John MacDonald was joined by National’s Vanessa Weenink and Labour’s Duncan Webb this morning for Politics Friday. They discussed whether the new gang patch law will make a difference to crime numbers, and why the Government is pushing on with the boot camp legislation while the trials are ongoing.
They also discussed behaviour in Parliament, particularly following Erica Stanford’s apology after insulting Jan Tinetti in the House. Is it time for more serious action? Are standards slipping?
Labour MP Duncan Webb claims Education Minister Erica Stanford has muttered insults in the House for some time.
Stanford apologised yesterday after Education shadow-minister Jan Tinetti accused her of using a swear word to describe her.
Parliament's microphones and Hansard recording did not pick it up.
Webb raised a point of order, and told John MacDonald that Stanford is a repeat offender.
He says this is just one instance where the Minister over-stepped the mark, and he decided it shouldn't, couldn't continue.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Morning's Podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk, ZB.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Politics, Friday, Nationals, Vanessa Wedding Morning, Vanessa Coome Morning John.
You gave a funny look. I'll get back to that.
Labour's Duncan Web Morning Duncan.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
And what a great morning it is.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Oh here he is.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
They had a Duncan today.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Duncan was just saying he had a good night's sleep
last night.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
It's so rare and so I'm just full of beans today.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
And he's turned up with a Christmas card.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Let's not read that one?
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Why not?
Speaker 3 (00:36):
It's a story.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Well I read it such a well, there was a
story behind it. And I turned up at the start
of this year, after the holidays, and on the desk
was a Christmas card Lordie. First Politics Friday with Duncan.
I said, oh thanks for the Christmas cardy. It turned
up late and Duncan's explanation was that he dropped it
off in person. But I was already away on holiday,
correct right, So he is at the risk of doing
(01:01):
going a bit erica on it. He has written in
the card, Dear John, here bloody Christmas card. Don't complain
this year, Duncan, so very nice, very nice. Now I'll
get back to the Erica in the language. But Vanessa,
you you had a look of surprise with that idea
of putting lectures on Wheeibins and every household in town.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
It was more that you didn't give us a warning
about that one. I was worried, You're going to ask
me a question.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
Not a thing, not a thing. All right, So Erica Stanford,
what happened? What's Erica up to? It's just get just
getting a bit frazzled at the end of the year.
You know, I swearing at jan Taniti in Parliament yesterday.
What's going on?
Speaker 4 (01:42):
Look, she made a private, conce private comment that she's
apologized for to the House and also in person to Jen.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Okay, do you remember Duncan back in twenty twenty and
you were on a Zoom meeting and Judith Collins was there,
and who else was there? A couple of other MPs
were there. But you're on the Zoom call and you
dropped an F bomb? Can you remember when that happened?
Speaker 3 (02:06):
Not not distinctly, but I'm not I'm not denying it.
Those things dos.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Been many, There's been many, many incidents since then it
was four years ago.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
John Mike is really yeah, you really got to watch those,
don't you.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Okay, so you really can't criticize Erica Stanton, can I think? Well?
Speaker 3 (02:24):
You know, I can. I I wasn't sitting in parliament
and I'm not a repeat offender Erica. We have been
watching Erica mutter things as she sits down for a
while and this was just one instance where she well
over overstepped the mark in certainly because I was in
the house, someone come over to me and she and said,
(02:44):
she just said those words, and I thought, we just
can't keep doing that.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
So that's what I really And what about Jessandra I
doing what she said about David Seymour.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
Oh yeah, I'm aware of that. Everyone's aware of that,
you know.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
And so how can you parstones and glasshouses?
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Isn't it wouldn't know that. That's not It's not appropriate
to call people things like record did it. I'm not
even going to repeat it because I think it's really
offensive to call someone who's asking you a question those words.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
All right, So what makes it any less aggressive to
perform a harker in someone's face, as we saw in parliament?
Speaker 3 (03:20):
Last week, Wahanna was suspended for that, and that's entirely appropriate.
She I mean, you know, being disobedient and paying the
consequences as a political tactic that's been used for a
long time. She was suspended so she can't Her vote
wasn't even counted on that bill, and that's the appropriate
(03:40):
decision of the speaker.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Did you agree with it as a fellow opposition MP?
Speaker 3 (03:45):
Did I agree that?
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Did you agree with what she did? And did you
agree with the Speaker's response or the Speaker's handling of it?
