National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.
They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from Christopher Luxon's leadership, the new warrant of fitness changes coming this year, and their thoughts on The Crusaders losing the pre-match horses at One NZ Stadium.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
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 Talk Z'B.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Seven past ten Friday. What does that mean? Politics, Friday Labors,
Tracy McClellan morning, Good morning, and Nationals mate Doucy Morning, John,
How are you morning?
Speaker 3 (00:20):
Tracy?
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Morning?
Speaker 3 (00:21):
Matt.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
You know, Matt, if you pick up your phone and
you ring the boss Christoph Luxon, what's the percentage chance
that he takes you call?
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Oh? I suppose it depends how busy is that day.
But I must say about Chris, he's very good at
getting back to people and he's a great leader. And
I know you're leading into So how can they stories
out there? And how do we go more more beltwegh
politics journalists into viewing themselves and putting stories out Look,
how can we're supportive of the leader?
Speaker 2 (00:52):
I'm sure we're behind Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Look, I know it fells sort of columns in the newspaper,
but as my dad would say, it's all fish and
chip paper wrapper the next day in the Brilliant.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
All right, So how come you have a bit of
success getting in touch with Christopher Luxe and than the
party whip when he wants to tell the prime minister
that he's there's a few people not happy about him.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
Yeah. Look, I don't know anything about this story and
it's just all here say from one journalist. But I
must say Chris is very good at engaging as caucus
and it's got real Well, you're only sort of going
off one journalist's story, and I suppose if you're a
press gallery journalist in Wellington you're a bit bored at
(01:33):
the moment with recess and you haven't got much to
write about.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Tracy McClellan, what do you know about this? Well, what
I don't tell me, only what you what you're reading,
because we've read it. What do you what have you
been hearing around.
Speaker 4 (01:46):
The traps, Well, we have been hearing around the traps
that there's some dissatisfaction. Will there'll be some backbenchers who
will feel that the need to step in and try
and resolve a problem, and they'll have some thoughts. It
is highly unusual for a leader not to take a
call from a chief whip. It could be about anything,
(02:08):
but it's very important that the leader be kept abreast.
That's the role of the chief whippers to tell the
leader what the backbench are fearing.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
You know, when you know Andrew little store down and
just Sinder took over, what sort of talk was going
on behind the scenes.
Speaker 4 (02:26):
Then. I wasn't a member of caucus then, so I'm
not really sure what sort of you know, talk was happening.
But that was a decisive decision. Andrew decided that's what
was best and it'll be interesting to see if Christopher
Luxen makes a similar call.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
All right, Matt dooci. I don't want any of your
platitudes and all your usual stuff, because you know, we
all know. We all know that, we all know he's
doing a great job, and we know stending very hungarian
state TV, and we know Chris is doing a great
job with the rim A. When we know all that,
but are you willing to accept that there was a
difference here between a party leader and the prime minister
(03:09):
and if there is some doubts showing within government that
he's not the right guy for the job, given that
he's the prime minister, it does add more weight to it.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
We are behind the Prime minig I'm not talking about you,
leader now, this is what I said. We are as
a caucus behind the Prime minister and our party leader,
and we've got to get on and do the job.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
Go on.
Speaker 3 (03:32):
It can't be any more clear than that. There's a
lot of issues facing this country, fuel supply, cost of living,
and we've been voted in to do a job and
that's what the Prime Minister is focused on. That's what
his ministers and the government it as well. So this
is this is nice in the world of journalism, good distraction,
But we're just getting on and doing right.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
How come Chris Bishop was so slow to respond to
some of those questions when he was talking to my
costing this morning.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Look, I've got no idea. I didn't hear or see
the interview, so you've obviously formed a view from that.
But all I can say is we're committed behind Chris.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Right war of fitness changes. We're talking about them. This
idea that vehicles won't have to get warrants annually but
every two years if they're ten years or younger than that.
What are your thoughts on that, Tracy?
Speaker 4 (04:23):
I read that this morning and thought, from a selfish perspective, yay,
because I have to do my warrant of fitness less frequently. Look,
as long as it's a robust decision making process, No.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
No, no, it's terrible.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
Do you think so?
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Absolutely?
Speaker 4 (04:37):
Yeah. Well, my gut says the most important thing is
that the cars have got to be safe on the road.
I don't know what the analysis has been behind the scenes,
but if I can be convinced that it's not a
shortcut and a money saving measure, then you know, I'm
open to the idea.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
All right, Matt Doocy, how is it going to make
our roads safer?
Speaker 3 (04:56):
Well, when you look at the evidence, it shows that
for cars under fourteen years they can get a warrant
of fitness every two years, new cars every four years.
It's going to save kiwis around two to three billion dollars.
And as Tracy just said, we all have it when
the twelve months rolls around and we think, gee, where
did that go? You look at the car, it looks
(05:18):
very similar to the state it was in twelve months ago.
You go along and they give you the big tick
and you move on and you've paid your money and
you think, was that really worth it? Look, we've listened
to people, Yeah, but policy, but with respect.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
With respect. Listening to people's one thing. But it depends
whether those people are talking common sense or not. Hey,
it's ally I was saying, oh, yeah, no, one wants
to pay for a warrant every twelve months, so let's
make it every two years. But really, do people think
about the safety part of it? No?
