils to
make that decision. I actually think, you know, being a
bit parochial, it just reinforces when you look across the
councils here Christchwymak and Eddie and Selwyn, the three mayors,
(16:01):
how they're leading very stable and strong councils and thankfully
we're not in the position that Wellton's in.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
You didn't mention Can then, yes, well I think that's
probably might have another crack there.
Speaker 4 (16:13):
Self explanatory when the issues going along, well, I think
it's very clear when you look at the issues around consenting.
They're now reporting to the Environment Minister around six monthly
audits of their consenting time frames. Obviously we had the
issues with the e Can chair as well, So look older.
(16:36):
Stick to talking about christ Y mac and Selwyn council.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Your manco left out the other day saying that Peter
Scott there was some sort of witch hunt on e Can.
Of course, if you wondered what knocks up to these days,
I didn't quite know either, But then did.
Speaker 4 (16:54):
You not know I had heard Knock had been appointed
as one of the e WE representative right, okay.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
Around the table, are you going to go?
Speaker 4 (17:07):
That was that very anti democratic piece of legislation under
the last Labor government.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
So he had a guy saying, oh, you know poor
or Peter poor or Peter? Was that a bit rich?
Speaker 3 (17:19):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (17:19):
Look, I don't know the detail of that, but I
can only go by face value of what I read
about the reports of the driving infringements, and I think
probably his position was untenable.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
Sounds to me like your government isn't that fussed on?
He can either as well as the Wellington Council. Will
that be fair to say?
Speaker 4 (17:37):
Oh, fair to say national governments of the past, and
he can have track records. But obviously we respect local
democracy unlike previous governments that Duncan was in, and it's
up for local voters to decide. But what we want
to do, going back to your original point, under Simeon Brown,
(18:00):
the Local Government Minister is make sure all councils, regional
local performing their statutory responsibility.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
So Duncan wear a few were still in government, would
you guys be hands off with what's happening in Wellington?
Speaker 3 (18:13):
Look I think, so you've got a feisty council, but
it's actually making decisions. It's said its rates, it's got
some issues around its long term plans, but it's working
through them. Basically, unless your council is deadlocked or insolvent,
leave it to sort itself out. I mean we have,
(18:33):
as Matt says, there's an election next year. Let the
people of Wellington decide. And the threshold is really really
high for intervention, and it should be because local democracy
is really important. I think there's a conversation to be
had about how autonomous local democracy should be and whether
we've got that right, whether in fact we should be
(18:55):
more hands off with local democracy or not.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
So is the government getting it right at the stage.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
Well, these kind of it's a shambles and so on,
and it's sniping and I think that's really it's not
useful because it's making people afraid there's going to be
intervention when there's actually no apparent basis for that.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
All right, let's just finish off. Chris Sipkins said, you
say he thinks the government's nuts for not using Decinder
A Durn as some sort of international ambassador. What do
you think should be pretty good, was she Matt, Well,
I did hear.
Speaker 4 (19:27):
Some of those comments. He did reference tourism are as
a tourism minister, I haven't been contacted by Disinder Adurne
saying that she would like to be a global ambassadors
to support the country, especially in the area of tourism
as well. Look, I can understand he's just supporting a mate,
(19:50):
and I think people can see it for what it was.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Oh look, hold on, hold on, well what was it?
Speaker 4 (19:55):
Well, Like I say, it's well known that Chippy and
Disinder are good mates, and there was a bit of
criticism about her accepting the on when she was a
Republican and some of the claims about using her as
a global ambassador, Well, I mean did they reach out
to John Key at the time when he stepped down?
(20:17):
So I look, I just think you've got an opposition
leader who's sort of flailing a bit and just looking
for a bit of mediory a time, and he's just
barking in every car to be Frank.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
Matte, don't come. You're saying that the government won't be
taking up the suggestion or the offer.
Speaker 4 (20:37):
Well, it's not not my decision, but you.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
Couldn't look more uninterested in the idea if you tried.
Speaker 4 (20:43):
Yeah, sometimes you know, speak loud of the sometimes sometimes
I mean I was for quite a while here, I
was worried talking about the leader counsel.
Speaker 3 (20:58):
Well you should keep him on the shore and let.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
The ambassador for an Aubans speak.
Speaker 3 (21:03):
No. Look, I just think it's the beat ratch because
just you know, is an amazing global brand. She's highly
recognizable and whatever you like about her domestic politics, internationally,
she is immediately recognizable and respected. And if for New
Zealand we can leverage off that, I think that's a great.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
Idea, all right, brilliant towards course of the boss said it,
so you have.
