In the first Politics Friday of 2025, John MacDonald was joined by Matt Doocey and Megan Woods to dig into some of the biggest political stories of the week.
New data reveals that ACC paid out almost $15 million for e-scooter injuries last year, a nearly 50% increase on the year before – is it time for the businesses operating them to pay levies?
What does Megan make of Shane Jones honing in on the banks and their dealings —or lack thereof— with fossil fuel companies? Is it wise to sell off the country’s state-owned assets? And the new school lunch programme has seen some criticism – would Matt eat the meals?
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 Z'B.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
The seven past ten and Matt Deucey's walked in and
wished me Happy New Year. I was told miss the
cut off point. Today Meghan Woods has walked in and
wished me a happy New Year, which is lovely. And
they've done that because they're here for politics Friday. Meghan
Woods morning.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Good morning and happy New Year to everybody.
Speaker 4 (00:27):
Cut off date.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
I think I just needed to get it in.
Speaker 4 (00:30):
John.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
It was ten am today and Matt Doucy morning to you.
Speaker 4 (00:34):
Good morning. I'm actually going to wish people happy New
Year tomorrow now, just because you told me, I've got it.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
It will be February tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
I believe it.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
It's a month tonight since New Year's Eve? What are
you doing on New Year's Eve?
Speaker 4 (00:45):
I was actually in Wellington on New Year's Eve?
Speaker 2 (00:47):
All right?
Speaker 4 (00:48):
Was worth it? It rained?
Speaker 2 (00:50):
All right? What did you get up to?
Speaker 4 (00:51):
But I was actually at the Courtney Carnival. It was
the Doucy family seventh annual holiday to Wellington for New
Year's We go and take the kids up to see
the fireworks, catch up with family up there as well.
Fear to say, probably the it's weather, but I suppose
a consoling factor was, let's be Candida wasn't the best
here either.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
So no, I wasn't Megan. How was your I don't
know why masking this, but how was How was your?
New Year's Eve?
Speaker 4 (01:16):
Was really nice?
Speaker 3 (01:16):
I had some friends around for dinner. We cooked and
just spent some time channing. It was really nice. But yeah,
I don't think I can hoodwink your listeners into agreeing
with me. It was a beautiful, balmy night where everyone
outside it was very much was It was very much
an indoor.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
It was all the fireworks was canceled.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
I love to sleep by eight pm on the.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Don't I don't joke about it.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
The dream it wasn't.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
It wasn't quite there early. But I had a very
beautiful dinner out with our daughter because everyone was scattered
far and wide, and we were in town US too,
and we went to a place called Cocomo on Wells Street.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Ah, that's really delicious.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
So sounding now, like the microphones aren't on, and this
is what we do during the ad break, So well
politics Friday, Nice to have you here. Can we talk
about escooters? We can Matte. You have a familiar familiarity
with the accident compensation do in What do you make
of the fact that escoter injuries or a SEC plants
for escuter injuries last year fifteen million bucks, up fifty
(02:25):
percent of the year before, and people us these things
pay no acc levees.
Speaker 4 (02:29):
Yeah, I suppose when you look at it, anything's possible
in the construct of acc about the regulations and when
you look at at levees, I mean there's a continual
argument with acc around entitlements, what gets covered, what doesn't,
how do we pay for it? But when you break
it down right, there's about four key accounts in acc
(02:53):
And when you look at motor vehicles, there's a motor
vehicles account and through your registration that pays for accidents
that are caused by motor vehicles. Currently, when you've got scooters,
they're not covered in the vehicle account. So I suppose
the point I'm making is that it's covered by people
(03:15):
paying their acc levy either through the work account or
the non earner's account those for people who aren't. So yep,
you could arguably get people to pay a registration for
these scooters. But then actually what you're doing is you
are exposing people with motor vehicles and motorcyclists to the
(03:39):
cost of scooters coming out of their account as well.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
So a lot of people saying this morning, they have
several vehicles, might have a bike, might have a motorbike,
might have a car and something else, and their beef
is that they pay ACC for each vehicle, whereas they
can't use all of those vehicles at the same time.
So why shouldn't they just pay one fee overall? What
do you think?
Speaker 4 (04:03):
Yeah, because at the moment it's constructed registration. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
Do you think that's wrong?
Speaker 4 (04:09):
No, I think it's correct that you should pay per vehicle.
Look like I say that there's a range of ways
that you can approach this, but ultimately ACC is set
up by the individual accounts to cover the cost. So look,
you could potentially include e scooters. When I was a minister,
I wasn't looking at that. But then you start to say, well,
(04:31):
I suppose would you include cycling, would you include skiing?
But at the moment, the cost of e scooters to
the ACC scheme is paid by the earners and non
earners accounts, so it is covered all.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Right, Megan Woods, do you agree with the AA that
ees scooters are out of control in terms of the
regulations or lack.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
Of I don't know if I think it's out of
control or we're open at looking at any sensible looking
at any sensible changes. You know, we'll see what the
government comes up with. So we're not going to say,
you know, hard, yes, hard, no on anything. I do
think and I know some of your this morning, he'd
been kind of bringing up cyclists as well in terms
of how you might put that against scooters. So I
(05:14):
don't think it's entirely black and white and simple, but
we're open to look at any sensible solutions. I mean,
we know that, you know, on an e scooter you
can get up to some pretty high speeds, likewise with
e bikes initially bikes as well. But as I said,
happy to talk to the government about anything they might
come up with.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
What about the companies like Lime Scooters and all of those,
they make money out of it, but you could say
that in some ways that they make money out of
enabling people to potentially injure themselves.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
Well, I think one of the things that AA has
brought up is that there aren't any rules around the
fact that you can't be You know, there's nothing to
stop you actually being on your phone when you're on
a scooter. You take away the stuff around alcohol and
whether or not you can be on a scooter. I
think most people would think it would be sensible that
you probably shouldn't be texting and scooting.
