National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Duncan Webb joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.
They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from Coalition dramas, the medias behaviour in Parliament, and if the Residential Red Zone should be built on again.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk Z'B.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
I said before I was going to say before ten,
but you get the bruises in the room, there's going
to be fireworks.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
It's all on here.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Junk of weird. Nice to see. How come you come
in with a little red book?
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Red book has my main kind of political. I'll open
it and read it.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Just random.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Two pints of milk for bread.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
That must be pretty old pints of milk. Yeah, Matt,
doc morning, I see you. Good morning. You're at the
Rugby last week, last fridayn I can't believe it's a
week since we were setting up at the at the
cafe on your street.
Speaker 4 (00:45):
How good was that?
Speaker 2 (00:45):
And the cafe?
Speaker 4 (00:46):
I love the guy from Ringing Order who just turned
up and you invited him to sit down.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
He was like the adjudicator. I thought it was. He
was a bit hopeless. So I didn't take science, didn't
pick a winner.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Here you are having coffee ketch up, so I thought
this was a without bias. What do you mean catching
up for a coffee?
Speaker 1 (01:04):
No?
Speaker 4 (01:04):
With the show came from a cafe this week, you'll
make mean it was obviously it was balanced.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
I'm obviously the one day that you weren't listening to
the show, wasn't it.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
And the day you're back in town and you're not
listening to the show, sorry about it.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
Yeah, Duncan was preloading before the game.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
Come November, you live all the time in the world.
I will ye see up until you'll be ringing Duncan
from Stans. Yes, it will be indignant from st Alban's
indignant from st Alban's brilliant. How come your boss Duncan
web is talking about means testing the pension when three
with three years he did, and three years ago he
(01:42):
said no, no, no, no into that at all, no
plan at all. Yeah, no, there's no plan, but he's
open to it.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
Look what we need and I hope Matt would agree,
is we need to have a sustainable pension scheme and
we look, you know, this question is a thirty year question.
We're going to look out to thirty years, yes, and
we need it. We need some you know, to get
together across the parties. As you know, Ki saves a
really good example of we no one's going to mess
with its fundamentals and we need to make sure that
(02:09):
is the case. We want it to stay at sixty five.
We've got no plans whatsoever to mean to test it,
but we do want to have a sustainable scheme and
we're open talking to across parties so that we lock
it in and it's not an election issue, because you
don't want to have something like the pension scheme being.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
That's perfectly reasonable that no one does anything about it.
Matt Durcy, what's your position on it?
Speaker 4 (02:33):
Well, National campaigned in twenty twenty three by raising the
limit to sixty seven the age. We haven't announced our
position for this coming election, so I won't get ahead
of that, but fair to stay where I agree with Duncan,
there's some real structural issues there around affordability. But where
(02:54):
I disagree with Duncan is they've got to come out
and start articulating where their positions are on these very
important issues for New Zealand as they start to think
about the leaving election. No, no, but hold on. So
you know, we've got a leader who's out saying yeah, nah,
Duncan's saying nah, I mean it's all.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
A bit, you know, And of course Dunkin there same
which he was here, really isn't it, and no one
can hold him to account after November.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
I mean, this is the Labor we are not just
have a point. We are older positions testing the pension.
That is the Labor That's position.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Says duncan Web until November.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
Leadership. I meant no, people want to know that, so
don't undermine it just because I'm resigning. The Labor Party
position is we are not means testing the preception.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
So why is Chris Hippins, your leader saying is.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
Didn't say that?
Speaker 1 (03:43):
He did.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
He said that in terms of the next thirty years,
we're open to discussions on all aspects of the pension,
but this we are not. We have no plans to
means test the p.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
He said someone earning one hundred k or whatever, one
hundred thousand dollars and getting the pension didn't sit right
with them.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
Well that that's a statement of his views. But the
Labor Party and Chris Hipkins, there's no plan to means
test pension.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
Or his views.
Speaker 4 (04:09):
He's the leader of the opposition, so surely it's party again.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
It's a little bit like the Prime Minister having one
view and the Foreign Minister having another. Isn't it.
Speaker 4 (04:17):
Matt Tuson, Well, I think what we saw this week
was actually quite a robust debate between coalition partners, you know,
staable coalition government. But you know what we see from
Chris Hipkins is you know, it's the politics of envy.
Anyone who's done well for themselves deserves to get hit
by a labor gard Okay.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Well let me ask you how come when you asked
at Parliament this week in relation to this issue with
Winston Peters, you said you backed the Prime Minister, yes,
But when you were asked whether you backed the Prime
minister's push to support the US, you turned and walked
into the debating chamber without answering y opportunity.
Speaker 4 (04:55):
And that is from Thomas Coglan. I'd actually disagree with that.
