Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by National’s Vanessa Weenink and Labour’s Tracey McLellan to discuss the biggest political stories of the week.
On today's agenda was Health NZ’s nearly $1 billion deficit – how does the Government get them out of this hole? Are private-public partnerships the answer?
Is it time to stop people building homes in 'dumb places' as the insurance council has this week asked?
And will we start to see a conversation across all parties around the retirement age?
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 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Morning's podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk ZB.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
It's time for politics Friday Labis, Tracy McClellan, Tracy in
National's Vanessa Wedning, Vanessa Morning, you're on the phone. Yes,
I am out of fas now out of Venus. I
did ask Nicola Greg when she was on the phone
last week if she was working from home, So I've
got to ask you the question, are you working from home?
Speaker 3 (00:29):
No, I'm not. I'm in my office. So I just
couldn't get in and out and have covered my select
committee that's on at the moment.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Brilliant. All right, Let's let's look at health because this
is something that you're both interested in. So there's a
couple of aspects of this, Vanessa. Why why is Health
New Zealand facing a one billion dollar blowout? I'm going
to ask you first and then then Tracy will defend it.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Well. I mean, first of all, this is an ongoing
issue that's happened sort of rolling over from the transition process.
Part of it has happened because of the technical issue
around the payments for the it's what was it the
(01:15):
this is the half of the mental blank just sorry,
just mental blank. It was to do with the payments
for pay equity. Thank you. That was just coming out
of my brain. His pay equity payments. This was quite
a big chunk of that. I think there was something
stock underwritten written off from COVID nineteen. There was also
(01:37):
some holiday X compliance things, so some of those things
affected that quite right. So the biggest thing is this staff.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
So it's a little bit what's the word I want
to say, just disingenuous. But it's not accurate to for
anyone to look at that and think, oh, it's because
the health system doesn't know how to run itself. There's
there are some they almost sound like account some of
them accounting procedures in there that are part of the equation.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
I think. There's also so quite a blowout in the
number of outsourcing of staff across all employment groups, which
is quite concerning.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
Tracy, Why is that happening?
Speaker 4 (02:16):
Well, first of all, John, the five hundred million of
pay equity was a cabinet decision not to transfer it
to far to order, so that's left them. So that's
more than half of that deficit. And Vanessa is exactly
right with the reasons for the rest of it. But
the point here is that the minister has used this
deficit as a means by which to cut one point
(02:37):
four billion dollars out of the health system. He's manufactured
a crisis that, as you've just said, and as Vanessa
has just said, is largely accounting and largely put down
to reasons that a logical person can see.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Okay, Vanessa, why wasn't that five hundred thousand pay equity
transferred to Health New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
I couldn't say about that. But he's not actually asking
for a cut. All he's asking is that we stick
to the budget. So it's not that there's been one
point four billion dollars taken out of the health budget.
That's inaccurate and misinformation. What's happening is we're asking them
to stick to their allocated budget, which is not cut.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
As a former health professional yourself, how much does it
pain you to say things like that we're asking them
to stick within their budget.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
It doesn't pay me at all, because I was a
business owner as a GP who always stuck within the
amount of money that we had, even if that meant that,
you know, sometimes we had to take caps for ourselves
as GP owners so that's actually not hard. As a
business owner, we know that you need to stick within
your budget. Did the hospital systems needing to stick within
(03:48):
their budget? Doesn't pay me at all.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
How are hospitals not staying within their budget?
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Well, the projective and actuals from the last few months
have shown that there've been hundreds of millions of dollars.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Outside of the Yeah, yeah, but why is that? How
is that?
Speaker 3 (04:04):
So? One of the major coues is because of over
allocation of staff in some areas, in particular outsourcing of staff.
One of those is contractors for admin rolls as well
as for.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Okay, just hold on, Tracy, Venessa, Vanessa, are you saying, Vanessa,
that the hospital should have less less staff to stay
within their budget as the government's requiring.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
I'm saying that they've got they've gone over their allocations,
so they've have had more staff allocated than they had
budgeted for.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
And who's I'll use the word fault. Whose fault is that?