Speaker 4 (05:57):
Well, I saw it.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
I saw a guy I've mentioned already this morning, saw
a guy on a Lime scooter went past the window here.
He wouldn't have seen me because he's looking down his phone,
one hand on the handlebar, on the other texting.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
It can be like that when people are walking down
the street too.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
It can be like that in Parliament as well.
Speaker 4 (06:11):
But I don't know.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
If you've ever experienced walking down the street and someone
bangs into you because they're not looking where they're going,
because they're down looking at their phone.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
It might have been me that banged into your make
could speaker could have noticed? Speaking of movement speed limit changes,
Matt Doocy, did you laugh, come on behind the scenes,
did you laugh when you heard the Prime Minister say
that On the particular road and by a rupper where
the speed limit went up back to one hundred overnight,
people were going to save three minutes? Did you laugh?
Speaker 4 (06:40):
I did know what I did laugh at as the
former Associate Transport Minister for Labor, Karen macnaughty said it
couldn't be done reversing the blanket speed limit changes. We've
done it. And actually, when I think back in the
last term and when Megan was in government, the blanket
speed limit rule changes would be probably one of the
biggest topics of feedback I'd get back when I saw
(07:03):
the plans for towns like Rungy Order and KAYPOI to
go down to thirty kilometers as well an hour. People
did not want that. We campaigned on the changes and
that's what we're doing.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
Megan Woods I said earlier in the week that potentially
the government could have blood on its hands over this.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
Yeah, and look, I mean what we've said is where
it makes sense. We're not opposed to raising some of
the speed limits. One of the things I actually do
feel really strongly about about this, John, is that actually
we need people that are experts in road safety making
these decisions. I actually think us politicians should get our
fingers out of it. It shouldn't be a political thing. Really, No,
(07:45):
I actually do think that this is actually there's science
behind it, there's evidence. We know these areas where people
do get injured and where they do get killed, and
there's high fatality roads to have to have it subject
to kind of the recons of politicians. And I put
us in that this is not a slip.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
At the government who made the decision.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
Zero.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
John, I'm saying all of us. I'm not saying this
is a no. I'm saying this is my personal view.
I do think there are some things that we should
leave to the experts, and where people's lives potentially are
on the line. And you said it, John, you said
earlier in the week, you said that the government could
have blood on its hands. Where we're talking about something
as important as people's lives being on the line, then
(08:28):
we should be wholly evidenced in governments of any stripe,
and that includes us. I think we should let.
Speaker 4 (08:33):
John, let's be very clear. We're not necessarily increasing speed
limits for increasing the speed limit's sake, We're just returning them. Yeah,
but what they were Meddi but you hold a megan
ideologically ideologically they wanted to lower speed limits. She's now
saying it was the wrong decision that they weighed in
(08:54):
and actually, all we're doing is what the public asked
us and returning it back to the original levels. And
that's what people are supportive of.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
And you genuinely believe that increasing the speed on a
particular stretch of road by three minutes will increase productivity
and create economic growth, Well, you really believe?
Speaker 4 (09:11):
What I believe in is the people in towns like
Kypu and Ranguora having it forced on them that their
speed limits were going to be thirty was ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
Ask the question, do you genuinely believe that by increasing
the speed limit and enabling people to cover a distance
three minutes quicker, that's going to contribute to economic growth?
Speaker 4 (09:29):
Well, anything we can do, by definition, John, nothing is
a silver bullet. But all these changes add up to
support people, grow the economy and productivity. Getting freight to
market quicker does do that.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Megan can't resistant and I can't resist letting you come
back on Matt Deuce's comments here about the speed limits, Yeah,
I think.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
And productivity yeah, And I think for Met to claim
this with some ideological decision, it wasn't. It was based
on expert advice around road safety. As I said, more
than happy to look at where it makes sense to
raise them back to where the so worried about productivity. John,
what I say to matter is get in there, advocate
(10:11):
around the cabinet table for the Brown Street upgrade, which
your government ripped the funding out of. Not only the
upgrade that will get our goods to the port, from
the from the hinterland to the pork. I have to
do it the safety upgrade between Collins and Sydon Street,
so kids from any one of the time, one at
(10:35):
a time, and your government took away the money that
was sitting there. The project had started on the Brown
Street upgrade.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
That was on what had started.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
In terms of the Brown Street upgrade, that's acquired properties
to get ready to do it, and all the plans
were done because underway the money was there, John, and
it started. They took the money out and they reapplied
it to projects in the Northwest.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
A little bit the time the time you claimed that
the work had started on the stadium and I went
down and had a look. There's one geotech truck there
and I thought, you call you call at work underway,
look at the stadium.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
It's boosting ahead. And you had to do the got.
