Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by Labour’s Megan Woods and National’s Matt Doocey to delve into some of the biggest topics of the week.
Four-year parliamentary terms could be on the table – what are the benefits of an extra year? What would be the potential downfalls for councils?
Would either of them make a citizen’s arrest?
And is it true Labour cut the budget for the defence force?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk Z'B Politics Friday.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Megan Woods, very good morning to Morning, John, Morning, Matt,
Matt Doucep Morning too. We started talking about parking. Was
I didn't you've just walked in. I didn't know if
you were going to make it or not. I thought
it was going to be I thought it was going
to be a party political broadcast from from Matt Ducy.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
You know, rain, hailshina, walk here and snile. I'll always
be here.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
I love it. I love it. But you've got but
you found a Oh you've got a parking hack? Is
that right? Matt?
Speaker 4 (00:38):
Oh, I'm not going to tell people because then people
going part there. I ain't get one myself.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
It's outside a place called Table at Monks on Ama
Armor Street. Yeah yeah, all right, okay, no, no, no, no,
it's not the it's a sixty minute matter. Durham, isn't
it Durham Street?
Speaker 3 (00:54):
No, But it's actually on it's on the corner of
it's on the corner, but it's on the RMR Street
side the feet all right.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Not not that you guys need to worry too much.
About that life in the limo. Let's talk about parliamentary
so there's going to be a referendum and decide whether
we want to have a four year term in parliament.
What's your view about councils getting the same, Megan Woods,
because you've got Sam Broughton being on about it today
in Film Majors. All for it? What's your take?
Speaker 3 (01:21):
Yeah, So, I mean just in terms of the bill
that's currently before that Paul Goldsmith announced his day, we
haven't had a chance to have a talk about there
as a caucus. So it's going to excite you. John,
You're going to get my personal views rather rather than
our caucus position. I'm all for a four year parliamentary term.
When it comes to central government. I do think it's
(01:41):
important that that goes to a referendum and I do
think that we have broad cross party support for it
as well, that it shouldn't divide across party lines. It
should be something we decide to do as a country
rather than a political party. When it comes to local government,
I think the same arguments are there in terms of
the ability to get things done. I mean we know
(02:02):
that you know your first year you get in particularly
if it's a new council, a new mayor, or a
new government, you're kind of getting things in place.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
I reckon that's a really weak argument, and I know you.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
Think it's a weak argument, but the reality is that
by the end of year two the elections looming again
and people are going into election mode, and that's a
reality whoever is in government. So I think that actually,
particularly at central government where we also have MMP, that
actually the ability to actually have that longevity and see
(02:35):
projects finished. It is impossible to start and finish up
for structure within a three year term.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
The weaver is in government, but.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Due to the differences with local councils, isn't it as
they have ten year plans, where whereas Parliament doesn't have
ten year plans. So you have an election for local council,
they get in, there might be a whole bunch of
and I'll say this with generosity misfits and that aren't
necessarily aligned. But they've got a plan they've got to
stick to, so I can't see why they need four
(03:04):
years to implement that plan.
Speaker 4 (03:06):
Yeah, I mean that probably aligns with my view as well,
not only with the ten year plan, but I think
when you look around council tables, it's not always clear
how people will and can vote. At least with central
government it is clear under MMP with proxy votes how
many votes will be voted in what way for each party?
(03:28):
And I suppose if you end up well, we're symptomatic
of that, aren't we currently with christ City Council, where
there's no real numbers to enact real change, then all
you're doing is really stumbling along for a year longer.
So I think it really needs to be thought through
at a local government level. But I think we've heard
(03:48):
loud and clear. I think people are very interested for
central government for four years. I think it would be
interesting for people if they have a time to read
the paper when it is introduced, because there are some
I think peculiarly larities around it.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Yes, so what's the thing about. You'll get a four
year term, but the select committees have to be sticked
up with more opposition members.
Speaker 4 (04:15):
Well, this is an Act bill and it's part of
the coalition agreement to introduce it, and the way the
act Party has written it it actually, from my understanding,
default stays with a three year term. Now within that
three year term, if there is a supermajority which Megan's
alluding to, which I think is about a seventy five
(04:38):
percent majority in favor. It can move to a four
year term. But the caveat there is that select committees
are proportion to MPs outside the executive So what that
will lead to is more select committees where the opposition
has the majority. And I believe ACT thinks that will
(05:00):
be more prudent for scrutinizing and better decision making. But
part of it, I think for me is potentially too
many variables and moving parts rather than just a binary
letter shift from three to four.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
I don't I don't need it to bog down this,
but what's what's your faure?
Speaker 3 (05:16):
And I mean that's one of the things that I
want to take a close look at. Why are we
just not making a call one way or the other,
whether it's whether we're shifting to a four year term.
I mean, Carmel Sepaloni has a bill in the ballot,
for example, in terms of a member's bill, so certainly
something we're open to, But in terms of the select committees,
I think it is important if we go to a
to a four year term that we do have checks
(05:39):
and balances. New Zealand is one of the few kind
of Westminster democracies that only has one house. We don't
have an upper house like Australia does, certainly like the
UK does with the House of Lords, and I'm not
suggesting we should have that, but we do need to
have scrutiny in checks and balances.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
All right.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
One final thing on this, Megan, would you be worried
about central government and local government elections happening in the
same year every twelve years if we extended the terms
for parliament but not central not local government.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
No, there wouldn't be a particular concern.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Well, there are, so we don't need to change the
terms for local government.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
Yeah, And look, I mean I'm not coming down heavily
on one side or the other on that. And I
do think just like central government, there does actually have
to be public and put into it as well, because
these are things. I mean, with the Bell with Paul
Goldsmith's Bill, there is a referendum attached to that as well,
and I think that is right and proper when we're
making changes to our electoral system.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (06:37):
My concern is already too many people are disengaged from
local body elections as it is the risk I think
of it's bundled up with a central government election, then
it doesn't give people space and head space to actually
look and engage with the issues, and that that would
be my consent.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
Thought. It's Friday, Matt, do Megan Woods, who was looking
at me rather weirdly, we want to ask me something
that Yeah.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
I wanted to know what the weather forecast is for
the weekend. John, I thought you might be able to
fill me in on that. But we can come back
to that, I can.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
I'm the fund of well not it's going to be
sticking hot. It's about twenty seven degrees both intestic.
Speaker 3 (07:10):
Why is that just interested looking out the window thinking
are we going to have a nice weekend? I think
it's something most people think about on a Friday.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Here, isn't it amazing? It's amazing? I thought I didn't
think expected to get involved in weather waffle. When now
is your opportunity to tell Matt how stupid is citizens
arrest policy?
Speaker 3 (07:28):
Oh that's coming. Look, I just think that this is
one of those things that looks and there, John looks
pretty on an election flyer, but it's going to be
really difficult in terms of what it actually means. And
I think we've seen retailers already coming out and asking
that question and kind of worried for the safety of
their staff as well. I mean, fundamentally, what we need
(07:50):
to be having is more police, and what we're seeing
under this government's viewer police, that's where the effort needs
to go with Matt.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Can you come around here please? I just want to
because I can't ask the next next question without you
coming around and standing next to me for a second. Okay,
game all right, and then we're gonna get We're gonna
get Megan. Meghan's going to judge here. Megan, who is
the tallest out of out of Matt and Nye, what
would you say to tell.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
Us about I think you're actually the same high.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
Quite similar and other similaries to which we won't go
and right back to your seat. Matt. Now I've got
I've got a question to ask you. When you're in
Wellington and you're standing next to Paul Goldsmith, who's the
tallest of the two.
Speaker 4 (08:31):
Of you, I think probably Paul would be.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
Probably can you imagine him taking someone on and arresting them.
I watched him on TV and I thought Lord, are
you're touting this policy, but I'll bet you wouldn't do it.
Speaker 4 (08:46):
Yeah, but I think at the end of the day,
it's personal choice. We have this in law at the moment, John,
it's not new. It people from darkness nine pm to
six a m. So, actually none of this is new.
It happens in New Zealand now. And all we're saying,
after getting advice from the Retail Crime Advisory Group is
(09:10):
they would like small business, dairy owners, other retail owners
to have the power to make citizens arrest. Now. I
would caution that because anyone should go into that environment
assessing the risk, and only they will know what level
of risk is right for them. But it is something
that we have at the moment, and quite rightly when
(09:31):
you look at retail crime up ninety one percent. We
came in with a mandate of law and order. We
said would change things, and this is what we've done.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Yeahs I just there's.