Speaker 3 (04:48):
So? I think that is a problem of not not
controlling the their budgets properly. So that's not looking at
their at the proper allocations and keeping a control on that.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
Tracy, Okay, Tracy. Will you admit now, well, La admit
now that the idea of this amalgamation, particularly so soon
after after COVID, was just a stupid idea.
Speaker 4 (05:13):
No, I don't think it's are you Are.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
You saying that if you were still in goumbment, we
wouldn't be having a one billion dollar budget blowout?
Speaker 4 (05:20):
And those two things are related, John, Are you saying that? No,
I'm not saying that.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
The health set You accept that they would still be
in strife if you were still in government.
Speaker 4 (05:30):
Well, that's a magical thinking. I don't know. The point
is we can't look under the hood anymore, so we
don't know, well, we do not.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
You can't look under the hood anymore than any more
or less than I can. And I look at it
and I think, man, that didn't work, did it?
Speaker 4 (05:44):
But then the other particular part of the reform was
when you look at the capital investment, so you know
twenty DHB is all doing different things. One of the
one of the good things of the reform was being
able to put together that investment and infrastructure investment.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Partnership hold on good things on paper before you did it.
But now we've got the situation like Eden hospital where
the government's saying hold on them and that the budget's
gone and blah blah blah, way over. You're now possibly
not going to get the hospital that you were promised.
How can you say that that's a great outcome from
your great idea.
Speaker 4 (06:17):
Well, you're confusing two separate things.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
First of all, you were talking about capital.
Speaker 4 (06:20):
Yep, exactly. So first of all, the Darneedan hospital blowout
of three billion dollars is a made up number. We
know it's not three billion dollars. Four hundred million of
that is car parks, pathology and things that the health
budget doesn't pay for anyhow. So this government has purposely
put those things in to the big number to make
it seem scary so they can pit other regions against
(06:43):
other regions and say we can't have the hospital that
was approved.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Well, I'm going to bring Vanessa in shortly. But I
agree with you that the shameful that the way Dunedan's
being treated over the hospital matter. But I think you're
clutching at straws to say, oh, this comes from different budget.
This one comes from different budget. Therefore it's not technically
the spend on the hospital. You're clutching at straws there.
Speaker 4 (07:03):
No, I don't think that's exactly what you are going
on holiday?
Speaker 2 (07:07):
And you said, oh, the holiday is only going to
cost us what is going to cost us stay in
the motel. We're not factoring in the price of the
petrol of the flights. You'd say, oh, that's nuts.
Speaker 4 (07:15):
But house doesn't build car.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
Parks, Vanessa. Is it a made up number?
Speaker 3 (07:20):
No, Look, these are projections based on modeling on what
is currently happening, so that is, you know, one of
the things that you need to do in financial management
is to look forward to what the projected spend would
be or could be. And it's a risk that this
could blow out. And I sort of confessed the fact
(07:43):
that the space for car parking shouldn't be a consideration
when you're building a hospital. I think that many people
would consider the need to travel to a hospital to
either a keen appointments or visits family is really important.
Speaker 4 (08:00):
And there's a hospital car park already there which will
be equal distance from the old hospital to the new hospital,
and a private arrangement will be made for any new
car parking building. You do not need to put that
in the hospital building.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
All right, one quite final question, Vanessa. So it's a
projected blower, not an actual blowout.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
Is that correct as I understand it. Yes, it's not
gone to three billion already. It's the projected final cost towards.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
So a parliamentary select committee, this is the Finance and
Expenditure committee's been looking at the issue of well, what
is government's role in preparing for climate change? And one
of the recommendations that's come back with in the last
twenty four to forty eight hours is that the government
shouldn't get involved in trying to make up for financial
loss incurred by climate change, particularly when it comes to
(08:45):
dropping property values. Vanessa winning, do you think that there
is a role in the state to help people out
or is it a case of people choosing to live
in places that are going to be affected by climate
change that's their problem to deal with.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
Well, I think the first thing to note is, look,
the government hasn't tabled our response to the inquiry yet.
