Mark Mitchell and Ginny Andersen joined Mike Hosking for Politics Wednesday, and things got a bit heated as the conversation turned to the recent clash in the House.
Mark Mitchell told Mike Hosking that it’s sad that Gerry Brownlee had to make that kind of intervention.
He said they’re all adults and they should know how to treat each other with respect.
It’s a difficult situation, Ginny Andersen told Hosking, as she still needs to be held accountable for the decisions being made by the government she stands behind.
But, she said, she has some questions regarding David Seymour’s decision to send his already distressed party member to the press gallery and put her in a situation that was going to cause her further distress.
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):
Now mark the MTA. We had on earlier on the
Motor Trade Association. They've got a ten point plan today
there's part too many robberies at service stations and far
too many drives offs, etc. And they have you received
the ten point plan? Do you know anything about the
ten point plan?
Speaker 2 (00:16):
No, Look, my office might have received it. I haven't
read it yet, but I will have a look at
that look at the end of the day. Matt Turney,
who leads up our retail crime unit, does an outstanding job.
He is working closely with the MTA. With the MTA,
I will be meeting with them. We are planning and meeting.
I know for a fact that when we spike in
the in the robberies that the police swarm staff into
(00:40):
high visible patrols keep an eye on it. We've sort
of suggested Z Energy have gone to pay at the pump,
which has been very effective in stopping the drive offs
because obviously the stolen cars the people that come into
the drive offs. So there is a lot of work
going on in that space. Without a doubt, I.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Don't know why everyone just doesn't do pay at the pump. Now,
Ginny as former justiceman, so you may know this because
one of the tea points that they want is that
there's no discount if you have and this is the
new law of the government's bringing in an I think
there's no discount if you've boasted about the crime on
social media. Do you do you know if that's ever
been part of anything or could you not get a
discount specifically because of that sort of behavior.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
We had it as a policy for an aggravating factory
if it was posted to social media. But that's for
you can put that in the legislation. But at the
end of the date's the judge you determined how much
of a factor that played in the new sending and
whether it deserves excessive sentence.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
And would that be part of your new law? Mark,
do you know in that sense the minimum discount? What
was it doing? No more than forty percent or whatever
it is?
Speaker 2 (01:43):
So which we're dealing with the sentencing piece around exectly
that is that every other media we're still reading the
discounts of seventy five up to sort of ninety percent.
So we kept in the discounts of forty percent, and
we think that what that's going to do, in fact,
if the judges apply it. They should do, because we
fasked where the lawmakers, then that's going to fix the
problem around the whole. All of us is a country
(02:04):
feeling that currently the consequences aren't mentioned, the serious, the
offense offending.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
What's your vibe, Jenny on the house is brownly trying
to tone this place down? Has it got a bit
hot lately?
Speaker 3 (02:18):
Look, it's a difficult situation that the House is in
right now, but it definitely seems flight. I would say
people are a lot that are quieter and general, and
I think he's trying to do the best he can.
Some people have sort of thought he let it go
a bit too far before he rained it in, and
that's the situation we're in now. But I've got to
give him credit. You know, he's making a good sort
(02:41):
of first act, trying to brain things back, and it
seems to be working a bit better this way.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
What's your assessment of it, mate?
Speaker 4 (02:48):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (02:48):
I think Jurius a very good speaker. I think that
he was very clear you sir in the house. But
you know, the reality of it is is that it's
said that he's got to make that sort of individual
all adults we should know how to treat each other
words respect.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
I think it was pretty outrageous. It was pretty outrageous.
What act you know? Act Basically, you know you've got
someone who's going to be the deep puty, Prime Minister
David Seymour openly defying the speaker. And what was really
interesting is usually it's the Leader of the House, which
would be Chris Bushop who would defend and did a
stuck up for the speaker, and that didn't happen. So
you had, you know, a Seymour standing up, wearing his pen,
(03:22):
refusing to take it off again, essentially kind of shutting
down question time and then the government not doing anything
to support the speaker. So that's the most unusual thing
that happened last week.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
Isn't it broader than that? Though, Jinny, I mean, I
take your point, I get it, but that's sort of
Beltway as opposed to some of the treatments. I mean,
watching Karen Chua in tears because she's been bullied is
just completely unacceptable.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Saying this for months aentually I've watched the treatment that's
been handed out to Karen Schaw and it has been
bullying and she has been targeted and uh and that's
got to stop. I think that all of us in
the House should take a stand against any type of bully.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
What do you say, Jenny, Well, it's it's a difficult
area because she still needs to be held accountable for
decisions being made by the government at all. Well, it's
a difficult area because she still needs to be hown
accountable for some of the decisions he's making. And it
was kind of I mean, I have questions around David
Seymour's decision making that when there was a decision from
(04:25):
Select Committee around law a Trask at Committee, he sent
kring Shaw down to the press gallery to talk to
them regarding that issue. You know, if that was me,
and if that was my staff, my person and my
corpus doing that, I wouldn't put the person who's already
under pressure and distress into a situation that was going
to coudn't cause them further distress. So, yes, it is
(04:46):
a difficult situation. But I have some real questions around
the way that David Seymour You're into position where she
was going to be under even more pressure.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
So it's an interesting thing. Mark and Jenny, I think
articulates it well because I'm looking at the house, say
just yesterday, sure Simmons and Costello have been targets from
the opposition, and you could argue because it's a robust environment.