Speaker 3 (21:26):
To say, well, no, no, no, actually it is absolutely true.
I know.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
Thank you, Donk web than you Politics Friday.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
For more from Category Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to News Talks That'd 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 Newstalk.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
ZB Politics, Friday Labour's Duncan Web Morning Duncan.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
Good to see you, great to be here.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Thank you Nationals. Matt Docye morning Matt, Morning John. I'll
just get first off, lean lean into the microphone a bit, Matt.
I just want to get reaction first of all, to
confirmation that the Alliance Group is going to shut down
the its meatworks at Smithfield and Matte. Your initial reaction.
Speaker 4 (00:33):
To that, yeah, gutted. Really, I know that it'll be
affecting many families and the community down there. They'll be
feeling that. I mean, it has been something that has
been discussed and played out for a period of time
and we can only hope that I know. I have
(00:54):
read that Alliance are looking to offer some roles within
their other processing plants. I think they have a half
a dozen round the country and also the local MP
James Mea and mayors are looking to put a job's
fear together to help support people into employment. But hey,
there's no dressing this up. This will this will be
(01:15):
a real blow to the local area and families.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Why do you think this has happened.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
Well, largely from my understanding, it's a commercial decision. There
has been a decline in cheap processing down there and
Alliance has made a decision that they can pick the
processing up within other parts of their processing chain and so,
like I say, it's a big blow for the area
(01:43):
and just want to say our thoughts are with those
families and the community affected.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Don'tkan web what do you make of the of the
fact that when the meeting was held this morning, waiting
for these workers when they came out were representatives from
Abatois in Australia wanting to recruit staff.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
Yeah, I mean this is a problem for us right.
The fact is that we've got a contracting economy of
the government's quite deliberate approach to austerity. And when jobs
are lost and there's an economy not far away that's
doing okay, people are fully within their rights to get up,
(02:21):
impact their bags and sometimes for their families. They've got
to do it. And it's important. This is about five
hundred people work at smith Fields. That's going to have
a knock on effect in a small place like Timorrow.
It's not going to be just five hundred jobs that
go there's five hundred incomes there that are no longer
in that timorrow economy and so that's going to be
felt down the main street as well. So this is
a tough time for Timoru. And it's all very nice
(02:43):
to have jobs fear, but the increase and only yesterday
in Parliament Louise Epston said we expect jobless numbers to
continue to rise. So it's joblessness by design and that's
this is what you end up with, which is heartbreak.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
How can you how can you blame the closure of
a plant which has been around for one hundred thirty
nine years on a government which has been in office
for probably what Matt nine ten months? Yeah, I think that.
Speaker 4 (03:15):
Lesizing Duncan And look if you really want to look
at the track record of your government and the impact
that's had on the primary industries and the rural communities.
I just think your tone today is appalling.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Right, Matt, tame break for a sec How can you
how can back to my question, how can you accuse
the government which has been an office for five minutes
for the closure of a plant which has been around
for one hundred and thirty nine years.
Speaker 3 (03:38):
This government came in answer the question, how can you
do that because the government has come in to manage
the economy and said we want to we want to
call the heels. We want a slower growing economy. And
that is why Nicola Willis is claiming that inflation is
down because of who work the You know, the corollary
(04:01):
of that is a shrinking economy. Across the board. Economic
canis are worse because that is what Nikola Willis wanted
to happen. That's what being Minister of Finance is.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Do you think people in tim who particularly the workers
that have walked out from half an hour ago knowing
that their jobs are gone. People have been around, we
were content by someone who's about a cousin work there
for twenty three years. How do you think they would
feel knowing that you're sitting here politicizing this. Oh look,
I think because I just asked, I just asked for
your reaction, and straight away you went into an accusation mode.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
Look, look, I absolutely feel for those people who are
now having to find work or go down to the
MSD office.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
But it's a chance for you the school.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
No, but we've got to recognize that the number of
people who don't have jobs in New Zealand is part
of the way in which the economy is being managed
and that needs to be recognized and acknowledged.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
So you can blame a government which has been in
power for five minutes on the closure of a plant
which has been around for one hundred and thirty nine years.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
Increasing interest rates, increase the cost of businesses, it's out
of the mix. That's what's going on in the economy.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
Let's talk about dollars. Matt Ducy, with your Minister of
ACC hat On, what was your first reaction when you
heard about the seven point two billion dollar deficit.
Speaker 4 (05:18):
A look, it's hugely concerning. ACC needs to quite frankly
lift its game.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
I think, what do you mean by that?
