Nationals Vanessa Weenink and Labours Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.
They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from the Governments response to the strikes in Iran, a U-16 social media ban being backed by a Parliamentary select committee, and if Christchurch ratepayers should be footing a 10-million-dollar bill to reopen the Dux de Lux building.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Morning's Podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk z'b morning.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
It's that time. Twenty seven degrees is the hy today?
Is that what the result is going to be for
national when this pole coming out today? Vanessa Winning, I
wouldn't like to speculate. You like hold a with it,
don't you? I do like it all You like places
where it's well in the thirties, I do. I do,
all right, Very nice to see it. Tracy McClellan from
Labor Good morning, Good morning. So this idea of a
(00:34):
social media band, I've got no idea. Well, I do
know why the government's entertaining it because it sounds like
a good idea, and it sounds like a good idea,
but it's not trying to convince me otherwise. Vanessa.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Well, there is definite evidence of harm, and it's multifaceted
kinds of harm. It's not just children, it's everyone can
actually be exposed to that harm. But we think that
when there's something that's obviously harmful and harmful to people's brains,
then it should actually be something that has an age
gate on it. So that's where where you can actually
(01:08):
there are ways technologically ways to be able to achieve that.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Right, Okay, well, why aren't we waiting until Australia does
some evaluations of its band because it announced just this
week the E Safety Commissioner, Julie m and Grant says
there's going to be an evaluation following more than four
thousand children in family for more than two years. It's
going to be surveys, smartphone news tracking, capturing information of
(01:32):
time spent on and off online external data including school
test results, healthcare and drug prescription data. Why can't we
wait and it's going to be drip fed starting from
the end of this year, Why can't we wait to
get some of that factual information before we go down
some route that you know, you and I with respect
(01:53):
are of an age, but we don't really understand this.
So why for anything else for drug for drugs to
get administered with government funding, has to be proof, has
to be approved, that's safe for all of that. Why
wouldn't do the same with this?
Speaker 3 (02:07):
I think it's better to equate it to harm from
alcohol and harm from things like gambling or from our smoking,
where we know that there's harm and there's plenty of
evidence around that and how we tackle it needs to
be multifaceted, but just one thing.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
But we don't know yet whether this band not under
sixteen's works.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
It doesn't matter because it will matter. It will help
for some people. It doesn't matter what the level of changes.
Any change in this area is going to be helpful
and it signals to people that there is a problem,
and that is part of the education that we need
to do, is to be able to explain to people
(02:45):
about the fact that it's problematic and to show people
how they can prevent the harms that come a lot
go along with it and reap the benefits.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
There's also come. I'll come back to a point on that.
But Tracy McClellan, what's Labour's position on this proposed band.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
We are keen to work with the government on this
because we do agree that there's harm. Is this the solution?
I'm yet to be convinced, and that's part of the process.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Are you keen to work with the government because just
because it would look bad if he didn't.
Speaker 4 (03:17):
No, look and remember this started off as a member's bill,
So we're pleased that the government is picking it up
because it's going to take the heft of the government
resources to look at it properly. One thing I'm really
concerned about is that it's just a calms exercise. You know,
we don't want it to be just as signal to
well to say hey, look as we do with lots
(03:38):
of things, as human beings do. I'm not pointing the
finger at the government, but you know, when there's a
complicated problem, it's easy to say, well, here's the solution.
It sounds good. You know, we want to we want
to look behind under the hood. And I agree. I
think I'd love to hear what Australia is.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
So you think we should wait, I.
Speaker 4 (03:56):
Think it would. Why would we want to be first
in que We want we can learn from someone else's experience,
and I think that's part of the part of the
process we should be engage.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
So you would say, hold off until Australia has assessed
these four thousand kids and come back in two years
time with evidence whether it's worked or not.
Speaker 4 (04:16):
Well, it's this government that's already kicked the process off.
I don't know how long. You know what sort of
ability we've got to hold off on it, but certainly,
you know it's part of the discussion is do we
want to be in the best position possible to learn
from a close neighbor who's already gone down that path,
and what can we do differently and better to make
(04:37):
it actually work. Because I don't agree with Vanessa that
there's no harm here. There can be harm in any situation.