Speaker 4 (11:15):
To get a sensible joy Right, Yeah, that might have
been the year of delivery, remember that one.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Right, let's talk about because we've talked to a mat
with your familiarity with acc Megan, you're a former energy minister.
Do you think I do you agree with Shane Jones
that the banks are being unnecessarily cruel on the fossil
fuels industry.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
Look, I think what we're saying is election twenty six
starting the beginning. No, I don't agree with Shane Jones
that we should have politicians taking bills to the house
telling banks who they have to lend to. I think
it's a slippery slope that we shouldn't go down. Banks
make commercial decisions in the best interest of their shareholders.
(11:58):
Let's not cut ourselves. They don't get out of bed
in the morning and think we're going to change the
world that what they have. We saw nearly over a
decade ago now Mike Carney, who was the Governor of
the Reserve Bank of England, saying that they were moving
out of it because they were subprime assets. In terms
of fossil fuels, it's not where the big growth is.
(12:18):
You're seeing pension funds right around the world, not for
any climate action agenda, but because they know that they're
not the best returns that they can get for their shareholders.
So these are commercial, hard nosed decisions that the banks
are making. The fact that we have a politician he's
heod Peter Dutton saying something over in Australia thinks he
(12:39):
might chip in with it here. But if he's saying
that he's bringing legislation to the House to tell the
banks what to do, what else is going to be
on that list? And who else to tell them what.
Speaker 4 (12:50):
You're going to do?
Speaker 2 (12:51):
You know how you said before that you didn't think
politicians should make decisions about road safety issues.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
No, I said they shouldn't be making the assessments. We
obviously have to put them into practice. But in terms
of following the evidence based advice.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Do you feel the same. It's link to what we're
talking about right now. Do you feel the same about
politicians making decisions decisions in relation to climate change?
Speaker 3 (13:15):
In terms of well, we have to because we have
in twenty fifteen we had the John Key lead government
who signed us up to the Paris Agreement. If we
don't meet our emissions targets, we have to go and
pay other countries hundreds of millions or billions of dollars
rather than keeping jobs here in New Zealand. So absolutely
(13:35):
it is the job of politicians to make sure we
are protecting key we work as Matt dooci.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
Do you agree with your coalition colleague that the banks
need to be rained in.
Speaker 4 (13:44):
Yes, I don't think banks should be setting the agenda
like that. It's not for them to decide that. And actually,
when you look at the industries they are focusing on mining.
We know we need to double exports. We've got a
current account deficit of about thirteen billion, so this government
said an ambitious agenda to double exports. Mining and mineral
(14:07):
extraction will be part of that. We want to grow
it to three billion dollars. But let's think of our
primary industries now, they will be under attack here with
this Global Banking Alliance. Thankfully, now we're seeing some of
the bigger international banks break away from this United Nations Alliance.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
What it was j But what is happening though is
the Alliance has changing its rules to try and stop
more banks pulling out, and the Australian banks have said
we're not pulling out, So it doesn't change things here
for us.
Speaker 4 (14:35):
Well, we'll have to wait and see how our banks respond.
But in the end of the day, for a productive economy,
we need our banking system to enable our industries and
our business, not destabilize them. And it's not for them
to decide that. All right, Still lost to talk.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
About it been a big week for politics despite the
fact that's still only January. Just asset sounds to talk
about and would Matt Doocy wa to eat one of
the government's new school lunches. Another big thing to discussed
this week politically is asset sales. Matt Doucy, what is
their left to sell?
Speaker 4 (15:10):
When you look at it? The government owns several hundred
billion dollars worth of infrastructure. I think it's been very
clear when you hear from the Prime Minister are looking
at the term of capital recycling and what that means
is that I think it's quite right at any time
for a government of the day to see where its
(15:32):
capital is.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
What is their left to sell? That's a question.
Speaker 4 (15:36):
Well, that's what I've just explained to you. The government
owns several hundred billion dollars worth of infrastructure. You know,
to be very clear, the Prime Minister has ruled out
any sale of SOEs or the like this term, but
I think it's actually a good conversation to have. We're
in a time of if economic difficulties as a country.
(15:57):
As I said earlier, we've got a thirteen billion dollar
current account deficit, which means every year we spend more
than we earn. We're going to spend nine billion a
year to servicing the debt. That's two two police forces.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
You can't you can't ask a question, Megan, what have
we got left to sell?
Speaker 4 (16:15):
Uh?
Speaker 3 (16:16):
Well, I think Nikola Willis is getting the catalog ready
as we speak. She's asked for the performance indicated marketplace. Yeah, Facebook, marketplace,
look on trade me anytime soon. We've had David Seymour
OutGiving speeches. The Prime Minister has said that he'll go
to go to the election. He won't do it this term,
but it could well be an election issue. But look,
(16:36):
we just have to look back at our history. We've
got a great history of running downstate. Essay, it's flogging
them off for only governments have to go back and
bail them out and buy them back a way more
than they flogged them off for. It absolutely, absolutely I'm
the mpople.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
It's almost like you're what's the word for it, you're
a former MP.