What actually happened, and I've got the verbatim because we
record our interviews on the tiles was I said, I've
got to go now because bells are ringing to go
into the house. So look, clearly we've got it on
record through the emails.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
On how many times we've said politicians gas bagging with
the bells ringing incessantly in the background. They don't seem
to be too worried about the bells going on.
Speaker 4 (05:20):
Well, that's for them to defend John. But you're asking
me a question of whether I just left an open
question and turned round and left. I said, I've got
to go, So that that is not an accurate reflection
of discussion.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
And brilliant So it has an opportunity for you. So
do you back Christoph Lutson's push to support the US.
Speaker 4 (05:37):
Yeah, but that's my point that actually, when you look
at the emails, I think that's been mischaracterized. The request
came through when it looked at the response from Albanezi
in Australia against our position, and the Foreign Minister responded
about our position. So all you're seeing is actually what
happens daily is discussions in a coalition government around positions
(05:58):
of the coalition. Look, whether it be a caucus room
or three parties in a coalition, you have differing views
and you can come to a principal agreement. And that's
all those emails show through in O I A. I
mean those oi as come out all the time of
people having discussions. People would expect that is it debating
a point?
Speaker 2 (06:17):
Does it healthy robust discussion? Though? When you've got two
members of the two senior leaders in one coalition part
party or partner National telling us the voters not to
trust the leader of another party in the coalition. Is
that Is that just robust daily discussion?
Speaker 4 (06:33):
Is it was that when we said a vote for
New Zealand First is potentially a vote for Labor, Well,
that's for New Zealand First to defend.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
And then you hear it and whether they will do that.
Speaker 4 (06:42):
I think you've got to be clear if you want
to send a right government, there's only one party that
will deliver it.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
And you've got National saying that New Zealand versus putting
politics over national interest and that doesn't that does not
sound to me like your normal robust discussion, particularly when
it's when it's said publicly.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
Yeah, I think we've got to be very clear when
we speak publicly on behalf of the government. And I
think that was the minister's point that he does not
want to see politics are put above that, and quite rightly,
when you look at all the naysayers he said, oh,
the Prime Minister won't keep the coalition stable, you know,
(07:20):
fall apart. In the first six to nine months he's
actually held it very stable. He's been showing good leadership
and it's a strong and stable government.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Won't just smile them because.
Speaker 4 (07:30):
You're smiling at me, trying to get me to smile,
and I'm just.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
A smiley guy. Yeah right, So I'll just sit there
and smile right through politics, Rilia, and we'll all smile
at each other.
Speaker 4 (07:39):
Why don't you smile at Duncan? What is it only mean?
Speaker 2 (07:41):
Well, I'm not smiling at him because Duncan, there'll be
no hope in hell? Have you guys holding it together
with Labor and the Greens and too party Mari? I mean,
actually a healing for the job Christopher Luxen's done. It
would be a holiday compared to.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
Well, just like what Hapkins with, Matt wants people to
vote for his party. We want people to vote for
the Labor Party because the Labor Party has a proven
track record. I mean on what of having a stable
government where you have a coalition, a well managed coalition
that doesn't sit there fighting in public, doesn't have a
foreign minister saying I'm ultimately responsible for our foreign affairs policy.
(08:19):
I talk to the Prime Minister, I consult with him,
but I'm the big dog in the room. So you've
got a huge ego fight going on there. Winston Peters
doesn't run foreign affairs. I hope, I hope it's a
cabinet matter. But he seems to think that he calls
all the shots in his domain. That's not how coalitions work.
They were what should work. Quite peratively. We've seen David
(08:42):
Seymour run the treaty side of government. We've got Winston
Peters running foreign affairs. What happened to the prime minister?
Speaker 2 (08:50):
He is m I A where is the prime minister
this week?
Speaker 4 (08:54):
Well, the Prime Minister is keeping a strong and stable
government together. Good leadership and I disagree with what Duncan's saying.
And actually, when you look at the before moments of
this government over the last two and a half years,
strong and stable would come to mind.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
All right, it's just like the pretty Principles Bill with
fifty thousand people in the street, that's not a stable government.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
All right?
Speaker 4 (09:17):
How about three warders? How many got in the street then,
including your campaign manager?
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Oh, Brilli, here we go. It is this is fun.
I told today. You get the two bruises in here,
you've got fireworks. They continue next, just carry on in
Parliament and the Speaker looking at media behavior. Where do
you see this going, man, I mean a five days
suspension for Mikey Sherman and her producer. Is this going
to be a consistent thing that nationals looking at the
(09:44):
way journalists behave.