The idea though that people should take their risks at
with their own kind of biabooware approach, and also the
idea that you know, we create a bit of something
(09:18):
we call a bit of a moral hazard if you
didn't have to pay for the risks that you're taking.
So yeah, we think I'd agree probably with that idea
that it isn't really the place of government to take
away risks that are at this point pretty well established.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Now, what about people that have that are living in
areas and been living in the areas for a long
time and chose to live in that area when this
threat wasn't or didn't exist.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
Well, I think, I mean climate change and the likely
effects of climate change had been known and pretty well
established for at least thirty years, So I don't really
accept that Trace McLellan.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
Banks Peninsula is one part of Canterbury that is particularly
at risk. In fact, the City Council's identified property valued
at about fourteen billion dollars, including property or land on
Banks Peninsula, is that it is at risk of being
inundated within the next twenty five years. What role do
you think state has the government has in helping people
(10:25):
in these positions.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
Yeah, and it's it's an incredibly tricky question.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
What it's the answer?
Speaker 4 (10:31):
Well, I don't know what the answer is off the
top of my head, to be honest. That's why there's
an inquiry.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
What's your personal opinion.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
Well, I think there's always where there's a will as
a way, and we do have to come to some
sort of consensus which has to be bipartisan. It's a
long term problem. It's going to be you know, all
hands to the pump to think about what it's probably
a suite of answers. It'll be interesting to see what
the government's response is to this inquiry. But as well
(10:56):
as thinking about adaptation and so that people aren't left
high and dry, so to speak, and that there's not
all these moral dilemmas about you know, who's deserving and
who's not, we also need to not take our foot
off the mitigation stuff. You know, the government ripping out
three billion dollars in budget twenty four for climate mitigation
(11:17):
work doesn't help the cause and just increases the burden
of adaptation.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
So what do you think that the lights of the
Christist City Council should be doing. Because the insurance you
would have heard the Insurance Council came out this week
saying look, stop building, in their words dune places. I
think it's nuts, for example, that you can still get
consent to build a new house at south Shore.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
Do you think, yeah, and I think the insurance industry
is that's where the rubber hits the road, isn't it.
Once things can't be insured. That's the clearest sign possible
and the clearest indication. It's just as you said, what
about the people that have been there for such a
long time and all of a sudden, all of their
wealth that's in that property but at their home is
(11:57):
worth nothing because the insurance can't pay for it.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
It sounds to me like you feel differently to Veressa.
Speaker 4 (12:02):
And you think the states does have a role, Well,
I think I think all aspects of societ have to
play a role, and what the state's role in that
will be will be interesting to hear what the government's
initial response is to this inquiry the governments.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
This is something you may not have heard much about.
The government is going to announce a bit later on
today about its plan to underwrite property development. My understanding
is to give developers more certainty and also increase the
likelihood of certain developers getting bank support knowing that the
project is underwritten by the government. Vanessa, can you explain
(12:35):
how this will work?
Speaker 3 (12:37):
Well? I understand that the basic idea is that it
will hopefully promote a bit more certainty and lending for developments.
And so basically if they meet the conditions, if a
development happens and they go to market and can't sell
a few properties, or when the government would guarantee to
(12:59):
buy those units of property. So that's basically how it
would work, and the hope that it would enable them
to be able to then lend the capital to be
able to make the development happen.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
Does this mean that if that happens, people could buy
in a development and then find when they move in
that there's a bit of social housing mixed in there
because the government's bought those properties or some properties.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
I don't know the final details of that how it
would work, but that could be a possibility.
Speaker 2 (13:33):
And do you think that that almost would take away
the attraction of it or do you think the developers
just want to get the money and get it built
and they don't really care whether it's private or social
housing there.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
I don't have any idea how they might see it.
Speaker 4 (13:49):
Yeah, I'm not sure either.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
But it's a good a risk though way well.
Speaker 4 (13:54):
I suppose it depends on whether you think that's a
good thing or Mexic communities are a good thing.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
But what do you think? What do you think?