Speaker 4 (17:02):
The way.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
Absolutely not John, Absolutely not. I the MP for Wigram
I was my political mentor was Jim Anderson, who absolutely
staked his political career on standing against st sales and
that included asset sales that were happening within his own
party in the nineteen eighties. So I do not think
that asset sales are right. What history has shown us
(17:25):
is that we go back and we buy them. We
have to bail them out. In New Zealand, the railways,
it's littered with them, short.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
With respect, sugar hats with Respectually. You can't take base
your approach and your values when it comes to state
assets and not change it at the risk of making
a former politician turn on their grave.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
That's not what I'm doing. What I'm saying is I'm
looking at what the history of asset sales in this
country has meant on that what we've seen time and
time again, they've been flogged off and governments have had
to come back in and bail them out because these
things are stack eight sets, because they're in the national good.
Speaker 4 (18:08):
We need them.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
We can't afford them to fail, and so what we
have is overseas investors coming in sets stripping them like
we saw with the railways, and government has to stump
up with a big check to bail them out for
something that generations of taxpayers have built up the ownership.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
All right, Matt Doocy, I know this is raally. You
can't see this. I'm holding up a picture to Matt Doucie. Matt,
would you eat this dried up pasta?
Speaker 4 (18:31):
Which it's part of the black and white photos part
of the actually see it that?
Speaker 2 (18:35):
Well, it's part well, it's part of the new school
lunch program.
Speaker 4 (18:39):
Oh yes, would you?
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Would you eat the food that has been troted trotted
out as of this week?
Speaker 4 (18:45):
Well, I haven't seen all the food choices. I'm led
to believe there's been some issues with veriability in the
food that's been provided.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
But theility, it's.
Speaker 4 (18:57):
A new program that's four days in the running. There's
going to be some challenges clearly as they scale up production,
whether it's provided by this or or by parents. Sorry mum,
but there's always meals that you like and you don't
like whoever provides your lunch.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
I mean, so it might have saved one hundred and
thirty million bucks, but when you start to see the
food that's being trotted out, and I'm I'm with you
on the on the logistics step, sure that they'll work.
Speaker 4 (19:26):
Itself out right the team, but saved one hundred and
thirty million, bug, But.
Speaker 2 (19:32):
The quality of the food isn't going to change. It's
just the crudter is just going to get there quicker.
Speaker 4 (19:36):
No, I disagree with that. I mean, already you've seen
the ability for issues to be highlighted. That just comes
down to contracting and ensuring that the quality food is delivered.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
So at the moment, so this week is just what
do you think just a little bit more Palmelsan, I
would suggest that chef is is that what's going on?
Speaker 3 (19:54):
Well?
Speaker 4 (19:54):
No, I just think that at times there will be
veriability and the quality of food and that will change.
I mean it's a big program. I mean, are we
really just going to say every time there's a few
meals that don't get delivered on time or to a
quality level. I'm sure there'll be improvements in that. But
to your point, John, one hundred and thirty million dollars saved,
(20:16):
more lunches delivered, and actually, when you look at the
cost of public.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Anymore, hundred and twenty seven thousand delivered.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
Yeah, but is that more?
Speaker 4 (20:26):
How anymore? It was more. I don't have the exact
figures on me, but I know the contract is delivering
more for less and in the time of economic difficulty
for the that's exactly what we need to do. And
clearly there'll be some learning there and I've got it
all confidence I'll get it back on track.
Speaker 3 (20:43):
What we had was the government when they came in
and they said they were worried about all this wastage
in school lunches and they were going to waste So
I can tell you every school I went to in
my lecture, there wasn't wastage with those lunches.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
Stuff thrown.
Speaker 3 (20:56):
That's exactly my point is that's not going to be eaten.
What was being delivered, those kids were eating it at school.
If there was any leftover because kids were sick or
not at school and not able to take their lunch meal,
then they were going home with kids and being eaten
by families. This is just going to be stuff that
ends up. I think I'll be very interested to go
around the schools and see how full the school rubbish
(21:18):
bins are, because you know that. One of the things
I know talking to principals and teachers at my local
schools is that where they worked with more local providers,
they could actually get meals that made sense for the
kids that were there, things that we're going to be eaten.
And what we do know is that kids that eat
lunch learn better. There's been a study out this week
that showed that kids that don't have lunch and aren't
(21:40):
properly fuelled for an afternoon of learning end up something
like four years behind in academic achievement. This is serious
and it is really important for us making sure that
all kids have a great start in life.
Speaker 2 (21:51):
All Right, maybe next time we'll have a cook off.
Maybe Matt, you can absolutely some bolonnaise. So you do
the bolonnaise. Matt, what are you going to do, Megan?
Speaker 3 (21:58):
Ah, I might to a green curry.
Speaker 4 (22:01):
Yeah. Look, I never had bolonnaise for school lunch of
but what I did have, sorry Mum again, I had
about fifteen years of Marmite sandwiches and I thought it
was brilliant.
Speaker 3 (22:15):
The point is some kids don't get that, and they're
not learning.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
They have that messages clear. What did you have, Megan?
Back in the day, I.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
Had sandwiches and that's that's you know, I think what
every keepy kid of my generation probably took to school
lunch and sausage with not so much lunch and sausage
a big, big favorite of mine with cheese and pineapple.
Cheese and pineapple was a favorite sandwich of mine. Into
marshes in tomato sandwiches.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
The trickers, you got to put the salt on some
pepper and pepper and pepper as well. All right.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
But the point is when I went to school, there
weren't There were, you know, a whole lot of kids
that didn't have lunch with them. That is the change
we've seen and what we have to rectify and why
this isn't laughing all right.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
I'm looking forward to the cook offf Megan, what's great
to say it great to see you.
