December 5, 2024 • 20 mins
Today on Politics Friday, National’s Matt Doocey and Labour’s Megan Woods joined John MacDonald to dig into this week’s political news.
Electricity prices are still rising – would ensuring businesses get a lower rate keep them from going out of business?
Will National actually miss their police force target, or is it achievable in the 12 months remaining?
And how about Ayesha Verrall’s ‘cooking the books’ comment against Health Commissioner Lester Levy?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Morning's Podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk ZB.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
I always love seeing Megan Woods in the studio, but
I especially love Meghan Woods well. I love having Meghan
Woods in the studio today, especially to talk about electricity,
given which is a former energy minister. Morning Meghan, Morning John, Morning, Matt.
We politics politics right and Matt do you see the
only cabinet minister from the South Island.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
Do you enjoy having me and two?
Speaker 2 (00:32):
John? Always love having you and Max Oh.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
I had to elicit that from you.
Speaker 4 (00:36):
No, that goes without saying, Matt, Oh.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
I see brothers from another mother and me from here.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Cat.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
What do you think of my brilliant idea of subsidizing
electricity costs for businesses? This is after the OECD report
this morning came out of five o'clock saying that electricity
prices are a major impediment to economic growth.
Speaker 4 (00:56):
I don't think we should be having household subsidized businesses.
I think what we need to be doing is making
sure that we're making electricity a whole lot more affordable
for New zealanderiness and New Zealand households. Shifting the deck
chairs and saying that we're going to have those workers
whose jobs are dependent on the electricity and industries to
have them paying higher power bills. I don't think is
(01:16):
the way. What we need to do is make sure
we are producing the cheapest electricity we can at the moment.
There's a number of problems, but one of the problems
that we have is that even though we can produce
really cheap renewable energy from hydro and wind and solar,
electricity is priced at the most expensive unit to produce,
and that's burning coal and burning gas, So that sets
(01:40):
the price for everything else, even though the others are
cheaper to produce. What we have to have in New
Zealand is way to store electricity affordably and renewably. So
at the moment we store it in coal and gas,
and that's what we use when we don't have enough
water in the hydro lakes and the sun isn't shining
and the wind isn't blying. What we can unleash for
New Zealand businesses and New Zealand households is far cheaper
(02:03):
electricity if we find a way to store that renewably,
and that is the work that I firmly believe need
would be.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
Done, which like Onslow would not have done.
Speaker 4 (02:12):
It's with one option, John. And what the project we
had underway was the New Zealand Battery project and it
was comparing pumped hydro against something.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
We called the portfolio approach, which.
Speaker 4 (02:22):
Was looking at things like batteries using demand side management,
time of use, all those kind of things. So if
not pumped hydro, then what Unfortunately the government has canceled
all the work on the New Zealand Battery project and
the battery wasn't just ever a about long Lake Onslow.
I really think that they literally threw the baby out
(02:43):
with the bathwater on this one because there isn't the
work that needs to be done. This is what New
Zealand households need and what New Zealand businesses need and
is it a problem for productivity?
Speaker 2 (02:54):
Absolutely well, this is Matt Douci. This is what RBCD says.
It's reported to our quite It says GDP growth remained
weak in the second half of twenty twenty four, net
inward migration that started to fall driven by a large
exodus of New Zealand's GDP per capital continues to decline
and a mid twenty twenty four was two and a
half percent lower than a year earlier. A sustained upward
trend in the future's electricity price is causing firm closures
(03:17):
and exerts an additional drag on investment. What are you
going to do about it?
Speaker 5 (03:21):
Yeah, I mean fair to say we have a productivity
issue and I think as that report quite rightly highlights,
when you add cost onto business, you don't give them
certainty to invest. And that's what they're saying. One of
the biggest barriers for business is when they forecast the
cost of increasing electricity to their business, they're not going
(03:43):
to come into New Zealand and invest. And that's what
we've had to pick up from the last government. We're
going to have to relearn that recipe of how we
actually take some cost out for business to make the
cost of business cheaper for them. Now, if you're saying
to me, would you pass that cost on, I'm looking
(04:04):
at a picture behind you with a sand ad on China.
Speaker 3 (04:06):
I think the gritch of Christmas. No, I wouldn't.
Speaker 5 (04:08):
I wouldn't advocate for that, but you so clearly when
we look at the issue around electricity generation and transmission,
we need to get over the issue of consents. That's
why we've got the fast track legislation. We need to
give long term certainty to business around consents with the
thirty five year consent. Obviously, the rama is a big
issue that the last government failed to address.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
That's all fine, this will.
Speaker 5 (04:32):
But it's about giving business and this is the issue
we're talking about now.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
What this comes down to. This is a very simple thing.
It's an easy thing for governments to do is tinker
with the mechanisms and the frameworks without actually putting any
skin in the game yourself.
