The Prime Minister claims productivity is behind the new guidance around working from home.
The trend of public servants relying on working from home may soon be coming to an end.
Guidance is being updated as the Government says working from home is not an entitlement, and agencies have to monitor working from home agreements and report back.
Christopher Luxon told Mike Hosking working from home was introduced as a temporary measure.
He says many organisations and Governments say it does not help build culture or team development, and does not improve team performance.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Tuesday morning. Crystal Luction's well, it's very good morning to you.
Good morning, Mike. Just a quick one on the working
from home thing, no fine detail yesterday? Why not? And
is that not potentially a problem given what we've talked
about in the last couple of weeks, and that is
you're getting pushed back from the public service anyway.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Yeah, Look, I mean what we're laying out very clearly
is our expectations is that it's not working from home
is not an entitle one to Actu's got to be
done by formal agreement. People just shouldn't be assuming that
it's a reality. We don't want any working from home
to compromise the performance the service, and we were kind
of going to actively monitor it and seat of a
regular report on progress against it as a government. It's
actually the the cees that we're talking to, who actually
(00:38):
are the employers, to make sure that you know they're building.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Really a highly productive public service.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
It's firing on all cylinders and that's why we don't
want working from home to undermine any of that ambition.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Are you a bit slow to get to this? I
honestly thought this had been sorted like a year ago.
If not longer.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Well, yeah, I mean the bottom line is, no one
really knows what's going on and who's working we are
at the moment, if I'm honest about it, in the
public service, and I think many sees would struggle to say,
you know, what proportion of the workforces at home and
not and which are unto formal agreements to do so
or not. And all we're saying is, look, you know,
working from home was introduced as a temporary measure for
(01:14):
COVID four years ago. Many organizations, businesses, governments around the
world are fighting four years down the road. It doesn't
help build culture, it doesn't help team development, it doesn't
put improved performance. And you know, you know, we want
to make sure that you know, we've got a public
service ready to go because we had a lot of challenges,
a lot of opportunities to sort through.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Doesn't that sort of sum up everything that's wrong with
this country? Though, when you go to a CEO and
go tell me about it, and he goes, I wouldn't
have a clue.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Yeah, but it's my job to fix it, right, So
I've got to set a new expectation in a different
standard that people need to work to if I just
walk past it and says that's good enough for and
I know it's not, and we don't fix it, that's
not right. So the bottom line is, look, that is
what it is, or we're saying, is we've got many
good public servants. They are appreciating the clarity they're getting from
our government, you know, in the direction that they're getting.
(01:59):
But we want people to understand it's not an entitlement.
It is by agreement. We don't want any compromise to
any performance or productivity of the public service. And that's
why we're doing what we're doing.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Speaking of fiction and stuff, I don't know if you
saw the Lower Institute report on our diplomatic heft in
the region, which is going backwards along with China and Myanmar.
Was Nanaima, who to singularly the most embarrassing foreign minister
this country ever had.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Well just say, the Lower Index is one perspective, but
having said that, it has actually declined since twenty eighteen. So,
and I've said many times I thought the previous government
was way too inward looking, not proactive enough, too slow
coming out of COVID, and not advancing or further our
interests overseas sufficiently, and that's why you know, we've.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Had a full court press. We've had it really.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
Hard in the first ten months. You know, Winston's out there,
Judith Collin's out there, Todd mcclay's out there. I've been
out there, and it's all part of our plan to
sort of lift the energy and urgency and our diplomatic relation.
So we do have influence and we are relevant in
the region because we've got.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
A lot to offer.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
So you know, we are where we are, but you know,
I definitely feel like I want to lift that into
energy and urgency, and I think we're doing that. I mean,
you've had people like Todd McClay just constantly meeting with
trade ministers working out trade opportunities for us. Have more
to say about that shortly. I'm sure some things he's
been working on which has been good. But likewise, when St.
(03:15):
Peter's it's doing a fantastic job out there.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
I note that India didn't or doesn't want to sign
the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership of which we are a
part of, because it seems because of China does that
if we can't get a deal directly with them and
they don't want to join that which we are part of.
