Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk Z'B.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Politics, Friday Labors, Tracy McLellan, Tracy, good Morning, and our nationals.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Matt do see morning, Matte Morning, John Morning, Tracy, Morning, Matt.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Any idea. I'll start with you, Tracy, how many potholes
you would have driven past to get here this morning?
Underd potholes are rode cones?
Speaker 4 (00:26):
None, But that's unusual. I was listening earlier on and
I thought to myself, I'm not going to see any
any road codes on the way in here today, and
that's going to be unusual.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Unusual. What about you, Matt?
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Interesting enough? When you think of something and look for it,
I think you see a few more. And randomly I
spotted about four in from the way from ringing your
a gristchits just sitting individually on their own, so, whether
they've been lost, just doing so, I felt for them
a bit, just a family of normally you see them
in great swathes. I don't know what you would call them.
(01:01):
A gaggle of cone Well that's all.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Actually that's what we need because you always see on
the inquizus. What do you call a something of sheep
or yeah, blah blah blah. What do you call four
or five road cones together?
Speaker 3 (01:13):
Yeah, I'd call it a labor of road cone.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Oh, here we go, here we go. So what are
you going to do then? What's a commitment right now
in terms of road cone management when you start building
your big water in bypass.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
Yeah, well, clearly we need some temporary transport management and
that's been looked at by Simeon Brown, the Transport Minister.
It was interesting he got n ZTA to undertake a
review of eight hundred sites and found that one hundred
and forty five of them actually didn't need temporary traffic management.
So it does show there's been considerable scope creep and
(01:48):
that's what we want to understand. And ultimately, I think
by moving to a risk based approach of assessing what
is needed will largely result in quite a reduction of
road cone Well that will I think that is welcomed
by most of the power.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
That'll only change though, if you say some of the
health and safety law which are also under review.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
Yeah, very much so. So what we want to do
is ensure when we look at health and safety that
the systems that are set up and operationalized are actually required.
And my sense is actually when you talk to people
on the ground, they're largely saying it's got away with itself.
And you think of the cost of millions of dollars
(02:28):
to local government, to central government and ultimately the taxpayer,
and you start to think about how some of this
is incentivized through the costing and the contracting. Do we
really need it? And I think we're going to find
for some areas potentially not Well.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
That would be seen by some as predetermination. But do
you think the car you've got the cart before the horse.
You do in the health and safety review, but then
you're out today saying I'm going.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
To get a pre determination. But when you look at
a review of eight hundred sites and find out that
almost twenty percent was not needed, it does show that
it has got away with itself. And quite rightly, by
shining a bit of sunlight on it, we'll understand it
a bit better and I think we'll be able to
(03:14):
manage the cones a bit better.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
Tracy McClelland how do we get into the state.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
Look, Actually, I don't have a problem with having like
shining a light on it. I think like everything you've
got to review and see what's working and what's not.
I think that, you know, would be remiss to take
our eye off the off the ball in so far
as I think something like forty people are either killed
or seriously injured a year, be it road workers or
(03:41):
road users, and that's the number one priority. But if
there's some creep, as you say, then I think we
should look at it. But it's got to be informed
by a proper review and not just reckons and not
just people's visceral reactions. Every time I see a road
kind of I'm like, oh, and that's not necessarily rational.
(04:02):
So we need to do.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
It properly, which is what the minister did do and
got the ends it to the out of this thing
with one hundred and forty five out of eight hundred
that Matt was talking about. There, Matt, dooci just what's
this fuss about. You're not reading the interim report regarding
abuse and care at Saint John of God before you
met some of the survivors of that abuse.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
Yeah, story there. Look, I was a bit surprised by
that article. It refers to a meeting that I attended
actually a few months ago. Now and I attended as
a local MP. I was asked to go along and
hear from a group of people their experiences of abuse
(04:42):
and Howrod impacted on them. The article refers to my
saying that I hadn't read the interim report, which is correct.