Speaker 3 (05:47):
Yes, But the reality is John, I just put to you,
have a look at the condition and the state of
our car fleet now compared to five, ten, fifteen, twenty
years ago. And actually now when you do have a
new car, it doesn't need a warrant of fitness as
regulars the as it needed to. And that's why we've
made these regulatory changes, and I think people will support them.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
But an eight year old car, for example, let's just
not focus on new cars, but an eight year old vehicle,
stuff goes wrong and people only get stuff fixed when
they have to. And that have to point is when
they have to get a warrant.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Oh that that could be one decision point when they
get a warrant, but there's other decision points. When people
realize there's something wrong with their car, they take it
in to get serviced, and might be at that time
that the mechanic flags up. So there's various decision points.
But ultimately, I think when you look at the technology
(06:46):
and the state of new cars today. Quite rightly, you
don't need.
Speaker 4 (06:49):
To take it.
Speaker 3 (06:49):
And as frequently for a warrant of fitness, have.
Speaker 4 (06:51):
You, tires are a bit different I have.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
Have you ever outside getting a warrant checked your tires,
looked at them and thought I need to replace one
or two of those.
Speaker 4 (07:01):
No, I really rely on someone that knows what they're
talking about. I mean, I checked my tires, but I'm
never the tread totally confident on my evaluation of the tread.
I do rely on someone saying, hey, look you need tires,
and then I begrudgingly go get them because it's you know.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
You're safe. You're going to have another twelve months on
top of that driving around on dodgy time.
Speaker 4 (07:23):
And just listening to Matt that would be that would
I mean, that's the obvious concern, is it? But we'll
look into the detail.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Of what's being a little bit late now.
Speaker 4 (07:30):
Yeah, but we have to you know, Oh, you're.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
So grumpy this morning, John, what's up? Is it sort
of autumn or winter? Or this is a good thing
safety celebrat.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
I was hoping the company was going to perk me up.
I thought I'll have mates and after tea and anyway
we live in Hope's about the fuel situation, Matt, Why
is support not forthcoming for these big diesel users because
they're struggling, aren't they at the moment?
Speaker 3 (08:04):
Well, there's a lot of pressure on all New Zealanders.
We all need energy, we all need fuel.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
Yeah, the question was it wise they're not support for
the dees. The way I see it is that when
those people have extra costs, those costs are going to
be passed on to us, and they're also particularly going
to be passed on to the people getting the fifty
dollars a week who are being supported by the government.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
Yeah. Like I say, there's pressure on everyone, not specifically
diesel users, petrol users. You know, we're all bearing the
pressure that the conflict in the Middle East is causing
right the way around the world. I mean, all we
can do is cause call for a cease fire, get
the straighterhor maes open, and have a very clear fuel
(08:51):
security plan, which we have articulated with the four phases.
We're at the watchful stage at the moment to ensure
that we secure good fuel supply. That's what people would
expect of the government.
Speaker 2 (09:04):
Tracy Business have been saying in the past few days
that they'd like to have a little bit more transparency
in terms of not just the amount of fuel that's
either here or on its way, but what threats or
otherwise there are to supply in the medium to short term.
How sympathetic are you to those thoughts?
Speaker 4 (09:22):
Very sympathetic. And it's not just business, it's loads of
people saying the same thing. I was in hun Ha
yesterday at a street corner meeting and people come specifically
to ask if I had any insider information, assuming that
I might know a little bit more, And I said,
I know as much as you do, which is very little.
The framework's one thing, and that's fine, but we've got
(09:43):
not enough clarity or detail about what moves us from
one position to the next. And you know, I don't
know about you, but this whole we've got fifty three
days worth of diesel, including the three weeks on the water.
I don't know what that means.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
Well, can help you?
Speaker 3 (10:00):
I'd disagree with that, respectfully, Tracy. I think we've been
very clear about the three principles would move up the
different phases. The three principles are if countries with refineries
that we relied on stopped exports if fuel companies serving
New Zealand said they were unable to fulfill orders, or
(10:22):
there was a major disruption to supply side logistics. Though
are the three principled points. We are taking continual advice
from MB and other government officials, and they have advised
us that we don't need to move up to the
next phase at the moment.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
I'm saying a headline on Sky News right now saying
the Prime Minister of Australia was saying that sixty percent
of petrol production is ongoing after some refinery fire in Geelong. Right,
so there's what's that a forty percent cut? I know
that there is. The government seems confident that, well, we
don't get fuel from Australia, so we're fine. How concerned
(11:02):
is the government that perhaps this refinery fire will have
some impact on us?
Speaker 4 (11:06):
Well?
Speaker 3 (11:07):
I get the comparison to Australia, right, they're our close cousin.
But the reality is we are quite different than Australia.
And the reason I say that is we have a
trade agreement with Singapore to supply our fuel, which Australia
does not have. Wow, So that gives us more confidence,
not total confidence. Because of course there is a lot
(11:29):
of risk still here in fuel supply, but we are
a lot more confident because we have that trade agreement
and an agreement with Singapore.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
That's Singapore. What about South Korea though, where I think
it's about fifty four percent of our fuel comes from.