Speaker 4 (09:42):
Not a fewer cops and actually there's actually more cops
walking the beat and the CBD mischievous they call it.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Today, everyone's running right around.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
We know about that comes we won't go there.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
The skates become the Bronx now you've got cops walking
around central town but out of control. But the thing is,
you know someone's making the citizens arrest and we all
know how easy it is to lose your rag, and
then suddenly the person that you're trying to arrest will
say something about, oh, your mother's are just that, No
she's not, and then suddenly turn into a scrap and
(10:22):
suddenly the person who was doing the arrest will be
the one the one getting arrested when the cops turn up.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
Yeah, but that's exactly the reason while we're changing the
Crimes Act to allow citizens arrest outside the time of
nine pm to six am, to allow people to do that,
but actually to be clearer around restraining and to mandate
that they do call the police once they undertake a
citizens arrest. Like I say, John, we can come up
(10:50):
with all the reasons around this. Potentially there might be
an issue here, but this is not news in New
Zealand every day now because it's in the law.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
So one of my concerns, John, is not so much
someone losing their rag and the men ending not getting
your rested. Is actually that what we're going to say
is the people committing retail crime, which I have no
time for I'm not defending it, but that they're going
to start preparing themselves for citizens arrest and we're going
to have people carry more people carrying knives, and it's
going to get more dangerous. And I'm really worried for
(11:22):
those retail workers that are going to be putting themselves.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
In That's right, We've got to move on. But Matt
two said, there was a guy on the TV news
the other night. He took on someone who jewelry store.
He took on someone got a huge gash across the
top of his head, and he said that. He said,
he said, these people, they'll be turning up with guns.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
Now.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
Yep.
Speaker 4 (11:40):
This is to empower people who have made the choice
that they want to make a citizen's arrest. Like I say, Joel,
we came in with a mandate of law and order.
We said we would make these changes, and we've delivered
on them.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
And it's year two and you've got to do something.
Do you know that Megan has just told me that
when I asked me Matt to come around to stand
next to me, she thought that I was going to
put them in a headlock.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
I didn't, and I was worried I was going to
have to intervene and make a citizen's arrest SHO.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
So I'd be arresting him and you'll be arresting the Well.
Speaker 3 (12:09):
Will there be a rest going on all over the
place by citizens?
Speaker 2 (12:11):
What's happening, speaking of force, what's happening with the defense budget? Matt?
How many billions are going to be thrown at defense
this year?
Speaker 4 (12:19):
Well, first off, I'm just saying how pleased I am
that Megan was concerned for me. I mean, that's genuine concern.
We don't often see that.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
This whole citizens arresting. Everyone's going home when they're talking
about it, but when it comes to doing the doing,
I think that's a different story.
Speaker 4 (12:38):
I mean I was a bit unsure why you were
asking me to go around behind the day.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
Will do anyway? Nice deflection? How many billions? How many
billions or nice attempt? How many billions are going into
defense this year?
Speaker 4 (12:50):
Well, obviously we've got budget twenty twenty five coming up,
so we're not going to be talking specifics before then
unless the Prime Minister decides to announce that. But clearly
he has signaled intent that we need to increase defense funding.
I think most people will realize we've had the issue
(13:11):
of the Chinese warships recently and when you lock round
the world, there is an increased level of concern and
we need to make sure that we're investing into our
defense force and using the word interruptibility to make sure
that we can What does that mean, Well, it makes
(13:31):
it pragmatically. We need to align ourselves more with our
allies and make sure that we can pull our fair
share and defense force.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
Which allies do you want to align us with in
terms of capabilities?
Speaker 4 (13:48):
Well, I think that's very clear. Maybe first off with
our neighbors Australia.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Right, so they've got getting nuclear warships, they're involved in that,
They've got all sorts of things. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (13:58):
Look, we're always going to have sovereignty over where we
spend our defense force funding, but we need to make
sure that step up.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
And when you.
Speaker 4 (14:09):
Hear from Defense Minister Judith Collins, she's been very clear
she did not think under the last Labor government that
we pulled our weight with defense and we need to
step up. It's a challenging world environment out there. The
rule of international law is being challenged and quite rightly,
we need to step up and make sure our defense
(14:32):
force has the capability, but not only the capability. By
investing better into our defense, it increases the morale. I mean,
we've seen attrition in our defense forces greatly reduced as
they realize they've got a government that is backing them.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
What international laws is China breaking? None? Well, you said,
you said, we've got more cases of international laws being broken,
but China's not breaking any international laws.
Speaker 4 (14:58):
Yeah, I didn't talk specifically about China, you are, but
I think more broadly, when you look around the world,
the challenge of the international rule of law has been challenge.
What's an example, Well, I suppose when you look at
the invasion of Ukraine by Russia for an example. And
all I'm saying is that we need to make sure
(15:20):
that for us, as New Zealand, we invest appropriately into
defense and or all our weight and our fair share.
Speaker 2 (15:30):
So, Megan, how come this decline in defense capability? How come?
How do we get to this point? And what is
your government, previous government's role in that? That's attribution to that.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
We actually had a rise in defense spending when we're
in government. We bought the pights, the new planes for
the air force, so that was one of the significant
capital investments that has happened in defense spending over recent years.
