National's Hamish Campbell and Labour's Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.
They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from the OECD's latest report, The Government's plan to introduce a test for citizenship, and if the high number of short-term-rentals are ruining Christchurch's CBD.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Morning's podcast with John McDonald
from News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
AB Labour's Tracy McClelland Morning Morning National TAM's Campbell Morning.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Good morning, John, how are you? Good morning? Tracy?
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Very well comes it comes around quickly, but it never
disappoints me because the chance to sit down the couple
of politicians for half an hour as a treat and
no different you no different. I didn't say that. I'm
going to give you a comment, John, Yeah, I mean
there are lots of treats during the way. Now let's
(00:40):
talk about AIRB and B. Do you reckon? Let's start
with you Hamish. Do you reckon? Airbnb is out of
control in christ Church because there are some people living
in the central city who think it is.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
Look, I think we need to kind of also look
at the positive sides of Airbnb as well. We have
about suggess Well, we have seven thousand hotel beds in
christ Church. We have about four thousand motel beds. We
want to have attract vibrant events here to christ Church,
whether it's to be the new stage where it be
Electric Avenue, So we actually do need accommodation for some
of these people. So there is the plus sizes that
(01:12):
actually Airbnb provides more more hotel well in effect beds
for people to come and visit physit Christchurch, which is
a good thing appreciate. There is some downside to it. Ultimately,
it does come down to the council.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
All right, Yeah, well it doesn't actually because I had
the it was the head of Tourism McKenzie. I think
it is a mackenzie tourism call into the show yesterday.
I didn't even know that she was listening down there.
She's hot on this because she was saying in Tickeerpole,
seventy percent of the residential properties there are used for
(01:46):
holiday accommodation, seventy percent. And so you have these zombie towns,
that's what I'm calling them, and that's what people living
in the central city saying. We don't want to they
don't want to live and pretend neighborhoods, and Lydia from
McKenzie was saying, you can't fall it off. The local government.
Central government needs to step in set some regulations and
(02:08):
rules to give councils teeth and to force councils to
do something about it.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
There are rules around it already. If you're going to
have Airbnb for more than sixty sixty knights has have
resource consent, so there is there is laws. Yeah, the
councils then need to enforce some of these rules as well.
Now I appreciate the argument that needs to be a
level playing field, that kind of traditional accommodation needs to
(02:36):
be on a level playing field with Airbnb. Totally get
that argument as well.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Right, I'm going to come back. I'll come back to
you because I want of them, Tracy, because I'm suspecting
Tracy that you're going to say the complete opposite from
what the homishes said.
Speaker 4 (02:47):
Yeah, pretty much, pretty much, And I do agree that
the government needs to do something here. I think in
Australia what the council are a bit stuck because they
don't know who who's airbnbing, and that data.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Could be because they turn a blind one.
Speaker 4 (03:00):
But the data could be made available in Australia, I
think Airbnb have to release that data so there could
be legious changes lations so that council could have the
data and then they've got a suite of things open
to them, like maybe they charged commercial rates.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
Even that it still wouldn't put people off from renting
out a place.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
Yeah, but the first you can't tackle a problem if
you don't know where it is. And I think that
I have one hundred percent agree. I think it's far
too lacks. It does create a lack of community, which
is a lot of you know, it's a huge selling
point for people when they move anywhere. They want to
feel a sense of community. So I think I think
the government needs to give counsel some teeth.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Right, So therefore, if you're in government after the next election,
that's what you'll do.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
Well, it's certainly something I'll be advocating for Hamish.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
If you bought an apartment in town, right, and there
were twenty i'ms going from memory of one of the
people who was talking about yesterday twenty five So the
twenty five units, and only four of them were occupied
by permanent residents, how would you and you were one
of those four, how would you feel about that the
other twenty one being rented out? Ever you like to
(04:07):
different people.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
Yeah, look, I'm not saying it. It's not how much
you feel about it.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
You'd be brassed off. Well, you might have a lot
of car parks, you'd.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
You might have a lot of car parks might have
other benefits from.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
You don't pretend you'd be brassed off. First of all,
how many Airbnb properties around your place right now?
Speaker 3 (04:26):
I don't.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
You've got no idea what it's like.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
No, I have a lot of student accommodation around around
our place, so they have slightly different different challenges. You
can't come on a Saturday night. We can. We can
go and visit some of the parties, parties in the neighborhood.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
If you want invitation, can bring Rory as well. Right,
all right, so let's just talk about climate changes. Climate
Change Commissioned Report, which came out pretty much if you
wrap it all up in three words, doom and gloom,
any surprises and the report for you homers.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
No, look, I think kind of it's an independent report
that is commissioned to kind of see where we are
with the level of resilience. I probably pushed back a
little bit on the dooming clu. There were some things
that were commended on, including kind of changes to emergency
management and also the water infrastructure changes that have gone
through and some of the adaptation plays place.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
But with respect emergency management is the cliche ambulance at
the bottom of the climate change cliff, isn't.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
It totally agree? This is we're taking this report very seriously.
The legislative process now is there's two years for the
government to respond, and I think we do need to
take this, take this very seriously. We saw that we
have had a lot of extreme weather events. We do
need to make sure we have a country that is
resilient and that we have infrastructure that is resilient for
(05:48):
when we have weather events.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Do you believe it's climate change causing that increase in events.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
Or for whatever reason we're having it, we're having.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
It wasn't the question. The question was do you believe.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
I'm not a meteorologist we seem to be having Honestly,
you want to boil things down to a yes. No,
I think this be complex thing. I think where the
patterns are changing climate change, I don't know. Do I
think this change happening?