Rightly so, because they've got some questions to answer. So
what's the line between holding people to account and bullying them?
Speaker 2 (05:18):
The line is getting personal and that's what's been happening.
And you must hold ministers to account, that's what Parliament
is for. But that is Karen Chaw's workplace. And I
think it's a ridiculous premise for Ginny Anderson to come
on the show and say that David Seymour is irresponsible
to allow Karen Chaw to go into her workplace. What's
irresponsible as Ginny now I see it's.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
Center into the press gallery to answer question. He's center
into the press gallery when.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Well, that's her workplace. That it's our job to fund
up to the media. That's our workplace. So what you're
saying is removed the victim and not deal with the abuser.
So let's all of us just be really clear that
you can hold ministers to account, Jinny without getting personal
and say.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
Marked it's really important to note that no one from
outside of how ever, they need personal comments around her.
There has been some comments made.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
I've heard them in absolutely ridiculous.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
Mark, that is not true. You've sat there yesterday, you
were sitting nextiting there. But there has been no personal
comments from caring Jaw because we have all discussed that
and we've made a clear decision as a caucus not
to do that because that's not what we believe in.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Can I just finish this by saying, my entire career
in the house, I'm proud of the fact that I
have never been personal and I've never made a personal
comment by the tame themquently.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
That absolute rubbers. You say things under your breath in
the house frequently to me that are personal and are attacks.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
That that's an absolute lie. So give us one. Let's
give you and say you're.
Speaker 3 (07:02):
Hope, you're hopeless, your note that your job, you don't
know what you're doing. You would say personal things about
me when I'm asking you, when I'm asking questions in
the house, you personal remarks about me.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
You don't go down a rabbit hole here. Having said,
do you as calling somebody hopeless a personal attack?
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Jenny?
Speaker 3 (07:22):
I think it is if you're talking about your personal
character and talking about what they do.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
And that's what you need to be focused on.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
What you need to be focused on.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
Is not they're doing.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
If there's been an outcome in their job, or there's
been a they've promised to deliver something and they've failed
to deliver something, that's okay. But if you're going into
personal character assassination, that's different.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
I'd invite you to go back and pull the tape
necessary question time and listen to where the heckling was
coming from. And Ginny is right. I did make a
comment in the house. So my comment was this, you
were not across your brief That was my comment in
the house yesterday. Come so you're going to you can.
Speaker 3 (08:04):
You know deep?
Speaker 2 (08:05):
Yet?
Speaker 5 (08:06):
You know.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
I was sitting there. Get very story.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
Just let me play you. We just play a couple
of clips here. So there's these are both green members.
Let's listen. Listen to these two.
Speaker 5 (08:25):
Now, some of these gangs are doing quite positive things
within our community, and so I do worry about this
section whereby it will prohibit their ability to congregate.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
And the second one.
Speaker 4 (08:38):
I want you to ask yourself, would you rather be
walking down a dark alley and see a patch member
or a police officer. For many people in New Zealand
they would feel safer alone with a patch member than
the police.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
So that's Lyndon and Carter Ginny. Do you relish the
prospect of hanging out with those sort of people in government?
Speaker 2 (09:01):
No, I don't.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
Support those those statements and we don't agree with those statements.
But you know, a lengthy debate on that bell, and
we raised some really serious issues about what that bell does.
So we are concerned that it's cosmetic, that it doesn't
attack the root causes of crime, like the manufacture of mething,
petamine and international crime networks. All it does is take
(09:23):
pictures off and that looks okay on the tally. That
looks great, but it doesn't address organized crime.
Speaker 4 (09:29):
And the.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
Gegapologists listen to the gapologists. I mean, the greeds have
always the greeds have always been governed farthers for with labor.
This is they are aligning with the gangs. They are
supporting the gags. And we've been very clear the gains
that there's there's enormous intergenerational harm that's created, there's there's
they are responsible for a significant amount of violence in
our communities. That's the pedeling of drugs and we please.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
West of us get that. But that's that's my question
to do. How do you distance yourself from that level
of it is?