I know I spoke to people at Clubs Day at
uce O Week and you know a person came up
to me in particular and said, please be really careful
about this. This was a social media for me was
(04:59):
a real lifeline. And those are perspectives from young people
who know no different. The people who are under sixteen
have never lived a life without this.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
And that's the point that I want to come back
to Vanessa because I referred to it last. How Caroline
Thine is a mental health expert in Australia and she's
made this, provided this advice or made a warning to
any governments or countries looking at doing the same thing
as Australia. She says, quite considered teenagers as experts in
their own lives and include them in every single stage
(05:31):
of this if you're going to do it. What is
the governments approach in terms of including young people in
taking this the next step.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
We've looked at this issue very extensively. This is not
the first time that's been looked at. The evidence that
comes from I no, no, that's.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Not the answer of the question. It's all really extensive.
It's all very long to pick up evidence and read
stuff in the medical journal. But how are you going
to include young people in this?
Speaker 3 (05:55):
Well, that's always a really challenging thing to do. Not
necessarily just young for people is actually doing what's called
sort of creative and collaborative design. Not always an easy
thing to do, but I think that that would be
part of what we would try to achieve, is having
some young people's voice in that process. I think it
(06:17):
would be important because it's not.
Speaker 4 (06:18):
Just about important, it's not.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
Just about the ban. That's only a very small part
of what has been recommended. And what's the more important
part I think of what's been recommended is actually having
an online regulator that can actually move quickly to adapt
to things that are happening. Also that advertising restrictions for
advertising to young people, I think that's more important. And
(06:44):
there's the education programs and getting people involved in it
that I think is much more important than the age
gating or social media ban.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Tric a regular that sounds to me like something that
the left side of politics would would bring in someone
to be the boss. I mean, I don't see this
working at all.
Speaker 4 (07:04):
But we've always had spaces in the physical environment where
we've said children shouldn't be here, and this is a
different environment. But it's perfectly reasonable to look at the
spaces that young people are occupying, and in this case
it's a digital space, but it's you know, it's a
huge part of life. So I think we need to,
(07:25):
you know, we need to throw everything at getting this
right because it's important.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Okay, what about the warnings from the sis yes today
that there's a real risk of teenage boys basically being
mobilized online and getting involved and put some pretty extreme stuff.
What's the word. I'm trying to think the word radicalized online? Yeah,
So how would a regulator stop that sort of thing happening?
Speaker 3 (07:52):
Vanessa, Well, that's the kind of thing where we can
have more intelligence, more understanding of what's going on, and
be able to step in and shut down these if
it's a website or if it's a communication channel, able
to do that quickly.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Don't you think though, that that's sort of that sort
of talk, Tracy sounds classic. And I'll use a term
that someone who's in Touch Touch last hour used typical
sort of boomer talk. And I'm not saying you're a boomer,
but it's typical boomer talk thinking you can control stuff
when an actual fact, when it comes to online you
can't control it.
Speaker 4 (08:25):
And it's part of a bigger problem, isn't it, Because
that's a symptom. If people are being radicalized online and
they're consuming information and being indoctrinated into into radical kind
of thinking, they're not being heard and they're not being
valued as part of society. So you know that social
cohesion is important for us to tackle in various different way.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Well, that's what and that's what ACT is saying Vanessa
that by having a social media band you can push
kids towards these pretty extreme online alternatives.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
I think ACT and their way of viewing this has
been quite mixed. Actually, it's interesting that one of their
members has a bill trying to ban kind of newify apps,
or at least ban the exchange and the and being
able to cheek fakes and all of that, and at
(09:22):
the same time disagreeing with the I think they've really
mixed in there.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
Leave you guys to sort that out. You can talk
about that behind closed doors and let us know how
you get on. Can you make it any clearer the
government's position on Iran or the invasion of Iran? Vanessa Winnick, so,
because it's been a bit muddled.
Speaker 3 (09:46):
So the government's position on Iran is that we support
the Iranian people and their safety and their security. Their
previous leader was a despot and had been attacking and
killing thousands of their own people. It's up to America
(10:08):
to be able to say what the reasons for their
attack are and to be able to justify that. At
this stage, it's still pretty early. We don't know how
long this conflict will last, and we'll wait to hear
and see more evidence around that.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Tracy McClellan, Well to your response to that, has the
government being clear? Helen Clark says, a disgrace.
