September 11, 2025 • 20 mins
Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by Labour’s Reuben Davidson and National’s Matt Doocey to delve into the biggest topics of the week.
On today’s agenda: the manhunt for Tom Phillips and his children has come to an end, but the coverage has only just begun. There’s a fresh plan to restore the Christ Church Cathedral, and the Government has announced some new offences for shoplifting.
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 Newstalk ZB.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
We're in their full metal political jackets, Matt Ducy from
National Morning John and Ruben Davison from Labor Morning, Good
Morning the We can't ignore the Tom Phillips case because
it's been everywhere, absolutely everywhere this week, and there's been
quite a bit of discussion about the documentary that is
(00:33):
apparently been made, and I thought Martin van Baden in
the press this morning put it very well documentary none
of us want, but it's the one all of us
will watch. What's your position on it? Man?
Speaker 3 (00:42):
Yeah, I mean, at a higher level, that principle you've
just talked about, I suppose is something quite powerful within
TV and other media platforms where people are quite attracted
to that real life content. I'm not in the detail
around the roles and responsibilities within that. I resume somewhat
it's probably an operational decision for the police when they
(01:05):
bring in so of those documentary providers, But I just
think we need to be quite cautious at the moment.
Clearly there's some suppression on information through the courts as well,
and I think over time we need to step that
out and actually remind ourselves at the heart of this
(01:26):
case is the children and we need to be mindful
of them as they reintegrate back into life.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Ruben Davison, do you have issues with a documentary crew
getting access that the day to day media aren't.
Speaker 4 (01:39):
Look there's a lot going on here, But I agree
with Matt. At the heart of it, there's three children,
and there's also two families who have got some really
complicated issues to work through as a result of what's
happened over the last four years. I think I was
really impressed to hear on One News last night that
they've made the call not to use any depiction of
any photographs of the children and their coverage from here
(02:01):
on in. And I think it's appropriate that we respect
the huge journey that those families and that those children
have now got to go on over the coming years
and across the rest of their lifetime. So I think
the priority should be people stepping back and allowing that
process to happen.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Is it a and the police are very intent now
on finding the people who have supported them over the
last four years. Matter. Is this the fact that there
is no shortage of people who have been willing to
do that. It would seem from what the police are saying,
is that a hangover from COVID or has that Andy
establishment always been around?
Speaker 3 (02:37):
I mean, who knows, And at the moment is his
only speculation until we actually understand if there was accessories
to someone who did have a warrant out for their
arrest and their reasons as well. And I suppose over
time that will reveal itself and we will know the
full facts, but at the moment it's clearly only speculation.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
All right tomorrow. Yesterday we found out that the apparently
the cathedrals all go again, Anglican Cathedral. It's all happening.
Where are you laughing at?
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Well, all go? I think we now have a potential
plan and look, in fairness, full credit to Mark Stewart
and the people around him. I think they have listened.
They're being very pragmatic and they're now putting a pathway forward.
But let's be clear, there's still is a shortfall and
that will require people to step up and feel that shortfall,
(03:28):
and whether that happens or not is yet to be seen.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
So Reuben Davidson, do you think more public money should
go into the cathedral.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
I think there's been huge contributions towards the restoration of
the cathedral already from a number of places, but particularly
from central government. We've got the only South Island voice
at the Cabinet table in the studio with us, we're
able to give you an answer on what current government
thinking is. I mean, I think it's good to see
a priced plan for you know, getting the cathedral open again.
(03:55):
But where that money comes from ultimately, I think, you know,
central government have made a big contribution already, it'd be
interesting to see where else money might come from.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
What it was you you on the City council.
Speaker 4 (04:07):
Look, I mean that's a conference. I'm not part of
the City Council, so that's a conversation for and the
City Council have already made significant contributions. I guess one
of the other things that happened at City Council have
always that I believe councilor Cowen committed to paying a
personal contribution until it happened, Oh, Aaron cun Yeah, So
there's I mean, there's a there's a there's a bunch
(04:27):
of different ways that the money could be found to
to proceed with this and ultimately, now that there's a
plan and a price, then then they can get on
with doing that.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
Yeah, matt do you see how confident are you in
those in the estimates?