Speaker 4 (05:26):
Well, I'll get into that, John, I'll explain what I mean.
The first thing I'd say is just want to be
very clear. We're not talking about any financial sustainability issues
in the short to medium term for ACC. So I
just want to be clear for those who are receiving
support from ACC today. What we're talking about is the
(05:47):
ocl which is the outstanding claims liability. Now that's grown
by eight billion dollars over the last year, which is
we've seen in that deficit of seven point two billion dollars.
There's a few reasons for that. In ACC, we have
stuff that is called influenceable, so inside accase control and
(06:07):
things that are outside its control. Outside of their control
think of treatment costs, inflation. What's inside their control is
declining rehabilitation rates that have been declining since COVID, which
is clearly not acceptable. So they need to focus on
their rehabilitation rates.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
We're current. What does that mean getting people off the
a SEC payments as soon as possible.
Speaker 4 (06:32):
Yeah, Basically the role of ACC is to rehabilitate people
from an accident where possible and support them getting back
into their work, and what we've seen is declining rehabilitation rates.
One other area I'd like to highlight two is court ruling.
So one court ruling alone is added three point six
(06:55):
billion dollars onto the future liability.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
Well, what was that ruling.
Speaker 4 (07:01):
It was to do with a loss of potential earnings.
Primarily have different buckets with an acc or different areas.
This is around sensitive claim and the ruling was that
the loss of potential earnings would be taken from the
time of the assault, yes, rather than the time it.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Was reported Okay, So when the government comes around to
deciding compensation for people as part of the Abuse and
Care inquiry, is it ACC's pocket of money or bucket
of money that that compensation is going to come from. Well,
because if that's the case, then the deficit's going to
get way worse.
Speaker 4 (07:49):
Yeah. No, you've got the redress. The financial redress is separate.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
How there will still be a succeeded as well, won't there.
Speaker 4 (07:58):
Well, what we'll be looking at is also the social
supports and rehabilitation supports that survivors that are for as well,
and that'll be a cross departmental response as well. So
this won't impact on those decisions.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
But those decisions will impact on ACC.
Speaker 4 (08:21):
You have to be very clear what you're asking their John,
because I'm not sure I am.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
So the government's determined determination on compensation, there will be
an aspect, an aspect that ACC is culpable for based
on this court decision you're talking about there, because people
who were abused in care will have lost opportunities to
earn money or have jobs or all of that, and
so that will fall on ACC, won't.
Speaker 4 (08:43):
Yes, but that that will just go through their entitlement process.
So that that will be separate. But like I say,
the court rulings have added some of those pressures. So
when you when you look at what has caused the deficit,
a third of that is around population growth inflation, a
third of it on declining rehabilitation rates, and the third
(09:06):
around court ruling.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
So how can you say, then lift your game when
all of those things have happened, All those things you're
talking about there, most of those things are not of
ACC's doing. Or like I say, there's two areas.
Speaker 4 (09:17):
It's influenceable and uninfluenceable, things inside their control and things
that aren't. And rehabilitation rates are you would have seen
ACC restructure this year to go back to one to
one case management. Restructuring's fine. It gives them a period
of time to address but actually at the end of
(09:38):
the day, they've got to make sure they're delivering better
in rehabilitation.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Which doesn't necessarily mean a better result for the people,
does it. It means a better balance on the balance?
Speaker 4 (09:48):
No, it is about a better result for the individual
because the individual is rehabilitating to a point where they
can go back to work, and that is what we
want ACC to be doing.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
Duncan very quickly your reaction.
Speaker 3 (10:03):
Look, last year it was one billion dollar surplus. This
year's seven odd billion deficit. A lot of this is actually,
as Matt has rightly said, outside of their control, because
it's about return on investment on the ACC fund and
what that looks like projected out across the claims period.
So those and we've said it actually happened before. Those
(10:24):
wild variances in deficits or surpluses actually are due to
projected investment returns in some cases. And that's I think
Matt said, that's about three billion dollars of it.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
Man love, they call it walker jumping. That's been more
like the slow boat of China. Can we can we
just tick this one off? Because man alive? This one
good result last night.
Speaker 4 (10:43):
Oh, to be quite candid, I don't care. It's up
to the Green Party.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
You do care.
Speaker 3 (10:47):
I don't see about time, right, And who knows what
Darling Darnel do now?
Speaker 2 (10:51):
But think she was just holding on because I say,
I don't quit a job unless you've got one to
go to.
Speaker 3 (10:56):
That's perfectly feasible. Right leaving politics? Who know not? Everyone's
got something to fall back on, right?