Speaker 4 (10:34):
There's no doubt that the people of Iran have endured
a brutal regime for a long time, and you know,
you've got to, you know, you've got to think about
what's what they're going through at the moment. But a
rules based system grounded in international law is important and
(10:55):
it matters, and so I think you can hold those
two positions at the same time, feeling incredibly sympathetic towards
what the Iranian people have gone through, but still feel
that a response that is in line with international law
is important.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
Vanessa, Does international law still matter?
Speaker 3 (11:16):
Yes, absolutely, and don't disagree about that at all. What
we're saying is that we don't know what that what
those that evidence and the what the the intelligence was
that the Americans.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
Well the White House, the White House said two days
ago that the President had a quote good feeling that
Arama is going to do something.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
Right.
Speaker 2 (11:38):
Well, well, was that was that a good level of
intel for you.
Speaker 3 (11:42):
To Well, I'd still wait to see what the actual
intelligence was.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
So you can't. You can't run walls based on vibes,
can you.
Speaker 3 (11:50):
Well, that's not the usual way of doing it.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
So therefore should should New Zealand be stronger its position? Tracy?
I mean, we were the country, as I said the
other day, we were the country that told the Yanks
were to put their nuclear powered ships, and.
Speaker 4 (12:03):
We've got a long history of standing up for that
rule space order in that international law. It's a system
that we've got a vested interest in. We're not big,
we're not mighty. This is the system that we should
be standing up for because it's within our best interest
and it's the right thing to do. So I think
we have to be quite unequivocal about the importance of
(12:24):
that when we make those statements, and we've had a
long history of very shared bipartisan agreement on that, so
we were a bit dismayed that it wasn't as clearly
pot as it could be at the time.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
All right, let's talk about Christopher Luckston or Cameron Likes
Cameron Luckstein, who was the ACTMP, who wants some sort
of accelerated liquor accelerated changes to the liquor laws and
time for the opening of the stadium in christ Church
on Anzac weekends so the bars can stay open late.
What's your position on that, Vanessa, Well, is that a
(12:56):
very good reason to rush law change?
Speaker 3 (12:59):
Actually, I'm very supportive of the idea because this is
going to be a huge moment for christ Church. This
is going to be massive celebration. People will want to
be able to get out and enjoy that, and the
bars will be able to want to take advantage. So
I have a lot of sympathy for that position. And
there is a private bill going through, a member's bill
(13:22):
going through under Karen mcnaughty's name, which I think would
solve the issue.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Oh what would happen?
Speaker 4 (13:28):
You might know the until the Yeah, So it's a
member's bill that looks at not only Good Friday, but
and zach Day and Christmas. You know those days where
there's those different kind of rules. So it's essentially saying,
let's not have those different kind of rules on those days.
And so Cameron's amendment is exactly what it is. It's
(13:52):
an amendment to that to say, while we're considering that,
why don't we chuck in this day that's kind of
bespoke to the opening of our stadium, so that businesses
in christ Church could also benefit from that.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
So do you both agree then that it should be
fine for bars to open on intac Day and Easter
Sunday and Christmas Day? Is that what you're both saying?
Speaker 3 (14:12):
Well, I've already voted in support in the first reading
and are up to the second reading.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Yet you'll vote yes anyway? What about you, Tracy, I've
yet to vote in support. Are you yet to decide No.
Speaker 4 (14:25):
Well, I've by not voting in support, I have voted
no on the two occasions. I'm still open to the
possibility that i might be persuaded, but my first instinct
is always to be pretty conservative about alcohol legislation. That
is a conscience vote. I've still got one or two
(14:45):
hurdles to sort of get over.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Which day is the biggest hurdle for you? Anzac Day,
the Easter, Good Friday, the Easter Sunday.
Speaker 4 (14:53):
Good ristas Good Friday. Yeah, And maybe it's because I've
always I've done more than my fair share of working
in hospitality where you know you don't get that many
nights off, and then Good Friday rolls a round. It's
only for diners, it's not for drinkers. Reduced roster on
night off.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
So it sounds like a weird, weird reason to basic legislation,
not a weird reason back at the hotel when you
were a student.