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Yeah? I did, Actually thought I thought the thing played
out as it ought to have.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
So Christopher Luxon said during the week Vanessa that we've
got a new generation of MP's coming through, and I
think we could include him in that because it seems
to me that the there are a lot of MP's
in the House who aren't the old school types like
Jerry Brownie's et cetera, et cetera, your Winstant Peters and't
all those guys and maybe standards are dropping. What's your
take on, I know that you're in you're part of
(04:17):
the new generation as well, the standards dropping or is
it just more reflective of how society has moved on.
Speaker 4 (04:25):
Well, I think when it comes to standards in the House,
that's a matter for the Speaker and for the Standing
Orders Committee, and they go to they're gonna be doing it.
When it comes to standards, it might have probably pretty
high I think that if you've got traditions and rules
should follow them. That's the kind of person that I am.
So that's what I will do, and that's the way
that I would advocate for.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Do you think do you think Standing orders can deal
with that? Though? Duncan.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
So if had misbehaved at that level again, she'd be
suspended for a week, and if she did it again,
she'd be suspended until the end of that sitting year,
whatever year that was in. So you know, you can
actually really affect your party's effectiveness and parliam if you
misbehave too much.
Speaker 4 (05:08):
I think they probably need to look at some of
the penalties. Now we're in an environment where there's social
media that's amplifying things, so actually that's got more incentive
for bad behavior in some ways than the effect of
trying to, if you like, want of a better word,
shame people into good behavior.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
Did you go and see the head car the other day.
Speaker 4 (05:27):
No, I didn't.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
What was that.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
Well, we had a delegation that went out from the
National Party and I wasn't included in that.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Did you want to be Yeah? I did actually And
how did you feel not being included?
Speaker 4 (05:37):
Well, I was a little bit disappointed, but that was
the way it was. That was the way it was.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
Why did you want to go?
Speaker 4 (05:43):
Well, it was a historic moment and a lot of
people there talking about what their opinions are, and you
know the National Party is going to be voting down
the Treaty principal spill and you know I've always been
against that, so against the Treaty principal spill. So I'm
really I really wanted to see that historic moment. I
(06:04):
can see it from the from the Parliament buildings.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
There's not great leadership coming from the National Party, is
there in terms of the way that this treating principal
spill is being handled?
Speaker 4 (06:13):
I don't think that at all.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
Well, you would say that, of course, Duncan.
Speaker 3 (06:18):
While I was there, I marched, I walked with them
and I stood on fore court.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
You marched.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
I walked from Waitangi Park into Parliament with them, and
with a whole lot of other labor MPs and you
know the Marti Party MP's there. To be perefully honest,
I didn't see them because there were forty two thousand
people alongside us, and I think that's a real indication
of the strength of feeling about the divisiveness of the spill,
(06:46):
putting aside its futility and wastefulness.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
See Matthew Howton's writing and then see on the Herald
today Vanessa saying that Christopher Luxon spent a lot of
time out of the country and his take on it
is that Christoph Luckxon doesn't necessarily appreciate the progress that
has been made or progress was made that was made
during his time out of the country in terms of
treaty issues. Mary Crown Relations, what's your view on that.
Speaker 4 (07:09):
I wouldn't agree with that on that at all.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
Duncan, he's being on.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
I mean, this is the biggest political misstep I have
ever seen from a prime minister to give a minor
party the front page for six more months. I'm sitting
on this select committee. We have to manage a absolute
flood of submissions that are going to come from all
(07:37):
across the political spectrum, and we're having to think about
how to manage things like what are we going to
do with people who from either end are racist or offensive?
And because the feelings are so high about this, and
as Matthew Herston says, governments, national and Labor League governments
have carefully navigated these things and done an amazing job
(07:57):
to get to where we are. And especially well, you know,
I'm not going to I'm not going to quiple with
you that Nashal did a great job in christpher Lesson
was a great minister for treaty settlements. But that's all
for nowt because we're now getting back to the nineteen seventies, I've.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Gotta ask you a quick question and then we'll move on
to other issues, including governance. Bay get your take on
that with the Jetty. But people have asked me this week,
and it's been several people, how much is this costing
the Select Committee process with the trendy principles build. You've
got a rough idea.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
Look, we don't really know, but I mean you've got
things like all the extra security that was out there.
We've had extra support given to our Select Committee because
it's such a huge task. We know it's going to
cost at least four million dollars to run the whole process.
Whether it will be more and exactly what's captured by that,
(08:48):
whether all of those additional security and so on and
so forth, we don't know.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
So that's effectively four million, four million dollars in tax
payer money going towards the ACT party's next election campaign.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
Well, that's what I think, you know, that's yeah, and
stealing votes from largely the center right.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Would you agree with that, Vanessa?
Speaker 4 (09:07):
This was a campaign that ACT wanted. This is something
we had to compromise on and wasn't an easy thing
to compromise on, and we did it because we had
to to be able to form a government. And we
will not support the bill.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
But it's four million bucks going towards.