Speaker 5 (04:48):
No, I mean the role of government is creating that
regulatory settings that business can go on and flourish. We
need an industry lead response. We want them to scale
up for generation and transmission. That's so allowing the regulator
settings for foreign direct investments.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
So capital can come an invent or of business. Is
becoming too expense.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
When you say it's prohibited, When you say in this
industry led response, what do you.
Speaker 5 (05:14):
Mean, Well, it's about private capital. We want private capital
to be invested into the sector. We want to create
the settings. But at the moment when private capital looks
at our electricity, generation and transmission there's too many barriers,
and then the cost of that for other businesses, they're
seeing their electricity costs go up and they're not going
(05:35):
to invest either, and then you get that spiral effect
which impacts on the country's productivity.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
Which is the position we're.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
All just on that private investors from overseas and actually
this is a real thing have pulled out on the
basis of your oil and gas exploration revival.
Speaker 5 (05:51):
I disagree without I'd say, quite frankly the opposite, because
of that slogan airing and the ideological decision. It's actually
scared capital from New Zealand. That's a sovereign ink issue
because what happens if that investors think like term that
a government will come in with very idological decisions and
make cart blanche decisions like that they don't see certainty
(06:14):
within the country. It's a sovereign incagh.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
This is what's sovereign ink.
Speaker 5 (06:18):
Well, it's about the whole viability of the country of
investors don't see that potentially settings will be changed on
them overnight. Who would invest in New Zealand long term?
And that's the issue that we're facing now.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
Megan's getting saw next. She's been shaking her head for
about the last five minutes.
Speaker 4 (06:34):
So I think what we're hearing from Matt is exactly
the kind of thinking that gets us into this trouble.
We can't just have this hands off. We'll just tinker
with some regulatory settings. It's not just about generation, it
is about storing energy, and it is time this government
got the head around it and started some work on
it again, because you can generate all the electricity you want,
(06:55):
but you've got to have a way to store it
for nights and for days and to hang on. Matt,
you go, Matt, we had the work underway. You can't
slt it in. You took away the fund.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
That's all boring.
Speaker 4 (07:06):
That is very important, But you're absolutely right, John. We
have seen foreign capital leave New Zealand. We had people
that were ready to invest in offshore wind, which is
an incredibly important part of the generation mix. Some of
the cheapest electricity that we can produce have left New Zealand.
We're also seeing it put under more risks because this government,
(07:28):
through the Fast Track, is granting offshore mining rights in Taranaki.
That's one of the things that is driving them away.
This government does not have a plan for how it
is we're going to unleash affordable electricity for New Zealanders
and they need to get one. Yesterday it was confirmed
to us at Select Committee that's sitting on the Minister's
desk still and he hasn't moved it. Along is the
(07:50):
energy strategy. This was work we had well underway, and
officials confirmed that there is no decision whether or not.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
That will be project.
Speaker 4 (07:58):
All right, that's negligence.
Speaker 5 (08:00):
Maybe respond to that strategy is all very good, but
problem is they just sit on the shelf as deployer actions,
fast track consenting are going backwards. And Megan talks about
offshore generation. We've got a bill coming to the House
next year that will allow that. That's actually real change.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
All right, he's leaving the country map because of decisions all.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Sorts of talk this week during scrutiny week about cocking
the books and Health New Zealand. I was interested in
Megan and this thing about Health New Zealand finance staff
having to sign non disclosure agreements. What's it all about?
Speaker 4 (08:35):
Yeah, So what we've had is that Health d zed
once they presented their accounts to the Order to General
have had to correct them. The chief financial officer has
left and now the finance team are signing non disclosure agreements. Now,
I've never heard of this across a public entity. In
the thirteen years that I've been a member of Parliament,
I've never seen that. It's highly unusual and I think
(08:59):
we need to know why.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
How does a non disclosure agreement fit in worth openness
and transparency for example? How would that impact on that?
Speaker 4 (09:09):
Well, I mean we need to know the details. We
need to know what it is that they're being told
not to talk about the fact that you'd be going
into your finance team and saying, here's a non disclosure agreement.
It's over and above your obligations as an employee anyway
that you have around confidentiality and the things that people
and professionals understand, and certainly accountants are bound by the
(09:31):
professional standards that they see that the fact that you'd
go in there with an n DA exactly what it is,
they're not allowed to talk about what it is it's
trying to conceal. I think this is something there needs
to be a whole lot more conversation about, because the
whole point about a public entity is that there is
public transparency that we have things like the Order to General,
(09:54):
we have things like select committees going over and looking
at those accounts, and textpayers deserve that this is their money.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
Would you go as far as say the gagging orders?
Speaker 4 (10:05):
Look, I don't know. I need to see the detail.
