June 25, 2026 • 23 mins
National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.
They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from Nationals solar panel policy, what can be done to make rural roads safer, and if the fast-track process is appropriate for the Pegasus Golf Course.
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):
And after a very protracted journey, Matt Doocy has finally
made it to our studios. Morning Matt, Good morning John.
We'll get to you on that in the second. And
for the same reason, Tracy is not with us in
the studio but on the phone in Wellington.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Tracy, Hello, good morning.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
All right, So you're stuck. Yeah, you're stuck there with
the weather. Is that right?
Speaker 3 (00:38):
I aren't here anyhow, but the weather is closing heavoc
for others.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Okay, And so Matt, what was the impact with the
weather on you yesterday and today?
Speaker 4 (00:47):
I was up in New Plymouth yesterday opening the new
Taranaki Base hospital and went to fly out and sadly
it was more about the people coming up from christ Church.
They were on a plane all the way to New Plymouth,
probably an hour and a half, half an hour circling
above the airport and they got sent back, So probably
three hours on a plane for them. I drove down
Wellington last night and got the only plane out this
(01:09):
morning and they've closed it all up for the day apparently.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
So the private jet made it. I was.
Speaker 4 (01:17):
I was on Good Old Air in New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
The same the Shane Jones, the s SJ one double
zero on Standby twenty four to seven. It would seem anyway,
let's get to serious matters. What do you what do
you think trace of this petition calling for a suspension
of the christ Church rates increase and to give people
the chance to vote in a referendum.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
Yeah, I look up. I'd have a good petition as
much as the next person. But and it's important that
people have to say so. There's obviously you know, this
christ Church Cathedral issue has really sparked a lot of
interest in it and I don't know what the solution is.
I kind of feel for the council because they're just
trying to draw a line and get it done, which is,
(02:03):
you know what a lot of people want to see.
You know, when people are struggling, do rate payers want
to pay for it? So it's a bit of a conundrum.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
So you like a good petition, are you saying that
you agree with the intent of the petition this one?
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Well, I think it speaks to the fact that people
are feeling not heard about this issue, and well a
group of people are feeling not hurt, and it will
be interesting to see how how the petition goes.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Let's say you end up in the next government. How
would you feel that if people wanted to have referendums
before you could make big decisions.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Well, I mean, look, I think the rates increase happens
on the first of July anyhow, So I don't know
how viable the petition is, but it does speak to
the fact that people are feeling really unheard about this
particular issue. And look, I don't blame when people are
feeling pressure. Families are under financial pressure, and you can't
(02:59):
blame people for thinking, well, you know, what are we
doing with rate payers money?
Speaker 2 (03:04):
All right? Are you signing the position and putting a
name to it?
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Well? Does capital spend though, so I would to be
fair to the council. It is capital spend, So I
don't know how much that actually impacts on rates per se.
But it will be interesting to see how popular the
petition is.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
All right, you're going to put your name into it.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
No, I won't be putting my name to it. I
think I've made my position quite clear on the Christ
Church Cathedral. I think it is you know, look, it's
an important heritage project, but a lot of public money
has already got into it.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
All right, Matt doo, See what do you think It
was twenty.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
Five million from the previous labor government.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Now what do you what do you think that is
that this idea of the people having more of a
saying these big calls.
Speaker 4 (03:44):
Well, the first thing I'd say, you know, I have
some sympathy for the intent of the petition. That's why
the government's bringing in rates cats of two to four
percent because quite rightly we have heard from people councils
with their profligate spending are just driving up rates and
at a time of cost of living crisis, it's just
not good enough. But on saying the hat, you know, people,
(04:06):
you can't have your cake and eat it too. When
you look at the numbers of people who vote in
local body elections, it's shockingly low. So if this motivates you,
get out and vote. Track your counselors just like you
should your MPs, and if you don't agree with way
they're voting, vote them out. That is democracy. And I'll
dispoint to you if you look into the spend, you know,
(04:29):
you look at some of those counselors who are pushing
and have agreed increase funding into community and climate change
funds look serious issues, but the reality is there's got
to be a line in the sand and have increased
the funding. Film Major doesn't have a majority around the table,
but this stuff's got to stop.
Speaker 2 (04:48):
Or the mayor should never have a majority around the table, should.
Speaker 4 (04:51):
They Yes, But Film's made it very clear that he
wants to bring down rates. But when he's got a
group of counselors who are signing off more funding into
community and climate change funds, which is pushing rates up.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
I mean, this is the.
Speaker 4 (05:04):
Issue at your that discumbers just go and lock with
the voting block of people's choice. And they've put more
funding into community and climate change grants than previously. And
I just say to people, irrespective of your view on
the political continuum, look at what your counselors are doing.
(05:26):
If you don't like what they're doing, vote them out.
This is local democracy. And then people want to start
a petition, just turn up to the ballot box.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Do you like the idea of the council being involved
or leading this bid for an NRL team.
Speaker 4 (05:38):
Well, I think they should take some leadership in it,
but it doesn't always have to be funding from either
central government and local government, whether it be issues like
a NRL franchise or a christ Urch cathedral. Clearly they
should take leadership, but it should be about looking at
other areas of funding, philanthropic private funding.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
All right, Tracy McClellan, What did the government get wrong
in relation to the conservation bill that we had the
minister backing down yesterday? Where did they go wrong?