Speaker 4 (09:21):
End Yeah, exactly that. That was insisted on by ACT.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
And agreed to by your party, Vanessa. This is in
your electorate. The Governor's Bay Jetty Trust has asked the
city Council to waive the interest on its loan eight
hundred thousand dollar dollars, and the council has said no
because it would create a problematic precedent.
Speaker 4 (09:42):
What's your view, Well, it's great, Jetty, it's an asset
for the council and the local community and the trust
to put a lot of sweet equity into getting that
project done, and fundraising now is getting tough. It's getting
it's a bit of a grind for them. So I
can understand where the Trust is coming from, and I
(10:02):
can also understand the council's perspective as well, because they
wouldn't have necessarily done that project had it not been
for the community getting exercised over it.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
So you agree that, I understand.
Speaker 4 (10:18):
Well, to be honest, that's a discussion for the for
the council in between the trust. But because I can
see both sides.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
Of it, that wasn't that wasn't an answer both sides
of the duty.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
So the loan is about eight hundred and fifty thousand,
it's at four percent over four years. That's one hundred
and thirty six thousand dollars worth of interest. Someone's got
to pay it. The council doesn't get free money either, right,
So and look, I understand I've just been informed that
the council has agreed to weigh two installments. So that's
about eight grand, which is a breathing space. But I
(10:55):
think actually and the council took almost two million into
the build cost.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Yes, that's right.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
Yeah, so I've honestly got to say no, the community
asked for it. They struck a deal. They promise to
pay the interest. You can't reneg on your deal, just
like the treaty principles.
Speaker 4 (11:11):
They're not going to renig on a deal that and
the trust knows that they have to pay it and
they will and yeah, and I can understand them wanting
to some help and that process all right.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Three minutes past midnight night before last, the police made
the first gang patch pack up, stopped the car. I
saw a guy wearing a patches said, oh hold on
or check the time. Oh no, we can do this now,
and they charged them under the new gang laws. Vanessa.
What difference is it going to make? I gathered there
was another guy caught north sumwhere he jumped down the
(11:43):
car to get some takeaways and oh, there we are
number two for the day.
Speaker 4 (11:46):
What I mean this is pressure on the gangs. We're
making it hard for gangs to get around and do
their nasty business.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Well, and so it's the line.
Speaker 4 (11:56):
Yeah, No, that's exactly what it's about. We're putting pressure
on the gang's population. Grew by fifty under the last government,
so we're not tolerating that. And we know that people
people want to see law and order to improve in
this country.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
You don't need to wear a patch to sell drugs, though,
do you. No, you don't know, you don't.
Speaker 4 (12:13):
You don't need a patch, but it's part of your
recruiting process.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
You don't need to if you want to. You don't
need a patch to run any organized crime, no.
Speaker 4 (12:20):
But if you want to recruit, you have some marketing processes.
That's what that's marketing for them. So we're making it
life harder for them to recruit.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Yeah. Well, I was in a pub and grass church.
I've said this several times. Pub and grass church a
few months ago some common Tererros walked and I knew
they were common heroes, not because they were wearing a patch,
because they're wearing Commonero's T shirts. That's what we're going
to see, isn't it, Duncan.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Look And just to fill in on your story about
the twelve oh three arrest, which was not actually wearing
a gang patch, it was having gang insignia on the dashboard.
What happened to that guy? They took him in, They
let him go because they couldn't establish whether he was
displaying gang insignia or not. There again, which shows the
absolute futility of the whole exercise. At least, just remember
(13:01):
that police officer at twelve oh three who arrested that person,
took them down to the station, wasn't doing something else,
wasn't doing mental health callouts, wasn't doing domestic violence callouts,
which the police have said they are dialing back on.
And that's the choice that this government's made.
Speaker 4 (13:20):
So Duncan, you're going to reinstate the ability for gang
members to wear patches when you if you get back
into government, is that going to be one of the
first things that labor does so that they can help
the gang's recruitment.
Speaker 3 (13:31):
Our focus will be on directing police resources to where
they're needed. And one of the biggest victimizations which have
gone up under this government is domestic violence, which is
not a priority for the National lead government.
Speaker 4 (13:43):
So you're happy for gangs to be recruiting more because
I mean, you're more funding to the gangs, And Duncan.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
The question is is this government happy that police resources
are going to police gang patches rather than domestics.
Speaker 4 (14:02):
Gangs are responsible for about twenty five percent of the
violent crime in our country, and they are less than
zero point two percent of the population.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The point is, though, you don't have
to wear a patch to do any of that bad stuff.
