National's Vanessa Weenink and Labour's Reuben Davidson joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.
They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from fast-track projects, Air New Zealand being deep in the red, and if Pharmac should fund weight loss drugs such as Wegovy.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Morning's Podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk z'b.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Ruben Davidson is on Manchester Street. That was the last
we heard of it, and now he is about to
walk into the studio, kid, I Ruben, good morning, man alive.
Can't it get fine? But you've got a very good excuse,
Vanessa Winnick, Johnie, you've got a very good excuse as well.
I bet agather you both tried to fly into christ
Church last night but you had to fly back to Wellington.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Is that right?
Speaker 3 (00:33):
I tried to fly into christ Church this morning, right,
I wasn't trying to fly in last night.
Speaker 4 (00:38):
I flew and tried to fly in last night and
then flew in this morning that we circled before we landed.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Yeah, well see if I do something, I do it.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Well, hey, we'll talk about it. I'm assuming you were
on in New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
I was on in New Zealand. I was on New Zealand.
I flew over Pegasus.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Oh right, topics, very topical warning in your New Zealand
playing flying over Pegasus. And then Vanessa would have flown
over Pegasus and she'd still be going nuts on Facebook
about the cathedral funding. I'm trying to tie I'm trying
to tie the.
Speaker 4 (01:13):
Visualization expert any way to chat GPT.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
We'll get we'll get right back to all of that.
Let's start with Pegasus. What's what's your view? We'll start
with you Vanessa residents. With the prospect of the golf
course being sold today to a housing development company, do
the residents have any right to complain that the nature
of the area is going to be lost?
Speaker 4 (01:38):
Well, that's a really important question, isn't it. Do they
have a right to complain about somebody else's property rights.
I think that if it's about an environmental impact that
is going to change something about the waterways, or change
the air quality, something like that. If they were going
(02:01):
to build a big stinking factory there, something like that,
then you might question it. If they're complaining because they
no longer have a green leafy, you know, big lawn
outside them, I'm not sure that that's got the same
kind of level of concern. You know, there's a difference
(02:22):
between the the impact of an industry and environmental noise
or pollutants versus the visual impact of something.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Right, because Ruben on your side of town Rawis did
domain a few years back that was talking about building
houses there or the Rabis golf course. I say, building
building houses there, and there was big pushback, wasn't there?
Speaker 3 (02:47):
What Yeah, that's going back awee way, but there was.
I think the question here is what were people sold
and who sold it to them? So when people bought
properties at Pegasus and we probably all remember that amazing
scale model it needs to be over at Addington that
was like the Truman Show. And and so what were
people told that they were going to get and what's
changing and why is it changing and who's changing it?
(03:10):
All relevant questions. The most important thing I think that
we need to you know, the elephant in the room
here is fast track because if the change to the
land use of the golf course is going to be
put through the fast track process that Vanessa's team have
pushed through in government, then the community who live next
door will have little to no say about what happens
(03:35):
just over the fence. And I think that communities everywhere,
when significant change happens, want to and deserve to be
involved in the decision.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
Justice just on that. That's interesting because the same thing
appears to be happening with the old Apollo Projects stadium
in the Christian City Council voting this week to fast
track that. What say do you think, Well, how do
you feel about the people not getting to have a
say on that particular development, Vanessa.
Speaker 4 (04:01):
Well, when it comes down to it, it's not that
environmental concerns and concern of people around and the effects
on other people aren't taken into consideration. What it means
is by fast tracking a process, there's certainty of yes
or no to going ahead and a lot faster time
frame than can happen under the current drawn out processes
(04:24):
of lots of engagement and involvement. So it's not true
to say that the considerations of people around are not
taken into account because they are reflected.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
Yeah, I know, And the councils in regard to the
temporary stadium, the council's making all the right noisees saying oh,
you know, we could do this, but you know, at
some point people will get to have their say. But
I mean that's lip service, isn't it. Well, I don't know,
as they're making this assumption that this is what they
want to do. They want to turn it into retail
and housing with an actual fact surely, And we've heard
(04:55):
on the show there are a whole range of different
opinions as to what should happen to that area.
Speaker 4 (04:58):
I think there's always going to be a huge range
of opinions about what should happen to an area. The
question will be what's the moment useful for the community,
what's filling the needs of the community around there the best?
Speaker 3 (05:13):
So then the question is who's best place to make
that decision? The community impacted or give up in Wellington
And by your argument, the council is making it up
in Wellington. The council is making that decision and that
they are very much.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
Though this is their realm. What's the word for it?
Is there room within the fast track legislation and approach
or whatever you want to call it, is there room
for the government to say, actually, have you asked so
and so, have you done this, have you done that?
Or is it just does the government receive the application
and receive and judge on paper.
Speaker 4 (05:49):
It's not the government is done independently, but.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
The process does the process process.
