December 3, 2025 • 22 mins
On Politics Thursday this week Nick Mills was joined by Local Government Minister Simon Watts and Labour MP Kieran McAnulty.
They discussed Minister Watts’ announcement that councils' rates rise will be limited to 2% - 4%.
Watts and McAnulty then hit the other big political news of the week including RMA reforms for Regional Councils, water reform and amalgamation. As well as public service payouts and Andrew Coster’s resignation.
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 Talk said B focusing in on the issues
that matter politics Thursday on Wellington Mornings News Talk saied Bhine, Can.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
You make your politics? Thursday? National MP and Local Government
Minister Simon Watts joins us. Good morning, Simon, very good morning,
great to be on. How you doing you're an awkward away?
Speaker 3 (00:41):
Yeah, back home but busy day as usual.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Great and Labor MP Care and Mcanulti spokesperson for Housing,
Infrastructure and Public Investment. Morning Care and good to have
you on the show again.
Speaker 4 (00:53):
Used to be a regular Yeah good Nick and a Simon.
It's good to be back on the show and please
to be here.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Yeah, well you dropped us when you became famous and
got all those big positions and we're in government. You
know it suddenly you know Nick, who what was that
guy's name of Welling today used to be on the
show with.
Speaker 4 (01:06):
That's exactly right. And now I'm not famous anymore and
are still dropping it.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
So that's not very nice. Right, Let's start with some
positive stuff, well not really that positive. Andrew Costa resigns
after three weeks on leave public service Commissioner, Sir Brian
wrote said he would have likely been fired if he
didn't resign. Karen mcinold you, I'm going to start with you.
Is this the right choice? And I'm concerned about these
(01:30):
two words, well, four words, no corruption, no cover up.
It seemed it was part of the whole deal.
Speaker 5 (01:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (01:38):
I mean the IPCA report was pretty damning, but it
was also pretty targeted and where it lay blame. And
it is important to note that at no point did
the report suggest that this was an indictment on the
entire police force, but it was very clear as to
wear a fault SAT And given that other senior leaders
(02:04):
and the police have taken a more decision, even if
they have moved on to other roles, they felt that
their position was untenable. And obviously Andy cost has come
to that conclusion himself, and I think it is the
right outcome.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Right, Simon, what are your thoughts on this? Should he
been allowed to resign? Should have he got any sort
of golden handshake?
Speaker 3 (02:24):
Well, I think, Look, I agree with Kier and I
think in the circumstances it is the right thing to do.
I mean, he's obviously reflected on those findings and made
the decision. It's pretty clear in those findings that you
know it's not a satisfactory position. I mean, I'm pretty
you know, and heart does go out to those front
line officers and that they've had a pretty tough time
(02:46):
through this period. And I think, you know, high standards
are expected and all of the public sector leaders know that,
and you know, I think he's done the right thing
in regards to stepping down.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
You see, in the last couple of weeks we've heard
of three top dog payouts and government agencies up to
three hundred and seventy five thousand. In some case, we're
stepping down part way through their contract, you see, Simon,
I have a real issue with this because it almost
feels like new government comes in not their people, get
rid of those people because they belong to the previous party.
(03:18):
Is this going to be an ongoing issue if there's
a change of government again next year.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
No, I don't think so. At the end of the day,
you know, it's about making sure you've got the right
people in the right roles. The specific point around the
amount of the payout, I mean, I've got to be
clear with you that that is an employment matter for
the Public Service Commissioner to comment on, so I can't
get into that detail. But I think under any government
there are going to be changes of leadership at the
(03:43):
top and processes have to be followed by the Public
Service Commissioner to do that. And they've done that and
the end of the day, we just want to make
sure that we've got the right people in the right
roles to execute the strategy that we need.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
But Karen, this is where I have an issue. I mean,
if you become parliament in October, you've got you know,
people that you might not you won't think that are
aligned to you, guys, So they'll be fired and they'll
be paid out. I mean, it happens every election cycle.
Speaker 4 (04:10):
I don't know if it does happen that widespread, to
be honest, but it has happened on a periodic basis,
there's no doubt about that. And if a government, just
speaking generally here, if a government decides that they don't
want a particular person in a role, then there is
a cost associated to that. People are hired, either permanent
or for a fixed term, and for whatever reason they
(04:32):
are asked not to do that role anymore. There is
a cost to that and if a government makes that decision,
they have to take into account the cost of that decision.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
Do you think, Simon that they could actually start doing
contracts based on while this government's in power.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Well, different jurisdictions have different models. I think one of
the beauties of the New Zealand Public Service model is
there the political neutrality point in the fact that these
individuals and majority in the main are very capable and
do an excellent job. I think to Karen's point, there
are a few exceptions here and there, but in the main,
(05:12):
actually a lot of these roles do maintain through change,
which is important. But you know, I think again it's
for the Public Service Commission to determine the duration of
the term of these roles, not for politicians.
Speaker 4 (05:27):
There are some roles that are fixed to the term
of a government. So you've got ministerial staff that are
of a political nature, it would be inappropriate for them
to be in a permanent role and stay with ministers
regard you over successive governments. Ministers need to know that
the person that is advising them on political matters hasn't
been working for other ministers or whatever. They may choose
(05:50):
to take someone on that has worked for a different minister.