Speaker 2 (11:02):
You know what she leaves? I threatened to make this
really quick. But I'm just curious now that she's got
to leave. Does she does she? Is she paid out
for a certain period or is there a three month
the payments continue for three months? Does she?
Speaker 3 (11:15):
Good? Question?
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Does she get free year travel? I mean, what does
you get?
Speaker 4 (11:19):
I've got no understanding of the entitlements and maybe whether
it's in the walker jumping legislation it refers to entitlements as.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
Well, because if you get voted out, you get a
three month little payment to tide you over. But but
I don't think she'll get it. I think she's just
she's no longer remember, and that's that.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
Are you saying she shouldn't get it?
Speaker 3 (11:43):
Well? Probably not, you know, but I'll actually that you've
you've piqued my interest. I'll go and check.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
All right, very good? All right, let's look at being
an ex academic yourself. Duncan I suppose once an academic,
you're always one?
Speaker 3 (11:55):
I tell you just call me prof So.
Speaker 4 (11:57):
What do you what a lot of things?
Speaker 2 (12:00):
What were you a professor?
Speaker 3 (12:02):
I still am. Actually I'm an adjunct professor the university.
Actually we've slipped that out, professor.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
Clear that in your pecuniary interest.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
They want to get a desk and that's about it.
Speaker 3 (12:13):
Did you get that?
Speaker 2 (12:15):
All right, Professor Webb. But let me ask you this
staff and students at a tag university. They want the
university to take a stand. They're not interested in institutional neutrality.
They want the university to take a stand on the
conflict in the Middle East. What do you think?
Speaker 3 (12:31):
Yeah, you might know that I've got pretty strong views
on what's going on. I think it's appalling and that
Israel's well out of line. Having said that, you've got
an institution which has to protect academic freedom across the board,
including people holding views which are contrary to mine and
expressing them. So whilst I think it's appropriate for the university,
(12:53):
for instance, not to invest on an illegal operations on
the West Bank occupied West Bank, I think that's just
following international law, I'm not sure actually a university should
take a position itself, although every academics a titled to what.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
Do you think?
Speaker 3 (13:11):
Matt?
Speaker 4 (13:12):
Yeah, I mean I support the principle of neutrality. Although
I did have we giggle to myself when I read
Duncan's mate Grunt Robertson is putting a working group together
to look into this at the university. I thought old
habits die hard of all the old working groups. But look,
I think it's a valid discussion. I think you know
that's the words.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
No.
Speaker 4 (13:33):
No, I think Duncan will hopefully agree that. You know,
that is the place of universities to have those discussions
and those debates. But ultimately, I think you do have
to have neutrality because, like anything, universities are not homogeneous
and there will be a range of ideas and a
range of views and I'm not sure how a university
(13:55):
could accurately reflect only one certain group's view.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
Yeah. Someone once told me who happened to be a
provised chancellor at University Canterbury. He told me that he
defined university as a whole bunch of people connected by
a heading system. It's about it, not a thing.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
I mean, there are things you could take a stand on.
Right we look back at now and we think of
apartheid South Africa. No one would suggest that universities should
be you know, you couldn't take a stand on those things.
The difference well, you know, in my view of very
little israelis operating in apartheid state.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
So you've just said that they should remain neutral on this,
but not on a part time.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
Well, I'm just looking, you know, I do. As Matt said,
it's a really worth reflecting on. There's people who are
advocating for the Israel's position and saying that it's not illegal.
They're allowed to do that in a university. But you know,
I'm just you know, these are big historic issues and
we've turned Israel has kind of turned a real corner
(14:51):
with the kind of really disproportionate response they've taken here.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
I'm sorry hus this morning. The war's not over yet.
Speaker 3 (14:58):
Not over, Yeah, getting wide all right, it's a real tragedy.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
So Matt, when are you When are you sending the
crow in to take over Wellington City Council.
Speaker 4 (15:06):
Obviously the local government Minister Simeon Brown has met with
Wellington Mayor Tory far Now to talk about the issues
they have. Fair to say, it comes across as quite
as shambles. Are not being able to perform statutory functions
like a long term plan. Rate payers are down the
(15:28):
barrel of exponential rate increases, so we're really concerned, although
it is a whig concerned.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
Are you concerned or excited at the opportunity.
Speaker 4 (15:37):
No, I think it actually is a high threshold and
people want to see their ability through local democracy. Obviously
there's an election year next year for local councils to
make that decision. I actually think, you know, being a
bit parochial, it just reinforces when you look across the
councils here Christchwymak and Eddie and Selwyn, the three mayors,
(16:01):
how they're leading very stable and strong councils and thankfully
we're not in the position that Wellton's in.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
You didn't mention Can then, yes, well I think that's
probably might have another crack there.