Speaker 4 (05:55):
Does involve saying, you know, what's the amenity value, what's
the who's been discussed with already you know, all of
those considerations are part of it. So when you go
along and say we're ready to go, you're ready to
go because you've already talked with the council, and the
council have talked with everyone else about what are the
best options. This is not about just ram roading things through.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
But it still isn't it, Reuben. It's still the council,
for example, on the on the temporary stadium example, it's
still the council saying we want to do this. Tell
us what you think.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
Yeah, and it is despite what Vanessa says, it is
about taking out environmental considerations, environmental measures, and community engagement
and involvement. You've said that yourself and your answers.
Speaker 4 (06:39):
It's taking out the taking out a litigation. It takes
years and years to get anything done.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
Some people will be hoping or wishing we could fast
track the cathedral. We'll get to that one very shortly.
I want to mention though, too, because I said just
before ten you won't believe what Vanessa is wearing, and
I see you're channeling. You're in a Duncan web and
you've got a blue Swaney. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (07:03):
Well, actually this is anyone who's got a rural electorate
in the in the National Party. Yes, a Swanye, you
know the rural nets. We're Swanny and.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
One of the uber Nites get a kept cup.
Speaker 3 (07:16):
Actually we have got they get a change to housing
so they don't notice the leaf.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Excellent. All right, Let's start with you, Vanessa, because you
tested the show the other day. You must have been
listening and you texted me I did you weren't happy
about the more public money going into the Crusti's Cathedral.
Speaker 4 (07:34):
No, I think it would be an irresponsible way to
spend public money.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
Because the council money which they've put on the table
is dependent on the government coming to the party as well.
I mean unless Winston Peters lives up to his promise,
of which.
Speaker 4 (07:52):
He never has before, and we're not going to look
he's relying on the fiscal responsibility of the Finance Minister
and the fact that we have already said once that
we're not going to fund the cathedral rule any further.
And because it's owned by the church, it's not a
(08:13):
project that is shall we say, safely organized and perfectly costed.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
What do you mean by that?
Speaker 4 (08:24):
What I mean by that is that once they started,
I bet that it'll end up costing more than the
projected amounts, and that is not a good way to
spend public money. You know, we've got to make decisions
about how we spend all of the money that we have,
which is, you know, a reasonable amount of money. But
(08:44):
we are not a wealthy nation that can just splash
money around. I think the fact that the previous labor
government wouldn't fund it, and they were splashing cash around
like it was nobody's business. They even knew it wasn't
a good idea and they wouldn't fund it. So I
think that should be pretty instructive to anyone.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
I'll come back to what you've come up with on
chat GPT for the cathedral, but a.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
Bit of a fact you aligned a bit of a
fact check. We in government, labor and government committed twenty
five million dollars towards the project. So I think that's
a not insignificant amount of cash that was committed to
the restoration of the cathedral. So and where we've got
to now with the cathedral is that obviously there's still
work to do. I was very interested to see that
(09:28):
your post and your imagineering of what you think could
happen with the cathedral. But one of the most interesting
things in that post was the fact that you said
that there's really a lack of agreement between your local
christ Church National Party MPs about what to do with
the cathedral, and I think that's a point where we differ.
We've been really clear as a team that we've made
(09:49):
a commitment previously of twenty five million dollars when we
were in government. Right now, families across christ Church are
doing it really tough, and we hear about that daily
through our electric offices, and I don't think that the
appropriate priority for ratepayers Bend at this point in time
is putting more money towards that project.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Tax payers as well, you're not in favor of that.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
Look, we made a really significant contribution in government towards
the restoration of the cathedral. And the other point I'd
come to John and we talked about this, I think
last time we talked about the cathedral is that fixing
the cathedral won't automatically switch on an activation light in
the square. And if the city council wants to take
responsibility for activating the city center, they really need to
(10:33):
be thinking about what they can do with investing maybe
just some time and not a whole lot of money
into activating that central city space because it's still you know,
you walk through it and you think there could be
more going on here and yeah, and so I think
that's where the focus should be.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
So both major parties the councils in Lala Land thinking
that we government money coming, Is that right? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (10:58):
Well, I'm not sure.
Speaker 4 (10:59):
From I mean, actually we actually haven't seen a proposal
and the National Party hasn't got a position on this.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
But even though the Finance Minister does.
Speaker 4 (11:08):
Oh, the Finances has got a pretty clear position, right,
So I think by the National Party's position, well, we
haven't we haven't seen this latest proposal is what I'm saying. Then,
But we've been very clear in the past. I don't
think we're going to change that position.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
You would think when you of the council would talk
to the government first before coming out with us and
then saying it's like telethorone saying, you know, fifteen mil
from us. If the government puts in fifteen mil and
we'll get the belly whistlers in as well.
Speaker 4 (11:32):
Well, you'd think that they've come up with a city
and regional deal proposal that might include some things along
those lines, and if they do, then I'm sure that
we'll consider it, but pretty sure that if the cathedral
is included in that, that wouldn't be something we would
say yessed to.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
All right, just brief you tell us what you for.
