Local politicians from both sides of the political divide are slamming police process around the proposed restructure in wider Canterbury.
Federated Farmers, City Councillors, and schools are concerned at the lack of community consultation.
Banks Peninsula MP Vanessa Weenink told John MacDonald the communication, for a start, hasn't been well managed.
She says police will need to do a lot to assure her, and the community, that what they're doing is the right step.
While Labour's Tracey McLellan says the community's rightly concerned about the internal-only consultation, which is not at all in line with expectations.
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 Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News talksb'm.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
For Politics, Friday, Nationals, VENICSA Winnings with Us Sy Vanessa.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Good A, John?
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Where are you?
Speaker 4 (00:19):
I'm out in Little River this morning?
Speaker 3 (00:20):
Actually Little River?
Speaker 2 (00:21):
What's happening there?
Speaker 3 (00:22):
Well, yesterday the Little River School topped to South Island
in the rock Stars Maths competition, so I came out
here to say good a and congratulate the kids in person,
and also we're having a community catch up drop in
session out here.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Was that the maths competition that James Meaga and Erica
Stamford were taking part and Erica beat James by a slither?
Speaker 3 (00:46):
I know, yeah, I know that was as controversial, but
you know, I know she would have been practicing.
Speaker 4 (00:54):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Tracy McClelland from Labours with Tracy good A one of
us of us Vanessa? Where she is? Where are you?
What are you up to?
Speaker 4 (01:02):
I'm at an away caucus retreat. Were sitting down and
we're planning and doing all sorts of cool things. But
I just want to extend my congratulations to Little River
School as well. Weren't they amazing?
Speaker 2 (01:14):
So you're plotting you're plotting the overthrown. Is that what
you're doing.
Speaker 4 (01:17):
Well, we've got to get this country moving in the
right track and someone's going to do it.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
Stop laughing, Vanessa, I heard that in the background. Be polite.
Let's talk about policing in Canterbury now, Vanessa, you're going
to call meent on this year. You're not going to
hide behind it this whole thing about it being operational,
are you.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
Well, what I am going to tell you is that
the feedback's been really clear from a police on the
ground and the community, and I've said that back to
the minister. We've been exceptionally clear about how we expect
what we expect to happen, which is more visibility and
more policing in the community. And the only things that
the police should be concentrating on is on operational terms,
(01:59):
is things that will improve that. So I don't I'm
not entirely sure that that's going to achieve it what
they doing, So they'll need to do a lot to
be able to reassure me and the community that what
they're doing is the right step.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Right. Have they made a dog's breakfast of it so far?
Speaker 4 (02:17):
Well?
Speaker 3 (02:17):
The communication I think has been not done particularly well
in terms of what they actually end up doing. I
couldn't comment those days because I don't think that it's settled.
I think that they possibly were doing genuine and wanted
to do genuine engagement, and unfortunately I don't think that
it's come out well.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
That was refreshing from you, Vanessa. So Tracy, you've got
no constraints of operational come on, let rip. What do
you really think about it? How do you think the
police are handling this and b what do you think
of their plans?
Speaker 4 (02:49):
Well? I think people, I think communities have quite rightly
concerned and they have a right to be concerned. I
think the proposal if I look at just what the
proposal is for Littleton in particular, and that is to
reduce down to one police officer, which is not visible,
which is not doing what I don't think the community
(03:11):
of Littleton would expect. They'd want more policing presence, certainly
not less. And if the proposal goes ahead, I think
consultation is an internal consultation that finishes on the thirteenth
of August, and then they're going to go around and
just inform communities of what the outcome was I think
people of Littleton will be really shocked and it's certainly
(03:35):
not in line with what their expectations were at all.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
So what are you going to do about it? You're
in opposition. What are you going to do?
Speaker 4 (03:42):
Well, exactly, we're in opposition. All we can do is
support the community to make sure that their views are heard.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
And so aren't you I mean, are you going to
go and see the police minister? Come on, what are
you going to do?