Speaker 3 (04:41):
I don't know because I haven't looked at the proposition
and detail, and you know they've highlighted already it's between
forty and forty five million dollars. But potentially when you
look at the proposal that did go to cabinet, it's
understanding that when you do go into a building like that,
(05:03):
then actually extra costs can reveal themselves. And I think
that that's what's been found. And I heard comment from
former local MP Nicky Wagner today about the time of
Victoria Matthews wanting to go back to a new build
and build from scratch to budget. And that's some of
(05:23):
the risk when you try and restore a building that
potentially cost can arise that you hadn't budgeted for.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
You think that should have been the way things went.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
Oh, it is what it is today. I don't think
we can worry about going back of what might have been.
The reality is is that still to this day the
cathedral is an important part of Cathedral Square. There is
only really probably two areas that need to be focused
on around the recovery, and that's the cathedral and the
(05:54):
museum as well. I think no one disagrees with the
projects under a sort of a heritage lens and restoring
the city back to its former glory, but all the
pinch point comes to who's going to pay for it,
and quite rightly, people are quite stretched at the moment.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
So Mark Stewart Tommy esa he went to cabinet last
year and asked for sixty five million, and I don't
think that had been reported very widely. Can you confirm
that that's what they asked for.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
Well, I'm not going to get into that space at
the moment, but clearly there was a proposal put to
cabinet and that was declined. And part of the issue,
and I think Minister of Finance Nichola Willis has commented
publicly with the recent new proposal is that it is
largely a private religious space and that is some of
(06:44):
the difficulty when you're talking about public money, whether it
be taxpayer or rate power as well, and you know
my encouragement to them and also the museum. I just
think in today's world you have to commercialize your visitor
flows and most people expect in buildings like that that
they do or try to generate their own revenue stream
(07:07):
to fund it.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Okay, I just want clarification. We've got to move on.
Got plenty to talk about. But can you tell me
was it the amount of money asks for that resulted
in cabinet saying no? Or was it the fact that
it's not a wholly public facility that led to cabinets
saying no.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
Well, they are some of the concerns, right of both
of them, that it is a the money that's been
asked for, and also that actually it is a private
religious space, so we're not talking about a publicly funded
open building. And those are two of the concerns of
(07:45):
the government. And obviously those issues would have to be
worked through if there was any future proposals to a
government of the day. And look, i'd expect Reuben would
be in the same space for that, because it is
a private religious space and we need to think about
whether we use public funds for that.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Sounds to me like it's going to be a no
yet again. But what do you make of the government's
plan for tackling shoplifting.
Speaker 4 (08:10):
Well, it's an interesting approach, isn't it. It's essentially saying
we can't find those extra police. We see, we were
going to get the five hundred that we promised. So
instead of instead of being able to tackle crime by
increasing the res, just can't bring them. Instead of that,
Instead of that, what we're going to do is we're
going to continue to rewrite the laws.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
Yes, this is where I'm This is where I'm really
empty on this. What are you rolling you rise for?
I mean, I think they're.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
Going to issue the fines the police officers themselves, So
there is yes.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
They are not they are Hold on, Hold on, hold on,
hold on. This is this is breaking news. Are you
telling me that police officers are going to be signed
to every retail outlets so the guy to write the ticket?
Speaker 3 (08:53):
No, but they're called to the offense, aren't they.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
This is sounding weaker by the minute.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
Well, no it's not. I think it's actually quite a
smart approach and it's been called on for by the
sector as well. And what we do know is the
proposition is for a shoplifting offense under five hundred dollars
a five hundred dollars over five hundred one thousands, but
over two thousand, you're going to court. And look, I mean,
(09:20):
we know we've got real pressures on our court system
that will support that as well, and people will be Look,
think of a speeding fine, right, you are given a
speeding fine. If you think you have a case to
make on why you shouldn't be fined, then you have
a process to go forward to make your case. This
will be the same as well. And I think most
(09:40):
people think it's quite a pragmatic way forward.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Are you comfortable with sort of nudging into the justice
system and the foundation of the justice system is that
you are innocent until proven guilty. You're comfortable with the
government tinkering with that?
Speaker 4 (09:54):
Reuben, Look, it comes back to being a broken promise.
And this is I'm talking about it until proven guilty.
Is that I say it as a slippery slope.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
What about you, Yeah, it is a slippery slope.
Speaker 4 (10:05):
And the difference here the speed camera a speed fine
is that there is a photo taken by a speed
camera that the police put there that shows your car
reaching the speed limit in a certain zone. What you
gonna put surveillance cameras in every store around your head?