Speaker 4 (15:19):
No, Well, the bill suggests that it won't make any
difference to hospitality workers, or it would only involve businesses
that are already open. But it does change the dynamic
between who's going out. Are they diners or are they drinkers?
And I'm just yet to be convinced that we can't
have a couple of days a year where we.
Speaker 2 (15:37):
Are drinking at home.
Speaker 4 (15:38):
We restrict we restrict that, but I could change my mind.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
One more thing to tick off. The Arts Center has
got its handout for ten million dollars from the christi
At City Council to do the Old Ducks Deluxe Hub Vanessa.
Should they get the.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
Money, Well, I think it depends on what kind of
form the money comes in. If it comes in the
form of a loan that's then paid back, I think
that's that could be.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
Loans. Does one handouts?
Speaker 3 (16:04):
Well, you know, I'm not in favor of handouts generally
because I think that's not necessarily the best way of
doing things. And if the council wants to spend money
on this, it's their prerogative, but I think they should
be cautious about how they do that with rate payers money.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Exactly, Tracy.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
That list is getting along of the projects we're going
to have to choose between. But therein lies the beauty
of consultation. It'll be interesting to you. It will be
interesting to see what people that feeling. It's feeling like
one of those reality TV shows where you've got all
these contestants lining up and only the only the well
the money get real.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
What's your view on it? Come on?
Speaker 4 (16:48):
I mean I ultimately want to see a thrive in
christ Church where all of our facilities are well utilized.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
An answer, But ten.
Speaker 4 (16:56):
Million dollars is a lot of money, and it's competing
against some pretty hefty other projects.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Still not an answer. I could have told you that
what's your personal position? Ten million dollars a rap per
money to do up the Ducks Deluxe.
Speaker 4 (17:07):
But what if then the Ducks Deluxe thrives with castles
at a great venue, and and it pays it back?
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Tracy, you're not position. You can sell what you want.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
Come on, pay it back if it's alone.
Speaker 4 (17:19):
Well, maybe it is alone. Maybe we've solved the problem here.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
And is it the job of rate payers to get
an old pub back up and running? Really? Is it?
Speaker 4 (17:27):
I can't imagine. It's hugely high on people's priorities at
the moment. So it'll be interesting to see what what
that consultation throws up.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
And what about christ Church citizen Tracy McClellan, take off
your MP hat Is it high on her priority?
Speaker 4 (17:41):
Oh? Look, I'm kind of inclined towards it. Why Well,
I just think I love the art center. I love
that area of christ Church. I think we should be
doing whatever we can to move and shake and thrive.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
So rate Power money. You're on a pub.
Speaker 4 (17:59):
No, I don't think it's as simple as that. It'll
have to compete with those other projects, and it'll be
interesting to.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
See that you're not saying no to it.
Speaker 4 (18:06):
Well, it's I don't have to say no to it.
I kind of I kind of like the idea of
a loan and maybe starting the conversation shows up with
some creative alternatives.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
Well, I said, this is a can of worms, isn't it.
I mean everyone gets all, you know, goes all gaga
over the ducks to lux But what about if we
find somebody else to go with gargar over? We put
rape Pal money into that as well.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
Well, I think you've got to if this is an investment,
you have to analyze the payoff for it.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
So I'd be brushed off if I was a hospitality
operator in christ Church and I saw the council pouring
ten million bucks into getting a premises up and running
and for another operator to run it. And granted castles
are talking about putting two million bucks into getting it
fitting it out, but really is it the job of
councils to do that.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
Well, I think that one thing is sure. If you've
got one business that's thriving, other businesses around it will thrive.
So it's not necessarily just about the bar, but the
other things that can go around it as well. So
if this is something the council chooses to invest in,
it should I think ultimately it should be in the
form of a loan, and it should be on the
(19:10):
basis that actually it will be more than just the bar.
Speaker 4 (19:14):
As part of the post earthquake revitalization of the central city,
which lots of people benefit from.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
So Frank, it's worth a.
Speaker 4 (19:22):
Conversation to build the cathedral again, don't mention the cathedral.
Speaker 2 (19:32):
Tive you to go have a good week. Ed. I
kind of agree with you, but I don't.