People who haven't seen your post on Facebook, and you've
got you've been on old chat GPT. So basically what
you're saying is build something around the existing structure.
Speaker 4 (12:00):
What I say is use the money that we've got
to create something that we can with the money that
we have. And there's plenty of ways to imagine that,
and I'm sure that there's architectural plans or architectural designs
out there that could be much better. And so a
quick chat GPT image to go with a Facebook post
(12:22):
is a great way of getting engagement what we call.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Fast trek or right bait or CLICKBAITA right, ma'am. Some
people got excited about it, as they as they would.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
Local news, Local Issues, Local Views, Category Mornings with John
McDonald and Orange Homes, Your Home Designed for Life forty
five years strong news talk. Sa'd be.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
Oh, who shall so I say what I just said?
It got Reuben laughing.
Speaker 3 (12:49):
It made me laugh a lot, John, But I don't
think you should say it. Well, actually you could say
it on here if you like.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
But I don't know.
Speaker 4 (12:54):
I don't. I think the time's passed and comedy is
all about timing.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
John was only thirty seconds. We'll save it for the
podcast anyway. Everyone's got a podcast. I don't behind the
scenes of politics Friday. It was quite good, though, wasn't it.
It was quite good what I.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Said, It was quick and it was cutting well.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
Vanessa said that she doesn't like big crowds.
Speaker 4 (13:16):
She did say that noisy crowds, noisy crowd crowds.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
And I said, you'll be fine in your caucus after
the election.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
And for the record, you were looking at Vanessa when.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
You see that, and then i'd better heard you laugh.
I did laugh. You did laugh. Right, Let's talk about
a couple of things, A couple of big things in
the news today, taxpayer funding for we Go VI, the
weight loss drug. So with you, Ruben, what's your philosophical
position on that.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
My philosophical position is that politicians should stay out of
this stuff. It's really problematic when we start picking winners
and talking about things that we will fund and won't
fund and rolling things in and out. The FARMAC model
is established because there's never enough money to pay for
all the drugs and medicines we need, and it allows
(14:02):
an independent regulator to prioritize what we do need and
what we can forward. And that is a really, really
difficult balancing act. It's best that professionals with expertise do that.
And I think what we saw in the last election,
when you know, National promised a bunch of drugs that
they then couldn't deliver for cancer treatments, is absolutely devastating
for those people that are impacted by it. So bottom line,
(14:25):
politicians stay out of it.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
Or are you are noting their Vanessa you.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
I hate to say it, but I am in violent
agreement with most of what Reuben said about FARMAC, and
I totally agree that politicians us to stay out of
it and not build expectations. Let it be up to
FARMAC to decide if they're saying that they may consider
it and do it. Just let them do it, and
(14:52):
just let them get on with it. It's I think
it's not a bad choice of a medication to fund,
but it's actually if it's one that Farmak has decided
that they might choose to fund it's because they've looked
at the clinical ben the and also the economic benefits
of it. And that's how it should be decided, not
(15:13):
by any pressuring by either the public or politician.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
Right, but philosophically, where do you stand in terms of
funding weight loss drugs per se tax public funding of
weight loss drugs.
Speaker 4 (15:28):
Obesity is one of the greatest causes of both heart
disease and cancer, and it's not This is not about
a lifestyle medication. This is about preventing diabetes and preventing
heart disease and some forms of cancer. So actually, in
terms of a public health measure, it would potentially I
haven't seen all of the the economics or any of
(15:51):
that about it, but when it comes to a public
health measure, it may actually be an extraordinarily good investment.
But again I'm not an expert on that, so it's
not about it's not but I'm not a health economist
and I'm not a I'm not a medicine But if
far Mak have said that this is a good idea
(16:12):
and something that they want to consider, then somebody has
done all of that analysis and so that's what I
would back. I would back Farmac's decisions one hundred percent.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
As a GPO, would you recommend a weight loss drug
to a.
Speaker 4 (16:26):
Patient as long as there were no contraindications to them? You?
So I would.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
What does that mean?
Speaker 4 (16:31):
So as long as there were no reasons that they
couldn't take it there would be bad for their health.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
Because I've heard anecdotally that people are doing some weird
stuff with things like couples, for example, to save costs,
that they're sharing the sharing the old needle and the
pen and splitting the drug between them. I mean that
there is room for some pretty dodge o behavior, isn't.
Speaker 4 (16:51):
There There's room for dodgo behavior with all medicines. Frankly,
people make decisions around how they do things that I
wouldn't necessarily recommend or endorse. But that doesn't mean to
say that it's not a a useful tool and useful
medicine for a lot of people.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
And I'm coming to you but just taking advantage of
your medical background, Vanessa, are you convinced that these drugs
are safe?
Speaker 4 (17:17):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (17:18):
Yes, yep, Reuben, When in terms of you you're talking
about keeping the politics out of it, but philosophically in
terms of taxpayers funding medication to help people lose weight.