Does that set us back potentially trade wise?
Speaker 2 (03:38):
No, I think the reality for us is we want
to do a bilateral Arran set of trade arrangements with India.
The first thing is exactly you've sort of started the
questioning around, is that you've got to have a relationship
in place, and when you haven't actually had, you've had
radio silence and no engagement with the Indian system. You
can talk trade all you want, but you've got to
get the relationship in place first. And You've had Todd
McLay I think meet with his trade counterparts five times.
(04:01):
You've had Winston visit. I think Todd's been there several times.
I've hosted the Indian president here, I've spoken to Mody.
We're desperate to try and get together. It's a bit
difficult in this last quarter with schedules of visits and
other APEC and other things going on, but we're going
to try and do that early next year and I'll
take a big delegation up there. And he is a
fascinating country. I mean, it's an incredible country. It's gonna
(04:21):
be our third biggest economy by twenty thirty. It's done
a lot of business there in my past life with Unilever,
and it's just there's so much opportunity we should have
been in the years ago, should have been exactly because
you know, I think, Mike, it's about just over two
point two billion of trade. It's gone backwards actually over
the last government, from two point eight down to two
point two. China's forty billion, same population, so you know,
(04:42):
that's the potential that sits there. You sere's some challenges
around categories that we sell, like dairy and other things,
but we've we've got to build the relationship. We've got
to be in and we've got to be having the
conversations and from there we'll talk about trade and transactions.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
The UN vote that Peters was defending the other day,
this is on Palestine. The text that we had some
trouble with but not enough trouble not to vote yes,
was the same text that Penny Wong, no friend of
a conservative, didn't had so much trouble with. She voted no.
How come she votes know and we vote yes on
the same thing.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Yeah, Well, I mean, as you could see, we did
have serious concerns. We talked about that and what's called
our explanation of vote in the UN General Assembly. But
we agree with the direction of travel. You know, when
our view has been very clear. Look, it's we need
to cease far. We want to cease far. We want
the hostilities to stop Israel leaving the occupied charities within
twelve months with something that we thought was unrealistic, and
we talked about that, but on balance, we have an
(05:38):
independent foreign policy. We made our own decision and we said, look,
the direction of travel is right, but we did vote
with some pretty serious caveats and concerns as well.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
Okay, just real quick, this four year term you talked
about on Friday, the chances of putting the idea to
a vote in twenty six is what.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
Well, we haven't actually started the work on it, and
we've got coalition commitments and all three parties are supportive
of doing it. And what we first said is, look,
let's get it to Select committee. And so it'll depend
upon how much progress we can make between now and then.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
But unlikely likely who knows.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
I'm not going to put a number on it, to
be honest, because I just haven't had the chance to
have the conversation and we haven't started the work, but
when we do, we put it into a quarterly plan
that we'll really be pushing it forward.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Okay, and when we vote it'll be binding, yeah, to
be a referendum. Yeah yeah, well we can have a referendum.
Referendum we've got is it a binding referendum?
Speaker 2 (06:30):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Okay, Well, so we vote for it will happen and
will it happen the next term? Well?
Speaker 2 (06:35):
No, what you'd do is you I think you'd have
to take it to referendum and then actually have it
effect the term after that term that you've voted for.
I don't think you could go to referendum and your
men you'd have to go sit with a three year
term and then it would turn into a four year term.
But all of that is a bit premature. There's nothing
currently underway. Having said that, there's strong support I think
across the Parliament frankly and within the coalition. We have
(06:57):
commitment to do the work, but it's just too early
to say.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
For the record, was anything exchanged in any way, shape
or form for Merton's release? No, no, no, not at all.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
And do they want anything new Zealand government doesn't pay
bribes or ransom. We did not do so in this case.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Did they want anything? No, not that I'm aware of. No,
not at all. So how they get to mean?
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Well, this has been a series of its just been
relentless effect frankly from m FAT, the Indonesian government and
also actually community figures that have been involved with you
have connections to the hostage takers as well, and so
it's been about making sure that we manage his safety.
Over the last nineteen months, it's taken time. It's been
relentless and tireless, I think for five hundred and ninety
(07:39):
plus days, and it's been pretty complex case. So it's
been just relentless pressure but also engagement that sort of
led and sprung and free.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Okay, have you read the Supreme Court's order around the
Murray Coastline appeal and how you now have to pay
in advance for their fees. Yeah, I'm aware of it. Again,
What the hell's that about? Station?
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Well, that's again a conversation that Paul Godsmith will pick
up and work through. But the bottom line here is
that all we're doing on the MACA legislation is returning
it to what Parliament intended, as we said.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
Here, But they don't like that and they want you. Now,
a court in this country is now telling the government,
which is the ultimate court, to pay money in advance
and how you run your what I mean, come on, yeah,
Well all we can do is we have to respect
the judiciary.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
But we we have a government.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Well we do, even when they're just so egregiously invasive
an activist it's laughable.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Well, all I can do, Mike, is on that issue,
and to take the issues one by one and just say, look,
we had the balance right in twenty eleven with the legislation.
The threshold was lowered by the courts. That's not what
was intended. We're protecting the legitimate interests of all news
Isalanders as well as Maori customary rights. We had the
balance right, it's not right now. We're returning it back
to that and I appreciate there'll be a bit of
grief about that, but that's what was intended by parliament.
(08:58):
Parliament is sovereign. It gets to make the rules and
that's we're doing it this way.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Good is Winston gonna win on the fairies? Are you
going to win on the fairies? The free is going
to have rail or not?
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Look, the tracks and then Dawn, I just say other
fairies like the current ki rail ones can go out
to twenty twenty nine.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
They need to.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
It's about to qui rail and make sure they maintain
just like earlines and trucking companies do fleet management very well.
We expect them to do that. We've got a Ministerial
Advisory Group where we're starting the discussions. Internally, we'll pop
up with a solution and I think Nicholas said we
will do that by the end of this year early
next year.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
All right, I appreciate time Prime Minister Christopher lux on
Tuesday mornings on The Mic Asking Breakfast. For more from
the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to news talks there'd
be from six am weekdays, or follow the podcast on
iHeartRadio
Tuesday morning. Crystal Luction's well, it's very good morning to you.
Good morning, Mike. Just a quick one on the working
from home thing, no fine detail yesterday? Why not? And
is that not potentially a problem given what we've talked
about in the last couple of weeks, and that is
you're getting pushed back from the public service anyway.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Yeah, Look, I mean what we're laying out very clearly
is our expectations is that it's not working from home
is not an entitle one to Actu's got to be
done by formal agreement. People just shouldn't be assuming that
it's a reality. We don't want any working from home
to compromise the performance the service, and we were kind
of going to actively monitor it and seat of a
regular report on progress against it as a government. It's
actually the the cees that we're talking to, who actually
(00:38):
are the employers, to make sure that you know they're building.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Really a highly productive public service.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
It's firing on all cylinders and that's why we don't
want working from home to undermine any of that ambition.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Are you a bit slow to get to this? I
honestly thought this had been sorted like a year ago.
If not longer.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Well, yeah, I mean the bottom line is, no one
really knows what's going on and who's working we are
at the moment, if I'm honest about it, in the
public service, and I think many sees would struggle to say,
you know, what proportion of the workforces at home and
not and which are unto formal agreements to do so
or not. And all we're saying is, look, you know,
working from home was introduced as a temporary measure for
(01:14):
COVID four years ago. Many organizations, businesses, governments around the
world are fighting four years down the road. It doesn't
help build culture, it doesn't help team development, it doesn't
put improved performance. And you know, you know, we want
to make sure that you know, we've got a public
service ready to go because we had a lot of challenges,
a lot of opportunities to sort through.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Doesn't that sort of sum up everything that's wrong with
this country? Though, when you go to a CEO and
go tell me about it, and he goes, I wouldn't
have a clue.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Yeah, but it's my job to fix it, right, So
I've got to set a new expectation in a different
standard that people need to work to if I just
walk past it and says that's good enough for and
I know it's not, and we don't fix it, that's
not right. So the bottom line is, look, that is
what it is, or we're saying, is we've got many
good public servants. They are appreciating the clarity they're getting from
our government, you know, in the direction that they're getting.