Speaker 4 (09:45):
Yeah, I hope it is consistent because it should be
consistent across everyone. In Parliament. There is standing orders that
do have the rules of Parliament and the precinct. They
are the responsibility of the Speaker the Speaker to uphold
and quite frankly, when there are parts of the precinct
that media should not be be in as such, outside
(10:08):
the Whips Office, there's so many places I'm sure don't
can agree where they can talk to MPs and ministers.
I think that's not right. And actually, when you look
at what was actually been said to Stuart Smith about
the inference that he didn't come out and speak now
he'd be painted very badly the next morning, you know
that that's that's really questionable.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Yeah, but I mean don't can we People who work
in news have used all sorts of things for a
very long time time to convince people to speak.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
Yeah, that's right, it's not new. I mean Asbects say,
is there's some pretty clear media rules. You know. Those
people have given officers on precinct and they're entitled to
go freely around the precinct pretty much. But they can't
kind of stop an MP on their way to a
meeting in some random hall. There's some places where they
can stop you, and we see that on television every night.
(11:01):
Or you can make an agreement. They pop into my
office and we can have a chat. But if you
go to your office and you've got work to do,
you can't have a media battering down the door. And
ultimately it's to speak as call as to what's acceptable.
And he's made a call here. He's stood a journalist
down for five days, and that seems to be a
pretty reasonable outcome.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
All right, let's talk about the issue of building and
the residential red sign, because we did a couple of
hours talk back on it Eastern. Even you know, fifteen
years after the quakes, people still have some very strong
feelings about it. What's your position, Duncan?
Speaker 3 (11:32):
Yeah, Look, I think it's actually a much more of
a kind of social question than an economic one. It's
a lot of trauma out there, you know, I had
friends and family whose houses were lost, and it's kind
of a place of memorial and reflection, I think. And
even as I go there now and I look, and
I know, I look at spaces where I knew where
(11:53):
the houses were, and I think that's hard to express
to people who went in Christs at the time. So
I think let's just leave it to become a beautiful
open space. I don't think the economic gains warrant kind
of re visiting some of the hurt that happened when
people were ultimately forcibly removed from their homes, and not
everyone wanted to leave.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Although Matt doc the red zone area in your neck
of the woods, some of that has been repurposed, hasn't it,
Not that I'm aware of. But was housing around the
fringe of.
Speaker 4 (12:22):
It, not that I'm aware of. There was a proposal
we while ago in a small part of the red
zone in Pines Beach in Kadakey, which I think, to
Duncan's point, created quite a forceful response from community members
who weren't actually very supportive of it. And I'm with
Duncan on this. I just think there's a lot of
(12:44):
sensitivities here. If you actually take a step back, what
is the solution trying to solve? What is the problem
definition here? And if it is, well, you know we
need to build houses, which I accept, but actually we've
got an abundance of land in north and west of
christ future, but it's not sure why you need to
focus on the red zone.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Just on that weare to call is st from my
Blackburn who's a property consultants construction sector consultant, and he
was saying that within a very short time we're going
to be the Christis city is going to be knocking
on the door of Selwyn in Wymak in terms of
no further space to expand.
Speaker 4 (13:21):
Yes, but that's actually an issue around why we have
three councils over greater christ Church because to that very
point there is a bit of a silent battle going
on of each council trying to protect and grow its
rating base. It shouldn't be Oh, christ Church has got
nowhere to grow at all costs, so let's go into
the red zone. It's actually, well, we know Selwyn and
(13:42):
Wymark's got land, so let's do it for the greater good.
Speaker 3 (13:44):
We've got We've got a plan which allows for a
more dense city, more houses being replaced one house being
replaced with three and four and so on, and that's
a good thing.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Yeah, But I mean, I'm I'm not anti intensification, but
do you think it's getting to the point now where
people have had a bit of a gutsful of that?
Speaker 3 (14:03):
There are certainly some people, and I get that if
you're living in a leaf neighborhood and something you know,
goes up next door, that's got not even well, you know,
I get it, right, a lower density neighborhood and something
more dense goes up that that does impact you. But
at the same time, houses which are close to the
local shopping center and the local parks and schools are
(14:24):
really good for people, you know, particularly young people, people
with young families. And I think it's a great thing.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
All right. You know. The one thing that was sort
of this out mister Melgamation and you can take the
fences down and said that the christ Church can expand
wherever it's one that sounds like to take over. That's
that's inevitable, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (14:41):
Yes, But that's why the government has instructed councils and
mayors to look at plans for local reorganization to that
very point.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
All right, Matt, Doucy, Duncan web with us. It's ten
twenty five, it is, what is it ten twenty eight?
What time flies on politics? Right? Well, I'm assuming it
does for you as well, Matt, Doucy and Duncan.
Speaker 3 (14:59):
With time still, if I had, if I had, if
I had a day to live, I'd spend it here
because it's need to last forever.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
Okay, thank you very much.