Are you you're with that or you're uncomfortable.
Speaker 3 (17:32):
Look, I'm not as qualified as Vanessa medically to answer
the question, but I do know without needing to be
medically qualified, that obesity is a significant health risk for
New Zealanders, and so there are many health risks for
New Zealanders. The role of FARMAC is to assess what
they can make available, what they can afford with the
envelope provided by central government, and it absolutely shouldn't be
(17:53):
up to them to best navigate the healthiest possible future
for New Zealanders.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
With that, all right, one final thing in New Zealand,
they're in the stock. You flew with them last night
and the smalling, happy customers, but they're in the stock.
Do we still need the National Airline Vanessa?
Speaker 4 (18:08):
Oh yeah, we do? Why because in New Zealand is
not just about moving people around New Zealand. It's about
getting people from overseas to New Zealand, but also a
lot of our products, A lot of our freight goes
on some of those flights as well. There we need
to have it. I think we need to have a
national airline. I think without it it would be an
(18:30):
absolute disaster.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
But if you look at the airlines that fly to
christ Church on a daily basis and fly in men,
there are all manner of airlines which will be carrying
our freight to the world for example. I mean, I
just want to get down to it, because it's very
easy to think it'll be terrible not to have a
national airline. But what's the argument for holding on to
something which is in a very bad situation right now?
(18:54):
What's the argument for it? Because I know that one
of you all Coalition colleagues, David Seymour, says get rid
of it.
Speaker 4 (19:01):
Well, part of me is reflexively thinking that the argument
that I would instantly have as because Seymour said that
we shouldn't have it, then we should probably keep it.
But that's that's a bit, that's that's a very flippant answer, because.
Speaker 3 (19:16):
I think I.
Speaker 4 (19:20):
Think we actually need to consider This is not something
that I'm an expert in. But you know, those other
airlines are not flying to and Todong, are they They're
not flying to Timaru or in Vicago. So we need
to be able to think about the fact that our
international business for in New Zealand helps to cross subsidize
(19:43):
some of the other parts of the business that may
not be as economically viable, and we need to be
able to connect our country.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
Do you have confidence that the company can turn itself around?
Speaker 4 (19:52):
They have done it before, so I think they.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
Will the government intervention, they will do it again. Would
you support any government intervention?
Speaker 4 (19:59):
I haven't seen any case for that. I haven't.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
No, you don't have to. I haven't seen a case either,
but I'll have a view. But do you think there
should be a government bailout?
Speaker 4 (20:08):
I think that we need to keep our country connected,
and I think that those economic comparatives around the regions
are extremely important, so we need to Then we would
have to look at it. We'd have to look at
it from a holistic point of view.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
Where are you, Reuben on this? First of all, the
inditional question, do we still need a national airline?
Speaker 3 (20:29):
Absolutely we do. It's vital infrastructure for New Zealand. It's
a crucial regional connector. It underpins a lot of our
economic activity and our economic development. Losing it would be unimaginable.
Privatizing it would be unimaginable. Just because willis and nux
and have bugged up the budget. Shouldn't be an excuse
for Seaware to.
Speaker 4 (20:49):
See budget, have you No, I haven't seen the budget. Budget.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Just on that. How soon do you see it?
Speaker 4 (20:57):
We see it about the same time as the journalists
see it. When they go into a lockup, we get
into a lock up as well.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Okay, all right, so so Reuben, you so hold on
to it is in final question for you, are you
confident the company can turn itself around.
Speaker 3 (21:11):
In New Zealand? Yeah, I mean they have before. It's
a really challenging environment for them. But I think I
think they've got great leadership, They've got an excellent team,
and they have cut their cloth in some places recently.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
I mean they're talking about the god Reserve Fund, you know,
so things aren't die. They've got a billion dollars I
think it was or on the news last night. Do
you think some form of support from its major shareholder
would be justified?
Speaker 3 (21:36):
It might be, but that would be a decision for
the government of the day to make when they are
able to see all of the facts in front of them.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
All right, nice to see you, Reubin. Great you finally
made it here.
Speaker 3 (21:47):
Always a pleasure to be here. And can I just
say a massive shout out to the New Zealand Post
team or actually the post and bookshop down on steam
More Road no longer the New Zealand Post team after
they withdrew their services after one hundred and forty years yesterday,
and that post shop now becomes a book which I
(22:07):
think is a huge loss for the community that it
serves really disappointing to see stay doned enterprise walk away.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
All right, enjoy your weekend, Vanessa, enjoy yours.
Speaker 4 (22:15):
Yeah, thanks so much.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
John. It's gonna be another massive one in the city.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
Six sixty.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
We got to be here now. Nice't to you too, though,
Thank you very much. Politics Friday.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Back next week 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 Morning's Podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk z'b.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Ruben Davidson is on Manchester Street. That was the last
we heard of it, and now he is about to
walk into the studio, kid, I Ruben, good morning, man alive.
