Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by National’s Vanessa Weenink and Labour’s Reuben Davidson to break down the biggest issues of the week.
They discussed student loan repayments – is there something that can be done to bring overseas loan holders back to New Zealand?
Global companies like Uber are paying minimal tax over here – are we being ripped off?
And ACC is planning to be more scrupulous when paying claims due to pressure from the Government to run a tighter ship. How will this play out?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News talk.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Z'b Time for Politics Friday and where would the politicians
rather be? On a daylight today? In here and nationals
vnessa winning welcome back and welcome back to health.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
Thank you very much. And if that was an honest
question John, about where we would rather be, I would I
couldn't think of anywhere I'd rather be right now.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
I'm loving it. You know, politicians, it's not even what
are you gonna be like next year when you're on
the campaign trail man?
Speaker 4 (00:35):
Are you having any stuff space to go?
Speaker 3 (00:37):
I know, I.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Know, I unbelieved. Well, it's always the only ways up
With Ruben Davidson, welcome to you, Thank you very much.
What do you guys, Reckon? I'll ask you first, Ruben,
what do you think about this idea that's being touted
or pushed which we've been discussing on the show this morning,
which I think is a brilliant idea by a former
IID prosecutor who says it's crazy that we've got people
overseas with student loans whose debt has just been snowballing
(01:02):
because they've got behind in their payments for various reasons,
throw the interest on top of that, and feel that
they can't come back to New Zealand because they think
they'll be arrested as soon as they get here. And
he's saying we need some changes to make it enable
people to come back and to pay off the loans
because at the moment it's too much of a blunt instrument.
What's your reaction to that.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
I think it's something we need to look at. I mean,
we want our people to come back and to take
up good jobs in New Zealand and to contribute to
the kind of places and spaces. We've got big gaps health, education,
those areas. So I think looking at what we could
do to make it easier for people to come back
and contribute is a good idea.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
Because Vanessa whne it seems strange, doesn't it that the
and I want to say the government, but the country
is putting so much effort and to get attracting people
with expertise to migrate here when an actual fact we've
got New Zealand. It's like almost trying to attract new
customers versus existing customers in a business where you've got
these key with is that we want to come back
but feel that they can't come back.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
Yeah, I agree, it's something that we should look at.
That's the kind of thing where we're really open as
a government to looking at all of the options. We
really want to get our country moving and our economy growing,
and we've got expertise from overseas, from our own homegrown people. Perfect,
let's bring them back. But there'll be some complications with that.
But I think if keys are keen to come home,
(02:21):
let's help them.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Some people last when we were discussing this said oh, okay,
so are you going to write their loans? Obviously, no,
I'm not going to write their loans off, not that
I can. But they were also bringing up examples of
people getting away with shoplifting and all of that. I
want to ask Reuben first, these comments by your potential
coalition partner Green MP tammouth A Pool saying during the
(02:44):
discussion this week about the government's tougher sentences and penalties
for shoplifters, saying that people who have got no money
to buy food could very well turn to shoplifting. What's
your stance or response to that.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
Well, look, I mean they're Tamatha's comments, their hurst to
defend what I think of them as kind of irrelevant.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
The beggar.
Speaker 4 (03:08):
The bigger issue that we've got here is it. A
couple of weeks ago there were memos going around the underresourced,
understaffed police force saying let's not enforce shoplifting less than
five hundred dollars, and all of a sudden, the national
government have realized, oh heck, that's not a very good look.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
Let's changed the look, wound it in here. And I've
said this to you last time, mate, but turning it
into a political lecture all the time, Friday John, Well, yeah,
let's just for a minute, let's just bring a bit
of reality into it. It does matter what you think
of it. So what do you think of those comments
by tomoth Pool.
Speaker 4 (03:39):
I think those comments by Tamotha Paul are Tamotha's comments.
And in the same way that Vanessa is not going
to come in here and lain and give her opinion,
let's find out what Seymour's saying and what Peters are saying.
Those are there.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
She's a green MP, not a labor MP.
Speaker 4 (03:55):
No, what I'm saying is, why are.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
You saying how you feel about it, what you think
about it weird.
Speaker 4 (04:01):
I don't think it's weird at all.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Are you endorsing what she says?
Speaker 1 (04:05):
No?
Speaker 4 (04:05):
What I'm saying is if you've got a question about
something another MP from another political party, I said, ask
them about it.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Right, So that excuses you from commenting on in any
parties politicians and their comments. But it's a win, ink.
Are we get to a little bit more openness from
you and your view on these comments.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
I'd love to just give a full frank bottle of that.
I mean, if she thinks that shoplifting is a great
way and a good way to go, I mean their
party are talking about basically robbing New Zealanders with their
taxation plan, so it doesn't really surprise me that she'd
think that pretty much everything is open slav and just
(04:44):
go ahead and rob these businesses. This is an appalling
stance from a from a member who's made some pretty
ridiculous comments all around actually about law and order, and
I think that just shows you've got a clear difference
between what National is trying to do, which is to
give clear consequences for crime and also in the back
(05:06):
around fix the underlying drivers that lead people. If she's
saying that poor people steal because of hunger, then fixing
the economy and bringing the general wealth up for New
Zealand so that we can maintain our systems and actually
educate people bring them out of poverty, that's the answer.
(05:26):
Long term, we're just going stealing more.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Reuben Davidson, do you guys have some sort of unofficial
behind the sense agreement that you're not going to slag
off each other's in piece? Because I can't understand why
you're not taking a stand the people in your electorate.
He'll be thinking, that's that's just absolute crap, that you're
not saying what you feel about or what you think
about it.
Speaker 4 (05:47):
I think I think the main message I'm getting from
people in my electorate is where are the five hundred
cops at the National Party promise?
Speaker 2 (05:53):
Oh honestly, Reuben, let's move on. Let's talk about the
tougher sentences announced by the government this week, Vanessa. How
much thought has the government given to the impact that
that is going to have on the court system.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
Well, that is, getting things through the courts is really important,
and we've made some changes to the way the courts
work and progress things so that's a separate kind of issue,
and it's really important. However, we've got to have real
punishment for crime as well as working on all of
the predecisious causes of it as well.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
By there, you're confident that the because you know, you
talk to anyone involved in a the legal system or
the justice system and they'll talk about the backlog and
the system being clogged. How confidence are you that this
just won't be worsened by the toughest sentencing processes that
you have announced this week.
Speaker 3 (06:46):
Well, I think that the sentencing processes and saying what
they actually the consequences are is not going to make
a difference to the necessarily to the number of people
coming through the through the court because of the crimes
at this time. That's going to be a further impact
down the track when the consequences start to stop hopefully
(07:07):
people from doing the crimes. So at this stage it'll
still be the same number of people and volumes of
coming through. It's the sentences mean that they've been going
to be going on to prison more often. So that's
not necessarily the court system, and that's why we've been
expanding the number of beds in prisons.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
All right's try. I like Ruben Daves, you got an
opinion on this one.
Speaker 4 (07:26):
Possibly, you know I haven't made on all things John Well, no,
I'm sutting to doubt that. I mean, it doesn't seem
to be a very well thought out or very detailed
solution at this point. So what I think we're seeing
is a succession of media releases from Goldsmith as the
minister in the space around justice, making up for the
(07:48):
complete lack of media releases or action in the broadcasting
and media space from the same minister. But they're a
little light on detail, and you raise some really good points.
The court system's going to be overloaded. Vanessa's talking about
some time in the future when all of a sudden
we're going to see a drop in crime because of
these harsher penalties are in place. But in the meantime,
(08:10):
what we're expecting us to see a great surge in
prison populations. It doesn't sound like a fantastic solution to me.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
So in its most annual recent report, Urber revealed that
it made three hundred and sixty five million dollars revenue
in New Zealand, but reported a profit of just four
and a half a million and paid one point two
million in corporate tax. We're being ripped off here, Vanessa.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
Look, I think it's a really complex area where there's
international corporations and this needs to be across multiple countries.
So New Zealand's involved with international tax agreements and treaties,
and whenever we look at going into a new tax
that might impact on international companies, we need to look
at how it's working overseas, and so we are actually
(08:55):
working with other partners in the OECD to look at
how we might sort out this kind of transnational international
transactions shoes?
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Is that a long way saying we're not being ripped
off I.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
Think that actually a lot of New Zealanders think find
Uber to be a really good deal for them when
they're getting around town.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
That if you sipped from Reuben's cup there or something
during the poll.
Speaker 3 (09:20):
I'm not trying to defend root it Uber, but we
have a there. I can't talk about individual companies in
their position, but overall I think that potentially there's revenue
there that we can't get at the moment that we
should look at ways of doing. But when we're doing that,
(09:40):
we have to make sure we fit in with all those.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
International Do you smell a rat, for example, when they
shift two hundred million dollars back to HQ in something
called an intercompany service fee?
Speaker 3 (09:51):
Yes, I smell a rat.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
So we are being ripped off.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
I don't know that we're being ripped off. But look,
what I'd say is that accounting is often a bit
of wizardry and moving money around. And I don't necessarily
think that they're breaking any laws or doing anything wrong there.
But I do smell a rat over it. I mean
it does sound sniff, It does whiff a bit.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Because Reuben, it seems to me, why not focus on
that stuff rather than talk about stuff like wealth taxes
and capital gains taxes.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
Look, I think the situation seems very unfair, and I
think New Zealanders have a good sense of what's fear
and what's not. And I think when you've got turnover
at that volume and you're paying tax at such a
small volume, there seems to be a gap in the
system here. So I think I think the question has
to be asked, how can we better capture that income
(10:46):
and therefore the tax on it.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
But so you, you guys would be far better to
focus on that than try and create new taxes, wouldn't you?
Speaker 4 (10:54):
Well, I mean, I think there's definitely a case for
where are we at with existing tax and why are
we letting some of these big companies get away with it?
Uber being one, but also big tech companies. The government
just before the budget can sort of tax that would
have seen half a billion dollars annually in revenue come
into New Zealand by taxing some of the big tech companies.
(11:16):
No explanation as to.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
Wright, So okay, so that's fine. So why don't you
guys focus on that rather than try and invent new
taxes that need to be pushed over the line and
get people to sign up to because you'd have a
much much easier case saying we're going after these these
gazillionaires who are having weddings in Venice and bubble bath parties.
We're going after them rather than people here in New
(11:37):
Zealand who might think they've done their best and they
deserve not to be taxed because of it.
Speaker 4 (11:41):
Well, look, I think what it comes back to is
that most people agree that we need a fairer tax system.
Uber getting away with not paying what would seem like
the right proportion of their income tax seems like it
needs to be made fairer.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Vanessa, How was the government going to implement or how
is ACC more to the point, going to implement the
government's requests for a crackdown on payouts. How's it going
to do that?
Speaker 3 (12:09):
Well, it'll be an interesting thing to watch them do.
And I think it's the important thing is that everyone
who needs help and is entitled to assistants will get it.
It's the background making sure that the systems are costing
less for making the decisions that they do, because actually
the money should be going to New Zealanders and we
need it to be sustainable going forward in the future
because over the last twenty years it's more than doubled
(12:31):
and the cost that is and projections are really blowing
out to the future. So we need to do something
now to stabilize and build ACC's capability into the future,
because it's something that is embedded into the fabric of
New Zealand now and I want to see it be
in place for my children and grandchildren in the future.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
As a GP or former JP yourself, let me run
this past you. Years ago, one of the kids had
to fall off the bike at the up at the
bike path right and they're rung up, and sell, I'll
better go and get them checked out, just in case
there's a concussion. Went and did that. They it was fine,
blah blah, went to go out to leave. It was
one of the after hours, and then they said, oh,
(13:13):
would you like us to there's a grays would you
like us to clean the grays? And did okay, you brilliant, Okay, great.
So I put the car back in the pocket when
there and got the grays cleaned and came back and
they said, oh, because we've done that, it's now covered
by ACC. Is that nuts?
Speaker 3 (13:26):
Well, it should have been covered by ACC with the concussion,
so we'll put a suspected perspected concussion comes and it
comes under ACC as well. So if you'd had a
fall and there were any signs at all that you
may have had a concussion, which is very minimal, then
it will be covered by ACC. Yes, the grays, Yes,
(13:49):
we'll tell you what the grays. Then means that they've
cleaned it, they've put on a wound dressing. That means
that the funding that comes back to the clinic is
substantially more than just the concussion and so for every
item and every injury that you yet you came in
with that individually listed, and each one is funded for
the activity that they do.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
So does that strike you that that is because maybe
I'm coming at it from someone who can afford to
pay the fee at the after hours, whether it's going
to be eighty ninety or whatever. I can afford to
pay that, But it seems weird to me that I
would get ACC for that. Do you think that that's
part of the problem.