Speaker 4 (14:00):
Well, I think that having Mexic communities is always a
good way to build community. I don't think that, you know,
people need to be behind gates and only cater for
some sort of housing needs and not others.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Are there CAM or A properties in the all plane
near your place?
Speaker 4 (14:15):
I'm not sure, and I don't know if I would
even know if there was, and I don't think I
even particularly care if there was. It's people need somewhere
to live, and people have different housing needs and come
from different vantage points. I do think that the government
underwrite is a good idea. It was essentially we had
tools in place in the last government national scrap them
(14:37):
and now they've looked under the hood, so to speak,
and decided that you know, it has a devastating effect
on the industry if you don't have that support. So
they've essentially repackaged that and come up with their own
version of our build ready development pathway that was in
place previously.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
Let's have a look at one final thing to tick off,
so superannuation. And there was an event yesterday as part
of the New Zealand Herald's Mood of the boardroom release
and Nicola Willis was there from a national course and
Barbara Edmunds correct myself there I called it Barbara Edmondson,
but Barbara Edmonds from from the Labor Party was there
and it appeared that they on stage had reached some
(15:16):
sort of commitment to have a discussion about the age
of entitlement for superannuation in New Zealand. Tracy, what do
you think that should be? Do you think it should
change now?
Speaker 4 (15:25):
I don't think it should change, and I don't think
they agreed to have a discussion about the age of retirement.
I think they agreed that New Zealand has an aging population,
it is an expensive to afford superannuation, and I think
they agreed to sit down to look at ways in
which we should be financing and funding that, not not
(15:45):
not changing the age, certainly not from their perspective anyhow.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
What ideas would you have if you're not going to
increase the age. I leave all men's testing.
Speaker 4 (15:52):
I leave all of those smart all of that smart.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
You sign up to bring smart stuff to Bollocks Friday?
So what your your personal view? How would you how
would you do that if you're not going to raise
the age. What would you do.
Speaker 4 (16:05):
Well, it's all about to voices, isn't it. And I
think that we put those.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
That means that means nothing. What what ideas would would
would you put forward?
Speaker 4 (16:14):
I don't have any ideas to put forward. It's not
my portfolio, but I know that Barb is someone that
absolutely will have various things top of mind and lots
of things that you'll be working on to make what's sustainable.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
What's your personal position then on retirement age.
Speaker 4 (16:29):
I think it should stay as it is. I think
there's lots.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Your personal position on the age of entitlement or the
means of entitlement for New Zealand souper Should it be
means tested?
Speaker 3 (16:39):
No?
Speaker 2 (16:39):
Why not?
Speaker 4 (16:40):
Because universality works best. Soon as you start doing that,
you create a system that costs so much to administer
that it's not putting money in people's pockets. It's just
a whole bureaucratic level of administration. And there's ways around it.
There's people that can afford good tax lawyers, that can
hide as sets. It's just universal. It's one of the
things we should be able to count on. And there's
(17:02):
plenty of people out there that do hard manual labor
by the time they get to sixty five yet.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
Which is why I think keep a sixty five means
test of venis a wedding. What do you think?
Speaker 3 (17:12):
I think it would be a really great thing if
we can get some consensus around how to go forward,
because this is something that's going to cost the country
a lot over time. It's something that is great if
we can have a sort of some certainty around it.
I think if we were to raise the age of retirement,
it would be really important to make sure that we
(17:33):
had a really good support system to be able to
afford that, like potentially a compulsory superannuation scheme. So there
are all sorts of things that I think would need
to be discussed. It's not as simple as just raising
the retirement age. I think that that's one thing, but
(17:53):
that could potentially be an nequtable So we just look
at that quite carefully because you know people, for example,
for Maldi, for women, for for some other people, it
is possible that just raising your retirement age may disadvantage them.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
Okay, so just just on your personal stance on means testing.
New Zealand Souper, I.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
Actually think it's something that we should consider because it
is something that is going to be very potentially incredible
over time and get worse and harder for us to find.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
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 ZB.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
It's time for politics Friday Labis, Tracy McClellan, Tracy in
National's Vanessa Wedning, Vanessa Morning, you're on the phone. Yes,
I am out of fas now out of Venus. I
did ask Nicola Greg when she was on the phone
last week if she was working from home, So I've
got to ask you the question, are you working from home?