Can't it get fine? But you've got a very good excuse,
Vanessa Winnick, Johnie, you've got a very good excuse as well.
I bet agather you both tried to fly into christ
Church last night but you had to fly back to Wellington.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Is that right?
Speaker 3 (00:33):
I tried to fly into christ Church this morning, right,
I wasn't trying to fly in last night.
Speaker 4 (00:38):
I flew and tried to fly in last night and
then flew in this morning that we circled before we landed.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Yeah, well see if I do something, I do it.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Well, hey, we'll talk about it. I'm assuming you were
on in New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
I was on in New Zealand. I was on New Zealand.
I flew over Pegasus.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Oh right, topics, very topical warning in your New Zealand
playing flying over Pegasus. And then Vanessa would have flown
over Pegasus and she'd still be going nuts on Facebook
about the cathedral funding. I'm trying to tie I'm trying
to tie the.
Speaker 4 (01:13):
Visualization expert any way to chat GPT.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
We'll get we'll get right back to all of that.
Let's start with Pegasus. What's what's your view? We'll start
with you Vanessa residents. With the prospect of the golf
course being sold today to a housing development company, do
the residents have any right to complain that the nature
of the area is going to be lost?
Speaker 4 (01:38):
Well, that's a really important question, isn't it. Do they
have a right to complain about somebody else's property rights.
I think that if it's about an environmental impact that
is going to change something about the waterways, or change
the air quality, something like that. If they were going
(02:01):
to build a big stinking factory there, something like that,
then you might question it. If they're complaining because they
no longer have a green leafy, you know, big lawn
outside them, I'm not sure that that's got the same
kind of level of concern. You know, there's a difference
(02:22):
between the the impact of an industry and environmental noise
or pollutants versus the visual impact of something.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Right, because Ruben on your side of town Rawis did
domain a few years back that was talking about building
houses there or the Rabis golf course. I say, building
building houses there, and there was big pushback, wasn't there?
Speaker 3 (02:47):
What Yeah, that's going back awee way, but there was.
I think the question here is what were people sold
and who sold it to them? So when people bought
properties at Pegasus and we probably all remember that amazing
scale model it needs to be over at Addington that
was like the Truman Show. And and so what were
people told that they were going to get and what's
changing and why is it changing and who's changing it?
(03:10):
All relevant questions. The most important thing I think that
we need to you know, the elephant in the room
here is fast track because if the change to the
land use of the golf course is going to be
put through the fast track process that Vanessa's team have
pushed through in government, then the community who live next
door will have little to no say about what happens
(03:35):
just over the fence. And I think that communities everywhere,
when significant change happens, want to and deserve to be
involved in the decision.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
Justice just on that. That's interesting because the same thing
appears to be happening with the old Apollo Projects stadium
in the Christian City Council voting this week to fast
track that. What say do you think, Well, how do
you feel about the people not getting to have a
say on that particular development, Vanessa.
Speaker 4 (04:01):
Well, when it comes down to it, it's not that
environmental concerns and concern of people around and the effects
on other people aren't taken into consideration. What it means
is by fast tracking a process, there's certainty of yes
or no to going ahead and a lot faster time
frame than can happen under the current drawn out processes
(04:24):
of lots of engagement and involvement. So it's not true
to say that the considerations of people around are not
taken into account because they are reflected.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
Yeah, I know, And the councils in regard to the
temporary stadium, the council's making all the right noisees saying oh,
you know, we could do this, but you know, at
some point people will get to have their say. But
I mean that's lip service, isn't it. Well, I don't know,
as they're making this assumption that this is what they
want to do. They want to turn it into retail
and housing with an actual fact surely, And we've heard
(04:55):
on the show there are a whole range of different
opinions as to what should happen to that area.
Speaker 4 (04:58):
I think there's always going to be a huge range
of opinions about what should happen to an area. The
question will be what's the moment useful for the community,
what's filling the needs of the community around there the best?
Speaker 3 (05:13):
So then the question is who's best place to make
that decision? The community impacted or give up in Wellington
And by your argument, the council is making it up
in Wellington. The council is making that decision and that
they are very much.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
Though this is their realm. What's the word for it?
Is there room within the fast track legislation and approach
or whatever you want to call it, is there room
for the government to say, actually, have you asked so
and so, have you done this, have you done that?
Or is it just does the government receive the application
and receive and judge on paper.
Speaker 4 (05:49):
It's not the government is done independently, but.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
The process does the process process.
Speaker 4 (05:55):
Does involve saying, you know, what's the amenity value, what's
the who's been discussed with already you know, all of
those considerations are part of it. So when you go
along and say we're ready to go, you're ready to
go because you've already talked with the council, and the
council have talked with everyone else about what are the
best options. This is not about just ram roading things through.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
But it still isn't it, Reuben. It's still the council,
for example, on the on the temporary stadium example, it's
still the council saying we want to do this. Tell
us what you think.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
Yeah, and it is despite what Vanessa says, it is
about taking out environmental considerations, environmental measures, and community engagement
and involvement. You've said that yourself and your answers.
