July 7, 2025 • 34 mins
Labour leader Chris Hipkins says speeding up the justice system is a priority.
Recent announcements by the Justice Minister include bigger fines for trespassing and harsher penalties for coward punches and assaulting first responders.
Hipkins told Kerre Woodham unlike National, he wouldn't spend the first 18 months in power overturning the last Government's legislation.
He says there’s been too much flip-flopping around.
One of the things Hipkins wants to prioritise is the courts – saying that they have to deal with the inefficiencies in the system, and that justice delayed is justice denied.
Chris Hipkins says Jacinda Ardern will be weighing up safety before deciding whether to return to New Zealand for our Covid inquiry.
Ardern could be among key decision-makers expected to be asked to speak later this month.
Hipkins told Kerre Woodham there are risks to her security in New Zealand.
He says they aren't idle threats, and it's legitimate for her to consider the danger to herself and her family.
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 carry Wooden Morning's podcast from news Talk,
said B.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
News Talk said, B A very good morning to you,
seven past ten Carry wood and with you through until
midday and the Leader of the Opposition with us through
until eleven o'clock, our second catchup of the year. If
you've got any questions for the Leader of the Opposition,
text them through or call in A eight hundred and
eighty ten eighty good morning.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Good morning.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Well, I was hoping we'd start off on a very
civilized front foot, but the comment you made that you
don't want to see a whole lot of theatrics this
morning is the country's COVID nineteen response is scrutinized. Absolutely
ground Maghear's it sounds so dismissive, it's not. It sounds
(00:54):
like you're lumping a whole lot of people and with
Brian Tummockee and those sorts, when it's genuine passion and
anger and sadness from a lot of people. That's and
by saying I don't want to see a whole lot
of theatrics, you sound like a bunkered Wellington bureaucrash.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
Yeah, I think, but I think that's exactly the point
I don't think we want to see people like Brian
Tummicky and Liz Gun dominate the whole process. People are
raising really legitimate points, and I think it's important that
we get a good balanced view of people's responses to COVID,
how they felt about that, and not let it be
dominated by those who are making the most visible noise,
you know, the people like Brian Tummicky and Liz Gun
(01:31):
and so on. So I think that's the point that
I was trying to make there. I think it's just
important that everybody does get the chance to have the
essay and that some you know, voices aren't drowning out
the others.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
But by dismissing it as a whole lot of theatrics, well, I.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Mean, I think if you look at what people like
Brian Tummicky and Liz Gun have been doing, it is theatrics.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
They were representing, I mean, an extreme end of the spectrum.
But there's still a lot of people who are genuinely
angry and passionate about how long they were left.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
Yeah, I think one of them. Yeah, And I think
you know, one of the I'm engaging very constructively with
the Royal Commission I've already spent several hours with the
first Royal Commission and currently working through some written questions
For the second one is that you know, what we
were trying to do during our COVID response was actually
not have as many restrictions by so the restrictions that
(02:23):
we put in place were designed to avoid having to
have heavier restrictions. So if you look at the UK,
for example, they started the pandemic response.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Saying we're here, yea a different case.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
We are a different case, but it's a good comparison
because they said we don't want to do lockdowns and
so on, and they ended up doing more lockdowns than
New Zealand did because they didn't put in place some
restrictions that could have avoided that. So we were trying
to avoid that, but it was damn hard. And I
never ever said that lockdowns went hard for people that were.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Very very You didn't know because you never came here.
Nobody came.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
Well, No, we were following the rules, of.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Course, No, you can always make exceptions to the rule
as a leader of the country by coming here.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
Well, I mean I did go and visit the Miq's,
I did go and visit the border. I did do
those things, but I didn't come and go from Auckland
at a time when we were telling people not to
come and go from.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Orkland even once, like you yourself said, you know, with
the benefit of hindsight, you wouldn't have kept us locked
down so long. But it's just it makes me think,
like when we also see the emergency housing when you
were in Rottadua and you said, oh, yeah, we got
bad advice on that. You had eyes, you couldn't possibly
(03:30):
think that those motels were a a good place for
people to be in or that they were full of
people from Rottadaua.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
So that's exactly the point to carry that last. But
that was the issue where I think the advice did
was bad. So we were questioning, we were being questioned
on whether the people were from outside of Rosa dur
and we got really clear advice from the agency saying no,
we're not accommodating people from outside of Rotada. Now there's
plenty of evidence now to suggest that that was happening.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
There was plenty of evidence at the time, and so.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Again I think the advice was bad and we didn't
do a good enough job of scrutinizing that advice and
going and testing that ourselves. So I'll own you could.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
You know, Tonya Taps was telling us, you know, we
all heard it and saw it and you didn't. It's
another example of being willfully blind, and then when you're
called on it, you say, oh, yeah, we got bad advice.
It's almost like if you admit you made a mistake,
the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
I mean, I said when I became Prime Minister that
I didn't think I was only Prime Minister of eight months,
that I didn't think the number of people in emergency
accommodation and ROTA was sustainable. We were taking steps to
reduce the number of people in emergency accommodation in DOT,
but we wanted to make sure that we were getting
them into housing rather than just turning them out onto
the streets.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
Yeah, but it's you could have said, yeah, we stuffed up,
instead of all the time it's saying, oh, well, you know,
we got poor advice. Well no, And anything to do
with COVID is oh we got this.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
You're taking one answer, one answer from quite a long interview,
And in that interview I did say that I didn't
think that we had got it right when it came
to emergency accommodation. In the specific question was about people
being accommodated from outside of Rosa du and why we
had said at the time that that wasn't happening when
it was. It was basically because that's the advice that
we got. Now, I don't want that one answer to
(05:12):
that one question to be taken as a response to
the entirety of the issue. Where I did say, actually,
we didn't get this completely right.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
I really do feel that it's almost as though you
have to hold on to the belief that what you
did was right all the way through your government, not
just true.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
I don't agree. If you go back and you look
at the daily press conferences I did during the pandemic,
you'll find examples on a very regular basis of where
I stood up in front of the whole country and said, actually,
that didn't go according to plan. We didn't get that right.
I tried as hard as I could during that time
to admit when we got things wrong around testing in
the early phase, we didn't get that right. And so
(05:51):
I was trying to be as upfront with people as
possible about that well on the VAC vaccines was probably
the hardest issue. Of almost all of the decisions that
we took around COVID vaccines were undoubtedly the hardest.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
And the mandates.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
I accept the findings of the first Royal Commission. So
the Royal Commission said that the mandates were too wide
and stayed in place for too long, and I accept
the findings of that Royal Commission.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Do you think Jasindra a Dune should come back? I mean,
the COVID response defined your government at to find her
on the international stage. Shouldn't she be here for the inquiry.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
I'm being cautious not to venture a comment on that,
and it's not because I'm trying to avoid it. It's
because a Royal Commission needs to operate independently. And I
don't think me or David Seymour should be telling them
who they should and shouldn't be calling to appear before them.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
But isn't it the moral thing to do? Like if
it defines your government? The only reason you got back
in was because of the COVID response.
Speaker 3 (06:52):
And as I said, I'm not telling the Royal Commision
who they should and shouldn't call, or how they should
conduct their hearings, and I don't think the government should
be doing that either. The Commission needs to operate independently,
and I think.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
For people from overseas it can only call people from
within newsical.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
Well, that's a question for the Commission ultimately, the way
they operate, what they choose to do is a question
for the Commission.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
But do you think that it would make sense for
the person who was making the decisions based on the
best advice that she was receiving to be here to
answer questions around the results.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
I'm not trying to dodge it because I'm trying to
be cute. I just don't think it's appropriate for me
to tell the Royal Commission or justinder Idurn how they
should be approaching it. I think those are questions for them,
not for me. I can answer questions on my own behalf,
which I have done. I've said, I've already spoken to
the Royal Commission for several hours when they were doing
the first Royal Commission. They sent through a whole lot
(07:44):
of questions late last week which they've asked for written
answers for. I'm working my way through those at the moment,
so you know, I'm trying to be as cooperative with
them as possible. I'll answer questions on my own participation,
but I think what they do around other people, those
are really questions for them.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
Would you do you think that there are concerns for
just under a Don's safety coming back here.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
I mean, I know, having spoken to Sinda on a
number of occasions, I think there are a small group
of people who do threaten her safety and we should
be upfront about that. And they're they're not idle threats.
These are serious threats to her safety and that of
her family, And so if she's weighing those things up,
then I think that's a legitimate thing for her to
(08:28):
think about when she's thinking about coming back to New
Zealand and so on. So I'm courtious to talk about
those things because of course when they're when they concern
someone's personal security like that, I think we have to
be careful and what we say about that, But we
shouldn't be blind to the fact that they.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
Are real things.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
They do exist, and these are very not very nice
people who are making those kind of threats.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Will you be attending in person.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
At the moment the Royal Commission has sort of changed
their mind a couple of times on what they want.
So we're still talking to them about what it is
that they want from us, so that that conversation is
still happening.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
Wouldn't you want to be there?
Speaker 3 (09:04):
Again? I don't want to tell the Royal Commission of
how to conduct the inquiry, so cooperative as possible with
the Royal Commission, So if.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
They ask you to attend in person, you'll be there.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
As I've said, those conversations are happening with the Royal
Commission at the moment. And because of the conversations with
the Royal Commission, and because the Royal Commission operate under
a protection of independence, I don't want to get into
that because ultimately those are questions for them.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
No, but if they ask you, I've said.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
That I'll cooperate with the Royal Commission, all right, I.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
Would like to know, says a texture of Cristal former
coalition Withtmari if he needs to after the next election,
well you would have to do, wouldn't you be labor
Greens to Batimari?
Speaker 3 (09:42):
What I said last election, and I'll say the same
thing again is that well before the election we'll set
out we could work with these parties on these issues
in this way and we couldn't work with these parties.
You know, we'll set all that out before the election.
There's still a lot of shifting ground. You know, it
will depend on the policy positions that those parties say
are their bottom lines, because if they take extreme positions
(10:04):
that we can't work with them, and we'll say that
before the election. And so it is going to depend
on what the parties say.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
So would you be able to ring fence some of
the more out there kind of policies and say, well,
we're not going to discuss that, but we can work
with you on confidence and supply.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
I mean, I've already said for things like a separate parliament,
a separate Marti parliament for example, that's just not territory
that we're willing to go into. So still a lot
of water to flow under that particular bridge. Yet, do
we have things that we could work with the Greens
into party Marti. Oh yes we do, and we have
done in the past. Bearing in mind the Maori Party
spent nine years in government under John Key with National
(10:41):
quite a different well, if you go but if you
go back, if you look at Tuddy Undertutia's positions between
two thousand and five to two thousand and eight before
she formed the government with John Key, they're very similar
to the positions that the Mighty Party hold now. So
I think, you know, lots can change, so we'll let
the water flow under the bridge. So I'm not answering
that yet, and it's not because I'm dodging. It's because
(11:03):
closer to the election will be in a better position
to form a judgment on it.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
But any people have to understand too that anybody who
votes for Labor will be getting the GINSU knives the
gift with purchase, which will be the Greens and Tabatima.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
Or the nature of m MP as you end up
with coalitions, so on one side you've kind of got
act you know, the extreme and probably on the other
side the Marti Party would be more of the sort
of on the other side, and then you've got parties
like New Zealand, FUST and the Greens who are often
more moderate on a range of issues. That's the nature
(11:36):
of m MP, and of course my goal between now
and the election is to get the Labor Party vote
as high as possible because the higher the vote that
I get for the Labor Party, the less you have
to give away and post election negotiations.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Why why would people vote you back in. It's got
to be more than just because you're not national and
act absolutely.
Speaker 3 (11:57):
What I've said is that you know, as we head
towards the election, we will set out quite clearly what
we would do differently, what we do differently from this government,
what we do differently from last time. I think kerry
one of the things, and I know people people kind
of struggle with this at this point in the electoral cycle.
But one of the things I think New Zealanders are
really cynical about and fair enough to is politicians making
(12:17):
promises that they then change their minds on or that
they don't keep. So I don't want to make a
bunch of promises now without knowing that I can keep
them when we form the government, which.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
Kind of makes me wonder why we're here, you know.
I mean, if we can't talk about policy or direction
or how you will stimulate an economy to grow jobs,
you can't just hire people as public servants and call
that employment.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
We can still talk about that at a high level.
It's just if you want me to know to commit
to specific will you build X. We're not in a
position to make that commitment now, but there are certainly
things that we would do differently. So take building and construction.
There's about fifteen thousand fewer people working in building in
construction now than they were at the election, and one
of the reasons for that is that the government stopped everything.
(13:00):
They stopped statehouse builds, they stopped hospital rebuilds, they stopped
school rebuilds and so on.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
They haven't stopped. There was a review of the enormous
amounts of money that were being spent on the school builds.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
And what happened while the review was taking place. They
stopped all of the work and as a result, we've
seen fifteen thousand fewer people working in that sector. Now,
that's not the only thing. There was a slow down
in the private sector for building and construction as well,
but the government significantly contributed to that and made it
worse by the decisions.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
I'm said going to blame them for the public servants
in Wellington.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
What I've said is that we won't do the same
thing after the next election.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
Do you blame national for the loss of jobs in
the public service in Wellington?
Speaker 3 (13:39):
We had already said that we were going to be
reducing public sector.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Of expenditure, while you said, while you said, please don't hire,
please make there was two thousand odd people hired in
the last six months of your term, which is economic vandalism.
Speaker 3 (13:53):
I don't agree. I mean, I think those kind of
really are. That kind of extremist language buys into the
National Party's rhetoric. But if you you know, I think
what we were trying to do as a government was
make sure that we reduced some of the covid eras
governments in a way that was sustainable. Well, no, I
don't think that's true either where they were if they
were recruiting more people, it would often be in areas
(14:13):
where they do need more people. Those government have recruited
more people in some areas as well.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
We'll befer news talk said be Philip, good morning to you.
Speaker 4 (14:23):
Yep, good morning.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Oh I can't hear you. Phones dropped out. Okay, we'll
have to try and get Philip back again. That was
about oil and gas exploration. Somebody else asked about that,
What about the gas exploration the oil exploration, would you
still support no oil and gas exploration or would you allow.
Speaker 3 (14:43):
For some Well, we'll set that out close to the election.
I don't think I think this is being presented by
the government as a cure to a problem that it
isn't going to be a cure to. We haven't had
a significant oil and gas find in New Zealand since
two thousand and one, I think was the last significant one.
They've said they're going to spend two hundred million on it.
They could spend two hundred million drilling more holes and
(15:03):
have nothing to show for it. At the end of it.
You know, they still might not find any gas. So
it's not going to solve our energy problems.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
But is relying on the hope that electricity will the
answer as well.
Speaker 3 (15:16):
The issue with electricity is we haven't invested enough in
new generation in New Zealand over the last decade and
a half and we've got to do better. We've got
to fix that problem in time.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
What do we do?
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Yeah, I don't think the electricity market's working the way
that it should and don't you do well. Relying on
fossil fuels is only going to continue to push the
price up. We've got to get this the market building
much more renewable energy and they are and they are
and exactly, and I think some of the changes we
made in government have helped to contribute to that.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
But well, at the same time, buying more coal than ever.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
We need to do significantly more, and coal is one
of the coal and gas are one of the reasons
we pay higher power prices. So if we want lower
power prices, it's got to be things like solar and wind.
Hydro geothermal is a great opportunity for New Zealand. So
doing more of that is what will keep our power.
We'll get our power prices lower.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Gary, quick one from you. There we go. Sorry, Gary,
It's all right.
Speaker 5 (16:11):
Hi guys, Thanks Chris for taking my question. I'm heavily
involved in the greyhound racing industry and I want to
know what your policy is going to be for next year,
as you're probably aware that they reckon that the industry
is going to fold in July twenty six next year,
and i'd just like to know what your view on
(16:32):
of is.
Speaker 3 (16:33):
Yeah, thanks, Lock, and I know you're probably not going
to like my answer either. We do support the announcements
that Wins and Peter's has made on the greyhound racing industry.
We do think it's time for them to make this.
I think they've given the industry a long lead time
to prepare for that, so we wouldn't change the announcements
that the government have made.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
Thank you, Gary and Ross, good morning, gooday, good ey.
Speaker 5 (16:59):
Chris. Do you get correspondents? Do you get to see
all the correspondents said to your office? Or do some
and theah sort of less thought. We weren't right about
that one.
Speaker 3 (17:09):
Now there's a lot of it. Generally, I get a
summary of the correspondence that's come through at the end
of each week, so that I know what people are
saying and so on. But I try and read all
of it. But there's a lot of.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
It there we go, Thank you very much. That answers that. Oh,
eight hundred and eighty ten eighty. If you want to
put a question to the leader of the opposition, I
have some You got brassed off with Nick Mills the
other day saying that we've got a whole bunch of
Tory owners we want national to look good and endzed me.
(17:41):
It's not strictly true.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
Oh look, you're not all Tories, Carey. I haven't given
up a whole hope on you. Yes, yet you know you never.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
Know the thing. I will vote labor if there's a
reason to vote labor. Absolutely, there's a lot of voters
like that.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
Look, I mean the conversation we're having is around ram raids,
and I think one of the I think the point
that I was making there was in twenty twenty two,
we hit that peak of RAM raids. It was terrible.
It was having a huge impact on people and businesses.
I became Minister of Police right in the heat of it.
We did a whole lot of changes that were designed
to deal with RAM rating at the root cause, so
(18:14):
deal with these kids who were getting into trouble, and
it started to work pretty quickly. We got a thirty
percent reduction within six months. We then had another reduction
through twenty twenty three, and another reduction through twenty twenty four.
And it was dealing with the issue at its root
cause rather than dealing with the consequences afterwards. And I
think on law and order we should have more of
(18:34):
those conversations, how do you deal with this stuff at
its root course, stop it happening in the first place,
so you have fewer victims and you have fewer people
needing to be sentenced because you're actually stopping the offending
happening in the first place.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
I quite agree, and.
Speaker 3 (18:47):
I think the ram rating thing is a good example
that you can do it and it can work, because
we went into these kids' families effectively and we said,
what on earth is going on here that these kids
are out and about in the middle of the night
stealing cars and driving them into dairies. And by doing
that we managed to really turn down the.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Volume degree and there was an overarching body of organizations
that looked after them, the police, school truancy, who was that,
the social welfare.
Speaker 3 (19:15):
Working Yeah, so we got it. We got everyone together.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
What's the name of that organization.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
We called it the circuit Breaker Initiative. But it was
just getting them all around the table. So every time
a kid was getting that a job going on, yes,
I think it is, Yeah, I think they did see
the merit in that. Yeah, And it's getting all around
the table because it was really interesting. The first couple
of times we did it, everyone sort of looks at
their hands and shuffles awkwardly. But turned out we knew
a lot about these kids.
Speaker 2 (19:38):
Yeah, and the family.
Speaker 3 (19:39):
And when we started to join all the dots, we
could actually solve the problem.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
But then once you've got people who do commit crime,
allowing a seventy seven percent discount for a knife wielding
rapist giving him two years in jail, that's that's not
acceptable as a woman, as a member of society, that's
not cool.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
Yeah, we haven't formed our party position on that. So
these were announcements that were made over the recess, and
you know, and it hasn't been sitting, so our team
hasn't meant to consider what we're going to you know,
what our stance on those things is going to be.
Obviously you will have heard my first kind of port
of call and all these debates is to say, how
do we stop the stuff happening in the first place?
Speaker 2 (20:18):
But I accept it.
Speaker 3 (20:20):
I also accept that there's a need for us to
make sure that there are consequences for offending, and which is.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
A shift in ideology from where you were last time.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
So we will look at well yes and no, yes,
I mean, if you look at youth offending again, one
of the problems there was that young people not being charged,
which was actually a requirement of the Orang AUTOMADICI legislation
introduced by the previous previous National government. It had meant
that kids not being charged meant that they weren't actually
getting any help, you know, because if you didn't charge them,
(20:48):
they were catch release effectively. And so I actually, as
Minister of Police and then as Prime Minister, was trying
to change that so that these kids could come before
the Youth Court, not because I wanted to have them
locked up, because I wanted them to actually get some
help so that we could stop them falling into the
cycle of offending. Some of these kids were twelve years old.
I don't want to lock them up. I want to
get them back on the straight and narrow. I want
(21:08):
to get them back into them.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
I want to get them I don't think they're ever
on the straight and narrow. You want to help them
discover a straight and woe. That's a good point when
their families are using them because they know that the
kids won't get charged.
Speaker 3 (21:20):
And it was one of the devastating numbers when I
did have that meeting around ramraids, and I said, tell
me about these kids, Something like ninety percent of them
had a parent who was otherwise involved in the criminal
justice and domestic vine, so domestic violence. I think their
eighty to ninety percent. Number applies to just about all
of those metrics, whether they've got a parent in prison,
whether they've been the victims themselves of family violence or
(21:42):
witnesses to family violence. You know, those kids are so
disproportionately represented in those stats. So that's where we start
tackles that and you'll end up with a lot fewer
of them.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
Need In the meantime, I don't want to see a
drink driver who takes up the life of a young
woman get twelve months home detention.
Speaker 3 (22:00):
Yeah, and nor do I.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
It's unacceptable. So how much of a dumpster fire are
you going to do? Where a few and the Greens
and Tapati Mali former coalition government next time round, how
much of a dumpster fire on the legislation will you do?
Speaker 3 (22:15):
Not a lot. I certainly don't want to do what
this government have done. To spend the first eighteen months
just done doing everything the previous government did. I think
there's been too much flip flopping around on this stuff.
One of the areas in law and order that I
do want to focus on, though, is courts, because it's
taking far too long to get issues seen to by
the courts. Victims get retraumatized by having these cases drag
(22:37):
on for years in some cases. We've got to deal
with the inefficiencies in the system, and that starts with
the police and the way they file their paperwork and
do all that stuff through to the courts, because I
agree with the sentiment that justice delayed is just as denied,
and it's taking way too long for many of these issues.
We're getting people now who are being released on sentencing
(22:59):
because they've spent all of their sentence on remand waiting
to be tried. That's ridiculous. We've got to fix that,
and I want to make that a priority.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
All right. That is good to hear. The other the
fiscal whole Unit. You actually support that too, because that
was a that was a Greens then a Labor then
a National and then ACT in New Zealand first shot
it down.
Speaker 3 (23:22):
Yeah. I think it's a good idea. So it would
take some of the heat out of these issues. We
could actually argue about the substance of policies rather than,
you know, whether we've got our costings right. We could
actually argue about the merits of doing something rather than
whether it's going to cost X or y. I think
that would be a good thing. I've written to Christopher
Luxe and I've said, don't let the small parties veto this.
Labor and National actually agree on it. Lets it down
(23:44):
and if we'll give you the numbers, you know, we'll
give you the majority in Parliament to do it and
to come up with something sense.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
That would be because I heard who was it who was
explaining what went on that the sitting government will obfiscate
and obstruct and block while the opposition parties try and
get the information. And they said, oh, I think this
might have been Stephen Joyce. They see it as a
bit of a game, and that I know my gears
(24:10):
get ground quite often, but that really racked me up.
To you, it's not a bloody game. That is time
and money that is being spent that could be in
the service of the textpayer.
Speaker 3 (24:20):
I totally agree with you. We tried to set up
this costings unit when we were in government and the
National Party said, no, I don't think you can set
it up without at least the two major parties agreeing
on it, because then it would become at political football.
But I think if Labor and National could sit down
and agree, Look, we both think this is a good idea.
Now let's figure out a way to do it that
we can both sign up to and agree. I think
(24:41):
that would be a really good thing for the country.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
Same and Neil, a very good morning to you. You
have a question around education.
Speaker 4 (24:47):
Yeah, yeah, good morning. As a government transition to the government, recently,
it appeared that Eric Stanford was working really closely with
jantiniti and seem to have a good working relationship. It
doesn't appear that that's the same now with Willow Jeanie
and as I sector, I think we would be a
little bit frustrated and quite exhausted if we had another
(25:09):
massive change without some alignment between the two major parties
around education. We find Erica really good at getting out
and talking to people and explaining what's going on, and
had said that hear and jam and the Labor Party
had agreed on the vast majority of things. There's a
few differences on the fringes, but you know, the direction
(25:29):
for education was looking pretty straight and good for the
next few years. Just concerned that there's not that little
engagement anymore.
Speaker 3 (25:37):
Yeah, thanks, it's a really fair question. You know, in
my first term as Minister of Education, I tried really
hard to work with Nicki Kay, who was my predecessor
in education. I found her great to deal with, and
I tried to say, and you know, there's going to
be areas of disagreement around you know, new school buildings
and so on, but let's try and make things like
curriculum and assessment not political footballs, because what kids learn
(25:59):
and how they're assessed actually should be based on evidence.
It should be based on some long term thinking, not
become a political football. Paul Goldsmith unfortunately didn't want to
continue in that vein when he took over from Nikki Kay.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
But now we've got Erica Stanford, who is a motivated,
passionate advocate for.
Speaker 3 (26:17):
And my offer as the leader of the Opposition as
always and the leader of the Labor Party. As long
as I'm the leader of the Labor Party on those
issues around curriculum and assessment, I really don't ever want
to see those becoming political footballs again, and the way
that they were when we had things like national standards.
Let's just try and do things that are based on
evidence and based on the best interests of the kids.
Speaker 2 (26:36):
The kids were failing, Our kids were failing, and we
used to have world class education and.
Speaker 3 (26:42):
Things like national standards though actually made it worse, not better.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
But now we've got like the kids are bringing homework
home and you must see it too with your kids,
Like it makes sense, the kind of the kind of
workbooks that they're getting, and the teaching that's been taught,
the challenge of the sense their carriers.
Speaker 3 (26:59):
We don't know that, because you know, you never know
an education often for five ten years later whether a
change you've made now is going to work.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
Because we were going down there.
Speaker 3 (27:11):
There's no question a change had to happen, but you've
got to make those decisions based on research and evidence.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
It worked before.
Speaker 3 (27:17):
So one of the changes I made to the NCAA,
for example, which still hasn't been fully implemented, was a
change around the literacy and numerous the requirements because kids
were getting the NCAA and yet the universities, the job,
their employers and stuff are saying they still can't do
basic reading and writing in maths. So we changed that,
and that still hasn't been fully implemented yet, but I
(27:38):
know the current government are continuing that work forward, and
I think that's a good thing.
Speaker 2 (27:42):
Can you ask Neil's question though, why does they're not say,
and this is from somebody clearly within the sector, why
is there not a good working relationship?
Speaker 3 (27:50):
Well, I don't think that's sincesarily fair. I think there is.
I think on issues that where the government work with us,
will work with them. So if there has been any shift,
it will be because the government have chosen not to
talk to us.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
Really on education, Okay, have you decided on capital gains tax?
Speaker 3 (28:10):
Yet we have a tax policy. I've said that we'll
do it this half of the year, so we're working
through the details of that.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
At the moment, when will you be ready? I mean,
I know it's working for you as a party to
just sit there and have everyone get frustrated with National
and the coalition government. It is working because the economy's
stalling and it's not picking up as quickly as had
been promised.
Speaker 3 (28:35):
And I mean, I would like to say it's all
part of a master political strategy, but the reality is
actually a bit more simple than that. If you don't
the economy is changing so much at the moment that
I don't want to promise things and then turn around,
you know, next year and say, oh, either we've undercooked
that and we're going to need to do more than that,
or we can't afford to do that anymore. So I
don't want to do.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
But your ideology can be stated like co governance. Is
that still something you hold very strongly to.
Speaker 3 (29:01):
I've already said that on the issue around co governance.
I don't think that we're explained what we were doing there,
and I think that that became such a distraction from
moment really important issue, which was around the fact that
water needs to be fixed and it's going to cost
money and we should do that in the most efficient
way possible. The current government aren't doing it in the
most efficient way possible. It's costing more and you see
(29:22):
that in your rates bill. But I think co governance
became a distraction from doing the right thing.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Would the rates spill have come down had Labor been
able to put it.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
No, it still would have gone up, but it wouldn't
have gone up by as much. So hand on heart,
we got those numbers. It said, if you do this reform,
you'll get this rates increase. If you don't do it,
you'll get this rates increase. The rates increase we're getting
now is at the extreme end because they haven't done
things that they could have done to lower the rates increase.
But hand on heart, I can't say rates wouldn't have increased.
They still would have increased, but not by as much.
Speaker 2 (29:53):
Do you think that your party understands that to have
a productive economy you need to have business. You need
to thank God for our farmers who wereied or felt
as though they were being vilified by your previous administration.
Do you understand that we're that business is not the enemy?
Speaker 3 (30:16):
Absolutely, and we kept businesses in business during our time
in government.
Speaker 2 (30:20):
Who are now paying through the nose for the decision
that went on way longer.
Speaker 3 (30:25):
Or numbers of company liquidations in the last year, and
that's just in the last year.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
It is because they're playing catch up.
Speaker 3 (30:31):
I don't think that's true.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
Well, that's what the biggest the biggest they were seeing
the washing.
Speaker 3 (30:34):
The biggest increase in company liquidations in the last year
has been building in construction firms.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
Yeah, because they haven't got a pipeline of.
Speaker 3 (30:41):
Work because the government stopped it.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
No, that's when we talk about private contractors as well.
That's not true. People don't people don't have confidence, they're shattered.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
But the government withdrawing all of its investment in that
area has added to that all of it.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
They were looking at whether they were getting value for
money from from what you were promising. I was talking
to the lovely Well, they're all nice people, the CEO
of Culling Order, and he said, it's actually quite simple.
The job that we have to do. It's to house
people as many people as we can and warm, dry,
safe homes. And he said where it gets complicated is
where you're tasked to do other things like housing developments.
(31:19):
He said that's he wouldn't criticize his predecessor because he
said he had a different job to the one I have.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
Yeah, I think we have to recognize that under existing
state houses there's a lot of land that gives us
a lot of potential for redevelopment to build more houses,
not always just all state houses either. They can be
mixed developments too. But someone needs to do that work.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
I think it's the government the world belye should do it.
Speaker 3 (31:43):
Ultimately, if the government owns the land, then ye, we
should be involved in that. But should caing or do both?
I think that's a legitimate question that will probably have
a different answer on next time. To the one that
we had last time.
Speaker 2 (31:57):
Right, So last time you thought that was all part
of caying orders brief and it was just buy up
as much as you possibly could and have this gorgeous
utopian village of mixed model housing.
Speaker 3 (32:08):
Yeah, I think it hasn't quite worked. No, I mean,
I think one of the things I mean, I mean
thinking about this quite a bit. You know where government
hasn't worked. And it's not just that it hasn't worked
under us, it didn't work under previous governments as well.
I think the public service has become a bit too convoluted,
and some of the clarity of the mission that we're
giving to different government agencies has disappeared. Kyng Orra was
a good example of that. So you're right. Their biggest
(32:30):
job is to rent houses to people. Giving them a
development thing on top of that distracts them from that job.
Would it be better to give it to a separate
agency that was focused just on the developments. That's a
question which I think we should ask ourselves, and I
think you could ask that of any number of different
government agencies. MB's a good example. They've got so many
different things that MB's asked to do. Now I think
(32:52):
we've lost some of the clarity of what we're asking
these agencies to do.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
All right, News Talk said b it is seven to eleven.
Well there we go. This guy is so full of deflection.
It's not funny something something didn't work. It's been shown
with key we build. Now we'll change things from what
we did. Sorry, dude, it's been changed and for the better.
Great for you to have a guest on your show who,
despite intense questioning, didn't present lux and word salad answers
(33:18):
Hipkins for Prime Minister.
Speaker 3 (33:20):
There there's one labor listener today caring. So things are
looking up.
Speaker 5 (33:25):
Well.
Speaker 2 (33:25):
Look, I love diversity of opinion. You know, most of
my friendship group votes across the spectrum. You know, it
is a it is a political spectrum of friends.
Speaker 3 (33:37):
And isn't it sad that more and more people aren't
living that way anymore? More and more people are just
living in groups and people that they agree with. And
I think one of the if you want to live
a good, healthy, happy life, have lots of people in
your life who have a different view of the will
to you. I think it's help.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
I agree. I couldn't agree more anyway. We will leave
with your so thank you for coming in. Be good
to get some policy next time, though otherwise it's just
you and me kind of.
Speaker 3 (34:03):
I'll see what I can do. I can live.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
Now the clean. Anything can happen. Why does this take
you back to young and free?
Speaker 3 (34:11):
It makes me back to being young and free. Anything
could happen, and you know I work in politics. Anything
can happen.
Speaker 2 (34:18):
It was a time, wasn't it. We live in interesting
times now, all right. A leader of the opposition, otherwise
known as my six year old granddaughter said, is he
the other guy who's not the Christopher who's the prime Minister?
I said, he exactly is.
Speaker 3 (34:31):
That's a very good description at the moment.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
For more from Kerry Wooden Mornings, listen live to news
Talks it'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the carry Wooden Morning's podcast from news Talk,
said B.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
News Talk said, B A very good morning to you,
seven past ten Carry wood and with you through until
midday and the Leader of the Opposition with us through
until eleven o'clock, our second catchup of the year. If
you've got any questions for the Leader of the Opposition,
text them through or call in A eight hundred and
eighty ten eighty good morning.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Good morning.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Well, I was hoping we'd start off on a very
civilized front foot, but the comment you made that you
don't want to see a whole lot of theatrics this
morning is the country's COVID nineteen response is scrutinized. Absolutely
ground Maghear's it sounds so dismissive, it's not. It sounds
(00:54):
like you're lumping a whole lot of people and with
Brian Tummockee and those sorts, when it's genuine passion and
anger and sadness from a lot of people. That's and
by saying I don't want to see a whole lot
of theatrics, you sound like a bunkered Wellington bureaucrash.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
Yeah, I think, but I think that's exactly the point
I don't think we want to see people like Brian
Tummicky and Liz Gun dominate the whole process. People are
raising really legitimate points, and I think it's important that
we get a good balanced view of people's responses to COVID,
how they felt about that, and not let it be
dominated by those who are making the most visible noise,
you know, the people like Brian Tummicky and Liz Gun
(01:31):
and so on. So I think that's the point that
I was trying to make there. I think it's just
important that everybody does get the chance to have the
essay and that some you know, voices aren't drowning out
the others.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
But by dismissing it as a whole lot of theatrics, well, I.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Mean, I think if you look at what people like
Brian Tummicky and Liz Gun have been doing, it is theatrics.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
They were representing, I mean, an extreme end of the spectrum.
But there's still a lot of people who are genuinely
angry and passionate about how long they were left.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
Yeah, I think one of them. Yeah, And I think
you know, one of the I'm engaging very constructively with
the Royal Commission I've already spent several hours with the
first Royal Commission and currently working through some written questions
For the second one is that you know, what we
were trying to do during our COVID response was actually
not have as many restrictions by so the restrictions that
(02:23):
we put in place were designed to avoid having to
have heavier restrictions. So if you look at the UK,
for example, they started the pandemic response.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Saying we're here, yea a different case.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
We are a different case, but it's a good comparison
because they said we don't want to do lockdowns and
so on, and they ended up doing more lockdowns than
New Zealand did because they didn't put in place some
restrictions that could have avoided that. So we were trying
to avoid that, but it was damn hard. And I
never ever said that lockdowns went hard for people that were.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Very very You didn't know because you never came here.
Nobody came.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
Well, No, we were following the rules, of.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Course, No, you can always make exceptions to the rule
as a leader of the country by coming here.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
Well, I mean I did go and visit the Miq's,
I did go and visit the border. I did do
those things, but I didn't come and go from Auckland
at a time when we were telling people not to
come and go from.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Orkland even once, like you yourself said, you know, with
the benefit of hindsight, you wouldn't have kept us locked
down so long. But it's just it makes me think,
like when we also see the emergency housing when you
were in Rottadua and you said, oh, yeah, we got
bad advice on that. You had eyes, you couldn't possibly
(03:30):
think that those motels were a a good place for
people to be in or that they were full of
people from Rottadaua.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
So that's exactly the point to carry that last. But
that was the issue where I think the advice did
was bad. So we were questioning, we were being questioned
on whether the people were from outside of Rosa dur
and we got really clear advice from the agency saying no,
we're not accommodating people from outside of Rotada. Now there's
plenty of evidence now to suggest that that was happening.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
There was plenty of evidence at the time, and so.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Again I think the advice was bad and we didn't
do a good enough job of scrutinizing that advice and
going and testing that ourselves. So I'll own you could.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
You know, Tonya Taps was telling us, you know, we
all heard it and saw it and you didn't. It's
another example of being willfully blind, and then when you're
called on it, you say, oh, yeah, we got bad advice.
It's almost like if you admit you made a mistake,
the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
I mean, I said when I became Prime Minister that
I didn't think I was only Prime Minister of eight months,
that I didn't think the number of people in emergency
accommodation and ROTA was sustainable. We were taking steps to
reduce the number of people in emergency accommodation in DOT,
but we wanted to make sure that we were getting
them into housing rather than just turning them out onto
the streets.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
Yeah, but it's you could have said, yeah, we stuffed up,
instead of all the time it's saying, oh, well, you know,
we got poor advice. Well no, And anything to do
with COVID is oh we got this.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
You're taking one answer, one answer from quite a long interview,
And in that interview I did say that I didn't
think that we had got it right when it came
to emergency accommodation. In the specific question was about people
being accommodated from outside of Rosa du and why we
had said at the time that that wasn't happening when
it was. It was basically because that's the advice that
we got. Now, I don't want that one answer to
(05:12):
that one question to be taken as a response to
the entirety of the issue. Where I did say, actually,
we didn't get this completely right.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
I really do feel that it's almost as though you
have to hold on to the belief that what you
did was right all the way through your government, not
just true.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
I don't agree. If you go back and you look
at the daily press conferences I did during the pandemic,
you'll find examples on a very regular basis of where
I stood up in front of the whole country and said, actually,
that didn't go according to plan. We didn't get that right.
I tried as hard as I could during that time
to admit when we got things wrong around testing in
the early phase, we didn't get that right. And so
(05:51):
I was trying to be as upfront with people as
possible about that well on the VAC vaccines was probably
the hardest issue. Of almost all of the decisions that
we took around COVID vaccines were undoubtedly the hardest.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
And the mandates.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
I accept the findings of the first Royal Commission. So
the Royal Commission said that the mandates were too wide
and stayed in place for too long, and I accept
the findings of that Royal Commission.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Do you think Jasindra a Dune should come back? I mean,
the COVID response defined your government at to find her
on the international stage. Shouldn't she be here for the inquiry.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
I'm being cautious not to venture a comment on that,
and it's not because I'm trying to avoid it. It's
because a Royal Commission needs to operate independently. And I
don't think me or David Seymour should be telling them
who they should and shouldn't be calling to appear before them.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
But isn't it the moral thing to do? Like if
it defines your government? The only reason you got back
in was because of the COVID response.
Speaker 3 (06:52):
And as I said, I'm not telling the Royal Commision
who they should and shouldn't call, or how they should
conduct their hearings, and I don't think the government should
be doing that either. The Commission needs to operate independently,
and I think.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
For people from overseas it can only call people from
within newsical.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
Well, that's a question for the Commission ultimately, the way
they operate, what they choose to do is a question
for the Commission.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
But do you think that it would make sense for
the person who was making the decisions based on the
best advice that she was receiving to be here to
answer questions around the results.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
I'm not trying to dodge it because I'm trying to
be cute. I just don't think it's appropriate for me
to tell the Royal Commission or justinder Idurn how they
should be approaching it. I think those are questions for them,
not for me. I can answer questions on my own behalf,
which I have done. I've said, I've already spoken to
the Royal Commission for several hours when they were doing
the first Royal Commission. They sent through a whole lot
(07:44):
of questions late last week which they've asked for written
answers for. I'm working my way through those at the moment,
so you know, I'm trying to be as cooperative with
them as possible. I'll answer questions on my own participation,
but I think what they do around other people, those
are really questions for them.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
Would you do you think that there are concerns for
just under a Don's safety coming back here.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
I mean, I know, having spoken to Sinda on a
number of occasions, I think there are a small group
of people who do threaten her safety and we should
be upfront about that. And they're they're not idle threats.
These are serious threats to her safety and that of
her family, And so if she's weighing those things up,
then I think that's a legitimate thing for her to
(08:28):
think about when she's thinking about coming back to New
Zealand and so on. So I'm courtious to talk about
those things because of course when they're when they concern
someone's personal security like that, I think we have to
be careful and what we say about that, But we
shouldn't be blind to the fact that they.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
Are real things.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
They do exist, and these are very not very nice
people who are making those kind of threats.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Will you be attending in person.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
At the moment the Royal Commission has sort of changed
their mind a couple of times on what they want.
So we're still talking to them about what it is
that they want from us, so that that conversation is
still happening.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
Wouldn't you want to be there?
Speaker 3 (09:04):
Again? I don't want to tell the Royal Commission of
how to conduct the inquiry, so cooperative as possible with
the Royal Commission, So if.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
They ask you to attend in person, you'll be there.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
As I've said, those conversations are happening with the Royal
Commission at the moment. And because of the conversations with
the Royal Commission, and because the Royal Commission operate under
a protection of independence, I don't want to get into
that because ultimately those are questions for them.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
No, but if they ask you, I've said.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
That I'll cooperate with the Royal Commission, all right, I.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
Would like to know, says a texture of Cristal former
coalition Withtmari if he needs to after the next election,
well you would have to do, wouldn't you be labor
Greens to Batimari?
Speaker 3 (09:42):
What I said last election, and I'll say the same
thing again is that well before the election we'll set
out we could work with these parties on these issues
in this way and we couldn't work with these parties.
You know, we'll set all that out before the election.
There's still a lot of shifting ground. You know, it
will depend on the policy positions that those parties say
are their bottom lines, because if they take extreme positions
(10:04):
that we can't work with them, and we'll say that
before the election. And so it is going to depend
on what the parties say.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
So would you be able to ring fence some of
the more out there kind of policies and say, well,
we're not going to discuss that, but we can work
with you on confidence and supply.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
I mean, I've already said for things like a separate parliament,
a separate Marti parliament for example, that's just not territory
that we're willing to go into. So still a lot
of water to flow under that particular bridge. Yet, do
we have things that we could work with the Greens
into party Marti. Oh yes we do, and we have
done in the past. Bearing in mind the Maori Party
spent nine years in government under John Key with National
(10:41):
quite a different well, if you go but if you
go back, if you look at Tuddy Undertutia's positions between
two thousand and five to two thousand and eight before
she formed the government with John Key, they're very similar
to the positions that the Mighty Party hold now. So
I think, you know, lots can change, so we'll let
the water flow under the bridge. So I'm not answering
that yet, and it's not because I'm dodging. It's because
(11:03):
closer to the election will be in a better position
to form a judgment on it.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
But any people have to understand too that anybody who
votes for Labor will be getting the GINSU knives the
gift with purchase, which will be the Greens and Tabatima.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
Or the nature of m MP as you end up
with coalitions, so on one side you've kind of got
act you know, the extreme and probably on the other
side the Marti Party would be more of the sort
of on the other side, and then you've got parties
like New Zealand, FUST and the Greens who are often
more moderate on a range of issues. That's the nature
(11:36):
of m MP, and of course my goal between now
and the election is to get the Labor Party vote
as high as possible because the higher the vote that
I get for the Labor Party, the less you have
to give away and post election negotiations.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Why why would people vote you back in. It's got
to be more than just because you're not national and
act absolutely.
Speaker 3 (11:57):
What I've said is that you know, as we head
towards the election, we will set out quite clearly what
we would do differently, what we do differently from this government,
what we do differently from last time. I think kerry
one of the things, and I know people people kind
of struggle with this at this point in the electoral cycle.
But one of the things I think New Zealanders are
really cynical about and fair enough to is politicians making
(12:17):
promises that they then change their minds on or that
they don't keep. So I don't want to make a
bunch of promises now without knowing that I can keep
them when we form the government, which.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
Kind of makes me wonder why we're here, you know.
I mean, if we can't talk about policy or direction
or how you will stimulate an economy to grow jobs,
you can't just hire people as public servants and call
that employment.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
We can still talk about that at a high level.
It's just if you want me to know to commit
to specific will you build X. We're not in a
position to make that commitment now, but there are certainly
things that we would do differently. So take building and construction.
There's about fifteen thousand fewer people working in building in
construction now than they were at the election, and one
of the reasons for that is that the government stopped everything.
(13:00):
They stopped statehouse builds, they stopped hospital rebuilds, they stopped
school rebuilds and so on.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
They haven't stopped. There was a review of the enormous
amounts of money that were being spent on the school builds.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
And what happened while the review was taking place. They
stopped all of the work and as a result, we've
seen fifteen thousand fewer people working in that sector. Now,
that's not the only thing. There was a slow down
in the private sector for building and construction as well,
but the government significantly contributed to that and made it
worse by the decisions.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
I'm said going to blame them for the public servants
in Wellington.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
What I've said is that we won't do the same
thing after the next election.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
Do you blame national for the loss of jobs in
the public service in Wellington?
Speaker 3 (13:39):
We had already said that we were going to be
reducing public sector.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Of expenditure, while you said, while you said, please don't hire,
please make there was two thousand odd people hired in
the last six months of your term, which is economic vandalism.
Speaker 3 (13:53):
I don't agree. I mean, I think those kind of
really are. That kind of extremist language buys into the
National Party's rhetoric. But if you you know, I think
what we were trying to do as a government was
make sure that we reduced some of the covid eras
governments in a way that was sustainable. Well, no, I
don't think that's true either where they were if they
were recruiting more people, it would often be in areas
(14:13):
where they do need more people. Those government have recruited
more people in some areas as well.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
We'll befer news talk said be Philip, good morning to you.
Speaker 4 (14:23):
Yep, good morning.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Oh I can't hear you. Phones dropped out. Okay, we'll
have to try and get Philip back again. That was
about oil and gas exploration. Somebody else asked about that,
What about the gas exploration the oil exploration, would you
still support no oil and gas exploration or would you allow.
Speaker 3 (14:43):
For some Well, we'll set that out close to the election.
I don't think I think this is being presented by
the government as a cure to a problem that it
isn't going to be a cure to. We haven't had
a significant oil and gas find in New Zealand since
two thousand and one, I think was the last significant one.
They've said they're going to spend two hundred million on it.
They could spend two hundred million drilling more holes and
(15:03):
have nothing to show for it. At the end of it.
You know, they still might not find any gas. So
it's not going to solve our energy problems.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
But is relying on the hope that electricity will the
answer as well.
Speaker 3 (15:16):
The issue with electricity is we haven't invested enough in
new generation in New Zealand over the last decade and
a half and we've got to do better. We've got
to fix that problem in time.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
What do we do?
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Yeah, I don't think the electricity market's working the way
that it should and don't you do well. Relying on
fossil fuels is only going to continue to push the
price up. We've got to get this the market building
much more renewable energy and they are and they are
and exactly, and I think some of the changes we
made in government have helped to contribute to that.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
But well, at the same time, buying more coal than ever.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
We need to do significantly more, and coal is one
of the coal and gas are one of the reasons
we pay higher power prices. So if we want lower
power prices, it's got to be things like solar and wind.
Hydro geothermal is a great opportunity for New Zealand. So
doing more of that is what will keep our power.
We'll get our power prices lower.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Gary, quick one from you. There we go. Sorry, Gary,
It's all right.
Speaker 5 (16:11):
Hi guys, Thanks Chris for taking my question. I'm heavily
involved in the greyhound racing industry and I want to
know what your policy is going to be for next year,
as you're probably aware that they reckon that the industry
is going to fold in July twenty six next year,
and i'd just like to know what your view on
(16:32):
of is.
Speaker 3 (16:33):
Yeah, thanks, Lock, and I know you're probably not going
to like my answer either. We do support the announcements
that Wins and Peter's has made on the greyhound racing industry.
We do think it's time for them to make this.
I think they've given the industry a long lead time
to prepare for that, so we wouldn't change the announcements
that the government have made.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
Thank you, Gary and Ross, good morning, gooday, good ey.
Speaker 5 (16:59):
Chris. Do you get correspondents? Do you get to see
all the correspondents said to your office? Or do some
and theah sort of less thought. We weren't right about
that one.
Speaker 3 (17:09):
Now there's a lot of it. Generally, I get a
summary of the correspondence that's come through at the end
of each week, so that I know what people are
saying and so on. But I try and read all
of it. But there's a lot of.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
It there we go, Thank you very much. That answers that. Oh,
eight hundred and eighty ten eighty. If you want to
put a question to the leader of the opposition, I
have some You got brassed off with Nick Mills the
other day saying that we've got a whole bunch of
Tory owners we want national to look good and endzed me.
(17:41):
It's not strictly true.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
Oh look, you're not all Tories, Carey. I haven't given
up a whole hope on you. Yes, yet you know you never.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
Know the thing. I will vote labor if there's a
reason to vote labor. Absolutely, there's a lot of voters
like that.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
Look, I mean the conversation we're having is around ram raids,
and I think one of the I think the point
that I was making there was in twenty twenty two,
we hit that peak of RAM raids. It was terrible.
It was having a huge impact on people and businesses.
I became Minister of Police right in the heat of it.
We did a whole lot of changes that were designed
to deal with RAM rating at the root cause, so
(18:14):
deal with these kids who were getting into trouble, and
it started to work pretty quickly. We got a thirty
percent reduction within six months. We then had another reduction
through twenty twenty three, and another reduction through twenty twenty four.
And it was dealing with the issue at its root
cause rather than dealing with the consequences afterwards. And I
think on law and order we should have more of
(18:34):
those conversations, how do you deal with this stuff at
its root course, stop it happening in the first place,
so you have fewer victims and you have fewer people
needing to be sentenced because you're actually stopping the offending
happening in the first place.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
I quite agree, and.
Speaker 3 (18:47):
I think the ram rating thing is a good example
that you can do it and it can work, because
we went into these kids' families effectively and we said,
what on earth is going on here that these kids
are out and about in the middle of the night
stealing cars and driving them into dairies. And by doing
that we managed to really turn down the.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Volume degree and there was an overarching body of organizations
that looked after them, the police, school truancy, who was that,
the social welfare.
Speaker 3 (19:15):
Working Yeah, so we got it. We got everyone together.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
What's the name of that organization.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
We called it the circuit Breaker Initiative. But it was
just getting them all around the table. So every time
a kid was getting that a job going on, yes,
I think it is, Yeah, I think they did see
the merit in that. Yeah, And it's getting all around
the table because it was really interesting. The first couple
of times we did it, everyone sort of looks at
their hands and shuffles awkwardly. But turned out we knew
a lot about these kids.
Speaker 2 (19:38):
Yeah, and the family.
Speaker 3 (19:39):
And when we started to join all the dots, we
could actually solve the problem.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
But then once you've got people who do commit crime,
allowing a seventy seven percent discount for a knife wielding
rapist giving him two years in jail, that's that's not
acceptable as a woman, as a member of society, that's
not cool.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
Yeah, we haven't formed our party position on that. So
these were announcements that were made over the recess, and
you know, and it hasn't been sitting, so our team
hasn't meant to consider what we're going to you know,
what our stance on those things is going to be.
Obviously you will have heard my first kind of port
of call and all these debates is to say, how
do we stop the stuff happening in the first place?
Speaker 2 (20:18):
But I accept it.
Speaker 3 (20:20):
I also accept that there's a need for us to
make sure that there are consequences for offending, and which is.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
A shift in ideology from where you were last time.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
So we will look at well yes and no, yes,
I mean, if you look at youth offending again, one
of the problems there was that young people not being charged,
which was actually a requirement of the Orang AUTOMADICI legislation
introduced by the previous previous National government. It had meant
that kids not being charged meant that they weren't actually
getting any help, you know, because if you didn't charge them,
(20:48):
they were catch release effectively. And so I actually, as
Minister of Police and then as Prime Minister, was trying
to change that so that these kids could come before
the Youth Court, not because I wanted to have them
locked up, because I wanted them to actually get some
help so that we could stop them falling into the
cycle of offending. Some of these kids were twelve years old.
I don't want to lock them up. I want to
get them back on the straight and narrow. I want
(21:08):
to get them back into them.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
I want to get them I don't think they're ever
on the straight and narrow. You want to help them
discover a straight and woe. That's a good point when
their families are using them because they know that the
kids won't get charged.
Speaker 3 (21:20):
And it was one of the devastating numbers when I
did have that meeting around ramraids, and I said, tell
me about these kids, Something like ninety percent of them
had a parent who was otherwise involved in the criminal
justice and domestic vine, so domestic violence. I think their
eighty to ninety percent. Number applies to just about all
of those metrics, whether they've got a parent in prison,
whether they've been the victims themselves of family violence or
(21:42):
witnesses to family violence. You know, those kids are so
disproportionately represented in those stats. So that's where we start
tackles that and you'll end up with a lot fewer
of them.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
Need In the meantime, I don't want to see a
drink driver who takes up the life of a young
woman get twelve months home detention.
Speaker 3 (22:00):
Yeah, and nor do I.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
It's unacceptable. So how much of a dumpster fire are
you going to do? Where a few and the Greens
and Tapati Mali former coalition government next time round, how
much of a dumpster fire on the legislation will you do?
Speaker 3 (22:15):
Not a lot. I certainly don't want to do what
this government have done. To spend the first eighteen months
just done doing everything the previous government did. I think
there's been too much flip flopping around on this stuff.
One of the areas in law and order that I
do want to focus on, though, is courts, because it's
taking far too long to get issues seen to by
the courts. Victims get retraumatized by having these cases drag
(22:37):
on for years in some cases. We've got to deal
with the inefficiencies in the system, and that starts with
the police and the way they file their paperwork and
do all that stuff through to the courts, because I
agree with the sentiment that justice delayed is just as denied,
and it's taking way too long for many of these issues.
We're getting people now who are being released on sentencing
(22:59):
because they've spent all of their sentence on remand waiting
to be tried. That's ridiculous. We've got to fix that,
and I want to make that a priority.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
All right. That is good to hear. The other the
fiscal whole Unit. You actually support that too, because that
was a that was a Greens then a Labor then
a National and then ACT in New Zealand first shot
it down.
Speaker 3 (23:22):
Yeah. I think it's a good idea. So it would
take some of the heat out of these issues. We
could actually argue about the substance of policies rather than,
you know, whether we've got our costings right. We could
actually argue about the merits of doing something rather than
whether it's going to cost X or y. I think
that would be a good thing. I've written to Christopher
Luxe and I've said, don't let the small parties veto this.
Labor and National actually agree on it. Lets it down
(23:44):
and if we'll give you the numbers, you know, we'll
give you the majority in Parliament to do it and
to come up with something sense.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
That would be because I heard who was it who was
explaining what went on that the sitting government will obfiscate
and obstruct and block while the opposition parties try and
get the information. And they said, oh, I think this
might have been Stephen Joyce. They see it as a
bit of a game, and that I know my gears
(24:10):
get ground quite often, but that really racked me up.
To you, it's not a bloody game. That is time
and money that is being spent that could be in
the service of the textpayer.
Speaker 3 (24:20):
I totally agree with you. We tried to set up
this costings unit when we were in government and the
National Party said, no, I don't think you can set
it up without at least the two major parties agreeing
on it, because then it would become at political football.
But I think if Labor and National could sit down
and agree, Look, we both think this is a good idea.
Now let's figure out a way to do it that
we can both sign up to and agree. I think
(24:41):
that would be a really good thing for the country.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
Same and Neil, a very good morning to you. You
have a question around education.
Speaker 4 (24:47):
Yeah, yeah, good morning. As a government transition to the government, recently,
it appeared that Eric Stanford was working really closely with
jantiniti and seem to have a good working relationship. It
doesn't appear that that's the same now with Willow Jeanie
and as I sector, I think we would be a
little bit frustrated and quite exhausted if we had another
(25:09):
massive change without some alignment between the two major parties
around education. We find Erica really good at getting out
and talking to people and explaining what's going on, and
had said that hear and jam and the Labor Party
had agreed on the vast majority of things. There's a
few differences on the fringes, but you know, the direction
(25:29):
for education was looking pretty straight and good for the
next few years. Just concerned that there's not that little
engagement anymore.
Speaker 3 (25:37):
Yeah, thanks, it's a really fair question. You know, in
my first term as Minister of Education, I tried really
hard to work with Nicki Kay, who was my predecessor
in education. I found her great to deal with, and
I tried to say, and you know, there's going to
be areas of disagreement around you know, new school buildings
and so on, but let's try and make things like
curriculum and assessment not political footballs, because what kids learn
(25:59):
and how they're assessed actually should be based on evidence.
It should be based on some long term thinking, not
become a political football. Paul Goldsmith unfortunately didn't want to
continue in that vein when he took over from Nikki Kay.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
But now we've got Erica Stanford, who is a motivated,
passionate advocate for.
Speaker 3 (26:17):
And my offer as the leader of the Opposition as
always and the leader of the Labor Party. As long
as I'm the leader of the Labor Party on those
issues around curriculum and assessment, I really don't ever want
to see those becoming political footballs again, and the way
that they were when we had things like national standards.
Let's just try and do things that are based on
evidence and based on the best interests of the kids.
Speaker 2 (26:36):
The kids were failing, Our kids were failing, and we
used to have world class education and.
Speaker 3 (26:42):
Things like national standards though actually made it worse, not better.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
But now we've got like the kids are bringing homework
home and you must see it too with your kids,
Like it makes sense, the kind of the kind of
workbooks that they're getting, and the teaching that's been taught,
the challenge of the sense their carriers.
Speaker 3 (26:59):
We don't know that, because you know, you never know
an education often for five ten years later whether a
change you've made now is going to work.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
Because we were going down there.
Speaker 3 (27:11):
There's no question a change had to happen, but you've
got to make those decisions based on research and evidence.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
It worked before.
Speaker 3 (27:17):
So one of the changes I made to the NCAA,
for example, which still hasn't been fully implemented, was a
change around the literacy and numerous the requirements because kids
were getting the NCAA and yet the universities, the job,
their employers and stuff are saying they still can't do
basic reading and writing in maths. So we changed that,
and that still hasn't been fully implemented yet, but I
(27:38):
know the current government are continuing that work forward, and
I think that's a good thing.
Speaker 2 (27:42):
Can you ask Neil's question though, why does they're not say,
and this is from somebody clearly within the sector, why
is there not a good working relationship?
Speaker 3 (27:50):
Well, I don't think that's sincesarily fair. I think there is.
I think on issues that where the government work with us,
will work with them. So if there has been any shift,
it will be because the government have chosen not to
talk to us.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
Really on education, Okay, have you decided on capital gains tax?
Speaker 3 (28:10):
Yet we have a tax policy. I've said that we'll
do it this half of the year, so we're working
through the details of that.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
At the moment, when will you be ready? I mean,
I know it's working for you as a party to
just sit there and have everyone get frustrated with National
and the coalition government. It is working because the economy's
stalling and it's not picking up as quickly as had
been promised.
Speaker 3 (28:35):
And I mean, I would like to say it's all
part of a master political strategy, but the reality is
actually a bit more simple than that. If you don't
the economy is changing so much at the moment that
I don't want to promise things and then turn around,
you know, next year and say, oh, either we've undercooked
that and we're going to need to do more than that,
or we can't afford to do that anymore. So I
don't want to do.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
But your ideology can be stated like co governance. Is
that still something you hold very strongly to.
Speaker 3 (29:01):
I've already said that on the issue around co governance.
I don't think that we're explained what we were doing there,
and I think that that became such a distraction from
moment really important issue, which was around the fact that
water needs to be fixed and it's going to cost
money and we should do that in the most efficient
way possible. The current government aren't doing it in the
most efficient way possible. It's costing more and you see
(29:22):
that in your rates bill. But I think co governance
became a distraction from doing the right thing.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Would the rates spill have come down had Labor been
able to put it.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
No, it still would have gone up, but it wouldn't
have gone up by as much. So hand on heart,
we got those numbers. It said, if you do this reform,
you'll get this rates increase. If you don't do it,
you'll get this rates increase. The rates increase we're getting
now is at the extreme end because they haven't done
things that they could have done to lower the rates increase.
But hand on heart, I can't say rates wouldn't have increased.
They still would have increased, but not by as much.
Speaker 2 (29:53):
Do you think that your party understands that to have
a productive economy you need to have business. You need
to thank God for our farmers who wereied or felt
as though they were being vilified by your previous administration.
Do you understand that we're that business is not the enemy?
Speaker 3 (30:16):
Absolutely, and we kept businesses in business during our time
in government.
Speaker 2 (30:20):
Who are now paying through the nose for the decision
that went on way longer.
Speaker 3 (30:25):
Or numbers of company liquidations in the last year, and
that's just in the last year.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
It is because they're playing catch up.
Speaker 3 (30:31):
I don't think that's true.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
Well, that's what the biggest the biggest they were seeing
the washing.
Speaker 3 (30:34):
The biggest increase in company liquidations in the last year
has been building in construction firms.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
Yeah, because they haven't got a pipeline of.
Speaker 3 (30:41):
Work because the government stopped it.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
No, that's when we talk about private contractors as well.
That's not true. People don't people don't have confidence, they're shattered.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
But the government withdrawing all of its investment in that
area has added to that all of it.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
They were looking at whether they were getting value for
money from from what you were promising. I was talking
to the lovely Well, they're all nice people, the CEO
of Culling Order, and he said, it's actually quite simple.
The job that we have to do. It's to house
people as many people as we can and warm, dry,
safe homes. And he said where it gets complicated is
where you're tasked to do other things like housing developments.
(31:19):
He said that's he wouldn't criticize his predecessor because he
said he had a different job to the one I have.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
Yeah, I think we have to recognize that under existing
state houses there's a lot of land that gives us
a lot of potential for redevelopment to build more houses,
not always just all state houses either. They can be
mixed developments too. But someone needs to do that work.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
I think it's the government the world belye should do it.
Speaker 3 (31:43):
Ultimately, if the government owns the land, then ye, we
should be involved in that. But should caing or do both?
I think that's a legitimate question that will probably have
a different answer on next time. To the one that
we had last time.
Speaker 2 (31:57):
Right, So last time you thought that was all part
of caying orders brief and it was just buy up
as much as you possibly could and have this gorgeous
utopian village of mixed model housing.
Speaker 3 (32:08):
Yeah, I think it hasn't quite worked. No, I mean,
I think one of the things I mean, I mean
thinking about this quite a bit. You know where government
hasn't worked. And it's not just that it hasn't worked
under us, it didn't work under previous governments as well.
I think the public service has become a bit too convoluted,
and some of the clarity of the mission that we're
giving to different government agencies has disappeared. Kyng Orra was
a good example of that. So you're right. Their biggest
(32:30):
job is to rent houses to people. Giving them a
development thing on top of that distracts them from that job.
Would it be better to give it to a separate
agency that was focused just on the developments. That's a
question which I think we should ask ourselves, and I
think you could ask that of any number of different
government agencies. MB's a good example. They've got so many
different things that MB's asked to do. Now I think
(32:52):
we've lost some of the clarity of what we're asking
these agencies to do.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
All right, News Talk said b it is seven to eleven.
Well there we go. This guy is so full of deflection.
It's not funny something something didn't work. It's been shown
with key we build. Now we'll change things from what
we did. Sorry, dude, it's been changed and for the better.
Great for you to have a guest on your show who,
despite intense questioning, didn't present lux and word salad answers
(33:18):
Hipkins for Prime Minister.
Speaker 3 (33:20):
There there's one labor listener today caring. So things are
looking up.
Speaker 5 (33:25):
Well.
Speaker 2 (33:25):
Look, I love diversity of opinion. You know, most of
my friendship group votes across the spectrum. You know, it
is a it is a political spectrum of friends.
Speaker 3 (33:37):
And isn't it sad that more and more people aren't
living that way anymore? More and more people are just
living in groups and people that they agree with. And
I think one of the if you want to live
a good, healthy, happy life, have lots of people in
your life who have a different view of the will
to you. I think it's help.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
I agree. I couldn't agree more anyway. We will leave
with your so thank you for coming in. Be good
to get some policy next time, though otherwise it's just
you and me kind of.
Speaker 3 (34:03):
I'll see what I can do. I can live.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
Now the clean. Anything can happen. Why does this take
you back to young and free?
Speaker 3 (34:11):
It makes me back to being young and free. Anything
could happen, and you know I work in politics. Anything
can happen.
Speaker 2 (34:18):
It was a time, wasn't it. We live in interesting
times now, all right. A leader of the opposition, otherwise
known as my six year old granddaughter said, is he
the other guy who's not the Christopher who's the prime Minister?
I said, he exactly is.
Speaker 3 (34:31):
That's a very good description at the moment.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
For more from Kerry Wooden Mornings, listen live to news
Talks it'd be 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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.