Speaker 3 (00:29):
No, I'm not. I'm in my office. So I just
couldn't get in and out and have covered my select
committee that's on at the moment.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Brilliant. All right, Let's let's look at health because this
is something that you're both interested in. So there's a
couple of aspects of this, Vanessa. Why why is Health
New Zealand facing a one billion dollar blowout? I'm going
to ask you first and then then Tracy will defend it.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Well. I mean, first of all, this is an ongoing
issue that's happened sort of rolling over from the transition process.
Part of it has happened because of the technical issue
around the payments for the it's what was it the
(01:15):
this is the half of the mental blank just sorry,
just mental blank. It was to do with the payments
for pay equity. Thank you. That was just coming out
of my brain. His pay equity payments. This was quite
a big chunk of that. I think there was something
stock underwritten written off from COVID nineteen. There was also
(01:37):
some holiday X compliance things, so some of those things
affected that quite right. So the biggest thing is this staff.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
So it's a little bit what's the word I want
to say, just disingenuous. But it's not accurate to for
anyone to look at that and think, oh, it's because
the health system doesn't know how to run itself. There's
there are some they almost sound like account some of
them accounting procedures in there that are part of the equation.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
I think. There's also so quite a blowout in the
number of outsourcing of staff across all employment groups, which
is quite concerning.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
Tracy, Why is that happening?
Speaker 4 (02:16):
Well, first of all, John, the five hundred million of
pay equity was a cabinet decision not to transfer it
to far to order, so that's left them. So that's
more than half of that deficit. And Vanessa is exactly
right with the reasons for the rest of it. But
the point here is that the minister has used this
deficit as a means by which to cut one point
(02:37):
four billion dollars out of the health system. He's manufactured
a crisis that, as you've just said, and as Vanessa
has just said, is largely accounting and largely put down
to reasons that a logical person can see.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Okay, Vanessa, why wasn't that five hundred thousand pay equity
transferred to Health New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
I couldn't say about that. But he's not actually asking
for a cut. All he's asking is that we stick
to the budget. So it's not that there's been one
point four billion dollars taken out of the health budget.
That's inaccurate and misinformation. What's happening is we're asking them
to stick to their allocated budget, which is not cut.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
As a former health professional yourself, how much does it
pain you to say things like that we're asking them
to stick within their budget.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
It doesn't pay me at all, because I was a
business owner as a GP who always stuck within the
amount of money that we had, even if that meant that,
you know, sometimes we had to take caps for ourselves
as GP owners so that's actually not hard. As a
business owner, we know that you need to stick within
your budget. Did the hospital systems needing to stick within
(03:48):
their budget? Doesn't pay me at all.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
How are hospitals not staying within their budget?
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Well, the projective and actuals from the last few months
have shown that there've been hundreds of millions of dollars.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Outside of the Yeah, yeah, but why is that? How
is that?
Speaker 3 (04:04):
So? One of the major coues is because of over
allocation of staff in some areas, in particular outsourcing of staff.
One of those is contractors for admin rolls as well
as for.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Okay, just hold on, Tracy, Venessa, Vanessa, are you saying, Vanessa,
that the hospital should have less less staff to stay
within their budget as the government's requiring.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
I'm saying that they've got they've gone over their allocations,
so they've have had more staff allocated than they had
budgeted for.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
And who's I'll use the word fault. Whose fault is that?
Speaker 3 (04:48):
So? I think that is a problem of not not
controlling the their budgets properly. So that's not looking at
their at the proper allocations and keeping a control on that.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
Tracy, Okay, Tracy. Will you admit now, well, La admit
now that the idea of this amalgamation, particularly so soon
after after COVID, was just a stupid idea.
Speaker 4 (05:13):
No, I don't think it's are you Are.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
You saying that if you were still in goumbment, we
wouldn't be having a one billion dollar budget blowout?