Speaker 4 (06:39):
It's taking out the taking out a litigation. It takes
years and years to get anything done.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
Some people will be hoping or wishing we could fast
track the cathedral. We'll get to that one very shortly.
I want to mention though, too, because I said just
before ten you won't believe what Vanessa is wearing, and
I see you're channeling. You're in a Duncan web and
you've got a blue Swaney. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (07:03):
Well, actually this is anyone who's got a rural electorate
in the in the National Party. Yes, a Swanye, you
know the rural nets. We're Swanny and.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
One of the uber Nites get a kept cup.
Speaker 3 (07:16):
Actually we have got they get a change to housing
so they don't notice the leaf.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Excellent. All right, Let's start with you, Vanessa, because you
tested the show the other day. You must have been
listening and you texted me I did you weren't happy
about the more public money going into the Crusti's Cathedral.
Speaker 4 (07:34):
No, I think it would be an irresponsible way to
spend public money.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
Because the council money which they've put on the table
is dependent on the government coming to the party as well.
I mean unless Winston Peters lives up to his promise,
of which.
Speaker 4 (07:52):
He never has before, and we're not going to look
he's relying on the fiscal responsibility of the Finance Minister
and the fact that we have already said once that
we're not going to fund the cathedral rule any further.
And because it's owned by the church, it's not a
(08:13):
project that is shall we say, safely organized and perfectly costed.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
What do you mean by that?
Speaker 4 (08:24):
What I mean by that is that once they started,
I bet that it'll end up costing more than the
projected amounts, and that is not a good way to
spend public money. You know, we've got to make decisions
about how we spend all of the money that we have,
which is, you know, a reasonable amount of money. But
(08:44):
we are not a wealthy nation that can just splash
money around. I think the fact that the previous labor
government wouldn't fund it, and they were splashing cash around
like it was nobody's business. They even knew it wasn't
a good idea and they wouldn't fund it. So I
think that should be pretty instructive to anyone.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
I'll come back to what you've come up with on
chat GPT for the cathedral, but a.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
Bit of a fact you aligned a bit of a
fact check. We in government, labor and government committed twenty
five million dollars towards the project. So I think that's
a not insignificant amount of cash that was committed to
the restoration of the cathedral. So and where we've got
to now with the cathedral is that obviously there's still
work to do. I was very interested to see that
(09:28):
your post and your imagineering of what you think could
happen with the cathedral. But one of the most interesting
things in that post was the fact that you said
that there's really a lack of agreement between your local
christ Church National Party MPs about what to do with
the cathedral, and I think that's a point where we differ.
We've been really clear as a team that we've made
(09:49):
a commitment previously of twenty five million dollars when we
were in government. Right now, families across christ Church are
doing it really tough, and we hear about that daily
through our electric offices, and I don't think that the
appropriate priority for ratepayers Bend at this point in time
is putting more money towards that project.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Tax payers as well, you're not in favor of that.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
Look, we made a really significant contribution in government towards
the restoration of the cathedral. And the other point I'd
come to John and we talked about this, I think
last time we talked about the cathedral is that fixing
the cathedral won't automatically switch on an activation light in
the square. And if the city council wants to take
responsibility for activating the city center, they really need to
(10:33):
be thinking about what they can do with investing maybe
just some time and not a whole lot of money
into activating that central city space because it's still you know,
you walk through it and you think there could be
more going on here and yeah, and so I think
that's where the focus should be.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
So both major parties the councils in Lala Land thinking
that we government money coming, Is that right? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (10:58):
Well, I'm not sure.
Speaker 4 (10:59):
From I mean, actually we actually haven't seen a proposal
and the National Party hasn't got a position on this.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
But even though the Finance Minister does.
Speaker 4 (11:08):
Oh, the Finances has got a pretty clear position, right,
So I think by the National Party's position, well, we
haven't we haven't seen this latest proposal is what I'm saying. Then,
But we've been very clear in the past. I don't
think we're going to change that position.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
You would think when you of the council would talk
to the government first before coming out with us and
then saying it's like telethorone saying, you know, fifteen mil
from us. If the government puts in fifteen mil and
we'll get the belly whistlers in as well.
Speaker 4 (11:32):
Well, you'd think that they've come up with a city
and regional deal proposal that might include some things along
those lines, and if they do, then I'm sure that
we'll consider it, but pretty sure that if the cathedral
is included in that, that wouldn't be something we would
say yessed to.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
All right, just brief you tell us what you for.
People who haven't seen your post on Facebook, and you've
got you've been on old chat GPT. So basically what
you're saying is build something around the existing structure.
Speaker 4 (12:00):
What I say is use the money that we've got
to create something that we can with the money that
we have. And there's plenty of ways to imagine that,
and I'm sure that there's architectural plans or architectural designs
out there that could be much better. And so a
quick chat GPT image to go with a Facebook post
(12:22):
is a great way of getting engagement what we call.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Fast trek or right bait or CLICKBAITA right, ma'am. Some
people got excited about it, as they as they would.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
Local news, Local Issues, Local Views, Category Mornings with John
McDonald and Orange Homes, Your Home Designed for Life forty
five years strong news talk. Sa'd be.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
Oh, who shall so I say what I just said?
It got Reuben laughing.
Speaker 3 (12:49):
It made me laugh a lot, John, But I don't
think you should say it. Well, actually you could say
it on here if you like.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
But I don't know.
Speaker 4 (12:54):
I don't. I think the time's passed and comedy is
all about timing.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
John was only thirty seconds. We'll save it for the
podcast anyway. Everyone's got a podcast. I don't behind the
scenes of politics Friday. It was quite good, though, wasn't it.
It was quite good what I.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Said, It was quick and it was cutting well.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
Vanessa said that she doesn't like big crowds.
Speaker 4 (13:16):
She did say that noisy crowds, noisy crowd crowds.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
And I said, you'll be fine in your caucus after
the election.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
And for the record, you were looking at Vanessa when.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
You see that, and then i'd better heard you laugh.
I did laugh. You did laugh. Right, Let's talk about
a couple of things, A couple of big things in
the news today, taxpayer funding for we Go VI, the
weight loss drug. So with you, Ruben, what's your philosophical
position on that.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
My philosophical position is that politicians should stay out of
this stuff. It's really problematic when we start picking winners
and talking about things that we will fund and won't
fund and rolling things in and out. The FARMAC model
is established because there's never enough money to pay for
all the drugs and medicines we need, and it allows
(14:02):
an independent regulator to prioritize what we do need and
what we can forward. And that is a really, really
difficult balancing act. It's best that professionals with expertise do that.
And I think what we saw in the last election,
when you know, National promised a bunch of drugs that
they then couldn't deliver for cancer treatments, is absolutely devastating
for those people that are impacted by it. So bottom line,
(14:25):
politicians stay out of it.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
Or are you are noting their Vanessa you.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
I hate to say it, but I am in violent
agreement with most of what Reuben said about FARMAC, and
I totally agree that politicians us to stay out of
it and not build expectations. Let it be up to
FARMAC to decide if they're saying that they may consider
it and do it. Just let them do it, and
(14:52):
just let them get on with it. It's I think
it's not a bad choice of a medication to fund,
but it's actually if it's one that Farmak has decided
that they might choose to fund it's because they've looked
at the clinical ben the and also the economic benefits
of it. And that's how it should be decided, not
(15:13):
by any pressuring by either the public or politician.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
Right, but philosophically, where do you stand in terms of
funding weight loss drugs per se tax public funding of
weight loss drugs.
Speaker 4 (15:28):
Obesity is one of the greatest causes of both heart
disease and cancer, and it's not This is not about
a lifestyle medication. This is about preventing diabetes and preventing
heart disease and some forms of cancer. So actually, in
terms of a public health measure, it would potentially I
haven't seen all of the the economics or any of
(15:51):
that about it, but when it comes to a public
health measure, it may actually be an extraordinarily good investment.
But again I'm not an expert on that, so it's
not about it's not but I'm not a health economist
and I'm not a I'm not a medicine But if
far Mak have said that this is a good idea
(16:12):
and something that they want to consider, then somebody has
done all of that analysis and so that's what I
would back. I would back Farmac's decisions one hundred percent.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
As a GPO, would you recommend a weight loss drug
to a.
Speaker 4 (16:26):
Patient as long as there were no contraindications to them? You?
So I would.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
What does that mean?
Speaker 4 (16:31):
So as long as there were no reasons that they
couldn't take it there would be bad for their health.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
Because I've heard anecdotally that people are doing some weird
stuff with things like couples, for example, to save costs,
that they're sharing the sharing the old needle and the
pen and splitting the drug between them. I mean that
there is room for some pretty dodge o behavior, isn't.
Speaker 4 (16:51):
There There's room for dodgo behavior with all medicines. Frankly,
people make decisions around how they do things that I
wouldn't necessarily recommend or endorse. But that doesn't mean to
say that it's not a a useful tool and useful
medicine for a lot of people.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
And I'm coming to you but just taking advantage of
your medical background, Vanessa, are you convinced that these drugs
are safe?
Speaker 4 (17:17):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (17:18):
Yes, yep, Reuben, When in terms of you you're talking
about keeping the politics out of it, but philosophically in
terms of taxpayers funding medication to help people lose weight.
Are you you're with that or you're uncomfortable.