Speaker 4 (15:12):
I'll look at him and he's retiring and instead of
coming out, an't he a little bit more frank reciting,
I'd get him on every week from there.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
I know though, with him retiring that I won't get
the Christmas card this year.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
I'll see what I can do.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Although you were just saying that after the election, you'll
be you get the three months you're on the pay
roll for three months, right, that's right, So technically you'll
still be able to send me a Christmas card.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
Yeah, I will still be able to afford postage.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
So brilliant. All right. The school lunch program in the
news today for glitchers over the past couple of years,
Matt Doocy. I heard David Seymour today saying it was
quite telling, Mike. It was quite ironic. He wanted the
lunch program gone and he's ended up being the guy
in charge of it. What's the National's position on the
school lunch program going into this election.
Speaker 4 (16:01):
Yeah, I'm not sure he wanted it gone, but what
we looked at it delivering a better program, and in
fairness to him, he's half the cost but still delivered
them more lunches better. Well, I think when you look
at it, look that I think it was quite alarming
some of those issues that were raised in that article.
But actually when you look in the context, it was
(16:22):
seven complaints against thirteen million lunches delivered. So I just
put that in context.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
This is just national and shittifying everything. Right, it's what
they've done to the country. Just everything's got worse. Right,
if you think of the economy, it's got worse. If
you think the joblessness has got where school lunches they
just if you look at them, you would have seen
the photos come up, how inedible they are. We had
a really great framework where you gave contracts to communities
(16:53):
who prepared lunches for their own largely their own kids,
and they had nutritious good school lunches this government came
into we're going to slash the costs. Now, we're all
up for cost saving, but at the cost of giving
it to a corporate, massive corporate that then you have
plaster can metal on it, you have uncooked chicken coming up,
(17:15):
and then when a school starts complaining, the minister starts
attacking the school.
Speaker 4 (17:19):
Let's not rewrite history. Let's look at some of those
complaints of school lunches when you're in government, to the
point where one of your colleagues wrongly put the photo
of when you were in government and the quality of
the meal attacking, only then apologize because it wasn't one
under our government.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
So long every they do not suggest that the quality
of the school meals now is better than it was.
They are more in delivery rubbish, hold on more time,
less nutrition.
Speaker 1 (17:48):
On.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Matt Douci, what evidence can you present to us today
to prove your claim that the lunches are better than they.
Speaker 4 (17:57):
Were, because you only need to look at the data
behind it, which is well, quality has gone up, delivery
has gone up because of the fever.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Anything from the recipients, You're like what you're doing there,
You're like walking past the cafe. It's got to sign
out side saying great coffee. Well, how the hell do
I know that? That's exactly what you're doing.
Speaker 4 (18:15):
Well, because customers will tell you, won't they. And exactly
what we've done here, we've put customers first and they
tell us. And actually we've reduced the cost of it
to the kids.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
And look at what's been a release today, which is
food health safety complaints and investigations. And there's a raft of.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
When you were running the program, what complaints and food
safety issues?
Speaker 3 (18:39):
Look, I'm not aware of any.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
Well, you're not run in a position to slag off nationally.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
Well are you aware of any?
Speaker 2 (18:45):
Well, there was a lot more.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
Okay, you have just said there were more, and I'm
going to go and check that, and I expect a
full apology.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
You were one of the cooks in the kitchen, so
you should know better than well.
Speaker 3 (19:00):
I'm actually quite a good cook, I must say.
Speaker 4 (19:02):
If you look at Duncan's socials, he's quite handy in
the kitchen.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
Maybe it's grow up along that's where you're going to belong.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
So on the philosophical front, Duncan Web should there be
a school lunch program at all?
Speaker 3 (19:18):
Absolutely?
Speaker 2 (19:19):
Yes, and why.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
Because feeding our kids, particularly our kids who come from
Laura and come homes with good, nutritious food, not only
does it prepare them for school and make them better learners,
but also it teaches them what good food looks like.
Because sometimes those families you know don't have a great pantry.
Speaker 2 (19:37):
But you're saying that the current food program won't be
teaching them what good food looks like.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
No, because you look at it, it's a little bit
of a slop and a tinfoil container.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
Matt Douci philosoph philosophical.
Speaker 4 (19:48):
Look, I think me and Duncan are aligned on the
reasons why we should have a good school lunch program,
and it's why the strong and stable government has committed
to that over the last two and a half years.
And now I can see the next job for Duncan
school lunch cook, So you can see it.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
So you've said strong st for two and a half years. Yeah,
what about the remaining six months.
Speaker 4 (20:09):
I've got no doubt it'll be strong and stable for
the next six months.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
As long as Winston stays in charge. I suppose.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Nice to see you both, Duncan Web, thank you always.