Speaker 4 (05:20):
And those two things are related, John, Are you saying that? No,
I'm not saying that.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
The health set You accept that they would still be
in strife if you were still in government.
Speaker 4 (05:30):
Well, that's a magical thinking. I don't know. The point
is we can't look under the hood anymore, so we
don't know, well, we do not.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
You can't look under the hood anymore than any more
or less than I can. And I look at it
and I think, man, that didn't work, did it?
Speaker 4 (05:44):
But then the other particular part of the reform was
when you look at the capital investment, so you know
twenty DHB is all doing different things. One of the
one of the good things of the reform was being
able to put together that investment and infrastructure investment.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Partnership hold on good things on paper before you did it.
But now we've got the situation like Eden hospital where
the government's saying hold on them and that the budget's
gone and blah blah blah, way over. You're now possibly
not going to get the hospital that you were promised.
How can you say that that's a great outcome from
your great idea.
Speaker 4 (06:17):
Well, you're confusing two separate things.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
First of all, you were talking about capital.
Speaker 4 (06:20):
Yep, exactly. So first of all, the Darneedan hospital blowout
of three billion dollars is a made up number. We
know it's not three billion dollars. Four hundred million of
that is car parks, pathology and things that the health
budget doesn't pay for anyhow. So this government has purposely
put those things in to the big number to make
it seem scary so they can pit other regions against
(06:43):
other regions and say we can't have the hospital that
was approved.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Well, I'm going to bring Vanessa in shortly. But I
agree with you that the shameful that the way Dunedan's
being treated over the hospital matter. But I think you're
clutching at straws to say, oh, this comes from different budget.
This one comes from different budget. Therefore it's not technically
the spend on the hospital. You're clutching at straws there.
Speaker 4 (07:03):
No, I don't think that's exactly what you are going
on holiday?
Speaker 2 (07:07):
And you said, oh, the holiday is only going to
cost us what is going to cost us stay in
the motel. We're not factoring in the price of the
petrol of the flights. You'd say, oh, that's nuts.
Speaker 4 (07:15):
But house doesn't build car.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
Parks, Vanessa. Is it a made up number?
Speaker 3 (07:20):
No, Look, these are projections based on modeling on what
is currently happening, so that is, you know, one of
the things that you need to do in financial management
is to look forward to what the projected spend would
be or could be. And it's a risk that this
could blow out. And I sort of confessed the fact
(07:43):
that the space for car parking shouldn't be a consideration
when you're building a hospital. I think that many people
would consider the need to travel to a hospital to
either a keen appointments or visits family is really important.
Speaker 4 (08:00):
And there's a hospital car park already there which will
be equal distance from the old hospital to the new hospital,
and a private arrangement will be made for any new
car parking building. You do not need to put that
in the hospital building.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
All right, one quite final question, Vanessa. So it's a
projected blower, not an actual blowout.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
Is that correct as I understand it. Yes, it's not
gone to three billion already. It's the projected final cost towards.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
So a parliamentary select committee, this is the Finance and
Expenditure committee's been looking at the issue of well, what
is government's role in preparing for climate change? And one
of the recommendations that's come back with in the last
twenty four to forty eight hours is that the government
shouldn't get involved in trying to make up for financial
loss incurred by climate change, particularly when it comes to
(08:45):
dropping property values. Vanessa winning, do you think that there
is a role in the state to help people out
or is it a case of people choosing to live
in places that are going to be affected by climate
change that's their problem to deal with.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
Well, I think the first thing to note is, look,
the government hasn't tabled our response to the inquiry yet.
The idea though that people should take their risks at
with their own kind of biabooware approach, and also the
idea that you know, we create a bit of something
(09:18):
we call a bit of a moral hazard if you
didn't have to pay for the risks that you're taking.