What certainty do we have there?
Speaker 3 (11:45):
Yeah, well, that's why the Prime Minister has been talking
with the leaders of those countries and that's quite rightly.
With the fuel plan, a country stopping exports from their
refinery would be a reason to move up to the
next phase. So we do have those principles these.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Countries that is talking to How where are though that
we no longer have we have an energy minister now
because Simon Watts was over there about a month back,
but now he's Yesterday's man. Do these countries know that
Simeon's now the person to ring up?
Speaker 3 (12:14):
Yeah, But just because you have a change in minister
doesn't change the policy of the government. And equally at
the moment it is prime minister to prime minister. Yes,
it is supported by the relevant ministers and we have
a ministerial group who are actively looking at the security
of supply of fuel daily. But it is quite rightly
(12:38):
at a level where the prime ministers are talking, and
I would point back to that trade agreement with Singapore
that Australia does not have. Yes, they have refineries. I
accept that.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
Yeah, Tracy, how influential do you think Anthony Albinese's visits
in person will be as opposed to christ of Luckson's
phone calls.
Speaker 4 (12:57):
It seems a bit odd, doesn't it. And it feels
from a public perspective that we just want the government
to make sure this is their number one priority, that
they're pulling out all the stops, that they're doing everything
they need to do to be hustling on that world stage.
You know, sure we've got a trade agreement, but you
know force masure, there's all sorts of things that could
(13:18):
impact that, and we need reassurance that our prime minister is,
like the others, are out there doing the very most
he can.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
All Right, what's the government going to do about the
bloody crusaders horses? Eh, we'll find out before ten thirty.
What do you think the Christian City Council should do? Tracy?
Spend one and a half billion dollars and still won't
have any certainty that the chlorine won't be needed, or
do what film major suggesting and dishing out filters for
people to have on the kitchen bench and to have
(13:46):
some chlorine free water stations around town.
Speaker 4 (13:49):
Yeah, it's pretty disappointing. There'll be lots of people that
are pretty gutted by the prospect of not getting chlorine
out of the water. It does bring into focus sharp
focus the overall issue of water quality in New Zealand.
You know, that's what that's not the question.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
The question was what should the city will do?
Speaker 4 (14:09):
Well?
Speaker 2 (14:11):
Actually it is. That was a bigger gap than Chrispicious
when he was on with Mike this morning.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
Well, one point five billion is a lot of money
without the guarantee that it's actually going to get the
you know, get the chlorine, chlorine, chlorine free water at
the end of the at the end of the day,
it's not just.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
About chlorine though, It's about the essential maintenance.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
And keeping it all up to scratch and keeping it
safe because people need safe water. It's a huge amount
of money, but it is worth it in the long run.
But it goes to show that if the government doesn't
get behind councils and give them the scale and the
financial tools to be able to do these things.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
This is what we'll end up with. So, Matt Doocy,
is this local water done well in practices?
Speaker 3 (14:48):
It very much so, Because your question is what should
the christ City Council do? Yeah, well they should.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
Are you going to give me an answer?
Speaker 3 (14:55):
They should do what their rate payers want them to do.
So if the rate payers want them to put more
money into the water assets to speed up that time
frame or bring in water meter charging, that's exactly what
local water does done well. But that's exactly it. That's
(15:21):
why when we looked at the issue around safe drinking
water in New Zealand, our solution was very different than
the last government. We campaigned on that. It wasn't about
mega entities taking away local control of water assets, it
wasn't about co governance. It was actually returning those assets
to councils, having a separation on the balance sheet for
(15:43):
them to have financing tools and if they want to
bring in water charging to speed up those time frames.
But what I would say, my final point, John, is
that as a local charging exactly well, it's up to
councils to decide how they bring in their financing tools. Okay,
(16:04):
so as a local MP, what I would say is
actually most people in principle don't want chlorine in their water,
but actually they're happy for it to be in there
to keep them safe. And I would say now with
to fattify the water regulator very low dosing of chlorine,
that I don't think it's actually an issue anymore. I
(16:26):
don't think I don't think it drives any vote. I
don't think people are overly worrying, which is why.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
I say for water, the danger is the council will
see it and think, oh the chlorine thing. Lordy, there's
there's our ticket out. Just back to what you talked
about water charging. What what were you alluding to there?
Speaker 3 (16:40):
Well, I just think it's a decision for councils to
engage their rate payers and ask them how much they
want to pay towards their water. Local councils do.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
So under the under local Water Done well that people
are one part of the country paying extra for water
and in other parts of the country they want.
Speaker 3 (16:59):
Yeah, but that's called local democracy, John, that you have
councils that put up ideas for their rate payers and
if they don't like it, they'll vote them out. But
in the end it should be a decision for the
rate paid.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
All right, ten thirty, You've got a couple of other
key things to tick off. E Can isn't happy about
the level of transport funding in the South Island And
why are you laughing?
Speaker 1 (17:20):
Matt?
Speaker 2 (17:20):
I'll come back to that. Hold on and Tracy, I
still with some people. Tragic accident on State Highway one
south of christ Church the other day at Rolliston, but
people were commenting about the significant impact it had on
traffic flows because of the road we have on State
Highway One between christ Church and Ashburton. Is he can
onto something here?