Speaker 4 (03:56):
Well? I've written to the police Minister and made my
position pretty clear, and that is that we think it
would be unacceptable to reduce Littleton's police station down to
one officer and divert that resource somewhere else.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
And what about and what about the rural In terms
of the rural police arrangements as well, they're going to
have these liaison officers which which sound to me like
they're going to be on day shift.
Speaker 3 (04:20):
Well they are.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
They're going to be on day shift, no night shifts,
and they're getting around the place and they'll be sort
of shaken howdy. But getting an emergency response might be
a completely different story. Vanessa. That's the part of it
that you're also concerned about.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
I need to see more detail and to understand it
better for the red the rural part of the electric
because from what I understood was was basically no change
for the peninsula and a Coroa. And I just I
further afield. I can understand why communities are really concerned
(04:53):
because it is a huge change. It is a complete
turnaround from expectations. And yeah, we've been speaking with a
minister about that. The MP's for the wider candidbrate area.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
All right, Tracy, let's move on.
Speaker 4 (05:11):
Before just before we do move on though on I mean,
I think what this highlights though it's all very well
to sat an operational matter, but the government's focusing on
these five hundred extra police officers that they simply haven't delivered.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
Yeah, but you guys would say the same a few
were the ministry police, you would say all tiporrational, can't
possibly can't possibly comment you be honest, to be honest.
Speaker 4 (05:31):
I promised five hundred extra police officer. Yeah, I know,
I know that you failed to deliver it.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Yeah, that's tell us something we don't know. So the
coronial system. So the family of a nineteen year old
woman who died back in twenty nineteen when she was
hit by a concrete truck. Say it's it's not acceptable
that they've had to wait six years for the process
to run its course, and they would like to see
more investment to speed things up. Vanessa, what's your reading
(05:59):
of the of the state of our coronial system.
Speaker 3 (06:02):
I totally understand and emphasize the families that people who
have had to wait that long. It is a long time,
and we have been investing in the system in terms
of extra associates coroners, which has improved the workforce and
that means that we are getting through them faster. So
there has been about a twenty percent reduction. I think
(06:26):
the numbers were compared with the twenty twenty three numbers
by the end of twenty fourth so they are starting
to get some progress, but there's a lot of backlog
to work through, and yeah, it is really hard for
those families. There was another family also, I think where
(06:47):
the person who died had been in a boxing match
and that was five or six years as well, So
a long time.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
Seven years was my understanding.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
I've been a part in years seven years, so it's
a long It is a really long time. So we
are looking at the way and proving the courts and
coronial systems, and every little alteration is designed to try
and speed things up.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
Okay, I'm just fine to say we're looking at it,
but do you agree that more money needs to go
into it?
Speaker 3 (07:19):
For example, Well, it's not just about money.
Speaker 4 (07:21):
It's about what you do with it.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
Frankly, you know, where are you what are the resources
that you need?
Speaker 4 (07:27):
Is it workforce?
Speaker 3 (07:28):
Is it? Is it IT systems? All of that kind
of thing needs to be looked at and all of
the reasons why a system is slowed up. So sometimes
it's not just about money. It can be about something
to do with you know, when people are working, or
it can be about the IT systems and what information
is easy to get. All of those kinds of things
(07:50):
can help.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Okay, Tracy doesn't need more money.
Speaker 4 (07:53):
Well, it certainly suggests that funding is important.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
But more to the point, how concerned are you about it?
And that's the real that's a real question.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
Well, I think we all should be concerned. Do you
have the whole idea of colonial and inquiries so that
we can learn lessons, so that you know, families that
go through this and experience this huge amount of loss,
at least lessons can be learned so that other people
don't have to experience the same tragedies. And if that's
(08:22):
taking all these years to do so, then we're not
really learning the lessons in a timely fashion, are.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
We all right? Politics, we'll serve there well other things
to cramm in A news out or report out this
morning said sixteen percent of last year's school leaders had
no qualifications. It was the highest figure in a decade. Vanessa,
What is the consequence of that likely to be?