I need to know exactly what it pertains to. But
as I say, this is highly unusual. I've never seen
NDA's and you know I stand to be corrected. It
may have happened in the past, but I can't recall
a time that I've set in a Select committee or
is a minister seen NDAs put onto finance teams.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Matt Douci, Did this come from the government or from
the Head of Health New Zealand.
Speaker 5 (10:28):
Well Health New Zealand's are independent, crowded.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Here we go operations. Is interesting.
Speaker 5 (10:33):
I think the scrutiny week it's a chance for the
Opposition to throw all their deflections out there and their
conspiracies and the reality is we've got a health system
and disarray.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Can you ask the questions, Well, I know we know
all that, Matt, we know all that. Tell me something
we don't know. Did the directive for it? Is Meghan
saying it today? So you can't ask the question whether
it came from the Health Minister or from the Head
of Health.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
Health Zealand is an independent crown entity.
Speaker 5 (11:01):
Clearly a decision has been made of we take what
Meghan said today on fate its value. I don't know
the decision points behind it, but doesn't mean further information
wouldn't be released. It just means for those individuals. Okay, yeah,
we're talking about here, so finished.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
Eighteen months ago you wouldn't have said this eighteen months
ago in opposition, you would have said they told us
they were going to be the most open and transparent
government in his' yeal in history. And now you're saying, oh,
old no, but.
Speaker 5 (11:30):
You've already fallen into the trap, John, that trap, mate,
Well hold on, let me finish. Why can't I finish
You've already fallen into the trap that if the potential
of this non disclosure agreement has actually stopped the information
coming out into the public, maybe it was just about
a smaller group of people unable to transfer that information
before the Commissioner or the Chief Executive did as part
(11:53):
of normal standard processes where accounts are presented to order
to general because of course they are audited every year.
I mean, these are standard processes. It is nda opposition
jobs to actually, you know, create a bit of opaqueness
and create a few stories for the media. But the
reality is we've got a clean up job. All keywies
(12:15):
know it. We've been left a huge stefficit in the
system and that's what we're addressing.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
And that's what came out all open.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Thank you, Matt, Thank you Meagan. Time's not on our side.
We've got a lot more of It's.
Speaker 4 (12:27):
That Scrutiny Weeks and Select Committees are actually really important.
And I will say that whether we're in government or
in opposition, this is actually Parliament's chance to hold the
executive to account and ask questions on behalf of New
Zealanders to dismiss that as conspiracy theories. And Matt, what
I say then is that you need to come clean
(12:49):
with New Zealanders. What are these NDAs about? Tell us?
Because actually that what New Zealanders expect is a level
of transparency around this kind of thing. And to just
sit there in surmise what they are isn't good enough.
Speaker 5 (13:03):
You know, you're misinterpreting because what I was saying Scrutiny
Week is important. I've spent the week at Wellington as
a minister, been under scrutiny. It's your interpretation of what's
been said that I'm talking about is creating the consumtion?
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Well clear it up, Matt. Are there other non disclosure
agreements for finance staff in other ministries?
Speaker 3 (13:21):
I don't have that information, John.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
All Right, A couple of things to take off before
we wrap up this idea or this announcement by the
government yesterday, Matt Doucy to limit the amount of land
that could be converted farmland converted to forestry. Great idea,
but is there going to be a sting in the
tail in terms of what the impact is going to
be for businesses that up until now have relied on
(13:45):
trees to offset their emissions.
Speaker 5 (13:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (13:47):
Well, I think that's the crux of the issue.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
John.
Speaker 5 (13:49):
It was something we heard very loud and clear in
opposition from our rural communities and our farmers, primarily that
they felt the last government, through their incentivizing under the TES,
had allowed large scale conversions for carbon farming, largely impacting
on our ability for production in sheep and beef dairy
(14:11):
as well, but also quite often could change the social
fabric of some rural communities as it shifted to large
carbon farming farms. So we've made those changes. We've capped
at about twenty five percent for the ets. I think
all it does is give a more level playing foot
field and actually gives farmers and landowners more choice around
(14:33):
their land use as well.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
What is it going to mean though, for manufacturers and
for businesses that have relied on emissions to offset, relied
on the easiest and trees to offset their emissions, They're
going to have to clean up their act, doren't they?
Speaker 5 (14:48):
Well, potentially it will change the setting because what we're
not going to have is just by default, massive wholesale
farm conversions into carbon farming. And I think that would
be detrimental not only to our primary industries, but just
to the fabric of rural communities.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
Meganwoods Rod Carr, going tough with the Climate Change Commissioner,
said this week, we're going to get the sober alliance
on pine trees. What's your response to the look.