And actually, Matt, I'm going to challenge you, and I
think that it's actually really important that we have this
as a growing up conversation. This is actually about us
(16:05):
having a defense capable ability plan which the previous national
government put into place and that we actually worked our
way through as a government. There was actually a cut
in last year's budget in defense spending, but I think
we need to look beyond our party politics and look
at what it is that we need to do as
a country in terms of defense capability. And just like
(16:25):
chipping away saying that labor reduced spending, it's patently not true.
You can go and look at the budgets. You can
see that it was one of the highest spends that's
happened in recent years. And actually your government presided over
at cut. But what we have to do is make
sure that we've got long term capability plans that we
work through, much like your ten year plans a council
you were talking about, John, we have to check in
(16:47):
and make sure that their right for the time in
which we're operating. Obviously, that last capability white paper was
put together, was before a whole lot of stuff that
we're currently seeing playing out in the world, and I
think we're going to leave our party colors at the
door and focus on this as a nation.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Okay, good luck on that, right. One more thing. We
need to cover all this stuff going on with electricity
prices and capacity for generation this week. What's your take, Megan,
given that you're a former energy minister on Meridians saying
that they should be allowed to breach their resource consents
and lower the hydro lakes to allow more generation, what's
(17:25):
your reaction to that.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
So, we actually did do some shifting of the contingency
lake levels when we were in government. That's something that
is always looked at. The fact of the matter is,
though that just tinkering around the edges, like there isn't
the solution that we need of its.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
Would you be up just I'll let you continue, But
would you be comfortable with that.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
We actually did alter Well, I'd have to actually look
at what the payoff is at that point. You've got
to do it to make sure that you're not causing damage.
But the fact of the matter is that our lakes
we measure in weeks of storage, there are about eight
to nine weeks of hydro storage. You compare that to
a Scandinavian fuel were you measure it in years. Just
(18:06):
tinkering around the edges isn't going to solve it. We've
been open to it, and in fact we did do
some of the changing of the contingency lake levels. But
we've got to look for real solutions to this as well.
In storage, and.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
You had succeeds to find solutions.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
We were doing a project on storage.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
And it means which made no sense.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
No, we were doing a project on the New Zealand
battery project, John, and that whole project has been thrown
away and there is no current work being done on storage.
Pumped hydro was only one component of that. And actually
the portfolio approach we had a range of solutions was
pulling ahead of it. But the baby was literally thrown
out with the bath water and that whole project was
(18:48):
thrown away and there is currently no work being done
on what cheap storage to give New Zealand as cheaper
power bills looks like. And that's a real shame.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Ma Doocy.
Speaker 4 (18:59):
Yeah, I'm not too sure what that was all about.
But the reality is we need more generation, and so
the quick you've proposed, if we need to look at
the RIMA which allows the increased take for future generation,
then I think, pragmatically is what Meghan has alluded to.
I think the answer should be yes, but ultimately we
(19:19):
should be laser focused on the generation. It takes too
long to consent new generation and that's where the focus
would be. So I think I think Onslow and the
storage was a bit of a red hearing really, and
that's why after six years we find ourselves in this situation.
Speaker 3 (19:34):
That is actually not true. New Zealand does not have
a generation problem. New Zealand has a storage and a
peaking problem. We have enough electricity except for that point.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Why do we let's all real of you say that
we have to move on? But what how could you
say that when you got the head of Meridian saying
we want to increase generation and to do that you
should let us lower the lake levels further. Yeah, well,
I mean banging on about storage, are they?
Speaker 3 (19:59):
No? Of course Meridian is a generator. They want to
generate more electricity and sell it to make more money.
Of course they're not going to be banging on about storage.
And yes, we do have to increase generation, but you
cannot increase your generation without storage. The real problem New
Zealand has is when everyone gets up in the morning
and puts the toaster on and turns the lights on
in winter, and then they come home from work and
(20:21):
they turn the heater on and start cooking. So we
have those peaks. So that is why storage and peaking is.
That is where we've got to put energy. We're not
going to solve this by just tinkering with the rim
is I said. We pragmatically looked at contingent like levels
when we're in power and did things. But we've also
got to have some leadership and do some more fundamental stuff.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
All right, okay, we're gonna fly. Matt Docy, great to
see you, Great to see you, John, enjoy your day.
You're making some sort of announcement together, we'll have it
on the news loader on the day.
Speaker 4 (20:50):
Potentially potentially come on, here we go, we go come.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
Yes or no? You got announced.
Speaker 4 (21:01):
You're still getting over the potential headlock on the way out.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
No, don't, don't just fall back on that. Have you've
got an announcement man, yes or not?