Speaker 2 (06:13):
You deny.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
I'm not saying I deny. I'm saying that where the
patterns are changing. And I've been on the show before John,
and We've had exactly the same conversation, and I've given.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
It and there are a highlight of my week when
do it.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
Genuine highlights that there is there's changes to our weather patterns,
and I think we need to have infrastructure that's resilient
to that.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
Tracy McLennan, I thought it was kind of weird that
the government gets two years just to respond.
Speaker 4 (06:41):
It's too long, and look, that's a ligiative thing. Much
highlights problem, and that is we've got a coalition government
that aren't all on the same page about whether climate
change is real and therefore what to do about it.
You've got Shane Jones yelling out things in the House
that that could only describe himself as a bit of
(07:01):
a laggard. You've got people in the National Party who
I know are much more care to get on and
do things, and everybody's handstruck. If the government were serious,
they wouldn't have scrapped the Resilience Plan that was about
six billion. They wouldn't have scrapped the Climate Emergency Fund
which was about four point five million from an of
money on adaptation.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
From memory though, and I'm only going from memory and
therefore my memory not terribly reliable, but going from memory,
there were some climate change initiatives that Chris hap can
throw on that famous policy bond fired and in the
last few months of his premiership.
Speaker 4 (07:38):
And what was still left was scrapped by National and
that was about what ten and a half billion dollars
worth of money. That we've got a focus on adaptation,
otherwise we're only going to be rebuilding after one disaster
after another instead of fixing the problem.
Speaker 3 (07:52):
Respond to that, I'd love to love you so's. You
can label a fund whatever you want to label it,
but if it's not actually delivering on what the label is,
it's not going to deliver. The Climate Emergency fund shift
did paid for a bus stop to be shifted fifty
meters long? Manchester story, How does that help help the climate?
Cost a lot of money, it's not actually delivering any changes.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
This happened.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
This is the previous government banned oil and gas in
effect transitioned us from gas to carl which actually it
is exactly what happened.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
We now.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
Sitting behind behind Huntly.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
There's quite an old argument. I mean, don't bring that
next year, you'll be down on.
Speaker 4 (08:37):
What you inherit away.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
Don't give me, don't do that what we inherited key message. Nonsense.
It's sixteen past ten candid warnings. Politics, Friday Initials Hammish Campbell, Labors,
Tracy McLellan. The OECD has been busy telling us what
we should be doing. Let's start first with its talking
about the electricity sector. But let's start with the government
(09:03):
wanting to make installing solar panels cheaper and easier. Hamish Campbell,
How is the government going to do this?
Speaker 3 (09:10):
Well, I think if you look at what is involved
in getting a solar installed here in New Zealand, there's
probably four different entity you just need to be involved,
up to eight different visits.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Let me check what are the different entities that need
to be in.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
So you have the solar installer, you have the electrician,
then there's an electrical inspection, and then there's the lines company,
and so this whole different array of approvals that need
to be given. They're un coordinated much.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Let me take said about I had I had a
we were talking about sold at one point a few
weeks back, and a guy from a solar company rung
up and gave some information, shared his thoughts, and then
someone who was listening wrung him up, and then the
next day he was around having a look and within
I think twenty four hours he was signed up and
(09:59):
sorted to get the solar panels on the roof. So
is it really something the government can fix?
Speaker 4 (10:06):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (10:06):
Yes, I think so. If you look at places like
Victoria and Australia, huge uptaking solar within twenty four hours,
you can have things up and running. There's a difference
between having a contract an agreement in place, signed and
sealed to go to actually having producing power and I
thing it's making sure that we have that. The more
(10:27):
regulatory hurdles are, the more expensive expensive it is, so
we want to make sure that it is done in
a timely manner. Victoria uses a lot of remote inspections
to make sure that things can be done. I think
we should be looking at a similar sort of system.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Well you kind of doing it or really you're building?
Speaker 3 (10:44):
Yes, we are, we are.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Tracy McClelland, do you think the government needs to go
to the extent of making solar compulsory on things like
new builds.
Speaker 4 (10:53):
No, it's an interesting concept. I like the fact that
you're seem to be enabling more solar through your show
than what the government's done in the last two and
a half years.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
But that's actually a load of rubbish. At very renewables
boom at the moment, So.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
Use we're all.
Speaker 4 (11:12):
We're all for anything that improves the uptake of something.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
You can say that, but do you think.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
Some of those regulations So we've got to we need
to see the details some of those regulations. Got to remember,
you've got to protect homeowners and the grid.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
So what does that mean?
Speaker 4 (11:25):
Well, there'll be some regulations that are there for a
really good reason.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
Do you protecting the grid? What do you mean?
Speaker 4 (11:30):
Well, I don't know what the technical specifications are, but
there'll be some regulations there. We need to make sure.
We need to see the detail.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Yeah, it's it's a good ty with respect, It's very
easy to say that. But what do you mean protecting
the grid? Do you know what that is?
Speaker 4 (11:44):
At all? Feeds? And doesn't it? So we need to
make sure there'll be regulations there that will making that up.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
No, I don't think, So what is it? What do
you mean protecting the grid or.
Speaker 4 (11:53):
Protecting home Well, some of those inspections will be for
good reasons, and then we need to make sure that
just because they want to have a little bit of
a bonfire of regulations, that they don't chuck out things
that are actually there for really good safety reasons for instance.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
So back to the question, do you think this government
or any future government should be making it compulsory for
solar panels to be on new builds.