Speaker 4 (17:41):
I think it's fair enough to be concerned about the
lack of funding for the South Island. When you look
at the list of projects we don't get much of
a look in.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
Was it any better under labor Well.
Speaker 4 (17:51):
We funded Braam Street and this government can that's going ahead. Yeah,
but only because they took money from seventy eight million
from pt futures to refund something that was we already funded.
So we're not getting a particularly good deal.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
Using acronyms, that's dangerous territory laughing.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
Before Oh, well, potentially there might be a disgruntled chair
of e CAN.
Speaker 2 (18:12):
Who's you're going to say he's grumpy like me?
Speaker 3 (18:14):
Now, well he probably has. It's probably what you've you've
connected with. And look, I get it. We're disestablishing e CAN.
The councilors will be a bit grumpy, but the reality.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
Is affirmed you, it's not confirmed. Pretty is that breaking new?
Speaker 1 (18:28):
Yes?
Speaker 3 (18:29):
It's pretty lazy.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
Is that breaking new?
Speaker 3 (18:31):
Look? John, let me finish. It's pretty lazy politics going
out saying oh, we think funding for transport should be
prioriti head of population or GDP. We know they are
not the Metrics and the Land Transport Fund under any government. Right.
We've actually put in a record investment of one point
eight billion. Talk to the council. We gave them an
extra almost one hundred million for road surfacing and maintenance
(18:54):
as well an extra one hundred and twelve million into
public transport as well. So the investments come in. But
it's look, it's it's easily to circle the carriages and
say oh we want head a population, but it doesn't
work well.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Right, So you just said we're getting rid of ECN.
Is that preempting this period of consultation with local mayors
to work out how regional government.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
Don't about the disestablishing of the of the councilors. Sorry,
that's what I meant, Which that's that's what we're doing.
We've tasked local councils to come up with their local
reorganization plans and bringing in rate caps. There the three
things that we said we're doing the government.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
Speaking of speaking of disestablishment, the Crusaders horses have been
given the thin white envelope this week. Tracy, How much
of a surprise was that to you?
Speaker 4 (19:45):
Not a huge surprise?
Speaker 2 (19:46):
Really?
Speaker 1 (19:47):
Why not?
Speaker 4 (19:48):
Just the nature of the stadium, the size of it
got aof you must.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Be the what's the roof?
Speaker 3 (19:54):
What's the roof?
Speaker 2 (19:54):
And horses going to do?
Speaker 4 (19:56):
I don't know, but I would have thought expensive special.
It's not like outside grass, is it. I would have
thought that there was some safety.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
It was grown outside the grass. I think it was, yeah,
but it was growing off.
Speaker 4 (20:09):
I think it's a shame because it feels like a
bit of an end of an error and it was
very exciting, but you know, it's a safety concerns. Then
we've got to listen to to what to what's being proposed.
I should imagine.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
Matt was a government given his I'm not sure, given
the government has quite a significant investment, I was, hold on,
I's just not sure.
Speaker 3 (20:32):
I'm feeling a bit being a bit provocative this morning, John.
I actually think I would say when the horse people
I shouldn't say horsemen stopped wearing Crusader outfits, I kind
of felt the horses lost their way a bit really,
So for me, it's not a big issue because you know,
in principle it really was about the Crusader outfits and
(20:54):
the horses, So now they can't do that with the
horses going. I think it's a bit of a change
with the new stadium, and I get it changes difficult
for some, but I don't think it's.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
The biggest issue. So was the government give them their
heads up about this? I don't know. All right, okay, yeah,
So would you go as far as saying that the
team should change its name, because if the whole imagery
is gone, then no.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
I actually enjoy the name Crusader Wanderers. I probably would
have been a fan to bring back the Crusader outfits
on the horses.
Speaker 4 (21:27):
So I don't think the brand is contingent on having
some horses at the beginning of the game.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
And you too, seem to be very calm about it.
There's a lot of people upset people, don't.
Speaker 3 (21:35):
They say I did enjoy the music too. It was
quite haunting them. Come in the Crusader outfit, the horses.
It was a great way to start the game. And look,
it will be a bit lost. But once the outfit's gone,
I think it kind of lost.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
Careful you were getting tarry there for a minute.
Speaker 4 (21:48):
You should the old days, it would be interesting to
see what listen. Just think I knew we could start
a new tradition. You could, you could canvas.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
Well, I've got it. I've sorted out the other day
because we had two hours of talk back talking about it.
When the news broke hologram. There was an Argentine football
club I reopened at stadium years Bank and they had
a hologram of a lion. Look it up amazing too modern.
Speaker 3 (22:11):
You know what I'd do, I'd go back into hobly
horses and in the old days for people who remember
Lancaster part when you're on the embankment, kids could spray
paint their own banners and walk round the field before
the game with quite interesting comments about the opposing Redfoody
Shield team. We were making I reckon we should bring
(22:32):
that back. That was great, all right, ideas flowing, bring
back the embankment.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
All right.
Speaker 4 (22:36):
Water Chargers announcements.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
Thank you both, nice to see it. Enjoy the weekend.