Speaker 3 (08:45):
I mean, that's a moral and economic failure eventually. I mean,
we need our children, our kids to be absolutely at
the top of their game. We can't compete on the
world stage if we have a whole portion of our
population who have been underserved in the education sector. It's
(09:07):
a real tragedy. And that's why we're investing heavily in
learning support and making sure that we're changing our literacy
and numeracy curriculum, having a knowledge rich curriculum. And we've
announced also that we'll be changing the way we assess people.
(09:28):
Allowing there to be an emphasis.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
On oh, Vanessa Vena, we're not yeah, Vanessa, we know
all that because Stanford has been going on about that
all week and quite right, and we've been discussing it.
I asked you, what what what's the consequence of this
likely to be?
Speaker 3 (09:43):
Well, the consequence of that is likely to be that
if people can't educate themselves so they'll stay in lower
paid jobs. We want to see people being able to
get into higher paid jobs and left the standard of living.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
So, Tracey McLellan, it wasn't that long ago, and I
don't ask me how many years ago it was, but
the head of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority came out
and said that the age or the days of the
of the qualification being the be all and end all
are over. So do you think that there's a chance
that we look at the statistic and think it's that's
disastrous when an actual fact, it's it's not. Maybe these
(10:19):
these are people who are getting on with life without
the need for a specific qualification.
Speaker 4 (10:25):
Yeah. And I think those things move around a bit,
don't they. Because the world is just such a fast
moving place that it compared to even certainly when I
was you and I were at school, John, it is
a very different world. But qualifications are one thing. They're
there to show that you're that you've got expertise in
(10:46):
a certain sort of subject matter or in a certain area,
but there's got to be the jobs to go to.
And you know, thirty thousand people have lost lost their job.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
Oh come on, come on, hey, you're turning into Ruben Davidson.
He takes every chance to have a potshot at the
government without answering the question, I mean, do you do
you think that this is a how concerned that sixteen
percent of school leavers don't have a qualification?
Speaker 4 (11:10):
Well, I think it is concerning that we've got to
acknowledge that the world is different and maybe maybe we're
going to start to pivot into much more micro credentials
or making sure that people have you know, there's a
good fit for skills, for industry and for jobs. But
it's all about jobs at the end of the day.
You don't get qualifications just to put something fancy on
your wall. You get qualifications because you're trying to show
(11:35):
prospective employers that you've got the right stuff for the
job that they value. And you know, so it's about
working collaboratively with industry, with the sector and education and
it's about jobs at the end of the day.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
All right, in Tracy, Vanessa, maybe there will be no surprise,
but there are no fancy bits of paper on my
Wall's Treasury report out today which confirms that the previous
government spent sixty six billion dollars during the COVID pandemic.
But we'll get to that first. David Seymour wants to
change the labeling laws in New Zealand. Say this is
all a bit too complicated, cut through the red tape,
(12:11):
Vanessa Wennick, As a someone from a medical background, how
do you feel about what David Seymour's proposing or wanting
to do.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
I think making things simpler and making it clearer for
people is a good idea. I think everything that we
can do that simplifies things for both businesses and consumers
is a great thing to do.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
So you're in favor, you're supporting what he's proposing.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
What he's doing, I think, yeah, I think generally that's
what we need to do, right, Tracy, what do you
think I'm.
Speaker 4 (12:49):
Not off the cuff opposed to it. I mean, I
think clear, trustworthy labeling matters to people, and people do
need to know what we're buying. And you know that's
a confidence issue, isn't it. They need to know it's safe,
and you have all the information that's relevant to them.
So I'm not You're not off the cuff opposed to
(13:09):
fixing chech issues. We just need to make sure that
it's you.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Know, well, I'm sure I think all this time on
this little issue getting back, so I think that matter.