Speaker 3 (14:26):
Well, I think that's not part of the problem. The
problem with ACC that we have financially is the ongoing
weekly compensation payments that we make to people and for
when they're not working. That's the part that's most expensive.
The payment for the medical treatments is a small component
(14:46):
comparatively of the bill for ACC.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
Right, So, Reuben Davidson, you'll know as much as I do,
as Vanessa does as well, that there is no shortage
of people who feel that they are not getting the
cover they deserve from ACC. Which how do you see
this playing out with the government requiring a tider ship.
Speaker 4 (15:05):
Look, I think the beauty of ACC is that it's
a safety net that we know that we can rely
on right. So we've probably all had occasion that we've
required medical attention, medical care, or support from ACC. And
I think it's a real significant asset for New Zealand
and something we can rightly be very proud of because
(15:26):
it's there.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
When we need it.
Speaker 4 (15:28):
I am concerned that this risks eroding the capacity of
ACC to actually look after New Zealanders when they need it,
and I think that should be of concern. But I
also think this happening at the same time as we're
walking back on the protections for New Zealanders in the
workplace is a worry because if we look at our
(15:49):
injury rates and within the workplace, they are really high
internationally in comparison, and I think it seems really strange
to be saying we need to change ACC it's too
expensive at the same time as we're saying we don't
want to provide you with appropriate protections in the world workplace.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
I agree with you that there is a gap there.
Just to wind it up, you talked there about ACC
and New Zealanders. Now, I know that there are issues,
broader issues here, but do you think at some stage
New Zealand has to have another look at providing ACC
cover for people visiting here from overseas.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
I'm not over the detail of how that works and
what cover people are able to access while they're here,
but I do think, I do think that that all
New Zealanders deserve the peace of mind that ACC is
going to be there for them if they need it.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Right, Because most of the issue is people. We don't
give people the right to sue, So that's why people
overseas have access to ACC. That's why I'm saying, eventually,
do you think something needs to change so that we
aren't so free and easy with ACC cover for non
New Zealanders.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
Well, we also expect people to pay for other medical
treatment with their travel insurance and all of that. That
the element of not being up to see is really
important and it makes a difference to both our legal
system but also a health system, and I think that
that's something we should fundamentally protect.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
Right, it's not an option for you.
Speaker 3 (17:15):
Not for me, I don't think so.
Speaker 2 (17:16):
All right, I appreciate you both coming in. I appreciate
you fighting the traffic or the road works. How are
you gonna get on the road the road cone hot line?
Speaker 3 (17:23):
Well, the issue I think I will because there were.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
We don't ring Actually it's only a form.
Speaker 3 (17:28):
There's an egregious number of road cones around the city
and I think I think christ Church people are well
and truly sick of dodging road cones.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
Well, you are on campaign mode, Reuben lost to see
what's a cone situation?
Speaker 3 (17:41):
Now?
Speaker 2 (17:41):
East? Have you been on the hot line?
Speaker 3 (17:44):
No?
Speaker 4 (17:44):
Look, I'm not on the hot line because I know
the purpose of road cones. But but I tell you
what I would like if I was going to get
on the hot line, I'd be ringing up and saying,
how's that bridge coming along?
Speaker 2 (17:53):
Just don't ring up? How's that? It's a hot line,
it's not. It's a hot line which is actually a form.
Speaker 4 (17:58):
I tell you what's the hot line this weekend in
christ Church East. It's the fireworks at New Brighton on
Saturday night. There we go five thirty to I think
they go off at seven thirty. So it's always a
great night.
Speaker 2 (18:12):
Getting back can be tricky, thy well.
Speaker 4 (18:15):
It Reubly certainly highlights one of the issues that we've
got in our coastal community of New Brighton, but all
the more reason to stick around and enjoy some of
the local hospitality responsibly before you head home, or to
use some public transport, which I think, as does Labor,
that public transport is a great thing. Not sure what
the nets think of it, but we're given the way
they cutting. It was a slow start, more expensive expense
(18:40):
for New Zealanders to use public transport.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
You should have been as as enthusiastic at five past
ten as you are now.
Speaker 4 (18:47):
I'm always enthusiastic, so you're a love to be here.