See Tracy McLellan, Labor, Matt Doucy from the National.
Speaker 1 (22:48):
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 Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk Z'B.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Seven past ten Friday. What does that mean? Politics, Friday Labors,
Tracy McClellan morning, Good morning, and Nationals mate Doucy Morning, John,
How are you morning?
Speaker 3 (00:20):
Tracy?
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Morning?
Speaker 3 (00:21):
Matt.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
You know, Matt, if you pick up your phone and
you ring the boss Christoph Luxon, what's the percentage chance
that he takes you call?
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Oh? I suppose it depends how busy is that day.
But I must say about Chris, he's very good at
getting back to people and he's a great leader. And
I know you're leading into So how can they stories
out there? And how do we go more more beltwegh
politics journalists into viewing themselves and putting stories out Look,
how can we're supportive of the leader?
Speaker 2 (00:52):
I'm sure we're behind Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Look, I know it fells sort of columns in the newspaper,
but as my dad would say, it's all fish and
chip paper wrapper the next day in the Brilliant.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
All right, So how come you have a bit of
success getting in touch with Christopher Luxe and than the
party whip when he wants to tell the prime minister
that he's there's a few people not happy about him.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
Yeah. Look, I don't know anything about this story and
it's just all here say from one journalist. But I
must say Chris is very good at engaging as caucus
and it's got real Well, you're only sort of going
off one journalist's story, and I suppose if you're a
press gallery journalist in Wellington you're a bit bored at
(01:33):
the moment with recess and you haven't got much to
write about.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Tracy McClellan, what do you know about this? Well, what
I don't tell me, only what you what you're reading,
because we've read it. What do you what have you
been hearing around.
Speaker 4 (01:46):
The traps, Well, we have been hearing around the traps
that there's some dissatisfaction. Will there'll be some backbenchers who
will feel that the need to step in and try
and resolve a problem, and they'll have some thoughts. It
is highly unusual for a leader not to take a
call from a chief whip. It could be about anything,
(02:08):
but it's very important that the leader be kept abreast.
That's the role of the chief whippers to tell the
leader what the backbench are fearing.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
You know, when you know Andrew little store down and
just Sinder took over, what sort of talk was going
on behind the scenes.
Speaker 4 (02:26):
Then. I wasn't a member of caucus then, so I'm
not really sure what sort of you know, talk was happening.
But that was a decisive decision. Andrew decided that's what
was best and it'll be interesting to see if Christopher
Luxen makes a similar call.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
All right, Matt dooci. I don't want any of your
platitudes and all your usual stuff, because you know, we
all know. We all know that, we all know he's
doing a great job, and we know stending very hungarian
state TV, and we know Chris is doing a great
job with the rim A. When we know all that,
but are you willing to accept that there was a
difference here between a party leader and the prime minister
(03:09):
and if there is some doubts showing within government that
he's not the right guy for the job, given that
he's the prime minister, it does add more weight to it.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
We are behind the Prime minig I'm not talking about you,
leader now, this is what I said. We are as
a caucus behind the Prime minister and our party leader,
and we've got to get on and do the job.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
Go on.
Speaker 3 (03:32):
It can't be any more clear than that. There's a
lot of issues facing this country, fuel supply, cost of living,
and we've been voted in to do a job and
that's what the Prime Minister is focused on. That's what
his ministers and the government it as well. So this
is this is nice in the world of journalism, good distraction,
But we're just getting on and doing right.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
How come Chris Bishop was so slow to respond to
some of those questions when he was talking to my
costing this morning.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Look, I've got no idea. I didn't hear or see
the interview, so you've obviously formed a view from that.
But all I can say is we're committed behind Chris.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Right war of fitness changes. We're talking about them. This
idea that vehicles won't have to get warrants annually but
every two years if they're ten years or younger than that.
What are your thoughts on that, Tracy?
Speaker 4 (04:23):
I read that this morning and thought, from a selfish perspective, yay,
because I have to do my warrant of fitness less frequently. Look,
as long as it's a robust decision making process, No.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
No, no, it's terrible.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
Do you think so?
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Absolutely?
Speaker 4 (04:37):
Yeah. Well, my gut says the most important thing is
that the cars have got to be safe on the road.
I don't know what the analysis has been behind the scenes,
but if I can be convinced that it's not a
shortcut and a money saving measure, then you know, I'm
open to the idea.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
All right, Matt Doocy, how is it going to make
our roads safer?
Speaker 3 (04:56):
Well, when you look at the evidence, it shows that
for cars under fourteen years they can get a warrant
of fitness every two years, new cars every four years.
It's going to save kiwis around two to three billion dollars.
And as Tracy just said, we all have it when
the twelve months rolls around and we think, gee, where
did that go? You look at the car, it looks
(05:18):
very similar to the state it was in twelve months ago.
You go along and they give you the big tick
and you move on and you've paid your money and
you think, was that really worth it? Look, we've listened
to people, Yeah, but policy, but with respect.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
With respect. Listening to people's one thing. But it depends
whether those people are talking common sense or not. Hey,
it's ally I was saying, oh, yeah, no, one wants
to pay for a warrant every twelve months, so let's
make it every two years. But really, do people think
about the safety part of it? No?