Speaker 4 (19:37):
Okay, I'm torn.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
All right, nicely, Thank you, Tracey Taal and thank you,
thank you. Politics Friday Back the same time next week.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
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 Talk z'b morning.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
It's that time. Twenty seven degrees is the hy today?
Is that what the result is going to be for
national when this pole coming out today? Vanessa Winning, I
wouldn't like to speculate. You like hold a with it,
don't you? I do like it all You like places
where it's well in the thirties, I do. I do,
all right, Very nice to see it. Tracy McClellan from
Labor Good morning, Good morning. So this idea of a
(00:34):
social media band, I've got no idea. Well, I do
know why the government's entertaining it because it sounds like
a good idea, and it sounds like a good idea,
but it's not trying to convince me otherwise. Vanessa.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Well, there is definite evidence of harm, and it's multifaceted
kinds of harm. It's not just children, it's everyone can
actually be exposed to that harm. But we think that
when there's something that's obviously harmful and harmful to people's brains,
then it should actually be something that has an age
gate on it. So that's where where you can actually
(01:08):
there are ways technologically ways to be able to achieve that.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Right, Okay, well, why aren't we waiting until Australia does
some evaluations of its band because it announced just this
week the E Safety Commissioner, Julie m and Grant says
there's going to be an evaluation following more than four
thousand children in family for more than two years. It's
going to be surveys, smartphone news tracking, capturing information of
(01:32):
time spent on and off online external data including school
test results, healthcare and drug prescription data. Why can't we
wait and it's going to be drip fed starting from
the end of this year, Why can't we wait to
get some of that factual information before we go down
some route that you know, you and I with respect
(01:53):
are of an age, but we don't really understand this.
So why for anything else for drug for drugs to
get administered with government funding, has to be proof, has
to be approved, that's safe for all of that. Why
wouldn't do the same with this?
Speaker 3 (02:07):
I think it's better to equate it to harm from
alcohol and harm from things like gambling or from our smoking,
where we know that there's harm and there's plenty of
evidence around that and how we tackle it needs to
be multifaceted, but just one thing.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
But we don't know yet whether this band not under
sixteen's works.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
It doesn't matter because it will matter. It will help
for some people. It doesn't matter what the level of changes.
Any change in this area is going to be helpful
and it signals to people that there is a problem,
and that is part of the education that we need
to do, is to be able to explain to people
(02:45):
about the fact that it's problematic and to show people
how they can prevent the harms that come a lot
go along with it and reap the benefits.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
There's also come. I'll come back to a point on that.
But Tracy McClellan, what's Labour's position on this proposed band.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
We are keen to work with the government on this
because we do agree that there's harm. Is this the solution?
I'm yet to be convinced, and that's part of the process.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Are you keen to work with the government because just
because it would look bad if he didn't.
Speaker 4 (03:17):
No, look and remember this started off as a member's bill,
So we're pleased that the government is picking it up
because it's going to take the heft of the government
resources to look at it properly. One thing I'm really
concerned about is that it's just a calms exercise. You know,
we don't want it to be just as signal to
well to say hey, look as we do with lots
(03:38):
of things, as human beings do. I'm not pointing the
finger at the government, but you know, when there's a
complicated problem, it's easy to say, well, here's the solution.
It sounds good. You know, we want to we want
to look behind under the hood. And I agree. I
think I'd love to hear what Australia is.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
So you think we should wait, I.
Speaker 4 (03:56):
Think it would. Why would we want to be first
in que We want we can learn from someone else's experience,
and I think that's part of the part of the
process we should be engage.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
So you would say, hold off until Australia has assessed
these four thousand kids and come back in two years
time with evidence whether it's worked or not.
Speaker 4 (04:16):
Well, it's this government that's already kicked the process off.
I don't know how long. You know what sort of
ability we've got to hold off on it, but certainly,
you know it's part of the discussion is do we
want to be in the best position possible to learn
from a close neighbor who's already gone down that path,
and what can we do differently and better to make
(04:37):
it actually work. Because I don't agree with Vanessa that
there's no harm here. There can be harm in any situation.