For good man, what happened there. I'm telling you, we've
got to take a breaker. Hit the microphone through my pen.
Lucky you didn't hit any of you in the face, Vanessa,
I particularly wanted to cover this quickly today. The Health
New Zealand Survey twenty twenty four survey came out this
(14:32):
week and one of the overarching messages was that GP
visits are down, emergency department visits are up. What does
this say about the state of general practice.
Speaker 4 (14:41):
Well, it's a continuing trend that's been on the way
over many years, so gradually creeping up the amount of
time it takes to get in to see a GP
and also the number of people who are saying that
it's a barrier to getting in to see their GP.
And then on the other side, wait times in the
emergency department and the number of people going through the
emergency departments are up. We've seen that happening over it's
(15:03):
been happening that trend over many many year.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
So when you were a GP, before you became an MP,
what was what was the picture of what was your
assessment then? Because it wasn't that long ago.
Speaker 4 (15:15):
No, it wasn't. And a similar kind of thing. What
we're saying is that the waiting time to get into
secondary care for things like surgery and procedures means that
more people are coming back to their GPS needing more visits,
and it sort of puts pressure on the GPS. So
it's kind of the whole system is having pressure and
everywhere is understrained.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
It's health something that's always going to be a basket case.
Speaker 4 (15:39):
No, it's not always going to be a basic basket case.
And there's room for a lot of hope, and I
think that we've got wonderful people who work within the system.
It's not a basket case, but we definitely have challenges
that we need to work on.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Okay, all right, the boot camps. Now, the opposition is
ripping into your government for going ahead with the boot
camp legislation when the boot camp trial is still happening.
Does that make a mockery of the whole idea of
a trial before you commit to something.
Speaker 4 (16:07):
Well, the trial is a small number of people. It's
not like a properly run trial that would give you
a huge amount of quantitative evidence. What it's been doing,
you do is showing that the processes can work, making
sure that the logistics are okay. It's showing that it's safe.
And so you know that, well, because they've done three
(16:31):
months of the residential phase and now they're into the
home phase with wrap around support in the community.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
And one of them was already reoffended.
Speaker 4 (16:40):
Yeah, and two of them have already got jobs.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
How many in total?
Speaker 4 (16:43):
So there were ten that went through. One started then
then pulled out, so then they had another person come in.
So there's been what so I think it was the
first week that they pulled out that person pulled out.
So that's what eleven that have gone through, ones offended.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
So this might be technical, but is it more of
a pilot than a trial?
Speaker 4 (17:06):
Look, if you want to call it something like that,
you know, being a medical person, I think of those
things in a different way.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Duncan web can you argue with event you've got two
of those kids in jobs, well, one of them is reoffended,
et cetera. That that is some success.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
Yeah, and I'm really glad for those two kids that
have got jobs. And as was pointed out, this was
a pilot for ten people. It was a Rolls Royce pilot. Right,
there's no other program we get ten kids, and so
what we wouldn't to see if this. First of all,
we don't agree with boot camps. We don't agree with
(17:44):
some kind of military style structured uniforms, march and whatever
it is. We think that that's not appropriate. We do
agree that the kids need huge support and therapy and
basically need help to get over what's a pretty troubled
time in their life and get back on track. Residential
military style academies aren't the way, and certainly privately run,
(18:08):
which is what the legislation that's been introduced does. Military
style academies where force is permitted isn't the right way
to go about it.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
All right, So but Vanessa, just to wind it up,
you think it's fine to press on even though the
trial hasn't concluded.
Speaker 4 (18:23):
Yes, I do. This is a very big investment in
these young people, and that is a super kid. I
don't know what the exact number is.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
Because two hundred and forty thousand I saw in the newslass.
Speaker 4 (18:34):
If that stops people in the long run from ending
up in prison, then that is a worthy investment.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
So this is like I say, this is a social investment.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
Yeah, it's two and a half million bucks spent on
the ten kids who have gone through the program. Would
it not be better to do a complete assessment when
the whole thing's finished.
Speaker 4 (18:52):
Well, if it's going to it's small numbers.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
It's just a way of starting something until you got
the legislation passed.
Speaker 4 (18:58):
I don't know how they've worked it. I'm not part
of those cabinet discussions.
Speaker 3 (19:01):
So the Circuit Breaker program, which was taking the same
kids and putting care around in the community, had the
same kind of outcomes, really good outcomes, seventy thousand per
young person. So so in terms of value for money
and the amount of young people you can address their
problems with, there's other ways to do this which are
more effective.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
Very nice to see you both, Vanessa Wennick. Have a
good weekend.