(01:59):
But we want people to understand it's not an entitlement.
It is by agreement. We don't want any compromise to
any performance or productivity of the public service. And that's
why we're doing what we're doing.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Speaking of fiction and stuff, I don't know if you
saw the Lower Institute report on our diplomatic heft in
the region, which is going backwards along with China and Myanmar.
Was Nanaima, who to singularly the most embarrassing foreign minister
this country ever had.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Well just say, the Lower Index is one perspective, but
having said that, it has actually declined since twenty eighteen. So,
and I've said many times I thought the previous government
was way too inward looking, not proactive enough, too slow
coming out of COVID, and not advancing or further our
interests overseas sufficiently, and that's why you know, we've.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Had a full court press. We've had it really.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
Hard in the first ten months. You know, Winston's out there,
Judith Collin's out there, Todd mcclay's out there. I've been
out there, and it's all part of our plan to
sort of lift the energy and urgency and our diplomatic relation.
So we do have influence and we are relevant in
the region because we've got.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
A lot to offer.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
So you know, we are where we are, but you know,
I definitely feel like I want to lift that into
energy and urgency, and I think we're doing that. I mean,
you've had people like Todd McClay just constantly meeting with
trade ministers working out trade opportunities for us. Have more
to say about that shortly. I'm sure some things he's
been working on which has been good. But likewise, when St.
(03:15):
Peter's it's doing a fantastic job out there.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
I note that India didn't or doesn't want to sign
the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership of which we are a
part of, because it seems because of China does that
if we can't get a deal directly with them and
they don't want to join that which we are part of.
Does that set us back potentially trade wise?
Speaker 2 (03:38):
No, I think the reality for us is we want
to do a bilateral Arran set of trade arrangements with India.
The first thing is exactly you've sort of started the
questioning around, is that you've got to have a relationship
in place, and when you haven't actually had, you've had
radio silence and no engagement with the Indian system. You
can talk trade all you want, but you've got to
get the relationship in place first. And You've had Todd
McLay I think meet with his trade counterparts five times.
(04:01):
You've had Winston visit. I think Todd's been there several times.
I've hosted the Indian president here, I've spoken to Mody.
We're desperate to try and get together. It's a bit
difficult in this last quarter with schedules of visits and
other APEC and other things going on, but we're going
to try and do that early next year and I'll
take a big delegation up there. And he is a
fascinating country. I mean, it's an incredible country. It's gonna
(04:21):
be our third biggest economy by twenty thirty. It's done
a lot of business there in my past life with Unilever,
and it's just there's so much opportunity we should have
been in the years ago, should have been exactly because
you know, I think, Mike, it's about just over two
point two billion of trade. It's gone backwards actually over
the last government, from two point eight down to two
point two. China's forty billion, same population, so you know,
(04:42):
that's the potential that sits there. You sere's some challenges
around categories that we sell, like dairy and other things,
but we've we've got to build the relationship. We've got
to be in and we've got to be having the
conversations and from there we'll talk about trade and transactions.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
The UN vote that Peters was defending the other day,
this is on Palestine. The text that we had some
trouble with but not enough trouble not to vote yes,
was the same text that Penny Wong, no friend of
a conservative, didn't had so much trouble with. She voted no.
How come she votes know and we vote yes on
the same thing.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Yeah, Well, I mean, as you could see, we did
have serious concerns. We talked about that and what's called
our explanation of vote in the UN General Assembly. But
we agree with the direction of travel. You know, when
our view has been very clear. Look, it's we need
to cease far. We want to cease far. We want
the hostilities to stop Israel leaving the occupied charities within
twelve months with something that we thought was unrealistic, and
we talked about that, but on balance, we have an
(05:38):
independent foreign policy. We made our own decision and we said, look,
the direction of travel is right, but we did vote
with some pretty serious caveats and concerns as well.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
Okay, just real quick, this four year term you talked
about on Friday, the chances of putting the idea to
a vote in twenty six is what.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
Well, we haven't actually started the work on it, and
we've got coalition commitments and all three parties are supportive
of doing it. And what we first said is, look,
let's get it to Select committee. And so it'll depend
upon how much progress we can make between now and then.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
But unlikely likely who knows.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
I'm not going to put a number on it, to
be honest, because I just haven't had the chance to
have the conversation and we haven't started the work, but
when we do, we put it into a quarterly plan
that we'll really be pushing it forward.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Okay, and when we vote it'll be binding, yeah, to
be a referendum. Yeah yeah, well we can have a referendum.
Referendum we've got is it a binding referendum?
Speaker 2 (06:30):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Okay, Well, so we vote for it will happen and
will it happen the next term? Well?
Speaker 2 (06:35):
No, what you'd do is you I think you'd have
to take it to referendum and then actually have it
effect the term after that term that you've voted for.
I don't think you could go to referendum and your
men you'd have to go sit with a three year
term and then it would turn into a four year term.
But all of that is a bit premature. There's nothing
currently underway. Having said that, there's strong support I think
across the Parliament frankly and within the coalition. We have
(06:57):
commitment to do the work, but it's just too early
to say.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
For the record, was anything exchanged in any way, shape
or form for Merton's release? No, no, no, not at all.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
And do they want anything new Zealand government doesn't pay
bribes or ransom. We did not do so in this case.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Did they want anything? No, not that I'm aware of. No,
not at all. So how they get to mean?
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Well, this has been a series of its just been
relentless effect frankly from m FAT, the Indonesian government and
also actually community figures that have been involved with you
have connections to the hostage takers as well, and so
it's been about making sure that we manage his safety.
Over the last nineteen months, it's taken time. It's been
relentless and tireless, I think for five hundred and ninety
(07:39):
plus days, and it's been pretty complex case. So it's
been just relentless pressure but also engagement that sort of
led and sprung and free.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Okay, have you read the Supreme Court's order around the
Murray Coastline appeal and how you now have to pay
in advance for their fees. Yeah, I'm aware of it. Again,
What the hell's that about? Station?
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Well, that's again a conversation that Paul Godsmith will pick
up and work through. But the bottom line here is
that all we're doing on the MACA legislation is returning
it to what Parliament intended, as we said.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
Here, But they don't like that and they want you. Now,
a court in this country is now telling the government,
which is the ultimate court, to pay money in advance
and how you run your what I mean, come on, yeah,
Well all we can do is we have to respect
the judiciary.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
But we we have a government.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Well we do, even when they're just so egregiously invasive
an activist it's laughable.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Well, all I can do, Mike, is on that issue,
and to take the issues one by one and just say, look,
we had the balance right in twenty eleven with the legislation.
The threshold was lowered by the courts. That's not what
was intended. We're protecting the legitimate interests of all news
Isalanders as well as Maori customary rights. We had the
balance right, it's not right now. We're returning it back
to that and I appreciate there'll be a bit of
grief about that, but that's what was intended by parliament.
(08:58):
Parliament is sovereign. It gets to make the rules and
that's we're doing it this way.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Good is Winston gonna win on the fairies? Are you
going to win on the fairies? The free is going
to have rail or not?
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Look, the tracks and then Dawn, I just say other
fairies like the current ki rail ones can go out
to twenty twenty nine.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
They need to.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
It's about to qui rail and make sure they maintain
just like earlines and trucking companies do fleet management very well.
We expect them to do that. We've got a Ministerial
Advisory Group where we're starting the discussions. Internally, we'll pop
up with a solution and I think Nicholas said we
will do that by the end of this year early
next year.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
All right, I appreciate time Prime Minister Christopher lux on
Tuesday mornings on The Mic Asking Breakfast. For more from
the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to news talks there'd
be from six 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
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!