The interim report was published I think July August last year,
several months before I became a minister. I received very
comprehensive briefings, and I made the decision that I was
(05:04):
satisfied with those briefings and I would read the full
report that has actually been presented to the government in
the last week, and that will be tabled in Parliament
on the twenty fourth. So look like.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Maybe did you think now, maybe I should have read it.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
No, Well, this was a bit surprised by the story
because I was quite clear that I chose not to
read the interim briefings based on the level of briefings
I was receiving. No issue was raised with me at
the time or after the meeting. So lot in the end,
as a local MP, you get invited to a lot
of things. I'm very accessible. I'd try and make as
(05:43):
many invites as I possibly can. Unlike anything as a
public figure, you make a decision and people will have
the views on that. But rest assured you know I
take this area work very seriously. Like I say, since
becoming a minister, I've received quite substantive briefings on what
(06:03):
the process is taking and that report I will read
thoroughly and look at the recommendations.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
As a prime minister spoken to you about it. No
couple Dasgar. I was called a knob, probably not the
first time and probably not the last time. And it's
you lot, our fault, You lot that got fault that
got me, got me into that because I said that
I didn't think it was such a bad idea to
be considering an inheritance tax. Why is labor doing that?
Speaker 4 (06:29):
That we're considering all sorts of things. That's the beauty
of the only beauty of being an opposition is that
you get to sit back and you get to redesign
all the suite of policies that you bring to the
next election.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Is that a way of saying, working out how you
fix up the cockups?
Speaker 4 (06:44):
No, Look, it's all everything's on the table now. Like
we've got to go back to that, go back to
the drawing board and think about what it is. We're
going to present to the public in twenty twenty six,
so there'll be people looking at various things.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
So what's your personal position on an inherent inheritance tax?
Speaker 4 (06:58):
I'm not I look, tax isn't my wheelhouse.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
I stopped, don't do that.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
Came there getting a couple of things.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
As we tell people, we have a talk back manual
which I'm more than happy to send you. Just because
it's not an expert doesn't mean you can't call it.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
You are.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
You're a tax payer. So what's what's your personal position
on an inheritons text?
Speaker 4 (07:21):
Well, I don't think I have a personal position, but
I'm open to no, no, no, no. I think we
have to look at things, and I think that we're
in a position where in a modern society we've got
to figure out whether our systems are working for us
and whether we need to do things differently. So I
think we do need to rigorously look at things, and
that means going through a process of getting some good
information and seeing if it's going to work for us
(07:43):
or not.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Come on, behind the scenes at home. What are you
saying about the inheresons tax?
Speaker 4 (07:47):
Well, I haven't been saying anything behind the scenes at home.
The only information I've got about inheritance text generally comes
from TV programs where people moan about it. But I
think that's a that's just a bit of a hang
up from old systems in the UK and the US.
I know lots of places in the world have one,
so I think it's reasonable for us to look.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
At it all. Right, Matt, do you see what's your
personal passion position on inheritance taxes?
Speaker 3 (08:08):
Well, my personal position is there's only two certainties in life,
that's death and taxes, and labor has seemed to have
joined them, and now we have a death tax. It's
a colamb So look, I'm clearly not in support of this.
I think we need less tax not more. And it
is interesting when you think about the promises that labor
(08:31):
has made previously around taxes, it just shows that they
are always looking to cook up more ways of taking hard.
Speaker 4 (08:40):
About making sure that people that work, people that pay
paye aren't the only ones footing the bills all the time.
I think we have to be have a mature conversation
about where our revenue base is. People that work hard
for a living shouldn't be the ones that foot all
the bills.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Well, the people, some people say, the ones that didn't
share my thinking that when we were discussing this, we're saying, Okay,
the working people that you talk about, they pay tax
when they're alive, effectively, why should they be taxed when
they're dead.
Speaker 4 (09:08):
Well, and that's part of investigating whether it's a good
thing or a bad thing, whether it has unintended consequences,
whether it's the right fit for the New Zealand kind
of landscape. But nothing should be off the table. A
good comprehensive look at tax is what a responsible government does.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
And the government has taken a good comprehensive look at
climate change and it's come up with a three page
strategy pamphlet described as a pamphlet, which we will discuss next. Matt,
did you was it difficult to keep a smile, if
not a smirk, off your face when you saw one
of your colleagues selling the government's climate change strategy, which
(09:47):
was a three page document described by some detractors as
a pamphlet.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
Well, you know, I'm always smiling, John, enjoying the job.