Speaker 3 (06:11):
Well, they actually consulted on the sale and exchange of
public conservation land a couple of years ago, twenty twenty
four I think, and the majority of respondents were opposed
to it then, So I don't know why they thought
they could get away with sneaking it into this bill.
I don't know what they thought was going to happen,
and the public quite rightly didn't like it. Do you
(06:33):
think flogging off conservation land was a bad idea? Tracy?
Speaker 2 (06:38):
Public have agreed, Okay, tell me why it's a bad idea.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
Flogging off our public conservation land? Was it a bad idea?
Speaker 2 (06:48):
But is it ad idea?
Speaker 3 (06:49):
Because it's because it's there for the public good, it's
there for everybody to enjoy. It's a heritage that we
inherit and that we're supposed to look after. We still
think this bill is a is a bad bill because
it's good that they've remove this part, but let's not
forget I've still got the section of it that changes
(07:11):
the purpose of DOC to focus on economic development, which
by definition is going to mean that conservation could for
a well take a back seat to economic development. So
we're still opposed to the bill. It's not bits and bobs,
and I think the public quite right to be feel
agrieved about.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
This, all right, Matt Doocy, is that the intention of
the government to sell conservation land off.
Speaker 3 (07:34):
No.
Speaker 4 (07:35):
And the first thing I'd say is, I think the
public has got this right. I say that respectfully to
my ministerial colleague Tama Potucker. But when you look at
his statements publicly he has taken responsibility for this and ownership.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
What I would say, are you saying he's cocked it up?
Speaker 3 (07:52):
Well?
Speaker 4 (07:52):
No, this Let me finish The point I was going
to make is when you look at the intent of
what we're trying to achieve, my views, most keywis would
agree with us that when you look at the massive
conservation estate, there is some parts of that land that
is low conservation value and actually could be of value
(08:13):
by selling it down. Now, I don't disagree with that
point what we did, and I'll take some responsibility as
a government. I don't think we were clear enough. I
don't think we could provide the clear definition that would
assure people that we would protect parts that were high
conservation value. So what he said is he'll take back
to that to the drawing board. He's listened to the
(08:34):
public and will step it through again and try and
get it right next time.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
For being clearer, what's an example of low conservation value?
Speaker 4 (08:41):
Well, the example being given locally here is Shingle Pits
and Selwyn right, no conservation value. So I think when
you look at a range of things, and in fairness
Tama has been raising them. But I think that what
we fail to do is the ability to be very
clear and giving definitions of how there is protections for
(09:02):
high conservation value. And I accept people want to ensure
that parts of the conservation the state are protected, and
that's why we said, hey, caller and get it right.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
All right, Tracy, it would be fair to say you
can't deny, can you that the people who were all
aghast about it were simply people who took their lead
from some pretty shallow social media posts over the last
wee While.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
No, I don't agree with that.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
It was just hold on, Tracy it, hold on it.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
I don't think they were shallow, And b I don't
think people were that silly.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Why weren't they shallow? Why weren't they shallow?
Speaker 3 (09:39):
Because what the bill says, and it's all very well
Matt saying that this was not well drafted and not
well thought off, and that's we agree with that. But
what they're you know, it's all very well saying it
wasn't clear enough. But what he's asking now is that
we have to trust that the government's got the best
intentions at heart to make judgments based on high conservation value.
(10:03):
And when they so poorly drafted this the to start with,
you can't blame people for being anxious about what this
could actually mean.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Anxious? Anxious, yes, but what did but did really uncared?
Did the people who were anxious after seeing it on
their phone and their social media feed, did they understand?
As Matters pointed out that some of this land involved
the likes of shingle pits, because chances are I picked
at eighty five percent of people have got all rarah
and suddenly going nuts in the comments section that would
(10:35):
actually say I had no idea that was conservation land.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
Well, some of that may have involved shingle pits. There's
also several parcels of land on Kotiki spit for it,
for instance, And I challenge mister Doocy to tell me
why that wasn't high conservation value. So the point is,
if it was just a small group of specific low
value parcels of land, they could have just listed them
(11:00):
and done it properly. But they didn't. They left the
door wide open, which of course means that people were
going to be quite supicious about what the intent was
behind this.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
All right, I think Matt agrees with you.
Speaker 4 (11:10):
Yeah, I think we're probably on the same space. I
think we could have been a lot clearer around definition.
And ultimately what the public wants is the confidence that
we're making the right decision. So that's why the minister
said he's pulling those clauses out and he will come
back with something with a clearer definis.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
All right, this is cross party politics, right, and Matt,
yesterday National announce an election policy of providing some low
cost loans to people wanting to put solar panels and
batteries in their houses. I was intrigued to see that
the payback was going to be done through people's rates.
Can you explain that?
Speaker 4 (11:43):
Yeah, it's a good question, and just to say, it's
not only solar batteries, it's also heat pumps and insulation.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
So does it I'm read what I'm getting it here.
Are these loans going to be coming from local councils?