Good to be here, mate, Ducy thank you, Thank you, John,
Thanks Duncan.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
For more from Category 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 Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk Z'B.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
I said before I was going to say before ten,
but you get the bruises in the room, there's going
to be fireworks.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
It's all on here.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Junk of weird. Nice to see. How come you come
in with a little red book?
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Red book has my main kind of political. I'll open
it and read it.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Just random.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Two pints of milk for bread.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
That must be pretty old pints of milk. Yeah, Matt,
doc morning, I see you. Good morning. You're at the
Rugby last week, last fridayn I can't believe it's a
week since we were setting up at the at the
cafe on your street.
Speaker 4 (00:45):
How good was that?
Speaker 2 (00:45):
And the cafe?
Speaker 4 (00:46):
I love the guy from Ringing Order who just turned
up and you invited him to sit down.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
He was like the adjudicator. I thought it was. He
was a bit hopeless. So I didn't take science, didn't
pick a winner.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Here you are having coffee ketch up, so I thought
this was a without bias. What do you mean catching
up for a coffee?
Speaker 1 (01:04):
No?
Speaker 4 (01:04):
With the show came from a cafe this week, you'll
make mean it was obviously it was balanced.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
I'm obviously the one day that you weren't listening to
the show, wasn't it.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
And the day you're back in town and you're not
listening to the show, sorry about it.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
Yeah, Duncan was preloading before the game.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
Come November, you live all the time in the world.
I will ye see up until you'll be ringing Duncan
from Stans. Yes, it will be indignant from st Alban's
indignant from st Alban's brilliant. How come your boss Duncan
web is talking about means testing the pension when three
with three years he did, and three years ago he
(01:42):
said no, no, no, no into that at all, no
plan at all. Yeah, no, there's no plan, but he's
open to it.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
Look what we need and I hope Matt would agree,
is we need to have a sustainable pension scheme and
we look, you know, this question is a thirty year question.
We're going to look out to thirty years, yes, and
we need it. We need some you know, to get
together across the parties. As you know, Ki saves a
really good example of we no one's going to mess
with its fundamentals and we need to make sure that
(02:09):
is the case. We want it to stay at sixty five.
We've got no plans whatsoever to mean to test it,
but we do want to have a sustainable scheme and
we're open talking to across parties so that we lock
it in and it's not an election issue, because you
don't want to have something like the pension scheme being.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
That's perfectly reasonable that no one does anything about it.
Matt Durcy, what's your position on it?
Speaker 4 (02:33):
Well, National campaigned in twenty twenty three by raising the
limit to sixty seven the age. We haven't announced our
position for this coming election, so I won't get ahead
of that, but fair to stay where I agree with Duncan,
there's some real structural issues there around affordability. But where
(02:54):
I disagree with Duncan is they've got to come out
and start articulating where their positions are on these very
important issues for New Zealand as they start to think
about the leaving election. No, no, but hold on. So
you know, we've got a leader who's out saying yeah, nah,
Duncan's saying nah, I mean it's all.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
A bit, you know, And of course Dunkin there same
which he was here, really isn't it, and no one
can hold him to account after November.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
I mean, this is the Labor we are not just
have a point. We are older positions testing the pension.
That is the Labor That's position.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Says duncan Web until November.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
Leadership. I meant no, people want to know that, so
don't undermine it just because I'm resigning. The Labor Party
position is we are not means testing the preception.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
So why is Chris Hippins, your leader saying is.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
Didn't say that?
Speaker 1 (03:43):
He did.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
He said that in terms of the next thirty years,
we're open to discussions on all aspects of the pension,
but this we are not. We have no plans to
means test the p.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
He said someone earning one hundred k or whatever, one
hundred thousand dollars and getting the pension didn't sit right
with them.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
Well that that's a statement of his views. But the
Labor Party and Chris Hipkins, there's no plan to means
test pension.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
Or his views.
Speaker 4 (04:09):
He's the leader of the opposition, so surely it's party again.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
It's a little bit like the Prime Minister having one
view and the Foreign Minister having another. Isn't it.
Speaker 4 (04:17):
Matt Tuson, Well, I think what we saw this week
was actually quite a robust debate between coalition partners, you know,
staable coalition government. But you know what we see from
Chris Hipkins is you know, it's the politics of envy.
Anyone who's done well for themselves deserves to get hit
by a labor gard Okay.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Well let me ask you how come when you asked
at Parliament this week in relation to this issue with
Winston Peters, you said you backed the Prime Minister, yes,
But when you were asked whether you backed the Prime
minister's push to support the US, you turned and walked
into the debating chamber without answering y opportunity.
Speaker 4 (04:55):
And that is from Thomas Coglan. I'd actually disagree with that.