Speaker 4 (23:02):
I'm bringing the Marmite sandwiches.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
Fantastic and i'lder the hundreds and do sandwiches. They will
really get them. They really get the nutritional at CII for.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
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 Z'B.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
The seven past ten and Matt Deucey's walked in and
wished me Happy New Year. I was told miss the
cut off point. Today Meghan Woods has walked in and
wished me a happy New Year, which is lovely. And
they've done that because they're here for politics Friday. Meghan
Woods morning.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Good morning and happy New Year to everybody.
Speaker 4 (00:27):
Cut off date.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
I think I just needed to get it in.
Speaker 4 (00:30):
John.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
It was ten am today and Matt Doucy morning to you.
Speaker 4 (00:34):
Good morning. I'm actually going to wish people happy New
Year tomorrow now, just because you told me, I've got it.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
It will be February tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
I believe it.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
It's a month tonight since New Year's Eve? What are
you doing on New Year's Eve?
Speaker 4 (00:45):
I was actually in Wellington on New Year's Eve?
Speaker 2 (00:47):
All right?
Speaker 4 (00:48):
Was worth it? It rained?
Speaker 2 (00:50):
All right? What did you get up to?
Speaker 4 (00:51):
But I was actually at the Courtney Carnival. It was
the Doucy family seventh annual holiday to Wellington for New
Year's We go and take the kids up to see
the fireworks, catch up with family up there as well.
Fear to say, probably the it's weather, but I suppose
a consoling factor was, let's be Candida wasn't the best
here either.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
So no, I wasn't Megan. How was your I don't
know why masking this, but how was How was your?
New Year's Eve?
Speaker 4 (01:16):
Was really nice?
Speaker 3 (01:16):
I had some friends around for dinner. We cooked and
just spent some time channing. It was really nice. But yeah,
I don't think I can hoodwink your listeners into agreeing
with me. It was a beautiful, balmy night where everyone
outside it was very much was It was very much
an indoor.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
It was all the fireworks was canceled.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
I love to sleep by eight pm on the.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Don't I don't joke about it.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
The dream it wasn't.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
It wasn't quite there early. But I had a very
beautiful dinner out with our daughter because everyone was scattered
far and wide, and we were in town US too,
and we went to a place called Cocomo on Wells Street.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Ah, that's really delicious.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
So sounding now, like the microphones aren't on, and this
is what we do during the ad break, So well
politics Friday, Nice to have you here. Can we talk
about escooters? We can Matte. You have a familiar familiarity
with the accident compensation do in What do you make
of the fact that escoter injuries or a SEC plants
for escuter injuries last year fifteen million bucks, up fifty
(02:25):
percent of the year before, and people us these things
pay no acc levees.
Speaker 4 (02:29):
Yeah, I suppose when you look at it, anything's possible
in the construct of acc about the regulations and when
you look at at levees, I mean there's a continual
argument with acc around entitlements, what gets covered, what doesn't,
how do we pay for it? But when you break
it down right, there's about four key accounts in acc
(02:53):
And when you look at motor vehicles, there's a motor
vehicles account and through your registration that pays for accidents
that are caused by motor vehicles. Currently, when you've got scooters,
they're not covered in the vehicle account. So I suppose
the point I'm making is that it's covered by people
(03:15):
paying their acc levy either through the work account or
the non earner's account those for people who aren't. So yep,
you could arguably get people to pay a registration for
these scooters. But then actually what you're doing is you
are exposing people with motor vehicles and motorcyclists to the
(03:39):
cost of scooters coming out of their account as well.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
So a lot of people saying this morning, they have
several vehicles, might have a bike, might have a motorbike,
might have a car and something else, and their beef
is that they pay ACC for each vehicle, whereas they
can't use all of those vehicles at the same time.
So why shouldn't they just pay one fee overall? What
do you think?
Speaker 4 (04:03):
Yeah, because at the moment it's constructed registration. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
Do you think that's wrong?
Speaker 4 (04:09):
No, I think it's correct that you should pay per vehicle.
Look like I say that there's a range of ways
that you can approach this, but ultimately ACC is set
up by the individual accounts to cover the cost. So look,
you could potentially include e scooters. When I was a minister,
I wasn't looking at that. But then you start to say, well,
(04:31):
I suppose would you include cycling, would you include skiing?
But at the moment, the cost of e scooters to
the ACC scheme is paid by the earners and non
earners accounts, so it is covered all.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Right, Megan Woods, do you agree with the AA that
ees scooters are out of control in terms of the
regulations or lack.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
Of I don't know if I think it's out of
control or we're open at looking at any sensible looking
at any sensible changes. You know, we'll see what the
government comes up with. So we're not going to say,
you know, hard, yes, hard, no on anything. I do
think and I know some of your this morning, he'd
been kind of bringing up cyclists as well in terms
of how you might put that against scooters. So I
(05:14):
don't think it's entirely black and white and simple, but
we're open to look at any sensible solutions. I mean,
we know that, you know, on an e scooter you
can get up to some pretty high speeds, likewise with
e bikes initially bikes as well. But as I said,
happy to talk to the government about anything they might
come up with.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
What about the companies like Lime Scooters and all of those,
they make money out of it, but you could say
that in some ways that they make money out of
enabling people to potentially injure themselves.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
Well, I think one of the things that AA has
brought up is that there aren't any rules around the
fact that you can't be You know, there's nothing to
stop you actually being on your phone when you're on
a scooter. You take away the stuff around alcohol and
whether or not you can be on a scooter. I
think most people would think it would be sensible that
you probably shouldn't be texting and scooting.