That's all good, But then there are also roles that
shouldn't matter who's in government, that they do remain neutral
and I think that as an aspect of our public
service as a whole that should be celebrated. There are
other countries that all those roles due to political allegiances,
and that doesn't necessarily mean that you'll get the most
(06:11):
free and frank advice that we need moving forward.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
Yeah, but that you can't tell me, Karen, I've got
to come to you on this. You can't tell me
that you won't be looking sideways at the reserve new
Reserve Bank governor if you become powerful and becoming power
knit this time next year.
Speaker 5 (06:27):
Well with respect, you can't tell me that.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
We will well, well, history will be on by side
dot your side.
Speaker 4 (06:33):
Well, I mean, obviously what happened with Adrian all there
is still some outsetting questions around that.
Speaker 5 (06:38):
But you look further than that and go backwards.
Speaker 4 (06:42):
Governors of the Reserve Bank have done a capable job
across governments and it tends to have not been a
politicized decision. You could say the same for any senior
leadership or CEO role. Across departments, and I can't think
of many examples where a new government has come in
and said right, you're out. It's usually over time on
(07:03):
a performance basis and all that sort.
Speaker 5 (07:04):
Of stuff on the whole neck.
Speaker 4 (07:06):
People in the public service keep their job regardless who's
in government.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
Well, i'd like to have a little bit of an
argument on that one, but let's move on. Let's move
on to something that should we have a break before
we move on, Let's take a little break. Simon wattson
Karen McNulty, Politics Thursday. I want to ask Simon especially,
but I want to get Karen's view on it. Obviously,
too rate caps, rates caps, Your rate bill's not going
(07:32):
to go up too much more. Karen and Patony, you'll
be very pleased about that. You'll be extremely pleased about that.
Politics Thursday with Simon Watts and Karen McAnulty. Simon, I've
got to say, I personally have been so so pleased
with a couple of announcements that you have made. Regional
counsels have always thought they were a complete and utter
(07:52):
waste of time and needed to go. Karen smiling at me.
You can't quite see him, but he's smiling at me,
and then you come up with rate caps at two
to four percent. My biggest issue is I'm hoping to
be alive by twenty twenty nine when they come in.
Why do we have to wait so long?
Speaker 3 (08:09):
Well, this might bring us all together on this political panel.
You know, celebrations breakout, but look at the end of
the day. And I said that when I was asked
that question. We're going to try and get this done
as fast as practical, but there's a lot of detail
and we want this to be enduring, so we're going
to do it in the stage process. We're doing some
consultation with the public and local government sector as well.
(08:33):
We'll have that done by end affair, get the legislation
in play by the first of jan twenty seven, and
then you know we'll be pushing it as hard and
fast as we can. But you know, rate rises are increasing.
It's been cost on Kei Wei households. We've heard loud
and clear that you know, we need to provide a
mechanism to make sure that's within a reasonable manner. And
(08:54):
you know, the rates stuff with a two to four
percent band and our view is a pretty pragmatic set
of targets. We've excluded water, which is through another mechanism,
you know, but rate payers deserve to make sure the
councils are living within their means at the end of
the day, Kieren.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
This is pretty amazing really, because I mean a lot
of people use this show to voice their opinion about
how they can't afford to live in one into anymore.
Rates are too expensive, keep going up. There's a little
bit of comfort of those people can stay alive till
twenty twenty nine. It's got to be a good thing,
doesn't it.
Speaker 4 (09:27):
Well, I'm deeply concerned about the cost of rates.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
I mean.
Speaker 5 (09:32):
I have my homes in.
Speaker 4 (09:33):
Marstden and I have a little flat in the hut
and I stay and when I work at Parliament and
obviously paying rates on both, and you can see the
increase over the last while. What concerns me the most
is that on a regular basis, I get people, predominantly
older people on fixed incomes that are contemplating selling their
(09:55):
homes because they can no longer afford the rates. And
that's genuinely heartbreaking stuff. Is this the solution to it?
We're not convinced. We'd like to think that councils could
be restricted to up to four percent rates increases, but
at the end of the day, they are required to
do a lot of things. And when you've got well
(10:16):
over eighty percent in some cases ninety percent of council
expenditure being spent on the basics roading and water, putting
that down to four percent will ultimately mean one of
two things. One the work that is required to be
done isn't done, or a series of exemptions are applied
for to get around the cap. Now we've actually seen
(10:38):
that in overseas examples where rates caps have been in place.
The exemption regime in some places overseas is are a
lot looser than being proposed by this government.
Speaker 5 (10:47):
So it's made it into a fast.
Speaker 4 (10:49):
They keep their core rates to the cap and then
just apply for all these exemptions and it's back to
where it was anyway, or the stuff just isn't done
that we need to get done. So if we wanted
to talk about long term sustainability of rates, we've got
to look at one the structure of local government, which
this government has put forward a proposal about. But two,
(11:10):
what is the revenue that they've got available to them?
If it's just sticks to solely rates. I don't think
we're going to be in any better position longer term.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
What happens simon if they can't make those targets just.
Speaker 3 (11:21):
For some foremost Karen said, water water is excluded from
the cap model, right, so it's not get that confused.