So yeah, we think I'd agree probably with that idea
that it isn't really the place of government to take
away risks that are at this point pretty well established.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Now, what about people that have that are living in
areas and been living in the areas for a long
time and chose to live in that area when this
threat wasn't or didn't exist.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
Well, I think, I mean climate change and the likely
effects of climate change had been known and pretty well
established for at least thirty years, So I don't really
accept that Trace McLellan.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
Banks Peninsula is one part of Canterbury that is particularly
at risk. In fact, the City Council's identified property valued
at about fourteen billion dollars, including property or land on
Banks Peninsula, is that it is at risk of being
inundated within the next twenty five years. What role do
you think state has the government has in helping people
(10:25):
in these positions.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
Yeah, and it's it's an incredibly tricky question.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
What it's the answer?
Speaker 4 (10:31):
Well, I don't know what the answer is off the
top of my head, to be honest. That's why there's
an inquiry.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
What's your personal opinion.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
Well, I think there's always where there's a will as
a way, and we do have to come to some
sort of consensus which has to be bipartisan. It's a
long term problem. It's going to be you know, all
hands to the pump to think about what it's probably
a suite of answers. It'll be interesting to see what
the government's response is to this inquiry. But as well
(10:56):
as thinking about adaptation and so that people aren't left
high and dry, so to speak, and that there's not
all these moral dilemmas about you know, who's deserving and
who's not, we also need to not take our foot
off the mitigation stuff. You know, the government ripping out
three billion dollars in budget twenty four for climate mitigation
(11:17):
work doesn't help the cause and just increases the burden
of adaptation.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
So what do you think that the lights of the
Christist City Council should be doing. Because the insurance you
would have heard the Insurance Council came out this week
saying look, stop building, in their words dune places. I
think it's nuts, for example, that you can still get
consent to build a new house at south Shore.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
Do you think, yeah, and I think the insurance industry
is that's where the rubber hits the road, isn't it.
Once things can't be insured. That's the clearest sign possible
and the clearest indication. It's just as you said, what
about the people that have been there for such a
long time and all of a sudden, all of their
wealth that's in that property but at their home is
(11:57):
worth nothing because the insurance can't pay for it.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
It sounds to me like you feel differently to Veressa.
Speaker 4 (12:02):
And you think the states does have a role, Well,
I think I think all aspects of societ have to
play a role, and what the state's role in that
will be will be interesting to hear what the government's
initial response is to this inquiry the governments.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
This is something you may not have heard much about.
The government is going to announce a bit later on
today about its plan to underwrite property development. My understanding
is to give developers more certainty and also increase the
likelihood of certain developers getting bank support knowing that the
project is underwritten by the government. Vanessa, can you explain
(12:35):
how this will work?
Speaker 3 (12:37):
Well? I understand that the basic idea is that it
will hopefully promote a bit more certainty and lending for developments.
And so basically if they meet the conditions, if a
development happens and they go to market and can't sell
a few properties, or when the government would guarantee to
(12:59):
buy those units of property. So that's basically how it
would work, and the hope that it would enable them
to be able to then lend the capital to be
able to make the development happen.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
Does this mean that if that happens, people could buy
in a development and then find when they move in
that there's a bit of social housing mixed in there
because the government's bought those properties or some properties.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
I don't know the final details of that how it
would work, but that could be a possibility.
Speaker 2 (13:33):
And do you think that that almost would take away
the attraction of it or do you think the developers
just want to get the money and get it built
and they don't really care whether it's private or social
housing there.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
I don't have any idea how they might see it.
Speaker 4 (13:49):
Yeah, I'm not sure either.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
But it's a good a risk though way well.
Speaker 4 (13:54):
I suppose it depends on whether you think that's a
good thing or Mexic communities are a good thing.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
But what do you think? What do you think?
Speaker 4 (14:00):
Well, I think that having Mexic communities is always a
good way to build community. I don't think that, you know,
people need to be behind gates and only cater for
some sort of housing needs and not others.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Are there CAM or A properties in the all plane
near your place?