Brilliants for your great hospitality.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
There's two glasses of water. Brilliant v Thank.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
You for more from Caterbory Mornings with John McDonald. Listen
live to news talks It'd be christ Church from nine
am weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News talk.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Z'b Time for Politics Friday and where would the politicians
rather be? On a daylight today? In here and nationals
vnessa winning welcome back and welcome back to health.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
Thank you very much. And if that was an honest
question John, about where we would rather be, I would I
couldn't think of anywhere I'd rather be right now.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
I'm loving it. You know, politicians, it's not even what
are you gonna be like next year when you're on
the campaign trail man?
Speaker 4 (00:35):
Are you having any stuff space to go?
Speaker 3 (00:37):
I know, I.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Know, I unbelieved. Well, it's always the only ways up
With Ruben Davidson, welcome to you, Thank you very much.
What do you guys, Reckon? I'll ask you first, Ruben,
what do you think about this idea that's being touted
or pushed which we've been discussing on the show this morning,
which I think is a brilliant idea by a former
IID prosecutor who says it's crazy that we've got people
overseas with student loans whose debt has just been snowballing
(01:02):
because they've got behind in their payments for various reasons,
throw the interest on top of that, and feel that
they can't come back to New Zealand because they think
they'll be arrested as soon as they get here. And
he's saying we need some changes to make it enable
people to come back and to pay off the loans
because at the moment it's too much of a blunt instrument.
What's your reaction to that.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
I think it's something we need to look at. I mean,
we want our people to come back and to take
up good jobs in New Zealand and to contribute to
the kind of places and spaces. We've got big gaps health, education,
those areas. So I think looking at what we could
do to make it easier for people to come back
and contribute is a good idea.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
Because Vanessa whne it seems strange, doesn't it that the
and I want to say the government, but the country
is putting so much effort and to get attracting people
with expertise to migrate here when an actual fact we've
got New Zealand. It's like almost trying to attract new
customers versus existing customers in a business where you've got
these key with is that we want to come back
but feel that they can't come back.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
Yeah, I agree, it's something that we should look at.
That's the kind of thing where we're really open as
a government to looking at all of the options. We
really want to get our country moving and our economy growing,
and we've got expertise from overseas, from our own homegrown people. Perfect,
let's bring them back. But there'll be some complications with that.
But I think if keys are keen to come home,
(02:21):
let's help them.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Some people last when we were discussing this said oh, okay,
so are you going to write their loans? Obviously, no,
I'm not going to write their loans off, not that
I can. But they were also bringing up examples of
people getting away with shoplifting and all of that. I
want to ask Reuben first, these comments by your potential
coalition partner Green MP tammouth A Pool saying during the
(02:44):
discussion this week about the government's tougher sentences and penalties
for shoplifters, saying that people who have got no money
to buy food could very well turn to shoplifting. What's
your stance or response to that.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
Well, look, I mean they're Tamatha's comments, their hurst to
defend what I think of them as kind of irrelevant.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
The beggar.
Speaker 4 (03:08):
The bigger issue that we've got here is it. A
couple of weeks ago there were memos going around the underresourced,
understaffed police force saying let's not enforce shoplifting less than
five hundred dollars, and all of a sudden, the national
government have realized, oh heck, that's not a very good look.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
Let's changed the look, wound it in here. And I've
said this to you last time, mate, but turning it
into a political lecture all the time, Friday John, Well, yeah,
let's just for a minute, let's just bring a bit
of reality into it. It does matter what you think
of it. So what do you think of those comments
by tomoth Pool.
Speaker 4 (03:39):
I think those comments by Tamotha Paul are Tamotha's comments.
And in the same way that Vanessa is not going
to come in here and lain and give her opinion,
let's find out what Seymour's saying and what Peters are saying.
Those are there.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
She's a green MP, not a labor MP.
Speaker 4 (03:55):
No, what I'm saying is, why are.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
You saying how you feel about it, what you think
about it weird.
Speaker 4 (04:01):
I don't think it's weird at all.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Are you endorsing what she says?
Speaker 1 (04:05):
No?
Speaker 4 (04:05):
What I'm saying is if you've got a question about
something another MP from another political party, I said, ask
them about it.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Right, So that excuses you from commenting on in any
parties politicians and their comments. But it's a win, ink.