I'm just trying to work out what the problem is
trying to fix, Vanessa. Maybe you can enlighten me.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
Well, there's quite a few different labeling standards that some
products might have to comply with. I am not entirely
sure what the problem is that we're trying to solve here,
other than to hear from news reports, essentially that there
are issues for some businesses that mean that they have
to take when they import some things, they need to
(13:48):
take labors off, labels off, and repackage, leading to a
whole lot of wasted time and money.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Is Vanessa, is this another example of the current government
fixing problems that either a don't exist or be are fixable,
as opposed to the ones that you've failed at fixing
so far.
Speaker 4 (14:05):
Yes, I wouldn't.
Speaker 3 (14:07):
I wouldn't say it like that, John, of.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
Course you orudn't, all right, let's look at the sixty
six billion dollars that were spent on the COVID response.
When you hear that, Tracy, as a as a labor person,
how do you feel.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
Well, it is a lot of money. But you've got
to keep in mind that we were keeping people in
jobs and saving lives and saving livelihoods at the end
of the day, and that's what it took at the time.
And now, even.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
Though well that's what it took at the time, even
though it flew in the face of what Treasury was saying, I.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
Think that at the beginning, certainly, and the vast majority
of money was spent in those initial responses. It wasn't
until later on, I suppose, when we looked at the
Auckland lockdown further on through that COVID journey, where Treasury
was probably providing that advice. But ultimately we had a
good response, and I don't make any apologies to say,
(15:06):
lives and saving livelihoods and getting making sure that people
were connected to their jobs and their business as stayed
a float so that when those restrictions lifted the economy,
economy was able to crank back into action. And actually
it was because it didn't go to those dire places
that had been predicted and that other countries experienced. That
(15:27):
we were probably in a slightly therefore better position to
be able to taper back in those latter stages.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
So why did you keep spending?
Speaker 4 (15:38):
Well, I think once you know, the economies do need stimulus.
We've just heard from Simon Bridges over the last day
or so talking about the situation in Auckland and looking
for government support. Austereity doesn't work and sometimes for government
and the state is best place to provide that economic spot.
All right, So that was, as they're arguing at the moment.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
So in your book, sixty six billion dollars was money
well spent?
Speaker 4 (16:03):
Well, I don't have oversight over line by line, but
I think overall we've got it with me. We did
a pretty good job of getting through that pandemic and
saving lives and lively.
Speaker 2 (16:14):
Well, let's see what Vanessa says, because Vanessa, you were
you a gp dur in the pandemic, were you?
Speaker 4 (16:19):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (16:20):
I was, And yeah, the focus on the first part
of it, saving lives, locking down the borders initially, Yeah,
in many ways of good response. Like I've said before,
I don't think you can judge the whole response based
on the initial phase. And when you look at that
a massive amount of spend.
Speaker 4 (16:37):
That's the thing.
Speaker 3 (16:38):
They kept their foot on the gas spending and absolutely
trashed the economy. And we've had to pick up the pieces, literally,
had to try and turn this massive ship around because
they increased the spending so incredibly that it's just been
a disaster long term with a year paying back the interest.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
On the loan.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
And and what about the fact he held on, Tracy,
hold on, I'll get a word in here. What about
the fact, Vanessa that your government's actually borrowing more than
the last government.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
Look, and we're and at the same time we're getting
told that we're being to austere, so the labor opposition.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
That doesn't Tracy, I'm going to put your whole to.
Speaker 3 (17:24):
Carry on because we've only reduced the government spending, you know,
very slowly and gently, rather than pushing us. And we're
not forcing austerity on this country. We're having to be conservative,
but not austere.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
All right, But don't think is a bit rich to
criticize the labor for borrowing when you're borrowing more.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
No, I don't, because we're borrowing for things that matter, Tracy.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
You get I'll give you a chance to respond to
that before we before we move on, Tracy.
Speaker 4 (17:53):
Borrowing for text cuts is does not make.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
Sense straight from the key messages. All right, Tracy, thank you?
Speaker 4 (18:00):
And hey, John, just because you don't have a fence
piece of paper on the back of you've got that
great big picture of yourself.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
What the one like Jimmine used to have on his
on above the above the fireplace at his place. Do
you remember that You've.
Speaker 4 (18:11):
Got that great big screen with your face on it.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
Oh yeah, yeah, but he was more cheerman Mal than me. Hey,
thanks Tricy, Thanks Vanessa, cheers John, okay, fine out.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
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.
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News talksb'm.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
For Politics, Friday, Nationals, VENICSA Winnings with Us Sy Vanessa.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Good A, John?
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Where are you?
Speaker 4 (00:19):
I'm out in Little River this morning?
Speaker 3 (00:20):
Actually Little River?
Speaker 2 (00:21):
What's happening there?
Speaker 3 (00:22):
Well, yesterday the Little River School topped to South Island
in the rock Stars Maths competition, so I came out
here to say good a and congratulate the kids in person,
and also we're having a community catch up drop in
session out here.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Was that the maths competition that James Meaga and Erica
Stamford were taking part and Erica beat James by a slither?
Speaker 3 (00:46):
I know, yeah, I know that was as controversial, but
you know, I know she would have been practicing.
Speaker 4 (00:54):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Tracy McClelland from Labours with Tracy good A one of
us of us Vanessa? Where she is? Where are you?
What are you up to?
Speaker 4 (01:02):
I'm at an away caucus retreat. Were sitting down and
we're planning and doing all sorts of cool things. But
I just want to extend my congratulations to Little River
School as well. Weren't they amazing?
Speaker 2 (01:14):
So you're plotting you're plotting the overthrown. Is that what
you're doing.
Speaker 4 (01:17):
Well, we've got to get this country moving in the
right track and someone's going to do it.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
Stop laughing, Vanessa, I heard that in the background. Be polite.
Let's talk about policing in Canterbury now, Vanessa, you're going
to call meent on this year. You're not going to
hide behind it this whole thing about it being operational,
are you.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
Well, what I am going to tell you is that
the feedback's been really clear from a police on the
ground and the community, and I've said that back to
the minister. We've been exceptionally clear about how we expect
what we expect to happen, which is more visibility and
more policing in the community. And the only things that
the police should be concentrating on is on operational terms,
(01:59):
is things that will improve that. So I don't I'm
not entirely sure that that's going to achieve it what
they doing, So they'll need to do a lot to
be able to reassure me and the community that what
they're doing is the right step.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Right. Have they made a dog's breakfast of it so far?
Speaker 4 (02:17):
Well?
Speaker 3 (02:17):
The communication I think has been not done particularly well
in terms of what they actually end up doing. I
couldn't comment those days because I don't think that it's settled.
I think that they possibly were doing genuine and wanted
to do genuine engagement, and unfortunately I don't think that
it's come out well.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
That was refreshing from you, Vanessa. So Tracy, you've got
no constraints of operational come on, let rip. What do
you really think about it? How do you think the
police are handling this and b what do you think
of their plans?
Speaker 4 (02:49):
Well? I think people, I think communities have quite rightly
concerned and they have a right to be concerned. I
think the proposal if I look at just what the
proposal is for Littleton in particular, and that is to
reduce down to one police officer, which is not visible,
which is not doing what I don't think the community
(03:11):
of Littleton would expect. They'd want more policing presence, certainly
not less. And if the proposal goes ahead, I think
consultation is an internal consultation that finishes on the thirteenth
of August, and then they're going to go around and
just inform communities of what the outcome was I think
people of Littleton will be really shocked and it's certainly
(03:35):
not in line with what their expectations were at all.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
So what are you going to do about it? You're
in opposition. What are you going to do?
Speaker 4 (03:42):
Well, exactly, we're in opposition. All we can do is
support the community to make sure that their views are heard.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
And so aren't you I mean, are you going to
go and see the police minister? Come on, what are
you going to do?
Speaker 4 (03:56):
Well? I've written to the police Minister and made my
position pretty clear, and that is that we think it
would be unacceptable to reduce Littleton's police station down to
one officer and divert that resource somewhere else.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
And what about and what about the rural In terms
of the rural police arrangements as well, they're going to
have these liaison officers which which sound to me like
they're going to be on day shift.