Speaker 4 (14:15):
I'm not sure, and I don't know if I would
even know if there was, and I don't think I
even particularly care if there was. It's people need somewhere
to live, and people have different housing needs and come
from different vantage points. I do think that the government
underwrite is a good idea. It was essentially we had
tools in place in the last government national scrap them
(14:37):
and now they've looked under the hood, so to speak,
and decided that you know, it has a devastating effect
on the industry if you don't have that support. So
they've essentially repackaged that and come up with their own
version of our build ready development pathway that was in
place previously.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
Let's have a look at one final thing to tick off,
so superannuation. And there was an event yesterday as part
of the New Zealand Herald's Mood of the boardroom release
and Nicola Willis was there from a national course and
Barbara Edmunds correct myself there I called it Barbara Edmondson,
but Barbara Edmonds from from the Labor Party was there
and it appeared that they on stage had reached some
(15:16):
sort of commitment to have a discussion about the age
of entitlement for superannuation in New Zealand. Tracy, what do
you think that should be? Do you think it should
change now?
Speaker 4 (15:25):
I don't think it should change, and I don't think
they agreed to have a discussion about the age of retirement.
I think they agreed that New Zealand has an aging population,
it is an expensive to afford superannuation, and I think
they agreed to sit down to look at ways in
which we should be financing and funding that, not not
(15:45):
not changing the age, certainly not from their perspective anyhow.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
What ideas would you have if you're not going to
increase the age. I leave all men's testing.
Speaker 4 (15:52):
I leave all of those smart all of that smart.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
You sign up to bring smart stuff to Bollocks Friday?
So what your your personal view? How would you how
would you do that if you're not going to raise
the age. What would you do.
Speaker 4 (16:05):
Well, it's all about to voices, isn't it. And I
think that we put those.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
That means that means nothing. What what ideas would would
would you put forward?
Speaker 4 (16:14):
I don't have any ideas to put forward. It's not
my portfolio, but I know that Barb is someone that
absolutely will have various things top of mind and lots
of things that you'll be working on to make what's sustainable.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
What's your personal position then on retirement age.
Speaker 4 (16:29):
I think it should stay as it is. I think
there's lots.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Your personal position on the age of entitlement or the
means of entitlement for New Zealand souper Should it be
means tested?
Speaker 3 (16:39):
No?
Speaker 2 (16:39):
Why not?
Speaker 4 (16:40):
Because universality works best. Soon as you start doing that,
you create a system that costs so much to administer
that it's not putting money in people's pockets. It's just
a whole bureaucratic level of administration. And there's ways around it.
There's people that can afford good tax lawyers, that can
hide as sets. It's just universal. It's one of the
things we should be able to count on. And there's
(17:02):
plenty of people out there that do hard manual labor
by the time they get to sixty five yet.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
Which is why I think keep a sixty five means
test of venis a wedding. What do you think?
Speaker 3 (17:12):
I think it would be a really great thing if
we can get some consensus around how to go forward,
because this is something that's going to cost the country
a lot over time. It's something that is great if
we can have a sort of some certainty around it.
I think if we were to raise the age of retirement,
it would be really important to make sure that we
(17:33):
had a really good support system to be able to
afford that, like potentially a compulsory superannuation scheme. So there
are all sorts of things that I think would need
to be discussed. It's not as simple as just raising
the retirement age. I think that that's one thing, but
(17:53):
that could potentially be an nequtable So we just look
at that quite carefully because you know people, for example,
for Maldi, for women, for for some other people, it
is possible that just raising your retirement age may disadvantage them.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
Okay, so just just on your personal stance on means testing.
New Zealand Souper, I.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
Actually think it's something that we should consider because it
is something that is going to be very potentially incredible
over time and get worse and harder for us to find.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
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
True Crime Tonight
If you eat, sleep, and breathe true crime, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT is serving up your nightly fix. Five nights a week, KT STUDIOS & iHEART RADIO invite listeners to pull up a seat for an unfiltered look at the biggest cases making headlines, celebrity scandals, and the trials everyone is watching. With a mix of expert analysis, hot takes, and listener call-ins, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT goes beyond the headlines to uncover the twists, turns, and unanswered questions that keep us all obsessed—because, at TRUE CRIME TONIGHT, there’s a seat for everyone. Whether breaking down crime scene forensics, scrutinizing serial killers, or debating the most binge-worthy true crime docs, True Crime Tonight is the fresh, fast-paced, and slightly addictive home for true crime lovers.
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
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.