Speaker 3 (10:01):
Well, we don't agree with that position at all. We
make get incredibly clear. Yes, we have root in governments
of Greens before, but we don't agree on everything, and
that's one of those things we don't agree on. We
take a strong position that games are incredibly harmful, but
we disagree with Mark's approach that just taking their jackets
off them makes a lock of difference.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
Nice to see you both. Will catch up next week
Ginny Anderson Mark Mitchell.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to
news talks that'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Now mark the MTA. We had on earlier on the
Motor Trade Association. They've got a ten point plan today
there's part too many robberies at service stations and far
too many drives offs, etc. And they have you received
the ten point plan? Do you know anything about the
ten point plan?
Speaker 2 (00:16):
No, Look, my office might have received it. I haven't
read it yet, but I will have a look at
that look at the end of the day. Matt Turney,
who leads up our retail crime unit, does an outstanding job.
He is working closely with the MTA. With the MTA,
I will be meeting with them. We are planning and meeting.
I know for a fact that when we spike in
the in the robberies that the police swarm staff into
(00:40):
high visible patrols keep an eye on it. We've sort
of suggested Z Energy have gone to pay at the pump,
which has been very effective in stopping the drive offs
because obviously the stolen cars the people that come into
the drive offs. So there is a lot of work
going on in that space. Without a doubt, I.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Don't know why everyone just doesn't do pay at the pump. Now,
Ginny as former justiceman, so you may know this because
one of the tea points that they want is that
there's no discount if you have and this is the
new law of the government's bringing in an I think
there's no discount if you've boasted about the crime on
social media. Do you do you know if that's ever
been part of anything or could you not get a
discount specifically because of that sort of behavior.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
We had it as a policy for an aggravating factory
if it was posted to social media. But that's for
you can put that in the legislation. But at the
end of the date's the judge you determined how much
of a factor that played in the new sending and
whether it deserves excessive sentence.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
And would that be part of your new law? Mark,
do you know in that sense the minimum discount? What
was it doing? No more than forty percent or whatever
it is?
Speaker 2 (01:43):
So which we're dealing with the sentencing piece around exectly
that is that every other media we're still reading the
discounts of seventy five up to sort of ninety percent.
So we kept in the discounts of forty percent, and
we think that what that's going to do, in fact,
if the judges apply it. They should do, because we
fasked where the lawmakers, then that's going to fix the
problem around the whole. All of us is a country
(02:04):
feeling that currently the consequences aren't mentioned, the serious, the
offense offending.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
What's your vibe, Jenny on the house is brownly trying
to tone this place down? Has it got a bit
hot lately?
Speaker 3 (02:18):
Look, it's a difficult situation that the House is in
right now, but it definitely seems flight. I would say
people are a lot that are quieter and general, and
I think he's trying to do the best he can.
Some people have sort of thought he let it go
a bit too far before he rained it in, and
that's the situation we're in now. But I've got to
give him credit. You know, he's making a good sort
(02:41):
of first act, trying to brain things back, and it
seems to be working a bit better this way.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
What's your assessment of it, mate?
Speaker 4 (02:48):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (02:48):
I think Jurius a very good speaker. I think that
he was very clear you sir in the house. But
you know, the reality of it is is that it's
said that he's got to make that sort of individual
all adults we should know how to treat each other
words respect.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
I think it was pretty outrageous. It was pretty outrageous.
What act you know? Act Basically, you know you've got
someone who's going to be the deep puty, Prime Minister
David Seymour openly defying the speaker. And what was really
interesting is usually it's the Leader of the House, which
would be Chris Bushop who would defend and did a
stuck up for the speaker, and that didn't happen. So
you had, you know, a Seymour standing up, wearing his pen,
(03:22):
refusing to take it off again, essentially kind of shutting
down question time and then the government not doing anything
to support the speaker. So that's the most unusual thing
that happened last week.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
Isn't it broader than that? Though, Jinny, I mean, I
take your point, I get it, but that's sort of
Beltway as opposed to some of the treatments. I mean,
watching Karen Chua in tears because she's been bullied is
just completely unacceptable.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Saying this for months aentually I've watched the treatment that's
been handed out to Karen Schaw and it has been
bullying and she has been targeted and uh and that's
got to stop. I think that all of us in
the House should take a stand against any type of bully.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
What do you say, Jenny, Well, it's it's a difficult
area because she still needs to be held accountable for
decisions being made by the government at all. Well, it's
a difficult area because she still needs to be hown
accountable for some of the decisions he's making. And it
was kind of I mean, I have questions around David
Seymour's decision making that when there was a decision from
(04:25):
Select Committee around law a Trask at Committee, he sent
kring Shaw down to the press gallery to talk to
them regarding that issue. You know, if that was me,
and if that was my staff, my person and my
corpus doing that, I wouldn't put the person who's already
under pressure and distress into a situation that was going
to coudn't cause them further distress. So, yes, it is
(04:46):
a difficult situation. But I have some real questions around
the way that David Seymour You're into position where she
was going to be under even more pressure.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
So it's an interesting thing. Mark and Jenny, I think
articulates it well because I'm looking at the house, say
just yesterday, sure Simmons and Costello have been targets from
the opposition, and you could argue because it's a robust environment.