Speaker 3 (04:20):
Well they are.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
They're going to be on day shift, no night shifts,
and they're getting around the place and they'll be sort
of shaken howdy. But getting an emergency response might be
a completely different story. Vanessa. That's the part of it
that you're also concerned about.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
I need to see more detail and to understand it
better for the red the rural part of the electric
because from what I understood was was basically no change
for the peninsula and a Coroa. And I just I
further afield. I can understand why communities are really concerned
(04:53):
because it is a huge change. It is a complete
turnaround from expectations. And yeah, we've been speaking with a
minister about that. The MP's for the wider candidbrate area.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
All right, Tracy, let's move on.
Speaker 4 (05:11):
Before just before we do move on though on I mean,
I think what this highlights though it's all very well
to sat an operational matter, but the government's focusing on
these five hundred extra police officers that they simply haven't delivered.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
Yeah, but you guys would say the same a few
were the ministry police, you would say all tiporrational, can't
possibly can't possibly comment you be honest, to be honest.
Speaker 4 (05:31):
I promised five hundred extra police officer. Yeah, I know,
I know that you failed to deliver it.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Yeah, that's tell us something we don't know. So the
coronial system. So the family of a nineteen year old
woman who died back in twenty nineteen when she was
hit by a concrete truck. Say it's it's not acceptable
that they've had to wait six years for the process
to run its course, and they would like to see
more investment to speed things up. Vanessa, what's your reading
(05:59):
of the of the state of our coronial system.
Speaker 3 (06:02):
I totally understand and emphasize the families that people who
have had to wait that long. It is a long time,
and we have been investing in the system in terms
of extra associates coroners, which has improved the workforce and
that means that we are getting through them faster. So
there has been about a twenty percent reduction. I think
(06:26):
the numbers were compared with the twenty twenty three numbers
by the end of twenty fourth so they are starting
to get some progress, but there's a lot of backlog
to work through, and yeah, it is really hard for
those families. There was another family also, I think where
(06:47):
the person who died had been in a boxing match
and that was five or six years as well, So
a long time.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
Seven years was my understanding.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
I've been a part in years seven years, so it's
a long It is a really long time. So we
are looking at the way and proving the courts and
coronial systems, and every little alteration is designed to try
and speed things up.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
Okay, I'm just fine to say we're looking at it,
but do you agree that more money needs to go
into it?
Speaker 3 (07:19):
For example, Well, it's not just about money.
Speaker 4 (07:21):
It's about what you do with it.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
Frankly, you know, where are you what are the resources
that you need?
Speaker 4 (07:27):
Is it workforce?
Speaker 3 (07:28):
Is it? Is it IT systems? All of that kind
of thing needs to be looked at and all of
the reasons why a system is slowed up. So sometimes
it's not just about money. It can be about something
to do with you know, when people are working, or
it can be about the IT systems and what information
is easy to get. All of those kinds of things
(07:50):
can help.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Okay, Tracy doesn't need more money.
Speaker 4 (07:53):
Well, it certainly suggests that funding is important.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
But more to the point, how concerned are you about it?
And that's the real that's a real question.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
Well, I think we all should be concerned. Do you
have the whole idea of colonial and inquiries so that
we can learn lessons, so that you know, families that
go through this and experience this huge amount of loss,
at least lessons can be learned so that other people
don't have to experience the same tragedies. And if that's
(08:22):
taking all these years to do so, then we're not
really learning the lessons in a timely fashion, are.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
We all right? Politics, we'll serve there well other things
to cramm in A news out or report out this
morning said sixteen percent of last year's school leaders had
no qualifications. It was the highest figure in a decade. Vanessa,
What is the consequence of that likely to be?
Speaker 3 (08:45):
I mean, that's a moral and economic failure eventually. I mean,
we need our children, our kids to be absolutely at
the top of their game. We can't compete on the
world stage if we have a whole portion of our
population who have been underserved in the education sector. It's
(09:07):
a real tragedy. And that's why we're investing heavily in
learning support and making sure that we're changing our literacy
and numeracy curriculum, having a knowledge rich curriculum. And we've
announced also that we'll be changing the way we assess people.