Speaker 3 (10:18):
The point is it has to it has to show
that you have taken the goods without paying it. If
there is a mitigating factor, then you will have a
pathway for It doesn't need to be similar to the
speeding file. I know that the key I think we're getting.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
That's the key message man Law.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
It's still a pragmatic way with the I mean, this
costs the country billions of dollars every year, and it's
a pragmatic way forward, right. But I think the mirror
the fact that that that both of you really can't
put a compelling counter to it, says that me, it's
probably quite good, but you don't want to give the
government respect.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
Your weak argument doesn't do much compulsion anything compelling from us.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
But still got some old talking points.
Speaker 4 (11:04):
So we never get when we ask the question, is
you almost five hundred new cops? How many have you done?
Speaker 1 (11:09):
What?
Speaker 3 (11:09):
What is this about? What people?
Speaker 1 (11:17):
At a time?
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Can you answer Reuben's question, Matt, how many new cops
do we have?
Speaker 3 (11:22):
I don't have the latest information, but we're committed to that.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
And look, it's like the crowd rebuilding the cathedral. They're
committed to that as.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
We to a beat police. We've gotten Canterbury burglaries are
sixty one percent down and number three we're a party
of law and order and we're delivering for shoplifters.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
Hold on, I was going to clarify something. So with
a speeding ticket, you know, and let's not worry about
speed camera, but a speeding ticket issued by a cop. Yeah,
that's issued by a cop who has witnessed the offense. Right.
So the cop that's going to come to the supermarket,
for example, and ride out the shoplifting ticket, they are going.
Are you saying that they're going to need to witness
the offense before they write the ticket. Yeah, and how
(12:02):
they're going.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
To do that, they'll be able to see footage of that.
So that is that why Lord will be the focus.
Speaker 4 (12:08):
And five hundred to keep up with that.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
I think people think this is a pragmatic way forward
for something that costs the country billions of dollars anyway,
And come on, guys, just agree it's the right thing
to do. When you see it in your face.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
When you say people think youre just talking about your
colleagues around the cabinet table, I think you are. School topics,
new topics introduced at school. I'm delighted. Matt Doucon that
the government's planning to introduce civics education. Yeah, so the
kids come out of school having an idea, what you know,
what government's about, what councilors are about, how the place operates.
Yet brilliant.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
Yeah, I think it is quite good. Even links to
probably some of the discussion you had this morning on
your show around people wanting binding referendums, which which is
the track? I'm not a big fan. I mean, isn't
that what an election is? That that every three years?
And if you don't think your elected representatives are spending
your money wisely, then boot them out. And this is
(13:01):
the problem. People want to set up parallel processes. Just
get out and vote in local body.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Couldn't certainly be so that hopefully.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
They'll bring me in as maybe a speaker for civics.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Are you looking for a job? You heard it here first,
Hair First, I'm not going to we won't expand on
that one. Civics education is good. What about AI?
Speaker 4 (13:25):
Interesting to see AI there in the mix. I think
that's a good thing. I think we need to be
looking at AI and education around AI and some of
the risks, but also some of the huge opportunities. The
things I'm concerned about in this proposal from the minister
is that it gives teachers about a week to submit feedback,
which not very long. Teacher, you'll find most teachers have
(13:47):
a bit more integrity than that. The other thing is
the there are a number of subjects.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Hold on, hold on, we're going to record this. Some
say it all the time. Why are you laughing at.
Speaker 3 (13:57):
Just thinking about something from yesterday? There we go.
Speaker 4 (14:02):
There are a number of subjects that have been pulled.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
Can you concentrate?
Speaker 4 (14:06):
And we're talking about things like a broadcasting media film.
So film has been pulled out of this curriculum outdoor education.
Now if you look at film being pulled out and
at the same time, the government are pouring hundreds of
millions into the screen production rebate to bring international film
to New Zealand, But where are we going to create
the workforce? So we're not right, We're going to have
(14:27):
to import workforce to use the rebate that the government
are funding in the science space and the cuts that
you're making to environmental science and agricultural sciences in this curriculum,
so you're pulling those out of the curriculum, or you're
pulling some of those out of the curriculum, which is
a huge risk around future issues for us like climate change.
(14:48):
At the same time, you're putting some things into the
curriculum that you've cut the funding for, so we're going
to train up a workforce that then have to leave
New Zealand. It doesn't match the subjects that are being
focused on and prioritized, don't match what's being funded at
a central government level. This government are not talking to
each other about creating a pipeline to create jobs for
(15:12):
our young people to stay in New Zealand and make
it a better place. And that's embarrassing.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
Yeah. I mean.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
We'll stop there, thank you.
Speaker 4 (15:22):
Just available for after dinner speaking engagements and all manner
of things. Do see ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
Yeah, happening today. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
I think the fact you're not bringing a tie, you've
turned up in a jersey and you're all a bit
looser than usual.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
What I was going to say in response to Ruben's
outrageous comments, especially the one around you know that the
film industry, one of the new courses, is in fact
and you would know because you've read the pr of course,
and you would know because I think your opposition spokesperson
in the space is media, journalism and communication. So what
(16:00):
it is is that isn't films has been done, but
it's actually a refresh for future focused curriculum, John, and
that's why we're bringing in planet Earth science. I thought
that was brilliant. You had to google Earth and space
science myself.
Speaker 4 (16:20):
How many millions have a look at it when I
first from the fund.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
And it's a systemic look at things, light, land, oceans,
atmosphere will incorporate everything that you've.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
All, oil and gas, oil and gas.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
Yeah, look, I think it is understanding a range of things, all.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
Right to Party Mari and Taku to feris now. I
said this yesterday and I said that Matt not Matt Doocy.
Matthew Horton is saying it in the New Zealand Herald
today that Labor, if it wants any chance next year's elections,
needs to distances distance itself from two party mariy Reuben,
you're willing to take that advice.
Speaker 4 (16:58):
Look, I think the important thing here is that the
leadership of Party MARII have come out against these statements
from one of their MPs, and ultimately it's an issue
for ten Party Malory, just.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
To clarify that. Just to clarify that Party Marrie came
out and spoke against it the first time he did it,
and then after they came out and spoke against it,
he repeated it again on social media, so that there
is a behavior that it's not quite like saying he
did something twice and the party came out and said,
don't do it again. Party came out, he said it,
party apologized for it. He did it again. That's worse,
(17:31):
isn't it.
Speaker 4 (17:33):
It's certainly not something I would do within my party.
If I did something wrong and the leader told me
that I'd done something wrong, I wouldn't go and do
it again. So I think that that's a question and
an issue for teen Party Mali to address and deal
with within their own party. And I'm sure they've got
a system for doing that. But I mean, let's look
at some of the comments and posts that are made
(17:53):
by some of the coalition parties, and you know, you
see all manner of things being said in public and
on the record and in the House. Got an example
by ministers and I'll send you a list by ministers
and in fact act by party leaders of both New
Zealand First and ACT and example calling on Matton, what's
an example. I can't think of a question time where
(18:17):
there aren't inappropriate slurs or things being said in the
House by those parties, and more often than not they
are being told to stand up withdraw and apologize.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
Would it be up there though, worth labeling people racists
as tarku de fairest? Did?
Speaker 4 (18:31):
I think if you look back over some of the
statements that are made in the House and on social
media and in public on the record by leaders, ministers
and MPs from coalition parties like ACT and New Zealand First,
Matt would find it very hard to say that they
are appropriate or comments that he is comfortable with.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
Matt, Well, I'm not surprised Rubens trying to deflect from
your question, John, because you know they will have to
round the.
Speaker 4 (19:00):
Sess next way of defecting from answering mind.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
Well, it actually is at John show, Ruben, So I'll
answer his questions first Shell and so they will have
to round this issue around to party Marty going into
an election year, because I tell you what it really
is at sixes and sevens, and it concerns people and
(19:25):
is quite serious and I think the issue to party
Marty have now is it's an untenable position when you
have an MP who has saying things differently than their leadership.
So I watched last night the video at the airport
where that MP is now saying that his leadership has
(19:47):
not spoken to him about those videos. Now they are
on record for saying that they have reprimanded him about that.
So there is a real issue there. They do have
an MP that has gone rogue, and I think it's
hugely concerning because actually what he is spouting in those videos,
(20:09):
it is not what we want to see.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
Nice to see you both, Matt, Doc Rubin Davidson, Thank you,
Thanks for having us all right. Thanks John, do you
mean that you really mean that?
Speaker 1 (20:18):
Absolutely.
Speaker 4 (20:18):
I always love coming in here and catching up with you,
and especially when Matt's here too.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Brilliant. I have a good weekend people.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
Thank you for more from Category 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 Newstalk ZB.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
We're in their full metal political jackets, Matt Ducy from
National Morning John and Ruben Davison from Labor Morning, Good
Morning the We can't ignore the Tom Phillips case because
it's been everywhere, absolutely everywhere this week, and there's been
quite a bit of discussion about the documentary that is
(00:33):
apparently been made, and I thought Martin van Baden in
the press this morning put it very well documentary none
of us want, but it's the one all of us
will watch. What's your position on it? Man?
Speaker 3 (00:42):
Yeah, I mean, at a higher level, that principle you've
just talked about, I suppose is something quite powerful within
TV and other media platforms where people are quite attracted
to that real life content. I'm not in the detail
around the roles and responsibilities within that. I resume somewhat
it's probably an operational decision for the police when they
(01:05):
bring in so of those documentary providers, But I just
think we need to be quite cautious at the moment.
Clearly there's some suppression on information through the courts as well,
and I think over time we need to step that
out and actually remind ourselves at the heart of this
(01:26):
case is the children and we need to be mindful
of them as they reintegrate back into life.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Ruben Davison, do you have issues with a documentary crew
getting access that the day to day media aren't.
Speaker 4 (01:39):
Look there's a lot going on here, But I agree
with Matt. At the heart of it, there's three children,
and there's also two families who have got some really
complicated issues to work through as a result of what's
happened over the last four years. I think I was
really impressed to hear on One News last night that
they've made the call not to use any depiction of
any photographs of the children and their coverage from here
(02:01):
on in. And I think it's appropriate that we respect
the huge journey that those families and that those children
have now got to go on over the coming years
and across the rest of their lifetime. So I think
the priority should be people stepping back and allowing that
process to happen.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Is it a and the police are very intent now
on finding the people who have supported them over the
last four years. Matter. Is this the fact that there
is no shortage of people who have been willing to
do that. It would seem from what the police are saying,
is that a hangover from COVID or has that Andy
establishment always been around?
Speaker 3 (02:37):
I mean, who knows, And at the moment is his
only speculation until we actually understand if there was accessories
to someone who did have a warrant out for their
arrest and their reasons as well. And I suppose over
time that will reveal itself and we will know the
full facts, but at the moment it's clearly only speculation.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
All right tomorrow. Yesterday we found out that the apparently
the cathedrals all go again, Anglican Cathedral. It's all happening.
Where are you laughing at?
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Well, all go? I think we now have a potential
plan and look, in fairness, full credit to Mark Stewart
and the people around him. I think they have listened.
They're being very pragmatic and they're now putting a pathway forward.
But let's be clear, there's still is a shortfall and
that will require people to step up and feel that shortfall,
(03:28):
and whether that happens or not is yet to be seen.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
So Reuben Davidson, do you think more public money should
go into the cathedral.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
I think there's been huge contributions towards the restoration of
the cathedral already from a number of places, but particularly
from central government. We've got the only South Island voice
at the Cabinet table in the studio with us, we're
able to give you an answer on what current government
thinking is. I mean, I think it's good to see
a priced plan for you know, getting the cathedral open again.
(03:55):
But where that money comes from ultimately, I think, you know,
central government have made a big contribution already, it'd be
interesting to see where else money might come from.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
What it was you you on the City council.
Speaker 4 (04:07):
Look, I mean that's a conference. I'm not part of
the City Council, so that's a conversation for and the
City Council have already made significant contributions. I guess one
of the other things that happened at City Council have
always that I believe councilor Cowen committed to paying a
personal contribution until it happened, Oh, Aaron cun Yeah, So
there's I mean, there's a there's a there's a bunch
(04:27):
of different ways that the money could be found to
to proceed with this and ultimately, now that there's a
plan and a price, then then they can get on
with doing that.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
Yeah, matt do you see how confident are you in
those in the estimates?
Speaker 3 (04:41):
I don't know because I haven't looked at the proposition
and detail, and you know they've highlighted already it's between
forty and forty five million dollars. But potentially when you
look at the proposal that did go to cabinet, it's
understanding that when you do go into a building like that,
(05:03):
then actually extra costs can reveal themselves. And I think
that that's what's been found. And I heard comment from
former local MP Nicky Wagner today about the time of
Victoria Matthews wanting to go back to a new build
and build from scratch to budget. And that's some of
(05:23):
the risk when you try and restore a building that
potentially cost can arise that you hadn't budgeted for.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
You think that should have been the way things went.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
Oh, it is what it is today. I don't think
we can worry about going back of what might have been.
The reality is is that still to this day the
cathedral is an important part of Cathedral Square. There is
only really probably two areas that need to be focused
on around the recovery, and that's the cathedral and the
(05:54):
museum as well. I think no one disagrees with the
projects under a sort of a heritage lens and restoring
the city back to its former glory, but all the
pinch point comes to who's going to pay for it,
and quite rightly, people are quite stretched at the moment.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
So Mark Stewart Tommy esa he went to cabinet last
year and asked for sixty five million, and I don't
think that had been reported very widely. Can you confirm
that that's what they asked for.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
Well, I'm not going to get into that space at
the moment, but clearly there was a proposal put to
cabinet and that was declined. And part of the issue,
and I think Minister of Finance Nichola Willis has commented
publicly with the recent new proposal is that it is
largely a private religious space and that is some of
(06:44):
the difficulty when you're talking about public money, whether it
be taxpayer or rate power as well, and you know
my encouragement to them and also the museum. I just
think in today's world you have to commercialize your visitor
flows and most people expect in buildings like that that
they do or try to generate their own revenue stream
(07:07):
to fund it.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Okay, I just want clarification. We've got to move on.
Got plenty to talk about. But can you tell me
was it the amount of money asks for that resulted
in cabinet saying no? Or was it the fact that
it's not a wholly public facility that led to cabinets
saying no.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
Well, they are some of the concerns, right of both
of them, that it is a the money that's been
asked for, and also that actually it is a private
religious space, so we're not talking about a publicly funded
open building. And those are two of the concerns of
(07:45):
the government. And obviously those issues would have to be
worked through if there was any future proposals to a
government of the day. And look, i'd expect Reuben would
be in the same space for that, because it is
a private religious space and we need to think about
whether we use public funds for that.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Sounds to me like it's going to be a no
yet again. But what do you make of the government's
plan for tackling shoplifting.
Speaker 4 (08:10):
Well, it's an interesting approach, isn't it. It's essentially saying
we can't find those extra police. We see, we were
going to get the five hundred that we promised. So
instead of instead of being able to tackle crime by
increasing the res, just can't bring them. Instead of that,
Instead of that, what we're going to do is we're
going to continue to rewrite the laws.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
Yes, this is where I'm This is where I'm really
empty on this. What are you rolling you rise for?
I mean, I think they're.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
Going to issue the fines the police officers themselves, So
there is yes.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
They are not they are Hold on, Hold on, hold on,
hold on. This is this is breaking news. Are you
telling me that police officers are going to be signed
to every retail outlets so the guy to write the ticket?
Speaker 3 (08:53):
No, but they're called to the offense, aren't they.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
This is sounding weaker by the minute.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
Well, no it's not. I think it's actually quite a
smart approach and it's been called on for by the
sector as well. And what we do know is the
proposition is for a shoplifting offense under five hundred dollars
a five hundred dollars over five hundred one thousands, but
over two thousand, you're going to court. And look, I mean,
(09:20):
we know we've got real pressures on our court system
that will support that as well, and people will be Look,
think of a speeding fine, right, you are given a
speeding fine. If you think you have a case to
make on why you shouldn't be fined, then you have
a process to go forward to make your case. This
will be the same as well. And I think most
(09:40):
people think it's quite a pragmatic way forward.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Are you comfortable with sort of nudging into the justice
system and the foundation of the justice system is that
you are innocent until proven guilty. You're comfortable with the
government tinkering with that?
Speaker 4 (09:54):
Reuben, Look, it comes back to being a broken promise.
And this is I'm talking about it until proven guilty.
Is that I say it as a slippery slope.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
What about you, Yeah, it is a slippery slope.
Speaker 4 (10:05):
And the difference here the speed camera a speed fine
is that there is a photo taken by a speed
camera that the police put there that shows your car
reaching the speed limit in a certain zone. What you
gonna put surveillance cameras in every store around your head?