Rightly so, because they've got some questions to answer. So
what's the line between holding people to account and bullying them?
Speaker 2 (05:18):
The line is getting personal and that's what's been happening.
And you must hold ministers to account, that's what Parliament
is for. But that is Karen Chaw's workplace. And I
think it's a ridiculous premise for Ginny Anderson to come
on the show and say that David Seymour is irresponsible
to allow Karen Chaw to go into her workplace. What's
irresponsible as Ginny now I see it's.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
Center into the press gallery to answer question. He's center
into the press gallery when.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Well, that's her workplace. That it's our job to fund
up to the media. That's our workplace. So what you're
saying is removed the victim and not deal with the abuser.
So let's all of us just be really clear that
you can hold ministers to account, Jinny without getting personal
and say.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
Marked it's really important to note that no one from
outside of how ever, they need personal comments around her.
There has been some comments made.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
I've heard them in absolutely ridiculous.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
Mark, that is not true. You've sat there yesterday, you
were sitting nextiting there. But there has been no personal
comments from caring Jaw because we have all discussed that
and we've made a clear decision as a caucus not
to do that because that's not what we believe in.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Can I just finish this by saying, my entire career
in the house, I'm proud of the fact that I
have never been personal and I've never made a personal
comment by the tame themquently.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
That absolute rubbers. You say things under your breath in
the house frequently to me that are personal and are attacks.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
That that's an absolute lie. So give us one. Let's
give you and say you're.
Speaker 3 (07:02):
Hope, you're hopeless, your note that your job, you don't
know what you're doing. You would say personal things about
me when I'm asking you, when I'm asking questions in
the house, you personal remarks about me.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
You don't go down a rabbit hole here. Having said,
do you as calling somebody hopeless a personal attack?
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Jenny?
Speaker 3 (07:22):
I think it is if you're talking about your personal
character and talking about what they do.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
And that's what you need to be focused on.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
What you need to be focused on.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
Is not they're doing.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
If there's been an outcome in their job, or there's
been a they've promised to deliver something and they've failed
to deliver something, that's okay. But if you're going into
personal character assassination, that's different.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
I'd invite you to go back and pull the tape
necessary question time and listen to where the heckling was
coming from. And Ginny is right. I did make a
comment in the house. So my comment was this, you
were not across your brief That was my comment in
the house yesterday. Come so you're going to you can.
Speaker 3 (08:04):
You know deep?
Speaker 2 (08:05):
Yet?
Speaker 5 (08:06):
You know.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
I was sitting there. Get very story.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
Just let me play you. We just play a couple
of clips here. So there's these are both green members.
Let's listen. Listen to these two.
Speaker 5 (08:25):
Now, some of these gangs are doing quite positive things
within our community, and so I do worry about this
section whereby it will prohibit their ability to congregate.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
And the second one.
Speaker 4 (08:38):
I want you to ask yourself, would you rather be
walking down a dark alley and see a patch member
or a police officer. For many people in New Zealand
they would feel safer alone with a patch member than
the police.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
So that's Lyndon and Carter Ginny. Do you relish the
prospect of hanging out with those sort of people in government?
Speaker 2 (09:01):
No, I don't.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
Support those those statements and we don't agree with those statements.
But you know, a lengthy debate on that bell, and
we raised some really serious issues about what that bell does.
So we are concerned that it's cosmetic, that it doesn't
attack the root causes of crime, like the manufacture of mething,
petamine and international crime networks. All it does is take
(09:23):
pictures off and that looks okay on the tally. That
looks great, but it doesn't address organized crime.
Speaker 4 (09:29):
And the.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
Gegapologists listen to the gapologists. I mean, the greeds have
always the greeds have always been governed farthers for with labor.
This is they are aligning with the gangs. They are
supporting the gags. And we've been very clear the gains
that there's there's enormous intergenerational harm that's created, there's there's
they are responsible for a significant amount of violence in
our communities. That's the pedeling of drugs and we please.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
West of us get that. But that's that's my question
to do. How do you distance yourself from that level
of it is?
Speaker 3 (10:01):
Well, we don't agree with that position at all. We
make get incredibly clear. Yes, we have root in governments
of Greens before, but we don't agree on everything, and
that's one of those things we don't agree on. We
take a strong position that games are incredibly harmful, but
we disagree with Mark's approach that just taking their jackets
off them makes a lock of difference.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
Nice to see you both. Will catch up next week
Ginny Anderson Mark Mitchell.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to
news talks that'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.