Speaker 4 (11:56):
No? No, So actually we're going to set up an entity.
The Crown will seed fund that and then the entity
will borrow money. It's and the problem definition here is
there are some banks already offering these green loans, but
the feedback we have got is that they are too
short term. So what we're going to offer and it
(12:19):
really is just one option, So I'd encourage people to
play the market. And it gives the ability for a
low cost loan, but it is long term, and it's
also works with LGNZ and their policy about using your
rates to pay it back, and then obviously you pay
it back over a long period of time through your
rates or equally, if you sell your house, you can
pay it back through that as well. And I think
(12:41):
quite rightly when you look at I think UK and
US it are about nine percent of solar, we're about
three percent. This is just another tool in the toolbox
to help.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
Growth that australis about thirty three. Who's going to run
these entities or this entity.
Speaker 4 (12:56):
Well, it'll be an entity set up on its own right.
It's an independent entity. It'll work with central government and
local government, and obviously it will borrow money that will
go through to people to draw down off their rates
as well. Just the other bit of that is also
don't forget the consenting as well. It will make solar
batteries and others, especially on farm permitted activities that don't
(13:21):
require or consent.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
Tracy mccurlan sounds like a no brainer to you.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
Yeah, look at so this is actually a good step
in the right direction. It's one of those it's a
rewiring art of our scheme. So it's something we're quite
familiar with. Look, it's as I said, it's a step
in the right direction if you already own your own home,
and we're not adverse to that, but it's unlikely to
help renters and you know, people struggling with their power
balls right now. So I think it's a step in
(13:49):
the right doesn't quite hit the spot.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Tracy, landlord, what's the top landlord's taking advantage of it?
Speaker 3 (14:00):
Well, there's other ways that we can help render the question.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
The question was what's to stop landlords from taking advantage
of it just like any other homeowner.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
Well, nothing to stop landlords taking advantage of it? Should
they assume that cheaper electricity bills for their renters is
enough incentives? So, as I said, step in the right direction.
It's good if you own your own home. It's a
rewiring artio scheme and we've got no problem with it.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
So what would you do for for renters then, if
you're concerned about.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
Them, Well, I think there's various things we can do,
and we'll have more to say, such.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
As, don't give me, don't give me the Tracy, don't
give me more of this labor party.
Speaker 3 (14:41):
I'm not going to give you any exclusives.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
Not asking for exclusives. I'm just asking, Tracy. I'm just
asking for some ideas because man, listen to that, that's
the election coming at a rate of lots. You need
to start talking about stuff. You guys are talking about it.
We're going to talk about it. We'll get back to you. Sorry,
voters aren't going to accept that.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
We'll be releasing our policy and due course not long
to wait.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
When's due course? Matte? You see what's your definition of
due course?
Speaker 4 (15:08):
Well, I'm not too sure. I think Tracy and her
team need to defend that. But what is concerning is
there seems to be just a rehashing so far of
old policies and one odd.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
Point to interesting, but it was just a bit job.
Speaker 4 (15:22):
I want to find instinct is when Labour first announced
their removal of co payments for prescriptions on the PR
I looked at it from Chris Hipkins. It was costed
at six hundred and thirteen million dollars. In the last
couple of weeks have re announced that policy. But what's
interesting only sixty five million dollars A bit of labor
(15:44):
math going on, with good labor math, we call this.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
You should be worrying about your own policies, Matt du So.
You could have done this one years ago and listened
to it, cutting more Michibi homes and backing the fossils
gud industry.
Speaker 4 (15:55):
At every Tracy and election is coming up people are
asking us what policies are we going to stand on,
So we are telling them that's a challenge to you
and your team.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
Brilliant. All right, take the ball and run. Let's talk
about intersections. So, Matt, what's your particular beef with the
intersections in your neck of the woods.
Speaker 4 (16:13):
Oh, we've got line Side Road. Many of your listeners
would have used that at some time, connecting State Highway
one with ringing order. We've got a number of reoccurring accidents.
They seem to be around two intersections, Molcox Road and
Fernside Road. The issue I have is that every time
I talk to the council in NZTA, they either dutch
(16:35):
shove it to each other or come back with million
dollar grand designs, which quite frankly, I don't think is needed.
All we need to do, me and you John could
go to mine to ten, get a couple of concrete
planter boxes, put them across those intersections. With adequate signage.
We could close those two intersections. Residents in Molcox and
Fernsides can use Flexton Road and it would be a
(16:58):
very small cost. But I tell you what, it oldly
saves lives. And we're going to start thinking like this.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
Used to encouraging them by the old film major sort
of what approach there?
Speaker 4 (17:07):
Well, I just think that we don't always need million
dollar redesigns where everyone sits around and does big drawings
of left hand right hand grand intersections. We can disclose
those two intersections. Most residents don't use them now because
of the safety issues, and it will actually make line
side road a safer trip between both ends.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
All right, Tracy, I reckon there needs to be attention
paid to rural intersections across the whole Canterbury area. What
do you think they freaked me out?
Speaker 4 (17:39):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (17:39):
Look, well, and Matt knows about this issue, and I've
seen the media of him championing this solution and not
just acknowledging. Obviously, there's been some pretty horrific crashes crushes
of late, and that's you know, that's pretty scary. I
have learned a new word Dutch of that's a new
I haven't haven't heard that phrase before. Matt. I'm going
(17:59):
to put that in my.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Vocation, Tracy. Tracy, you sound a bit You're a bit
like a team at the World Cup winning a min
to go sounds like you're trying to fill time, can
you just answer my question.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
Look, as I said, Matthew Matt Matt's the expert on
those those issues in North Canterbury. I think as he thinks,
and he's hearing feedback from from people that they don't already,
they don't use intersections as they stand already. If he's
got a solution, it's up to him to champion it,
and he's been doing a good job of doing so.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
Yes, but I asked you about the whole the broader
Canterbury rural area, because there are intersections right through the
region that also need detention. We discussed earlier this week
on the show the merits of having flashing lights warning
people come coming from side roads that there is an
intersection approaching. What do you think there's a need for that. Yeah, well, we.
Speaker 3 (18:49):
Certainly seem to have far too many crashes and whether
it's Mills Canterbury or even down down south, and it
seems to be the similar intersections that we see in
the media that are that are that are catching people out.
So you know, maybe maybe that's that's good. I don't
know where that's at in terms of a policy perspective.
Through MZTA, I've always found them to be pretty receptive
(19:10):
whenever I raise specific concerns on particular types of intersections,
but certainly sounds like there's some work to do so.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
Matt, what is your response to the news today that
Wilbrook Homes wants to use your government's fast track legislational
process to get consent to build the houses on the
golf course.
Speaker 4 (19:30):
Yeah, well, the first thing is fast track is about
fast tracking of consents. We have an issue in New
Zealand around that. That's why the government has legislated for it.
I would also point out, which I think gets lost
in the debate is actually fast track is not new.
The last government legislated for fast track under COVID because
(19:50):
we repelled the RAMA law. That's why we re legislated
fast track back At the moment Pegasus specifically, we're a
bit of shadow boxing. Yes, I think they've intimated with
the mayor now they are looking to put in an application.
Of course, until the they do that, it's hard to know.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
The way.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
The first kind of gate is kept through the Minister
of Infrastructure. There is legislative criteria. He will seek advice
whether that meets the entry criteria. If it is, they
go in once they put in a substantive application, an
independent panel.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
Was set up.
Speaker 4 (20:26):
I think the retired Environmental Court judge leads that Manafeno
will get a seat, Council gets a seat, They invite
affected parties in as well, they get expert people to
comment and then it's a statutory decision maker, so it's
independent of government.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
Right.
Speaker 4 (20:42):
You're anti it though, aren't you? For the whole development
for Pegasus. Yeah, I don't think it's a good use
of fast track. I think when you look at all
the development we've got in weimarked ERI then actually we
are responding to the issue around affordability for housing. But
in the end it's up for them to put their
best foot forward to the legislation and be judged on that.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
Do you think, though, that there is an argument for
the for the government to say, actually, we're reading the
room here and we don't think we're not saying no,
but we don't think this should be fast tracked.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
The first thing I'd say, it's an independent statutory decision maker,
quite rightly. But what I would say in response to that,
over twenty five percent of fast track applications have been declined.
A good example is the Delmour housing one in Auckland
because the projects have to be of national or regional significance.
They deemed that housing development not to be of that
(21:38):
and they also declined it because of environmental issues and
infrastructure issues. So it shows there is a statutory process
that takes place, right Tracy McLelland should it go through
fast track?
Speaker 3 (21:50):
No, I don't think so. And look, I agree with
me that fast track has a place for some of
those big, major infrastructure projects. This doesn't feel like in
the same league. And I think it's much more important
that it goes through a proper council process with the
suitable public consent roation. So this is how fast track
can can get used in the wrong way, which you know,
(22:11):
which is why we're against this government's version of fast tracked.
Speaker 2 (22:14):
What would be what would be lacking or missing from
fast track versus the normal process.
Speaker 3 (22:22):
I think some of the rig around it, and and
but you know, as Matt has said, there's a process
in place and if if it's working properly, it probably
shouldn't find its way through this process.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
So let's hope. Right, So Matt, you're you're you're against
the proposal, but you're okay with it going at least
them applying for fast track.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
Is it right?
Speaker 4 (22:47):
Well, like I say, the criteria and the process is
legislated for so that that is the correct route. They'll
put in an application that will be judged based on
its merits and go through that process as well. But
the fundamental points. Do we need to speed up consenting
in New Zealand? The answer is yes. Should we have
arm's length decision making around issues like this? The answer
(23:10):
is yes, and that's why it's an independent panel. And
at the moment the mix seems to be about seventy
five percent approved, twenty five percent decline.
Speaker 2 (23:17):
Right, would you be making a submission yourself.
Speaker 4 (23:19):
Well, you've invited as affected parties. I wouldn't be an
affected party. But in the end, the definition my understanding
of affected parties is the decision of the panel convener.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
All right, brilliant to see you, to talk to you both,
Matte Doucy, have a good weekend. Thanks John and Tracy McLellan.
Thank you have a good weekend.
Speaker 3 (23:39):
Everybody think you will.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Thanks. What five degrees feels like one or something? Rory
was helping with his meteorological expertise.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
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):
And after a very protracted journey, Matt Doocy has finally
made it to our studios. Morning Matt, Good morning John.
We'll get to you on that in the second. And
for the same reason, Tracy is not with us in
the studio but on the phone in Wellington.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Tracy, Hello, good morning.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
All right, So you're stuck. Yeah, you're stuck there with
the weather. Is that right?
Speaker 3 (00:38):
I aren't here anyhow, but the weather is closing heavoc
for others.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Okay, And so Matt, what was the impact with the
weather on you yesterday and today?
Speaker 4 (00:47):
I was up in New Plymouth yesterday opening the new
Taranaki Base hospital and went to fly out and sadly
it was more about the people coming up from christ Church.
They were on a plane all the way to New Plymouth,
probably an hour and a half, half an hour circling
above the airport and they got sent back, So probably
three hours on a plane for them. I drove down
Wellington last night and got the only plane out this
(01:09):
morning and they've closed it all up for the day apparently.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
So the private jet made it. I was.
Speaker 4 (01:17):
I was on Good Old Air in New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
The same the Shane Jones, the s SJ one double
zero on Standby twenty four to seven. It would seem anyway,
let's get to serious matters. What do you what do
you think trace of this petition calling for a suspension
of the christ Church rates increase and to give people
the chance to vote in a referendum.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
Yeah, I look up. I'd have a good petition as
much as the next person. But and it's important that
people have to say so. There's obviously you know, this
christ Church Cathedral issue has really sparked a lot of
interest in it and I don't know what the solution is.
I kind of feel for the council because they're just
trying to draw a line and get it done, which is,
(02:03):
you know what a lot of people want to see.
You know, when people are struggling, do rate payers want
to pay for it? So it's a bit of a conundrum.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
So you like a good petition, are you saying that
you agree with the intent of the petition this one?
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Well, I think it speaks to the fact that people
are feeling not heard about this issue, and well a
group of people are feeling not hurt, and it will
be interesting to see how how the petition goes.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Let's say you end up in the next government. How
would you feel that if people wanted to have referendums
before you could make big decisions.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Well, I mean, look, I think the rates increase happens
on the first of July anyhow, So I don't know
how viable the petition is, but it does speak to
the fact that people are feeling really unheard about this
particular issue. And look, I don't blame when people are
feeling pressure. Families are under financial pressure, and you can't
(02:59):
blame people for thinking, well, you know, what are we
doing with rate payers money?
Speaker 2 (03:04):
All right? Are you signing the position and putting a
name to it?
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Well? Does capital spend though, so I would to be
fair to the council. It is capital spend, So I
don't know how much that actually impacts on rates per se.
But it will be interesting to see how popular the
petition is.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
All right, you're going to put your name into it.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
No, I won't be putting my name to it. I
think I've made my position quite clear on the Christ
Church Cathedral. I think it is you know, look, it's
an important heritage project, but a lot of public money
has already got into it.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
All right, Matt doo, See what do you think It
was twenty.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
Five million from the previous labor government.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Now what do you what do you think that is
that this idea of the people having more of a
saying these big calls.
Speaker 4 (03:44):
Well, the first thing I'd say, you know, I have
some sympathy for the intent of the petition. That's why
the government's bringing in rates cats of two to four
percent because quite rightly we have heard from people councils
with their profligate spending are just driving up rates and
at a time of cost of living crisis, it's just
not good enough. But on saying the hat, you know, people,
(04:06):
you can't have your cake and eat it too. When
you look at the numbers of people who vote in
local body elections, it's shockingly low. So if this motivates you,
get out and vote. Track your counselors just like you
should your MPs, and if you don't agree with way
they're voting, vote them out. That is democracy. And I'll
dispoint to you if you look into the spend, you know,
(04:29):
you look at some of those counselors who are pushing
and have agreed increase funding into community and climate change
funds look serious issues, but the reality is there's got
to be a line in the sand and have increased
the funding. Film Major doesn't have a majority around the table,
but this stuff's got to stop.
Speaker 2 (04:48):
Or the mayor should never have a majority around the table, should.
Speaker 4 (04:51):
They Yes, But Film's made it very clear that he
wants to bring down rates. But when he's got a
group of counselors who are signing off more funding into
community and climate change funds, which is pushing rates up.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
I mean, this is the.
Speaker 4 (05:04):
Issue at your that discumbers just go and lock with
the voting block of people's choice. And they've put more
funding into community and climate change grants than previously. And
I just say to people, irrespective of your view on
the political continuum, look at what your counselors are doing.
(05:26):
If you don't like what they're doing, vote them out.
This is local democracy. And then people want to start
a petition, just turn up to the ballot box.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Do you like the idea of the council being involved
or leading this bid for an NRL team.
Speaker 4 (05:38):
Well, I think they should take some leadership in it,
but it doesn't always have to be funding from either
central government and local government, whether it be issues like
a NRL franchise or a christ Urch cathedral. Clearly they
should take leadership, but it should be about looking at
other areas of funding, philanthropic private funding.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
All right, Tracy McClellan, What did the government get wrong
in relation to the conservation bill that we had the
minister backing down yesterday? Where did they go wrong?
Speaker 3 (06:11):
Well, they actually consulted on the sale and exchange of
public conservation land a couple of years ago, twenty twenty
four I think, and the majority of respondents were opposed
to it then, So I don't know why they thought
they could get away with sneaking it into this bill.
I don't know what they thought was going to happen,
and the public quite rightly didn't like it. Do you
(06:33):
think flogging off conservation land was a bad idea? Tracy?
Speaker 2 (06:38):
Public have agreed, Okay, tell me why it's a bad idea.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
Flogging off our public conservation land? Was it a bad idea?
Speaker 2 (06:48):
But is it ad idea?
Speaker 3 (06:49):
Because it's because it's there for the public good, it's
there for everybody to enjoy. It's a heritage that we
inherit and that we're supposed to look after. We still
think this bill is a is a bad bill because
it's good that they've remove this part, but let's not
forget I've still got the section of it that changes
(07:11):
the purpose of DOC to focus on economic development, which
by definition is going to mean that conservation could for
a well take a back seat to economic development. So
we're still opposed to the bill. It's not bits and bobs,
and I think the public quite right to be feel
agrieved about.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
This, all right, Matt Doocy, is that the intention of
the government to sell conservation land off.
Speaker 3 (07:34):
No.
Speaker 4 (07:35):
And the first thing I'd say is, I think the
public has got this right. I say that respectfully to
my ministerial colleague Tama Potucker. But when you look at
his statements publicly he has taken responsibility for this and ownership.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
What I would say, are you saying he's cocked it up?
Speaker 3 (07:52):
Well?
Speaker 4 (07:52):
No, this Let me finish The point I was going
to make is when you look at the intent of
what we're trying to achieve, my views, most keywis would
agree with us that when you look at the massive
conservation estate, there is some parts of that land that
is low conservation value and actually could be of value
(08:13):
by selling it down. Now, I don't disagree with that
point what we did, and I'll take some responsibility as
a government. I don't think we were clear enough. I
don't think we could provide the clear definition that would
assure people that we would protect parts that were high
conservation value. So what he said is he'll take back
to that to the drawing board. He's listened to the
(08:34):
public and will step it through again and try and
get it right next time.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
For being clearer, what's an example of low conservation value?
Speaker 4 (08:41):
Well, the example being given locally here is Shingle Pits
and Selwyn right, no conservation value. So I think when
you look at a range of things, and in fairness
Tama has been raising them. But I think that what
we fail to do is the ability to be very
clear and giving definitions of how there is protections for
(09:02):
high conservation value. And I accept people want to ensure
that parts of the conservation the state are protected, and
that's why we said, hey, caller and get it right.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
All right, Tracy, it would be fair to say you
can't deny, can you that the people who were all
aghast about it were simply people who took their lead
from some pretty shallow social media posts over the last
wee While.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
No, I don't agree with that.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
It was just hold on, Tracy it, hold on it.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
I don't think they were shallow, And b I don't
think people were that silly.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Why weren't they shallow? Why weren't they shallow?
Speaker 3 (09:39):
Because what the bill says, and it's all very well
Matt saying that this was not well drafted and not
well thought off, and that's we agree with that. But
what they're you know, it's all very well saying it
wasn't clear enough. But what he's asking now is that
we have to trust that the government's got the best
intentions at heart to make judgments based on high conservation value.
(10:03):
And when they so poorly drafted this the to start with,
you can't blame people for being anxious about what this
could actually mean.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Anxious? Anxious, yes, but what did but did really uncared?
Did the people who were anxious after seeing it on
their phone and their social media feed, did they understand?
As Matters pointed out that some of this land involved
the likes of shingle pits, because chances are I picked
at eighty five percent of people have got all rarah
and suddenly going nuts in the comments section that would
(10:35):
actually say I had no idea that was conservation land.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
Well, some of that may have involved shingle pits. There's
also several parcels of land on Kotiki spit for it,
for instance, And I challenge mister Doocy to tell me
why that wasn't high conservation value. So the point is,
if it was just a small group of specific low
value parcels of land, they could have just listed them
(11:00):
and done it properly. But they didn't. They left the
door wide open, which of course means that people were
going to be quite supicious about what the intent was
behind this.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
All right, I think Matt agrees with you.
Speaker 4 (11:10):
Yeah, I think we're probably on the same space. I
think we could have been a lot clearer around definition.
And ultimately what the public wants is the confidence that
we're making the right decision. So that's why the minister
said he's pulling those clauses out and he will come
back with something with a clearer definis.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
All right, this is cross party politics, right, and Matt,
yesterday National announce an election policy of providing some low
cost loans to people wanting to put solar panels and
batteries in their houses. I was intrigued to see that
the payback was going to be done through people's rates.
Can you explain that?
Speaker 4 (11:43):
Yeah, it's a good question, and just to say, it's
not only solar batteries, it's also heat pumps and insulation.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
So does it I'm read what I'm getting it here.
Are these loans going to be coming from local councils?
Speaker 4 (11:56):
No? No, So actually we're going to set up an entity.
The Crown will seed fund that and then the entity
will borrow money. It's and the problem definition here is
there are some banks already offering these green loans, but
the feedback we have got is that they are too
short term. So what we're going to offer and it
(12:19):
really is just one option, So I'd encourage people to
play the market. And it gives the ability for a
low cost loan, but it is long term, and it's
also works with LGNZ and their policy about using your
rates to pay it back, and then obviously you pay
it back over a long period of time through your
rates or equally, if you sell your house, you can
pay it back through that as well. And I think
(12:41):
quite rightly when you look at I think UK and
US it are about nine percent of solar, we're about
three percent. This is just another tool in the toolbox
to help.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
Growth that australis about thirty three. Who's going to run
these entities or this entity.
Speaker 4 (12:56):
Well, it'll be an entity set up on its own right.
It's an independent entity. It'll work with central government and
local government, and obviously it will borrow money that will
go through to people to draw down off their rates
as well. Just the other bit of that is also
don't forget the consenting as well. It will make solar
batteries and others, especially on farm permitted activities that don't
(13:21):
require or consent.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
Tracy mccurlan sounds like a no brainer to you.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
Yeah, look at so this is actually a good step
in the right direction. It's one of those it's a
rewiring art of our scheme. So it's something we're quite
familiar with. Look, it's as I said, it's a step
in the right direction if you already own your own home,
and we're not adverse to that, but it's unlikely to
help renters and you know, people struggling with their power
balls right now. So I think it's a step in
(13:49):
the right doesn't quite hit the spot.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Tracy, landlord, what's the top landlord's taking advantage of it?
Speaker 3 (14:00):
Well, there's other ways that we can help render the question.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
The question was what's to stop landlords from taking advantage
of it just like any other homeowner.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
Well, nothing to stop landlords taking advantage of it? Should
they assume that cheaper electricity bills for their renters is
enough incentives? So, as I said, step in the right direction.
It's good if you own your own home. It's a
rewiring artio scheme and we've got no problem with it.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
So what would you do for for renters then, if
you're concerned about.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
Them, Well, I think there's various things we can do,
and we'll have more to say, such.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
As, don't give me, don't give me the Tracy, don't
give me more of this labor party.
Speaker 3 (14:41):
I'm not going to give you any exclusives.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
Not asking for exclusives. I'm just asking, Tracy. I'm just
asking for some ideas because man, listen to that, that's
the election coming at a rate of lots. You need
to start talking about stuff. You guys are talking about it.
We're going to talk about it. We'll get back to you. Sorry,
voters aren't going to accept that.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
We'll be releasing our policy and due course not long
to wait.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
When's due course? Matte? You see what's your definition of
due course?
Speaker 4 (15:08):
Well, I'm not too sure. I think Tracy and her
team need to defend that. But what is concerning is
there seems to be just a rehashing so far of
old policies and one odd.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
Point to interesting, but it was just a bit job.
Speaker 4 (15:22):
I want to find instinct is when Labour first announced
their removal of co payments for prescriptions on the PR
I looked at it from Chris Hipkins. It was costed
at six hundred and thirteen million dollars. In the last
couple of weeks have re announced that policy. But what's
interesting only sixty five million dollars A bit of labor
(15:44):
math going on, with good labor math, we call this.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
You should be worrying about your own policies, Matt du So.
You could have done this one years ago and listened
to it, cutting more Michibi homes and backing the fossils
gud industry.
Speaker 4 (15:55):
At every Tracy and election is coming up people are
asking us what policies are we going to stand on,
So we are telling them that's a challenge to you
and your team.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
Brilliant. All right, take the ball and run. Let's talk
about intersections. So, Matt, what's your particular beef with the
intersections in your neck of the woods.
Speaker 4 (16:13):
Oh, we've got line Side Road. Many of your listeners
would have used that at some time, connecting State Highway
one with ringing order. We've got a number of reoccurring accidents.
They seem to be around two intersections, Molcox Road and
Fernside Road. The issue I have is that every time
I talk to the council in NZTA, they either dutch
(16:35):
shove it to each other or come back with million
dollar grand designs, which quite frankly, I don't think is needed.
All we need to do, me and you John could
go to mine to ten, get a couple of concrete
planter boxes, put them across those intersections. With adequate signage.
We could close those two intersections. Residents in Molcox and
Fernsides can use Flexton Road and it would be a
(16:58):
very small cost. But I tell you what, it oldly
saves lives. And we're going to start thinking like this.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
Used to encouraging them by the old film major sort
of what approach there?
Speaker 4 (17:07):
Well, I just think that we don't always need million
dollar redesigns where everyone sits around and does big drawings
of left hand right hand grand intersections. We can disclose
those two intersections. Most residents don't use them now because
of the safety issues, and it will actually make line
side road a safer trip between both ends.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
All right, Tracy, I reckon there needs to be attention
paid to rural intersections across the whole Canterbury area. What
do you think they freaked me out?
Speaker 4 (17:39):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (17:39):
Look, well, and Matt knows about this issue, and I've
seen the media of him championing this solution and not
just acknowledging. Obviously, there's been some pretty horrific crashes crushes
of late, and that's you know, that's pretty scary. I
have learned a new word Dutch of that's a new
I haven't haven't heard that phrase before. Matt. I'm going
(17:59):
to put that in my.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Vocation, Tracy. Tracy, you sound a bit You're a bit
like a team at the World Cup winning a min
to go sounds like you're trying to fill time, can
you just answer my question.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
Look, as I said, Matthew Matt Matt's the expert on
those those issues in North Canterbury. I think as he thinks,
and he's hearing feedback from from people that they don't already,
they don't use intersections as they stand already. If he's
got a solution, it's up to him to champion it,
and he's been doing a good job of doing so.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
Yes, but I asked you about the whole the broader
Canterbury rural area, because there are intersections right through the
region that also need detention. We discussed earlier this week
on the show the merits of having flashing lights warning
people come coming from side roads that there is an
intersection approaching. What do you think there's a need for that. Yeah, well, we.
Speaker 3 (18:49):
Certainly seem to have far too many crashes and whether
it's Mills Canterbury or even down down south, and it
seems to be the similar intersections that we see in
the media that are that are that are catching people out.
So you know, maybe maybe that's that's good. I don't
know where that's at in terms of a policy perspective.
Through MZTA, I've always found them to be pretty receptive
(19:10):
whenever I raise specific concerns on particular types of intersections,
but certainly sounds like there's some work to do so.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
Matt, what is your response to the news today that
Wilbrook Homes wants to use your government's fast track legislational
process to get consent to build the houses on the
golf course.
Speaker 4 (19:30):
Yeah, well, the first thing is fast track is about
fast tracking of consents. We have an issue in New
Zealand around that. That's why the government has legislated for it.
I would also point out, which I think gets lost
in the debate is actually fast track is not new.
The last government legislated for fast track under COVID because
(19:50):
we repelled the RAMA law. That's why we re legislated
fast track back At the moment Pegasus specifically, we're a
bit of shadow boxing. Yes, I think they've intimated with
the mayor now they are looking to put in an application.
Of course, until the they do that, it's hard to know.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
The way.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
The first kind of gate is kept through the Minister
of Infrastructure. There is legislative criteria. He will seek advice
whether that meets the entry criteria. If it is, they
go in once they put in a substantive application, an
independent panel.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
Was set up.
Speaker 4 (20:26):
I think the retired Environmental Court judge leads that Manafeno
will get a seat, Council gets a seat, They invite
affected parties in as well, they get expert people to
comment and then it's a statutory decision maker, so it's
independent of government.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
Right.
Speaker 4 (20:42):
You're anti it though, aren't you? For the whole development
for Pegasus. Yeah, I don't think it's a good use
of fast track. I think when you look at all
the development we've got in weimarked ERI then actually we
are responding to the issue around affordability for housing. But
in the end it's up for them to put their
best foot forward to the legislation and be judged on that.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
Do you think, though, that there is an argument for
the for the government to say, actually, we're reading the
room here and we don't think we're not saying no,
but we don't think this should be fast tracked.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
The first thing I'd say, it's an independent statutory decision maker,
quite rightly. But what I would say in response to that,
over twenty five percent of fast track applications have been declined.
A good example is the Delmour housing one in Auckland
because the projects have to be of national or regional significance.
They deemed that housing development not to be of that
(21:38):
and they also declined it because of environmental issues and
infrastructure issues. So it shows there is a statutory process
that takes place, right Tracy McLelland should it go through
fast track?
Speaker 3 (21:50):
No, I don't think so. And look, I agree with
me that fast track has a place for some of
those big, major infrastructure projects. This doesn't feel like in
the same league. And I think it's much more important
that it goes through a proper council process with the
suitable public consent roation. So this is how fast track
can can get used in the wrong way, which you know,
(22:11):
which is why we're against this government's version of fast tracked.
Speaker 2 (22:14):
What would be what would be lacking or missing from
fast track versus the normal process.
Speaker 3 (22:22):
I think some of the rig around it, and and
but you know, as Matt has said, there's a process
in place and if if it's working properly, it probably
shouldn't find its way through this process.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
So let's hope. Right, So Matt, you're you're you're against
the proposal, but you're okay with it going at least
them applying for fast track.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
Is it right?
Speaker 4 (22:47):
Well, like I say, the criteria and the process is
legislated for so that that is the correct route. They'll
put in an application that will be judged based on
its merits and go through that process as well. But
the fundamental points. Do we need to speed up consenting
in New Zealand? The answer is yes. Should we have
arm's length decision making around issues like this? The answer
(23:10):
is yes, and that's why it's an independent panel. And
at the moment the mix seems to be about seventy
five percent approved, twenty five percent decline.
Speaker 2 (23:17):
Right, would you be making a submission yourself.
Speaker 4 (23:19):
Well, you've invited as affected parties. I wouldn't be an
affected party. But in the end, the definition my understanding
of affected parties is the decision of the panel convener.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
All right, brilliant to see you, to talk to you both,
Matte Doucy, have a good weekend. Thanks John and Tracy McLellan.
Thank you have a good weekend.
Speaker 3 (23:39):
Everybody think you will.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Thanks. What five degrees feels like one or something? Rory
was helping with his meteorological expertise.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
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
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com