I know I spoke to people at Clubs Day at
uce O Week and you know a person came up
to me in particular and said, please be really careful
about this. This was a social media for me was
(04:59):
a real lifeline. And those are perspectives from young people
who know no different. The people who are under sixteen
have never lived a life without this.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
And that's the point that I want to come back
to Vanessa because I referred to it last. How Caroline
Thine is a mental health expert in Australia and she's
made this, provided this advice or made a warning to
any governments or countries looking at doing the same thing
as Australia. She says, quite considered teenagers as experts in
their own lives and include them in every single stage
(05:31):
of this if you're going to do it. What is
the governments approach in terms of including young people in
taking this the next step.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
We've looked at this issue very extensively. This is not
the first time that's been looked at. The evidence that
comes from I no, no, that's.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Not the answer of the question. It's all really extensive.
It's all very long to pick up evidence and read
stuff in the medical journal. But how are you going
to include young people in this?
Speaker 3 (05:55):
Well, that's always a really challenging thing to do. Not
necessarily just young for people is actually doing what's called
sort of creative and collaborative design. Not always an easy
thing to do, but I think that that would be
part of what we would try to achieve, is having
some young people's voice in that process. I think it
(06:17):
would be important because it's not.
Speaker 4 (06:18):
Just about important, it's not.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
Just about the ban. That's only a very small part
of what has been recommended. And what's the more important
part I think of what's been recommended is actually having
an online regulator that can actually move quickly to adapt
to things that are happening. Also that advertising restrictions for
advertising to young people, I think that's more important. And
(06:44):
there's the education programs and getting people involved in it
that I think is much more important than the age
gating or social media ban.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Tric a regular that sounds to me like something that
the left side of politics would would bring in someone
to be the boss. I mean, I don't see this
working at all.
Speaker 4 (07:04):
But we've always had spaces in the physical environment where
we've said children shouldn't be here, and this is a
different environment. But it's perfectly reasonable to look at the
spaces that young people are occupying, and in this case
it's a digital space, but it's you know, it's a
huge part of life. So I think we need to,
(07:25):
you know, we need to throw everything at getting this
right because it's important.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Okay, what about the warnings from the sis yes today
that there's a real risk of teenage boys basically being
mobilized online and getting involved and put some pretty extreme stuff.
What's the word. I'm trying to think the word radicalized online? Yeah,
So how would a regulator stop that sort of thing happening?
Speaker 3 (07:52):
Vanessa, Well, that's the kind of thing where we can
have more intelligence, more understanding of what's going on, and
be able to step in and shut down these if
it's a website or if it's a communication channel, able
to do that quickly.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Don't you think though, that that's sort of that sort
of talk, Tracy sounds classic. And I'll use a term
that someone who's in Touch Touch last hour used typical
sort of boomer talk. And I'm not saying you're a boomer,
but it's typical boomer talk thinking you can control stuff
when an actual fact, when it comes to online you
can't control it.
Speaker 4 (08:25):
And it's part of a bigger problem, isn't it, Because
that's a symptom. If people are being radicalized online and
they're consuming information and being indoctrinated into into radical kind
of thinking, they're not being heard and they're not being
valued as part of society. So you know that social
cohesion is important for us to tackle in various different way.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Well, that's what and that's what ACT is saying Vanessa
that by having a social media band you can push
kids towards these pretty extreme online alternatives.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
I think ACT and their way of viewing this has
been quite mixed. Actually, it's interesting that one of their
members has a bill trying to ban kind of newify apps,
or at least ban the exchange and the and being
able to cheek fakes and all of that, and at
(09:22):
the same time disagreeing with the I think they've really
mixed in there.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
Leave you guys to sort that out. You can talk
about that behind closed doors and let us know how
you get on. Can you make it any clearer the
government's position on Iran or the invasion of Iran? Vanessa Winnick, so,
because it's been a bit muddled.
Speaker 3 (09:46):
So the government's position on Iran is that we support
the Iranian people and their safety and their security. Their
previous leader was a despot and had been attacking and
killing thousands of their own people. It's up to America
(10:08):
to be able to say what the reasons for their
attack are and to be able to justify that. At
this stage, it's still pretty early. We don't know how
long this conflict will last, and we'll wait to hear
and see more evidence around that.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Tracy McClellan, Well to your response to that, has the
government being clear? Helen Clark says, a disgrace.