(09:28):
Allowing there to be an emphasis.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
On oh, Vanessa Vena, we're not yeah, Vanessa, we know
all that because Stanford has been going on about that
all week and quite right, and we've been discussing it.
I asked you, what what what's the consequence of this
likely to be?
Speaker 3 (09:43):
Well, the consequence of that is likely to be that
if people can't educate themselves so they'll stay in lower
paid jobs. We want to see people being able to
get into higher paid jobs and left the standard of living.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
So, Tracey McLellan, it wasn't that long ago, and I
don't ask me how many years ago it was, but
the head of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority came out
and said that the age or the days of the
of the qualification being the be all and end all
are over. So do you think that there's a chance
that we look at the statistic and think it's that's
disastrous when an actual fact, it's it's not. Maybe these
(10:19):
these are people who are getting on with life without
the need for a specific qualification.
Speaker 4 (10:25):
Yeah. And I think those things move around a bit,
don't they. Because the world is just such a fast
moving place that it compared to even certainly when I
was you and I were at school, John, it is
a very different world. But qualifications are one thing. They're
there to show that you're that you've got expertise in
(10:46):
a certain sort of subject matter or in a certain area,
but there's got to be the jobs to go to.
And you know, thirty thousand people have lost lost their job.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
Oh come on, come on, hey, you're turning into Ruben Davidson.
He takes every chance to have a potshot at the
government without answering the question, I mean, do you do
you think that this is a how concerned that sixteen
percent of school leavers don't have a qualification?
Speaker 4 (11:10):
Well, I think it is concerning that we've got to
acknowledge that the world is different and maybe maybe we're
going to start to pivot into much more micro credentials
or making sure that people have you know, there's a
good fit for skills, for industry and for jobs. But
it's all about jobs at the end of the day.
You don't get qualifications just to put something fancy on
your wall. You get qualifications because you're trying to show
(11:35):
prospective employers that you've got the right stuff for the
job that they value. And you know, so it's about
working collaboratively with industry, with the sector and education and
it's about jobs at the end of the day.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
All right, in Tracy, Vanessa, maybe there will be no surprise,
but there are no fancy bits of paper on my
Wall's Treasury report out today which confirms that the previous
government spent sixty six billion dollars during the COVID pandemic.
But we'll get to that first. David Seymour wants to
change the labeling laws in New Zealand. Say this is
all a bit too complicated, cut through the red tape,
(12:11):
Vanessa Wennick, As a someone from a medical background, how
do you feel about what David Seymour's proposing or wanting
to do.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
I think making things simpler and making it clearer for
people is a good idea. I think everything that we
can do that simplifies things for both businesses and consumers
is a great thing to do.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
So you're in favor, you're supporting what he's proposing.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
What he's doing, I think, yeah, I think generally that's
what we need to do, right, Tracy, what do you
think I'm.
Speaker 4 (12:49):
Not off the cuff opposed to it. I mean, I
think clear, trustworthy labeling matters to people, and people do
need to know what we're buying. And you know that's
a confidence issue, isn't it. They need to know it's safe,
and you have all the information that's relevant to them.
So I'm not You're not off the cuff opposed to
(13:09):
fixing chech issues. We just need to make sure that
it's you.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Know, well, I'm sure I think all this time on
this little issue getting back, so I think that matter.
I'm just trying to work out what the problem is
trying to fix, Vanessa. Maybe you can enlighten me.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
Well, there's quite a few different labeling standards that some
products might have to comply with. I am not entirely
sure what the problem is that we're trying to solve here,
other than to hear from news reports, essentially that there
are issues for some businesses that mean that they have
to take when they import some things, they need to
(13:48):
take labors off, labels off, and repackage, leading to a
whole lot of wasted time and money.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Is Vanessa, is this another example of the current government
fixing problems that either a don't exist or be are fixable,
as opposed to the ones that you've failed at fixing
so far.