Speaker 3 (10:18):
The point is it has to it has to show
that you have taken the goods without paying it. If
there is a mitigating factor, then you will have a
pathway for It doesn't need to be similar to the
speeding file. I know that the key I think we're getting.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
That's the key message man Law.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
It's still a pragmatic way with the I mean, this
costs the country billions of dollars every year, and it's
a pragmatic way forward, right. But I think the mirror
the fact that that that both of you really can't
put a compelling counter to it, says that me, it's
probably quite good, but you don't want to give the
government respect.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
Your weak argument doesn't do much compulsion anything compelling from us.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
But still got some old talking points.
Speaker 4 (11:04):
So we never get when we ask the question, is
you almost five hundred new cops? How many have you done?
Speaker 1 (11:09):
What?
Speaker 3 (11:09):
What is this about? What people?
Speaker 1 (11:17):
At a time?
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Can you answer Reuben's question, Matt, how many new cops
do we have?
Speaker 3 (11:22):
I don't have the latest information, but we're committed to that.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
And look, it's like the crowd rebuilding the cathedral. They're
committed to that as.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
We to a beat police. We've gotten Canterbury burglaries are
sixty one percent down and number three we're a party
of law and order and we're delivering for shoplifters.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
Hold on, I was going to clarify something. So with
a speeding ticket, you know, and let's not worry about
speed camera, but a speeding ticket issued by a cop. Yeah,
that's issued by a cop who has witnessed the offense. Right.
So the cop that's going to come to the supermarket,
for example, and ride out the shoplifting ticket, they are going.
Are you saying that they're going to need to witness
the offense before they write the ticket. Yeah, and how
(12:02):
they're going.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
To do that, they'll be able to see footage of that.
So that is that why Lord will be the focus.
Speaker 4 (12:08):
And five hundred to keep up with that.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
I think people think this is a pragmatic way forward
for something that costs the country billions of dollars anyway,
And come on, guys, just agree it's the right thing
to do. When you see it in your face.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
When you say people think youre just talking about your
colleagues around the cabinet table, I think you are. School topics,
new topics introduced at school. I'm delighted. Matt Doucon that
the government's planning to introduce civics education. Yeah, so the
kids come out of school having an idea, what you know,
what government's about, what councilors are about, how the place operates.
Yet brilliant.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
Yeah, I think it is quite good. Even links to
probably some of the discussion you had this morning on
your show around people wanting binding referendums, which which is
the track? I'm not a big fan. I mean, isn't
that what an election is? That that every three years?
And if you don't think your elected representatives are spending
your money wisely, then boot them out. And this is
(13:01):
the problem. People want to set up parallel processes. Just
get out and vote in local body.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Couldn't certainly be so that hopefully.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
They'll bring me in as maybe a speaker for civics.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Are you looking for a job? You heard it here first,
Hair First, I'm not going to we won't expand on
that one. Civics education is good. What about AI?
Speaker 4 (13:25):
Interesting to see AI there in the mix. I think
that's a good thing. I think we need to be
looking at AI and education around AI and some of
the risks, but also some of the huge opportunities. The
things I'm concerned about in this proposal from the minister
is that it gives teachers about a week to submit feedback,
which not very long. Teacher, you'll find most teachers have
(13:47):
a bit more integrity than that. The other thing is
the there are a number of subjects.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Hold on, hold on, we're going to record this. Some
say it all the time. Why are you laughing at.
Speaker 3 (13:57):
Just thinking about something from yesterday? There we go.
Speaker 4 (14:02):
There are a number of subjects that have been pulled.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
Can you concentrate?
Speaker 4 (14:06):
And we're talking about things like a broadcasting media film.
So film has been pulled out of this curriculum outdoor education.
Now if you look at film being pulled out and
at the same time, the government are pouring hundreds of
millions into the screen production rebate to bring international film
to New Zealand, But where are we going to create
the workforce? So we're not right, We're going to have
(14:27):
to import workforce to use the rebate that the government
are funding in the science space and the cuts that
you're making to environmental science and agricultural sciences in this curriculum,
so you're pulling those out of the curriculum, or you're
pulling some of those out of the curriculum, which is
a huge risk around future issues for us like climate change.
(14:48):
At the same time, you're putting some things into the
curriculum that you've cut the funding for, so we're going
to train up a workforce that then have to leave
New Zealand. It doesn't match the subjects that are being
focused on and prioritized, don't match what's being funded at
a central government level. This government are not talking to
each other about creating a pipeline to create jobs for
(15:12):
our young people to stay in New Zealand and make
it a better place. And that's embarrassing.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
Yeah. I mean.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
We'll stop there, thank you.