Speaker 4 (19:23):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 3 (19:24):
It's a Christmas card.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
Thanks for the thanks for the Christmas carve. The sentiments
inside maybe not quite so oh good, did not quite
reflective of the season, and I promise next time that
we know weapons thrown at upen or otherwise. Nice to
Politics Friday.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
Back next Friday for more from Category Mornings with John McDonald.
Listen live to news Talks It'd Be christ Church from
nine am weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Canterbury Morning's Podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk, ZB.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Politics, Friday, Nationals, Vanessa Wedding Morning, Vanessa Coome Morning John.
You gave a funny look. I'll get back to that.
Labour's Duncan Web Morning Duncan.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
And what a great morning it is.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Oh here he is.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
They had a Duncan today.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Duncan was just saying he had a good night's sleep
last night.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
It's so rare and so I'm just full of beans today.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
And he's turned up with a Christmas card.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Let's not read that one?
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Why not?
Speaker 3 (00:36):
It's a story.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Well I read it such a well, there was a
story behind it. And I turned up at the start
of this year, after the holidays, and on the desk
was a Christmas card Lordie. First Politics Friday with Duncan.
I said, oh thanks for the Christmas cardy. It turned
up late and Duncan's explanation was that he dropped it
off in person. But I was already away on holiday,
correct right, So he is at the risk of doing
(01:01):
going a bit erica on it. He has written in
the card, Dear John, here bloody Christmas card. Don't complain
this year, Duncan, so very nice, very nice. Now I'll
get back to the Erica in the language. But Vanessa,
you you had a look of surprise with that idea
of putting lectures on Wheeibins and every household in town.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
It was more that you didn't give us a warning
about that one. I was worried, You're going to ask
me a question.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
Not a thing, not a thing. All right, So Erica Stanford,
what happened? What's Erica up to? It's just get just
getting a bit frazzled at the end of the year.
You know, I swearing at jan Taniti in Parliament yesterday.
What's going on?
Speaker 4 (01:42):
Look, she made a private, conce private comment that she's
apologized for to the House and also in person to Jen.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Okay, do you remember Duncan back in twenty twenty and
you were on a Zoom meeting and Judith Collins was there,
and who else was there? A couple of other MPs
were there. But you're on the Zoom call and you
dropped an F bomb? Can you remember when that happened?
Speaker 3 (02:06):
Not not distinctly, but I'm not I'm not denying it.
Those things dos.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Been many, There's been many, many incidents since then it
was four years ago.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
John Mike is really yeah, you really got to watch those,
don't you.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Okay, so you really can't criticize Erica Stanton, can I think? Well?
Speaker 3 (02:24):
You know, I can. I I wasn't sitting in parliament
and I'm not a repeat offender Erica. We have been
watching Erica mutter things as she sits down for a
while and this was just one instance where she well
over overstepped the mark in certainly because I was in
the house, someone come over to me and she and said,
(02:44):
she just said those words, and I thought, we just
can't keep doing that.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
So that's what I really And what about Jessandra I
doing what she said about David Seymour.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
Oh yeah, I'm aware of that. Everyone's aware of that,
you know.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
And so how can you parstones and glasshouses?
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Isn't it wouldn't know that. That's not It's not appropriate
to call people things like record did it. I'm not
even going to repeat it because I think it's really
offensive to call someone who's asking you a question those words.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
All right, So what makes it any less aggressive to
perform a harker in someone's face, as we saw in parliament?
Speaker 3 (03:20):
Last week, Wahanna was suspended for that, and that's entirely appropriate.
She I mean, you know, being disobedient and paying the
consequences as a political tactic that's been used for a
long time. She was suspended so she can't Her vote
wasn't even counted on that bill, and that's the appropriate
(03:40):
decision of the speaker.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Did you agree with it as a fellow opposition MP?
Speaker 3 (03:45):
Did I agree that?
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Did you agree with what she did? And did you
agree with the Speaker's response or the Speaker's handling of it?
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Yeah? I did, Actually thought I thought the thing played
out as it ought to have.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
So Christopher Luxon said during the week Vanessa that we've
got a new generation of MP's coming through, and I
think we could include him in that because it seems
to me that the there are a lot of MP's
in the House who aren't the old school types like
Jerry Brownie's et cetera, et cetera, your Winstant Peters and't
all those guys and maybe standards are dropping. What's your
take on, I know that you're in you're part of
(04:17):
the new generation as well, the standards dropping or is
it just more reflective of how society has moved on.
Speaker 4 (04:25):
Well, I think when it comes to standards in the House,
that's a matter for the Speaker and for the Standing
Orders Committee, and they go to they're gonna be doing it.