Speaker 2 (21:07):
Yes or not? Come on? Wouldn't Meghan like to know? Oh,
here we can go. This will be on the six tonight,
you brilliant publicity, but they will be on the phone
to Vietnam saying, Chris, it's gone pear shaped again. He's
learned too much from you. Nice to see you mate,
good see Nice to see you by.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
For more from Category Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to news talks It'd be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk Z'B Politics Friday.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Megan Woods, very good morning to Morning, John, Morning, Matt,
Matt Doucep Morning too. We started talking about parking. Was
I didn't you've just walked in. I didn't know if
you were going to make it or not. I thought
it was going to be I thought it was going
to be a party political broadcast from from Matt Ducy.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
You know, rain, hailshina, walk here and snile. I'll always
be here.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
I love it. I love it. But you've got but
you found a Oh you've got a parking hack? Is
that right? Matt?
Speaker 4 (00:38):
Oh, I'm not going to tell people because then people
going part there. I ain't get one myself.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
It's outside a place called Table at Monks on Ama
Armor Street. Yeah yeah, all right, okay, no, no, no, no,
it's not the it's a sixty minute matter. Durham, isn't
it Durham Street?
Speaker 3 (00:54):
No, But it's actually on it's on the corner of
it's on the corner, but it's on the RMR Street
side the feet all right.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Not not that you guys need to worry too much.
About that life in the limo. Let's talk about parliamentary
so there's going to be a referendum and decide whether
we want to have a four year term in parliament.
What's your view about councils getting the same, Megan Woods,
because you've got Sam Broughton being on about it today
in Film Majors. All for it? What's your take?
Speaker 3 (01:21):
Yeah, So, I mean just in terms of the bill
that's currently before that Paul Goldsmith announced his day, we
haven't had a chance to have a talk about there
as a caucus. So it's going to excite you. John,
You're going to get my personal views rather rather than
our caucus position. I'm all for a four year parliamentary term.
When it comes to central government. I do think it's
(01:41):
important that that goes to a referendum and I do
think that we have broad cross party support for it
as well, that it shouldn't divide across party lines. It
should be something we decide to do as a country
rather than a political party. When it comes to local government,
I think the same arguments are there in terms of
the ability to get things done. I mean we know
(02:02):
that you know your first year you get in particularly
if it's a new council, a new mayor, or a
new government, you're kind of getting things in place.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
I reckon that's a really weak argument, and I know you.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
Think it's a weak argument, but the reality is that
by the end of year two the elections looming again
and people are going into election mode, and that's a
reality whoever is in government. So I think that actually,
particularly at central government where we also have MMP, that
actually the ability to actually have that longevity and see
(02:35):
projects finished. It is impossible to start and finish up
for structure within a three year term.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
The weaver is in government, but.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Due to the differences with local councils, isn't it as
they have ten year plans, where whereas Parliament doesn't have
ten year plans. So you have an election for local council,
they get in, there might be a whole bunch of
and I'll say this with generosity misfits and that aren't
necessarily aligned. But they've got a plan they've got to
stick to, so I can't see why they need four
(03:04):
years to implement that plan.
Speaker 4 (03:06):
Yeah, I mean that probably aligns with my view as well,
not only with the ten year plan, but I think
when you look around council tables, it's not always clear
how people will and can vote. At least with central
government it is clear under MMP with proxy votes how
many votes will be voted in what way for each party?
(03:28):
And I suppose if you end up well, we're symptomatic
of that, aren't we currently with christ City Council, where
there's no real numbers to enact real change, then all
you're doing is really stumbling along for a year longer.
So I think it really needs to be thought through
at a local government level. But I think we've heard
(03:48):
loud and clear. I think people are very interested for
central government for four years. I think it would be
interesting for people if they have a time to read
the paper when it is introduced, because there are some
I think peculiarly larities around it.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Yes, so what's the thing about. You'll get a four
year term, but the select committees have to be sticked
up with more opposition members.
Speaker 4 (04:15):
Well, this is an Act bill and it's part of
the coalition agreement to introduce it, and the way the
act Party has written it it actually, from my understanding,
default stays with a three year term. Now within that
three year term, if there is a supermajority which Megan's
alluding to, which I think is about a seventy five
(04:38):
percent majority in favor. It can move to a four
year term. But the caveat there is that select committees
are proportion to MPs outside the executive So what that
will lead to is more select committees where the opposition
has the majority. And I believe ACT thinks that will
(05:00):
be more prudent for scrutinizing and better decision making. But
part of it, I think for me is potentially too
many variables and moving parts rather than just a binary
letter shift from three to four.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
I don't I don't need it to bog down this,
but what's what's your faure?
Speaker 3 (05:16):
And I mean that's one of the things that I
want to take a close look at. Why are we
just not making a call one way or the other,
whether it's whether we're shifting to a four year term.