Speaker 4 (15:10):
One of the things that we have to make sure
is that we don't just keep putting more and more
credits into the emissions training scheme, and that's what planting
more and more pine trees do so absolutely agree. We
were making moves around how we kind of limit the
number of credits and agree with the government sentiment around that.
In terms of this announcement yesterday, I'm going to in
(15:32):
late breaking and breaking news going to say, I need
to look more at the detail of this. I've got
some questions. So one of the things that it is
allowing to do is existing farmers to still do on
farm conversions and do planting. But what does that mean?
How long do you have to own a farm before
you could do a conversion. Can someone go and you know,
(15:53):
buy a operating farm, own it for X number of
months or years and then and I've bought it for
the purposes of planting trees, but kind of wait it
out and still do it. So I think there's a
lot of detail we need to pick through. I think
that agree with the sentiment we can't just keep planting trees.
We need to think about the communities that it is
(16:15):
the culture of some of those rural communities we're being changed.
But I'm not convinced without looking at the detail, that
this actually does what it sets out to do. This
is complicated and detailed, ets working often these unforeseen circumstances
in which he had Rod car at Select committee yesterday
at the Environment's Select Committee, and he was doing some
back of the envelope of how many trees can still
(16:38):
be planted under these settings and.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
It's still a lot.
Speaker 4 (16:41):
So we need to look at the details.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
All right, So you guys, you're going to you're going
to stop banging on at Mark Mitchell for not delivering
five hundred new cops by the end of next year
and it might be six months later somewhat.
Speaker 4 (16:52):
Because it's very easy in opposition to stand there and
say what you're going to do. I think what Mark
Mitchell was finding is that he is missing his target,
that we're not getting those police right till the end
of the term. Wind backed the election campaign and the
months leading up to it, John about how they were
going to be all these more cops on the beat.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
And there we're going to be all of these new
houses under labor.
Speaker 4 (17:14):
And look, we we fronted up on that in terms
of key we build, and we said we've got the
settings wrong and that we pull we pulled back and
we and we changed things around there. And that's what
you have to do in government. Sometimes being in government
is difficult. The fact of the matter is that Mark
Mitchell and this government is missing their target.
Speaker 3 (17:32):
On new cops on the beat.
Speaker 4 (17:34):
That is not what the public signed up for and
not what they voted for.
Speaker 5 (17:38):
This reinforces my whole point to the earlier questions under
correct it, correct me it.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
I mean the public signed when it came to voting,
policies didn't matter. People just wanted your government out, so
it didn't matter. I don't think you can say they're
voted for five hundred more cops.
Speaker 4 (17:54):
No, Certainly law and order was a big issue. John
and National promise that there were going to be more police.
Now we're seeing that they're failing to deliver on their target.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
I do see.
Speaker 5 (18:05):
I just wanted to clarify people listening when Meghan says
we're failing to deliver on the target. The target is
to be delivered in twelve months time. It reaffirms my
point in the last question around the interpretation and the
misleading interpretation. Someone quite rightly said at scrutiny Week it
was going to be difficult to deliver the target in
(18:27):
twelve months time. There's still twelve months to deliver it.
We need to deliver on teny seven hundred and eleven
police officers.
Speaker 3 (18:35):
In the force.
Speaker 5 (18:36):
Five hundred of them will be new and as quite
rightly it said, it was difficult. So we haven't missed
a target. We are on track to deliver a difficult target.
But I have all faith of Mitchell and this government
says I should and I think we will deliver it.
But rest assured to your listeners listening still twelve months ago.
Speaker 4 (18:54):
So I'm going to be there, are they?
Speaker 5 (18:56):
Matt, Well, you just told people that we had missed
the target again, got the commission with interpretation.
Speaker 4 (19:03):
What the Assistant Commissioner said was very very very challenging,
and that when asked with an where the twenty twenty
six was, was a was a more realistic time right timeline.
That's what he said. It sounded like a far Anyway,
we've got speaking for Mark Mitchell telling us that the
(19:25):
original target stands and those police will be delivered. So
we'll hold Matt Mark Mitchell in the National Party to
two accounts on that.
Speaker 3 (19:32):
One look forward to a bookmark and.
Speaker 5 (19:34):
My proposition after Megan's contribution today, we actually need a
scrutiny week for the opposition's comments to scrutinize them.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Well, this is part of scrutiny week. This is the
Cristis branch of scrutiny. This is brilliant, it's right and
will scrutinize you lot.
Speaker 4 (19:48):
Receivers failing to deliver. The Other thing about that police
target the money. The money has been siphoned off to
pay for other things. Same, that's one of the things
that they've got.
Speaker 2 (20:00):
No, it's not the Christmas messages, but.
Speaker 4 (20:04):
You've taken the money and you've paid for other of things.
That's what is going to make delivery services, new police station.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
Thank you both, Megan on things for your time today.
Thank you, nice to see you, Nice to say up you. John.