When it comes to standards, it might have probably pretty
high I think that if you've got traditions and rules
should follow them. That's the kind of person that I am.
So that's what I will do, and that's the way
that I would advocate for.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Do you think do you think Standing orders can deal
with that? Though? Duncan.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
So if had misbehaved at that level again, she'd be
suspended for a week, and if she did it again,
she'd be suspended until the end of that sitting year,
whatever year that was in. So you know, you can
actually really affect your party's effectiveness and parliam if you
misbehave too much.
Speaker 4 (05:08):
I think they probably need to look at some of
the penalties. Now we're in an environment where there's social
media that's amplifying things, so actually that's got more incentive
for bad behavior in some ways than the effect of
trying to, if you like, want of a better word,
shame people into good behavior.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
Did you go and see the head car the other day.
Speaker 4 (05:27):
No, I didn't.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
What was that.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
Well, we had a delegation that went out from the
National Party and I wasn't included in that.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Did you want to be Yeah? I did actually And
how did you feel not being included?
Speaker 4 (05:37):
Well, I was a little bit disappointed, but that was
the way it was. That was the way it was.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
Why did you want to go?
Speaker 4 (05:43):
Well, it was a historic moment and a lot of
people there talking about what their opinions are, and you
know the National Party is going to be voting down
the Treaty principal spill and you know I've always been
against that, so against the Treaty principal spill. So I'm
really I really wanted to see that historic moment. I
(06:04):
can see it from the from the Parliament buildings.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
There's not great leadership coming from the National Party, is
there in terms of the way that this treating principal
spill is being handled?
Speaker 4 (06:13):
I don't think that at all.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
Well, you would say that, of course, Duncan.
Speaker 3 (06:18):
While I was there, I marched, I walked with them
and I stood on fore court.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
You marched.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
I walked from Waitangi Park into Parliament with them, and
with a whole lot of other labor MPs and you
know the Marti Party MP's there. To be perefully honest,
I didn't see them because there were forty two thousand
people alongside us, and I think that's a real indication
of the strength of feeling about the divisiveness of the spill,
(06:46):
putting aside its futility and wastefulness.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
See Matthew Howton's writing and then see on the Herald
today Vanessa saying that Christopher Luxon spent a lot of
time out of the country and his take on it
is that Christoph Luckxon doesn't necessarily appreciate the progress that
has been made or progress was made that was made
during his time out of the country in terms of
treaty issues. Mary Crown Relations, what's your view on that.
Speaker 4 (07:09):
I wouldn't agree with that on that at all.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
Duncan, he's being on.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
I mean, this is the biggest political misstep I have
ever seen from a prime minister to give a minor
party the front page for six more months. I'm sitting
on this select committee. We have to manage a absolute
flood of submissions that are going to come from all
(07:37):
across the political spectrum, and we're having to think about
how to manage things like what are we going to
do with people who from either end are racist or offensive?
And because the feelings are so high about this, and
as Matthew Herston says, governments, national and Labor League governments
have carefully navigated these things and done an amazing job
(07:57):
to get to where we are. And especially well, you know,
I'm not going to I'm not going to quiple with
you that Nashal did a great job in christpher Lesson
was a great minister for treaty settlements. But that's all
for nowt because we're now getting back to the nineteen seventies, I've.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Gotta ask you a quick question and then we'll move on
to other issues, including governance. Bay get your take on
that with the Jetty. But people have asked me this week,
and it's been several people, how much is this costing
the Select Committee process with the trendy principles build. You've
got a rough idea.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
Look, we don't really know, but I mean you've got
things like all the extra security that was out there.
We've had extra support given to our Select Committee because
it's such a huge task. We know it's going to
cost at least four million dollars to run the whole process.
Whether it will be more and exactly what's captured by that,
(08:48):
whether all of those additional security and so on and
so forth, we don't know.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
So that's effectively four million, four million dollars in tax
payer money going towards the ACT party's next election campaign.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
Well, that's what I think, you know, that's yeah, and
stealing votes from largely the center right.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Would you agree with that, Vanessa?
Speaker 4 (09:07):
This was a campaign that ACT wanted. This is something
we had to compromise on and wasn't an easy thing
to compromise on, and we did it because we had
to to be able to form a government. And we
will not support the bill.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
But it's four million bucks going towards.
Speaker 4 (09:21):
End Yeah, exactly that. That was insisted on by ACT.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
And agreed to by your party, Vanessa. This is in
your electorate. The Governor's Bay Jetty Trust has asked the
city Council to waive the interest on its loan eight
hundred thousand dollar dollars, and the council has said no
because it would create a problematic precedent.