They're under they're outside of the cap and we know
that there's deficit on that infrastructure that needs to be
dealt with. But for councils that gets and have exceptional
you think about natural disaster and we've had a lot
of that around the country sadly recently. That would be
(11:44):
an area where it would be deemed an exceptional circumstance
that they would discuss that with the regulator. They would
work out a plan of how much money they need
and in what period they'd get back to within the band,
and then that would be considered by the independent regulator.
So there's mechanisms to deal with that. The other thing
is don't forget population growth. So for big urbans centers
(12:06):
and actually some semi regional centers, your population growth is
another mechanism of increasing revenue as well, so you know
you've got more rate payers coming into the area. Through
more housing. That's also another play, and fees and chargers
development levees that we announced last week are all tools
to help counsels to be able to get that revenue
flow through. I mean, Kieren's right in the context that
(12:30):
you know there's a lot of activity on local government
and you know we're doing our best to try and
make sure that they're focused on the basics and you know,
not trying to expect them to do everything which is
not going to be affordable for the rate parent the
end of the day.
Speaker 2 (12:46):
I've got to ask you because I've just had Matt
Prosser and on the show for half an hour and
I talked to them about amalgamation. It's long been this
me while as host of this show, plan aspirations dream
of combining Wellington Lowerhart Potty Tour together as one amalgamated council.
(13:07):
Obviously that's in your plans too.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
Well.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Look, a mechanism for consolidation has started under the Local
Water done well and you've seen that in Wellington of
the councils coming together. The Regional Council announcements that we
may provide a vehicle for in effect, the mayors of
those separate areas and Karen's Neck of the Woods and
through wire Rapper and up through there is a good example.
(13:31):
There's now a mechanism for them to sit around table
and go, hey, if our community wants to do this
and we're on board for it, then they can proceed
through and look to do that. And I think you know,
if communities are with with councils on the direction of
travel and they're up for it, it's going to be
much more sustainable in enduring change than with respect anyone
in Wellington saying hey, you know, you guys should merge together.
(13:53):
And I think that's a bit of a.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Go to the stage where it'll go to a referendum.
Do you think you'll push it that hard or just
be Look, guys, I want you to work together and
come to me with a plan. What do you think
your decision is going to be?
Speaker 3 (14:05):
Interesting enough? Already seeing a change of appetite across the country.
Groupings of councils have already got together on the water reform.
They're going, well, this was that wasn't that difficult? Why
don't we look at it for the more broader conversation.
So I think, you know, we've softened the ground for
that conversation where actually had a few areas that have
signaled the intent to want to come together. But you know,
(14:27):
that's a positive thing and at the end of the
day of change sticks, that's the most important thing, because
you know, we don't want them to sort of be
forced and then they look to reverse that. That's pretty
costly and it's not good for ratepayers either.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
Karen, Why are rapp is a classic example. They should
be one council. So now, I mean, I'm not telling
you for your own neck of the woods, but if
you looked at it sensibly, why are rapper capity in Wellington? Easy?
Speaker 4 (14:51):
Well, I've my own personal view has been long held
that a region of our size with three district councils
doesn't make sense. I used to work in local government
before I became the parliament. I worked in economic development
in Marsterden and it gave me great frustrations that my
focus had to be in the masst And district, not
across the other two districts. How can you do economic
(15:14):
development in one district not the whole region? And that's
a view I've held ever since. But if you were
to ask the people who wided up. I suspect that
they would consider a wided up a district. Whether that
then extended into a broader Wellington unitary I think perhaps
you might get a different outcome.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Yeah, well, and I don't think that's I don't think
that's the conversation.
Speaker 5 (15:36):
That is it might be.
Speaker 4 (15:37):
So Simon said something really interesting, and that was if
the communities want it. And I'm really pleased to hear
him say that, because at the end of the day,
a proposals going to go to the minister, and the
minister I will sign off. And when I heard that, I
was concerned because I do believe that our local government
system is not fit for purpose. If I gave you
a blank sheet of paper and asked you to design
(15:59):
the best local government structure, you wouldn't come up with
seventy six councils for a country our size. But I
also firmly believe that a algamation should not be forced
on regions, and it would be good to have an
assurance from Simon that that would not be the case.
That amalgamations may occur, but it has to have the
mandate of the people first, right.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
Will that happen?
Speaker 3 (16:22):
Careen? I can answer that because I've been pretty clear
on my expectation, and that is that the decision around
amalgamation and any consolidation needs to and must be a
decision for the local community first and foremost, and not
a decision for Wellington to force that upon them. Creating
a mechanism, which is what central government can do to
(16:43):
make those processes practical and feasible is our role. But
the decision to proceed around that is with the local community.
And I'll tell you what. If a groupings of councils
come to me and say, hey, minister, look, we want
to head in this direction. Can you help and will
you help us? The answer is yes, And I've already
signaled that to a number of broader groupings that is
(17:06):
starting to think about this conversation. You know, we'll we'll
we'll in effect provide support to enable that conversation, but
we won't lead us in terms of forcing it through.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
I just can I just clarify what you mean by
welly to it as the beehive, because when you've featured
people that we so as we get the choice in
this city to decide what's going on with.