All right, thanks back next week. It is at least
you're not running out like last time. I thought.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
I thought you've done.
Speaker 3 (20:25):
Man, I want to get off.
Speaker 1 (20:27):
You go 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 Morning's Podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk ZB.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
I always love seeing Megan Woods in the studio, but
I especially love Meghan Woods well. I love having Meghan
Woods in the studio today, especially to talk about electricity,
given which is a former energy minister. Morning Meghan, Morning John, Morning, Matt.
We politics politics right and Matt do you see the
only cabinet minister from the South Island.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
Do you enjoy having me and two?
Speaker 2 (00:32):
John? Always love having you and Max Oh.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
I had to elicit that from you.
Speaker 4 (00:36):
No, that goes without saying, Matt, Oh.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
I see brothers from another mother and me from here.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Cat.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
What do you think of my brilliant idea of subsidizing
electricity costs for businesses? This is after the OECD report
this morning came out of five o'clock saying that electricity
prices are a major impediment to economic growth.
Speaker 4 (00:56):
I don't think we should be having household subsidized businesses.
I think what we need to be doing is making
sure that we're making electricity a whole lot more affordable
for New zealanderiness and New Zealand households. Shifting the deck
chairs and saying that we're going to have those workers
whose jobs are dependent on the electricity and industries to
have them paying higher power bills. I don't think is
(01:16):
the way. What we need to do is make sure
we are producing the cheapest electricity we can at the moment.
There's a number of problems, but one of the problems
that we have is that even though we can produce
really cheap renewable energy from hydro and wind and solar,
electricity is priced at the most expensive unit to produce,
and that's burning coal and burning gas, So that sets
(01:40):
the price for everything else, even though the others are
cheaper to produce. What we have to have in New
Zealand is way to store electricity affordably and renewably. So
at the moment we store it in coal and gas,
and that's what we use when we don't have enough
water in the hydro lakes and the sun isn't shining
and the wind isn't blying. What we can unleash for
New Zealand businesses and New Zealand households is far cheaper
(02:03):
electricity if we find a way to store that renewably,
and that is the work that I firmly believe need
would be.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
Done, which like Onslow would not have done.
Speaker 4 (02:12):
It's with one option, John. And what the project we
had underway was the New Zealand Battery project and it
was comparing pumped hydro against something.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
We called the portfolio approach, which.
Speaker 4 (02:22):
Was looking at things like batteries using demand side management,
time of use, all those kind of things. So if
not pumped hydro, then what Unfortunately the government has canceled
all the work on the New Zealand Battery project and
the battery wasn't just ever a about long Lake Onslow.
I really think that they literally threw the baby out
(02:43):
with the bathwater on this one because there isn't the
work that needs to be done. This is what New
Zealand households need and what New Zealand businesses need and
is it a problem for productivity?
Speaker 2 (02:54):
Absolutely well, this is Matt Douci. This is what RBCD says.
It's reported to our quite It says GDP growth remained
weak in the second half of twenty twenty four, net
inward migration that started to fall driven by a large
exodus of New Zealand's GDP per capital continues to decline
and a mid twenty twenty four was two and a
half percent lower than a year earlier. A sustained upward
trend in the future's electricity price is causing firm closures
(03:17):
and exerts an additional drag on investment. What are you
going to do about it?
Speaker 5 (03:21):
Yeah, I mean fair to say we have a productivity
issue and I think as that report quite rightly highlights,
when you add cost onto business, you don't give them
certainty to invest. And that's what they're saying. One of
the biggest barriers for business is when they forecast the
cost of increasing electricity to their business, they're not going
(03:43):
to come into New Zealand and invest. And that's what
we've had to pick up from the last government. We're
going to have to relearn that recipe of how we
actually take some cost out for business to make the
cost of business cheaper for them. Now, if you're saying
to me, would you pass that cost on, I'm looking
(04:04):
at a picture behind you with a sand ad on China.
Speaker 3 (04:06):
I think the gritch of Christmas. No, I wouldn't.
Speaker 5 (04:08):
I wouldn't advocate for that, but you so clearly when
we look at the issue around electricity generation and transmission,
we need to get over the issue of consents. That's
why we've got the fast track legislation. We need to
give long term certainty to business around consents with the
thirty five year consent. Obviously, the rama is a big
issue that the last government failed to address.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
That's all fine, this will.
Speaker 5 (04:32):
But it's about giving business and this is the issue
we're talking about now.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
What this comes down to. This is a very simple thing.
It's an easy thing for governments to do is tinker
with the mechanisms and the frameworks without actually putting any
skin in the game yourself.