Are we get to a little bit more openness from
you and your view on these comments.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
I'd love to just give a full frank bottle of that.
I mean, if she thinks that shoplifting is a great
way and a good way to go, I mean their
party are talking about basically robbing New Zealanders with their
taxation plan, so it doesn't really surprise me that she'd
think that pretty much everything is open slav and just
(04:44):
go ahead and rob these businesses. This is an appalling
stance from a from a member who's made some pretty
ridiculous comments all around actually about law and order, and
I think that just shows you've got a clear difference
between what National is trying to do, which is to
give clear consequences for crime and also in the back
(05:06):
around fix the underlying drivers that lead people. If she's
saying that poor people steal because of hunger, then fixing
the economy and bringing the general wealth up for New
Zealand so that we can maintain our systems and actually
educate people bring them out of poverty, that's the answer.
(05:26):
Long term, we're just going stealing more.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Reuben Davidson, do you guys have some sort of unofficial
behind the sense agreement that you're not going to slag
off each other's in piece? Because I can't understand why
you're not taking a stand the people in your electorate.
He'll be thinking, that's that's just absolute crap, that you're
not saying what you feel about or what you think
about it.
Speaker 4 (05:47):
I think I think the main message I'm getting from
people in my electorate is where are the five hundred
cops at the National Party promise?
Speaker 2 (05:53):
Oh honestly, Reuben, let's move on. Let's talk about the
tougher sentences announced by the government this week, Vanessa. How
much thought has the government given to the impact that
that is going to have on the court system.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
Well, that is, getting things through the courts is really important,
and we've made some changes to the way the courts
work and progress things so that's a separate kind of issue,
and it's really important. However, we've got to have real
punishment for crime as well as working on all of
the predecisious causes of it as well.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
By there, you're confident that the because you know, you
talk to anyone involved in a the legal system or
the justice system and they'll talk about the backlog and
the system being clogged. How confidence are you that this
just won't be worsened by the toughest sentencing processes that
you have announced this week.
Speaker 3 (06:46):
Well, I think that the sentencing processes and saying what
they actually the consequences are is not going to make
a difference to the necessarily to the number of people
coming through the through the court because of the crimes
at this time. That's going to be a further impact
down the track when the consequences start to stop hopefully
(07:07):
people from doing the crimes. So at this stage it'll
still be the same number of people and volumes of
coming through. It's the sentences mean that they've been going
to be going on to prison more often. So that's
not necessarily the court system, and that's why we've been
expanding the number of beds in prisons.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
All right's try. I like Ruben Daves, you got an
opinion on this one.
Speaker 4 (07:26):
Possibly, you know I haven't made on all things John Well, no,
I'm sutting to doubt that. I mean, it doesn't seem
to be a very well thought out or very detailed
solution at this point. So what I think we're seeing
is a succession of media releases from Goldsmith as the
minister in the space around justice, making up for the
(07:48):
complete lack of media releases or action in the broadcasting
and media space from the same minister. But they're a
little light on detail, and you raise some really good points.
The court system's going to be overloaded. Vanessa's talking about
some time in the future when all of a sudden
we're going to see a drop in crime because of
these harsher penalties are in place. But in the meantime,
(08:10):
what we're expecting us to see a great surge in
prison populations. It doesn't sound like a fantastic solution to me.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
So in its most annual recent report, Urber revealed that
it made three hundred and sixty five million dollars revenue
in New Zealand, but reported a profit of just four
and a half a million and paid one point two
million in corporate tax. We're being ripped off here, Vanessa.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
Look, I think it's a really complex area where there's
international corporations and this needs to be across multiple countries.
So New Zealand's involved with international tax agreements and treaties,
and whenever we look at going into a new tax
that might impact on international companies, we need to look
at how it's working overseas, and so we are actually
(08:55):
working with other partners in the OECD to look at
how we might sort out this kind of transnational international
transactions shoes?
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Is that a long way saying we're not being ripped
off I.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
Think that actually a lot of New Zealanders think find
Uber to be a really good deal for them when
they're getting around town.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
That if you sipped from Reuben's cup there or something
during the poll.