Speaker 4 (12:15):
I don't know if we want to make it compulsory,
but if you put the incentives in the right place,
then people.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
Should incentives don't work, they don't people know they have
to do something. Then it just it's easy, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (12:26):
Yeah, I mean it's it's something we can look at.
But I just I just think that you want you
want society to move in a direction because it's what
they want to do, not because they feel obligated to.
It can tarnish the kind of.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
Sounds like policing by consent to me, the aggressive.
Speaker 4 (12:42):
Nature of it. If you say this is compulsory, it
automatically sounds like a bad thing, and it's not. It's
a good thing.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
Well, there were certain things the previous labor government made compulsory.
Was that a bad move? Was it? What things? That's
a big that's a big change. We're now not doing
anything that is can oh, sorry, we believe it. When
you see At ten twenty three in politics, Friday, the
(13:09):
Labour's Tracing McClellan. National's Hamish Campbell I said before guys
that the OECD has been very busy telling New Zealand
what it should do. One of the things that's picked
up on is the unsustainability is out the wood of
our superannuation and retirement arrangements. Nevertheless, Nicola Willison came out
(13:30):
straight away pretty much pretty much as soon as the
guy from the OECD announced that your start said no, no,
not making any changes. Why is that, Homish?
Speaker 3 (13:38):
I think I think it's probably taking it slightly out
of context. It's not media changes. I think we need
to have a very serious conversation about superannuation.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
What does that mean having conversations.
Speaker 3 (13:50):
Back in the nineteen sixties, there was seven people that
were in the working age to one retiree. Now we're
setting at four to one in twenty sixty. That is
going to be two people of the working age one retiree.
So we need to make sure that we have a
system that is sustainable to actually do that, because you've
(14:13):
got two people supporting one and then you have all
the other issues that we need need to support, whether
it be healthy education and things like that. So we've
got to make sure that we are being very efficient
when it comes to our superannuation, to make sure that
our older New Zealanders are living well in their retirement.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
So Trusty, if you were given that report from the
OECD and you were in government, would what would your
response be?
Speaker 4 (14:37):
I do agree with Hamerson so far as we do
have to have a bipartisan long conversation about an enduring solution,
so it's not used as.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
A you know what, We've had years of people being
on something. We need to have this conversation. We need
to have this conversation. We need to have this conversation.
We're now steering down the barrel of having a completely unaffordable,
unsustainable retirement and superinnuation.
Speaker 4 (15:04):
Yeah, and structure, and it's not just as simple as is.
You know, a couple of quick short fixes and it
can't be used as a political football. So I think
that's where the bipartisanship has got to come into it.
So that and you probably can't do it all at
once either, so you don't want to be leaving some
some measures open for criticism. Look, we've committed to keeping
(15:25):
the age at sixty five, and we've committed to not
means testing. But we're absolutely open to a proper conversation
that brings people along with what is a really serious,
serious respect.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
With respect Tracy, that means nothing, That means no change.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
But there's lots of people that are in different situations. John,
Some people have to retire at sixty five. They work
in hard manual labor. So it's not just a flippant
you know, one rule suits all. It's it's part of respect.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
The very least, can't you guys? And this is the
point that I'm going to want to find out what
our listeners think about this as well. But why can't
you just have the gumption and the gaul to put
some ideas up for discussion rather than banging on saying
we need to have the discussion. Yep, and look, so
where are your ideas?
Speaker 4 (16:13):
Nikola Willis wants to read us to a conversation We're
more than happy to get.
Speaker 2 (16:18):
Yeah, yeah, that's easy to say, what's your what's your ideas?
I mean, why keep it at sixty five.
Speaker 4 (16:22):
Because that's what we've committed to, Because I.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
Know you've committed to it, because people want to hear it.
Speaker 4 (16:26):
Need you know, some people need to retire.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
It Okay, why not why not means why not means test?
Speaker 4 (16:31):
Because it's it's it sounds like a good idea, but
it's not. It costs a huge amount to administer it,
it's full of all sorts of fish hawks. It's probably
not the answer.
Speaker 2 (16:39):
It just sounds like you've got no, you've got nothing
to put on the table.
Speaker 4 (16:43):
We're open to the conversation. We're not in government, but
if Nicola Willis wants.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
To where you want to, you want to be in
government to come up with some ideas.
Speaker 4 (16:49):
And if Nicola Willis wants to have a conversation, we're
happy to sit down and put our brains together, put
their heads together and see what a long term, enduring
solution could be.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
The last the last election, Chris de Lux talked about
sixty seven retirement age. Still you're still standing on that.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
All the things. It's something that we we're not like
laboring ruling out increasing the retirement age. We're not ruling
out anything. I think it kind of how can you
have an honest and open conversation if you said we're
not going to raise the age, we're not going to
means test Like these things have to be on the table.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
She just told that, is that what you would you
go into the so called discussion with those non negotiables,
would you?
Speaker 4 (17:26):
And I think that's an entirely different question. We're committed
the seed.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
You've ruled out increasing the age and ruled out means testing.
So if you've ruled it out, sure you can't go into.
Speaker 4 (17:37):
The conversation with We've committed to the status quo at
the moment to get re elected until we hear something
that's worth shifting on.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
So you're sitting waiting for someone to come up with
a good idea and they'll say, oh, actually that's quite good.
Speaker 4 (17:48):
Well, we're not in government in the moment. We're keen
to for this government to put some ideas on the
table and then we can talk cheapest.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
Sure, surely a political party should have policies. This is
a long standing issue.
Speaker 4 (17:59):
Face facing you tell us about what your policies are.
Hamas you're in government, you don't have to make a move. Now.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
We have actually just discs and we have said that
these are sort of things we are considering. We don't
want to we don't want to we want to have years. Well,
this is something that we actually need. Every political party
to sign up.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
Nicola Willis didn't say that yesterday, So what didn't didn't
talk about? Well, we've committed to sixty seven retirement age,
and we know we need to look at this because
there's some completely undustainable Rather than so no, no, no.
Speaker 3 (18:31):
No, we're saying that immediate is not going to be
any immediate changes, but we need to plan ahead for
for for changes. Our previous policy was that people born
after nineteen seventy nine that the age would would increase,
and so we were.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
In the previous policy or no current pot.
Speaker 3 (18:47):
Well, the thing is what we're saying is we're open
to the conversation.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
I can't get it. I just want to go back
to that last week week before the last election, Christopher
Luxen talked to or National talked about increasing the age
of entitlement to new zivil supers. So hence the retirement
age to sixty seven. You're saying not that it is
not the current part see or is it?
Speaker 3 (19:07):
Well, we haven't. We haven't come out with our current
policy yet and I'm not going to announce our current policy.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
Have you got one?
Speaker 3 (19:12):
We have got discussions going on about it, but no policy. Well,
we haven't. We haven't released that policy yet.
Speaker 4 (19:18):
We don't know whether you're going to raise.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
Well, I don't know if you I don't know if
you can criticize.
Speaker 3 (19:23):
We're not the things. We have this problem and labor's
going we're not We're not going to do anything about this.
But we actually need both that we need We need
agreement right across the political spectrum here in New Zealand
to deal with this issue going forward, because it's not
just retirement age, it's also it's also healthier. We are
living longer, we are living healthier, which is a great thing.
(19:45):
So I think we need to have a global view
of what having. Australia has also increased their age to
sixty seven, Denmark is now at seventy, the UK has
gone up to six sixty seven. We probably are the outliers.
They're still sticking at sixty five. Apart from the French.
I think they they're around sexty four. So I think
(20:08):
we need to have this conversation. I think everything needs
to be on.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
The under French lowd than because there's one.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
Of the way sexty two and they went they tried
to erase it strike when wunst everything. So but the
thing is I think we need we need to be
open and frank and.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
Have a couple of things. So before the election, will
have will have a super innuation policy from National Yeah I.
Speaker 3 (20:31):
Assume so, yes, I look group, I don't, I don't
tactate at timing.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
And Tracy, before the election, Labor will just keep sitting
on its hands.
Speaker 4 (20:45):
Well, we've seen we've committed to keeping this the super
age at sexty five and that's.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
All right, even though it's unsustainable.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
I've got some very important questions for you. But first
of all, one final question on this compulsory kee we
sovi this or no, Tracy.
Speaker 4 (20:58):
I'd love it to be compulsory, right.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
Yeah, look, look, yeah, that's that's an interesting one. You
look at you look at the overall saving rates in Australia.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
On hold, yes, it's like school suits make come on
yes or no, I'll go no.
Speaker 3 (21:16):
Then why, Well of the things is that if you
look at the overall saving rates, if you look at
a young family like myself, we put away money an
a QII saver. We have to borrow money to buy
a house. So in effect we have to borrow more
to buy a house than when we have savings put away,
so actually overall savings don't actually increase appreciate later in
(21:38):
life is a benefit.
Speaker 2 (21:41):
You advocate younger people, for example, to really put money
into keep you serve a big time an anticipation of retirement.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
I think kind of going there's different stages in life
where we're contributing to Kiwi savers has different different benefits.
Speaker 4 (21:57):
We don't save enough, and anything we can do for
key Wei Saver would be an absolute step in the
right direction. National should have supported my bill which they
shot down after the select committee stage, which would have
made small improvement to cap we save it. I'm really
passionate about it.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
What would that have done? What would have done?
Speaker 4 (22:10):
It would have allowed It's the total numeration loophole, and
that is an important way to have closed that up.
We just don't save enough. Anything we can do a
sovereign wealth fund like our future fund, all of that
stuff is the most important thing we can do if
we actually want to increase our standard.
Speaker 2 (22:28):
Blame Lauri for this, but the government's going to introduce
a new test for people wanting residencies right residency right,
and he's come up with four questions to put to
each of you. There we go our to each Thanks
all right, So Tracy, when was the Treagy of Waitangi
(22:49):
first signed? A Nineteen oh one b eighteen forty C.
Nineteen fifty D two thousand, B eighteen forty maybe forty Tracy,
run into fantastic properques. First, first question for you, Hamish,
which is the responsibility of a New Zealand citizen? A
Obeying the law, B owning property, C speaking English only,
(23:15):
D joining joining a political party? A correct, brilliant All right, Tracy.
Your second question here we go. What does parliament do?
A enforces laws, B makes and pass makes and passes laws.
C runs businesses. You've got to see runs runs businesses
(23:37):
or D controls the media. All that'll be b okay,
well done. So you've got one hundred percent you can
stay and heym's your second question? What is expected of
new citizens? A follow New Zealand laws and values whenever
they are B follow only their home country laws as
(24:00):
some would suspect or accuse them of doing. C, avoid participation,
and D refuse to vote. There would be a a
whole new career, A whole new career come next year.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
Net three pub quizzes.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
Well come next year he'll be running immigration. That sounds
that's going to work. Well done to you both. You
can both stay in the country and enjoy your weekends.
Thank you. Tray McClellan homes Campbell Us for Politics Friday.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
For more from Canterbory 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 Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
AB Labour's Tracy McClelland Morning Morning National TAM's Campbell Morning.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Good morning, John, how are you? Good morning? Tracy?
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Very well comes it comes around quickly, but it never
disappoints me because the chance to sit down the couple
of politicians for half an hour as a treat and
no different you no different. I didn't say that. I'm
going to give you a comment, John, Yeah, I mean
there are lots of treats during the way. Now let's
(00:40):
talk about AIRB and B. Do you reckon? Let's start
with you Hamish. Do you reckon? Airbnb is out of
control in christ Church because there are some people living
in the central city who think it is.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
Look, I think we need to kind of also look
at the positive sides of Airbnb as well. We have
about suggess Well, we have seven thousand hotel beds in
christ Church. We have about four thousand motel beds. We
want to have attract vibrant events here to christ Church,
whether it's to be the new stage where it be
Electric Avenue, So we actually do need accommodation for some
of these people. So there is the plus sizes that
(01:12):
actually Airbnb provides more more hotel well in effect beds
for people to come and visit physit Christchurch, which is
a good thing appreciate. There is some downside to it. Ultimately,
it does come down to the council.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
All right, Yeah, well it doesn't actually because I had
the it was the head of Tourism McKenzie. I think
it is a mackenzie tourism call into the show yesterday.
I didn't even know that she was listening down there.
She's hot on this because she was saying in Tickeerpole,
seventy percent of the residential properties there are used for
(01:46):
holiday accommodation, seventy percent. And so you have these zombie towns,
that's what I'm calling them, and that's what people living
in the central city saying. We don't want to they
don't want to live and pretend neighborhoods, and Lydia from
McKenzie was saying, you can't fall it off. The local government.
Central government needs to step in set some regulations and
(02:08):
rules to give councils teeth and to force councils to
do something about it.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
There are rules around it already. If you're going to
have Airbnb for more than sixty sixty knights has have
resource consent, so there is there is laws. Yeah, the
councils then need to enforce some of these rules as well.
Now I appreciate the argument that needs to be a
level playing field, that kind of traditional accommodation needs to
(02:36):
be on a level playing field with Airbnb. Totally get
that argument as well.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Right, I'm going to come back. I'll come back to
you because I want of them, Tracy, because I'm suspecting
Tracy that you're going to say the complete opposite from
what the homishes said.
Speaker 4 (02:47):
Yeah, pretty much, pretty much, And I do agree that
the government needs to do something here. I think in
Australia what the council are a bit stuck because they
don't know who who's airbnbing, and that data.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Could be because they turn a blind one.
Speaker 4 (03:00):
But the data could be made available in Australia, I
think Airbnb have to release that data so there could
be legious changes lations so that council could have the
data and then they've got a suite of things open
to them, like maybe they charged commercial rates.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
Even that it still wouldn't put people off from renting
out a place.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
Yeah, but the first you can't tackle a problem if
you don't know where it is. And I think that
I have one hundred percent agree. I think it's far
too lacks. It does create a lack of community, which
is a lot of you know, it's a huge selling
point for people when they move anywhere. They want to
feel a sense of community. So I think I think
the government needs to give counsel some teeth.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Right, So therefore, if you're in government after the next election,
that's what you'll do.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
Well, it's certainly something I'll be advocating for Hamish.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
If you bought an apartment in town, right, and there
were twenty i'ms going from memory of one of the
people who was talking about yesterday twenty five So the
twenty five units, and only four of them were occupied
by permanent residents, how would you and you were one
of those four, how would you feel about that the
other twenty one being rented out? Ever you like to
(04:07):
different people.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
Yeah, look, I'm not saying it. It's not how much
you feel about it.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
You'd be brassed off. Well, you might have a lot
of car parks, you'd.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
You might have a lot of car parks might have
other benefits from.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
You don't pretend you'd be brassed off. First of all,
how many Airbnb properties around your place right now?
Speaker 3 (04:26):
I don't.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
You've got no idea what it's like.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
No, I have a lot of student accommodation around around
our place, so they have slightly different different challenges. You
can't come on a Saturday night. We can. We can
go and visit some of the parties, parties in the neighborhood.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
If you want invitation, can bring Rory as well. Right,
all right, so let's just talk about climate changes. Climate
Change Commissioned Report, which came out pretty much if you
wrap it all up in three words, doom and gloom,
any surprises and the report for you homers.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
No, look, I think kind of it's an independent report
that is commissioned to kind of see where we are
with the level of resilience. I probably pushed back a
little bit on the dooming clu. There were some things
that were commended on, including kind of changes to emergency
management and also the water infrastructure changes that have gone
through and some of the adaptation plays place.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
But with respect emergency management is the cliche ambulance at
the bottom of the climate change cliff, isn't.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
It totally agree? This is we're taking this report very seriously.
The legislative process now is there's two years for the
government to respond, and I think we do need to
take this, take this very seriously. We saw that we
have had a lot of extreme weather events. We do
need to make sure we have a country that is
resilient and that we have infrastructure that is resilient for
(05:48):
when we have weather events.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Do you believe it's climate change causing that increase in events.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
Or for whatever reason we're having it, we're having.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
It wasn't the question. The question was do you believe.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
I'm not a meteorologist we seem to be having Honestly,
you want to boil things down to a yes. No,
I think this be complex thing. I think where the
patterns are changing climate change, I don't know. Do I
think this change happening?
Speaker 2 (06:13):
You deny.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
I'm not saying I deny. I'm saying that where the
patterns are changing. And I've been on the show before John,
and We've had exactly the same conversation, and I've given.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
It and there are a highlight of my week when
do it.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
Genuine highlights that there is there's changes to our weather patterns,
and I think we need to have infrastructure that's resilient
to that.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
Tracy McLennan, I thought it was kind of weird that
the government gets two years just to respond.