Speaker 5 (04:48):
No, I mean the role of government is creating that
regulatory settings that business can go on and flourish. We
need an industry lead response. We want them to scale
up for generation and transmission. That's so allowing the regulator
settings for foreign direct investments.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
So capital can come an invent or of business. Is
becoming too expense.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
When you say it's prohibited, When you say in this
industry led response, what do you.
Speaker 5 (05:14):
Mean, Well, it's about private capital. We want private capital
to be invested into the sector. We want to create
the settings. But at the moment when private capital looks
at our electricity, generation and transmission there's too many barriers,
and then the cost of that for other businesses, they're
seeing their electricity costs go up and they're not going
(05:35):
to invest either, and then you get that spiral effect
which impacts on the country's productivity.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
Which is the position we're.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
All just on that private investors from overseas and actually
this is a real thing have pulled out on the
basis of your oil and gas exploration revival.
Speaker 5 (05:51):
I disagree without I'd say, quite frankly the opposite, because
of that slogan airing and the ideological decision. It's actually
scared capital from New Zealand. That's a sovereign ink issue
because what happens if that investors think like term that
a government will come in with very idological decisions and
make cart blanche decisions like that they don't see certainty
(06:14):
within the country. It's a sovereign incagh.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
This is what's sovereign ink.
Speaker 5 (06:18):
Well, it's about the whole viability of the country of
investors don't see that potentially settings will be changed on
them overnight. Who would invest in New Zealand long term?
And that's the issue that we're facing now.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
Megan's getting saw next. She's been shaking her head for
about the last five minutes.
Speaker 4 (06:34):
So I think what we're hearing from Matt is exactly
the kind of thinking that gets us into this trouble.
We can't just have this hands off. We'll just tinker
with some regulatory settings. It's not just about generation, it
is about storing energy, and it is time this government
got the head around it and started some work on
it again, because you can generate all the electricity you want,
(06:55):
but you've got to have a way to store it
for nights and for days and to hang on. Matt,
you go, Matt, we had the work underway. You can't
slt it in. You took away the fund.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
That's all boring.
Speaker 4 (07:06):
That is very important, But you're absolutely right, John. We
have seen foreign capital leave New Zealand. We had people
that were ready to invest in offshore wind, which is
an incredibly important part of the generation mix. Some of
the cheapest electricity that we can produce have left New Zealand.
We're also seeing it put under more risks because this government,
(07:28):
through the Fast Track, is granting offshore mining rights in Taranaki.
That's one of the things that is driving them away.
This government does not have a plan for how it
is we're going to unleash affordable electricity for New Zealanders
and they need to get one. Yesterday it was confirmed
to us at Select Committee that's sitting on the Minister's
desk still and he hasn't moved it. Along is the
(07:50):
energy strategy. This was work we had well underway, and
officials confirmed that there is no decision whether or not.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
That will be project.
Speaker 4 (07:58):
All right, that's negligence.
Speaker 5 (08:00):
Maybe respond to that strategy is all very good, but
problem is they just sit on the shelf as deployer actions,
fast track consenting are going backwards. And Megan talks about
offshore generation. We've got a bill coming to the House
next year that will allow that. That's actually real change.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
All right, he's leaving the country map because of decisions all.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Sorts of talk this week during scrutiny week about cocking
the books and Health New Zealand. I was interested in
Megan and this thing about Health New Zealand finance staff
having to sign non disclosure agreements. What's it all about?
Speaker 4 (08:35):
Yeah, So what we've had is that Health d zed
once they presented their accounts to the Order to General
have had to correct them. The chief financial officer has
left and now the finance team are signing non disclosure agreements. Now,
I've never heard of this across a public entity. In
the thirteen years that I've been a member of Parliament,
I've never seen that. It's highly unusual and I think
(08:59):
we need to know why.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
How does a non disclosure agreement fit in worth openness
and transparency for example? How would that impact on that?
Speaker 4 (09:09):
Well, I mean we need to know the details. We
need to know what it is that they're being told
not to talk about the fact that you'd be going
into your finance team and saying, here's a non disclosure agreement.
It's over and above your obligations as an employee anyway
that you have around confidentiality and the things that people
and professionals understand, and certainly accountants are bound by the
(09:31):
professional standards that they see that the fact that you'd
go in there with an n DA exactly what it is,
they're not allowed to talk about what it is it's
trying to conceal. I think this is something there needs
to be a whole lot more conversation about, because the
whole point about a public entity is that there is
public transparency that we have things like the Order to General,
(09:54):
we have things like select committees going over and looking
at those accounts, and textpayers deserve that this is their money.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
Would you go as far as say the gagging orders?
Speaker 4 (10:05):
Look, I don't know. I need to see the detail.
I need to know exactly what it pertains to. But
as I say, this is highly unusual. I've never seen
NDA's and you know I stand to be corrected. It
may have happened in the past, but I can't recall
a time that I've set in a Select committee or
is a minister seen NDAs put onto finance teams.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Matt Douci, Did this come from the government or from
the Head of Health New Zealand.