Speaker 4 (10:34):
There's no doubt that the people of Iran have endured
a brutal regime for a long time, and you know,
you've got to, you know, you've got to think about
what's what they're going through at the moment. But a
rules based system grounded in international law is important and
(10:55):
it matters, and so I think you can hold those
two positions at the same time, feeling incredibly sympathetic towards
what the Iranian people have gone through, but still feel
that a response that is in line with international law
is important.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
Vanessa, Does international law still matter?
Speaker 3 (11:16):
Yes, absolutely, and don't disagree about that at all. What
we're saying is that we don't know what that what
those that evidence and the what the the intelligence was
that the Americans.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
Well the White House, the White House said two days
ago that the President had a quote good feeling that
Arama is going to do something.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
Right.
Speaker 2 (11:38):
Well, well, was that was that a good level of
intel for you.
Speaker 3 (11:42):
To Well, I'd still wait to see what the actual
intelligence was.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
So you can't. You can't run walls based on vibes,
can you.
Speaker 3 (11:50):
Well, that's not the usual way of doing it.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
So therefore should should New Zealand be stronger its position? Tracy?
I mean, we were the country, as I said the
other day, we were the country that told the Yanks
were to put their nuclear powered ships, and.
Speaker 4 (12:03):
We've got a long history of standing up for that
rule space order in that international law. It's a system
that we've got a vested interest in. We're not big,
we're not mighty. This is the system that we should
be standing up for because it's within our best interest
and it's the right thing to do. So I think
we have to be quite unequivocal about the importance of
(12:24):
that when we make those statements, and we've had a
long history of very shared bipartisan agreement on that, so
we were a bit dismayed that it wasn't as clearly
pot as it could be at the time.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
All right, let's talk about Christopher Luckston or Cameron Likes
Cameron Luckstein, who was the ACTMP, who wants some sort
of accelerated liquor accelerated changes to the liquor laws and
time for the opening of the stadium in christ Church
on Anzac weekends so the bars can stay open late.
What's your position on that, Vanessa, Well, is that a
(12:56):
very good reason to rush law change?
Speaker 3 (12:59):
Actually, I'm very supportive of the idea because this is
going to be a huge moment for christ Church. This
is going to be massive celebration. People will want to
be able to get out and enjoy that, and the
bars will be able to want to take advantage. So
I have a lot of sympathy for that position. And
there is a private bill going through, a member's bill
(13:22):
going through under Karen mcnaughty's name, which I think would
solve the issue.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Oh what would happen?
Speaker 4 (13:28):
You might know the until the Yeah, So it's a
member's bill that looks at not only Good Friday, but
and zach Day and Christmas. You know those days where
there's those different kind of rules. So it's essentially saying,
let's not have those different kind of rules on those days.
And so Cameron's amendment is exactly what it is. It's
(13:52):
an amendment to that to say, while we're considering that,
why don't we chuck in this day that's kind of
bespoke to the opening of our stadium, so that businesses
in christ Church could also benefit from that.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
So do you both agree then that it should be
fine for bars to open on intac Day and Easter
Sunday and Christmas Day? Is that what you're both saying?
Speaker 3 (14:12):
Well, I've already voted in support in the first reading
and are up to the second reading.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Yet you'll vote yes anyway? What about you, Tracy, I've
yet to vote in support. Are you yet to decide No.
Speaker 4 (14:25):
Well, I've by not voting in support, I have voted
no on the two occasions. I'm still open to the
possibility that i might be persuaded, but my first instinct
is always to be pretty conservative about alcohol legislation. That
is a conscience vote. I've still got one or two
(14:45):
hurdles to sort of get over.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Which day is the biggest hurdle for you? Anzac Day,
the Easter, Good Friday, the Easter Sunday.
Speaker 4 (14:53):
Good ristas Good Friday. Yeah, And maybe it's because I've
always I've done more than my fair share of working
in hospitality where you know you don't get that many
nights off, and then Good Friday rolls a round. It's
only for diners, it's not for drinkers. Reduced roster on
night off.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
So it sounds like a weird, weird reason to basic legislation,
not a weird reason back at the hotel when you
were a student.
Speaker 4 (15:19):
No, Well, the bill suggests that it won't make any
difference to hospitality workers, or it would only involve businesses
that are already open. But it does change the dynamic
between who's going out. Are they diners or are they drinkers?