Speaker 3 (05:47):
Yes, But the reality is John, I just put to you,
have a look at the condition and the state of
our car fleet now compared to five, ten, fifteen, twenty
years ago. And actually now when you do have a
new car, it doesn't need a warrant of fitness as
regulars the as it needed to. And that's why we've
made these regulatory changes, and I think people will support them.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
But an eight year old car, for example, let's just
not focus on new cars, but an eight year old vehicle,
stuff goes wrong and people only get stuff fixed when
they have to. And that have to point is when
they have to get a warrant.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Oh that that could be one decision point when they
get a warrant, but there's other decision points. When people
realize there's something wrong with their car, they take it
in to get serviced, and might be at that time
that the mechanic flags up. So there's various decision points.
But ultimately, I think when you look at the technology
(06:46):
and the state of new cars today. Quite rightly, you
don't need.
Speaker 4 (06:49):
To take it.
Speaker 3 (06:49):
And as frequently for a warrant of fitness, have.
Speaker 4 (06:51):
You, tires are a bit different I have.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
Have you ever outside getting a warrant checked your tires,
looked at them and thought I need to replace one
or two of those.
Speaker 4 (07:01):
No, I really rely on someone that knows what they're
talking about. I mean, I checked my tires, but I'm
never the tread totally confident on my evaluation of the tread.
I do rely on someone saying, hey, look you need tires,
and then I begrudgingly go get them because it's you know.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
You're safe. You're going to have another twelve months on
top of that driving around on dodgy time.
Speaker 4 (07:23):
And just listening to Matt that would be that would
I mean, that's the obvious concern, is it? But we'll
look into the detail.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Of what's being a little bit late now.
Speaker 4 (07:30):
Yeah, but we have to you know, Oh, you're.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
So grumpy this morning, John, what's up? Is it sort
of autumn or winter? Or this is a good thing
safety celebrat.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
I was hoping the company was going to perk me up.
I thought I'll have mates and after tea and anyway
we live in Hope's about the fuel situation, Matt, Why
is support not forthcoming for these big diesel users because
they're struggling, aren't they at the moment?
Speaker 3 (08:04):
Well, there's a lot of pressure on all New Zealanders.
We all need energy, we all need fuel.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
Yeah, the question was it wise they're not support for
the dees. The way I see it is that when
those people have extra costs, those costs are going to
be passed on to us, and they're also particularly going
to be passed on to the people getting the fifty
dollars a week who are being supported by the government.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
Yeah. Like I say, there's pressure on everyone, not specifically
diesel users, petrol users. You know, we're all bearing the
pressure that the conflict in the Middle East is causing
right the way around the world. I mean, all we
can do is cause call for a cease fire, get
the straighterhor maes open, and have a very clear fuel
(08:51):
security plan, which we have articulated with the four phases.
We're at the watchful stage at the moment to ensure
that we secure good fuel supply. That's what people would
expect of the government.
Speaker 2 (09:04):
Tracy Business have been saying in the past few days
that they'd like to have a little bit more transparency
in terms of not just the amount of fuel that's
either here or on its way, but what threats or
otherwise there are to supply in the medium to short term.
How sympathetic are you to those thoughts?
Speaker 4 (09:22):
Very sympathetic. And it's not just business, it's loads of
people saying the same thing. I was in hun Ha
yesterday at a street corner meeting and people come specifically
to ask if I had any insider information, assuming that
I might know a little bit more, And I said,
I know as much as you do, which is very little.
The framework's one thing, and that's fine, but we've got
(09:43):
not enough clarity or detail about what moves us from
one position to the next. And you know, I don't
know about you, but this whole we've got fifty three
days worth of diesel, including the three weeks on the water.
I don't know what that means.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
Well, can help you?
Speaker 3 (10:00):
I'd disagree with that, respectfully, Tracy. I think we've been
very clear about the three principles would move up the
different phases. The three principles are if countries with refineries
that we relied on stopped exports if fuel companies serving
New Zealand said they were unable to fulfill orders, or
(10:22):
there was a major disruption to supply side logistics. Though
are the three principled points. We are taking continual advice
from MB and other government officials, and they have advised
us that we don't need to move up to the
next phase at the moment.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
I'm saying a headline on Sky News right now saying
the Prime Minister of Australia was saying that sixty percent
of petrol production is ongoing after some refinery fire in Geelong. Right,
so there's what's that a forty percent cut? I know
that there is. The government seems confident that, well, we
don't get fuel from Australia, so we're fine. How concerned
(11:02):
is the government that perhaps this refinery fire will have
some impact on us?
Speaker 4 (11:06):
Well?
Speaker 3 (11:07):
I get the comparison to Australia, right, they're our close cousin.
But the reality is we are quite different than Australia.
And the reason I say that is we have a
trade agreement with Singapore to supply our fuel, which Australia
does not have. Wow, So that gives us more confidence,
not total confidence. Because of course there is a lot
(11:29):
of risk still here in fuel supply, but we are
a lot more confident because we have that trade agreement
and an agreement with Singapore.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
That's Singapore. What about South Korea though, where I think
it's about fifty four percent of our fuel comes from.
What certainty do we have there?