Speaker 4 (14:05):
Yes, I wouldn't.
Speaker 3 (14:07):
I wouldn't say it like that, John, of.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
Course you orudn't, all right, let's look at the sixty
six billion dollars that were spent on the COVID response.
When you hear that, Tracy, as a as a labor person,
how do you feel.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
Well, it is a lot of money. But you've got
to keep in mind that we were keeping people in
jobs and saving lives and saving livelihoods at the end
of the day, and that's what it took at the time.
And now, even.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
Though well that's what it took at the time, even
though it flew in the face of what Treasury was saying, I.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
Think that at the beginning, certainly, and the vast majority
of money was spent in those initial responses. It wasn't
until later on, I suppose, when we looked at the
Auckland lockdown further on through that COVID journey, where Treasury
was probably providing that advice. But ultimately we had a
good response, and I don't make any apologies to say,
(15:06):
lives and saving livelihoods and getting making sure that people
were connected to their jobs and their business as stayed
a float so that when those restrictions lifted the economy,
economy was able to crank back into action. And actually
it was because it didn't go to those dire places
that had been predicted and that other countries experienced. That
(15:27):
we were probably in a slightly therefore better position to
be able to taper back in those latter stages.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
So why did you keep spending?
Speaker 4 (15:38):
Well, I think once you know, the economies do need stimulus.
We've just heard from Simon Bridges over the last day
or so talking about the situation in Auckland and looking
for government support. Austereity doesn't work and sometimes for government
and the state is best place to provide that economic spot.
All right, So that was, as they're arguing at the moment.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
So in your book, sixty six billion dollars was money
well spent?
Speaker 4 (16:03):
Well, I don't have oversight over line by line, but
I think overall we've got it with me. We did
a pretty good job of getting through that pandemic and
saving lives and lively.
Speaker 2 (16:14):
Well, let's see what Vanessa says, because Vanessa, you were
you a gp dur in the pandemic, were you?
Speaker 4 (16:19):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (16:20):
I was, And yeah, the focus on the first part
of it, saving lives, locking down the borders initially, Yeah,
in many ways of good response. Like I've said before,
I don't think you can judge the whole response based
on the initial phase. And when you look at that
a massive amount of spend.
Speaker 4 (16:37):
That's the thing.
Speaker 3 (16:38):
They kept their foot on the gas spending and absolutely
trashed the economy. And we've had to pick up the pieces, literally,
had to try and turn this massive ship around because
they increased the spending so incredibly that it's just been
a disaster long term with a year paying back the interest.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
On the loan.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
And and what about the fact he held on, Tracy,
hold on, I'll get a word in here. What about
the fact, Vanessa that your government's actually borrowing more than
the last government.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
Look, and we're and at the same time we're getting
told that we're being to austere, so the labor opposition.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
That doesn't Tracy, I'm going to put your whole to.
Speaker 3 (17:24):
Carry on because we've only reduced the government spending, you know,
very slowly and gently, rather than pushing us. And we're
not forcing austerity on this country. We're having to be conservative,
but not austere.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
All right, But don't think is a bit rich to
criticize the labor for borrowing when you're borrowing more.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
No, I don't, because we're borrowing for things that matter, Tracy.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
You get I'll give you a chance to respond to
that before we before we move on, Tracy.
Speaker 4 (17:53):
Borrowing for text cuts is does not make.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
Sense straight from the key messages. All right, Tracy, thank you?
Speaker 4 (18:00):
And hey, John, just because you don't have a fence
piece of paper on the back of you've got that
great big picture of yourself.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
What the one like Jimmine used to have on his
on above the above the fireplace at his place. Do
you remember that You've.
Speaker 4 (18:11):
Got that great big screen with your face on it.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
Oh yeah, yeah, but he was more cheerman Mal than me. Hey,
thanks Tricy, Thanks Vanessa, cheers John, okay, fine out.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
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.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.