There's a lack of enthusiasm for a ferry service between Wellington and Lyttelton.
According to Local Democracy Reporting, Waimakariri Mayor Dan Gordon believes the Government should consider reinstating the service, which ran from 1895 to 1976.
National Party's Vanessa Weenink told John MacDonald the idea is harking back to the old days.
She says she’s unsure what the business case would be, and is unsure if it would work out.
Labour's Tracey McLellan says it's a romanticised idea.
She told MacDonald she can’t see this one working, and it’s still taking three years to get the Cook Strait Ferries sorted.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talks B.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
But it's a wedding from National Morning, Good Morning, John,
Tracey mcleblin from Labor Good Morning. This is still a
good Friday, though, it's always a good Friday. I mean,
I can't believe that it's Easter. Neither you bought you
bought you Easter eggs?
Speaker 3 (00:24):
No, No, I don't do chocolate on Easter. What do
you do well, hot cross buns? Yeah, but I could
eat hoss buns anytime of the year.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Really, it doesn't actually loudly the supermarkets will say.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Pretty much.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Feels like you like Christmas trees all year around as well.
They can do it for you. So well. You were
either or both of you in the House yesterday for
the Treaty Principal's vote.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
Yes, I've been in the process from day one on
the Justice Slick Committee. So it's been a long haul.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Has it been worth it?
Speaker 4 (00:55):
No, it hasn't been worth it. It never should have come
to Parliament in the first place. It was always a divisive, nasty,
grubby little bill. And the fact that we're all collectively
spent huge amounts of time huge amounts of money. Having
to go through this process when the outcome was inevitable
is rubbish.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
It doesn't the fact that you have described it there
is a device of grubby Bill using the same lines
as Chris Sipkins used in the House yesterday. Doesn't that
just show that it's impossible for us to have these
kinds of discussions or to discuss these kinds of ideas
in New Zealand.
Speaker 4 (01:30):
No, I don't know. I don't think it shows that
at all. And we had a good conversation. This bill
did come to the house.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
We have a conversation.
Speaker 4 (01:38):
Well, I certainly did. I heard from hundreds and hundreds
of people, eighty hours worth of submissions, really eloquent, knowledgeable,
huge contributions that I wish everybody could have heard. And
it was profound and it was interesting. It didn't alter
(01:58):
anything in regard to the bill, because the bill was
already hitting the wrong mark anyhow. But it was interesting
and we had babulous conversations.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Was it worth it?
Speaker 4 (02:08):
Absolutely not. These people already knew what they knew.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
I'll come back and I will ask you a question.
I'm going to ask Vanessa. Vanessa, did you learn anything
out of this.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
No, not really. This was something that I and all
the National Party agreed was a divisive bill. This was
something that was far too simplistic for the nature of
the debate that's been going on for one hundred and
eighty years already. Really trying to get to the nub
of property rights through something like this is not what
(02:40):
is appropriate. And that's what it was about. It was
never about, you know, everyone being equal. That was not
what was under debate and so and that was not
what the bill sought to do. So look, I don't
think it was particularly iti fine. What we want to
do is actually get the economy going. We want to
actually boost up and the wealth of this nation so
(03:01):
that we can do.
Speaker 4 (03:02):
All the time, all the thing on, all the time
spent doing that National traded. They used this bill as
a means by which, okay, I'm.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Going to I'm going to get to that. What do
you think people learned about the National Party through this process, Vanessa,
I'm not sure.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
I don't know what people would be thinking about.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
This sign a coalition deal at whatever cost.
Speaker 3 (03:24):
I don't think that's what it was. I think that
this was it was one of the ultimate things that
that David Seymour at the time, I believe was insisting
on being a bottom line for him and that was
not at ease. It wasn't an easy discussion.
Speaker 4 (03:36):
It wasn't a bottom line.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Isn't that the same way as saying sign a coalition
deal at whatever cost.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
I think MMP is a really difficult way of forming
a government. It's a it's you've got to make trade offs,
there's got to be discussions and compromises are made. This
was something that ultimately had to be part of the
coalition agreement. It was not Nobody actually won from this.
David Seymour didn't get what he wanted and National certainly
(04:04):
didn't get what we wanted. This is what happened under
m MP. It's a reality of MP.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
But you've never had in the fact that you despised
that it was part of the agreement. Absolutely, have you
made it clear that the Prime Minister.
Speaker 4 (04:16):
Most of us have it should never have been on
the table. It should never have been on the table.
Some things you just don't trade off.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
So that was one of them. Right back to the question,
particularly since you went through the Select Committee process, what
did you learn, if anything?
Speaker 4 (04:31):
I learned lots I thought that I had a fairly
good grounding, and there were just some amazing submitters that
condensed You know how you build up a bit of knowledge,
but you don't know how to put it into one
or two sentences, And there were just some amazing people
that just solidified all of that. And I wish people
would go onto the Parliament website if you're at that
(04:53):
incline and read some of it. But we need to
condense it down into something because it was valuable.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
Did you learn anything from the people who supported it?
Speaker 1 (05:04):
No?
Speaker 3 (05:05):
I didn't.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
I learned, did you No?
Speaker 4 (05:07):
I did? And I tried really hard to listen to
them with an open mind because most of them were
good people, I think, who came with really genuine enthusiasm
for what they were saying. It was a bit shallow,
and I just thought, gosh, there's one or two other
pieces of information I wish you had absorbed, and I
wonder if that would have changed your perspective. But they didn't.
(05:29):
They had a very forthright, narrow view, and I think
that that makes us all the poorer. And I wish people.
We live in a busy world, and I wish people
would take the time to learn more.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Would you say most were good? What do you mean
about the rest?
Speaker 4 (05:46):
Well, to be fair, there wasn't that many of them.
As we know, the bill was ninety percent people against
the Treaty Principal's Bill, and of those people that did
submit that were for it, it was very similar. It
was lines off the Hobson's pledge page. It was lines
straight from David Seymour's prs. So it just there wasn't
(06:08):
much to learn from.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Right when it Let's move on to tariffs. Why do
you so great just talking about it?
Speaker 3 (06:15):
So I'm actually sick of talking about the Treaty Principal Bill.
I'm actually much more interested in what we're going to
do to grow this economy so that we can actually
get on with looking after our people better. You know,
that's my perspective on it.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
How much more difficult is it going to be to
grow the economy? Bearing in mind Donald Trump's behavior over
the past week.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
It's very challenging. This is a very.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Challenging time, is that why? Nicola? What has made it
was I saw it described in one report is an
unprecedented impromptu update in relation to how New Zealand was
going to handle what was going on, Well.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
This is an unprecedented historical event that's happened economically around
the world. This, you know, what's happened with the tariffs
in a trade war is having a huge impact. I
think that things are changing and quite dynamic all the time,
and that uncertainty in itself has upset markets and caused
(07:12):
huge amounts of drops and wealth. People who have actually
looked at the key we Saver, which I haven't wanted
to do myself, have noticed that that's gone down.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Well, that's weird because we were talking about it on
the show yesterday and mine hasn't. I'm about three hundred
dollars down. Hey, what's going on there? You reckon?
Speaker 3 (07:34):
Well, I don't know what's going on there, but it
may be that your fund is a more base will
and base one.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
I know what they're doing. I know what they're doing.
That's fun. That's looking after my key we saver. They're
looking at Donald Trump's things online saying now is a
good time to buy. Now is a good time.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
It's a bear market, that's for sure. Yeah, it's a
bear market.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
So is the budget being rewritten?
Speaker 3 (07:56):
No?
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Will it be rewritten?
Speaker 3 (07:59):
No? This is something that you know, the budget has
a long process. There is at some point you need
to draw the line and actually start working it through
and getting prepared. So this is not something that is
changing the budget. What it's doing is just giving us
(08:21):
more reason for why we need to be fiscally careful
in how the government spends its money.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
So it's the budget signed off. I don't know, is
it complete?
Speaker 3 (08:32):
I don't know. You may sound that way, Well, I'm
pretty sure that it's not going to change at the
last minute because of this.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Tracy McClelland, do you think that the government does need
to look at things and light of what's happened over
the last week, or do you think calm the farm,
which was the message coming from certainly from Christopher Utson,
is that the best approach?
Speaker 4 (08:51):
Well, look either way, the government seemed to be crossing
their fingers here and hoping for the best. I think
we all need to know what the plan is because
there does need to be a plan. I know that
Donald Trump is unpredictable President Trump, but it.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
Doesn't mean so how do you write a plan for that?
Speaker 4 (09:08):
Well, you have to be prepared. Look, and if you
just take a couple of steps back, this government has
literally bet the house on overseas investment, Golden visas for
high net worth people, tourism, and you know, we need
to look at growing jobs and our own economy. And
it's all very well talking about growth, growth, growth, but
(09:30):
when you speculate on overseas investment and overseas markets, you
leave yourself open for these types of roller coaster rides.
But we need to know what the plan is. It's
not reassuring to hear nothing, and I don't think that
we can just sit back and wait and see what.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
We're not doing nothing. We have been diversifying our markets overseas.
We've been working really hard, well, not just in the
past week. You know, we've been sticking with our plan
to reduce government spending, keep fiscals under control. We've been
expanding markets, doing all of those things. All of that
is actually really important.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
So we've got the mayor of Wam coming out EASTERDA
and saying he'd like to see the Littleton to Wellington
faery be reinstated. And you two, you've got funny looks
on your faces. I'm not going to guess, but I
think I know Vanessa Winning, what do you think of
that idea?
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Well, I've heard this one before. It's a HARKing back
to the old days. And look, I don't know what
the business case for that would be because it'd take
a heck of a long time to get up there.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
It burns off a fuel overnight, yeah, overnight, over.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
Night, Yeah yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Maybe.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
I don't know if it would work out or not.
If it was a great idea, how come it hasn't
been brought back before.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
Tracy mcclevelan, what do you think, Well, a lot.
Speaker 4 (10:45):
We've got to wait three more years to get the
fairest across the shortest point. I don't know how this
is going to stack up given the extra resource in time,
and it would take Look, I think it is it's
a romanticized idea about getting getting things that made us
feel nostalgic about the good old days. If the business
(11:05):
case did stack up, I mean that makes it more
interesting and it's always good to get you know, trucks
off roads. But I can't see this one working, particularly,
as I said, three more years to get the two
fairies across the cock straight.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
As you did say. Film Major seems to think that's
a good idea, but he's on his own too. Him
and Dan guys, well, hey, look.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
I'm really all for infrastructure for the people of Littleton
and christ Church.
Speaker 4 (11:30):
Film Major Boughder hydrogen car without any means by which
to fill it or charge it. So he may be
a man ahead of his time.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Let's talk about Stuart Nash. I don't quite I'm not
quite sure whether Stuart Nash is a man ahead of
his time or behind his times, because I don't think
former politicians writing stuff on LinkedIn is all that great form. Nevertheless,
he has ripped into the Greens and I think I
think justifiably soide not necessarily the way he's done it,
but I think all of us are thinking the Greens
what an absolute disaster. Tracey McLean, and I'll ask you
(12:00):
for this. I was talking to someone who was a
long term Green voter the other night and all he
could do was to just shake his head. What are
you just shaking your head when you see what the
Greens are up to at the moment.
Speaker 4 (12:11):
I've spoken to a few of those people as well
who are longtime Green supporters, and they want to hear
about the issues that they really care about passionately, not
these sort of side shows. So I think it is unfortunate.
It's part of you know, trying to get attention. I
don't know, but it's it doesn't serve anybody's purpose to
(12:33):
be talking about, you know, specific things when we've got
a big, big problems ahead of us.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
So it seems how would you feel about going to
coalition with them?
Speaker 4 (12:42):
Well, we've had a long term relationship with.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
You, and how would you feel about going to I
know you have, but how would you feel about going
into coalition with the current lot?
Speaker 4 (12:50):
Well, we've worked with the Greens well in the past
and there's no reason to think that we can't do
that again. And do you think people are entitled to
have opinions about things that they care passionately about.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Yeah, you flip flopped there.
Speaker 4 (13:02):
No, but they're entitled to have opinions.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
So they're not focusing on the right stuff, but they're
entitled to focus on the wrong stuff.
Speaker 4 (13:07):
Well, I said, it's unfortunate that Stuart waded into this
and causes us to focus on the wrong things. But
that doesn't mean the Greens aren't entitled to have opinions.
Do I agree with all of them? Absolutely not, absolutely not,
just in the same way that national claim not to
agree with ACT in New Zealand first about everything that
they do. But that's the part of MMP. You've got
(13:29):
to work with people and it's about leadership and bringing
people together and I certainly trust Chris Sipkins to be
able to do a good job on that.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Vanessa winning one final point on this, I mean quote
one of the things Stuart nashes is quite the current
crop of Green MP's are a pale imitation of those
committed pioneers who formed a party to drive environmental accountability
and change by working within the political system. What's your
response to that, Well.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
I think most people would agree that if the Green's
stuck to talking about the environment, they probably have more support.
What some of them have said about the police has
just been unacceptable. It's you know, you can't trust the
Green in power and I think was that Helen Clark
who said don't let them anywhere near it. So look, honestly,
we've got to work really hard in this country to
(14:14):
get law and order under control and make sure that
people feel safer in their home.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
So Erica Stamford on this morning saying that the government
has released it's going to be delivering a world leading
education system through the Education and Training Amendment Bill number two.
Vanessa Wen A big part of that is forcing schools
to have plans to make sure that there are less
kids truant. What's a connection in your mind between attendance
(14:38):
and achievement.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
I think it's a pretty clear correlation. If you actually
attend school, you get to learn what has been taught.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
You don't think that in the fact that because one
of the things that Erica Stanford says is that education
is all about preparing. You know, there's nothing in someone's
adult life that can't be connected to what they've learned
during their school years. Wouldn't you think that in anticipation
of the working model being different, the fact we've got
(15:07):
the government saying, look, we want to have these nomad
visas for people to come from overseas and work here.
Don't you think the idea of perhaps kids learning remotely
is also part of preparing them for adult life.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
Well, they did remote learning during COVID for plenty of reasons.
But I think there is real value in being together
in a classroom setting. People learn from each other as
well as from the teachers. There's a social aspect of
it as well. I don't think it's good for people
to be hold up on their own for long periods
(15:39):
of time, especially young people as they develop.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
What do you think, Tracy.
Speaker 4 (15:43):
I think attendance and routine are important. I don't think
it's as simple as saying one leads to the other.
Though it feels a little bit simplistic. It's all very
well saying we've fixed attendance or we're doing something to
fix attendance, therefore problem solved, because there's a huge number
of variables behind why children aren't necessarily always going to
(16:07):
school as frequently as they should be, and you know
that will have a myriad of reasons behind it. So
I think it is incumbent on the Minister of Education
not to try and reach for simplistic fixes.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
But there were I mean, there was a case last
year where Hagley College that we're triving letting kids work
from home two days a week, and there was a
lot of criticism. I had some thoughts on it, which
I will revisit shortly. But do you think there is
I do think this schools, schools should be given flexibility.
Speaker 4 (16:38):
I do think this merrit and as you said, mirror
mirroring the real world, which is going to be a
lot more fluid. Reuben Davidson and I had an AI
forum on Monday, bringing together, you know, lots of incredible
people in New Zealand about what the future with AI
looks like. And there's no doubt that, you know, this
(16:58):
is the first time in the history of humankind that
we don't know what the next twenty years is going
to look like. And that could feel scary or it
could feel exciting. And I think, you know, somewhere in
between those two polarizing feelings, we've got to pitch what
we need to do for the future. And one of
the things is that education is way behind in teaching
kids those absolutely crucial skills about what you know, what
(17:22):
the world will look like. So I think we do
have to be flexible. We do have to not look
back on this nostalgic kind of turn up nine to
three and therefore tic you've done your job. But there
is there is something in routine and expectation.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
Vanessa, you think nine to three is the way to go.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is we've got
the Minister's given the expectation of what needs to be
to happen. She hasn't said how you have to do it.
She said you need to come up with a plan,
and how that might look could be different for different schools.
And I don't think that takes away the flexibility. I
think that's just saying, look, this is a priority. We
think that having students in a routine and being present
(18:00):
is important for their learning, and how that works will
be different for each school.
Speaker 4 (18:04):
That sounds more and more like it's just been pitched
appearance that are listening as if somehow a problem has
been solved, when there's not really any detail behind it.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
That the case, No, absolutely not. Its actually showing where
we prioritize things. It's saying we need to actually get
onto this. We need to make sure that there are
plans in place and that this problem has been worked on.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Thank you both for your time for it is a
winning Thank you so much.
Speaker 3 (18:29):
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (18:29):
You enjoy your week here too.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
For more from Category Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to news Talks ad Be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talks B.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
But it's a wedding from National Morning, Good Morning, John,
Tracey mcleblin from Labor Good Morning. This is still a
good Friday, though, it's always a good Friday. I mean,
I can't believe that it's Easter. Neither you bought you
bought you Easter eggs?
Speaker 3 (00:24):
No, No, I don't do chocolate on Easter. What do
you do well, hot cross buns? Yeah, but I could
eat hoss buns anytime of the year.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Really, it doesn't actually loudly the supermarkets will say.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Pretty much.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Feels like you like Christmas trees all year around as well.
They can do it for you. So well. You were
either or both of you in the House yesterday for
the Treaty Principal's vote.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
Yes, I've been in the process from day one on
the Justice Slick Committee. So it's been a long haul.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Has it been worth it?
Speaker 4 (00:55):
No, it hasn't been worth it. It never should have come
to Parliament in the first place. It was always a divisive, nasty,
grubby little bill. And the fact that we're all collectively
spent huge amounts of time huge amounts of money. Having
to go through this process when the outcome was inevitable
is rubbish.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
It doesn't the fact that you have described it there
is a device of grubby Bill using the same lines
as Chris Sipkins used in the House yesterday. Doesn't that
just show that it's impossible for us to have these
kinds of discussions or to discuss these kinds of ideas
in New Zealand.
Speaker 4 (01:30):
No, I don't know. I don't think it shows that
at all. And we had a good conversation. This bill
did come to the house.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
We have a conversation.
Speaker 4 (01:38):
Well, I certainly did. I heard from hundreds and hundreds
of people, eighty hours worth of submissions, really eloquent, knowledgeable,
huge contributions that I wish everybody could have heard. And
it was profound and it was interesting. It didn't alter
(01:58):
anything in regard to the bill, because the bill was
already hitting the wrong mark anyhow. But it was interesting
and we had babulous conversations.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Was it worth it?
Speaker 4 (02:08):
Absolutely not. These people already knew what they knew.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
I'll come back and I will ask you a question.
I'm going to ask Vanessa. Vanessa, did you learn anything
out of this.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
No, not really. This was something that I and all
the National Party agreed was a divisive bill. This was
something that was far too simplistic for the nature of
the debate that's been going on for one hundred and
eighty years already. Really trying to get to the nub
of property rights through something like this is not what
(02:40):
is appropriate. And that's what it was about. It was
never about, you know, everyone being equal. That was not
what was under debate and so and that was not
what the bill sought to do. So look, I don't
think it was particularly iti fine. What we want to
do is actually get the economy going. We want to
actually boost up and the wealth of this nation so
(03:01):
that we can do.
Speaker 4 (03:02):
All the time, all the thing on, all the time
spent doing that National traded. They used this bill as
a means by which, okay, I'm.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Going to I'm going to get to that. What do
you think people learned about the National Party through this process, Vanessa,
I'm not sure.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
I don't know what people would be thinking about.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
This sign a coalition deal at whatever cost.
Speaker 3 (03:24):
I don't think that's what it was. I think that
this was it was one of the ultimate things that
that David Seymour at the time, I believe was insisting
on being a bottom line for him and that was
not at ease. It wasn't an easy discussion.
Speaker 4 (03:36):
It wasn't a bottom line.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Isn't that the same way as saying sign a coalition
deal at whatever cost.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
I think MMP is a really difficult way of forming
a government. It's a it's you've got to make trade offs,
there's got to be discussions and compromises are made. This
was something that ultimately had to be part of the
coalition agreement. It was not Nobody actually won from this.
David Seymour didn't get what he wanted and National certainly
(04:04):
didn't get what we wanted. This is what happened under
m MP. It's a reality of MP.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
But you've never had in the fact that you despised
that it was part of the agreement. Absolutely, have you
made it clear that the Prime Minister.
Speaker 4 (04:16):
Most of us have it should never have been on
the table. It should never have been on the table.
Some things you just don't trade off.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
So that was one of them. Right back to the question,
particularly since you went through the Select Committee process, what
did you learn, if anything?
Speaker 4 (04:31):
I learned lots I thought that I had a fairly
good grounding, and there were just some amazing submitters that
condensed You know how you build up a bit of knowledge,
but you don't know how to put it into one
or two sentences, And there were just some amazing people
that just solidified all of that. And I wish people
would go onto the Parliament website if you're at that
(04:53):
incline and read some of it. But we need to
condense it down into something because it was valuable.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
Did you learn anything from the people who supported it?
Speaker 1 (05:04):
No?
Speaker 3 (05:05):
I didn't.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
I learned, did you No?
Speaker 4 (05:07):
I did? And I tried really hard to listen to
them with an open mind because most of them were
good people, I think, who came with really genuine enthusiasm
for what they were saying. It was a bit shallow,
and I just thought, gosh, there's one or two other
pieces of information I wish you had absorbed, and I
wonder if that would have changed your perspective. But they didn't.
(05:29):
They had a very forthright, narrow view, and I think
that that makes us all the poorer. And I wish people.
We live in a busy world, and I wish people
would take the time to learn more.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Would you say most were good? What do you mean
about the rest?
Speaker 4 (05:46):
Well, to be fair, there wasn't that many of them.
As we know, the bill was ninety percent people against
the Treaty Principal's Bill, and of those people that did
submit that were for it, it was very similar. It
was lines off the Hobson's pledge page. It was lines
straight from David Seymour's prs. So it just there wasn't
(06:08):
much to learn from.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Right when it Let's move on to tariffs. Why do
you so great just talking about it?
Speaker 3 (06:15):
So I'm actually sick of talking about the Treaty Principal Bill.
I'm actually much more interested in what we're going to
do to grow this economy so that we can actually
get on with looking after our people better. You know,
that's my perspective on it.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
How much more difficult is it going to be to
grow the economy? Bearing in mind Donald Trump's behavior over
the past week.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
It's very challenging. This is a very.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Challenging time, is that why? Nicola? What has made it
was I saw it described in one report is an
unprecedented impromptu update in relation to how New Zealand was
going to handle what was going on, Well.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
This is an unprecedented historical event that's happened economically around
the world. This, you know, what's happened with the tariffs
in a trade war is having a huge impact. I
think that things are changing and quite dynamic all the time,
and that uncertainty in itself has upset markets and caused
(07:12):
huge amounts of drops and wealth. People who have actually
looked at the key we Saver, which I haven't wanted
to do myself, have noticed that that's gone down.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Well, that's weird because we were talking about it on
the show yesterday and mine hasn't. I'm about three hundred
dollars down. Hey, what's going on there? You reckon?
Speaker 3 (07:34):
Well, I don't know what's going on there, but it
may be that your fund is a more base will
and base one.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
I know what they're doing. I know what they're doing.
That's fun. That's looking after my key we saver. They're
looking at Donald Trump's things online saying now is a
good time to buy. Now is a good time.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
It's a bear market, that's for sure. Yeah, it's a
bear market.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
So is the budget being rewritten?
Speaker 3 (07:56):
No?
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Will it be rewritten?
Speaker 3 (07:59):
No? This is something that you know, the budget has
a long process. There is at some point you need
to draw the line and actually start working it through
and getting prepared. So this is not something that is
changing the budget. What it's doing is just giving us
(08:21):
more reason for why we need to be fiscally careful
in how the government spends its money.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
So it's the budget signed off. I don't know, is
it complete?
Speaker 3 (08:32):
I don't know. You may sound that way, Well, I'm
pretty sure that it's not going to change at the
last minute because of this.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Tracy McClelland, do you think that the government does need
to look at things and light of what's happened over
the last week, or do you think calm the farm,
which was the message coming from certainly from Christopher Utson,
is that the best approach?
Speaker 4 (08:51):
Well, look either way, the government seemed to be crossing
their fingers here and hoping for the best. I think
we all need to know what the plan is because
there does need to be a plan. I know that
Donald Trump is unpredictable President Trump, but it.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
Doesn't mean so how do you write a plan for that?
Speaker 4 (09:08):
Well, you have to be prepared. Look, and if you
just take a couple of steps back, this government has
literally bet the house on overseas investment, Golden visas for
high net worth people, tourism, and you know, we need
to look at growing jobs and our own economy. And
it's all very well talking about growth, growth, growth, but
(09:30):
when you speculate on overseas investment and overseas markets, you
leave yourself open for these types of roller coaster rides.
But we need to know what the plan is. It's
not reassuring to hear nothing, and I don't think that
we can just sit back and wait and see what.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
We're not doing nothing. We have been diversifying our markets overseas.
We've been working really hard, well, not just in the
past week. You know, we've been sticking with our plan
to reduce government spending, keep fiscals under control. We've been
expanding markets, doing all of those things. All of that
is actually really important.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
So we've got the mayor of Wam coming out EASTERDA
and saying he'd like to see the Littleton to Wellington
faery be reinstated. And you two, you've got funny looks
on your faces. I'm not going to guess, but I
think I know Vanessa Winning, what do you think of
that idea?
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Well, I've heard this one before. It's a HARKing back
to the old days. And look, I don't know what
the business case for that would be because it'd take
a heck of a long time to get up there.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
It burns off a fuel overnight, yeah, overnight, over.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
Night, Yeah yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Maybe.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
I don't know if it would work out or not.
If it was a great idea, how come it hasn't
been brought back before.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
Tracy mcclevelan, what do you think, Well, a lot.
Speaker 4 (10:45):
We've got to wait three more years to get the
fairest across the shortest point. I don't know how this
is going to stack up given the extra resource in time,
and it would take Look, I think it is it's
a romanticized idea about getting getting things that made us
feel nostalgic about the good old days. If the business
(11:05):
case did stack up, I mean that makes it more
interesting and it's always good to get you know, trucks
off roads. But I can't see this one working, particularly,
as I said, three more years to get the two
fairies across the cock straight.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
As you did say. Film Major seems to think that's
a good idea, but he's on his own too. Him
and Dan guys, well, hey, look.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
I'm really all for infrastructure for the people of Littleton
and christ Church.
Speaker 4 (11:30):
Film Major Boughder hydrogen car without any means by which
to fill it or charge it. So he may be
a man ahead of his time.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Let's talk about Stuart Nash. I don't quite I'm not
quite sure whether Stuart Nash is a man ahead of
his time or behind his times, because I don't think
former politicians writing stuff on LinkedIn is all that great form. Nevertheless,
he has ripped into the Greens and I think I
think justifiably soide not necessarily the way he's done it,
but I think all of us are thinking the Greens
what an absolute disaster. Tracey McLean, and I'll ask you
(12:00):
for this. I was talking to someone who was a
long term Green voter the other night and all he
could do was to just shake his head. What are
you just shaking your head when you see what the
Greens are up to at the moment.
Speaker 4 (12:11):
I've spoken to a few of those people as well
who are longtime Green supporters, and they want to hear
about the issues that they really care about passionately, not
these sort of side shows. So I think it is unfortunate.
It's part of you know, trying to get attention. I
don't know, but it's it doesn't serve anybody's purpose to
(12:33):
be talking about, you know, specific things when we've got
a big, big problems ahead of us.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
So it seems how would you feel about going to
coalition with them?
Speaker 4 (12:42):
Well, we've had a long term relationship with.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
You, and how would you feel about going to I
know you have, but how would you feel about going
into coalition with the current lot?
Speaker 4 (12:50):
Well, we've worked with the Greens well in the past
and there's no reason to think that we can't do
that again. And do you think people are entitled to
have opinions about things that they care passionately about.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Yeah, you flip flopped there.
Speaker 4 (13:02):
No, but they're entitled to have opinions.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
So they're not focusing on the right stuff, but they're
entitled to focus on the wrong stuff.
Speaker 4 (13:07):
Well, I said, it's unfortunate that Stuart waded into this
and causes us to focus on the wrong things. But
that doesn't mean the Greens aren't entitled to have opinions.
