New Zealand First and ACT are opposing an Auckland Council plan for the Waitākere Ranges.
The council wants to set up a committee including iwi, the Crown and Auckland Council.
NZ First MP Shane Jones says it could easily morph into co-governance and ACT leader David Seymour claims it could let unelected decision-makers close tracks and dictate land use.
NZ Herald political editor Thomas Coughlan says the ball's in National's court on this matter.
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):
Thomas Coglan, the Herald's political editors of US. Hey, Thomas, Hey,
I see that the both coalition partners have come out
against this co governance situation and why targeting range is.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Yeah, yeah, this is very interesting. I think it's sort
of blew onto the public consciousness on your show actually,
and it's Shane Jones has really really empted up this
morning saying that he actually thinks this is co govenance
and he thinks it's a breach of the Coalition agreement
because obviously the Coalition Agreement is pretty clear that there
are there is to be no co governance of public
services and David Seymour has effectively in broad terms back that.
(00:33):
So it really puts the ball in National's court. We
haven't actually heard a lot from National arm at the moment.
We're going to probably hear a bit more this week
from them. Well you hear a.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
Bit more at six o'clock because Nichola has gone away
to find out some information for us.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Oh yes, why I heard last week when she was
on your show, she didn't seem to be aware of
it at all, So she suddenly she suddenly had plenty
of time to scrub up on it. So, so, I
mean it will be really interesting to see where they
where they come at it from. Interesting too that the
Council does sort of see it as a co govenance arrangement.
They see it as dating back to this two thousand
and eight deed. But but certainly National and Act are
(01:07):
pretty clear that they actually do they do see thiss
co governance and therefore, and what Shane Jones is saying
is that it would be a breach of the Coalition agreement,
which is very very serious.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
Indeed, is it possible for central government to stop local
government from doing this?
Speaker 2 (01:22):
I mean that is the I think because the deed
itself as a legislative instrument, it might actually require it.
I mean, central government can ultimately do anything, but it
would require potentially a parliamentary intervention, which you know that
that that could that could be done. But of course
that that opens up a whole lot of other controver
controversies because then you'd you'd effectively have central government legislating
(01:43):
over the top of something that local government wants to do,
which does happen all the time but but but never
a good look could become an issue in the election
this year, So so certainly I think this has got
this has got legs the story. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Now, now I'm interested in the fact that Shane Jones
opposes it, but is only prepared to take a member's
bill to Parliament. So I mean if he I mean,
if they really oppose it, they are government, they can
stop it, right. Why are they doing all this members
bill stuff? Is this stuff?
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Is this?
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Is this preparing for twenty twenty six?
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Yeah? There is. I think you have hit upon something there.
We've actually just seen, you know that several members' bills
come through in the last few weeks from New Zealand first,
and I think Actor is getting on and on the
game as well. It's sort of it's almost like legislative
virtue signaling. I think they're using members bills to make
a point and differentiate themselves. I think if you could,
(02:31):
there could be a case for a government bill, but
then they'd have to put that through the Cabinet committee
that have to go through cabinet, get government support for
that that. You know, you couldn't rule that out from
happening in this case. I'm not sure what the National
Party thinks, but perhaps they could be persuaded. Yeah, and
the other issue is, of course, you know, to go
back to the Coalition agreement. Those these three parties view
(02:54):
the Coalition agreement as sort of sacred and if one
party thinks, and potentially two parties think that it's a
brief each of that coalition agreement, then that it's a
very serious issue.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
Yeah, true too, right, Hey listen, David Seymour, I see
he's rejected this advice from his Ministry for Regulation on
the bank's requirement with capital requirement rules. What do you
make of this?
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Yeah, like a quickly, but the background the Reserve Bank
has asked will force the trading banks to hold more
capital relative to the lending that they do. What that
means for you and me is that it means more
expensive loans, less less ability to borrow money, and ultimately
it means the economy grows slower than it would have
otherwise done, which is not ideal. David Seymour, The act
(03:33):
parties always, they've always opposed these rules. National doesn't like
them either. Interestingly enough, though, David Seymour Asked's REGs Ministry
to have a look at them, and the Regulations Ministry said, well,
the rules are actually not out of line with what
other countries rules are. David Seymour actually thinks that the
REGs Ministry is wrong in that case. He's cited some
other advice that he received from them that that's sorry
(03:55):
in the public domain, from PwC and the Banker's Association.
That advice says that actually, our rule rules are twice
as onerous as the rules in some other parts of
the world, mainly Europe, and therefore they are they are
a sort of an unfair imposition on our economy. So
you know, essentially he sided with he sided with the
banks against his own ministry. It doesn't really matter now
(04:16):
at the moment. It's sort of the issue is kind
of dormant because the Reserve Bank has said that they're
going to have a look at the rules anyway, and
potentially I would imagine the rules will be weakened to
be a bit more pro lending, proeconomic growth. But certainly
if the bank decides to stick with the rules, then
I would imagine that this issue will bubble to the
front burner again.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
Yeap too, right, Hey, thanks very much, Thomas has always appreciated.