Speaker 4 (09:57):
When they're taken long to read.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
But look what it was was a strategy document like
you say it frames our approach. Simon Watts, our climate
Change Minister will be publishing a detailed plan in the
near future. But what it set out is the five
key pillars of our approach. One of them about really
(10:20):
unleashing renewable energy. We know we have a consenting issue
in New Zealand. We're going to ensure that consents are
expedited in twelve months and we hope that Labor and
Greens will get on board with that. Now we need
to ensure that we fast track consents on renewable energy. Also,
we've got the one point two billion dollar Resilience Infrastructure
(10:43):
Fund to build resilient infrastructure and you go down those
five key pillars and that will be our plan about
addressing climate change. So I think people have welcomed the approach,
well not likely. Who are these people, wellheis who want
to see a plan from a government because all we
(11:04):
had under the last government with slogan airing. Look at
what happened about the AILL and Gaspan and the situation
we find ourselves in today as a country having to
need to increase in the Nsian coal import. OK.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
So how hypocritical is it then for the government put
to release a three page strategy document as you describe it,
in the same week as you've got your Resources minister
on the other side of the Tasman talit in the
mining companies, we're open for business.
Speaker 3 (11:32):
Well, when you look at the plan, it clearly sets
out how we're going to address with the issues of
climate change, step through those five pillars, and people want
to see from a government plans in the respective ministerial areas.
I announced mental health last week with our targets and
(11:54):
our innovation fund, and something you're not going to see
from this government is sitting on their hands. People tell
me quite often, they say every day you're announcing new initiatives,
new plan to address the issues in New Zealand, and
they're liking the fast pace we're.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
Moving announcements of announcements of announcements. I don't think so,
Tracy McLellan. The thing is is that your lot were
brilliant coming up with eighty five thousand page strategies and
documents which ended up going nowhere. Is it a bit
rich of you to criticize what national's doing.
Speaker 4 (12:29):
Not at all? All the government's doing not at all,
because that keeps talking about a plan, and it's not
a plan, it's a pamphlet.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
There, you guys, just give it a break from not
give it a break. Just just let me ask the question,
because you're not answering the question. You guys were great
at putting up plans and strategies and documents, but when
it came to delivery silence.
Speaker 4 (12:53):
If that was true, John, then the government wouldn't have
scrapped three billion dollars out of climate initiatives and the
budget twenty twenty four. There wouldn't have been anything to scrap.
If nothing hadn't been done. Three billion dollars was taken
out out of climate initiatives in the last budget and
there's no plan to back and.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
We're talking about labor. We're talk about labor.
Speaker 4 (13:14):
Those were things that we had introduced. If we had
not introduced things, if those were just hollow words and
weren't initiatives and were in action, then the government wouldn't
have had three billion dollars worth of things to scrap.
Now that's just nonsense. The point is they scrapped all
of those things. There's no plan to reduce our emissions,
there's no plan to meet our targets and we're a
(13:35):
trading nation. Eventually, sooner rather than later, the people that
we're going to trade with are going to say, we
want to see the receipts. We don't want to see
the three page pamphlet on what you're doing. We want
to see the receipts on what you're doing to reduce emissions,
or we're not trading for you with you. This is
about keeping Kiwi jobs and keeping the fiscals in line,
and they have no plan to do so.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
Matt, do see the monkey business. Let's move on to
the introl em theories. The monkey business with the interron theories,
especially this week, all to carry on. We've got the
prime ministers saying, well, I'm not commenting on speculation and
pretty much said go and talk to my deputy and
he'll be more than happy to talk to you. Is
this playing into the hands of the government's intention to
(14:18):
privatize the cookstraight service.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
No, I don't think so. I think what we have,
whether it be with the last Labor government or the
current government, the commitment to replace the fairies. The last
government's plan was by twenty twenty six. Clearly that poses
some concern about the current theories and the maintenance between
now and twenty twenty six. With the current issue of
(14:43):
the oterny, we do have three investigations underway, Transport Accident
Investor and what do they called investigation.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
Transport Accident Investigation compris that's right.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
I should remember that Taiak. We've got maritime in New
Zealand and also Key we Rail, so we need to
quite rightly investigate what happened with that issue and ensure
that our current fleet of fairies maintain a level of
service for the next two or three years. And also
(15:13):
the current government has put together a minister or advisory
committee to look at the options forward because what we
weren't going to do was bail out the last program.
An extra one points. I'll get that.
Speaker 2 (15:30):
I'm conscious of time. I just want to check. It
was suggested this week that the Deputy Prime Minister was
being unhelpful or the Deputy prime Minister's party, and then
subsequent subsequent commentary by the Deputy Prime Minister was unhelpful
given that those investigations you're referenced are still underway. What's
your take on that.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Well, I think it's for the Deputy Prime Minister to
respond to his own comments, not me.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
Do you agree with him that something doesn't stack up?
Speaker 3 (15:59):
Oh a lot. It's for him to defend his own comments.
I won't be commenting.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
I'll try what I tried with Tracy before, at home
with the curtains clothed and fire on and just and
just here, when you're dearest and nearest next to you.