Speaker 4 (06:41):
It's too long, and look, that's a ligiative thing. Much
highlights problem, and that is we've got a coalition government
that aren't all on the same page about whether climate
change is real and therefore what to do about it.
You've got Shane Jones yelling out things in the House
that that could only describe himself as a bit of
(07:01):
a laggard. You've got people in the National Party who
I know are much more care to get on and
do things, and everybody's handstruck. If the government were serious,
they wouldn't have scrapped the Resilience Plan that was about
six billion. They wouldn't have scrapped the Climate Emergency Fund
which was about four point five million from an of
money on adaptation.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
From memory though, and I'm only going from memory and
therefore my memory not terribly reliable, but going from memory,
there were some climate change initiatives that Chris hap can
throw on that famous policy bond fired and in the
last few months of his premiership.
Speaker 4 (07:38):
And what was still left was scrapped by National and
that was about what ten and a half billion dollars
worth of money. That we've got a focus on adaptation,
otherwise we're only going to be rebuilding after one disaster
after another instead of fixing the problem.
Speaker 3 (07:52):
Respond to that, I'd love to love you so's. You
can label a fund whatever you want to label it,
but if it's not actually delivering on what the label is,
it's not going to deliver. The Climate Emergency fund shift
did paid for a bus stop to be shifted fifty
meters long? Manchester story, How does that help help the climate?
Cost a lot of money, it's not actually delivering any changes.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
This happened.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
This is the previous government banned oil and gas in
effect transitioned us from gas to carl which actually it
is exactly what happened.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
We now.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
Sitting behind behind Huntly.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
There's quite an old argument. I mean, don't bring that
next year, you'll be down on.
Speaker 4 (08:37):
What you inherit away.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
Don't give me, don't do that what we inherited key message. Nonsense.
It's sixteen past ten candid warnings. Politics, Friday Initials Hammish Campbell, Labors,
Tracy McLellan. The OECD has been busy telling us what
we should be doing. Let's start first with its talking
about the electricity sector. But let's start with the government
(09:03):
wanting to make installing solar panels cheaper and easier. Hamish Campbell,
How is the government going to do this?
Speaker 3 (09:10):
Well, I think if you look at what is involved
in getting a solar installed here in New Zealand, there's
probably four different entity you just need to be involved,
up to eight different visits.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Let me check what are the different entities that need
to be in.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
So you have the solar installer, you have the electrician,
then there's an electrical inspection, and then there's the lines company,
and so this whole different array of approvals that need
to be given. They're un coordinated much.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Let me take said about I had I had a
we were talking about sold at one point a few
weeks back, and a guy from a solar company rung
up and gave some information, shared his thoughts, and then
someone who was listening wrung him up, and then the
next day he was around having a look and within
I think twenty four hours he was signed up and
(09:59):
sorted to get the solar panels on the roof. So
is it really something the government can fix?
Speaker 4 (10:06):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (10:06):
Yes, I think so. If you look at places like
Victoria and Australia, huge uptaking solar within twenty four hours,
you can have things up and running. There's a difference
between having a contract an agreement in place, signed and
sealed to go to actually having producing power and I
thing it's making sure that we have that. The more
(10:27):
regulatory hurdles are, the more expensive expensive it is, so
we want to make sure that it is done in
a timely manner. Victoria uses a lot of remote inspections
to make sure that things can be done. I think
we should be looking at a similar sort of system.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Well you kind of doing it or really you're building?
Speaker 3 (10:44):
Yes, we are, we are.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Tracy McClelland, do you think the government needs to go
to the extent of making solar compulsory on things like
new builds.
Speaker 4 (10:53):
No, it's an interesting concept. I like the fact that
you're seem to be enabling more solar through your show
than what the government's done in the last two and
a half years.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
But that's actually a load of rubbish. At very renewables
boom at the moment, So.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
Use we're all.
Speaker 4 (11:12):
We're all for anything that improves the uptake of something.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
You can say that, but do you think.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
Some of those regulations So we've got to we need
to see the details some of those regulations. Got to remember,
you've got to protect homeowners and the grid.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
So what does that mean?
Speaker 4 (11:25):
Well, there'll be some regulations that are there for a
really good reason.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
Do you protecting the grid? What do you mean?
Speaker 4 (11:30):
Well, I don't know what the technical specifications are, but
there'll be some regulations there. We need to make sure.
We need to see the detail.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Yeah, it's it's a good ty with respect, It's very
easy to say that. But what do you mean protecting
the grid? Do you know what that is?
Speaker 4 (11:44):
At all? Feeds? And doesn't it? So we need to
make sure there'll be regulations there that will making that up.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
No, I don't think, So what is it? What do
you mean protecting the grid or.
Speaker 4 (11:53):
Protecting home Well, some of those inspections will be for
good reasons, and then we need to make sure that
just because they want to have a little bit of
a bonfire of regulations, that they don't chuck out things
that are actually there for really good safety reasons for instance.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
So back to the question, do you think this government
or any future government should be making it compulsory for
solar panels to be on new builds.
Speaker 4 (12:15):
I don't know if we want to make it compulsory,
but if you put the incentives in the right place,
then people.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
Should incentives don't work, they don't people know they have
to do something. Then it just it's easy, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (12:26):
Yeah, I mean it's it's something we can look at.
But I just I just think that you want you
want society to move in a direction because it's what
they want to do, not because they feel obligated to.
It can tarnish the kind of.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
Sounds like policing by consent to me, the aggressive.