Speaker 4 (17:29):
I know you like to see a little bit of
rough and tumblenick, but you also like it when politicians agree.
So whilst we are skeptical about the rates cap and
we're firmly with the view that the government's water reforms
aren't going to add up in this particular aspect, I
want to take the opportunity that I welcome the Minister's
comments there that and I'm very pleased to hear him
(17:52):
say it. I think that's such an important element and
I congratulate him for giving us that assurance.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
So by that assurance, does that mean referendum? I still
haven't got my head around that or how would they
How will you get the view of the people without
having a referendum.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
Well, the way we've structured this neck is is actually
it's for the region to come back with a plan
of how they want to proceed and what it looks like.
And Karen's right that the Minister of Local Government will
have the final approval on that. But that is in
terms of sort of belts and braces and making sure
that you know the decision and the plan has been
(18:26):
well considered. Think about it like the water reforms, where
the di A have have reviewed those and made sure
that you know the numbers add up and the details
been done appropriately, so you know, it's another safeguard layer.
But at the end of the day, regions and the
groupings within them need to put together their plan and
make sure that they think it's feasible.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
Simon, I know you've got to go. I really appreciate
you taking time out to come on the show with Karen.
Good congratulations on some really good things that you've been doing,
because I actually honestly believe that we're heading in the
right direction. So thank you.
Speaker 3 (19:01):
Yeah, thanks Nick, Thanks Karen. We'll catch up.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
So right, So now I'm going to keep Karen here
for us second because I wanted to have a quick
couple of minutes with them based on last weekend. How
how did you feel about it?
Speaker 4 (19:13):
Oh, look, I was staked. You never really know how
these things are going to go. You can put in
as much planning and as much effort, but it might
fall flat.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
Of course, I'm talking about the Labor conference. Sorry, just
in case people don't know what we're talking about. I
just wanted to get in. So it was a big
It was a big deal.
Speaker 5 (19:26):
Yeah, it was.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
It was.
Speaker 4 (19:27):
We had the biggest number of registrations that we've had
in well over a decade. In fact, we had to
hire an extra room for the overflow. You booked these
things before you open them up for registration, and we
were overwhelmed in that respect, So that's that's a good
sign from the get go. But the mood was positive
but also realistic. People are optimistic because we're you know,
(19:49):
we're polling well comparative to the National Party at the moment,
but they also know there's another twelve months ago and
there's a hell of a lot of work to do,
and I was pleased to see that. I don't want
to see people getting ahead of themselves because at the
end of the day, we've still got to produce a
credible alternative to what the government is offering. We know
that there's a lot of people that are dissatisfied with
this government, but we've got to give them a reason
(20:10):
to come to us. And you know, we've announced three
or four decent policies now and there'll be more to
come next year. So where we're sitting right now.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
I mean, you're in a pretty good position as the
chair of the of the Labor Party's campaign, so that
you're you're the boss you're going to put it together.
You must be feeling pretty stoked. You know things are
looking good.
Speaker 4 (20:32):
Oh look, I mean I'm not unhappy, but I'm very
conscious that there's still a lot, a lot of work
to do.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
Now, you're a bidding guy, what do you reckon the
odds are right now? Where would you put the odds
if I put you if you were walking into the
T A B and said, okay, Labor National? Right now,
what's your odds set? I've got a dollar eighty five
to you guys and a dollar forty five national?
Speaker 5 (20:58):
Really you please? You were never a book market because
that is terrible value on both sides. The TV wouldn't
make any money to you.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
Where do you go?
Speaker 5 (21:07):
Oh look, I'm not going to not going to give you.
Speaker 4 (21:09):
A nods, But what I will do is say I
think it's it's quite evenly balanced at the moment.
Speaker 5 (21:15):
That is my.
Speaker 4 (21:19):
Well, look like I said, I'm not going to give you,
I'm not going to give you a figure. It's even
Let's think about this contextually, right, is there never before
under m MP has a party that at the last
election was elected out of government been in such a
strong position now And so what I mean by that
(21:39):
is in previous electoral cycles. If you asked me, I
wouldn't have said it was evenly balanced. I'm not saying
we're going to win, but I'm saying we've got a shot.
That's all I think about it.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Your leader is definitely saying he's going to win. He
took a thousand dollar beat with me that he's going
to be prime minister.
Speaker 5 (21:54):
There was quite some time ago too.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
I know.
Speaker 5 (21:56):
Yes, he's still.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
He's still feeling. He's filly more cocky every time he comes.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
Not this.
Speaker 5 (22:00):
I wonder where he's going to put your money once.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
You pay him. It's going to give it to a charity.
Speaker 5 (22:04):
That's right. Can I recommend Greyhouse?
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Yeah, okay, you do that. We get the lovely Zoe
you'd here with us.
Speaker 5 (22:09):
We do.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
That's amazing, and there'll.
Speaker 4 (22:11):
Be around three thousand dogs that need a home over
the next couple of years.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
You talk to your boss, don't talk to me. You
know he's going to be able to write the check.
Speaker 5 (22:20):
I appreciate your confidence.
Speaker 2 (22:23):
I hope you don't take a bit to lose to you.