Speaker 4 (05:57):
Well, I saw it.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
I saw a guy I've mentioned already this morning, saw
a guy on a Lime scooter went past the window here.
He wouldn't have seen me because he's looking down his phone,
one hand on the handlebar, on the other texting.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
It can be like that when people are walking down
the street too.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
It can be like that in Parliament as well.
Speaker 4 (06:11):
But I don't know.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
If you've ever experienced walking down the street and someone
bangs into you because they're not looking where they're going,
because they're down looking at their phone.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
It might have been me that banged into your make
could speaker could have noticed? Speaking of movement speed limit changes,
Matt Doocy, did you laugh, come on behind the scenes,
did you laugh when you heard the Prime Minister say
that On the particular road and by a rupper where
the speed limit went up back to one hundred overnight,
people were going to save three minutes? Did you laugh?
Speaker 4 (06:40):
I did know what I did laugh at as the
former Associate Transport Minister for Labor, Karen macnaughty said it
couldn't be done reversing the blanket speed limit changes. We've
done it. And actually, when I think back in the
last term and when Megan was in government, the blanket
speed limit rule changes would be probably one of the
biggest topics of feedback I'd get back when I saw
(07:03):
the plans for towns like Rungy Order and KAYPOI to
go down to thirty kilometers as well an hour. People
did not want that. We campaigned on the changes and
that's what we're doing.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
Megan Woods I said earlier in the week that potentially
the government could have blood on its hands over this.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
Yeah, and look, I mean what we've said is where
it makes sense. We're not opposed to raising some of
the speed limits. One of the things I actually do
feel really strongly about about this, John, is that actually
we need people that are experts in road safety making
these decisions. I actually think us politicians should get our
fingers out of it. It shouldn't be a political thing. Really, No,
(07:45):
I actually do think that this is actually there's science
behind it, there's evidence. We know these areas where people
do get injured and where they do get killed, and
there's high fatality roads to have to have it subject
to kind of the recons of politicians. And I put
us in that this is not a slip.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
At the government who made the decision.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
Zero.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
John, I'm saying all of us. I'm not saying this
is a no. I'm saying this is my personal view.
I do think there are some things that we should
leave to the experts, and where people's lives potentially are
on the line. And you said it, John, you said
earlier in the week, you said that the government could
have blood on its hands. Where we're talking about something
as important as people's lives being on the line, then
(08:28):
we should be wholly evidenced in governments of any stripe,
and that includes us. I think we should let.
Speaker 4 (08:33):
John, let's be very clear. We're not necessarily increasing speed
limits for increasing the speed limit's sake, We're just returning them. Yeah,
but what they were Meddi but you hold a megan
ideologically ideologically they wanted to lower speed limits. She's now
saying it was the wrong decision that they weighed in
(08:54):
and actually, all we're doing is what the public asked
us and returning it back to the original levels. And
that's what people are supportive of.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
And you genuinely believe that increasing the speed on a
particular stretch of road by three minutes will increase productivity
and create economic growth, Well, you really believe?
Speaker 4 (09:11):
What I believe in is the people in towns like
Kypu and Ranguora having it forced on them that their
speed limits were going to be thirty was ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
Ask the question, do you genuinely believe that by increasing
the speed limit and enabling people to cover a distance
three minutes quicker, that's going to contribute to economic growth?
Speaker 4 (09:29):
Well, anything we can do, by definition, John, nothing is
a silver bullet. But all these changes add up to
support people, grow the economy and productivity. Getting freight to
market quicker does do that.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Megan can't resistant and I can't resist letting you come
back on Matt Deuce's comments here about the speed limits, Yeah,
I think.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
And productivity yeah, And I think for Met to claim
this with some ideological decision, it wasn't. It was based
on expert advice around road safety. As I said, more
than happy to look at where it makes sense to
raise them back to where the so worried about productivity. John,
what I say to matter is get in there, advocate
(10:11):
around the cabinet table for the Brown Street upgrade, which
your government ripped the funding out of. Not only the
upgrade that will get our goods to the port, from
the from the hinterland to the pork. I have to
do it the safety upgrade between Collins and Sydon Street,
so kids from any one of the time, one at
(10:35):
a time, and your government took away the money that
was sitting there. The project had started on the Brown
Street upgrade.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
That was on what had started.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
In terms of the Brown Street upgrade, that's acquired properties
to get ready to do it, and all the plans
were done because underway the money was there, John, and
it started. They took the money out and they reapplied
it to projects in the Northwest.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
A little bit the time the time you claimed that
the work had started on the stadium and I went
down and had a look. There's one geotech truck there
and I thought, you call you call at work underway,
look at the stadium.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
It's boosting ahead. And you had to do the got.
Speaker 4 (11:15):
To get a sensible joy Right, Yeah, that might have
been the year of delivery, remember that one.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Right, let's talk about because we've talked to a mat
with your familiarity with acc Megan, you're a former energy minister.