Speaker 4 (12:42):
Nature of it. If you say this is compulsory, it
automatically sounds like a bad thing, and it's not. It's
a good thing.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
Well, there were certain things the previous labor government made compulsory.
Was that a bad move? Was it? What things? That's
a big that's a big change. We're now not doing
anything that is can oh, sorry, we believe it. When
you see At ten twenty three in politics, Friday, the
(13:09):
Labour's Tracing McClellan. National's Hamish Campbell I said before guys
that the OECD has been very busy telling New Zealand
what it should do. One of the things that's picked
up on is the unsustainability is out the wood of
our superannuation and retirement arrangements. Nevertheless, Nicola Willison came out
(13:30):
straight away pretty much pretty much as soon as the
guy from the OECD announced that your start said no, no,
not making any changes. Why is that, Homish?
Speaker 3 (13:38):
I think I think it's probably taking it slightly out
of context. It's not media changes. I think we need
to have a very serious conversation about superannuation.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
What does that mean having conversations.
Speaker 3 (13:50):
Back in the nineteen sixties, there was seven people that
were in the working age to one retiree. Now we're
setting at four to one in twenty sixty. That is
going to be two people of the working age one retiree.
So we need to make sure that we have a
system that is sustainable to actually do that, because you've
(14:13):
got two people supporting one and then you have all
the other issues that we need need to support, whether
it be healthy education and things like that. So we've
got to make sure that we are being very efficient
when it comes to our superannuation, to make sure that
our older New Zealanders are living well in their retirement.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
So Trusty, if you were given that report from the
OECD and you were in government, would what would your
response be?
Speaker 4 (14:37):
I do agree with Hamerson so far as we do
have to have a bipartisan long conversation about an enduring solution,
so it's not used as.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
A you know what, We've had years of people being
on something. We need to have this conversation. We need
to have this conversation. We need to have this conversation.
We're now steering down the barrel of having a completely unaffordable,
unsustainable retirement and superinnuation.
Speaker 4 (15:04):
Yeah, and structure, and it's not just as simple as is.
You know, a couple of quick short fixes and it
can't be used as a political football. So I think
that's where the bipartisanship has got to come into it.
So that and you probably can't do it all at
once either, so you don't want to be leaving some
some measures open for criticism. Look, we've committed to keeping
(15:25):
the age at sixty five, and we've committed to not
means testing. But we're absolutely open to a proper conversation
that brings people along with what is a really serious,
serious respect.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
With respect Tracy, that means nothing, That means no change.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
But there's lots of people that are in different situations. John,
Some people have to retire at sixty five. They work
in hard manual labor. So it's not just a flippant
you know, one rule suits all. It's it's part of respect.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
The very least, can't you guys? And this is the
point that I'm going to want to find out what
our listeners think about this as well. But why can't
you just have the gumption and the gaul to put
some ideas up for discussion rather than banging on saying
we need to have the discussion. Yep, and look, so
where are your ideas?
Speaker 4 (16:13):
Nikola Willis wants to read us to a conversation We're
more than happy to get.
Speaker 2 (16:18):
Yeah, yeah, that's easy to say, what's your what's your ideas?
I mean, why keep it at sixty five.
Speaker 4 (16:22):
Because that's what we've committed to, Because I.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
Know you've committed to it, because people want to hear it.
Speaker 4 (16:26):
Need you know, some people need to retire.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
It Okay, why not why not means why not means test?
Speaker 4 (16:31):
Because it's it's it sounds like a good idea, but
it's not. It costs a huge amount to administer it,
it's full of all sorts of fish hawks. It's probably
not the answer.
Speaker 2 (16:39):
It just sounds like you've got no, you've got nothing
to put on the table.
Speaker 4 (16:43):
We're open to the conversation. We're not in government, but
if Nicola Willis wants.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
To where you want to, you want to be in
government to come up with some ideas.
Speaker 4 (16:49):
And if Nicola Willis wants to have a conversation, we're
happy to sit down and put our brains together, put
their heads together and see what a long term, enduring
solution could be.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
The last the last election, Chris de Lux talked about
sixty seven retirement age. Still you're still standing on that.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
All the things. It's something that we we're not like
laboring ruling out increasing the retirement age. We're not ruling
out anything. I think it kind of how can you
have an honest and open conversation if you said we're
not going to raise the age, we're not going to
means test Like these things have to be on the table.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
She just told that, is that what you would you
go into the so called discussion with those non negotiables,
would you?
Speaker 4 (17:26):
And I think that's an entirely different question. We're committed
the seed.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
You've ruled out increasing the age and ruled out means testing.
So if you've ruled it out, sure you can't go into.
Speaker 4 (17:37):
The conversation with We've committed to the status quo at
the moment to get re elected until we hear something
that's worth shifting on.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
So you're sitting waiting for someone to come up with
a good idea and they'll say, oh, actually that's quite good.
Speaker 4 (17:48):
Well, we're not in government in the moment. We're keen
to for this government to put some ideas on the
table and then we can talk cheapest.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
Sure, surely a political party should have policies. This is
a long standing issue.
Speaker 4 (17:59):
Face facing you tell us about what your policies are.
Hamas you're in government, you don't have to make a move. Now.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
We have actually just discs and we have said that
these are sort of things we are considering. We don't
want to we don't want to we want to have years. Well,
this is something that we actually need. Every political party
to sign up.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
Nicola Willis didn't say that yesterday, So what didn't didn't
talk about? Well, we've committed to sixty seven retirement age,
and we know we need to look at this because
there's some completely undustainable Rather than so no, no, no.