Speaker 4 (15:22):
Just available for after dinner speaking engagements and all manner
of things. Do see ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
Yeah, happening today. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
I think the fact you're not bringing a tie, you've
turned up in a jersey and you're all a bit
looser than usual.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
What I was going to say in response to Ruben's
outrageous comments, especially the one around you know that the
film industry, one of the new courses, is in fact
and you would know because you've read the pr of course,
and you would know because I think your opposition spokesperson
in the space is media, journalism and communication. So what
(16:00):
it is is that isn't films has been done, but
it's actually a refresh for future focused curriculum, John, and
that's why we're bringing in planet Earth science. I thought
that was brilliant. You had to google Earth and space
science myself.
Speaker 4 (16:20):
How many millions have a look at it when I
first from the fund.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
And it's a systemic look at things, light, land, oceans,
atmosphere will incorporate everything that you've.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
All, oil and gas, oil and gas.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
Yeah, look, I think it is understanding a range of things, all.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
Right to Party Mari and Taku to feris now. I
said this yesterday and I said that Matt not Matt Doocy.
Matthew Horton is saying it in the New Zealand Herald
today that Labor, if it wants any chance next year's elections,
needs to distances distance itself from two party mariy Reuben,
you're willing to take that advice.
Speaker 4 (16:58):
Look, I think the important thing here is that the
leadership of Party MARII have come out against these statements
from one of their MPs, and ultimately it's an issue
for ten Party Malory, just.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
To clarify that. Just to clarify that Party Marrie came
out and spoke against it the first time he did it,
and then after they came out and spoke against it,
he repeated it again on social media, so that there
is a behavior that it's not quite like saying he
did something twice and the party came out and said,
don't do it again. Party came out, he said it,
party apologized for it. He did it again. That's worse,
(17:31):
isn't it.
Speaker 4 (17:33):
It's certainly not something I would do within my party.
If I did something wrong and the leader told me
that I'd done something wrong, I wouldn't go and do
it again. So I think that that's a question and
an issue for teen Party Mali to address and deal
with within their own party. And I'm sure they've got
a system for doing that. But I mean, let's look
at some of the comments and posts that are made
(17:53):
by some of the coalition parties, and you know, you
see all manner of things being said in public and
on the record and in the House. Got an example
by ministers and I'll send you a list by ministers
and in fact act by party leaders of both New
Zealand First and ACT and example calling on Matton, what's
an example. I can't think of a question time where
(18:17):
there aren't inappropriate slurs or things being said in the
House by those parties, and more often than not they
are being told to stand up withdraw and apologize.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
Would it be up there though, worth labeling people racists
as tarku de fairest? Did?
Speaker 4 (18:31):
I think if you look back over some of the
statements that are made in the House and on social
media and in public on the record by leaders, ministers
and MPs from coalition parties like ACT and New Zealand First,
Matt would find it very hard to say that they
are appropriate or comments that he is comfortable with.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
Matt, Well, I'm not surprised Rubens trying to deflect from
your question, John, because you know they will have to
round the.
Speaker 4 (19:00):
Sess next way of defecting from answering mind.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
Well, it actually is at John show, Ruben, So I'll
answer his questions first Shell and so they will have
to round this issue around to party Marty going into
an election year, because I tell you what it really
is at sixes and sevens, and it concerns people and
(19:25):
is quite serious and I think the issue to party
Marty have now is it's an untenable position when you
have an MP who has saying things differently than their leadership.
So I watched last night the video at the airport
where that MP is now saying that his leadership has
(19:47):
not spoken to him about those videos. Now they are
on record for saying that they have reprimanded him about that.
So there is a real issue there. They do have
an MP that has gone rogue, and I think it's
hugely concerning because actually what he is spouting in those videos,
(20:09):
it is not what we want to see.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
Nice to see you both, Matt, Doc Rubin Davidson, Thank you,
Thanks for having us all right. Thanks John, do you
mean that you really mean that?
Speaker 1 (20:18):
Absolutely.
Speaker 4 (20:18):
I always love coming in here and catching up with you,
and especially when Matt's here too.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Brilliant. I have a good weekend people.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
Thank you for more from Category 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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.