Do you think I do you agree with Shane Jones
that the banks are being unnecessarily cruel on the fossil
fuels industry.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
Look, I think what we're saying is election twenty six
starting the beginning. No, I don't agree with Shane Jones
that we should have politicians taking bills to the house
telling banks who they have to lend to. I think
it's a slippery slope that we shouldn't go down. Banks
make commercial decisions in the best interest of their shareholders.
(11:58):
Let's not cut ourselves. They don't get out of bed
in the morning and think we're going to change the
world that what they have. We saw nearly over a
decade ago now Mike Carney, who was the Governor of
the Reserve Bank of England, saying that they were moving
out of it because they were subprime assets. In terms
of fossil fuels, it's not where the big growth is.
(12:18):
You're seeing pension funds right around the world, not for
any climate action agenda, but because they know that they're
not the best returns that they can get for their shareholders.
So these are commercial, hard nosed decisions that the banks
are making. The fact that we have a politician he's
heod Peter Dutton saying something over in Australia thinks he
(12:39):
might chip in with it here. But if he's saying
that he's bringing legislation to the House to tell the
banks what to do, what else is going to be
on that list? And who else to tell them what.
Speaker 4 (12:50):
You're going to do?
Speaker 2 (12:51):
You know how you said before that you didn't think
politicians should make decisions about road safety issues.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
No, I said they shouldn't be making the assessments. We
obviously have to put them into practice. But in terms
of following the evidence based advice.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Do you feel the same. It's link to what we're
talking about right now. Do you feel the same about
politicians making decisions decisions in relation to climate change?
Speaker 3 (13:15):
In terms of well, we have to because we have
in twenty fifteen we had the John Key lead government
who signed us up to the Paris Agreement. If we
don't meet our emissions targets, we have to go and
pay other countries hundreds of millions or billions of dollars
rather than keeping jobs here in New Zealand. So absolutely
(13:35):
it is the job of politicians to make sure we
are protecting key we work as Matt dooci.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
Do you agree with your coalition colleague that the banks
need to be rained in.
Speaker 4 (13:44):
Yes, I don't think banks should be setting the agenda
like that. It's not for them to decide that. And actually,
when you look at the industries they are focusing on mining.
We know we need to double exports. We've got a
current account deficit of about thirteen billion, so this government
said an ambitious agenda to double exports. Mining and mineral
(14:07):
extraction will be part of that. We want to grow
it to three billion dollars. But let's think of our
primary industries now, they will be under attack here with
this Global Banking Alliance. Thankfully, now we're seeing some of
the bigger international banks break away from this United Nations Alliance.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
What it was j But what is happening though is
the Alliance has changing its rules to try and stop
more banks pulling out, and the Australian banks have said
we're not pulling out, So it doesn't change things here
for us.
Speaker 4 (14:35):
Well, we'll have to wait and see how our banks respond.
But in the end of the day, for a productive economy,
we need our banking system to enable our industries and
our business, not destabilize them. And it's not for them
to decide that. All right, Still lost to talk.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
About it been a big week for politics despite the
fact that's still only January. Just asset sounds to talk
about and would Matt Doocy wa to eat one of
the government's new school lunches. Another big thing to discussed
this week politically is asset sales. Matt Doucy, what is
their left to sell?
Speaker 4 (15:10):
When you look at it? The government owns several hundred
billion dollars worth of infrastructure. I think it's been very
clear when you hear from the Prime Minister are looking
at the term of capital recycling and what that means
is that I think it's quite right at any time
for a government of the day to see where its
(15:32):
capital is.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
What is their left to sell? That's a question.
Speaker 4 (15:36):
Well, that's what I've just explained to you. The government
owns several hundred billion dollars worth of infrastructure. You know,
to be very clear, the Prime Minister has ruled out
any sale of SOEs or the like this term, but
I think it's actually a good conversation to have. We're
in a time of if economic difficulties as a country.
(15:57):
As I said earlier, we've got a thirteen billion dollar
current account deficit, which means every year we spend more
than we earn. We're going to spend nine billion a
year to servicing the debt. That's two two police forces.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
You can't you can't ask a question, Megan, what have
we got left to sell?
Speaker 4 (16:15):
Uh?
Speaker 3 (16:16):
Well, I think Nikola Willis is getting the catalog ready
as we speak. She's asked for the performance indicated marketplace. Yeah, Facebook, marketplace,
look on trade me anytime soon. We've had David Seymour
OutGiving speeches. The Prime Minister has said that he'll go
to go to the election. He won't do it this term,
but it could well be an election issue. But look,
(16:36):
we just have to look back at our history. We've
got a great history of running downstate. Essay, it's flogging
them off for only governments have to go back and
bail them out and buy them back a way more
than they flogged them off for. It absolutely, absolutely I'm
the mpople.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
It's almost like you're what's the word for it, you're
a former MP.
Speaker 4 (17:02):
The way.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
Absolutely not John, Absolutely not. I the MP for Wigram
I was my political mentor was Jim Anderson, who absolutely
staked his political career on standing against st sales and
that included asset sales that were happening within his own
party in the nineteen eighties. So I do not think
that asset sales are right. What history has shown us
(17:25):
is that we go back and we buy them. We
have to bail them out. In New Zealand, the railways,
it's littered with them, short.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
With respect, sugar hats with Respectually. You can't take base
your approach and your values when it comes to state
assets and not change it at the risk of making
a former politician turn on their grave.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
That's not what I'm doing. What I'm saying is I'm
looking at what the history of asset sales in this
country has meant on that what we've seen time and
time again, they've been flogged off and governments have had
to come back in and bail them out because these
things are stack eight sets, because they're in the national good.