Speaker 3 (18:31):
No, we're saying that immediate is not going to be
any immediate changes, but we need to plan ahead for
for for changes. Our previous policy was that people born
after nineteen seventy nine that the age would would increase,
and so we were.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
In the previous policy or no current pot.
Speaker 3 (18:47):
Well, the thing is what we're saying is we're open
to the conversation.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
I can't get it. I just want to go back
to that last week week before the last election, Christopher
Luxen talked to or National talked about increasing the age
of entitlement to new zivil supers. So hence the retirement
age to sixty seven. You're saying not that it is
not the current part see or is it?
Speaker 3 (19:07):
Well, we haven't. We haven't come out with our current
policy yet and I'm not going to announce our current policy.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
Have you got one?
Speaker 3 (19:12):
We have got discussions going on about it, but no policy. Well,
we haven't. We haven't released that policy yet.
Speaker 4 (19:18):
We don't know whether you're going to raise.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
Well, I don't know if you I don't know if
you can criticize.
Speaker 3 (19:23):
We're not the things. We have this problem and labor's
going we're not We're not going to do anything about this.
But we actually need both that we need We need
agreement right across the political spectrum here in New Zealand
to deal with this issue going forward, because it's not
just retirement age, it's also it's also healthier. We are
living longer, we are living healthier, which is a great thing.
(19:45):
So I think we need to have a global view
of what having. Australia has also increased their age to
sixty seven, Denmark is now at seventy, the UK has
gone up to six sixty seven. We probably are the outliers.
They're still sticking at sixty five. Apart from the French.
I think they they're around sexty four. So I think
(20:08):
we need to have this conversation. I think everything needs
to be on.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
The under French lowd than because there's one.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
Of the way sexty two and they went they tried
to erase it strike when wunst everything. So but the
thing is I think we need we need to be
open and frank and.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
Have a couple of things. So before the election, will
have will have a super innuation policy from National Yeah I.
Speaker 3 (20:31):
Assume so, yes, I look group, I don't, I don't
tactate at timing.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
And Tracy, before the election, Labor will just keep sitting
on its hands.
Speaker 4 (20:45):
Well, we've seen we've committed to keeping this the super
age at sexty five and that's.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
All right, even though it's unsustainable.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
I've got some very important questions for you. But first
of all, one final question on this compulsory kee we
sovi this or no, Tracy.
Speaker 4 (20:58):
I'd love it to be compulsory, right.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
Yeah, look, look, yeah, that's that's an interesting one. You
look at you look at the overall saving rates in Australia.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
On hold, yes, it's like school suits make come on
yes or no, I'll go no.
Speaker 3 (21:16):
Then why, Well of the things is that if you
look at the overall saving rates, if you look at
a young family like myself, we put away money an
a QII saver. We have to borrow money to buy
a house. So in effect we have to borrow more
to buy a house than when we have savings put away,
so actually overall savings don't actually increase appreciate later in
(21:38):
life is a benefit.
Speaker 2 (21:41):
You advocate younger people, for example, to really put money
into keep you serve a big time an anticipation of retirement.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
I think kind of going there's different stages in life
where we're contributing to Kiwi savers has different different benefits.
Speaker 4 (21:57):
We don't save enough, and anything we can do for
key Wei Saver would be an absolute step in the
right direction. National should have supported my bill which they
shot down after the select committee stage, which would have
made small improvement to cap we save it. I'm really
passionate about it.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
What would that have done? What would have done?
Speaker 4 (22:10):
It would have allowed It's the total numeration loophole, and
that is an important way to have closed that up.
We just don't save enough. Anything we can do a
sovereign wealth fund like our future fund, all of that
stuff is the most important thing we can do if
we actually want to increase our standard.
Speaker 2 (22:28):
Blame Lauri for this, but the government's going to introduce
a new test for people wanting residencies right residency right,
and he's come up with four questions to put to
each of you. There we go our to each Thanks
all right, So Tracy, when was the Treagy of Waitangi
(22:49):
first signed? A Nineteen oh one b eighteen forty C.
Nineteen fifty D two thousand, B eighteen forty maybe forty Tracy,
run into fantastic properques. First, first question for you, Hamish,
which is the responsibility of a New Zealand citizen? A
Obeying the law, B owning property, C speaking English only,
(23:15):
D joining joining a political party? A correct, brilliant All right, Tracy.
Your second question here we go. What does parliament do?
A enforces laws, B makes and pass makes and passes laws.
C runs businesses. You've got to see runs runs businesses
(23:37):
or D controls the media. All that'll be b okay,
well done. So you've got one hundred percent you can
stay and heym's your second question? What is expected of
new citizens? A follow New Zealand laws and values whenever
they are B follow only their home country laws as
(24:00):
some would suspect or accuse them of doing. C, avoid participation,
and D refuse to vote. There would be a a
whole new career, A whole new career come next year.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
Net three pub quizzes.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
Well come next year he'll be running immigration. That sounds
that's going to work. Well done to you both. You
can both stay in the country and enjoy your weekends.
Thank you. Tray McClellan homes Campbell Us for Politics Friday.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
For more from Canterbory Mornings with John McDonald. Listen live
to news talks It'd be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The MeatEater Podcast
Building on the belief that a deeper understanding of the natural world enriches all of our lives, host Steven Rinella brings an in-depth and relevant look at all outdoor topics including hunting, fishing, nature, conservation, and wild foods. Filled with humor, irreverence, and things that will surprise the hell out of you, each episode welcomes a diverse group of guests who add their own expertise to the vast world of the outdoors. Part of The MeatEater Podcast Network.
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.