Do I agree with all of them? Absolutely not, absolutely not,
just in the same way that national claim not to
agree with ACT in New Zealand first about everything that
they do. But that's the part of MMP. You've got
(13:29):
to work with people and it's about leadership and bringing
people together and I certainly trust Chris Sipkins to be
able to do a good job on that.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Vanessa winning one final point on this, I mean quote
one of the things Stuart nashes is quite the current
crop of Green MP's are a pale imitation of those
committed pioneers who formed a party to drive environmental accountability
and change by working within the political system. What's your
response to that, Well.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
I think most people would agree that if the Green's
stuck to talking about the environment, they probably have more support.
What some of them have said about the police has
just been unacceptable. It's you know, you can't trust the
Green in power and I think was that Helen Clark
who said don't let them anywhere near it. So look, honestly,
we've got to work really hard in this country to
(14:14):
get law and order under control and make sure that
people feel safer in their home.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
So Erica Stamford on this morning saying that the government
has released it's going to be delivering a world leading
education system through the Education and Training Amendment Bill number two.
Vanessa Wen A big part of that is forcing schools
to have plans to make sure that there are less
kids truant. What's a connection in your mind between attendance
(14:38):
and achievement.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
I think it's a pretty clear correlation. If you actually
attend school, you get to learn what has been taught.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
You don't think that in the fact that because one
of the things that Erica Stanford says is that education
is all about preparing. You know, there's nothing in someone's
adult life that can't be connected to what they've learned
during their school years. Wouldn't you think that in anticipation
of the working model being different, the fact we've got
(15:07):
the government saying, look, we want to have these nomad
visas for people to come from overseas and work here.
Don't you think the idea of perhaps kids learning remotely
is also part of preparing them for adult life.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
Well, they did remote learning during COVID for plenty of reasons.
But I think there is real value in being together
in a classroom setting. People learn from each other as
well as from the teachers. There's a social aspect of
it as well. I don't think it's good for people
to be hold up on their own for long periods
(15:39):
of time, especially young people as they develop.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
What do you think, Tracy.
Speaker 4 (15:43):
I think attendance and routine are important. I don't think
it's as simple as saying one leads to the other.
Though it feels a little bit simplistic. It's all very
well saying we've fixed attendance or we're doing something to
fix attendance, therefore problem solved, because there's a huge number
of variables behind why children aren't necessarily always going to
(16:07):
school as frequently as they should be, and you know
that will have a myriad of reasons behind it. So
I think it is incumbent on the Minister of Education
not to try and reach for simplistic fixes.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
But there were I mean, there was a case last
year where Hagley College that we're triving letting kids work
from home two days a week, and there was a
lot of criticism. I had some thoughts on it, which
I will revisit shortly. But do you think there is
I do think this schools, schools should be given flexibility.
Speaker 4 (16:38):
I do think this merrit and as you said, mirror
mirroring the real world, which is going to be a
lot more fluid. Reuben Davidson and I had an AI
forum on Monday, bringing together, you know, lots of incredible
people in New Zealand about what the future with AI
looks like. And there's no doubt that, you know, this
(16:58):
is the first time in the history of humankind that
we don't know what the next twenty years is going
to look like. And that could feel scary or it
could feel exciting. And I think, you know, somewhere in
between those two polarizing feelings, we've got to pitch what
we need to do for the future. And one of
the things is that education is way behind in teaching
kids those absolutely crucial skills about what you know, what
(17:22):
the world will look like. So I think we do
have to be flexible. We do have to not look
back on this nostalgic kind of turn up nine to
three and therefore tic you've done your job. But there
is there is something in routine and expectation.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
Vanessa, you think nine to three is the way to go.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is we've got
the Minister's given the expectation of what needs to be
to happen. She hasn't said how you have to do it.
She said you need to come up with a plan,
and how that might look could be different for different schools.
And I don't think that takes away the flexibility. I
think that's just saying, look, this is a priority. We
think that having students in a routine and being present
(18:00):
is important for their learning, and how that works will
be different for each school.
Speaker 4 (18:04):
That sounds more and more like it's just been pitched
appearance that are listening as if somehow a problem has
been solved, when there's not really any detail behind it.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
That the case, No, absolutely not. Its actually showing where
we prioritize things. It's saying we need to actually get
onto this. We need to make sure that there are
plans in place and that this problem has been worked on.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Thank you both for your time for it is a
winning Thank you so much.
Speaker 3 (18:29):
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (18:29):
You enjoy your week here too.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
For more from Category Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to news Talks ad Be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com