Speaker 4 (18:08):
We need them.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
We can't afford them to fail, and so what we
have is overseas investors coming in sets stripping them like
we saw with the railways, and government has to stump
up with a big check to bail them out for
something that generations of taxpayers have built up the ownership.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
All right, Matt Doocy, I know this is raally. You
can't see this. I'm holding up a picture to Matt Doucie. Matt,
would you eat this dried up pasta?
Speaker 4 (18:31):
Which it's part of the black and white photos part
of the actually see it that?
Speaker 2 (18:35):
Well, it's part well, it's part of the new school
lunch program.
Speaker 4 (18:39):
Oh yes, would you?
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Would you eat the food that has been troted trotted
out as of this week?
Speaker 4 (18:45):
Well, I haven't seen all the food choices. I'm led
to believe there's been some issues with veriability in the
food that's been provided.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
But theility, it's.
Speaker 4 (18:57):
A new program that's four days in the running. There's
going to be some challenges clearly as they scale up production,
whether it's provided by this or or by parents. Sorry mum,
but there's always meals that you like and you don't
like whoever provides your lunch.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
I mean, so it might have saved one hundred and
thirty million bucks, but when you start to see the
food that's being trotted out, and I'm I'm with you
on the on the logistics step, sure that they'll work.
Speaker 4 (19:26):
Itself out right the team, but saved one hundred and
thirty million, bug, But.
Speaker 2 (19:32):
The quality of the food isn't going to change. It's
just the crudter is just going to get there quicker.
Speaker 4 (19:36):
No, I disagree with that. I mean, already you've seen
the ability for issues to be highlighted. That just comes
down to contracting and ensuring that the quality food is delivered.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
So at the moment, so this week is just what
do you think just a little bit more Palmelsan, I
would suggest that chef is is that what's going on?
Speaker 3 (19:54):
Well?
Speaker 4 (19:54):
No, I just think that at times there will be
veriability and the quality of food and that will change.
I mean it's a big program. I mean, are we
really just going to say every time there's a few
meals that don't get delivered on time or to a
quality level. I'm sure there'll be improvements in that. But
to your point, John, one hundred and thirty million dollars saved,
(20:16):
more lunches delivered, and actually, when you look at the
cost of public.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Anymore, hundred and twenty seven thousand delivered.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
Yeah, but is that more?
Speaker 4 (20:26):
How anymore? It was more. I don't have the exact
figures on me, but I know the contract is delivering
more for less and in the time of economic difficulty
for the that's exactly what we need to do. And
clearly there'll be some learning there and I've got it
all confidence I'll get it back on track.
Speaker 3 (20:43):
What we had was the government when they came in
and they said they were worried about all this wastage
in school lunches and they were going to waste So
I can tell you every school I went to in
my lecture, there wasn't wastage with those lunches.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
Stuff thrown.
Speaker 3 (20:56):
That's exactly my point is that's not going to be eaten.
What was being delivered, those kids were eating it at school.
If there was any leftover because kids were sick or
not at school and not able to take their lunch meal,
then they were going home with kids and being eaten
by families. This is just going to be stuff that
ends up. I think I'll be very interested to go
around the schools and see how full the school rubbish
(21:18):
bins are, because you know that. One of the things
I know talking to principals and teachers at my local
schools is that where they worked with more local providers,
they could actually get meals that made sense for the
kids that were there, things that we're going to be eaten.
And what we do know is that kids that eat
lunch learn better. There's been a study out this week
that showed that kids that don't have lunch and aren't
(21:40):
properly fuelled for an afternoon of learning end up something
like four years behind in academic achievement. This is serious
and it is really important for us making sure that
all kids have a great start in life.
Speaker 2 (21:51):
All Right, maybe next time we'll have a cook off.
Maybe Matt, you can absolutely some bolonnaise. So you do
the bolonnaise. Matt, what are you going to do, Megan?
Speaker 3 (21:58):
Ah, I might to a green curry.
Speaker 4 (22:01):
Yeah. Look, I never had bolonnaise for school lunch of
but what I did have, sorry Mum again, I had
about fifteen years of Marmite sandwiches and I thought it
was brilliant.
Speaker 3 (22:15):
The point is some kids don't get that, and they're
not learning.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
They have that messages clear. What did you have, Megan?
Back in the day, I.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
Had sandwiches and that's that's you know, I think what
every keepy kid of my generation probably took to school
lunch and sausage with not so much lunch and sausage
a big, big favorite of mine with cheese and pineapple.
Cheese and pineapple was a favorite sandwich of mine. Into
marshes in tomato sandwiches.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
The trickers, you got to put the salt on some
pepper and pepper and pepper as well. All right.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
But the point is when I went to school, there
weren't There were, you know, a whole lot of kids
that didn't have lunch with them. That is the change
we've seen and what we have to rectify and why
this isn't laughing all right.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
I'm looking forward to the cook offf Megan, what's great
to say it great to see you.
Speaker 4 (23:02):
I'm bringing the Marmite sandwiches.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
Fantastic and i'lder the hundreds and do sandwiches. They will
really get them. They really get the nutritional at CII for.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
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
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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