Speaker 3 (11:45):
Yeah, well, that's why the Prime Minister has been talking
with the leaders of those countries and that's quite rightly.
With the fuel plan, a country stopping exports from their
refinery would be a reason to move up to the
next phase. So we do have those principles these.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Countries that is talking to How where are though that
we no longer have we have an energy minister now
because Simon Watts was over there about a month back,
but now he's Yesterday's man. Do these countries know that
Simeon's now the person to ring up?
Speaker 3 (12:14):
Yeah, But just because you have a change in minister
doesn't change the policy of the government. And equally at
the moment it is prime minister to prime minister. Yes,
it is supported by the relevant ministers and we have
a ministerial group who are actively looking at the security
of supply of fuel daily. But it is quite rightly
(12:38):
at a level where the prime ministers are talking, and
I would point back to that trade agreement with Singapore
that Australia does not have. Yes, they have refineries. I
accept that.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
Yeah, Tracy, how influential do you think Anthony Albinese's visits
in person will be as opposed to christ of Luckson's
phone calls.
Speaker 4 (12:57):
It seems a bit odd, doesn't it. And it feels
from a public perspective that we just want the government
to make sure this is their number one priority, that
they're pulling out all the stops, that they're doing everything
they need to do to be hustling on that world stage.
You know, sure we've got a trade agreement, but you
know force masure, there's all sorts of things that could
(13:18):
impact that, and we need reassurance that our prime minister is,
like the others, are out there doing the very most
he can.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
All Right, what's the government going to do about the
bloody crusaders horses? Eh, we'll find out before ten thirty.
What do you think the Christian City Council should do? Tracy?
Spend one and a half billion dollars and still won't
have any certainty that the chlorine won't be needed, or
do what film major suggesting and dishing out filters for
people to have on the kitchen bench and to have
(13:46):
some chlorine free water stations around town.
Speaker 4 (13:49):
Yeah, it's pretty disappointing. There'll be lots of people that
are pretty gutted by the prospect of not getting chlorine
out of the water. It does bring into focus sharp
focus the overall issue of water quality in New Zealand.
You know, that's what that's not the question.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
The question was what should the city will do?
Speaker 4 (14:09):
Well?
Speaker 2 (14:11):
Actually it is. That was a bigger gap than Chrispicious
when he was on with Mike this morning.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
Well, one point five billion is a lot of money
without the guarantee that it's actually going to get the
you know, get the chlorine, chlorine, chlorine free water at
the end of the at the end of the day,
it's not just.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
About chlorine though, It's about the essential maintenance.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
And keeping it all up to scratch and keeping it
safe because people need safe water. It's a huge amount
of money, but it is worth it in the long run.
But it goes to show that if the government doesn't
get behind councils and give them the scale and the
financial tools to be able to do these things.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
This is what we'll end up with. So, Matt Doocy,
is this local water done well in practices?
Speaker 3 (14:48):
It very much so, Because your question is what should
the christ City Council do? Yeah, well they should.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
Are you going to give me an answer?
Speaker 3 (14:55):
They should do what their rate payers want them to do.
So if the rate payers want them to put more
money into the water assets to speed up that time
frame or bring in water meter charging, that's exactly what
local water does done well. But that's exactly it. That's
(15:21):
why when we looked at the issue around safe drinking
water in New Zealand, our solution was very different than
the last government. We campaigned on that. It wasn't about
mega entities taking away local control of water assets, it
wasn't about co governance. It was actually returning those assets
to councils, having a separation on the balance sheet for
(15:43):
them to have financing tools and if they want to
bring in water charging to speed up those time frames.
But what I would say, my final point, John, is
that as a local charging exactly well, it's up to
councils to decide how they bring in their financing tools. Okay,
(16:04):
so as a local MP, what I would say is
actually most people in principle don't want chlorine in their water,
but actually they're happy for it to be in there
to keep them safe. And I would say now with
to fattify the water regulator very low dosing of chlorine,
that I don't think it's actually an issue anymore. I
(16:26):
don't think I don't think it drives any vote. I
don't think people are overly worrying, which is why.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
I say for water, the danger is the council will
see it and think, oh the chlorine thing. Lordy, there's
there's our ticket out. Just back to what you talked
about water charging. What what were you alluding to there?
Speaker 3 (16:40):
Well, I just think it's a decision for councils to
engage their rate payers and ask them how much they
want to pay towards their water. Local councils do.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
So under the under local Water Done well that people
are one part of the country paying extra for water
and in other parts of the country they want.
Speaker 3 (16:59):
Yeah, but that's called local democracy, John, that you have
councils that put up ideas for their rate payers and
if they don't like it, they'll vote them out. But
in the end it should be a decision for the
rate paid.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
All right, ten thirty, You've got a couple of other
key things to tick off. E Can isn't happy about
the level of transport funding in the South Island And
why are you laughing?
Speaker 1 (17:20):
Matt?
Speaker 2 (17:20):
I'll come back to that. Hold on and Tracy, I
still with some people. Tragic accident on State Highway one
south of christ Church the other day at Rolliston, but
people were commenting about the significant impact it had on
traffic flows because of the road we have on State
Highway One between christ Church and Ashburton. Is he can
onto something here?