You never do take a bit to lose. You don't
waste your time if you do Thank you Kreen Mechanoalti
for joining us today. Good to see you again. Merry
Christmas by the way, Yeah you too.
Speaker 5 (22:33):
I have it go as well.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
Yeah. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (22:36):
For more 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 Talk said B focusing in on the issues
that matter politics Thursday on Wellington Mornings News Talk saied Bhine, Can.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
You make your politics? Thursday? National MP and Local Government
Minister Simon Watts joins us. Good morning, Simon, very good morning,
great to be on. How you doing you're an awkward away?
Speaker 3 (00:41):
Yeah, back home but busy day as usual.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Great and Labor MP Care and Mcanulti spokesperson for Housing,
Infrastructure and Public Investment. Morning Care and good to have
you on the show again.
Speaker 4 (00:53):
Used to be a regular Yeah good Nick and a Simon.
It's good to be back on the show and please
to be here.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Yeah, well you dropped us when you became famous and
got all those big positions and we're in government. You
know it suddenly you know Nick, who what was that
guy's name of Welling today used to be on the
show with.
Speaker 4 (01:06):
That's exactly right. And now I'm not famous anymore and
are still dropping it.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
So that's not very nice. Right, Let's start with some
positive stuff, well not really that positive. Andrew Costa resigns
after three weeks on leave public service Commissioner, Sir Brian
wrote said he would have likely been fired if he
didn't resign. Karen mcinold you, I'm going to start with you.
Is this the right choice? And I'm concerned about these
(01:30):
two words, well, four words, no corruption, no cover up.
It seemed it was part of the whole deal.
Speaker 5 (01:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (01:38):
I mean the IPCA report was pretty damning, but it
was also pretty targeted and where it lay blame. And
it is important to note that at no point did
the report suggest that this was an indictment on the
entire police force, but it was very clear as to
wear a fault SAT And given that other senior leaders
(02:04):
and the police have taken a more decision, even if
they have moved on to other roles, they felt that
their position was untenable. And obviously Andy cost has come
to that conclusion himself, and I think it is the
right outcome.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Right, Simon, what are your thoughts on this? Should he
been allowed to resign? Should have he got any sort
of golden handshake?
Speaker 3 (02:24):
Well, I think, Look, I agree with Kier and I
think in the circumstances it is the right thing to do.
I mean, he's obviously reflected on those findings and made
the decision. It's pretty clear in those findings that you
know it's not a satisfactory position. I mean, I'm pretty
you know, and heart does go out to those front
line officers and that they've had a pretty tough time
(02:46):
through this period. And I think, you know, high standards
are expected and all of the public sector leaders know that,
and you know, I think he's done the right thing
in regards to stepping down.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
You see, in the last couple of weeks we've heard
of three top dog payouts and government agencies up to
three hundred and seventy five thousand. In some case, we're
stepping down part way through their contract, you see, Simon,
I have a real issue with this because it almost
feels like new government comes in not their people, get
rid of those people because they belong to the previous party.
(03:18):
Is this going to be an ongoing issue if there's
a change of government again next year.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
No, I don't think so. At the end of the day,
you know, it's about making sure you've got the right
people in the right roles. The specific point around the
amount of the payout, I mean, I've got to be
clear with you that that is an employment matter for
the Public Service Commissioner to comment on, so I can't
get into that detail. But I think under any government
there are going to be changes of leadership at the
(03:43):
top and processes have to be followed by the Public
Service Commissioner to do that. And they've done that and
the end of the day, we just want to make
sure that we've got the right people in the right
roles to execute the strategy that we need.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
But Karen, this is where I have an issue. I mean,
if you become parliament in October, you've got you know,
people that you might not you won't think that are
aligned to you, guys, So they'll be fired and they'll
be paid out. I mean, it happens every election cycle.
Speaker 4 (04:10):
I don't know if it does happen that widespread, to
be honest, but it has happened on a periodic basis,
there's no doubt about that. And if a government, just
speaking generally here, if a government decides that they don't
want a particular person in a role, then there is
a cost associated to that. People are hired, either permanent
or for a fixed term, and for whatever reason they
(04:32):
are asked not to do that role anymore. There is
a cost to that and if a government makes that decision,
they have to take into account the cost of that decision.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
Do you think, Simon that they could actually start doing
contracts based on while this government's in power.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Well, different jurisdictions have different models. I think one of
the beauties of the New Zealand Public Service model is
there the political neutrality point in the fact that these
individuals and majority in the main are very capable and
do an excellent job. I think to Karen's point, there
are a few exceptions here and there, but in the main,
(05:12):
actually a lot of these roles do maintain through change,
which is important. But you know, I think again it's
for the Public Service Commission to determine the duration of
the term of these roles, not for politicians.
Speaker 4 (05:27):
There are some roles that are fixed to the term
of a government. So you've got ministerial staff that are
of a political nature, it would be inappropriate for them
to be in a permanent role and stay with ministers
regard you over successive governments. Ministers need to know that
the person that is advising them on political matters hasn't
been working for other ministers or whatever. They may choose
(05:50):
to take someone on that has worked for a different minister.
That's all good, But then there are also roles that
shouldn't matter who's in government, that they do remain neutral
and I think that as an aspect of our public
service as a whole that should be celebrated. There are
other countries that all those roles due to political allegiances,
and that doesn't necessarily mean that you'll get the most
(06:11):
free and frank advice that we need moving forward.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
Yeah, but that you can't tell me, Karen, I've got
to come to you on this. You can't tell me
that you won't be looking sideways at the reserve new
Reserve Bank governor if you become powerful and becoming power
knit this time next year.
Speaker 5 (06:27):
Well with respect, you can't tell me that.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
We will well, well, history will be on by side
dot your side.
Speaker 4 (06:33):
Well, I mean, obviously what happened with Adrian all there
is still some outsetting questions around that.
Speaker 5 (06:38):
But you look further than that and go backwards.
Speaker 4 (06:42):
Governors of the Reserve Bank have done a capable job
across governments and it tends to have not been a
politicized decision. You could say the same for any senior
leadership or CEO role. Across departments, and I can't think
of many examples where a new government has come in
and said right, you're out. It's usually over time on
(07:03):
a performance basis and all that sort.
Speaker 5 (07:04):
Of stuff on the whole neck.
Speaker 4 (07:06):
People in the public service keep their job regardless who's
in government.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
Well, i'd like to have a little bit of an
argument on that one, but let's move on. Let's move
on to something that should we have a break before
we move on, Let's take a little break. Simon wattson
Karen McNulty, Politics Thursday. I want to ask Simon especially,
but I want to get Karen's view on it. Obviously,
too rate caps, rates caps, Your rate bill's not going
(07:32):
to go up too much more. Karen and Patony, you'll
be very pleased about that. You'll be extremely pleased about that.
Politics Thursday with Simon Watts and Karen McAnulty. Simon, I've
got to say, I personally have been so so pleased
with a couple of announcements that you have made. Regional
counsels have always thought they were a complete and utter
(07:52):
waste of time and needed to go. Karen smiling at me.
You can't quite see him, but he's smiling at me,
and then you come up with rate caps at two
to four percent. My biggest issue is I'm hoping to
be alive by twenty twenty nine when they come in.
Why do we have to wait so long?
Speaker 3 (08:09):
Well, this might bring us all together on this political panel.
You know, celebrations breakout, but look at the end of
the day. And I said that when I was asked
that question. We're going to try and get this done
as fast as practical, but there's a lot of detail
and we want this to be enduring, so we're going
to do it in the stage process. We're doing some
consultation with the public and local government sector as well.
(08:33):
We'll have that done by end affair, get the legislation
in play by the first of jan twenty seven, and
then you know we'll be pushing it as hard and
fast as we can. But you know, rate rises are increasing.
It's been cost on Kei Wei households. We've heard loud
and clear that you know, we need to provide a
mechanism to make sure that's within a reasonable manner. And
(08:54):
you know, the rates stuff with a two to four
percent band and our view is a pretty pragmatic set
of targets. We've excluded water, which is through another mechanism,
you know, but rate payers deserve to make sure the
councils are living within their means at the end of
the day, Kieren.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
This is pretty amazing really, because I mean a lot
of people use this show to voice their opinion about
how they can't afford to live in one into anymore.
Rates are too expensive, keep going up. There's a little
bit of comfort of those people can stay alive till
twenty twenty nine. It's got to be a good thing,
doesn't it.
Speaker 4 (09:27):
Well, I'm deeply concerned about the cost of rates.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
I mean.
Speaker 5 (09:32):
I have my homes in.
Speaker 4 (09:33):
Marstden and I have a little flat in the hut
and I stay and when I work at Parliament and
obviously paying rates on both, and you can see the
increase over the last while. What concerns me the most
is that on a regular basis, I get people, predominantly
older people on fixed incomes that are contemplating selling their
(09:55):
homes because they can no longer afford the rates. And
that's genuinely heartbreaking stuff. Is this the solution to it?
We're not convinced. We'd like to think that councils could
be restricted to up to four percent rates increases, but
at the end of the day, they are required to
do a lot of things. And when you've got well
(10:16):
over eighty percent in some cases ninety percent of council
expenditure being spent on the basics roading and water, putting
that down to four percent will ultimately mean one of
two things. One the work that is required to be
done isn't done, or a series of exemptions are applied
for to get around the cap. Now we've actually seen
(10:38):
that in overseas examples where rates caps have been in place.
The exemption regime in some places overseas is are a
lot looser than being proposed by this government.
Speaker 5 (10:47):
So it's made it into a fast.
Speaker 4 (10:49):
They keep their core rates to the cap and then
just apply for all these exemptions and it's back to
where it was anyway, or the stuff just isn't done
that we need to get done. So if we wanted
to talk about long term sustainability of rates, we've got
to look at one the structure of local government, which
this government has put forward a proposal about. But two,
(11:10):
what is the revenue that they've got available to them?
If it's just sticks to solely rates. I don't think
we're going to be in any better position longer term.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
What happens simon if they can't make those targets just.
Speaker 3 (11:21):
For some foremost Karen said, water water is excluded from
the cap model, right, so it's not get that confused.
They're under they're outside of the cap and we know
that there's deficit on that infrastructure that needs to be
dealt with. But for councils that gets and have exceptional
you think about natural disaster and we've had a lot
of that around the country sadly recently. That would be
(11:44):
an area where it would be deemed an exceptional circumstance
that they would discuss that with the regulator. They would
work out a plan of how much money they need
and in what period they'd get back to within the band,
and then that would be considered by the independent regulator.
So there's mechanisms to deal with that. The other thing
is don't forget population growth. So for big urbans centers
(12:06):
and actually some semi regional centers, your population growth is
another mechanism of increasing revenue as well, so you know
you've got more rate payers coming into the area. Through
more housing. That's also another play, and fees and chargers
development levees that we announced last week are all tools
to help counsels to be able to get that revenue
flow through. I mean, Kieren's right in the context that
(12:30):
you know there's a lot of activity on local government
and you know we're doing our best to try and
make sure that they're focused on the basics and you know,
not trying to expect them to do everything which is
not going to be affordable for the rate parent the
end of the day.
Speaker 2 (12:46):
I've got to ask you because I've just had Matt
Prosser and on the show for half an hour and
I talked to them about amalgamation. It's long been this
me while as host of this show, plan aspirations dream
of combining Wellington Lowerhart Potty Tour together as one amalgamated council.
(13:07):
Obviously that's in your plans too.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
Well.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Look, a mechanism for consolidation has started under the Local
Water done well and you've seen that in Wellington of
the councils coming together. The Regional Council announcements that we
may provide a vehicle for in effect, the mayors of
those separate areas and Karen's Neck of the Woods and
through wire Rapper and up through there is a good example.
(13:31):
There's now a mechanism for them to sit around table
and go, hey, if our community wants to do this
and we're on board for it, then they can proceed
through and look to do that. And I think you know,
if communities are with with councils on the direction of
travel and they're up for it, it's going to be
much more sustainable in enduring change than with respect anyone
in Wellington saying hey, you know, you guys should merge together.
(13:53):
And I think that's a bit of a.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Go to the stage where it'll go to a referendum.
Do you think you'll push it that hard or just
be Look, guys, I want you to work together and
come to me with a plan. What do you think
your decision is going to be?
Speaker 3 (14:05):
Interesting enough? Already seeing a change of appetite across the country.
Groupings of councils have already got together on the water reform.
They're going, well, this was that wasn't that difficult? Why
don't we look at it for the more broader conversation.
So I think, you know, we've softened the ground for
that conversation where actually had a few areas that have
signaled the intent to want to come together. But you know,
(14:27):
that's a positive thing and at the end of the
day of change sticks, that's the most important thing, because
you know, we don't want them to sort of be
forced and then they look to reverse that. That's pretty
costly and it's not good for ratepayers either.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
Karen, Why are rapp is a classic example. They should
be one council. So now, I mean, I'm not telling
you for your own neck of the woods, but if
you looked at it sensibly, why are rapper capity in Wellington? Easy?
Speaker 4 (14:51):
Well, I've my own personal view has been long held
that a region of our size with three district councils
doesn't make sense. I used to work in local government
before I became the parliament. I worked in economic development
in Marsterden and it gave me great frustrations that my
focus had to be in the masst And district, not
across the other two districts. How can you do economic
(15:14):
development in one district not the whole region? And that's
a view I've held ever since. But if you were
to ask the people who wided up. I suspect that
they would consider a wided up a district. Whether that
then extended into a broader Wellington unitary I think perhaps
you might get a different outcome.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Yeah, well, and I don't think that's I don't think
that's the conversation.
Speaker 5 (15:36):
That is it might be.
Speaker 4 (15:37):
So Simon said something really interesting, and that was if
the communities want it. And I'm really pleased to hear
him say that, because at the end of the day,
a proposals going to go to the minister, and the
minister I will sign off. And when I heard that, I
was concerned because I do believe that our local government
system is not fit for purpose. If I gave you
a blank sheet of paper and asked you to design
(15:59):
the best local government structure, you wouldn't come up with
seventy six councils for a country our size. But I
also firmly believe that a algamation should not be forced
on regions, and it would be good to have an
assurance from Simon that that would not be the case.
That amalgamations may occur, but it has to have the
mandate of the people first, right.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
Will that happen?
Speaker 3 (16:22):
Careen? I can answer that because I've been pretty clear
on my expectation, and that is that the decision around
amalgamation and any consolidation needs to and must be a
decision for the local community first and foremost, and not
a decision for Wellington to force that upon them. Creating
a mechanism, which is what central government can do to
(16:43):
make those processes practical and feasible is our role. But
the decision to proceed around that is with the local community.
And I'll tell you what. If a groupings of councils
come to me and say, hey, minister, look, we want
to head in this direction. Can you help and will
you help us? The answer is yes, And I've already
signaled that to a number of broader groupings that is
(17:06):
starting to think about this conversation. You know, we'll we'll
we'll in effect provide support to enable that conversation, but
we won't lead us in terms of forcing it through.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
I just can I just clarify what you mean by
welly to it as the beehive, because when you've featured
people that we so as we get the choice in
this city to decide what's going on with.
Speaker 4 (17:29):
I know you like to see a little bit of
rough and tumblenick, but you also like it when politicians agree.
So whilst we are skeptical about the rates cap and
we're firmly with the view that the government's water reforms
aren't going to add up in this particular aspect, I
want to take the opportunity that I welcome the Minister's
comments there that and I'm very pleased to hear him
(17:52):
say it. I think that's such an important element and
I congratulate him for giving us that assurance.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
So by that assurance, does that mean referendum? I still
haven't got my head around that or how would they
How will you get the view of the people without
having a referendum.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
Well, the way we've structured this neck is is actually
it's for the region to come back with a plan
of how they want to proceed and what it looks like.
And Karen's right that the Minister of Local Government will
have the final approval on that. But that is in
terms of sort of belts and braces and making sure
that you know the decision and the plan has been
(18:26):
well considered. Think about it like the water reforms, where
the di A have have reviewed those and made sure
that you know the numbers add up and the details
been done appropriately, so you know, it's another safeguard layer.
But at the end of the day, regions and the
groupings within them need to put together their plan and
make sure that they think it's feasible.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
Simon, I know you've got to go. I really appreciate
you taking time out to come on the show with Karen.
Good congratulations on some really good things that you've been doing,
because I actually honestly believe that we're heading in the
right direction. So thank you.
Speaker 3 (19:01):
Yeah, thanks Nick, Thanks Karen. We'll catch up.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
So right, So now I'm going to keep Karen here
for us second because I wanted to have a quick
couple of minutes with them based on last weekend. How
how did you feel about it?
Speaker 4 (19:13):
Oh, look, I was staked. You never really know how
these things are going to go. You can put in
as much planning and as much effort, but it might
fall flat.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
Of course, I'm talking about the Labor conference. Sorry, just
in case people don't know what we're talking about. I
just wanted to get in. So it was a big
It was a big deal.
Speaker 5 (19:26):
Yeah, it was.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
It was.
Speaker 4 (19:27):
We had the biggest number of registrations that we've had
in well over a decade. In fact, we had to
hire an extra room for the overflow. You booked these
things before you open them up for registration, and we
were overwhelmed in that respect, So that's that's a good
sign from the get go. But the mood was positive
but also realistic. People are optimistic because we're you know,
(19:49):
we're polling well comparative to the National Party at the moment,
but they also know there's another twelve months ago and
there's a hell of a lot of work to do,
and I was pleased to see that. I don't want
to see people getting ahead of themselves because at the
end of the day, we've still got to produce a
credible alternative to what the government is offering. We know
that there's a lot of people that are dissatisfied with
this government, but we've got to give them a reason
(20:10):
to come to us. And you know, we've announced three
or four decent policies now and there'll be more to
come next year. So where we're sitting right now.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
I mean, you're in a pretty good position as the
chair of the of the Labor Party's campaign, so that
you're you're the boss you're going to put it together.
You must be feeling pretty stoked. You know things are
looking good.
Speaker 4 (20:32):
Oh look, I mean I'm not unhappy, but I'm very
conscious that there's still a lot, a lot of work
to do.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
Now, you're a bidding guy, what do you reckon the
odds are right now? Where would you put the odds
if I put you if you were walking into the
T A B and said, okay, Labor National? Right now,
what's your odds set? I've got a dollar eighty five
to you guys and a dollar forty five national?
Speaker 5 (20:58):
Really you please? You were never a book market because
that is terrible value on both sides. The TV wouldn't
make any money to you.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
Where do you go?
Speaker 5 (21:07):
Oh look, I'm not going to not going to give you.
Speaker 4 (21:09):
A nods, But what I will do is say I
think it's it's quite evenly balanced at the moment.
Speaker 5 (21:15):
That is my.
Speaker 4 (21:19):
Well, look like I said, I'm not going to give you,
I'm not going to give you a figure. It's even
Let's think about this contextually, right, is there never before
under m MP has a party that at the last
election was elected out of government been in such a
strong position now And so what I mean by that
(21:39):
is in previous electoral cycles. If you asked me, I
wouldn't have said it was evenly balanced. I'm not saying
we're going to win, but I'm saying we've got a shot.
That's all I think about it.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Your leader is definitely saying he's going to win. He
took a thousand dollar beat with me that he's going
to be prime minister.
Speaker 5 (21:54):
There was quite some time ago too.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
I know.
Speaker 5 (21:56):
Yes, he's still.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
He's still feeling. He's filly more cocky every time he comes.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
Not this.
Speaker 5 (22:00):
I wonder where he's going to put your money once.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
You pay him. It's going to give it to a charity.
Speaker 5 (22:04):
That's right. Can I recommend Greyhouse?
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Yeah, okay, you do that. We get the lovely Zoe
you'd here with us.
Speaker 5 (22:09):
We do.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
That's amazing, and there'll.
Speaker 4 (22:11):
Be around three thousand dogs that need a home over
the next couple of years.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
You talk to your boss, don't talk to me. You
know he's going to be able to write the check.
Speaker 5 (22:20):
I appreciate your confidence.
Speaker 2 (22:23):
I hope you don't take a bit to lose to you.
You never do take a bit to lose. You don't
waste your time if you do Thank you Kreen Mechanoalti
for joining us today. Good to see you again. Merry
Christmas by the way, Yeah you too.
Speaker 5 (22:33):
I have it go as well.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
Yeah. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (22:36):
For more 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
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
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.