That's Thomas Coglin, the Herald's political editor. For more from
Heather to Duplassy Alan Drive, Listen live to news talks
it'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio
Thomas Coglan, the Herald's political editors of US. Hey, Thomas, Hey,
I see that the both coalition partners have come out
against this co governance situation and why targeting range is.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Yeah, yeah, this is very interesting. I think it's sort
of blew onto the public consciousness on your show actually,
and it's Shane Jones has really really empted up this
morning saying that he actually thinks this is co govenance
and he thinks it's a breach of the Coalition agreement
because obviously the Coalition Agreement is pretty clear that there
are there is to be no co governance of public
services and David Seymour has effectively in broad terms back that.
(00:33):
So it really puts the ball in National's court. We
haven't actually heard a lot from National arm at the moment.
We're going to probably hear a bit more this week
from them. Well you hear a.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
Bit more at six o'clock because Nichola has gone away
to find out some information for us.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Oh yes, why I heard last week when she was
on your show, she didn't seem to be aware of
it at all, So she suddenly she suddenly had plenty
of time to scrub up on it. So, so, I
mean it will be really interesting to see where they
where they come at it from. Interesting too that the
Council does sort of see it as a co govenance arrangement.
They see it as dating back to this two thousand
and eight deed. But but certainly National and Act are
(01:07):
pretty clear that they actually do they do see thiss
co governance and therefore, and what Shane Jones is saying
is that it would be a breach of the Coalition agreement,
which is very very serious.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
Indeed, is it possible for central government to stop local
government from doing this?
Speaker 2 (01:22):
I mean that is the I think because the deed
itself as a legislative instrument, it might actually require it.
I mean, central government can ultimately do anything, but it
would require potentially a parliamentary intervention, which you know that
that that could that could be done. But of course
that that opens up a whole lot of other controver
controversies because then you'd you'd effectively have central government legislating
(01:43):
over the top of something that local government wants to do,
which does happen all the time but but but never
a good look could become an issue in the election
this year, So so certainly I think this has got
this has got legs the story. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Now, now I'm interested in the fact that Shane Jones
opposes it, but is only prepared to take a member's
bill to Parliament. So I mean if he I mean,
if they really oppose it, they are government, they can
stop it, right. Why are they doing all this members
bill stuff? Is this stuff?
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Is this?
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Is this preparing for twenty twenty six?
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Yeah? There is. I think you have hit upon something there.
We've actually just seen, you know that several members' bills
come through in the last few weeks from New Zealand first,
and I think Actor is getting on and on the
game as well. It's sort of it's almost like legislative
virtue signaling. I think they're using members bills to make
a point and differentiate themselves. I think if you could,
(02:31):
there could be a case for a government bill, but
then they'd have to put that through the Cabinet committee
that have to go through cabinet, get government support for
that that. You know, you couldn't rule that out from
happening in this case. I'm not sure what the National
Party thinks, but perhaps they could be persuaded. Yeah, and
the other issue is, of course, you know, to go
back to the Coalition agreement. Those these three parties view
(02:54):
the Coalition agreement as sort of sacred and if one
party thinks, and potentially two parties think that it's a
brief each of that coalition agreement, then that it's a
very serious issue.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
Yeah, true too, right, Hey listen, David Seymour, I see
he's rejected this advice from his Ministry for Regulation on
the bank's requirement with capital requirement rules. What do you
make of this?
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Yeah, like a quickly, but the background the Reserve Bank
has asked will force the trading banks to hold more
capital relative to the lending that they do. What that
means for you and me is that it means more
expensive loans, less less ability to borrow money, and ultimately
it means the economy grows slower than it would have
otherwise done, which is not ideal. David Seymour, The act
(03:33):
parties always, they've always opposed these rules. National doesn't like
them either. Interestingly enough, though, David Seymour Asked's REGs Ministry
to have a look at them, and the Regulations Ministry said, well,
the rules are actually not out of line with what
other countries rules are. David Seymour actually thinks that the
REGs Ministry is wrong in that case. He's cited some
other advice that he received from them that that's sorry
(03:55):
in the public domain, from PwC and the Banker's Association.
That advice says that actually, our rule rules are twice
as onerous as the rules in some other parts of
the world, mainly Europe, and therefore they are they are
a sort of an unfair imposition on our economy. So
you know, essentially he sided with he sided with the
banks against his own ministry. It doesn't really matter now
(04:16):
at the moment. It's sort of the issue is kind
of dormant because the Reserve Bank has said that they're
going to have a look at the rules anyway, and
potentially I would imagine the rules will be weakened to
be a bit more pro lending, proeconomic growth. But certainly
if the bank decides to stick with the rules, then
I would imagine that this issue will bubble to the
front burner again.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
Yeap too, right, Hey, thanks very much, Thomas has always appreciated.
That's Thomas Coglin, the Herald's political editor. For more from
Heather to Duplassy Alan Drive, Listen live to news talks
it'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.