Speaker 4 (17:41):
I think it's fair enough to be concerned about the
lack of funding for the South Island. When you look
at the list of projects we don't get much of
a look in.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
Was it any better under labor Well.
Speaker 4 (17:51):
We funded Braam Street and this government can that's going ahead. Yeah,
but only because they took money from seventy eight million
from pt futures to refund something that was we already funded.
So we're not getting a particularly good deal.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
Using acronyms, that's dangerous territory laughing.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
Before Oh, well, potentially there might be a disgruntled chair
of e CAN.
Speaker 2 (18:12):
Who's you're going to say he's grumpy like me?
Speaker 3 (18:14):
Now, well he probably has. It's probably what you've you've
connected with. And look, I get it. We're disestablishing e CAN.
The councilors will be a bit grumpy, but the reality.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
Is affirmed you, it's not confirmed. Pretty is that breaking new?
Speaker 1 (18:28):
Yes?
Speaker 3 (18:29):
It's pretty lazy.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
Is that breaking new?
Speaker 3 (18:31):
Look? John, let me finish. It's pretty lazy politics going
out saying oh, we think funding for transport should be
prioriti head of population or GDP. We know they are
not the Metrics and the Land Transport Fund under any government. Right.
We've actually put in a record investment of one point
eight billion. Talk to the council. We gave them an
extra almost one hundred million for road surfacing and maintenance
(18:54):
as well an extra one hundred and twelve million into
public transport as well. So the investments come in. But
it's look, it's it's easily to circle the carriages and
say oh we want head a population, but it doesn't
work well.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Right, So you just said we're getting rid of ECN.
Is that preempting this period of consultation with local mayors
to work out how regional government.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
Don't about the disestablishing of the of the councilors. Sorry,
that's what I meant, Which that's that's what we're doing.
We've tasked local councils to come up with their local
reorganization plans and bringing in rate caps. There the three
things that we said we're doing the government.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
Speaking of speaking of disestablishment, the Crusaders horses have been
given the thin white envelope this week. Tracy, How much
of a surprise was that to you?
Speaker 4 (19:45):
Not a huge surprise?
Speaker 2 (19:46):
Really?
Speaker 1 (19:47):
Why not?
Speaker 4 (19:48):
Just the nature of the stadium, the size of it
got aof you must.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Be the what's the roof?
Speaker 3 (19:54):
What's the roof?
Speaker 2 (19:54):
And horses going to do?
Speaker 4 (19:56):
I don't know, but I would have thought expensive special.
It's not like outside grass, is it. I would have
thought that there was some safety.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
It was grown outside the grass. I think it was, yeah,
but it was growing off.
Speaker 4 (20:09):
I think it's a shame because it feels like a
bit of an end of an error and it was
very exciting, but you know, it's a safety concerns. Then
we've got to listen to to what to what's being proposed.
I should imagine.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
Matt was a government given his I'm not sure, given
the government has quite a significant investment, I was, hold on,
I's just not sure.
Speaker 3 (20:32):
I'm feeling a bit being a bit provocative this morning, John.
I actually think I would say when the horse people
I shouldn't say horsemen stopped wearing Crusader outfits, I kind
of felt the horses lost their way a bit really,
So for me, it's not a big issue because you know,
in principle it really was about the Crusader outfits and
(20:54):
the horses, So now they can't do that with the
horses going. I think it's a bit of a change
with the new stadium, and I get it changes difficult
for some, but I don't think it's.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
The biggest issue. So was the government give them their
heads up about this? I don't know. All right, okay, yeah,
So would you go as far as saying that the
team should change its name, because if the whole imagery
is gone, then no.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
I actually enjoy the name Crusader Wanderers. I probably would
have been a fan to bring back the Crusader outfits
on the horses.
Speaker 4 (21:27):
So I don't think the brand is contingent on having
some horses at the beginning of the game.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
And you too, seem to be very calm about it.
There's a lot of people upset people, don't.
Speaker 3 (21:35):
They say I did enjoy the music too. It was
quite haunting them. Come in the Crusader outfit, the horses.
It was a great way to start the game. And look,
it will be a bit lost. But once the outfit's gone,
I think it kind of lost.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
Careful you were getting tarry there for a minute.
Speaker 4 (21:48):
You should the old days, it would be interesting to
see what listen. Just think I knew we could start
a new tradition. You could, you could canvas.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
Well, I've got it. I've sorted out the other day
because we had two hours of talk back talking about it.
When the news broke hologram. There was an Argentine football
club I reopened at stadium years Bank and they had
a hologram of a lion. Look it up amazing too modern.
Speaker 3 (22:11):
You know what I'd do, I'd go back into hobly
horses and in the old days for people who remember
Lancaster part when you're on the embankment, kids could spray
paint their own banners and walk round the field before
the game with quite interesting comments about the opposing Redfoody
Shield team. We were making I reckon we should bring
(22:32):
that back. That was great, all right, ideas flowing, bring
back the embankment.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
All right.
Speaker 4 (22:36):
Water Chargers announcements.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
Thank you both, nice to see it. Enjoy the weekend.
See Tracy McLellan, Labor, Matt Doucy from the National.
Speaker 1 (22:48):
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
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.
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
iHeartRadio 24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.