Speaker 3 (09:20):
I'm not trying to defend root it Uber, but we
have a there. I can't talk about individual companies in
their position, but overall I think that potentially there's revenue
there that we can't get at the moment that we
should look at ways of doing. But when we're doing that,
(09:40):
we have to make sure we fit in with all those.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
International Do you smell a rat, for example, when they
shift two hundred million dollars back to HQ in something
called an intercompany service fee?
Speaker 3 (09:51):
Yes, I smell a rat.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
So we are being ripped off.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
I don't know that we're being ripped off. But look,
what I'd say is that accounting is often a bit
of wizardry and moving money around. And I don't necessarily
think that they're breaking any laws or doing anything wrong there.
But I do smell a rat over it. I mean
it does sound sniff, It does whiff a bit.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Because Reuben, it seems to me, why not focus on
that stuff rather than talk about stuff like wealth taxes
and capital gains taxes.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
Look, I think the situation seems very unfair, and I
think New Zealanders have a good sense of what's fear
and what's not. And I think when you've got turnover
at that volume and you're paying tax at such a
small volume, there seems to be a gap in the
system here. So I think I think the question has
to be asked, how can we better capture that income
(10:46):
and therefore the tax on it.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
But so you, you guys would be far better to
focus on that than try and create new taxes, wouldn't you?
Speaker 4 (10:54):
Well, I mean, I think there's definitely a case for
where are we at with existing tax and why are
we letting some of these big companies get away with it?
Uber being one, but also big tech companies. The government
just before the budget can sort of tax that would
have seen half a billion dollars annually in revenue come
into New Zealand by taxing some of the big tech companies.
(11:16):
No explanation as to.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
Wright, So okay, so that's fine. So why don't you
guys focus on that rather than try and invent new
taxes that need to be pushed over the line and
get people to sign up to because you'd have a
much much easier case saying we're going after these these
gazillionaires who are having weddings in Venice and bubble bath parties.
We're going after them rather than people here in New
(11:37):
Zealand who might think they've done their best and they
deserve not to be taxed because of it.
Speaker 4 (11:41):
Well, look, I think what it comes back to is
that most people agree that we need a fairer tax system.
Uber getting away with not paying what would seem like
the right proportion of their income tax seems like it
needs to be made fairer.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Vanessa, How was the government going to implement or how
is ACC more to the point, going to implement the
government's requests for a crackdown on payouts. How's it going
to do that?
Speaker 3 (12:09):
Well, it'll be an interesting thing to watch them do.
And I think it's the important thing is that everyone
who needs help and is entitled to assistants will get it.
It's the background making sure that the systems are costing
less for making the decisions that they do, because actually
the money should be going to New Zealanders and we
need it to be sustainable going forward in the future
because over the last twenty years it's more than doubled
(12:31):
and the cost that is and projections are really blowing
out to the future. So we need to do something
now to stabilize and build ACC's capability into the future,
because it's something that is embedded into the fabric of
New Zealand now and I want to see it be
in place for my children and grandchildren in the future.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
As a GP or former JP yourself, let me run
this past you. Years ago, one of the kids had
to fall off the bike at the up at the
bike path right and they're rung up, and sell, I'll
better go and get them checked out, just in case
there's a concussion. Went and did that. They it was fine,
blah blah, went to go out to leave. It was
one of the after hours, and then they said, oh,
(13:13):
would you like us to there's a grays would you
like us to clean the grays? And did okay, you brilliant, Okay, great.
So I put the car back in the pocket when
there and got the grays cleaned and came back and
they said, oh, because we've done that, it's now covered
by ACC. Is that nuts?
Speaker 3 (13:26):
Well, it should have been covered by ACC with the concussion,
so we'll put a suspected perspected concussion comes and it
comes under ACC as well. So if you'd had a
fall and there were any signs at all that you
may have had a concussion, which is very minimal, then
it will be covered by ACC. Yes, the grays, Yes,
(13:49):
we'll tell you what the grays. Then means that they've
cleaned it, they've put on a wound dressing. That means
that the funding that comes back to the clinic is
substantially more than just the concussion and so for every
item and every injury that you yet you came in
with that individually listed, and each one is funded for
the activity that they do.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
So does that strike you that that is because maybe
I'm coming at it from someone who can afford to
pay the fee at the after hours, whether it's going
to be eighty ninety or whatever. I can afford to
pay that, But it seems weird to me that I
would get ACC for that. Do you think that that's
part of the problem.