I mean, Carmel Sepaloni has a bill in the ballot,
for example, in terms of a member's bill, so certainly
something we're open to, But in terms of the select committees,
I think it is important if we go to a
to a four year term that we do have checks
(05:39):
and balances. New Zealand is one of the few kind
of Westminster democracies that only has one house. We don't
have an upper house like Australia does, certainly like the
UK does with the House of Lords, and I'm not
suggesting we should have that, but we do need to
have scrutiny in checks and balances.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
All right.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
One final thing on this, Megan, would you be worried
about central government and local government elections happening in the
same year every twelve years if we extended the terms
for parliament but not central not local government.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
No, there wouldn't be a particular concern.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Well, there are, so we don't need to change the
terms for local government.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
Yeah, And look, I mean I'm not coming down heavily
on one side or the other on that. And I
do think just like central government, there does actually have
to be public and put into it as well, because
these are things. I mean, with the Bell with Paul
Goldsmith's Bill, there is a referendum attached to that as well,
and I think that is right and proper when we're
making changes to our electoral system.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (06:37):
My concern is already too many people are disengaged from
local body elections as it is the risk I think
of it's bundled up with a central government election, then
it doesn't give people space and head space to actually
look and engage with the issues, and that that would
be my consent.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
Thought. It's Friday, Matt, do Megan Woods, who was looking
at me rather weirdly, we want to ask me something
that Yeah.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
I wanted to know what the weather forecast is for
the weekend. John, I thought you might be able to
fill me in on that. But we can come back
to that, I can.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
I'm the fund of well not it's going to be
sticking hot. It's about twenty seven degrees both intestic.
Speaker 3 (07:10):
Why is that just interested looking out the window thinking
are we going to have a nice weekend? I think
it's something most people think about on a Friday.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Here, isn't it amazing? It's amazing? I thought I didn't
think expected to get involved in weather waffle. When now
is your opportunity to tell Matt how stupid is citizens
arrest policy?
Speaker 3 (07:28):
Oh that's coming. Look, I just think that this is
one of those things that looks and there, John looks
pretty on an election flyer, but it's going to be
really difficult in terms of what it actually means. And
I think we've seen retailers already coming out and asking
that question and kind of worried for the safety of
their staff as well. I mean, fundamentally, what we need
(07:50):
to be having is more police, and what we're seeing
under this government's viewer police, that's where the effort needs
to go with Matt.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Can you come around here please? I just want to
because I can't ask the next next question without you
coming around and standing next to me for a second. Okay,
game all right, and then we're gonna get We're gonna
get Megan. Meghan's going to judge here. Megan, who is
the tallest out of out of Matt and Nye, what
would you say to tell.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
Us about I think you're actually the same high.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
Quite similar and other similaries to which we won't go
and right back to your seat. Matt. Now I've got
I've got a question to ask you. When you're in
Wellington and you're standing next to Paul Goldsmith, who's the
tallest of the two.
Speaker 4 (08:31):
Of you, I think probably Paul would be.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
Probably can you imagine him taking someone on and arresting them.
I watched him on TV and I thought Lord, are
you're touting this policy, but I'll bet you wouldn't do it.
Speaker 4 (08:46):
Yeah, but I think at the end of the day,
it's personal choice. We have this in law at the moment, John,
it's not new. It people from darkness nine pm to
six a m. So, actually none of this is new.
It happens in New Zealand now. And all we're saying,
after getting advice from the Retail Crime Advisory Group is
(09:10):
they would like small business, dairy owners, other retail owners
to have the power to make citizens arrest. Now. I
would caution that because anyone should go into that environment
assessing the risk, and only they will know what level
of risk is right for them. But it is something
that we have at the moment, and quite rightly when
(09:31):
you look at retail crime up ninety one percent. We
came in with a mandate of law and order. We
said would change things, and this is what we've done.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Yeahs I just there's.
Speaker 4 (09:42):
Not a fewer cops and actually there's actually more cops
walking the beat and the CBD mischievous they call it.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Today, everyone's running right around.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
We know about that comes we won't go there.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
The skates become the Bronx now you've got cops walking
around central town but out of control. But the thing is,
you know someone's making the citizens arrest and we all
know how easy it is to lose your rag, and
then suddenly the person that you're trying to arrest will
say something about, oh, your mother's are just that, No
she's not, and then suddenly turn into a scrap and
(10:22):
suddenly the person who was doing the arrest will be
the one the one getting arrested when the cops turn up.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
Yeah, but that's exactly the reason while we're changing the
Crimes Act to allow citizens arrest outside the time of
nine pm to six am, to allow people to do that,
but actually to be clearer around restraining and to mandate
that they do call the police once they undertake a
citizens arrest. Like I say, John, we can come up
(10:50):
with all the reasons around this. Potentially there might be
an issue here, but this is not news in New
Zealand every day now because it's in the law.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
So one of my concerns, John, is not so much
someone losing their rag and the men ending not getting
your rested. Is actually that what we're going to say
is the people committing retail crime, which I have no
time for I'm not defending it, but that they're going
to start preparing themselves for citizens arrest and we're going
to have people carry more people carrying knives, and it's
going to get more dangerous. And I'm really worried for
(11:22):
those retail workers that are going to be putting themselves.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
In That's right, We've got to move on. But Matt
two said, there was a guy on the TV news
the other night. He took on someone who jewelry store.