And I'm just yet to be convinced that we can't
have a couple of days a year where we.
Speaker 2 (15:37):
Are drinking at home.
Speaker 4 (15:38):
We restrict we restrict that, but I could change my mind.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
One more thing to tick off. The Arts Center has
got its handout for ten million dollars from the christi
At City Council to do the Old Ducks Deluxe Hub Vanessa.
Should they get the.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
Money, Well, I think it depends on what kind of
form the money comes in. If it comes in the
form of a loan that's then paid back, I think
that's that could be.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
Loans. Does one handouts?
Speaker 3 (16:04):
Well, you know, I'm not in favor of handouts generally
because I think that's not necessarily the best way of
doing things. And if the council wants to spend money
on this, it's their prerogative, but I think they should
be cautious about how they do that with rate payers money.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Exactly, Tracy.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
That list is getting along of the projects we're going
to have to choose between. But therein lies the beauty
of consultation. It'll be interesting to you. It will be
interesting to see what people that feeling. It's feeling like
one of those reality TV shows where you've got all
these contestants lining up and only the only the well
the money get real.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
What's your view on it? Come on?
Speaker 4 (16:48):
I mean I ultimately want to see a thrive in
christ Church where all of our facilities are well utilized.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
An answer, But ten.
Speaker 4 (16:56):
Million dollars is a lot of money, and it's competing
against some pretty hefty other projects.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Still not an answer. I could have told you that
what's your personal position? Ten million dollars a rap per
money to do up the Ducks Deluxe.
Speaker 4 (17:07):
But what if then the Ducks Deluxe thrives with castles
at a great venue, and and it pays it back?
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Tracy, you're not position. You can sell what you want.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
Come on, pay it back if it's alone.
Speaker 4 (17:19):
Well, maybe it is alone. Maybe we've solved the problem here.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
And is it the job of rate payers to get
an old pub back up and running? Really? Is it?
Speaker 4 (17:27):
I can't imagine. It's hugely high on people's priorities at
the moment. So it'll be interesting to see what what
that consultation throws up.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
And what about christ Church citizen Tracy McClellan, take off
your MP hat Is it high on her priority?
Speaker 4 (17:41):
Oh? Look, I'm kind of inclined towards it. Why Well,
I just think I love the art center. I love
that area of christ Church. I think we should be
doing whatever we can to move and shake and thrive.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
So rate Power money. You're on a pub.
Speaker 4 (17:59):
No, I don't think it's as simple as that. It'll
have to compete with those other projects, and it'll be
interesting to.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
See that you're not saying no to it.
Speaker 4 (18:06):
Well, it's I don't have to say no to it.
I kind of I kind of like the idea of
a loan and maybe starting the conversation shows up with
some creative alternatives.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
Well, I said, this is a can of worms, isn't it.
I mean everyone gets all, you know, goes all gaga
over the ducks to lux But what about if we
find somebody else to go with gargar over? We put
rape Pal money into that as well.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
Well, I think you've got to if this is an investment,
you have to analyze the payoff for it.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
So I'd be brushed off if I was a hospitality
operator in christ Church and I saw the council pouring
ten million bucks into getting a premises up and running
and for another operator to run it. And granted castles
are talking about putting two million bucks into getting it
fitting it out, but really is it the job of
councils to do that.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
Well, I think that one thing is sure. If you've
got one business that's thriving, other businesses around it will thrive.
So it's not necessarily just about the bar, but the
other things that can go around it as well. So
if this is something the council chooses to invest in,
it should I think ultimately it should be in the
form of a loan, and it should be on the
(19:10):
basis that actually it will be more than just the bar.
Speaker 4 (19:14):
As part of the post earthquake revitalization of the central city,
which lots of people benefit from.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
So Frank, it's worth a.
Speaker 4 (19:22):
Conversation to build the cathedral again, don't mention the cathedral.
Speaker 2 (19:32):
Tive you to go have a good week. Ed. I
kind of agree with you, but I don't.
Speaker 4 (19:37):
Okay, I'm torn.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
All right, nicely, Thank you, Tracey Taal and thank you,
thank you. Politics Friday Back the same time next week.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
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.
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
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!