What have you been saying about the fairies? Oh?
Speaker 3 (16:13):
Look, I stand by my statements, John.
Speaker 2 (16:16):
Help me stay at home all the time. I'll try
that one.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
Well, if you think you're a tough and of view,
you should meet my wife. I do have to say
I stand by my comments. Every day at home, I'll
probably be saying I have done the Lord. I could
see him log of the photo.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
Here I'm to stand in for you. So you're gonna
have the week here, you're gonna have watched the rugby
and Auckland.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
And I'll stand at home.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
Yeah. So look, as Tracy will know. When parliament's not sitting,
we call it recess. And my wife was famously asked
at a public meeting, what's the worst thing being married
to an MP?
Speaker 2 (16:54):
And said, Tracy, are we are we in this mess
with the fairies? Because your government didn't have rains on
the project.
Speaker 4 (17:06):
Look at don't think it's any secret that those costs
blew out.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
But the point is fear, did you guys get us here?
Speaker 4 (17:12):
No, I don't think so. But the fairies are never
going to be any cheaper in two years time than
what they are today, and let alone those break fees.
So I think the government was very very quick to
knee reaction to kibosh that instead of looking at it wrong.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
Which I saw the stuff from the news last night
about privatization Matt Doocy, I thought, or here we go.
That's why they canceled the contract.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
Again. Committed to a reliable ferry service.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
It's an important age old trick, isn't.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
It, state state run, whether it be for our freight.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
And of course I'm very mindful as the Tourism Minister,
we need to ensure a reliable faery service and we
are doing due diligence looking at all the options.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
All right, I just want to get quickly get a
response from both of you to a paragraph in the
media release that Paul Goldsmith, the Minister of Justice, put
out yesterday about the new Ministerial Advisory Group for Retail
crime Victims. All right. I just want to read a paragraph,
and I want to get a comment from you. I'll
(18:17):
read it to you. It says the new Ministerial Advisory
Group will engage directly with victims, workers, business owners, retail
experts and advocacy groups over the next two years to
provide the government's specific proposals to address urgent challenges in
retail crime. That doesn't make sense to me, Tracy mccleman.
Speaker 4 (18:37):
No, they're keeping Sunny busy for two years and with
a three point four billion dollar million dollar budget. If
some good policy come out of it, all power to them.
But this is a means by which.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
You're talking about Sonny Kochear, who's been appointed chair of
the Advisory Group.
Speaker 4 (18:51):
Two years is an awfully long time. Last time I
saw Sonny on TV, he was wanting immediate action yesterday.
So this is a means by which to keep a
group of people busy and occupied and hopefully coming up
with some good ideas. But I think it's pretty cynical.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
You're saying that the government's paying him to be quiet.
Speaker 4 (19:08):
No. I think they really genuinely probably want some good
policy out of it. But two years is an awfully
long time, and last time I checked, these things need
immediate action, Mat.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
Durci, Does that make sense We're going to work. We're
going to work over the next two years to address
urgent challenges.
Speaker 3 (19:22):
Yes, but I think what you're wrongly assessed from that
statement is that we would wait two years to implement
any recommendations. Minister Goldsmith, who is the Justice Minister, has
been very clear that we expect recommendations to start immediately
and we will look to implement them. So this isn't
waiting two years. This is starting a process. We've heard
(19:45):
from retailers on the ground they want direct engagement. The
justice area needs extra capacity. You think the huge work
that's been done around strengthening sentencing, better laws for police,
cracking down on gang's young offenders. And so what we're
(20:05):
going to do is engage with the sector and actually
when the ideas come and we're going to back them,
will implement them straight away. So this isn't waiting two years.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
All right, tomorrow night, All blacks Auckland's what's your what's
your prediction? Tracy Auckland's England, All Blacks.
Speaker 4 (20:21):
England and Auckland's yeah, I know you meant, oh, definitely,
all Blacks by about twelve.
Speaker 3 (20:27):
Matt Ducy, I think it's going to be close again.
I think the English will be quite buoyed by that
result last week. And it goes back to that saying
when the Crusaders do well, the all Blacks do well.
Clearly the Crusaders aren't doing well, and the Times.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
A rouggled a bit time to rewrite that one. I think, Hey,
Matt Doucy, love you see it.
Speaker 3 (20:47):
Thank you very much, John Tracy, Mcleveran, thank you, thank
you very much.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
Politic's Funny.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
For more from Canterbory Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to news Talks It'd be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio