July 2, 2025 • 21 mins
The government has announced three new law and order policies this week, including increased penalties for coward punches, assaulting first responders and shoplifting. But what impact will these changes have?
Also, Act and New Zealand First have shot down Finance Minister Nicola Willis' plans for a policy costing unit. Is this something we should have?
National's Otaki MP Tim Costley and Labour's revenue and associate finance spokeswoman Dr Deborah Russell joined Nick Mills for Politics Thursday.
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 (00:07):
You're listening to the Wellington Mornings podcast with Nick Mills
from News Talks at B focusing in on the issues
that matter Politics Thursday on Wellington Mornings News Talk said B.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
A Thursday, we have our politics half hour. Joining us
for Politics Thursday. This week is Nationals O Tacky MP.
Tim Costley, Good.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Morning, Tim, good morning. That's good to be with you.
I'm sure we're going to get to the Jeffers soon.
But that's the breaking news today.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Oh my gosh, yeah, I'm lost for words. A new
comer on to the show Labour's Revenue and Associate Finance Minute.
It's per Finance spokesperson, doctor Deborah Russell.
Speaker 4 (00:53):
Good morning, Deborah, Welcome, Marenna, Marenna, and of course I am,
of course a Jeffer. So I just want to know
whether Tim's talking about the sweet for Awklanders.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Deborah, Can I just ask you, very friendly and very nicely,
as it's the first time on the show, if you
could refrain from swearing on the show today, because I
know you can mutter up.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
You could mutter it wasn't that wasn't my You could
butter this moment. I do feel a bit embarrassed about it.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
I just just don't want you muttering things to me
under under your breath and us getting into trouble and
me having to dump you on the show. Just just
wanted to put it out there at the beginning.
Speaker 4 (01:31):
Yeah, yeah, I have to say it wasn't my best moment,
and I do feel embarrassed about it. Got a few
emails scolding me about it, But the funny one was
one who addressed me as doctor potty mouth. I thought,
you know what, I've got to try not to do
that again, right.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
I thought it was quite humorous. She did apologize to
me afterwards, so I thought that that's good.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Oh well, I wouldn't have apologized to you. I thought
it was quite good Wit. I thought it was very
good Wit. Actually. But anyway, let's start with law and order.
Three big announcements from the government this week, including increased
penalties for assaulting first respondents, cow punches, and on the
spot fines for shoplifting. Tim, Please tell me how these
(02:14):
spot finds for shoplifters will actually work. Isn't the issue
actually trying to get police to attend to them and
having the resources for the police to show up.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
Oh look, I think there's a fundamental issue here, right,
which is about having real consequences for this kind of offending.
It's a bit like the ram raids that Chris Hipkin
thinks fake use. You actually have to take this stuff seriously.
You have to show that you're serious about it. We
need police, yes, we need them reasserted in our communities,
and we've seen that with increased numbers on the beat.
We've seen that with recent boy eraser events. But you
(02:47):
also have to have meaningful consequences and adding these high
I penalities for shoplifting, for coward punchers, for assaulting first responders,
Actually that does make a real difference. It also means
things like having a fine rather than having to take
people through the court, which can be really costly, It
can be really time consuming, it can clog up our
the system. Actually having swift, firm punishments is a great
(03:10):
way to deal with these things quickly and take them
really seriously.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
We know that retail theft cost US one point two
billion dollars last year. Are you going to guarantee, just
to yes or no, that that figure is going to
come down because of these fines.
Speaker 3 (03:24):
Well, that's absolutely the intent.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Okay, Deborah. Fines are usually in my mind and tell
me if I'm wrong, all right, for lower level offending
like speeding, does finding a shoplifter instead of sending them
through the court system send the wrong message to them?
Speaker 4 (03:39):
To you? Oh, you know what really worries me about
this is that at the instant finds so there's a
bit of a lack of process around that. In order
to make this work, we're actually going to have to
have police officers on the beat, able to attend, able
to issue the fine, really well trained, because there's going
to be a whole lot of subjective judgments involved in this,
(04:01):
and the fact is that we haven't got the police
officers that the coalition government has been prom so that
to me is a critical issue is are we going
to have enough cops on the beat?
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Does Labor support any of these measures.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
Look, they've only just been announced. We haven't seen the
detail of them yet, So we're going to have to
have it sit down and have a bit of a
talk with our experts on those the people in our
caucus who really know the justice system inside out. But
you know, the fact is what we want is we
actually want these crimes to not occur in the first place,
or these misdemeanors or whatever, they are a bit more
(04:35):
than a misdemeanor. Of course, a coward punch, that's a
pretty awful thing. We want to see the evidence that
these increased penalties, these fines in the LAGA actually go
to reduce crime. That's kind of a big promise that
the government's made its introducing all these measures. We need
to see the evidence they're going to work.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
Tom And this is the point in that grit, isn't
that because this is yet again we see from the
labor that they just won't take law and ORDI sariously
people I make them all the time, whether it's a
dairy owner, a supermarket owner and might have seen over
own it. They are sick and tired of what they've
had to put up with for years. They love seeing
more police officers walk on walk into their store. They
don't want to see them defunded. They want to see measures.