Speaker 4 (09:42):
What's your view, Well, it's great, Jetty, it's an asset
for the council and the local community and the trust
to put a lot of sweet equity into getting that
project done, and fundraising now is getting tough. It's getting
it's a bit of a grind for them. So I
can understand where the Trust is coming from, and I
(10:02):
can also understand the council's perspective as well, because they
wouldn't have necessarily done that project had it not been
for the community getting exercised over it.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
So you agree that, I understand.
Speaker 4 (10:18):
Well, to be honest, that's a discussion for the for
the council in between the trust. But because I can
see both sides.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
Of it, that wasn't that wasn't an answer both sides
of the duty.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
So the loan is about eight hundred and fifty thousand,
it's at four percent over four years. That's one hundred
and thirty six thousand dollars worth of interest. Someone's got
to pay it. The council doesn't get free money either, right,
So and look, I understand I've just been informed that
the council has agreed to weigh two installments. So that's
about eight grand, which is a breathing space. But I
(10:55):
think actually and the council took almost two million into
the build cost.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Yes, that's right.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
Yeah, so I've honestly got to say no, the community
asked for it. They struck a deal. They promise to
pay the interest. You can't reneg on your deal, just
like the treaty principles.
Speaker 4 (11:11):
They're not going to renig on a deal that and
the trust knows that they have to pay it and
they will and yeah, and I can understand them wanting
to some help and that process all right.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Three minutes past midnight night before last, the police made
the first gang patch pack up, stopped the car. I
saw a guy wearing a patches said, oh hold on
or check the time. Oh no, we can do this now,
and they charged them under the new gang laws. Vanessa.
What difference is it going to make? I gathered there
was another guy caught north sumwhere he jumped down the
(11:43):
car to get some takeaways and oh, there we are
number two for the day.
Speaker 4 (11:46):
What I mean this is pressure on the gangs. We're
making it hard for gangs to get around and do
their nasty business.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Well, and so it's the line.
Speaker 4 (11:56):
Yeah, No, that's exactly what it's about. We're putting pressure
on the gang's population. Grew by fifty under the last government,
so we're not tolerating that. And we know that people
people want to see law and order to improve in
this country.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
You don't need to wear a patch to sell drugs, though,
do you. No, you don't know, you don't.
Speaker 4 (12:13):
You don't need a patch, but it's part of your
recruiting process.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
You don't need to if you want to. You don't
need a patch to run any organized crime, no.
Speaker 4 (12:20):
But if you want to recruit, you have some marketing processes.
That's what that's marketing for them. So we're making it
life harder for them to recruit.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Yeah. Well, I was in a pub and grass church.
I've said this several times. Pub and grass church a
few months ago some common Tererros walked and I knew
they were common heroes, not because they were wearing a patch,
because they're wearing Commonero's T shirts. That's what we're going
to see, isn't it, Duncan.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Look And just to fill in on your story about
the twelve oh three arrest, which was not actually wearing
a gang patch, it was having gang insignia on the dashboard.
What happened to that guy? They took him in, They
let him go because they couldn't establish whether he was
displaying gang insignia or not. There again, which shows the
absolute futility of the whole exercise. At least, just remember
(13:01):
that police officer at twelve oh three who arrested that person,
took them down to the station, wasn't doing something else,
wasn't doing mental health callouts, wasn't doing domestic violence callouts,
which the police have said they are dialing back on.
And that's the choice that this government's made.
Speaker 4 (13:20):
So Duncan, you're going to reinstate the ability for gang
members to wear patches when you if you get back
into government, is that going to be one of the
first things that labor does so that they can help
the gang's recruitment.
Speaker 3 (13:31):
Our focus will be on directing police resources to where
they're needed. And one of the biggest victimizations which have
gone up under this government is domestic violence, which is
not a priority for the National lead government.
Speaker 4 (13:43):
So you're happy for gangs to be recruiting more because
I mean, you're more funding to the gangs, And Duncan.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
The question is is this government happy that police resources
are going to police gang patches rather than domestics.
Speaker 4 (14:02):
Gangs are responsible for about twenty five percent of the
violent crime in our country, and they are less than
zero point two percent of the population.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The point is, though, you don't have
to wear a patch to do any of that bad stuff.
For good man, what happened there. I'm telling you, we've
got to take a breaker. Hit the microphone through my pen.
Lucky you didn't hit any of you in the face, Vanessa,
I particularly wanted to cover this quickly today. The Health
New Zealand Survey twenty twenty four survey came out this
(14:32):
week and one of the overarching messages was that GP
visits are down, emergency department visits are up. What does
this say about the state of general practice.
Speaker 4 (14:41):
Well, it's a continuing trend that's been on the way
over many years, so gradually creeping up the amount of
time it takes to get in to see a GP
and also the number of people who are saying that
it's a barrier to getting in to see their GP.
And then on the other side, wait times in the
emergency department and the number of people going through the
emergency departments are up. We've seen that happening over it's
(15:03):
been happening that trend over many many year.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
So when you were a GP, before you became an MP,
what was what was the picture of what was your
assessment then? Because it wasn't that long ago.
Speaker 4 (15:15):
No, it wasn't. And a similar kind of thing. What
we're saying is that the waiting time to get into
secondary care for things like surgery and procedures means that
more people are coming back to their GPS needing more visits,
and it sort of puts pressure on the GPS. So
it's kind of the whole system is having pressure and
everywhere is understrained.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
It's health something that's always going to be a basket case.
Speaker 4 (15:39):
No, it's not always going to be a basic basket case.
And there's room for a lot of hope, and I
think that we've got wonderful people who work within the system.
It's not a basket case, but we definitely have challenges
that we need to work on.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Okay, all right, the boot camps. Now, the opposition is
ripping into your government for going ahead with the boot
camp legislation when the boot camp trial is still happening.
Does that make a mockery of the whole idea of
a trial before you commit to something.
Speaker 4 (16:07):
Well, the trial is a small number of people. It's
not like a properly run trial that would give you
a huge amount of quantitative evidence. What it's been doing,
you do is showing that the processes can work, making
sure that the logistics are okay. It's showing that it's safe.
And so you know that, well, because they've done three
(16:31):
months of the residential phase and now they're into the
home phase with wrap around support in the community.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
And one of them was already reoffended.
Speaker 4 (16:40):
Yeah, and two of them have already got jobs.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
How many in total?
Speaker 4 (16:43):
So there were ten that went through. One started then
then pulled out, so then they had another person come in.
So there's been what so I think it was the
first week that they pulled out that person pulled out.
So that's what eleven that have gone through, ones offended.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
So this might be technical, but is it more of
a pilot than a trial?
Speaker 4 (17:06):
Look, if you want to call it something like that,
you know, being a medical person, I think of those
things in a different way.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Duncan web can you argue with event you've got two
of those kids in jobs, well, one of them is reoffended,
et cetera. That that is some success.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
Yeah, and I'm really glad for those two kids that
have got jobs. And as was pointed out, this was
a pilot for ten people. It was a Rolls Royce pilot. Right,
there's no other program we get ten kids, and so
what we wouldn't to see if this. First of all,
we don't agree with boot camps. We don't agree with
(17:44):
some kind of military style structured uniforms, march and whatever
it is. We think that that's not appropriate. We do
agree that the kids need huge support and therapy and
basically need help to get over what's a pretty troubled
time in their life and get back on track. Residential
military style academies aren't the way, and certainly privately run,
(18:08):
which is what the legislation that's been introduced does. Military
style academies where force is permitted isn't the right way
to go about it.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
All right, So but Vanessa, just to wind it up,
you think it's fine to press on even though the
trial hasn't concluded.
Speaker 4 (18:23):
Yes, I do. This is a very big investment in
these young people, and that is a super kid. I
don't know what the exact number is.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
Because two hundred and forty thousand I saw in the newslass.
Speaker 4 (18:34):
If that stops people in the long run from ending
up in prison, then that is a worthy investment.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
So this is like I say, this is a social investment.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
Yeah, it's two and a half million bucks spent on
the ten kids who have gone through the program. Would
it not be better to do a complete assessment when
the whole thing's finished.
Speaker 4 (18:52):
Well, if it's going to it's small numbers.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
It's just a way of starting something until you got
the legislation passed.
Speaker 4 (18:58):
I don't know how they've worked it. I'm not part
of those cabinet discussions.
Speaker 3 (19:01):
So the Circuit Breaker program, which was taking the same
kids and putting care around in the community, had the
same kind of outcomes, really good outcomes, seventy thousand per
young person. So so in terms of value for money
and the amount of young people you can address their
problems with, there's other ways to do this which are
more effective.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
Very nice to see you both, Vanessa Wennick. Have a
good weekend.
Speaker 4 (19:23):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 3 (19:24):
It's a Christmas card.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
Thanks for the thanks for the Christmas carve. The sentiments
inside maybe not quite so oh good, did not quite
reflective of the season, and I promise next time that
we know weapons thrown at upen or otherwise. Nice to
Politics Friday.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
Back next Friday for more from Category Mornings with John McDonald.
Listen live to news Talks It'd Be christ Church from
nine am weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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
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!