Speaker 3 (14:26):
Well, I think that's not part of the problem. The
problem with ACC that we have financially is the ongoing
weekly compensation payments that we make to people and for
when they're not working. That's the part that's most expensive.
The payment for the medical treatments is a small component
(14:46):
comparatively of the bill for ACC.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
Right, So, Reuben Davidson, you'll know as much as I do,
as Vanessa does as well, that there is no shortage
of people who feel that they are not getting the
cover they deserve from ACC. Which how do you see
this playing out with the government requiring a tider ship.
Speaker 4 (15:05):
Look, I think the beauty of ACC is that it's
a safety net that we know that we can rely
on right. So we've probably all had occasion that we've
required medical attention, medical care, or support from ACC. And
I think it's a real significant asset for New Zealand
and something we can rightly be very proud of because
(15:26):
it's there.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
When we need it.
Speaker 4 (15:28):
I am concerned that this risks eroding the capacity of
ACC to actually look after New Zealanders when they need it,
and I think that should be of concern. But I
also think this happening at the same time as we're
walking back on the protections for New Zealanders in the
workplace is a worry because if we look at our
(15:49):
injury rates and within the workplace, they are really high
internationally in comparison, and I think it seems really strange
to be saying we need to change ACC it's too
expensive at the same time as we're saying we don't
want to provide you with appropriate protections in the world workplace.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
I agree with you that there is a gap there.
Just to wind it up, you talked there about ACC
and New Zealanders. Now, I know that there are issues,
broader issues here, but do you think at some stage
New Zealand has to have another look at providing ACC
cover for people visiting here from overseas.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
I'm not over the detail of how that works and
what cover people are able to access while they're here,
but I do think, I do think that that all
New Zealanders deserve the peace of mind that ACC is
going to be there for them if they need it.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Right, Because most of the issue is people. We don't
give people the right to sue, So that's why people
overseas have access to ACC. That's why I'm saying, eventually,
do you think something needs to change so that we
aren't so free and easy with ACC cover for non
New Zealanders.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
Well, we also expect people to pay for other medical
treatment with their travel insurance and all of that. That
the element of not being up to see is really
important and it makes a difference to both our legal
system but also a health system, and I think that
that's something we should fundamentally protect.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
Right, it's not an option for you.
Speaker 3 (17:15):
Not for me, I don't think so.
Speaker 2 (17:16):
All right, I appreciate you both coming in. I appreciate
you fighting the traffic or the road works. How are
you gonna get on the road the road cone hot line?
Speaker 3 (17:23):
Well, the issue I think I will because there were.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
We don't ring Actually it's only a form.
Speaker 3 (17:28):
There's an egregious number of road cones around the city
and I think I think christ Church people are well
and truly sick of dodging road cones.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
Well, you are on campaign mode, Reuben lost to see
what's a cone situation?
Speaker 3 (17:41):
Now?
Speaker 2 (17:41):
East? Have you been on the hot line?
Speaker 3 (17:44):
No?
Speaker 4 (17:44):
Look, I'm not on the hot line because I know
the purpose of road cones. But but I tell you
what I would like if I was going to get
on the hot line, I'd be ringing up and saying,
how's that bridge coming along?
Speaker 2 (17:53):
Just don't ring up? How's that? It's a hot line,
it's not. It's a hot line which is actually a form.
Speaker 4 (17:58):
I tell you what's the hot line this weekend in
christ Church East. It's the fireworks at New Brighton on
Saturday night. There we go five thirty to I think
they go off at seven thirty. So it's always a
great night.
Speaker 2 (18:12):
Getting back can be tricky, thy well.
Speaker 4 (18:15):
It Reubly certainly highlights one of the issues that we've
got in our coastal community of New Brighton, but all
the more reason to stick around and enjoy some of
the local hospitality responsibly before you head home, or to
use some public transport, which I think, as does Labor,
that public transport is a great thing. Not sure what
the nets think of it, but we're given the way
they cutting. It was a slow start, more expensive expense
(18:40):
for New Zealanders to use public transport.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
You should have been as as enthusiastic at five past
ten as you are now.
Speaker 4 (18:47):
I'm always enthusiastic, so you're a love to be here.
Brilliants for your great hospitality.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
There's two glasses of water. Brilliant v Thank.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
You for more from Caterbory 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
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
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