(05:14):
We've got to be doing something about this, and we
can't just keep taking the soft well let's just wait
and see. You know, we know that this stuff. If
you want the evidence, look at what we did with
the ram raids. We have seen a dramatic reduction in
that despite what might have been said on your show yesterday,
a dramatic reduction, actually this that our approach law and
order is working, serious and violent crime is coming down.
(05:35):
Now we've got to tackle what might have been seen
as a low level offending, but actually the cumulative value
of it is significant, and it would be great if
label we'll just come out and say, actually, do you
know what we were wrong about the ram raids? Jenny
Anderson said that we're wrong about the gang stuff. They've
acknowledged that. Now let's just come out and work together
on targeting these shoplifters.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Do you think you know.
Speaker 4 (05:53):
I just think that's a really I think that's very
very unfair. You know, the ram raids are starting to
come down already before this government took over, and it
was because we adopted a wrap around approach to really
targeting the offenders and they sure they didn't offend again.
So that's a really important point to note. But the
other thing here is that around we had already funded
(06:17):
more police, and we were getting more police on the bead.
We had funded it properly, and this government came in
and they promised an extra five hundred police and they
haven't delivered them. They said they were going to be
there buying November and they've said they're just not going
to deliver them. So that's a broken promise from this government.
You know, in terms of taking crime seriously, we want
these crimes to not occur in the first place, and
(06:39):
the way to do that is to deliver those police
that were promised.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Do you actually believe that the public will trust Labor
on law and order after what we've been through. Do
you think that they actually hold you guys to the
same high standards that they have the Coalition?
Speaker 4 (06:56):
Well, I don't think they have held the government to
high cut to high standards yet because you know, under
Labor in terms of ram raids and they're like, we
were working to get them down, and we were working
to protect retailers with the defensive mechanisms that they needed,
like you know, the bolcanons and so on. So we
actually worked hard to stop the crimes occurring in the
(07:16):
first place. No one wants to be a victim of
a crime. It's all very well having consequences afterward, but
we want to make sure the crime doesn't occur in
the first place, and that's what we were working towards
and it was starting to be achieved. You know, we
do need to be tough on crime. We do need
to make sure that people do, I guess repent, do
(07:37):
actually try to not you know, to I'm just trying
to find the right words here, but try to restore
the world to what it was before they committed the crime.
But the really ideal thing is to stop crime occurring
in the first place. So as well as being tough
on crime, we actually need to be tough on the
causes of crime.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
Can I just button and ask you what you thought
of your leader's comments on this show yesterday when he
said that actually those crimes are still being committed. It's
just that in zed me and not reporting on them.
Speaker 4 (08:09):
You know, it's always a bit frustrating. We always feel
that perhaps some media outlets are a little bit more
vocal on crime when we're in government and less so
when we're not. We I guess it's a frustration at
those times. But the thing is that we didn't get
the reporting around saying that the ram raids were dropping,
(08:31):
So I get Chris's frustration with that, But you know,
that's all as it may be. The real thing is
making sure that this government has put in place some
measures which they say is going to reduce crime. We
need to see that happening. And like I said, you know,
so far they fail on their major promise around crime,
which was more cops on the beach.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Tim. We have seen those figures drop unbelievably on ram raids.
I mean the facts were sent to the show straight
after he made the comment yesterday. I think we're sitting
at forty five halfway through this year, and what was it,
twenty twenty two, there was seven hundred or something. I mean,
come on, you've solved that problem, haven't you.
Speaker 3 (09:09):
Well, look, it's a fantastic response and you've seen a
range of measures that we've brought and it's not just
more police on the beat, which the you know, the
Greens and Wellington Central are complaining about. It's things like
three strikes which Labor opposed. In fact, every little bit
of Lord and the Order legislation we've brought in to
target these criminals has been opposed by Labor. That's really
important because I'm really encouraged to hear Debra say we
(09:32):
need to be tough on crime. I genuinely think it
would be good to see her as late as new
police spokesperson, someone that's actually wanting to acknowledge that we
need to take that approach, and I think it will
be totally fine. We should just give you one more
chance to come out and say, do you know what
Chris Sipkins was wrong? Things are getting better. Let's target
the next area. Let's do it together. Let's crack down
on these people that attack first responders and coward punctures
(09:53):
and shoplifters.
Speaker 4 (09:54):
Take ushr break Ana with the real problem here, just
one of them. One of the real problems here is
the biggest set of crime in this country is actually
domestic violence, and we haven't seen the nation for government
responding to that meaningfully, and in fact, police have been
told not to attend domestic violence crimes because they're not
as important as some other crimes. I'd like to see
(10:14):
this government addressing domestic violence.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
That's a pretty big statement. I wouldn't be surprised, Deborah.
I just hold on for another twenty four hours, because
there's a new police there's a new you know, law,
law and order announcement every twenty four hours at the moment,
so I think that'll be the next cab off The
Rank but Politics Thursday with nationals Otaki MP Tim Costley
and a newcomer to the show, first timer, Labour's Revenue
(10:40):
and Associate Finance spokesperson, Doctor Deborah Russell. I want to
start with you, Deborah on this one. We learned this
week that a cabinet paper put forward by Rail Minister
Winston Peters proposed the idea of fully or partly privatizing
the end to Ryland Ferry. He opened the door and
then he basically closed the door as just as quickly.
(11:00):
Do you actually believe that privatization could work. Maybe something
in the same sort of scheme as Air New Zealand,
where the government owns a controlling stake but there's other
investors involved for the inter island ferries.
Speaker 4 (11:14):
Look, the evidence around privatization is pretty mixed. If we
look at say some of our energy companies which are
partly owned by the New Zealand government, they're charging incredibly
high prices to New Zealanders. So that type of privatization
it might add money to the government's books, but at
the cost of New Zealanders who you know, we've heard
(11:35):
all the stories of the pensioners who are having to
go to bed early at night because they can't afford
to turn the lights on and keep the heating on.
Privatization is a mixed bag, and I think Winston Peters
is right to back away from it.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
All right, Well, I mean I've got to just continue
on that one a little bit with your debra. Can
the government actually effectively run a business? I mean they're
not very good at running governments, departments, government organizations are
not good at running businesses, are they.
Speaker 4 (12:01):
Well, I'd like to see the evidence for that came
as well. You know, lots of businesses have massive you're
off proceeds too and and run into trouble all the time.
You know, people complain about bureaucracy, but some of the
biggest bureaucracy we faces from insurance companies and from banks
trying to get some service there. So I think again
that's mixed evidence privatezation.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Can I just ask you one my case basis, I
just want to ask you one quick question, and as
associate finance spokesperson, tell me one government owned company that
actually makes money and shows a.
Speaker 4 (12:32):
Profit doesn't need to make money. What it needs to
do is to deliver the services that New Zealanders need.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
So that's the point.
Speaker 4 (12:39):
Can you name one of the government owned companies it's oh,
actually you put me on the spot there. But maybe
quoteable value might be one that is delivering the services
that New Zealanders need.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
At a profit. Is what the question was. I mean, Tim,
why would you work?
Speaker 4 (12:53):
It's not the point is the profit. The profit motive
is a great motive for private companies, for private business,
and it can deliver great results. But the point of
government owned stuff is to deliver services that that New
Zealanders neat.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
But I mean they're runners companies, Deborah, to make a profit,
aren't they.
Speaker 4 (13:11):
No, they are runners companies in order to deliver services,
you know, just a particular structure you use. And if
we're looking at the ferries, but have to save it
at the moment, the reason that they're not delivering is
because Nikola Willis botched it up, canceled the ferries last
year and the fairies that would have been here by
next year just disappeared into the ether. And we don't
(13:33):
have a solution for crossing.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
The streets at the moment, Tim Costley, would it work? Privatization,
some sort of privatization in the fairies. We've seen it
but Bluebridge have just brought their beautiful new, shiny, secondhand
New Olivia shipping today. It looks magnificent. I mean, why
wouldn't some sort of private enterprise along with the government work.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
Well, I mean, you can definitely have entra island fairies
that work as a private enterprise. And you're exactly right,
Bluebridge New Ferry this morning case in point. I think
the priority for us immediately is to is to fix
up the mess that we inherited. You know, you can't
have four hundred million dollars of fairy costing you four billion.
So we've sort of that, We've got the new ones
on the way. We've been really clear that the number
(14:16):
one priority what kiwis want is a safe, reliable, efficient,
effective ferries crossing click straight. That's priorly one to deliver.
And once start in and operating, then there is the
time to ask that question. And you're right, these arguments
for you know, we've heard arguments against, but let's get
them in an operating first. That's number one, and then
we can look at those questions.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Okay, I want to talk to you about both of
you about a policy costing unit. Now, I love this idea.
Nikola Willis had a big plan for a policy costing
unit and it has been blocked by ACT in New Zealand. First,
the unit would have costed every political parties policy costed
their political parties policies out, preventing politicians from fudging or dreaming,
(14:59):
or bribes or lying to the public. Tim why to
have New Zealand first and ACT blocked us? Surely this
makes perfect sense to have this unit involved at the beehive.
Speaker 3 (15:14):
Yeah, I don't know. I'm not party to their obviously
caucus discussions and I heard you know, commentators on your
news today talking about exactly that each party whatever its
own own plans and its own policies. It's something that
we brought forward obviously, you know the current coalition. It's
not going to go ahead. But I think what Kiwis
want to say is they want to know that when
(15:34):
the government stands up and says, you know, we're going
to build one hundred thousand homes, that it can actually
be done. And that's why it's really important to us
that we deliver on what we're promising and that in
future elections, what people are when they make these big,
wild claims about things like U key we build it
can actually be.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Done, Debrah. I'm remembering that big argument in two thousand
and seventeen. I think about the fiscal whole. I assume
Labor supports this policy costing unit.
Speaker 4 (15:59):
Does it? Oh?
Speaker 3 (16:01):
Absolutely?
Speaker 4 (16:01):
Look it's really interesting because you know, you again, National
has caved into its coalition partners a lot. Actually a
really good policy. And here's the thing, Barbara Edmonds has
a member's bill in the ballot which is ready to
establish an apendent and independent costing unit because I think
we do think it's a good idea. So you know,
if Nikola Willis is actually serious about this costing unit,
(16:22):
then with a bit of negotiation back and forth, I
think Labor is ready to support her on it. So
it just depends on whether or not she's got the
courage to reach across the aisle and work with us
to get it done.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Can you give me one really good reason, Deborah, for
people to actually oppose it. I mean, to me, it
just makes so much perfect sense.
Speaker 4 (16:40):
Yeah, I think it makes sense. To look way back
in twenty seventeen, we had to ready battle because a
National minister at the time made a completely inaccurate comment
about a fiscal whole, and you know, if we'd had
an independent costing unit, that claim could have been tested.
And I think you know, Tim's right, we do need
to be able to test the claims that are made
(17:02):
by parties. And for example, in the last election, we
could have tested the claim that tax cuts were viable.
They certainly haven't been viable. We've seen this country as
getting further and further into a revenue deficit, and that
cain made by their National Opposition could have been tested
by an independent policy costing unit. We're all in support
(17:23):
of it.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
Okay, I just want to ask you both broadly. Do
you think that actual politic actually that political parties are
honest about their costs to their policies. There's when we're
in an election yet, Tim.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
Well, I think National Party is And you know, we've
been really clear upfront about take the tax relief policy
from last year's budget that Debra has given us a
nice primo of. You know, that's something that's been really
popular with people that are struggling the cost of living,
the high inflation that labor created. And yes, there is
a cost to every policy, but this is the nature comment.
(17:58):
You've got a way up how do you charge that relief?
Where is it? Where is it effective? And look, I
like to hope that every party comes in with that approach.
I mean, you know, Greens at least have a plan
at the moment it's eighty eight billion dollars of tax,
but at least they've got a plan. We don't know
what Labor's planners at all. We'd love to see one.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
Do you actually think, Debra, that when you do announce
these policies that you do have the right funding in place.
Speaker 4 (18:23):
Look, there's a couple of issues there. One is that
when we're in opposition, you don't have the resources of government.
So it could be really helpful to have a policy
costings unit that helps parties to cost their policies appropriately
and effectively. So I think we do need that policy
costings unit. I do think it helps to keep parties
on it. You know, the sort of honesty that says
(18:45):
and is applied to government as well. For example, you know,
the National government has not been able to identify a
single family that gets the full benefit of the tax
cuts it delivered allegedly in last year's sudget.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
Debrah, I want to come to you on this one,
really quickly because I'm running out of time and I
know you both got to go. A new reporters found
Uber paid only one point two million dollars in corporate
tax in New Zealand in twenty twenty three financial year.
They moved a lot of their money off sure as
into company service fees. You are a tax expert, does
this make sense? Is this the right sort of money?
(19:18):
I mean, we know it's legal, but is it right?
Speaker 4 (19:22):
Nah, it's legal, but it doesn't seem fair, does it?
Speaker 3 (19:26):
You know?
Speaker 4 (19:26):
And I think that's a sentiment felt worldwide around some
of these tech companies. You know, Google took about I
think about six hundred and fifty seven million out of
New Zealand in revenue, depending on how you cost it.
I'd have to check that number, and paid only a
minimal amount of tax. That just doesn't seem fair, given
that they use in all the infrastructure and all the
resources of this country in order to generate that profit.
(19:50):
You know, there's a whole lot of groups at the
moment that are getting perfectly legal tax breaks like that,
but they don't seem fair to ordinary New Zealanders and
we need to make some different choices around that.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
Tom how is this acceptable?
Speaker 3 (20:06):
I think you're right, it doesn't. It doesn't quite feel right.
It might be legal, but it doesn't doesn't necessarily feel right.
But as Debra says, this is a problem around the
world and we, you know, have this framework with a
global from a network of tax treaties that we're a
part of, and so it takes a joint effort in
all countries around the word, around the world, all those
that we majorly work with to unpicked the So so
(20:28):
it's it's not there's there's no silver bullet to this,
but I think it's it's pleasing to see that, you know,
Minister Simon Wattson and the team working on this and
the other countries they have committed to do this as well,
because that's what it will take. It will take here,
I think it considered effort from a number of countries
to solve this on.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
Thank you both very much, National's O Techy MP Tim
Costly and doctor Debrah Russell, Associate Finance Spokespusiness and for Labor.
Thank you both very much for joining us on the show.
Have a great weekend. Look forward to speaking with you
again sometime. Deborah, very nice to have you on the show.
Speaker 3 (21:01):
Appreciate it. I I really enjoyed it.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Okay, there you go.
Speaker 1 (21:04):
This is from or from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills.
Listen live to news talks It'd be Wellington from nine
am weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Wellington Mornings podcast with Nick Mills
from News Talks at B focusing in on the issues
that matter Politics Thursday on Wellington Mornings News Talk said B.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
A Thursday, we have our politics half hour. Joining us
for Politics Thursday. This week is Nationals O Tacky MP.
Tim Costley, Good.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Morning, Tim, good morning. That's good to be with you.
I'm sure we're going to get to the Jeffers soon.
But that's the breaking news today.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Oh my gosh, yeah, I'm lost for words. A new
comer on to the show Labour's Revenue and Associate Finance Minute.
It's per Finance spokesperson, doctor Deborah Russell.
Speaker 4 (00:53):
Good morning, Deborah, Welcome, Marenna, Marenna, and of course I am,
of course a Jeffer. So I just want to know
whether Tim's talking about the sweet for Awklanders.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Deborah, Can I just ask you, very friendly and very nicely,
as it's the first time on the show, if you
could refrain from swearing on the show today, because I
know you can mutter up.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
You could mutter it wasn't that wasn't my You could
butter this moment. I do feel a bit embarrassed about it.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
I just just don't want you muttering things to me
under under your breath and us getting into trouble and
me having to dump you on the show. Just just
wanted to put it out there at the beginning.
Speaker 4 (01:31):
Yeah, yeah, I have to say it wasn't my best moment,
and I do feel embarrassed about it. Got a few
emails scolding me about it, But the funny one was
one who addressed me as doctor potty mouth. I thought,
you know what, I've got to try not to do
that again, right.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
I thought it was quite humorous. She did apologize to
me afterwards, so I thought that that's good.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Oh well, I wouldn't have apologized to you. I thought
it was quite good Wit. I thought it was very
good Wit. Actually. But anyway, let's start with law and order.
Three big announcements from the government this week, including increased
penalties for assaulting first respondents, cow punches, and on the
spot fines for shoplifting. Tim, Please tell me how these
(02:14):
spot finds for shoplifters will actually work. Isn't the issue
actually trying to get police to attend to them and
having the resources for the police to show up.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
Oh look, I think there's a fundamental issue here, right,
which is about having real consequences for this kind of offending.
It's a bit like the ram raids that Chris Hipkin
thinks fake use. You actually have to take this stuff seriously.
You have to show that you're serious about it. We
need police, yes, we need them reasserted in our communities,
and we've seen that with increased numbers on the beat.
We've seen that with recent boy eraser events. But you
(02:47):
also have to have meaningful consequences and adding these high
I penalities for shoplifting, for coward punchers, for assaulting first responders,
Actually that does make a real difference. It also means
things like having a fine rather than having to take
people through the court, which can be really costly, It
can be really time consuming, it can clog up our
the system. Actually having swift, firm punishments is a great
(03:10):
way to deal with these things quickly and take them
really seriously.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
We know that retail theft cost US one point two
billion dollars last year. Are you going to guarantee, just
to yes or no, that that figure is going to
come down because of these fines.
Speaker 3 (03:24):
Well, that's absolutely the intent.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Okay, Deborah. Fines are usually in my mind and tell
me if I'm wrong, all right, for lower level offending
like speeding, does finding a shoplifter instead of sending them
through the court system send the wrong message to them?
Speaker 4 (03:39):
To you? Oh, you know what really worries me about
this is that at the instant finds so there's a
bit of a lack of process around that. In order
to make this work, we're actually going to have to
have police officers on the beat, able to attend, able
to issue the fine, really well trained, because there's going
to be a whole lot of subjective judgments involved in this,
(04:01):
and the fact is that we haven't got the police
officers that the coalition government has been prom so that
to me is a critical issue is are we going
to have enough cops on the beat?
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Does Labor support any of these measures.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
Look, they've only just been announced. We haven't seen the
detail of them yet, So we're going to have to
have it sit down and have a bit of a
talk with our experts on those the people in our
caucus who really know the justice system inside out. But
you know, the fact is what we want is we
actually want these crimes to not occur in the first place,
or these misdemeanors or whatever, they are a bit more
(04:35):
than a misdemeanor. Of course, a coward punch, that's a
pretty awful thing. We want to see the evidence that
these increased penalties, these fines in the LAGA actually go
to reduce crime. That's kind of a big promise that
the government's made its introducing all these measures. We need
to see the evidence they're going to work.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
Tom And this is the point in that grit, isn't
that because this is yet again we see from the
labor that they just won't take law and ORDI sariously
people I make them all the time, whether it's a
dairy owner, a supermarket owner and might have seen over
own it. They are sick and tired of what they've
had to put up with for years. They love seeing
more police officers walk on walk into their store. They
don't want to see them defunded. They want to see measures.
(05:14):
We've got to be doing something about this, and we
can't just keep taking the soft well let's just wait
and see. You know, we know that this stuff. If
you want the evidence, look at what we did with
the ram raids. We have seen a dramatic reduction in
that despite what might have been said on your show yesterday,
a dramatic reduction, actually this that our approach law and
order is working, serious and violent crime is coming down.
(05:35):
Now we've got to tackle what might have been seen
as a low level offending, but actually the cumulative value
of it is significant, and it would be great if
label we'll just come out and say, actually, do you
know what we were wrong about the ram raids? Jenny
Anderson said that we're wrong about the gang stuff. They've
acknowledged that. Now let's just come out and work together
on targeting these shoplifters.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Do you think you know.
Speaker 4 (05:53):
I just think that's a really I think that's very
very unfair. You know, the ram raids are starting to
come down already before this government took over, and it
was because we adopted a wrap around approach to really
targeting the offenders and they sure they didn't offend again.
So that's a really important point to note. But the
other thing here is that around we had already funded
(06:17):
more police, and we were getting more police on the bead.
We had funded it properly, and this government came in
and they promised an extra five hundred police and they
haven't delivered them. They said they were going to be
there buying November and they've said they're just not going
to deliver them. So that's a broken promise from this government.
You know, in terms of taking crime seriously, we want
these crimes to not occur in the first place, and
(06:39):
the way to do that is to deliver those police
that were promised.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Do you actually believe that the public will trust Labor
on law and order after what we've been through. Do
you think that they actually hold you guys to the
same high standards that they have the Coalition?
Speaker 4 (06:56):
Well, I don't think they have held the government to
high cut to high standards yet because you know, under
Labor in terms of ram raids and they're like, we
were working to get them down, and we were working
to protect retailers with the defensive mechanisms that they needed,
like you know, the bolcanons and so on. So we
actually worked hard to stop the crimes occurring in the
(07:16):
first place. No one wants to be a victim of
a crime. It's all very well having consequences afterward, but
we want to make sure the crime doesn't occur in
the first place, and that's what we were working towards
and it was starting to be achieved. You know, we
do need to be tough on crime. We do need
to make sure that people do, I guess repent, do
(07:37):
actually try to not you know, to I'm just trying
to find the right words here, but try to restore
the world to what it was before they committed the crime.
But the really ideal thing is to stop crime occurring
in the first place. So as well as being tough
on crime, we actually need to be tough on the
causes of crime.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
Can I just button and ask you what you thought
of your leader's comments on this show yesterday when he
said that actually those crimes are still being committed. It's
just that in zed me and not reporting on them.
Speaker 4 (08:09):
You know, it's always a bit frustrating. We always feel
that perhaps some media outlets are a little bit more
vocal on crime when we're in government and less so
when we're not. We I guess it's a frustration at
those times. But the thing is that we didn't get
the reporting around saying that the ram raids were dropping,
(08:31):
So I get Chris's frustration with that, But you know,
that's all as it may be. The real thing is
making sure that this government has put in place some
measures which they say is going to reduce crime. We
need to see that happening. And like I said, you know,
so far they fail on their major promise around crime,
which was more cops on the beach.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Tim. We have seen those figures drop unbelievably on ram raids.
I mean the facts were sent to the show straight
after he made the comment yesterday. I think we're sitting
at forty five halfway through this year, and what was it,
twenty twenty two, there was seven hundred or something. I mean,
come on, you've solved that problem, haven't you.
Speaker 3 (09:09):
Well, look, it's a fantastic response and you've seen a
range of measures that we've brought and it's not just
more police on the beat, which the you know, the
Greens and Wellington Central are complaining about. It's things like
three strikes which Labor opposed. In fact, every little bit
of Lord and the Order legislation we've brought in to
target these criminals has been opposed by Labor. That's really
important because I'm really encouraged to hear Debra say we
(09:32):
need to be tough on crime. I genuinely think it
would be good to see her as late as new
police spokesperson, someone that's actually wanting to acknowledge that we
need to take that approach, and I think it will
be totally fine. We should just give you one more
chance to come out and say, do you know what
Chris Sipkins was wrong? Things are getting better. Let's target
the next area. Let's do it together. Let's crack down
on these people that attack first responders and coward punctures
(09:53):
and shoplifters.
Speaker 4 (09:54):
Take ushr break Ana with the real problem here, just
one of them. One of the real problems here is
the biggest set of crime in this country is actually
domestic violence, and we haven't seen the nation for government
responding to that meaningfully, and in fact, police have been
told not to attend domestic violence crimes because they're not
as important as some other crimes. I'd like to see
(10:14):
this government addressing domestic violence.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
That's a pretty big statement. I wouldn't be surprised, Deborah.
I just hold on for another twenty four hours, because
there's a new police there's a new you know, law,
law and order announcement every twenty four hours at the moment,
so I think that'll be the next cab off The
Rank but Politics Thursday with nationals Otaki MP Tim Costley
and a newcomer to the show, first timer, Labour's Revenue
(10:40):
and Associate Finance spokesperson, Doctor Deborah Russell. I want to
start with you, Deborah on this one. We learned this
week that a cabinet paper put forward by Rail Minister
Winston Peters proposed the idea of fully or partly privatizing
the end to Ryland Ferry. He opened the door and
then he basically closed the door as just as quickly.
(11:00):
Do you actually believe that privatization could work. Maybe something
in the same sort of scheme as Air New Zealand,
where the government owns a controlling stake but there's other
investors involved for the inter island ferries.
Speaker 4 (11:14):
Look, the evidence around privatization is pretty mixed. If we
look at say some of our energy companies which are
partly owned by the New Zealand government, they're charging incredibly
high prices to New Zealanders. So that type of privatization
it might add money to the government's books, but at
the cost of New Zealanders who you know, we've heard
(11:35):
all the stories of the pensioners who are having to
go to bed early at night because they can't afford
to turn the lights on and keep the heating on.
Privatization is a mixed bag, and I think Winston Peters
is right to back away from it.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
All right, Well, I mean I've got to just continue
on that one a little bit with your debra. Can
the government actually effectively run a business? I mean they're
not very good at running governments, departments, government organizations are
not good at running businesses, are they.
Speaker 4 (12:01):
Well, I'd like to see the evidence for that came
as well. You know, lots of businesses have massive you're
off proceeds too and and run into trouble all the time.
You know, people complain about bureaucracy, but some of the
biggest bureaucracy we faces from insurance companies and from banks
trying to get some service there. So I think again
that's mixed evidence privatezation.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Can I just ask you one my case basis, I
just want to ask you one quick question, and as
associate finance spokesperson, tell me one government owned company that
actually makes money and shows a.
Speaker 4 (12:32):
Profit doesn't need to make money. What it needs to
do is to deliver the services that New Zealanders need.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
So that's the point.
Speaker 4 (12:39):
Can you name one of the government owned companies it's oh,
actually you put me on the spot there. But maybe
quoteable value might be one that is delivering the services
that New Zealanders need.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
At a profit. Is what the question was. I mean, Tim,
why would you work?
Speaker 4 (12:53):
It's not the point is the profit. The profit motive
is a great motive for private companies, for private business,
and it can deliver great results. But the point of
government owned stuff is to deliver services that that New
Zealanders neat.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
But I mean they're runners companies, Deborah, to make a profit,
aren't they.
Speaker 4 (13:11):
No, they are runners companies in order to deliver services,
you know, just a particular structure you use. And if
we're looking at the ferries, but have to save it
at the moment, the reason that they're not delivering is
because Nikola Willis botched it up, canceled the ferries last
year and the fairies that would have been here by
next year just disappeared into the ether. And we don't
(13:33):
have a solution for crossing.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
The streets at the moment, Tim Costley, would it work? Privatization,
some sort of privatization in the fairies. We've seen it
but Bluebridge have just brought their beautiful new, shiny, secondhand
New Olivia shipping today. It looks magnificent. I mean, why
wouldn't some sort of private enterprise along with the government work.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
Well, I mean, you can definitely have entra island fairies
that work as a private enterprise. And you're exactly right,
Bluebridge New Ferry this morning case in point. I think
the priority for us immediately is to is to fix
up the mess that we inherited. You know, you can't
have four hundred million dollars of fairy costing you four billion.
So we've sort of that, We've got the new ones
on the way. We've been really clear that the number
(14:16):
one priority what kiwis want is a safe, reliable, efficient,
effective ferries crossing click straight. That's priorly one to deliver.
And once start in and operating, then there is the
time to ask that question. And you're right, these arguments
for you know, we've heard arguments against, but let's get
them in an operating first. That's number one, and then
we can look at those questions.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Okay, I want to talk to you about both of
you about a policy costing unit. Now, I love this idea.
Nikola Willis had a big plan for a policy costing
unit and it has been blocked by ACT in New Zealand. First,
the unit would have costed every political parties policy costed
their political parties policies out, preventing politicians from fudging or dreaming,
(14:59):
or bribes or lying to the public. Tim why to
have New Zealand first and ACT blocked us? Surely this
makes perfect sense to have this unit involved at the beehive.
Speaker 3 (15:14):
Yeah, I don't know. I'm not party to their obviously
caucus discussions and I heard you know, commentators on your
news today talking about exactly that each party whatever its
own own plans and its own policies. It's something that
we brought forward obviously, you know the current coalition. It's
not going to go ahead. But I think what Kiwis
want to say is they want to know that when
(15:34):
the government stands up and says, you know, we're going
to build one hundred thousand homes, that it can actually
be done. And that's why it's really important to us
that we deliver on what we're promising and that in
future elections, what people are when they make these big,
wild claims about things like U key we build it
can actually be.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Done, Debrah. I'm remembering that big argument in two thousand
and seventeen. I think about the fiscal whole. I assume
Labor supports this policy costing unit.
Speaker 4 (15:59):
Does it? Oh?
Speaker 3 (16:01):
Absolutely?
Speaker 4 (16:01):
Look it's really interesting because you know, you again, National
has caved into its coalition partners a lot. Actually a
really good policy. And here's the thing, Barbara Edmonds has
a member's bill in the ballot which is ready to
establish an apendent and independent costing unit because I think
we do think it's a good idea. So you know,
if Nikola Willis is actually serious about this costing unit,
(16:22):
then with a bit of negotiation back and forth, I
think Labor is ready to support her on it. So
it just depends on whether or not she's got the
courage to reach across the aisle and work with us
to get it done.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Can you give me one really good reason, Deborah, for
people to actually oppose it. I mean, to me, it
just makes so much perfect sense.
Speaker 4 (16:40):
Yeah, I think it makes sense. To look way back
in twenty seventeen, we had to ready battle because a
National minister at the time made a completely inaccurate comment
about a fiscal whole, and you know, if we'd had
an independent costing unit, that claim could have been tested.
And I think you know, Tim's right, we do need
to be able to test the claims that are made
(17:02):
by parties. And for example, in the last election, we
could have tested the claim that tax cuts were viable.
They certainly haven't been viable. We've seen this country as
getting further and further into a revenue deficit, and that
cain made by their National Opposition could have been tested
by an independent policy costing unit. We're all in support
(17:23):
of it.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
Okay, I just want to ask you both broadly. Do
you think that actual politic actually that political parties are
honest about their costs to their policies. There's when we're
in an election yet, Tim.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
Well, I think National Party is And you know, we've
been really clear upfront about take the tax relief policy
from last year's budget that Debra has given us a
nice primo of. You know, that's something that's been really
popular with people that are struggling the cost of living,
the high inflation that labor created. And yes, there is
a cost to every policy, but this is the nature comment.
(17:58):
You've got a way up how do you charge that relief?
Where is it? Where is it effective? And look, I
like to hope that every party comes in with that approach.
I mean, you know, Greens at least have a plan
at the moment it's eighty eight billion dollars of tax,
but at least they've got a plan. We don't know
what Labor's planners at all. We'd love to see one.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
Do you actually think, Debra, that when you do announce
these policies that you do have the right funding in place.
Speaker 4 (18:23):
Look, there's a couple of issues there. One is that
when we're in opposition, you don't have the resources of government.
So it could be really helpful to have a policy
costings unit that helps parties to cost their policies appropriately
and effectively. So I think we do need that policy
costings unit. I do think it helps to keep parties
on it. You know, the sort of honesty that says
(18:45):
and is applied to government as well. For example, you know,
the National government has not been able to identify a
single family that gets the full benefit of the tax
cuts it delivered allegedly in last year's sudget.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
Debrah, I want to come to you on this one,
really quickly because I'm running out of time and I
know you both got to go. A new reporters found
Uber paid only one point two million dollars in corporate
tax in New Zealand in twenty twenty three financial year.
They moved a lot of their money off sure as
into company service fees. You are a tax expert, does
this make sense? Is this the right sort of money?
(19:18):
I mean, we know it's legal, but is it right?
Speaker 4 (19:22):
Nah, it's legal, but it doesn't seem fair, does it?
Speaker 3 (19:26):
You know?
Speaker 4 (19:26):
And I think that's a sentiment felt worldwide around some
of these tech companies. You know, Google took about I
think about six hundred and fifty seven million out of
New Zealand in revenue, depending on how you cost it.
I'd have to check that number, and paid only a
minimal amount of tax. That just doesn't seem fair, given
that they use in all the infrastructure and all the
resources of this country in order to generate that profit.
(19:50):
You know, there's a whole lot of groups at the
moment that are getting perfectly legal tax breaks like that,
but they don't seem fair to ordinary New Zealanders and
we need to make some different choices around that.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
Tom how is this acceptable?
Speaker 3 (20:06):
I think you're right, it doesn't. It doesn't quite feel right.
It might be legal, but it doesn't doesn't necessarily feel right.
But as Debra says, this is a problem around the
world and we, you know, have this framework with a
global from a network of tax treaties that we're a
part of, and so it takes a joint effort in
all countries around the word, around the world, all those
that we majorly work with to unpicked the So so
(20:28):
it's it's not there's there's no silver bullet to this,
but I think it's it's pleasing to see that, you know,
Minister Simon Wattson and the team working on this and
the other countries they have committed to do this as well,
because that's what it will take. It will take here,
I think it considered effort from a number of countries
to solve this on.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
Thank you both very much, National's O Techy MP Tim
Costly and doctor Debrah Russell, Associate Finance Spokespusiness and for Labor.
Thank you both very much for joining us on the show.
Have a great weekend. Look forward to speaking with you
again sometime. Deborah, very nice to have you on the show.
Speaker 3 (21:01):
Appreciate it. I I really enjoyed it.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Okay, there you go.
Speaker 1 (21:04):
This is from or from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills.
Listen live to news talks It'd be Wellington from nine
am weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.