Speaker 3 (17:32):
Look, I'm not as qualified as Vanessa medically to answer
the question, but I do know without needing to be
medically qualified, that obesity is a significant health risk for
New Zealanders, and so there are many health risks for
New Zealanders. The role of FARMAC is to assess what
they can make available, what they can afford with the
envelope provided by central government, and it absolutely shouldn't be
(17:53):
up to them to best navigate the healthiest possible future
for New Zealanders.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
With that, all right, one final thing in New Zealand,
they're in the stock. You flew with them last night
and the smalling, happy customers, but they're in the stock.
Do we still need the National Airline Vanessa?
Speaker 4 (18:08):
Oh yeah, we do? Why because in New Zealand is
not just about moving people around New Zealand. It's about
getting people from overseas to New Zealand, but also a
lot of our products, A lot of our freight goes
on some of those flights as well. There we need
to have it. I think we need to have a
national airline. I think without it it would be an
(18:30):
absolute disaster.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
But if you look at the airlines that fly to
christ Church on a daily basis and fly in men,
there are all manner of airlines which will be carrying
our freight to the world for example. I mean, I
just want to get down to it, because it's very
easy to think it'll be terrible not to have a
national airline. But what's the argument for holding on to
something which is in a very bad situation right now?
(18:54):
What's the argument for it? Because I know that one
of you all Coalition colleagues, David Seymour, says get rid
of it.
Speaker 4 (19:01):
Well, part of me is reflexively thinking that the argument
that I would instantly have as because Seymour said that
we shouldn't have it, then we should probably keep it.
But that's that's a bit, that's that's a very flippant answer, because.
Speaker 3 (19:16):
I think I.
Speaker 4 (19:20):
Think we actually need to consider This is not something
that I'm an expert in. But you know, those other
airlines are not flying to and Todong, are they They're
not flying to Timaru or in Vicago. So we need
to be able to think about the fact that our
international business for in New Zealand helps to cross subsidize
(19:43):
some of the other parts of the business that may
not be as economically viable, and we need to be
able to connect our country.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
Do you have confidence that the company can turn itself around?
Speaker 4 (19:52):
They have done it before, so I think they.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
Will the government intervention, they will do it again. Would
you support any government intervention?
Speaker 4 (19:59):
I haven't seen any case for that. I haven't.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
No, you don't have to. I haven't seen a case either,
but I'll have a view. But do you think there
should be a government bailout?
Speaker 4 (20:08):
I think that we need to keep our country connected,
and I think that those economic comparatives around the regions
are extremely important, so we need to Then we would
have to look at it. We'd have to look at
it from a holistic point of view.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
Where are you, Reuben on this? First of all, the
inditional question, do we still need a national airline?
Speaker 3 (20:29):
Absolutely we do. It's vital infrastructure for New Zealand. It's
a crucial regional connector. It underpins a lot of our
economic activity and our economic development. Losing it would be unimaginable.
Privatizing it would be unimaginable. Just because willis and nux
and have bugged up the budget. Shouldn't be an excuse
for Seaware to.
Speaker 4 (20:49):
See budget, have you No, I haven't seen the budget. Budget.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Just on that. How soon do you see it?
Speaker 4 (20:57):
We see it about the same time as the journalists
see it. When they go into a lockup, we get
into a lock up as well.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Okay, all right, so so Reuben, you so hold on
to it is in final question for you, are you
confident the company can turn itself around.
Speaker 3 (21:11):
In New Zealand? Yeah, I mean they have before. It's
a really challenging environment for them. But I think I
think they've got great leadership, They've got an excellent team,
and they have cut their cloth in some places recently.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
I mean they're talking about the god Reserve Fund, you know,
so things aren't die. They've got a billion dollars I
think it was or on the news last night. Do
you think some form of support from its major shareholder
would be justified?
Speaker 3 (21:36):
It might be, but that would be a decision for
the government of the day to make when they are
able to see all of the facts in front of them.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
All right, nice to see you, Reubin. Great you finally
made it here.
Speaker 3 (21:47):
Always a pleasure to be here. And can I just
say a massive shout out to the New Zealand Post
team or actually the post and bookshop down on steam
More Road no longer the New Zealand Post team after
they withdrew their services after one hundred and forty years yesterday,
and that post shop now becomes a book which I
(22:07):
think is a huge loss for the community that it
serves really disappointing to see stay doned enterprise walk away.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
All right, enjoy your weekend, Vanessa, enjoy yours.
Speaker 4 (22:15):
Yeah, thanks so much.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
John. It's gonna be another massive one in the city.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
Six sixty.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
We got to be here now. Nice't to you too, though,
Thank you very much. Politics Friday.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Back next week 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
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The MeatEater Podcast
Building on the belief that a deeper understanding of the natural world enriches all of our lives, host Steven Rinella brings an in-depth and relevant look at all outdoor topics including hunting, fishing, nature, conservation, and wild foods. Filled with humor, irreverence, and things that will surprise the hell out of you, each episode welcomes a diverse group of guests who add their own expertise to the vast world of the outdoors. Part of The MeatEater Podcast Network.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.