What actually happened, and I've got the verbatim because we
record our interviews on the tiles was I said, I've
got to go now because bells are ringing to go
into the house. So look, clearly we've got it on
record through the emails.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
On how many times we've said politicians gas bagging with
the bells ringing incessantly in the background. They don't seem
to be too worried about the bells going on.
Speaker 4 (05:20):
Well, that's for them to defend John. But you're asking
me a question of whether I just left an open
question and turned round and left. I said, I've got
to go, So that that is not an accurate reflection
of discussion.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
And brilliant So it has an opportunity for you. So
do you back Christoph Lutson's push to support the US.
Speaker 4 (05:37):
Yeah, but that's my point that actually, when you look
at the emails, I think that's been mischaracterized. The request
came through when it looked at the response from Albanezi
in Australia against our position, and the Foreign Minister responded
about our position. So all you're seeing is actually what
happens daily is discussions in a coalition government around positions
(05:58):
of the coalition. Look, whether it be a caucus room
or three parties in a coalition, you have differing views
and you can come to a principal agreement. And that's
all those emails show through in O I A. I
mean those oi as come out all the time of
people having discussions. People would expect that is it debating
a point?
Speaker 2 (06:17):
Does it healthy robust discussion? Though? When you've got two
members of the two senior leaders in one coalition part
party or partner National telling us the voters not to
trust the leader of another party in the coalition. Is
that Is that just robust daily discussion?
Speaker 4 (06:33):
Is it was that when we said a vote for
New Zealand First is potentially a vote for Labor, Well,
that's for New Zealand First to defend.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
And then you hear it and whether they will do that.
Speaker 4 (06:42):
I think you've got to be clear if you want
to send a right government, there's only one party that
will deliver it.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
And you've got National saying that New Zealand versus putting
politics over national interest and that doesn't that does not
sound to me like your normal robust discussion, particularly when
it's when it's said publicly.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
Yeah, I think we've got to be very clear when
we speak publicly on behalf of the government. And I
think that was the minister's point that he does not
want to see politics are put above that, and quite rightly,
when you look at all the naysayers he said, oh,
the Prime Minister won't keep the coalition stable, you know,
(07:20):
fall apart. In the first six to nine months he's
actually held it very stable. He's been showing good leadership
and it's a strong and stable government.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Won't just smile them because.
Speaker 4 (07:30):
You're smiling at me, trying to get me to smile,
and I'm just.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
A smiley guy. Yeah right, So I'll just sit there
and smile right through politics, Rilia, and we'll all smile
at each other.
Speaker 4 (07:39):
Why don't you smile at Duncan? What is it only mean?
Speaker 2 (07:41):
Well, I'm not smiling at him because Duncan, there'll be
no hope in hell? Have you guys holding it together
with Labor and the Greens and too party Mari? I mean,
actually a healing for the job Christopher Luxen's done. It
would be a holiday compared to.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
Well, just like what Hapkins with, Matt wants people to
vote for his party. We want people to vote for
the Labor Party because the Labor Party has a proven
track record. I mean on what of having a stable
government where you have a coalition, a well managed coalition
that doesn't sit there fighting in public, doesn't have a
foreign minister saying I'm ultimately responsible for our foreign affairs policy.
(08:19):
I talk to the Prime Minister, I consult with him,
but I'm the big dog in the room. So you've
got a huge ego fight going on there. Winston Peters
doesn't run foreign affairs. I hope, I hope it's a
cabinet matter. But he seems to think that he calls
all the shots in his domain. That's not how coalitions work.
They were what should work. Quite peratively. We've seen David
(08:42):
Seymour run the treaty side of government. We've got Winston
Peters running foreign affairs. What happened to the prime minister?
Speaker 2 (08:50):
He is m I A where is the prime minister
this week?
Speaker 4 (08:54):
Well, the Prime Minister is keeping a strong and stable
government together. Good leadership and I disagree with what Duncan's saying.
And actually, when you look at the before moments of
this government over the last two and a half years,
strong and stable would come to mind.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
All right, it's just like the pretty Principles Bill with
fifty thousand people in the street, that's not a stable government.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
All right?
Speaker 4 (09:17):
How about three warders? How many got in the street then,
including your campaign manager?
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Oh, Brilli, here we go. It is this is fun.
I told today. You get the two bruises in here,
you've got fireworks. They continue next, just carry on in
Parliament and the Speaker looking at media behavior. Where do
you see this going, man, I mean a five days
suspension for Mikey Sherman and her producer. Is this going
to be a consistent thing that nationals looking at the
(09:44):
way journalists behave.
Speaker 4 (09:45):
Yeah, I hope it is consistent because it should be
consistent across everyone. In Parliament. There is standing orders that
do have the rules of Parliament and the precinct. They
are the responsibility of the Speaker the Speaker to uphold
and quite frankly, when there are parts of the precinct
that media should not be be in as such, outside
(10:08):
the Whips Office, there's so many places I'm sure don't
can agree where they can talk to MPs and ministers.
I think that's not right. And actually, when you look
at what was actually been said to Stuart Smith about
the inference that he didn't come out and speak now
he'd be painted very badly the next morning, you know
that that's that's really questionable.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Yeah, but I mean don't can we People who work
in news have used all sorts of things for a
very long time time to convince people to speak.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
Yeah, that's right, it's not new. I mean Asbects say,
is there's some pretty clear media rules. You know. Those
people have given officers on precinct and they're entitled to
go freely around the precinct pretty much. But they can't
kind of stop an MP on their way to a
meeting in some random hall. There's some places where they
can stop you, and we see that on television every night.
(11:01):
Or you can make an agreement. They pop into my
office and we can have a chat. But if you
go to your office and you've got work to do,
you can't have a media battering down the door. And
ultimately it's to speak as call as to what's acceptable.
And he's made a call here. He's stood a journalist
down for five days, and that seems to be a
pretty reasonable outcome.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
All right, let's talk about the issue of building and
the residential red sign, because we did a couple of
hours talk back on it Eastern. Even you know, fifteen
years after the quakes, people still have some very strong
feelings about it. What's your position, Duncan?
Speaker 3 (11:32):
Yeah, Look, I think it's actually a much more of
a kind of social question than an economic one. It's
a lot of trauma out there, you know, I had
friends and family whose houses were lost, and it's kind
of a place of memorial and reflection, I think. And
even as I go there now and I look, and
I know, I look at spaces where I knew where
(11:53):
the houses were, and I think that's hard to express
to people who went in Christs at the time. So
I think let's just leave it to become a beautiful
open space. I don't think the economic gains warrant kind
of re visiting some of the hurt that happened when
people were ultimately forcibly removed from their homes, and not
everyone wanted to leave.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Although Matt doc the red zone area in your neck
of the woods, some of that has been repurposed, hasn't it,
Not that I'm aware of. But was housing around the
fringe of.
Speaker 4 (12:22):
It, not that I'm aware of. There was a proposal
we while ago in a small part of the red
zone in Pines Beach in Kadakey, which I think, to
Duncan's point, created quite a forceful response from community members
who weren't actually very supportive of it. And I'm with
Duncan on this. I just think there's a lot of
(12:44):
sensitivities here. If you actually take a step back, what
is the solution trying to solve? What is the problem
definition here? And if it is, well, you know we
need to build houses, which I accept, but actually we've
got an abundance of land in north and west of
christ future, but it's not sure why you need to
focus on the red zone.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Just on that weare to call is st from my
Blackburn who's a property consultants construction sector consultant, and he
was saying that within a very short time we're going
to be the Christis city is going to be knocking
on the door of Selwyn in Wymak in terms of
no further space to expand.
Speaker 4 (13:21):
Yes, but that's actually an issue around why we have
three councils over greater christ Church because to that very
point there is a bit of a silent battle going
on of each council trying to protect and grow its
rating base. It shouldn't be Oh, christ Church has got
nowhere to grow at all costs, so let's go into
the red zone. It's actually, well, we know Selwyn and
(13:42):
Wymark's got land, so let's do it for the greater good.
Speaker 3 (13:44):
We've got We've got a plan which allows for a
more dense city, more houses being replaced one house being
replaced with three and four and so on, and that's
a good thing.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Yeah, But I mean, I'm I'm not anti intensification, but
do you think it's getting to the point now where
people have had a bit of a gutsful of that?
Speaker 3 (14:03):
There are certainly some people, and I get that if
you're living in a leaf neighborhood and something you know,
goes up next door, that's got not even well, you know,
I get it, right, a lower density neighborhood and something
more dense goes up that that does impact you. But
at the same time, houses which are close to the
local shopping center and the local parks and schools are
(14:24):
really good for people, you know, particularly young people, people
with young families. And I think it's a great thing.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
All right. You know. The one thing that was sort
of this out mister Melgamation and you can take the
fences down and said that the christ Church can expand
wherever it's one that sounds like to take over. That's
that's inevitable, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (14:41):
Yes, But that's why the government has instructed councils and
mayors to look at plans for local reorganization to that
very point.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
All right, Matt, Doucy, Duncan web with us. It's ten
twenty five, it is, what is it ten twenty eight?
What time flies on politics? Right? Well, I'm assuming it
does for you as well, Matt, Doucy and Duncan.
Speaker 3 (14:59):
With time still, if I had, if I had, if
I had a day to live, I'd spend it here
because it's need to last forever.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
Okay, thank you very much.
Speaker 4 (15:12):
I'll look at him and he's retiring and instead of
coming out, an't he a little bit more frank reciting,
I'd get him on every week from there.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
I know though, with him retiring that I won't get
the Christmas card this year.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
I'll see what I can do.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Although you were just saying that after the election, you'll
be you get the three months you're on the pay
roll for three months, right, that's right, So technically you'll
still be able to send me a Christmas card.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
Yeah, I will still be able to afford postage.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
So brilliant. All right. The school lunch program in the
news today for glitchers over the past couple of years,
Matt Doocy. I heard David Seymour today saying it was
quite telling, Mike. It was quite ironic. He wanted the
lunch program gone and he's ended up being the guy
in charge of it. What's the National's position on the
school lunch program going into this election.
Speaker 4 (16:01):
Yeah, I'm not sure he wanted it gone, but what
we looked at it delivering a better program, and in
fairness to him, he's half the cost but still delivered
them more lunches better. Well, I think when you look
at it, look that I think it was quite alarming
some of those issues that were raised in that article.
But actually when you look in the context, it was
(16:22):
seven complaints against thirteen million lunches delivered. So I just
put that in context.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
This is just national and shittifying everything. Right, it's what
they've done to the country. Just everything's got worse. Right,
if you think of the economy, it's got worse. If
you think the joblessness has got where school lunches they
just if you look at them, you would have seen
the photos come up, how inedible they are. We had
a really great framework where you gave contracts to communities
(16:53):
who prepared lunches for their own largely their own kids,
and they had nutritious good school lunches this government came
into we're going to slash the costs. Now, we're all
up for cost saving, but at the cost of giving
it to a corporate, massive corporate that then you have
plaster can metal on it, you have uncooked chicken coming up,
(17:15):
and then when a school starts complaining, the minister starts
attacking the school.
Speaker 4 (17:19):
Let's not rewrite history. Let's look at some of those
complaints of school lunches when you're in government, to the
point where one of your colleagues wrongly put the photo
of when you were in government and the quality of
the meal attacking, only then apologize because it wasn't one
under our government.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
So long every they do not suggest that the quality
of the school meals now is better than it was.
They are more in delivery rubbish, hold on more time,
less nutrition.
Speaker 1 (17:48):
On.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Matt Douci, what evidence can you present to us today
to prove your claim that the lunches are better than they.
Speaker 4 (17:57):
Were, because you only need to look at the data
behind it, which is well, quality has gone up, delivery
has gone up because of the fever.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Anything from the recipients, You're like what you're doing there,
You're like walking past the cafe. It's got to sign
out side saying great coffee. Well, how the hell do
I know that? That's exactly what you're doing.
Speaker 4 (18:15):
Well, because customers will tell you, won't they. And exactly
what we've done here, we've put customers first and they
tell us. And actually we've reduced the cost of it
to the kids.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
And look at what's been a release today, which is
food health safety complaints and investigations. And there's a raft of.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
When you were running the program, what complaints and food
safety issues?
Speaker 3 (18:39):
Look, I'm not aware of any.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
Well, you're not run in a position to slag off nationally.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
Well are you aware of any?
Speaker 2 (18:45):
Well, there was a lot more.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
Okay, you have just said there were more, and I'm
going to go and check that, and I expect a
full apology.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
You were one of the cooks in the kitchen, so
you should know better than well.
Speaker 3 (19:00):
I'm actually quite a good cook, I must say.
Speaker 4 (19:02):
If you look at Duncan's socials, he's quite handy in
the kitchen.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
Maybe it's grow up along that's where you're going to belong.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
So on the philosophical front, Duncan Web should there be
a school lunch program at all?
Speaker 3 (19:18):
Absolutely?
Speaker 2 (19:19):
Yes, and why.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
Because feeding our kids, particularly our kids who come from
Laura and come homes with good, nutritious food, not only
does it prepare them for school and make them better learners,
but also it teaches them what good food looks like.
Because sometimes those families you know don't have a great pantry.
Speaker 2 (19:37):
But you're saying that the current food program won't be
teaching them what good food looks like.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
No, because you look at it, it's a little bit
of a slop and a tinfoil container.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
Matt Douci philosoph philosophical.
Speaker 4 (19:48):
Look, I think me and Duncan are aligned on the
reasons why we should have a good school lunch program,
and it's why the strong and stable government has committed
to that over the last two and a half years.
And now I can see the next job for Duncan
school lunch cook, So you can see it.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
So you've said strong st for two and a half years. Yeah,
what about the remaining six months.
Speaker 4 (20:09):
I've got no doubt it'll be strong and stable for
the next six months.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
As long as Winston stays in charge. I suppose.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Nice to see you both, Duncan Web, thank you always.
Good to be here, mate, Ducy thank you, Thank you, John,
Thanks Duncan.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
For more from Category 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.
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.