He took on someone got a huge gash across the
top of his head, and he said that. He said,
he said, these people, they'll be turning up with guns.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
Now.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
Yep.
Speaker 4 (11:40):
This is to empower people who have made the choice
that they want to make a citizen's arrest. Like I say, Joel,
we came in with a mandate of law and order.
We said we would make these changes, and we've delivered
on them.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
And it's year two and you've got to do something.
Do you know that Megan has just told me that
when I asked me Matt to come around to stand
next to me, she thought that I was going to
put them in a headlock.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
I didn't, and I was worried I was going to
have to intervene and make a citizen's arrest SHO.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
So I'd be arresting him and you'll be arresting the Well.
Speaker 3 (12:09):
Will there be a rest going on all over the
place by citizens?
Speaker 2 (12:11):
What's happening, speaking of force, what's happening with the defense budget? Matt?
How many billions are going to be thrown at defense
this year?
Speaker 4 (12:19):
Well, first off, I'm just saying how pleased I am
that Megan was concerned for me. I mean, that's genuine concern.
We don't often see that.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
This whole citizens arresting. Everyone's going home when they're talking
about it, but when it comes to doing the doing,
I think that's a different story.
Speaker 4 (12:38):
I mean I was a bit unsure why you were
asking me to go around behind the day.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
Will do anyway? Nice deflection? How many billions? How many
billions or nice attempt? How many billions are going into
defense this year?
Speaker 4 (12:50):
Well, obviously we've got budget twenty twenty five coming up,
so we're not going to be talking specifics before then
unless the Prime Minister decides to announce that. But clearly
he has signaled intent that we need to increase defense funding.
I think most people will realize we've had the issue
(13:11):
of the Chinese warships recently and when you lock round
the world, there is an increased level of concern and
we need to make sure that we're investing into our
defense force and using the word interruptibility to make sure
that we can What does that mean, Well, it makes
(13:31):
it pragmatically. We need to align ourselves more with our
allies and make sure that we can pull our fair
share and defense force.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
Which allies do you want to align us with in
terms of capabilities?
Speaker 4 (13:48):
Well, I think that's very clear. Maybe first off with
our neighbors Australia.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Right, so they've got getting nuclear warships, they're involved in that,
They've got all sorts of things. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (13:58):
Look, we're always going to have sovereignty over where we
spend our defense force funding, but we need to make
sure that step up.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
And when you.
Speaker 4 (14:09):
Hear from Defense Minister Judith Collins, she's been very clear
she did not think under the last Labor government that
we pulled our weight with defense and we need to
step up. It's a challenging world environment out there. The
rule of international law is being challenged and quite rightly,
we need to step up and make sure our defense
(14:32):
force has the capability, but not only the capability. By
investing better into our defense, it increases the morale. I mean,
we've seen attrition in our defense forces greatly reduced as
they realize they've got a government that is backing them.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
What international laws is China breaking? None? Well, you said,
you said, we've got more cases of international laws being broken,
but China's not breaking any international laws.
Speaker 4 (14:58):
Yeah, I didn't talk specifically about China, you are, but
I think more broadly, when you look around the world,
the challenge of the international rule of law has been challenge.
What's an example, Well, I suppose when you look at
the invasion of Ukraine by Russia for an example. And
all I'm saying is that we need to make sure
(15:20):
that for us, as New Zealand, we invest appropriately into
defense and or all our weight and our fair share.
Speaker 2 (15:30):
So, Megan, how come this decline in defense capability? How come?
How do we get to this point? And what is
your government, previous government's role in that? That's attribution to that.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
We actually had a rise in defense spending when we're
in government. We bought the pights, the new planes for
the air force, so that was one of the significant
capital investments that has happened in defense spending over recent years.
And actually, Matt, I'm going to challenge you, and I
think that it's actually really important that we have this
as a growing up conversation. This is actually about us
(16:05):
having a defense capable ability plan which the previous national
government put into place and that we actually worked our
way through as a government. There was actually a cut
in last year's budget in defense spending, but I think
we need to look beyond our party politics and look
at what it is that we need to do as
a country in terms of defense capability. And just like
(16:25):
chipping away saying that labor reduced spending, it's patently not true.