Speaker 4 (16:13):
Self explanatory when the issues going along, well, I think
it's very clear when you look at the issues around consenting.
They're now reporting to the Environment Minister around six monthly
audits of their consenting time frames. Obviously we had the
issues with the e Can chair as well, So look older.
(16:36):
Stick to talking about christ Y mac and Selwyn council.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Your manco left out the other day saying that Peter
Scott there was some sort of witch hunt on e Can.
Of course, if you wondered what knocks up to these days,
I didn't quite know either, But then did.
Speaker 4 (16:54):
You not know I had heard Knock had been appointed
as one of the e WE representative right, okay.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
Around the table, are you going to go?
Speaker 4 (17:07):
That was that very anti democratic piece of legislation under
the last Labor government.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
So he had a guy saying, oh, you know poor
or Peter poor or Peter? Was that a bit rich?
Speaker 3 (17:19):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (17:19):
Look, I don't know the detail of that, but I
can only go by face value of what I read
about the reports of the driving infringements, and I think
probably his position was untenable.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
Sounds to me like your government isn't that fussed on?
He can either as well as the Wellington Council. Will
that be fair to say?
Speaker 4 (17:37):
Oh, fair to say national governments of the past, and
he can have track records. But obviously we respect local
democracy unlike previous governments that Duncan was in, and it's
up for local voters to decide. But what we want
to do, going back to your original point, under Simeon Brown,
(18:00):
the Local Government Minister is make sure all councils, regional
local performing their statutory responsibility.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
So Duncan wear a few were still in government, would
you guys be hands off with what's happening in Wellington?
Speaker 3 (18:13):
Look I think, so you've got a feisty council, but
it's actually making decisions. It's said its rates, it's got
some issues around its long term plans, but it's working
through them. Basically, unless your council is deadlocked or insolvent,
leave it to sort itself out. I mean we have,
(18:33):
as Matt says, there's an election next year. Let the
people of Wellington decide. And the threshold is really really
high for intervention, and it should be because local democracy
is really important. I think there's a conversation to be
had about how autonomous local democracy should be and whether
we've got that right, whether in fact we should be
(18:55):
more hands off with local democracy or not.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
So is the government getting it right at the stage.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
Well, these kind of it's a shambles and so on,
and it's sniping and I think that's really it's not
useful because it's making people afraid there's going to be
intervention when there's actually no apparent basis for that.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
All right, let's just finish off. Chris Sipkins said, you
say he thinks the government's nuts for not using Decinder
A Durn as some sort of international ambassador. What do
you think should be pretty good, was she Matt, Well,
I did hear.
Speaker 4 (19:27):
Some of those comments. He did reference tourism are as
a tourism minister, I haven't been contacted by Disinder Adurne
saying that she would like to be a global ambassadors
to support the country, especially in the area of tourism
as well. Look, I can understand he's just supporting a mate,
(19:50):
and I think people can see it for what it was.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Oh look, hold on, hold on, well what was it?
Speaker 4 (19:55):
Well, Like I say, it's well known that Chippy and
Disinder are good mates, and there was a bit of
criticism about her accepting the on when she was a
Republican and some of the claims about using her as
a global ambassador, Well, I mean did they reach out
to John Key at the time when he stepped down?
(20:17):
So I look, I just think you've got an opposition
leader who's sort of flailing a bit and just looking
for a bit of mediory a time, and he's just
barking in every car to be Frank.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
Matte, don't come. You're saying that the government won't be
taking up the suggestion or the offer.
Speaker 4 (20:37):
Well, it's not not my decision, but you.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
Couldn't look more uninterested in the idea if you tried.
Speaker 4 (20:43):
Yeah, sometimes you know, speak loud of the sometimes sometimes
I mean I was for quite a while here, I
was worried talking about the leader counsel.
Speaker 3 (20:58):
Well you should keep him on the shore and let.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
The ambassador for an Aubans speak.
Speaker 3 (21:03):
No. Look, I just think it's the beat ratch because
just you know, is an amazing global brand. She's highly
recognizable and whatever you like about her domestic politics, internationally,
she is immediately recognizable and respected. And if for New
Zealand we can leverage off that, I think that's a great.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
Idea, all right, brilliant towards course of the boss said it,
so you have.
Speaker 3 (21:26):
To say, well, no, no, no, actually it is absolutely true.
I know.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
Thank you, Donk web than you Politics Friday.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
For more from Category Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to News Talks That'd be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.