Speaker 5 (10:28):
Well Health New Zealand's are independent, crowded.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Here we go operations. Is interesting.
Speaker 5 (10:33):
I think the scrutiny week it's a chance for the
Opposition to throw all their deflections out there and their
conspiracies and the reality is we've got a health system
and disarray.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Can you ask the questions, Well, I know we know
all that, Matt, we know all that. Tell me something
we don't know. Did the directive for it? Is Meghan
saying it today? So you can't ask the question whether
it came from the Health Minister or from the Head
of Health.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
Health Zealand is an independent crown entity.
Speaker 5 (11:01):
Clearly a decision has been made of we take what
Meghan said today on fate its value. I don't know
the decision points behind it, but doesn't mean further information
wouldn't be released. It just means for those individuals. Okay, yeah,
we're talking about here, so finished.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
Eighteen months ago you wouldn't have said this eighteen months
ago in opposition, you would have said they told us
they were going to be the most open and transparent
government in his' yeal in history. And now you're saying, oh,
old no, but.
Speaker 5 (11:30):
You've already fallen into the trap, John, that trap, mate,
Well hold on, let me finish. Why can't I finish
You've already fallen into the trap that if the potential
of this non disclosure agreement has actually stopped the information
coming out into the public, maybe it was just about
a smaller group of people unable to transfer that information
before the Commissioner or the Chief Executive did as part
(11:53):
of normal standard processes where accounts are presented to order
to general because of course they are audited every year.
I mean, these are standard processes. It is nda opposition
jobs to actually, you know, create a bit of opaqueness
and create a few stories for the media. But the
reality is we've got a clean up job. All keywies
(12:15):
know it. We've been left a huge stefficit in the
system and that's what we're addressing.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
And that's what came out all open.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Thank you, Matt, Thank you Meagan. Time's not on our side.
We've got a lot more of It's.
Speaker 4 (12:27):
That Scrutiny Weeks and Select Committees are actually really important.
And I will say that whether we're in government or
in opposition, this is actually Parliament's chance to hold the
executive to account and ask questions on behalf of New
Zealanders to dismiss that as conspiracy theories. And Matt, what
I say then is that you need to come clean
(12:49):
with New Zealanders. What are these NDAs about? Tell us?
Because actually that what New Zealanders expect is a level
of transparency around this kind of thing. And to just
sit there in surmise what they are isn't good enough.
Speaker 5 (13:03):
You know, you're misinterpreting because what I was saying Scrutiny
Week is important. I've spent the week at Wellington as
a minister, been under scrutiny. It's your interpretation of what's
been said that I'm talking about is creating the consumtion?
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Well clear it up, Matt. Are there other non disclosure
agreements for finance staff in other ministries?
Speaker 3 (13:21):
I don't have that information, John.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
All Right, A couple of things to take off before
we wrap up this idea or this announcement by the
government yesterday, Matt Doucy to limit the amount of land
that could be converted farmland converted to forestry. Great idea,
but is there going to be a sting in the
tail in terms of what the impact is going to
be for businesses that up until now have relied on
(13:45):
trees to offset their emissions.
Speaker 5 (13:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (13:47):
Well, I think that's the crux of the issue.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
John.
Speaker 5 (13:49):
It was something we heard very loud and clear in
opposition from our rural communities and our farmers, primarily that
they felt the last government, through their incentivizing under the TES,
had allowed large scale conversions for carbon farming, largely impacting
on our ability for production in sheep and beef dairy
(14:11):
as well, but also quite often could change the social
fabric of some rural communities as it shifted to large
carbon farming farms. So we've made those changes. We've capped
at about twenty five percent for the ets. I think
all it does is give a more level playing foot
field and actually gives farmers and landowners more choice around
(14:33):
their land use as well.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
What is it going to mean though, for manufacturers and
for businesses that have relied on emissions to offset, relied
on the easiest and trees to offset their emissions, They're
going to have to clean up their act, doren't they?
Speaker 5 (14:48):
Well, potentially it will change the setting because what we're
not going to have is just by default, massive wholesale
farm conversions into carbon farming. And I think that would
be detrimental not only to our primary industries, but just
to the fabric of rural communities.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
Meganwoods Rod Carr, going tough with the Climate Change Commissioner,
said this week, we're going to get the sober alliance
on pine trees. What's your response to the look.
Speaker 4 (15:10):
One of the things that we have to make sure
is that we don't just keep putting more and more
credits into the emissions training scheme, and that's what planting
more and more pine trees do so absolutely agree. We
were making moves around how we kind of limit the
number of credits and agree with the government sentiment around that.