You can go and look at the budgets. You can
see that it was one of the highest spends that's
happened in recent years. And actually your government presided over
at cut. But what we have to do is make
sure that we've got long term capability plans that we
work through, much like your ten year plans a council
you were talking about, John, we have to check in
(16:47):
and make sure that their right for the time in
which we're operating. Obviously, that last capability white paper was
put together, was before a whole lot of stuff that
we're currently seeing playing out in the world, and I
think we're going to leave our party colors at the
door and focus on this as a nation.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Okay, good luck on that, right. One more thing. We
need to cover all this stuff going on with electricity
prices and capacity for generation this week. What's your take, Megan,
given that you're a former energy minister on Meridians saying
that they should be allowed to breach their resource consents
and lower the hydro lakes to allow more generation, what's
(17:25):
your reaction to that.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
So, we actually did do some shifting of the contingency
lake levels when we were in government. That's something that
is always looked at. The fact of the matter is,
though that just tinkering around the edges, like there isn't
the solution that we need of its.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
Would you be up just I'll let you continue, But
would you be comfortable with that.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
We actually did alter Well, I'd have to actually look
at what the payoff is at that point. You've got
to do it to make sure that you're not causing damage.
But the fact of the matter is that our lakes
we measure in weeks of storage, there are about eight
to nine weeks of hydro storage. You compare that to
a Scandinavian fuel were you measure it in years. Just
(18:06):
tinkering around the edges isn't going to solve it. We've
been open to it, and in fact we did do
some of the changing of the contingency lake levels. But
we've got to look for real solutions to this as well.
In storage, and.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
You had succeeds to find solutions.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
We were doing a project on storage.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
And it means which made no sense.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
No, we were doing a project on the New Zealand
battery project, John, and that whole project has been thrown
away and there is no current work being done on storage.
Pumped hydro was only one component of that. And actually
the portfolio approach we had a range of solutions was
pulling ahead of it. But the baby was literally thrown
out with the bath water and that whole project was
(18:48):
thrown away and there is currently no work being done
on what cheap storage to give New Zealand as cheaper
power bills looks like. And that's a real shame.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Ma Doocy.
Speaker 4 (18:59):
Yeah, I'm not too sure what that was all about.
But the reality is we need more generation, and so
the quick you've proposed, if we need to look at
the RIMA which allows the increased take for future generation,
then I think, pragmatically is what Meghan has alluded to.
I think the answer should be yes, but ultimately we
(19:19):
should be laser focused on the generation. It takes too
long to consent new generation and that's where the focus
would be. So I think I think Onslow and the
storage was a bit of a red hearing really, and
that's why after six years we find ourselves in this situation.
Speaker 3 (19:34):
That is actually not true. New Zealand does not have
a generation problem. New Zealand has a storage and a
peaking problem. We have enough electricity except for that point.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Why do we let's all real of you say that
we have to move on? But what how could you
say that when you got the head of Meridian saying
we want to increase generation and to do that you
should let us lower the lake levels further. Yeah, well,
I mean banging on about storage, are they?
Speaker 3 (19:59):
No? Of course Meridian is a generator. They want to
generate more electricity and sell it to make more money.
Of course they're not going to be banging on about storage.
And yes, we do have to increase generation, but you
cannot increase your generation without storage. The real problem New
Zealand has is when everyone gets up in the morning
and puts the toaster on and turns the lights on
in winter, and then they come home from work and
(20:21):
they turn the heater on and start cooking. So we
have those peaks. So that is why storage and peaking is.
That is where we've got to put energy. We're not
going to solve this by just tinkering with the rim
is I said. We pragmatically looked at contingent like levels
when we're in power and did things. But we've also
got to have some leadership and do some more fundamental stuff.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
All right, okay, we're gonna fly. Matt Docy, great to
see you, Great to see you, John, enjoy your day.
You're making some sort of announcement together, we'll have it
on the news loader on the day.
Speaker 4 (20:50):
Potentially potentially come on, here we go, we go come.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
Yes or no? You got announced.
Speaker 4 (21:01):
You're still getting over the potential headlock on the way out.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
No, don't, don't just fall back on that. Have you've
got an announcement man, yes or not?
Speaker 2 (21:07):
Yes or not? Come on? Wouldn't Meghan like to know? Oh,
here we can go. This will be on the six tonight,
you brilliant publicity, but they will be on the phone
to Vietnam saying, Chris, it's gone pear shaped again. He's
learned too much from you. Nice to see you mate,
good see Nice to see you by.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
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
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.