In terms of this announcement yesterday, I'm going to in
(15:32):
late breaking and breaking news going to say, I need
to look more at the detail of this. I've got
some questions. So one of the things that it is
allowing to do is existing farmers to still do on
farm conversions and do planting. But what does that mean?
How long do you have to own a farm before
you could do a conversion. Can someone go and you know,
(15:53):
buy a operating farm, own it for X number of
months or years and then and I've bought it for
the purposes of planting trees, but kind of wait it
out and still do it. So I think there's a
lot of detail we need to pick through. I think
that agree with the sentiment we can't just keep planting trees.
We need to think about the communities that it is
(16:15):
the culture of some of those rural communities we're being changed.
But I'm not convinced without looking at the detail, that
this actually does what it sets out to do. This
is complicated and detailed, ets working often these unforeseen circumstances
in which he had Rod car at Select committee yesterday
at the Environment's Select Committee, and he was doing some
back of the envelope of how many trees can still
(16:38):
be planted under these settings and.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
It's still a lot.
Speaker 4 (16:41):
So we need to look at the details.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
All right, So you guys, you're going to you're going
to stop banging on at Mark Mitchell for not delivering
five hundred new cops by the end of next year
and it might be six months later somewhat.
Speaker 4 (16:52):
Because it's very easy in opposition to stand there and
say what you're going to do. I think what Mark
Mitchell was finding is that he is missing his target,
that we're not getting those police right till the end
of the term. Wind backed the election campaign and the
months leading up to it, John about how they were
going to be all these more cops on the beat.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
And there we're going to be all of these new
houses under labor.
Speaker 4 (17:14):
And look, we we fronted up on that in terms
of key we build, and we said we've got the
settings wrong and that we pull we pulled back and
we and we changed things around there. And that's what
you have to do in government. Sometimes being in government
is difficult. The fact of the matter is that Mark
Mitchell and this government is missing their target.
Speaker 3 (17:32):
On new cops on the beat.
Speaker 4 (17:34):
That is not what the public signed up for and
not what they voted for.
Speaker 5 (17:38):
This reinforces my whole point to the earlier questions under
correct it, correct me it.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
I mean the public signed when it came to voting,
policies didn't matter. People just wanted your government out, so
it didn't matter. I don't think you can say they're
voted for five hundred more cops.
Speaker 4 (17:54):
No, Certainly law and order was a big issue. John
and National promise that there were going to be more police.
Now we're seeing that they're failing to deliver on their target.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
I do see.
Speaker 5 (18:05):
I just wanted to clarify people listening when Meghan says
we're failing to deliver on the target. The target is
to be delivered in twelve months time. It reaffirms my
point in the last question around the interpretation and the
misleading interpretation. Someone quite rightly said at scrutiny Week it
was going to be difficult to deliver the target in
(18:27):
twelve months time. There's still twelve months to deliver it.
We need to deliver on teny seven hundred and eleven
police officers.
Speaker 3 (18:35):
In the force.
Speaker 5 (18:36):
Five hundred of them will be new and as quite
rightly it said, it was difficult. So we haven't missed
a target. We are on track to deliver a difficult target.
But I have all faith of Mitchell and this government
says I should and I think we will deliver it.
But rest assured to your listeners listening still twelve months ago.
Speaker 4 (18:54):
So I'm going to be there, are they?
Speaker 5 (18:56):
Matt, Well, you just told people that we had missed
the target again, got the commission with interpretation.
Speaker 4 (19:03):
What the Assistant Commissioner said was very very very challenging,
and that when asked with an where the twenty twenty
six was, was a was a more realistic time right timeline.
That's what he said. It sounded like a far Anyway,
we've got speaking for Mark Mitchell telling us that the
(19:25):
original target stands and those police will be delivered. So
we'll hold Matt Mark Mitchell in the National Party to
two accounts on that.
Speaker 3 (19:32):
One look forward to a bookmark and.
Speaker 5 (19:34):
My proposition after Megan's contribution today, we actually need a
scrutiny week for the opposition's comments to scrutinize them.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Well, this is part of scrutiny week. This is the
Cristis branch of scrutiny. This is brilliant, it's right and
will scrutinize you lot.
Speaker 4 (19:48):
Receivers failing to deliver. The Other thing about that police
target the money. The money has been siphoned off to
pay for other things. Same, that's one of the things
that they've got.
Speaker 2 (20:00):
No, it's not the Christmas messages, but.
Speaker 4 (20:04):
You've taken the money and you've paid for other of things.
That's what is going to make delivery services, new police station.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
Thank you both, Megan on things for your time today.
Thank you, nice to see you, Nice to say up you. John.
All right, thanks back next week. It is at least
you're not running out like last time. I thought.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
I thought you've done.
Speaker 3 (20:25):
Man, I want to get off.
Speaker 1 (20:27):
You go 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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.